Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

ObservationsMy opponent and I have agreed via the comments section that it is alright for me to both rebut the opposing case and make my own case in this round to further the discussion. While I do believe the BoP is shared, I think Pro has a somewhat larger burden due to the inductive nature of the resolution. For example, I can't affirm that Mormonism is perfect by not debunking flaws that have been pointed out - I would instead have to search the entire religion for every possible inconsistency, which is hard to achieve. Also, the only way I can affirm that Mormonism is rational without comparing it to other religions is to provide objective evidence of it being true, which isn't as easy as my opponent pointing out things they may not think to be logical.To readers: if you're not very familiar with Mormonism, you can read a fairly short summary of it in source 10.Pro's CaseR1. Blind FaithPro never defines "blind faith" here, so for the sake of the debate I am going to assume that having faith blindly is "believing without reason". The lack of reason is the equivalent of irrationality, which is appropriate to the resolution. The issue with Pro's argument is that he is assuming truth cannot be found. As believed in the Mormon faith, truth does exist, and they can be found by searching the scriptures. At the same time, the church encourages an open mind and a rational inquiry. It does not discourage intellectual questioning and reasoning as Pro asserts it does. For example, in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon is found this verse: "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." (Moroni 10:4)[1] If the Mormon church encouraged blind faith, then they would teach something along the lines of "these things are absolutely true and you cannot question them or ask God if they are". It does the exact opposite: encouraging time alone to ponder these things and decide for oneself if they tenets of this religion is true.Two scriptures were cited by Pro in the last round, with the first being Proverbs 20: 5-6, which states that God is flawless. This is indeed held as a truth in Mormonism, but nowhere in the verse does it discourage rational inquiry. It simply states that God is the source of all truth, and thus implies that one can go to him for the source of all truth. The second scripture has nothing to do with blind faith, it was Jesus describing the Pharisees who were contending against them.R2. Infinite Regression1) It is not official doctrine that there is an infinite regression of deities, although the idea has been entertained by a few leaders, but the idea has been dismissed by others. FairMormon.org clarifies that "Not all Latter-day Saints accept the ideas which suggest a regression of divine beings. LDS doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative."[3]2) Even if we were to assume that an infinite regression of gods, the concept isn't impossible. "Those who attack the Saints on these grounds often make the mistake of confusing various ideas about infinity. They may take principles that apply to finite things, and improperly extrapolate them to infinite things. Trans-finite mathematics and some aspects of the calculus deal with infinities, and show that such concepts are not irrational, nor do they share all our intuitive ideas of what infinities must involve."[3] To assert that it is impossible is to not acknowledge that the law of causation could have been the creation of God, with him being outside such a concept and outside the bounds of logic that wouldn't necessarily apply to him, being part of his creation.R3. Logical Improbabilities1 Nephi 2:6 does not imply that Lehi reached the Red Sea in three days. "And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness..." It implies that Lehi stopped when the three days were up, not when he got to the Red Sea.1 Nephi 2:8 doesn't show a problem either. There are a number of wadis (riverbeds that are either permanently or intermittently dry) that exist in Saudi Arabia, with some of them connected to the Red Sea[4]. Studies confirm that "the Sahara has been drying slowly from six thousand years ago to reach the present day conditions around 1,100 years ago"[5], meaning that the Sahara was much wetter in the past and was once a fertile grassland. The beginning of the Book of Mormon is thought to take place in 600 B.C. (2,600 years ago)[6], so the land back then was much more wet and there is a high possibility that the wadis that exist now were once rivers then. Thus the concept of the River Laman is not problematic.1 Nephi 1:6 describes a pillar of fire that came before Lehi "as he prayed unto the Lord". Simple. The existence of God is a tenet in the Mormon faith, and members believe miracles such as these to be a result of communication with God.R4. DNA EvidenceMormon doctrine does not dictate that the origin of all Native Americans is the Lamanites, just that the Lamanites who did live on became intermingled with Native Americans. This does not reject the claim that many tribes did come from Asia through the Bering Strait, it just asserts that some came from Israel.I do agree that there isn't much DNA evidence for the Lehites, but this argument doesn't work against Mormonism for the following reasons:a. We must take into consideration the likelihood that if the Book of Mormon is true, then the Lamanites probably intermingled with the Native tribes that were already here, thus causing the DNA of the Lamanites that were once Israelites to become mixed a lot. When genes are shared between two big groups, they are scattered throughout their descendants and make it difficult to specifically track down. Add that to thousands of years of living in America since arriving from Israel and you'll definitely find that genes are hard to pin down.b. Approximately 90% of the Amerindians were wiped out due to disease brought by Europeans which could have significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants[7].c. Lehi and his family were not even jews. They were from the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3)[8], and that tribe was carried off by the Assyrians, giving them little time to contribute to the genetic mix of the Middle East.d. It is not a scientifically sound approach to base DNA findings off the Middle East when it has always been the crossroad of three continents and has seen lots of immigration and intermarriage throughout its history. Using it as a "standard" for DNA testing is ridiculous.Con's CaseMy argument will focus around the validity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph's role as Prophet. There are two views of what happened with the birth of the BoM: either Joseph made up every story in the book, authoring it himself or he translated it from reformed Egyptian by the power of God. I will provide evidence to show why the latter scenario is more probable, thus showing that Mormonism is indeed rational.A1. Writing of the BoMThe repetition of words, constructive states of sentences, and overall writing style of the Book of Mormon suggest that it was first written in a Semitic language like Hebrew or Egyptian. Here are multiple examples:a. The frequent use of conjunctions in the BoM, such as "and", is similar to that of Egyptian writing. In English, we would say something like "nuts, bolts, nails, screws, and staples". In the BoM, we find verses like this: "in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores." (2 Nephi 5:15.) Interestingly enough, Egyptian doesn't use punctuation[9] but uses conjunctions to put items together instead. Helaman 3:14 has the word "and" in it a total of 18 times. Grammatical edits of the BoM have inserted commas, but the sentence structure is still there.b. The constructive word structures in the BoM and awkward use of words suggest that it originally came from a Semitic language, of which the word structures are much different. Some of these include:- "altar of stones", instead of "stone altar" (1 Nephi 2:7)- "plates of brass", instead of "brass plates" (1 Nephi 3:3)- "vapor of darkness", instead of "dark vapor" (1 Nephi 12:5)Other words such as "stiffneckedness" is used many times throughout the Book of Mormon, such as in Words of Mormon verse 17. If it were Joseph writing his own book, he would have likely used "stubborn" or "inflexible". But instead he used the Semitic counterpart, the extremely awkward "stiffneckedness."The evidence provided shows that it is rational to believe in the BoM, thus Mormonism as well. How could a boy with only three years of education[10] come up with 531 pages of claimed scripture know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula in which Lehi traveled? Coming up with many Semitic names (Amleki, Giddianhi, Mariontum, etc.) is also a pretty interesting feat. Other EvidenceIn Doctrine & Covenants 87 (more Mormon scripture), the Civil War was predicted of and prophesied of. The revelation came in 1832, 29 years before the war broke out. In the third verse reads "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States..."[11] This is direct evidence of prophecy.Character limit is here, so I'll end now, but happy to elaborate.[1] https://www.lds.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] https://www.lds.org...[9] http://history-world.org...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] https://www.lds.org...