Not so easy?

[Ray Agostini]

You're also going to have to explain how Joseph Smith apparently got the internal consistency of the BoM right, how he managed to produce it so spontaneously, without reading from notes, in so short a time, leaving a string of witnesses who were convinced that no fraud or concoction was involved, who in fact turned against him yet were admanant that what he did came from God.

All of this has been done by people far more informed on the subject than I. Unfortunately, these issues are addressed in "anti-mormon" websites and publications, so you probably haven't been exposed to them, given the proclivity among members to avoid such material. Having said that, I suggest you might wish to start with an informative and thorough book by an author named Dan Vogel called "Joseph Smith- the Making of a Prophet"

Fawn Brodie's biography of Smith also addresses these issues.

I have not as yet read Dan's book, but I will within the next few weeks. I am not a member. I am an ex-Mormon who still believes in the Book of Mormon and the revelations, but I am open on the question of BoM historicity. I have read all of the anti material and have been doing so since 1983. I was one of the original FARMS volunteers in 1983, and I have been published on Mormon subjects in Australian academia/journals. I have no "proclivity" to avoid anything. I seek the truth, and I'm not going to find truth from people with agendas or preconceived notions.

I read Brodie's book three times. Her psychobiography didn't change any of my opinions.

And I am now signing off to go to work. Have a good day.

[Dan Vogel]

Beowulf,

I called on Atlantis as the easiest example to make the point that skeptics are not always wrong, and, I might add, apologists are not always right. We need to look at the evidence one case at a time; there is no magical formula. I

[Tetraforce]

If you read the next page, you'd know that if any priest who sexually abused a black female slave, that priest is spiritually dead to God.

I'm sorry where is that in the bible again? Who said anything about sexual abuse of a black female slave? Do you have any clue about what you are saying?

Yes I do know what I'm talking about, but you clearly don't. You dare speak down to me when you are the one quoting a 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context. For example, in this same discourse on the very next page, President Young is reported to have said:

"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)

You are wrong to take the sentences you quoted as some type of racial intolerance.

Lets see it again in slow motion:

" If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

Brigham Young is not talking about intermarriage. In 1863, people weren't free to marry blacks in the United States. Thus its talking about sexual relations outside of marriage, adultry. God's standard for sexual morality has always been clear: 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' (Ex. 20:14).

Why is it "death on the spot" to the "white man of the chosen seed" and not the black woman involved?

A male member of "the chosen seed" is specifically referring to a priest. Priesthood holders who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage breaks the oath and covenant of the priesthood and faces automatic excommunication from the Church. In LDS theology, excommunication is a form of spiritual death. That is how one becomes dead for "Fornication leads to death." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.271)

But still, why not the black woman? Its because many such interracial intercourses were often the result of rape. Since President Young does not mention any penalty to be applied to the black woman, it is unlikely that he is talking about a consensual union. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin.

This veiw is made clear in light of the next page;

"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)

[Dan Vogel]

Brugsch,

I just want to add to what I said about the limited geography. To help you see that Hamblin

[Confidential Informant]

Sorry, I haven't read the rest of the posts in this thread, therefore I may simply be repeating questions which have already been asked. If so, I apologize.

You ask me if I think Joseph Smith had the ability to write/dictate something like the BofM. Yes, I do. I can

[Ray Agostini]

Ray A,

On genius, see my comments to Curelom. The idea that the BofM is

[Guest Just Curious]

Yes I do know what I'm talking about, but you clearly don't. You dare speak down to me when you are the one quoting a 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context.

I am quoting nothing out of historical context. I simply asked if BY had said the quote I put up there...did he or did he not...obviously he did by your ranting...

Brigham Young is not talking about intermarriage. In 1863, people weren't free to marry blacks in the United States.

