From Wikipedia:
Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
- If P, then Q.
- Q.
- Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
If you understand the above, now read the following and try to convince me that it is not a textbook case of affirming the consequent:
Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
In proposition form:
- If you ask god if the Book of Mormon is true, god will confirm it through a feeling.
- You feel something.
- The Book of Mormon is true.
Could your feeling be due to virtually infinite alternative causes? Â Absolutely.
And if you don’t feel something? Â You did it wrong.
The irony of this just struck me: the core logic of the missionary message is a logical fallacy. Â 🙂
The only way you can get this simplistic reading of Moroni 10 is by reading that verse in isolation (the way, unfortunately, that the “scripture mastery” memorization program back in seminary encouraged us to do).
The rest of the chapter talks about a range of evidence, from study of history and theology, to evidence of miracles, to the internal witness and consistency of the ENTIRE Book of Mormon text. You have to weigh all that stuff into your analysis to be actually truly doing what Moroni was asking.
Saying this passage essentially means “pray for a feeling” is a reading completely ignorant of the rest of the chapter, and indeed – ignorant of the entire Book of Moroni, all of which is integral to the test being proposed.
Yeah, not buying it, Seth. At the end of the day, Mormonism is true or not based on receiving a “spiritual witness” that manifests in the form of a feeling.
The very next verse affirms what I said, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” Is that scripture, Seth, or is it not? It doesn’t say, “Oh, examine all the evidence, weigh it out, use logic, reason, science, etc., then you’ll know.” No, it says, you’ll know through the Holy Ghost.
I don’t really care whether you buy this as an explanation of Mormonism or not.
My interpretation is more faithful to the actual text of the Book of Mormon than yours is. And my association with Mormonism is not based on a “feeling” or a “warm fuzzy” or a “burning in the bosom.” In fact, I’ve never had such a feeling in my entire life.
So, are you acknowledging that my version of Mormonism is more credible than the version you describe here in this post or something?
Besides, your interpretation completely ignores verse 3 – which is absolutely crucial, but often passed over – and pretty much ignores the entire chapter from verse 8 on.
Seth, verse 3 sets up a circular argument, “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”
Verse 8 completes it, “And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God.”
So, the book says, “read me” and then the book says “I’m true.” How do you know the book is true? Because it says so. How do verses 3 and 8 make the Book of Mormon more credible?
Your version of Mormonism is not orthodox Mormonism. It’s Seth-Mormonism. It doesn’t align with what the canonical works themselves say.
So, are you acknowledging that “Seth Mormonism” is more valid?
Ribbing aside, verse 3 isn’t actually circular.
It’s an invitation for the reader to look at the entire sweep of history and see how well the Book of Mormon fits into the knowledge we have of history and how God deals with humanity.
Yes, it does presume a belief in God – since God’s existence was a presumption in those days – even among Moroni’s enemies. But that doesn’t have to be a particular problem here. We merely view the argument as – “presuming a belief in God – study the history of his dealings with humanity and see how well this fits.”
That’s not a circular argument. It’s a logical and evidence-based argument that RESTS upon an assumption. Which isn’t the same thing.
You’re trying to say that the environment this argument exists inside is invalid, therefore the argument itself is circular. But the argument isn’t circular merely because it assumes the existence of God.
Because the argument wasn’t trying to prove God in the first place.
You keep running into this with atheists – they always seem to think it’s all about them…
And my views are, and always have been canonical.
It’s not my fault your view of the canon, and the view of many other Mormons, is defective.
Nice. Canon = What Seth Thinks.
Nice. Canon = What profxm thinks.
Aside from pointing out that this is equally just your opinion profxm….
I’ve mentioned this reading of Moroni 10, and explained it in detail in Gospel Doctrine and Gospel Essentials class in my current ward, and my previous ward on multiple occasions.
Never once did anyone in the class so much as bat an eye. Everyone was in complete agreement with this reading. I even made a point of stating that this passage is not just talking about a feeling as being evidence, and everyone agreed.
Apparently they had no problem with this reading.
And a challenge for you profxm (hypothetically, of course).
Next time you meet Jeffrey R. Holland, or Thomas S. Monson, or any of the general authorities… ask them the following verbatim:
“Do you think Moroni’s Promise in chapter 10 says we should just pray to get a spiritual feeling, or does it talk about reading the entire Book of Mormon, studying it, comparing it with God’s dealings with humanity throughout history, and seeing whether the evidence favors it?”
Ask them that. I’m willing to guarantee you they’ll pick option B. Your argument here is without merit – because my reading is explicitly based on the text itself. And anyone familiar with the text will recognize it.
But I will admit this argument does disappoint those who were eager to paint Mormons as a bunch of emotionally driven, anti-intellectual idiots.
I suppose they’ll just have to cope.
Even though Seth’s interpretation is canonical, the cannon begins with verse 1 where Moroni makes it plain to whom he is writing–his brethren the Lamanites. He tells them that the Lord is merciful, and they need to experience his mercy, and when they receive this message from him, if they will ask God with a sincere heart they will know that what Moroni says is true–the Lord is merciful to those who seek him. Moroni had a “few plates” on which he was writing basically to the Lamanites–he wasn’t ever referring to the entire BofM, nor was he saying to all who read the book they will know it is true if they engage the test, although it is convenient for missionary purposes to interpret it that way. But it is a clear case of isolating a verse and taking it out of context.
