Plates Of Brass Vs. Scrolls

[Stone holm]

The book of Mormon claims it was written on metal plates. Critics claim such was never done.

Writing on metal plates is found.Critics claim it is a one-off.

More plates are found from the era of 600 BC . Critics claim they were very small.

Larger examples are found.Critics claim there are only a few plate pages.

I suspect that if and when 5 examples of reasonably large many page plates are discovered,critics will say "YABUT ,there ought to be hundreds"

I have always wondered how many other sets got melted down by the conquistadors and shipped off to Spain, while the Catholic Priests were busy building Cathederals on top of as many native shrines as possible. It's a wonder anything survived.

[MormonMason]

I have always wondered how many other sets got melted down by the conquistadors and shipped off to Spain, while the Catholic Priests were busy building Cathederals on top of as many native shrines as possible. It's a wonder anything survived.

Many records were burned and/or otherwise destroyed, including many bark-paper codices and entire rooms full of gold artifacts, melted down to become part of the treasuries of Spain and Portugal, as well as components of Catholic Church altars across Europe. It is most unfortunate, indeed.

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................

The Bible is under the same kind of critique, although it is an older argument and much more important than any similar exchange over the BoM. If the Bible does not stand up to scrutiny, and is altered beyond recognition into a man-made collection of early oral tales and later dogmatic ordering to support Judaism, then the BoM suffers each hit that the Bible takes, because the BoM stands or falls with the Bible....

Wrong, oh great Beast!

There is a fundamental and crucial difference between the Bible and Book of Mormon. The former has been around for millennia, and was transmitted to us by historically natural means. The BofM appeared suddenly in the early 19th century AD, by what believers consider marvelous means.

Extraordinary claims made by the Bible cannot be verified by natural means, even though we may be able to find hard evidence of the ancient civilizations of both Bible and neighbors. The same applies to the Iliad & Odyssey, or to the Mahabharata. Can we show that the gods in these epics actually exist(ed)? Can we prove that the Exodus or Resurrection actually took place? We can of course ask the same sort of questions of the BofM, as to whether the mighty acts of God actually occurred in the BofM, but we cannot prove them by naturalistic, historical means.

What we can do is provide a close analysis of the BofM as "a questioned document," subjecting it to the same sort of naturalistic scrutiny we would subject any suspected forgery. For a host of reasons, linguistic, historical, and archeological, it appears that the civilizations described in the BofM actually existed at the times and places described.

This has two effects:

(1) Since the BofM is unlikely to be authentic, any reasonable demonstration that it is archeologically authentic results in the statistical likelihood that it is truly authentic -- marvelous events and all.

(2) If the BofM is authentic, that is the only real, naturalistic basis for believing in the authenticity of the mighty acts of God in the Bible (Exodus, Resurrection, and all).

Of course, it is certainly true that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is a much greater and sounder basis for such belief, but I digress . . .

And, in any case, the percent of the Mormon population agitating for notice on this board is infinitesimal. Shhhh, nobody knows we're here.

[Questing Beast]

...

(1) Since the BofM is unlikely to be authentic, any reasonable demonstration that it is archeologically authentic results in the statistical likelihood that it is truly authentic -- marvelous events and all.

(2) If the BofM is authentic, that is the only real, naturalistic basis for believing in the authenticity of the mighty acts of God in the Bible (Exodus, Resurrection, and all).

Of course, it is certainly true that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is a much greater and sounder basis for such belief, but I digress . . .

And, in any case, the percent of the Mormon population agitating for notice on this board is infinitesimal. Shhhh, nobody knows we're here.

Precisely my stance for many years, I believed the Bible because I believed the BoM. The Bible "fell" after the BoM for me. It wasn't until I finally admitted that Joseph Smith was just a genius intent on playing at religion-making, that I accepted the wealth of internal evidence that the BoM contains, showing it to be a 19th century creation. Under inspiration? Sure, why not? But that is the key book for those playing the Mormon "game". It is the same for all the Judeo-Christian religions; the Bible is the key book, or a key book, for playing their religion "games". Others play different "games", each with its own established (original) paradigm, and each "game" morphing as the generations roll by. I was going to start a new thread on this topic of "God as the great player", willing and encouraging all manner of "games", or paradigms, in which people get involved. It makes sense of all the religions on this planet. And I do see a reason to believe that all religions containing sincere believers, who live equally commendable lives, should be valid paths. To not allow this is to submit to dogmatism, even bigotry, vis-a-vis the beliefs of "everyone else", which divides people and makes their "games" into tools of conflict and even war....