Ehhhh...wrong again...you better go read your history. Totally 1000000% false. I had ancestors intermarrying back as early as the 1780's in the USA. Intermarriage was not illegal. There is even a very famous federal court case in New Orleans regarding my 6th great grandfather and his marriage to one of his slaves. And I have ancesteral proof of whites marrying blacks both pre and post civil war. Sorry !!!!

Thus its talking about sexual relations outside of marriage, adultry. God's standard for sexual morality has always been clear: 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' (Ex. 20:14).

No where is the word adultery used, since marriage was indeed legal between whites and blacks your statement holds no merit.

Why is it "death on the spot" to the "white man of the chosen seed" and not the black woman involved?

Hey good question...I dunno, I didn't make the statement BY did!

A male member of "the chosen seed" is specifically referring to a priest. Priesthood holders who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage breaks the oath and covenant of the priesthood and faces automatic excommunication from the Church.

Who said anything about relations outside of marriage...get your facts straight!!!

In LDS theology, excommunication is a form of spiritual death. That is how one becomes dead for "Fornication leads to death." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.271)

Did BY say spiritual death---no, did he say excommunication---no...he said DEATH...hey where I come from DEATH is DEATH...

But still, why not the black woman? Its because many such interracial intercourses were often the result of rape.

And your records of rape of whites against blacks is where? I am sure glad my ancestors that married blacks didn't consider it rape.

Since President Young does not mention any penalty to be applied to the black woman, it is unlikely that he is talking about a consensual union. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin.

Wow you can read BY's mind 100 years after he is dead...awesome. Since he clearly says nothing about wether it is consensual or not your point again is totally invalid

[Beowulf]

This discussion has spread far beyond the original hypothetical question of whether archeology alone would be able to provide much information about major religious or political groups in the ancient past, degenerating into a full-blown attack on Joseph Smith's assertions about the Book of Mormon itself.

I should have known this would happen. (sigh) Dan Vogel does not see such a hypothetical question as being relevant (as is his right, I suppose), even though the question itself is valid, regardless of whether the BofM is true, false, or non-existent.

Instead, we are seeing a scatter-shot of broadsides against Joseph Smith (and the BofM).

Just to pick one or two points out of the mass...

Dan calls Mormon belief in a limited geography theory dating back to the 1840s "an Apologetic myth". I find this assertion incredible, especially in a man reputed to know so much about early Mormon history. Is he not aware of Joseph Smith's approving commentary in the Times and Seasons, circa 1842, on a book then recently published about one European's travels in Mesoamerica, in which he said it would throw much light on the BofM? Joseph Smith's open-mindedness on this point really existed, and is no modern apologetic myth, imho.

Regarding the assertion of Sabellianism existing in Mosiah, I have examined this idea and have not found it at all convincing. The BofM has a view of the Godhead as complex and shifting as the Old Testament. Names and titles are interchangeably used, depending on circumstances and what point needs asserting. This is not so much Sabellianism as it is a recognition of the complex nature of the roles of God and his Son (and the Holy Ghost) in directing the affairs of the world (which is very much in line with LDS teaching today, as well).

Finally, the idea that the BofM does not contain many of the Gospel principles taught in the LDS church today will not stand up to scrutiny. I used to think so, myself, but I have taken another closer look at the BoM in recent years, and found it to be richer and containing more information about all aspects of our Gospel than I had thought.

For example, the discourse near the end of Second Nephi is probably the most complete explanation of the relationship between grace and works that I have seen anywhere. Relying on God's grace "after all we can do" (a line that truly annoys the Grace-only folks) is a concept that ties all sides of the dispute together in brilliant fashion. (Although my college-age son asked me recently to find him pro-works verses in the Bible for ammunition in a discussion with a grace-only roommate of his, saying 2Ne would not be accepted. So I turned to Paul in Romans, and gave him half-a-dozen places where Paul approves of works. Hit 'em where they are strongest, in Paul, I said.)

And Jack Welch's Sermon at the Temple (which I am currently reading) shows that Jesus' discourse in 3NE is not just mouthing platitudes. It is actually preparation for a temple ritual. Suddenly we are talking about the Endowment Ceremony, certainly a post-BofM Mormon concept if there ever was one.