Paarker, doesn’t “few plates” simply refer to the abridgment that Mormon compiled? In which case it would actually refer to the entire Book of Mormon.
No, Mormon completed his abridgment and his writinigs, and gave to Moroni a “few plates,” to complete the story of the destruction of the Nephites. It is comparable to people who want the book of Revelation to refer to the entire Old and New Testament in the “do not add to or take away” verse in Revelation.
OK, that sounds right.
But in context – isn’t it the case that Moroni attached his “few plates” to the larger record? We know that the book Joseph described didn’t have any “loose plates” lying to the side. It was all one book.
Wouldn’t you say that Moroni wrote what he did intending it to be a part of the larger record from his father?
What evidence? Feelings?
Also, your question does assume a belief in god (i.e., “comparing it with god’s dealings…”). That presupposes a god who deals with humans. So, since I reject that assumption, what else you got?
“Wouldn’t you say that Moroni wrote what he did intending it to be a part of the larger record from his father?”
I can’t think of any reason right now that I would say that, any more than I would say, that John the Revelator knew that his book would be attached to a larger record, therefore he was warning against adding to (like a D&C or a BofM), or taking away from all the books of the Bible.
First: Moroni 10:1-23 is talking to the Lamanites alone. Verse 24 is where Moroni begins talking to the Gentiles.
Second: profxm is incorrect in his first listed point.
Moroni says, “I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true”.
There is a world of difference in the meaning of Moroni’s words between asking “if these things are not true” and asking “if these things are true.”
Right. Thank you. I agree. Or should I say I don’t disagree?
Oh come on Paarker.
He had the whole finished book sitting in his lap!
Did John the Revelator have the compiled New Testament sitting on his desk?
No he didn’t – it’s not an apt comparison.
Every atheist assumes that the moment a religious person walks into the room – that their first overwhelming concern in life is to prove the existence of God.
Well it isn’t profxm. And believe it or not – I don’t think the Book of Mormon is primarily concerned with proving God to you either.
Actually, I don’t know what he had in his lap. But I do know what I have in mine, and it says I, Moroni, am writing to my beloved Lamanites.
If it helps you to think that Moroni was writing to you, then that is fine with me. As far as I know you may be one of the Lamanites he was writing to, and you have accepted God’s mercy, and you know the truth of all things. I certainly wouldn’t want to argue with you about that.
Paarker, I have no real problem “likening the scriptures unto ourselves” as Nephi recommended.
It’s a long and venerable tradition in Mormonism. The Lamanites easily work as a stand in for any lost and fallen people.
Namely, for all of us dear readers.
Mormon wrote an epistle to his son Moroni, saying, “And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee” (Moro. 9:24.)
Ever the obedient son, Moroni follows up that epistle by writing, “Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ. And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.”
Moroni 10 is Moroni’s way of obeying the prophetic commandment he received by epistle from his prophet father Mormon. Viewed in this light, it cannot be separated from the record written by Mormon, for Moroni’s duty was to finish the record of his father. This in what he did it Mormon 8 and 9. This in what he did in Ether (for it was Mormon’s intention to include the account.) And this is what he did in Moroni, filling in all the things that Mormon had intended to have in the book but never got a chance to because he was killed. But Mormon was a prophet, so his instructions to his son were also prophetic. In other words, it doesn’t matter that Mormon died prematurely for Moroni (another prophet) would finish the work.
Notice that Moroni also understood that the entirety of the work was Mormon’s, for the title page, written by Moroni, gave all credit to Mormon with no indication that Moroni had any part in it.
So, when Moroni writes, “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things,” he is referring to the work of his father, which includes the writings of the son.
Correction. The title page does say that Moroni is the one who sealed up the record. What I should have written is this:
“Notice that Moroni also understood that the entirety of the work was Mormon’s, for the title page, written by Moroni, gave all credit to Mormon with no indication that Moroni had any part in its authorship.”
I think I understand what you are saying: Since Moroni wrote exactly what Mormon would have written if Mormon had survived it means that Mormon really wrote what Moroni penned. What I don’t understand is what that is suppose to now show, demonstrate, prove, or reveal.
And Seth, you have my weak imagination going–I can see you now, Seth the Lamanite, standing upon a figurative wall, speaking all truths to the fallen and disaffected. All the time they are throwing slings and arrows (oops, wrong document) at you, but you bravely withstand them.
Congratulations! You keep on trying to misunderstand what everyone writes and I must say you are getting the hang of it! I guess practice does make perfect.
I thought you were suppose to show increased love after you sharpness.
That’s me Paarker,
Hero of teh internets.
You may throw your rock now.
Sorry, I guess I should call you Parker now since you corrected the spelling?
@18 LDS Anarchist
Nope. The difference is purely stylistic (which is the area where Joseph Smith sucks the very worst, even more than in character and plot, where he sucks pretty hard).