[Stone holm]

Precisely my stance for many years, I believed the Bible because I believed the BoM. The Bible "fell" after the BoM for me. It wasn't until I finally admitted that Joseph Smith was just a genius intent on playing at religion-making, that I accepted the wealth of internal evidence that the BoM contains, showing it to be a 19th century creation. Under inspiration? Sure, why not? But that is the key book for those playing the Mormon "game". It is the same for all the Judeo-Christian religions; the Bible is the key book, or a key book, for playing their religion "games". Others play different "games", each with its own established (original) paradigm, and each "game" morphing as the generations roll by. I was going to start a new thread on this topic of "God as the great player", willing and encouraging all manner of "games", or paradigms, in which people get involved. It makes sense of all the religions on this planet. And I do see a reason to believe that all religions containing sincere believers, who live equally commendable lives, should be valid paths. To not allow this is to submit to dogmatism, even bigotry, vis-a-vis the beliefs of "everyone else", which divides people and makes their "games" into tools of conflict and even war....

Unless of course, you are wrong. I have always felt that ultimately all of this comes down to a decison to believe made after seeking for the truth from the Spirit. Without that seeking and resultant testimony, everything else is vain. Archaelogy and deep analysis of text is fun and healthy, but it does not take the place of spiritual truth. Mormons like most religious people have to have a healthy capacity for cognitive dissonance at times in order to avoid sounding ignorant. What those who have forsaken religion forget is that they may have developed an even more destructive orthodoxy in what they deem as healthy anti-dogmatism.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Stone holm

[Questing Beast]

I question my "dogmatism" all the time. "What is it for?" is the constant question. Religion is never forsaken, not even by those most devoted to bashing it, or those most vehemently vocal in denying that they are religious. Religion is personal belief, which is never in a position to prove anything one way or the other, only believe. "Facts on the ground" are everywhere and are continually coming to light. To merely notice them and ignore their implications is indeed cognitive dissonance. Are we really supposed to ask "God" for an answer ("is this true?") expecting a "baptism by fire" of the Holy Spirit, that we thenceforth shall not deny? Such a "testing of God" seems like the very same thing as seeking for a sign. But if we are continually on the lookout for evidence without applying observer bias, it seems to me that all things will lead to a conclusion about the truth of this world, what it Is, what we are, and how "God" Is with the us and the world. That view must necessarily widen with each discovery, because "God" Is Infinite. Any narrowing (dumbing down) of the religious or anti-religious world view is moving in the negative, opposite, direction from discovering "God"....

Edited March 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

I understand the argument that the more we learn, the less we know. Just not certain it is wise to limit our searching too much to the sensory and logic. But then I am almost always considered a hopelessly romantic mystic.

[Robert F. Smith]

Precisely my stance for many years, I believed the Bible because I believed the BoM. The Bible "fell" after the BoM for me. It wasn't until I finally admitted that Joseph Smith was just a genius intent on playing at religion-making, that I accepted the wealth of internal evidence that the BoM contains, showing it to be a 19th century creation. Under inspiration? Sure, why not? But that is the key book for those playing the Mormon "game". It is the same for all the Judeo-Christian religions; the Bible is the key book, or a key book, for playing their religion "games". Others play different "games", each with its own established (original) paradigm, and each "game" morphing as the generations roll by. I was going to start a new thread on this topic of "God as the great player", willing and encouraging all manner of "games", or paradigms, in which people get involved. It makes sense of all the religions on this planet. And I do see a reason to believe that all religions containing sincere believers, who live equally commendable lives, should be valid paths. To not allow this is to submit to dogmatism, even bigotry, vis-a-vis the beliefs of "everyone else", which divides people and makes their "games" into tools of conflict and even war....

So you are positing Joseph as a genius engaged in religion-making, and you even allow for inspiration by a Trickster-God (like Loki) who likes religion games worldwide, and who does or does not (unclear) enjoy the consequent conflict and even war?

However, there is one major problem which you seem unwilling to face: You have shown abysmal ignorance, Beast, about even the most basic facts of the Book of Mormon and the scientific investigation of it. Doesn't that give you pause? You gave up belief in it due to a host of false notions about archeology (as we have discussed with you in recent years). Any scientific test of the Book of Mormon must be undertaken with complete sincerety and a willingness to admit when one is wrong. What we get instead from you is behavior which is embarrassingly like the fabled "apologists" who (like sophists) will say or do anything in order to win an argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

I question my "dogmatism" all the time. "What is it for?" is the constant question. Religion is never forsaken, not even by those most devoted to bashing it, or those most vehemently vocal in denying that they are religious. Religion is personal belief, which is never in a position to prove anything one way or the other, only believe. "Facts on the ground" are everywhere and are continually coming to light. To merely notice them and ignore their implications is indeed cognitive dissonance. Are we really supposed to ask "God" for an answer ("is this true?") expecting a "baptism by fire" of the Holy Spirit, that we thenceforth shall not deny? Such a "testing of God" seems like the very same thing as seeking for a sign. But if we are continually on the lookout for evidence without applying observer bias, it seems to me that all things will lead to a conclusion about the truth of this world, what it Is, what we are, and how "God" Is with the us and the world. That view must necessarily widen with each discovery, because "God" Is Infinite. Any narrowing (dumbing down) of the religious or anti-religious world view is moving in the negative, opposite, direction from discovering "God"....

