Mormonism is a Blatant Lie

Okay, but the argument is still fallacious. It's just a diatribe full of genetic and to-the-man fallacious reasoning. Essentially, your argument can be condensed as "Based on available evidence, Joseph Smith was of a questionable character. Also, his religion seems silly. Therefore, Mormonism is a lie." Such an argument might be permissible in a court of law where the goal is to pursued a jury. Fallacious reason can be convincing when people have already made up their mind on an issue, as many juries have.But this is a reasoned debate, not a trial by jury. Here, that type of logic is not sufficiently persuasive, as I will demonstrate, point by point. Point 1: Smith's background is something that should have discredited him. As a practiced conman for about ten years before his biggest con; he would basically go around with a band of companions and get people to pay them to look for buried treasure o their land, and then flee once they had received the money, he had cemented his position as a charismatic fraudster who could easily manipulate credulous and gullible people to his own ends. You say that this is an ad hominem argument, and that the religion should be separated from the man; but when the religion is based upon something revealed by a convicted conman with no testimonials from other people ( I will come to that in a little while) and solely by him, anyone with an inkling of rationality must link the two together.Rebuttal 1: It is ad hominem. I'm not sure why you made the same argument twice. Let's see what happens when you apply such logic universally. I mean, if the reasoning is valid, like modus ponens or something, it should be applicable to other situations. Let's see... Richard Dawkins was a Christian one time, but he changed his mind. Also, he's been married three times. Finally, he's rude to people. Clearly, Richard Dawkins has been wrong before, not only about his beliefs but also about the person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. In addition, he seems to just hate religious people because a handful are fundamentalists Christians. Therefore, we can discredit anything he has to say.Wrong, obviously. Dr. Dawkin's statements should be judged by their own merits. His character isn't as important. A person with an inkling of rationality would not commit such a blatant fallacy. Fortunately, you seem somewhat aware of the fallacy since you later make an attempt to attack the religion directly.Point 2: The origins of the church are just as questionable for anyone with traces of intelligence and reason. Golden Plates that only Smith was permitted to read, and translation employing seer stones in a hat that only he was permitted to see both call to question of how credulous his followers really were, and gives a valuable insight into the power of charismatic demagogues over other human beings. I am not saying that Joseph Smith was unintelligent r ignorant. I am saying that he was cunning, disingenuous and selfish.Rebuttal 2: This is known as the genetic fallacy. It's unconvincing because it also fails to address the religion directly. It concludes, based on the circumstances of its creation, that the religion is false. Again, the weakness can be demonstrated by attempting to apply the logic to a similar situation. Say a theist were hit in the head with a rock and went into a coma. After the person comes to, he says that God doesn't exist because, while he was unconscious, the Flying Spaghetti Monster told him that atheism is correct. By applying the logic used in point 2, I could conclude that because no one else saw the FSM, this atheist is wrong and so God does exist.Wrong. Whether atheism is true is independent of one person's vision. Now, if that were the ONLY evidence available, would you blame a theist for not believing him? Hopefully not. But the rational response to such a situation is "I don't know whether God exists, but that atheist has failed to prove his point." The response should be agnosticism. To take the next step and conclude that the atheist is wrong is to commit the dreaded argument from ignorance, king of fallacies: "He didn't prove atheism; therefore, atheism is false." No, until a sound argument has been presented, you shouldn't make any conclusions. Doing otherwise is fallacious.Likewise, while the circumstances surrounding the supposed revelation is questionable, the evidence you've presented is insufficient to determine deceit. The only conclusion one can make is that Smith may or may not have had a vision, not "He made it up."Point 3: The Book of Mormon, described by Mark Twain as 'chloroform on print', is made of a mixture of word for word cannibalising of the King James Bible, convenient revealings from God and strangely, all the translation errors that were in the King James Bible from its numerous translations, so unless Smith was given the translation first in Aramaic, then in Ancient Egyptian, then in Ancient Greek, then in Modern Greek and then in Latin, before being translated into Middle English; he was clearly fabricating it and plagiarising the most common book in the western world at that time. By rationalising the existence of black people as being 'cursed' with dark pigmentation because of the sins of their ancestors and Native Americans being a lost tribe of Israelites, not to mention the 'fact' that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.Rebuttal 3: Or maybe the most common book in the Western world was mostly theologically correct, save for what Smith added, and so there was no need to make sweeping changes. I mean, Mormons DO consider themselves Christian.The last sentence is based upon an unconfirmed assumption. How do you know black people aren't cursed? And how do you you know the Garden of Eden wasn't in Missouri? Maybe Smith was right. Again, the rational stance is "I don't know whether Smith was lying, because the presented evidence doesn't confirm anything." Taking the next jump and concluding that Smith was lying is a fallacy.Point 4: Finally, there is the shady nature of polygamy and the confiscation of property. Threatening women and girls as young as fourteen with eternal damnation unless they married, or enter as some apologists describe it as, 'sealing ordinances' with Smith is obviously him appeasing his carnal desires, a tactic to expand the church quickly, or a mixture of the two. Selfishness and pragmatism are two things that can motivate all kinds of decisions, especially with regards to ones taken quite literally as 'Gospel'. Also, the establishment of the Mormon Bank as a way for the leader to swindle new members of the church out of their worldly possessions was obviously a ploy to take advantage of the credulous for personal gain. This is again a mixture of selfishness and pragmatism, as Smith was both appeasing his lust for possessions by acquiring large amounts of money from his followers (See L. Ron Hubbard), and a pragmatic way of expanding the church through building temples and monuments to advertise and accommodate new believers (read: victims) into the church. Both embezzlement and polygamy are principles that have now been thrown out of the church by convenient religious experiences that occurred when there was the hint that their status as a religion may be under threat by the government.Rebuttal 4: Subjective repulsion is not an argument. While many of those things can make a person cringe, it doesn't demonstrate that Smith was lying. Maybe Smith was honest, and the truth just happens to be offensive to some people.And the church changed its mind while under pressure? So what? Galileo "confessed" that the earth doesn't move. So the earth doesn't move?Just because the modern incarnation of Mormonism tries to be politically correct does not demonstrate that Smith was lying.Point 5: So either it was a series of very convenient, coincidental truths, or it is a complete and absolute falsehood. Which one is more likely, given the evidence or lack thereof?Rebuttal 5: "It's so unlikely that something like this could happen by chance. It's more reasonable that someone crafted it." Congratulations. You are now a creationist.But seriously. That's the only strong point you've made. Mormonism doesn't seem likely to be true, but that does not entail that Smith lied. The only conclusion--rationally sound conclusion--is that Smith may or may not have had a revelation, but there's no way to know either way. Jumping to conclusions should be avoided. Be more skeptical.Reference:http://writingcenter.unc.edu...