Posted by:
RPackham
(
)
Date: May 25, 2011 12:39PM
Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RPackham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The hardest to spot (IMHO): affirming the consequent.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>
> Am I getting this?
>
> If the Book of Mormon is true it speaks of the Bible
> The Bible is true
> Therefore the Book of Mormon is true
Maybe a better example would be:
If the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, it will agree with the Bible.
The Book of Mormon agrees with the Bible.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is true.
Or: If the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, it will testify of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is true.
Here are some more examples:
A church that is the "true church" will have prophets, apostles, etc.
The LDS church has prophets, apostles, etc.
Therefore the LDS church is the true church.
(Compare:
A true democracy will provide for equal rights in its constitution.
The Soviet Union provided for equal rights in its constitution.
Therefore the Soviet Union was a true democracy.)
A true history of ancient America would describe a complex civilization.
The Book of Mormon describes a complex civilization.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient America.
(Note: the same argument would apply to Solomon Spaulding's draft novel "Manuscript Found")
(Another note: this very argument is used by Rod Meldrum.)
Holders of the true priesthood can bless sick people and they recover.
Mormon elders bless sick people and they recover.
Therefore Mormon elders hold the true priesthood.
The only legitimate use of the premise "If A is true, then B is true" is either to show that A is false because B is false (that is called "denying the consequent") or to prove that B is true because A has already been shown to be true ("affirming the antecedent").