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. No wonder you are so confused, Beast.

[Calm]

But if we are continually on the lookout for evidence without applying observer bias,

Good luck with your impossible dream.

aside: To me, it would seem like practically the first significant thing to be discovered by an attempt to look for things without applying observer bias would be that we are never truly without observer bias and never can be.

Edited March 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

So you are positing Joseph as a genius engaged in religion-making, and you even allow for inspiration by a Trickster-God (like Loki) who likes religion games worldwide, and who does or does not (unclear) enjoy the consequent conflict and even war?

However, there is one major problem which you seem unwilling to face: You have shown abysmal ignorance, Beast, about even the most basic facts of the Book of Mormon and the scientific investigation of it. Doesn't that give you pause? You gave up belief in it due to a host of false notions about archeology (as we have discussed with you in recent years). Any scientific test of the Book of Mormon must be undertaken with complete sincerety and a willingness to admit when one is wrong. What we get instead from you is behavior which is embarrassingly like the fabled "apologists" who (like sophists) will say or do anything in order to win an argument.

I believe that you are mistaken. How much will I explain here? It depends on how patient I am, and how much "good" might come from going over some of my personal history again.

As a child the paradigm taught to me did not make sense on several levels. I got the "God was once a mortal" teaching very early. It was part of Mormon theology in my family. I discovered that it was doctrine for the Church too, so not just a family twist on doctrine. The first thing that happened to my growing concept of God was something inconceivable: God did not make everything exist, because God was once a mortal like we are. God and all intelligence and matter simply always existed. I was supposed to be content with that. I never was. It made no sense to worship existing matter and intelligence that was not responsible for itself. But I did put all of that on the back burner as I learned about the doctrine and history of the Church and the world at large. My main motive was two-part: I knew that I knew very little, so I must be patient in ignorance; and for family and community's sake, I must try my best to fit in and not cause trouble over what I do not know. Only after my knowledge increased enough to see the glaring dichotomies in Church "history" and exegesis did I begin to return to my earlier disbelief. I had for decades made what I feel was a sincere effort to explain it all in a way that worked out rationally. My entire testimony rested upon the BoM. Taking the "Brethren" at their word, quoting Joseph Smith, I placed the BoM as the "keystone of my religion". Early on I could not separate the BoM from its RL setting, and kept trying to find it somewhere, anywhere. That "quest" ended in failure, as I am sure you know it was doomed to be. All arising physical data/evidence meant very little when it could not be placed in the real world. It continues to be so. I listen to everything that comes into my sensory range on the subject, but I no longer go looking for evidence to "prove" the BoM.

Rather late in the process of growing disillusionment, I ran across "The Bible Unearthed" by Finklestein and Silberman, and I was impressed by the dispassionate tone of the evidence as presented. I appreciated the historical placement of that reassessment of biblical historicity. It remains today as a milestone in engaging the popular awareness and sentiment. I saw and see no agenda of the authors beyond presenting evidence to show a different religious world view from that taught and believed in ignorance for centuries by Judeo-Christianity. Joseph Smith's own religion making then had this light shed upon it: that his perceptions were undeniably 19th century, and that that perception got into everything he said and wrote and dictated. This paradigm shift has not been budged an iota since I decided it was probably closer to the truth, now going on ten years ago.

The main point of studying religion is to answer the question, "what is it for?" Religion is not an answer to anything in itself. The purpose of the BoM was to establish Joseph Smith's prophetic calling "to the ministry". His only hand-written account of his "vision" was also to further establish his calling "to the ministry", and contained virtually none of the elements that later were inserted into the "first vision". Even his mother did not recollect any such experience, but rather his visitation by "the angel" while in the attic of the Smith cabin, which resulted in the BoM years later. The so-called "first vision" was personal to Joseph Smith in answer to his question of worthiness, if his sins were forgiven, etc.; he got that answer and proceeded. But he did not enquire about "which church is true" or obtain any information about the nature of the Godhead on that occasion. All of that came later as he justified his singular authority to lead his own church organization. All of this fits the written facts. Problems manifest themselves in trying to fit the written facts into the Church's paradigm of "faith promoting history". What does it all mean then? What is it for?

