True Philosophical Defenses of Mormonism

[_Themis]

So you are claiming to have read works on ancient metal plates and are now complaining that they didn't have enough text on them? Straining out gnats and swallowing camels, I see.

Not sure what you are thinking. I'm not complaining about anything, only noting that writing on metal plates tends to be very limited, and contain little text. It might be wise not to be so black and white in your thinking, and put everyone into one of two camps.

Which assumptions were stretches? Again you are afraid to engage specifics because you know that every statement is scholarly and reasonable, thus leaving your objections in tatters.

I would think it is easy to see many assumptions here, about what metal, how thick, how thick it would need to be to engrave, etc. I don't see that this issue has really been addressed other then superficially, and I doubt it will be.

You need to try to keep up. Horses originated in the Americas and some migrated to the Old World, leaving plenty here until very late times.

More bad assumptions. Any wonder why people are suspicious of your opinions of others like TS. I am well aware of where horses originated. When you say late times, what time period are you referring to, and on what basis?

The case for Nahom is excellent. I know of no reasonable scholarly objections.

I do think this one may the the best one I have seen, and is interesting. What I mean by not working out, is that when investigating it further, I think many overstate it. On this I seem to recall some apologists may concur as well.

As I said before, you have chosen not to read the scholarly literature which I provided for you, which is your right, but which says that you are not competent to pass judgment on such a controversial issue. If you make no sincere effort to understand the issues, how do you expect to make rational judgments?

We can certainly go into more detail, but I suggest we stick to one or two issues, since I don't think it would be productive to take on to many at a time.

Do you only agree with Brant when it favors an anti-Book of Mormon stance?

It would be nice to see more civil discussion, instead of jabs to score some kind of points. I like Brant and respect him and what he thinks. I changed some of my thoughts on the Kinderhook plates based on new findings of Don Bradley, another great guy.

[_Gadianton]

We should really try to get this thread back on the rails:

Here is another excellent "True Philosophical Defense of Mormonism":

LDS theology posits God and his progeny (humans) as coeternal, all having no beginning and no end. Each is a tripartite entity, consisting of intelligence, spirit body, and physical body. Each is of the same genus and species as God.
As such, every human has necessary being and is non-contingent. Only thus can humans have free agency.
The universe (or multiverse) and natural law themselves are coeternal with God, and He fully understands both and has power to utilize both in the creation and peopling of new worlds.

Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology posits that only God has necessary being, that he created everything from nothing, and that he is outside of time and space. He created all natural law, and is fully other and non-anthropomorphic.
Humans are thus entirely contingent (as is all else in the universe) and unable to make any free choice and cannot exercise free agency -- since all is under the sovereignty of God -- thus leaving God guilty of any evil, which is self-contradictory, since an omnibeneficient God cannot create evil.
Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

Mormons aren't the first to posit free will, and the problem of evil isn't costrained to God explicitly setting the atoms in motion that cause the evil. The fact that God is all powerful and all loving and refuses to stop evil caused either by "accident" or other "free agents" calls into question his Godliness. This is not an excellent defense. In fact, there is no good Mormon philosophy out there, all the positions I've seen have been invented by non-Mormons and picked up second hand by apologists. The SMPT has its work cut out for them to come up with something original.

It's a pretty low standard of goodness Mormons hold if this is the best you've got. By this logic, the Priest and the Levite were perfectly justified in holding their heads high as they passed by the beaten traveller in the parable of the Good Samaritan. After all, they didn't personally beat the guy, the sin is not on them.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

It's always cute to watch Mormons hurl accusations of Greek theology and philosophy (or in this case philosophical theology). They always seem to be unaware of the fact that so much of "deep Mormon theology" was cribbed from Thomas K. Dick's Philosophy of Future State. If you are going to pilfer your philosophy from somewhere, let me offer my humble opinion that Greek philosophy is a much more fertile ground for stealing.

Oh, and the LDS thought is chocked full of Greek philosophy.

[_moksha]

They always seem to be unaware of the fact that so much of "deep Mormon theology" was cribbed from Thomas K. Dick's Philosophy of Future State. If you are going to pilfer your philosophy from somewhere, let me offer my humble opinion that Greek philosophy is a much more fertile ground for stealing.

