My comment about "mocking God" was meant very narrowly - I meant that using some game of chance, like a lottery, as evidence for prophetic ability would be mocking God. I didn't mean that testing a prophecy for validity was itself mocking God. Sorry for the confusion.
Since there is an amount of debate regarding this prophesy I will concede that, as a whole, it won't qualify as per your guidelines. It is my understanding that the prophesy did not include the Civil War exclusively but referred to "wars" beginning with the Civil War. This would extend the scope of the prophesy to WWI and WWII, in which England did call on other nations for aid, and likewise in which war was poured out upon all nations (or if that won't qualify there is endless example of war and contention the world over, not necessarily connected with the Civil War but that has begun since that time). The point is that part of this prophesy remains vague enough that I must concede those parts to you on your grounds.
The prophesy was, however, penned in 1832. At least 5 other men attested to it, like Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Smith, Orsen Pratt and Wilford Woodruff. All of them said they read and taught the prophesy, as later recorded in 1851, when Joseph Smith claimed to have had it (1832). Also, D&C 130 reiterates the prophesy in 1842, and restates the date which it was originally received. Thus any claim that it was written closer to the actual war, when more information would have been obvious, is not correct. 5 men plus Joseph Smith provide evidence of that. In that case, the information contained that relates to the Civil War specifically is still valid. To rephrase, this part is: that a war costing the death and misery of many souls would begin with the rebellion of SC and would be fought between the North and South. The South would call on England for help, and the slaves would be marshalled for war against their former masters. Again, the prophesy is not that the North and South would have conflict; that was obvious even in the 1820's and 30's (TJ claimed that the Mson-Dixon line would be the "death knell" of the country in 1820). The prophesy is the degree of war that would ensue following the rebellion of SC. Likewise, it is prophetic that the South would ask England for help, and that the North would marshall slaves for war against the South. None of these things were readily apparent or likely in 1832. Even Tocqueville commented on the conditions between the North and South, but noted that nobody thought it would come to war. The sentiment in the North was that the South would eventually implode and cease to function, and there was a sense of nervousness about what that would mean, but nobody predicted a full scale war at that time (Tocquville wrote about this in Democracy in America, published 1835).
But there seems little point in continuing to defend this one because as a whole it won't stand your conditions. I understand that. But I won't concede the elements focused narrowly on the Civil War. Your statements don't provide any irrefutable proof that what Joseph Smith said did not happen when he said it happened, and thus his prediction of the event is unique and prophetic in American history. No one else contemporary to him made any such claim with anywhere near the degree of accuracy as he did.
I want to phrase an analogy in a different way that might make my opinion a little more clear regarding lack of evidence not counting as evidence of absence.
Imagine the building in which you work. You know without question that it had to have an architect to design, plan, and organize all the component elements that make the building stand and function. But the building itself offers no outward evidence that it had a designer. When you flip a light switch, there is no proof that (insert firm name here) designed the electrical grid of the building that made that light switch work that light bulb. When you sit at your desk and work, nothing speaks to the people who labored to design the floor, the walls, the windows and the like such that you could later use it for your own purposes. In short, the building is and it exists without so much as single shred of proof, within itself, that it had an original designer. But we know it had to , and that it did. Now I suppose you're going to say that we can go the county recorder's office and get the blueprints, or go to the architect's office that is listed in the county records and ask them about the building. This would be proof that they designed it. Suppose the county recorder lost the records, and the architect was long dead. All we could find was some diary with some passing mention of the event perhaps. Suppose yours was the last building on earth and no records existed of its creation whatsoever. Would you still contend that it had a designer? You couldn't prove that it did. You'd have to begin inspecting the building, system by system, piece by piece, to find evidence of how it all worked and thus prove the nature of its design in reverse. You would quickly find that you knew a great deal about its nature and function, indeed a very intricate and thorough understanding of it. But you would still be no closer to proving that (insert firm name here) designed it. Thus, you would have to conclude that the building just came to be because it did. You can find no evidence that it had an architect from evaluating the building for its own sake, thus (in your estimation) the absence of evidence provides evidence of absence. The fact that we have no evidence for its truth (that the building had an original architect) is conclusive evidence for its falsity. Is that the sum of it?
This is the nature of my belief in God. Just because the physical earth doesn't have some miraculous explantion of some divine creation doesn't by implication mean that it wasn't designed and created all the same. Your statement that natural, logical processes don't require the involvment of God is akin, in my mind, to stating that for the water to flow or the lights to work in your building didn't require an architect. The building just is because that's how it works. To me, this seems so contrary to logic that I have a hard time reconciling the position. Even when I claimed to be atheist, this "where did it come from?" issue plagued me. Just like the logical design of a building and its function provides evidence that someone had a plan and executed it, likewise the logical systems of the natural world evidence to me the same thing. But I can no more "prove" this claim than you could "prove" the post-apocalyptic building from my analogy had an architect. Likewise, niether of us can any more prove, with the abscence of such evidence as proof alone, that neither thing had an architect than we can prove that either thing did have an architect.
I hope this analogy makes my ideas more evident. Thanks for inspiring me to write it.
Cory
No comments:
Post a Comment