Respectfully,

Beowulf

[Confidential Informant]

So Dan,

What is your proof that the Lehites were anything more than a cultural subgroup? You seem to believe that this assertion is the crux of the argument and the part which you refuse to grant as valid. What is your evidence that this is not so?

C.I.

[Tetraforce]

Wow you can read BY's mind 100 years after he is dead...awesome. Since he clearly says nothing about wether it is consensual or not your point again is totally invalid

There are thousands of historical records including assessments of his character by those who knew him, both in and out of the Church; sermons, personal journals in his own hand, etc. Aquiring large amounts of background about the Prophet Young is accomplishable. The full historical record clearly shows that Brigham Young was a good and noble man who believed that all men are children of God, loved and blessed in accordance with their personal obedience to his commandments.

Then on what basis can you claim otherwise? Because somebody digs through thousands of documents only to produces a few paragraphs which look bad only out of historical context. OR does that quote outweigh all of the other information available that says BY could not of ment what you are wishing he did?

It's almost like you are purposely trying to find fault with someone you never met and really don't know a lot about. I failed to see any evidence contradicting what I said. You seem upset that I made a few assumptions about what Brigham Young meant. And yes, I did. So did you. And neither one of us were present when the statement was made, neither one of us are experts, are we? Brigham Young certainly isn't here to explain it to us, is he? You can't fool me, you have already decided that Brigham Young meant without any thoughts that there were any other possibilitites. I maybe the same with me, but as a person with high standards, I start judging people by first giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Since I know that during this time period a white person and a black person could not be legally married, I know Brigham Young wasn't talking about sexual relations between two legally married people. That means fornication. I also know what the Church teaches about fornication: "Fornication leads to death." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.271). President Kimball's quote is very similar to what Brigham Young is reported to have said, death to simply mean death isn't so easy to pin down, especially because you have no proof of such being enforced. The only difference between the Kimbell quote and Brigham Young's that his comments were dirrected about particular divisions of the society. Why? Because a Prophet normally speaks on issues in which the people are presently having difficulty. So by digging around historical data you find some interesting facts.

If a white woman was raped, her family often killed the attacker and faced no punishment. It was technically illegal to kill a rapist, no court would convict a white man who defended the honor of his wife, daughter, sister, or mother. This attitude had prevailed in the United States until only recently.

Upon further investigation, in 1863 the virtue of black women was not protected by society to the same degree, if at all. Black men were not given the same prerogative to protect the sanctity of their homes. People in some areas of the country actually encouraged "virile" unmarried men to satisfy their physical urgings with Black women. Many people felt such actions would help protect the white population. To them, Black people were animals. Needless to say, the rape of black women was almost never prosecuted.

Now this is historical context in which Brigham Young made his statement. Neither one of us can prove with absolute certainty what Brigham Young meant. And he's not here. But any explanation must match historical context of the period and all other records about Brigham Young as a man, who was probaly the one of the least racist men in America. Any of your ideas that differ from mine is simply unsupported.

[Guest Just Curious]

Since I know that during this time period a white person and a black person could not be legally married, I know Brigham Young wasn't talking about sexual relations between two legally married people. That means fornication.

Since I HAVE PROOF that you are wrong about intermarriage in the 1800's I KNOW you are totally wrong. I have shown you that intermarriage was not illegal as I have ancestors who were intermarried during that time so everything you have to say regarding the lack of intermarriage is totally fully a falsehood! Go do your research and quit relying on falsehoods to back up your position. It was not illegal for whites and black to marry !!!! It is obvious the only way you can defend your position is to continue to insist this is so even though history proves you totally wrong. Once you realize it was not illegal your whole arguement falls to pieces.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Informant:

In your last you raise some issues to which you presumably expect response. However, since you have admitted to having no

[Confidential Informant]

Mr. Informant:

In your last you raise some issues to which you presumably expect response. However, since you have admitted to having no

[Tetraforce]

Since I HAVE PROOF that you are wrong about intermarriage in the 1800's I KNOW you are totally wrong.

