Proving the Church is True 

I have always loved Hebrews 11:1. In that verse faith is based on evidence. When you turn on a light switch, you have faith that it will illuminate the bulb. You don’t even hesitate to believe, because you have flipped the switch a bunch of times and it just about always turns the light on. In other words, because of evidence your faith in the light switch is so strong that you don’t even think about it anymore. That is Alma 32. When the evidence of the seed sprouting and growing acts on your mind, it makes it easier to have faith that the next seed planted will do the same. Evidence!

I get what he’s trying to do but it feels like a lot of word games. I think the question for me is what to do when the “proof” doesn’t feel convincing enough to instill enough confidence to call it “true”? Especially when it comes to the supernatural and spiritual aspect which is supposed to be a major factor in “coming to know”.

You did good Steve. I am particularly fond of the quote by D. Todd Christofferon early in your talk. I have the same view but the words I use do not represent the principles with the class of his professionalism. While I am not a fan of the adversarial system in our justice system especially when it comes to establishing truth or "proof" perhaps with our limited abilities there is not a better path to verify facts. Oh, btw....when you talk again make sure to lower the mic to avoid plosives. From personal experience I have proof that this is true.

With very few changes you can take this same presentation and “prove” Jehovah Witnesses, Catholicism, Islam, and a bunch of other religions. At a minimum we should accept other religious claims if they meet the same “standard of proof” as we hold to our own. Similarly, if we reject another religious claim because it does not meet a certain standard we should hold our own religion to that same standard. Anything less is special pleading.

This presentation displays the same problem with so many other FAIR apologetics: it defends the Church as inerrant in its structure and current teachings and practices. If you’re not willing to entertain the possibility of any current errors, despite clear instances from history, and instead use admonitions of faith that might apply to any belief system, then you’re not engaging in a pursuit of truth.

Literal problems with this in the first 3 minutes. You don't decide whether to believe something or not. You're either convinced of something, or you're not convinced of something. You can't 'decide not to believe in crickets'. Doesn't work that way. At 20:00 in it's just word salad. If your belief is so weakly justified that appealing to fringe definitions/usages of words is your only recourse then your belief is by definition not rational. What we're talking about here is UNIVERSAL TRUTH. If Mormonism or any church were actually true, it would be overwhelmingly evident, easily testable, independently verifiable, and able to make novel testable predictions, etc. And, it ain't/doesn't. The case against religion as we know it - these manmade institutions that do nothing but harbor corruption in all forms - is significant. But the case against Mormonism itself is so overwhelming it's indefensible... not even a strand of evidence to support it, and overwhelming evidence against it. Flat earth and Scientology are more credible than anything that has ever come out of Mormonism. 38:22 - Using scriptures to prove the scriptures (which you do throughout) is a circular argument and dumb. With this reasoning, ALL religions would be true. 49:20 - Isn't that convenient for church leadership... "the evidence that will prove or disprove the church does not exist". Just shut up and pay your tithing. It's also untrue, there is overwhelming evidence against the church. 54:30 - The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the one positing the claim. It's absurd to suggest "why hasn't the church been disproven?". Do you spend your time going around disproving leprechauns, unicorns and bigfoot? Why not? Well, they must be true then. The default is always to not believe until there is a justified, reasonable, rational, and evidence-supported reason to do so. It is NOT to believe in something until there is a reason NOT to believe in that thing. This is an absolutely disgusting and horrid argument you have used here... and *spoiler alert* all evidence overwhelmingly supports that the church is not true, and thus there is no justified reason to believe. This whole talk is nothing but fallacy on fallacy and circular reasoning.

I think over all this helped me fortify my understanding of the "church" and all of Christianity being true. However, that doesn't mean that it is faithful and pure. Christianity and the Church are highly polluted and in grave need of Christ's cleansing. It's sad that this presentation didn't mention Christ until some 10 minutes. The focus is all on us, and how our salvation is in the church and absent without. Even then it was all about what man can do and very little of what God has, does and will do.

I am enjoying this talk however I am not enjoying more adds than talk time. Not going to finish can't stand all the adds.

Hey Steve, remember me? I once taught the Algebra class and you said I was "too big for my britches". Now who's too big for their britches?!?!? Haha! It doesn't surprise me that you've risen through the ranks. I wonder whether you actually believe what you're saying, given the lack of proof on the side of the affirmative, which you of all people, being a lawyer, should understand. I just have to roll my eyes. You haven't changed a bit:)

Consider me even less convinced