FAIR has publicly issued a challenge to this, although it seems to be more picking around the edges of the argument. FAIR has no need for stealing fertile ground, being knee deep in natural and refined organics.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Plagiarism_accusations/Thomas_Dick

[_Robert F Smith]

We should really try to get this thread back on the rails:

Here is another excellent "True Philosophical Defense of Mormonism":

LDS theology posits God and his progeny (humans) as coeternal, all having no beginning and no end. Each is a tripartite entity, consisting of intelligence, spirit body, and physical body. Each is of the same genus and species as God.
As such, every human has necessary being and is non-contingent. Only thus can humans have free agency.
The universe (or multiverse) and natural law themselves are coeternal with God, and He fully understands both and has power to utilize both in the creation and peopling of new worlds.

Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology posits that only God has necessary being, that he created everything from nothing, and that he is outside of time and space. He created all natural law, and is fully other and non-anthropomorphic.
Humans are thus entirely contingent (as is all else in the universe) and unable to make any free choice and cannot exercise free agency -- since all is under the sovereignty of God -- thus leaving God guilty of any evil, which is self-contradictory, since an omnibeneficient God cannot create evil.
Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

Mormons aren't the first to posit free will,

That's certainly true, Gad, but they are the first in recent times to posit a logically and theologically sound basis for free will.

and the problem of evil isn't costrained to God explicitly setting the atoms in motion that cause the evil. The fact that God is all powerful and all loving and refuses to stop evil caused either by "accident" or other "free agents" calls into question his Godliness. This is not an excellent defense. In fact, there is no good Mormon philosophy out there, all the positions I've seen have been invented by non-Mormons and picked up second hand by apologists. The SMPT has its work cut out for them to come up with something original.

Your argument here is incoherent, including misuse of what you probably intended to be "constrained." It is not originality which is at issue, bur rather being conversant with a long tradition of philosophical debate going back at least as far as the Greeks.

It's a pretty low standard of goodness Mormons hold if this is the best you've got. By this logic, the Priest and the Levite were perfectly justified in holding their heads high as they passed by the beaten traveller in the parable of the Good Samaritan. After all, they didn't personally beat the guy, the sin is not on them.

This is a non sequitur, Gad. I'm not sure where your head is at on this.

[_Robert F Smith]

Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

It's always cute to watch Mormons hurl accusations of Greek theology and philosophy (or in this case philosophical theology). They always seem to be unaware of the fact that so much of "deep Mormon theology" was cribbed from Thomas K. Dick's Philosophy of Future State. If you are going to pilfer your philosophy from somewhere, let me offer my humble opinion that Greek philosophy is a much more fertile ground for stealing.

Oh, and the LDS thought is chocked full of Greek philosophy.

Just to refresh your memory, Aristo, the doctors of the Church formulated their creedal theologies by stealing from Greek philosophy like magpies, and forgetting all about the Bible. Greek thought was all the rage at that time. You were nobody unless you talked like a Greek, and this is the fundamental basis of mainstream "Christian" theology. That is also the basis for modern "death of God" theologies.

The LDS tradition systematically rejects that tradition and is roundly condemned for doing so by the mainstream "Christians." Discussion of such facts is conducted using the logic and analytic skills developed by the Greeks and their successors. You should be able to distinguish between the two sets of notions. However, to judge from your baseless claims here, that may not be possible.

[_Robert F Smith]

They always seem to be unaware of the fact that so much of "deep Mormon theology" was cribbed from Thomas K. Dick's Philosophy of Future State. If you are going to pilfer your philosophy from somewhere, let me offer my humble opinion that Greek philosophy is a much more fertile ground for stealing.

FAIR has publicly issued a challenge to this, although it seems to be more picking around the edges of the argument. FAIR has no need for stealing fertile ground, being knee deep in natural and refined organics.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Plagiarism_accusations/Thomas_Dick

Both of you are long on assertions and short on specifics. Hint: assertions are not facts.

[_Gadianton]

It is not originality which is at issue, bur rather being conversant with a long tradition of philosophical debate going back at least as far as the Greeks.

A long tradition that doesn't turn on whether or not man is a contingent being. It is equally contradictory for God to allow non-contingent beings to do evil. The hard part is justifying the free will, not proposing it.

[_SteelHead]

The LDS version of free will is a myth. God fights a huge battle casting a third of his children out over free will, then willy nilly violates the principle at his discretion.

[_moksha]

Both of you are long on assertions and short on specifics. Hint: assertions are not facts.

Assertions will have to do, since FAIR's organics are much too recent for any carbon dating. I suppose you could do a cross cutting on early Mormons and count their wedding rings.