Look mister do-more-research, various laws were passed making it illegal for members of different races to marry; these were known as miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutonality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883). That decision was not overturned until the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Loving v. Virginia" (1967). At that time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

While miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional in the United States by the Supreme Court in 1967, those laws were not completely repealed in individual states until November 2000 when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law. In November 2000, after a statewide vote in a special election, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law. Yet as the election revealed -- 40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban.

[Guest Just Curious]

Look mister do-more-research, various laws were passed making it illegal for members of different races to marry; these were known as miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutonality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883). That decision was not overturned until the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Loving v. Virginia" (1967). At that time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

LOL you still refuse to admit you are wrong...then simply explain this...how did people of different races marry if it was illegal..since I have literally HUNDREDS of ancestors that were interracially married both pre and post civil war...funny, not a single one was put in jail for it. If you want to bring up laws..why don't you bring up the anti-polygamy laws that the LDS heiarchy refused to follow...don't forget article of faith #12...do I need to post it...oh what the heck

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

So you are now saying it was illegal to intermarry (which it wasn't) so that makes BY's quote ok...yet it definitely was illegal to practice polygamy...where are BY's quotes against polygamy then.....why was the 12th article of faith not followed in regards to polygamy...maybe it should be ammended to read (sustaing the law as long as we agree with it, and when we don't our law trumps). But back to the original arguement. It was not illegal for intermarriage and people were not jailed for it. Otherwise I would not be here and thousands of my cousins would not be here either...that my dear is the PROOF !!!!

[Tetraforce]

You got a marriage certificate for these people?

Secondly, LDS did obey the anti-polygamy laws, dummy. Federal Government hunted down polygamist men to jail them, even though their plural marriages had been legal when they occurred. Many women were also found "in contempt of court" and jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands.

[Guest Just Curious]

You got a marriage certificate for these people?

yes I as a matter of fact do...why don't you go onto the internet and do a search on the "Margaritta Case" it was a federal case in New Orleans with my 6th great grandfather marrying a slave...that ought to show you...

Secondly, LDS did obey the anti-polygamy laws, dummy.

Ehhhh...wrong again...polygamy was illegal yet they kept it going until the federal government threatened to take over Utah...

Federal Government hunted down polygamist men to jail them, even though their plural marriages had been legal when they occurred. Many women were also found "in contempt of court" and jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands.

The government did incarcerate some polygamist but a very small portion of them and the church continued to practice polygamy until threatened with all church property being confiscated..for over 30 years the church continued to break the laws of the land and practice plural marriage...in total direction violation and contradiction of the Articles of Faith #12....sorry, as much as you try you cannot change factual history...

I am through with you, this is a useless exercise. I have proved you wrong multiple times on every account and you still do not see it, so knock yourself out, call me names, rant, rave, throw a hissy fit, I really don't care...I'm done trying to talk to you..

[aznative]

Hhhhmmmmmm.....

And the Federales continue in their persistence to control what a religion believes and what ordinances and practices they can or cannot do.

And what happens when the feds come knockin on your door and demand that you abandon your religion?

It sounds like the Saints did nothing more than what Daniel did, practice in secret and pray for the Lord to deliver them. And appearently he did so by releasing them from having to continue the covenant. He does have the option of doing that if He wants. He is the almighty. We aren't required to offer burnt offerings anymore. He put the Saints through the refining process to see if they would obey the flesh (the Feds) or continue to follow Him in persecution. Apperently he was satisfied by the sacrafices they made, the ones you can't appreciate and contiually downgrade.

[Beowulf]

JC, don't get so hot.

I believe you when you say your ancestors made such marriages. Great! I am impressed by people who are proud of their heritage.