There might be some substantive difference if Joseph had had Moroni negate the adjective instead of the verb, if, for instance, the character of Moroni had told people to ask “if these things are untrue.”
But he didn’t.
The proposition is set up as an either/or: “Ask if these things are true or if they are not true.” Because it’s a simple case of is/is not, and because we all understand each side of that either/or, you can safely leave one side out without changing the basic proposition.
Profxm chose to state the proposition with the either, while Joseph chose to have Moroni state the proposition with the or.
But it’s still the same proposition.
Profxm is right, and LDS anarachist is wrong.
seth @21:
Oh! It’s another episode of Seth’s comedy mind-reading act!
He’s back to tell us what “every atheist assumes” about every religious person, even though he’s never been an atheist and has no idea what “every atheist assumes” at any point in time, and even though plenty of the atheists here have been religious persons and can remember rather than assume what such people think when they walk into a room!
Parker, Seth’s not bravely doing anything. He hides his real identity and doesn’t want the people he associates with in real life to know the sorts of things he says here. He’s not standing on top of any wall, shouting his opinions; he’s hiding behind one. Big difference.
Holly, I think when you have spent a life time in a culture that “knows” things, and hear the statement repeatedly, and have a religious keystone that says if you are sincere and have real intent you can know the truth of all things, and the manifestation of truth is a warm heart, it is difficult to not speak in certitudes, even about things that fall in the epistemological shadows. As we have discussed before, when a person, or institution, can convince themselves that a one foot stepping stone is actually a continent, they tend to exercise a lot of bravado in their pronouncements.
Sure, whatever Parker.
And you’ll never hear any bravado over at Dawkins.net
Of course not.
I don’t think that’s a fair accusation. There absolutely exist people who hide behind anonymity, but everybody in the Bloggernacle and beyond knows Seth’s full name.
I think it’s reasonable to want to be able to recreationally comment on Mormon-themed blogs without having it come up for every professional contact who googles your name. I do the same, and there’s no reason for Seth not to.
@35. Maybe…. but Seth has made a big deal about the same matter when it comes to others, that it’s somehow less than honest. So I figure if he cares when others don’t blog under their full names, he must think it’s important that he doesn’t blog under his.
Thanks Chanson.
I’ve always been supportive of people’s right to remain anonymous online (like only using one’s first name for posting). I’ve made the observation before that anonymity incentivizes people misbehave online more. However, I accept anonymity as part of what our online communities are.
I’ve never said otherwise.
As I was saying, Seth has observed an action that he claims incentivizes not just misbehavior, but more of it. He has pointed this out to others when he thinks he sees it happening. So it’s entirely reasonable to point out that he does it as well. Right?
@31 Holly,
Joseph’s translation of the BOM was akin to a machine translation, which later was altered to make it more readable. So, “not true” (MT) means “untrue.”
What you and profxm fail to understand is that Moroni’s use of “not true” signifies that the reader already believes the text is true. The reader is asking God to confirm a belief, not asking God to negate a doubt. Like I said, a world of difference.
LDS Anarchist, you’re logic would seem to indicate that you and/or Moroni think everyone who reads the BOM believes it is true. That is, of course, not true.
And, if “not true” is not the inverse of “true” (which defies the rules of grammar and logic), then those who don’t already believe the BOM is true cannot actually find out by praying.
@39:
LDS Anarchist:
No. You can’t argue that. First of all, it’s not a translation; it’s a fiction. Second, even if it was a translation, you have no idea what the original language was like, and you have no basis for asserting that Joseph’s “original translation” from looking in the hat was “akin to a machine translation.”
You’re just pulling nonsense out of your ass. It’s plain old silly and it stinks.
I get that part of the conceit of Mormonism and Joe’s crappy novel is that its “true”ness and authenticity is somehow self-evident. However, the fact that so few people accept it as authentic and/or scripture is strong evidence that that’s not actually how it works.
Sure, as an RM, I recognize that that’s the formula the missionary discussions want people to use, so that just about anything–a pleasurable sneeze, a warmth in the chest, a lack of a stupor of thought–can be accepted as confirmation.
But a serious, genuine question would not ask God either to confirm a belief OR negate a doubt. A serious, genuine question would allow for either possibility and accept either answer as true. A serious, genuine question would accept an answer that was a surprise.
So that’s just one more way in which the Book of Mormon is an intellectually inadequate and dishonest book.
Continuing with @24 and @25:
The very first words that Moroni writes in the BOM are these:
@40 profxm,
So, believe for no reason, then god will give you a reason?
Yup, that makes sense.
If we’re not talking about just the Book of Mormon, but merely faith in God, then yes – it is a circular argument.
And that’s a good thing.
When logical fallacies are considered “good”, I’m pretty sure the conversation has come to an ignominious end.
Why? Love and friendship are circular arguments too. So are a lot of things that matter.
@43: In other words, the Book of Mormon is an intellectual scam and a spiritual lie that relies entirely on confirmation bias.
and somehow anyone is supposed to believe that this is a solid basis for a moral life, which is the greatest scam of all.
Love and friendships are not “arguments.”
Then neither is faith.