But it was a hard time, and such marriages were surely frowned upon in the South (and were until remarkably recently, I have a friend born in Alabama in the 50s of a Japanese mother and Caucasion father who told me it was NOT fun to be mixed-race in that state pre-Civil Rights), which is what Tetraforce is trying to show you.

BY's comments in the 1850s and 1860s were actually quite sympathetic to blacks, but do not play well today, especially when taken out of context. So I do not appreciate people who remake him into a racist of the worst stripe.

Beowulf

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Informant:

Since you have admitted to having no

[Ray Agostini]

Dan,

You posted:

I haven

[Confidential Informant]

Dedar DV:

Please hold whilst I opine in an area where I do have some expertise. This response is general based on some stuff I was reading above.

1. Except for the constitution of the state of there is no such thing as an "anti-polygamy" law. If I recall corerctly, the laws passed by the U.S. Congress in the 1800's dealt with things such as cohabitation. The laws under which people are tried for polygamy are actually bigamy laws.

2. Smith may have broken a law in Illinois, but it wasn't a bigamy law. Joseph Smith has one "legal" marriage, and that was to Emma. That marriage was done according the laws of the time. All of his subsequent marriages were nothing more than private religious rites and do not represent behavior that the state could classify as criminal. NOw, had Smith attempted to, for example, obtain a second marriage license, then he'd have been guilty of bigamy. If Joseph was guilty of anything, it would have had to have been violations of the applicaple adultery laws at the time. However, the question then arises: is it adultery if your spouse knows? But that's a question for a different thread.l

Now, Dan says:

When I said

[noel00]

Dan

It is certainly good seeing u here. I enjoyed your book Indian Origins and the BOM and hope when my budget improves to get your biography. I have spoke ti Simon Southerton a few times on the phone, he being a fellow aussie

How do u treat the affidavits by smiths Neighbours? I read the Myth Makers and Richard Andersons articles as well as Roger Anderson's paper. I thought that Roger made some good points about the weaknesses of the Kelly statements and how careful Deming was to collect the material. Was any material that Wes Walters collected helpful? I often wonder what happened to his papers? Does Michael Marquardt know? I had a long letter exchange with him for years. His Dialogue 1969 article was interesting. Bushman who is writing his own biography of Smith responded to Walters . Some american lds members told me that they heard the LDS leadership were not happy with that exchange as the lds respondent did not answer effectively.

As u said earlier if we accept FARMS approach there were these people who lived parrallel lives to those of the Mayans. Why were they not aware of each other. Having all these battles, surely they must have been aware of them. The other approach taken by the likes of RayA is the the BOM is so complex and beauitful that Smith could not have written it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dan V,

Some friends told me about the discussion going on here. I know this is going to be a mistake, sucking me back into the Black Hole of internet debates, but I

[Ray Agostini]

The other approach taken by the  likes of RayA is the the BOM is so complex and beauitful that Smith could not have written it.

And I look forward to your own production of a BoM-like text Noel. The problem with your approach Noel is that you're viewing this whole debate from a Christian perspective, and your efforts are pretty tame. Does it bother you that both Dan (Vogel) and Brent are probably atheists? It doesn't bother me, but I wonder if you know what kind of waters you're swimming in? This is an either/or debate, to be sure, but it isn't either Mormonism or Christianity, but either Mormonsim or atheism! You fail to acknowledge any redeeming Christian qualities in Joseph Smith, so you'll have to resign him to perdition (anathema), according to your (Christian) understanding. Please leave me out of that.

Yes, I do believe the BoM is complex, and inspired, but I also believe that answers to this riddle are complex, not black and white. FYI, I lie somewhere between Dan and Bill. But if you want me to join you in singing sweet praises to your Christian Jesus this Sunday you'll have to tone down your simplistic criticisms. I don't condemn your belief, but pray that God will grant you a more open mind. Some of your posts here are really pedestrian, and even if you had the truth I'd think twice before joining a congregation of like-minded people.