The answer is much as I presented it, and not as you twisted it. "Loki", heh, what a concept to compare it to: Loki is a finite demigod, much like the "gods" and "sons of god" in Genesis; not the Necessary Cause. GtF is not the Necessary Cause; He admits as much. Joseph Smith taught as much. I have moved beyond seeking to worship anyTHING that is not the Necessary Cause. As Joseph Smith clearly espoused a lesser concept for "God", I must move out beyond what he taught, what the Church continues to teach. I don't push it as doctrine for anybody else. It is MY vision only. I share the fact that I am having an increasing vision opened up to me. But I always allow that it is NOT the ONE TRUTH for mankind. That doesn't fit the facts either.

"What is religion for?" To engage the mind in metaphysical contemplation and draw the mind into a "quest" for further light and truth. The only source is "God". And my paradigm allows each individual to have that singular/unique connection directly to "God", to the whole mind of "God" as the two of you will. "God" does not violate the mind, and the mind seeks after "God" as it will; "God" aids that seeking always, forever. This is the universal truth behind the plethora of religions on this planet alone (God alone knows how many planets there are and thus how many unique paradigms formed between "himself" and those individuals). And the purpose of that seeking is what? To unite with "God" as a soul-mate: I know what is forming in my mind by the use of that term, but I will not try and define it for anyone else.

"God the Great Player". Not like Loki or any other humanly conceived demigod, but as the Necessary Cause: enjoying each unique perception of Existence. There is no place for ONE dogmatic "gate" back to heaven with any of that. An overarching principle governs all paradigms formed by individuals: "Never lie to yourself". Once a person is convinced of that, and seeks only truth, then truth is never far away....

[Stone holm]

"What is religion for" interesting question Questing Beast. One could argue in the Platonic sense that religion is for crowd control and therefore it makes no difference if it is true or false, just that people believe in it, in particular that they believe in hell. Some have argued that without the belief in hell, all of society will collapse. I take a slightly less cynical view of humankind, probably because I am a liberal. To me religion is for two legitimate purposes: 1) to provide for spiritual education as to the nature of the world and cosmos in which we live in an eternal perspective, and 2) if there are certain occult practices or rituals that need to be used and learned to provide the authority to administer those practices and rituals and to provide an appropriate environment for them to be conducted in. Your analysis, I suppose would allow any number of religions to satisfy the first, as to the second -- maybe not. Of course number 2 makes absolutely no difference if you don't actually belief that those practices and rituals are actually correct and need to be conducted with authority. Once you throw the need for authority out the window, well then spiritual education kind of follows in short order.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................

Rather late in the process of growing disillusionment, I ran across "The Bible Unearthed" by Finklestein and Silberman, and I was impressed by the dispassionate tone of the evidence as presented. I appreciated the historical placement of that reassessment of biblical historicity. It remains today as a milestone in engaging the popular awareness and sentiment. I saw and see no agenda of the authors beyond presenting evidence to show a different religious world view from that taught and believed in ignorance for centuries by Judeo-Christianity. Joseph Smith's own religion making then had this light shed upon it: that his perceptions were undeniably 19th century, and that that perception got into everything he said and wrote and dictated. This paradigm shift has not been budged an iota since I decided it was probably closer to the truth, now going on ten years ago.

.........................................

I excised most of your reply since it was largely self-contradictory, stream-of-consciousness gobbledegook.

I do recall a meaningful afternoon spent at UCLA listening to a debate hosted by the Dept of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures between Israel Finkelstein and Larry Stager, both very knowledgeable and experienced archeologists with very different views. It was hard-hitting but amicable. These guys clearly respected each other, but they gave each other what for! We didn't come to hear pat answers from one side of the issue. Nearly all of us present were serious biblical scholars, archeologists, or formal students in rigorous programs. None of us were under the false impression that we could read just one book and suddenly have command of the field. We had been at this for years.

You, on the other hand, have been playing at this for years, without any indication that you take the questions we have been addressing on this thread at all seriously. On this thread and others you have made statements which, when they are shown to be clearly false, you backtrack and declare that it didn't matter anyway, since there are so many other issues to fall back upon. Despite all the false data you have accumulated, it never dawns on you that your premature conclusions (as described by you) are based on false premises and mediated by bad logic. Here is a sampling of your sorry, but enlightening statements:

"Nothing in the BoM text works out when travel distances are compared to the North American setting" (post #144, Apr 9, 2011, at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__140). This is correct on the short distances, but is clearly based on unsupportable assumptions about Joseph Smith's supposed knowledge of BofM geography.

"they began to cover the face of the whole earth" (post #144), Shows here an inability to understand that both BofM and Bible often use "earth" the same way "land" is used, which is appropriate since they are translations of the same word in each case. We simply do not know the extent of the distances intended, but there is certainly no need for them to be planetwide or hemispherewide.

"Actually, the reason for my disbelief in the dogmatic claims of the Church and its apologists of literalism is not related to physical evidence for or in conflict with the BoM or any other "artifacts" of faith. It is Joseph Smith the man that I have come to disagree with, intensely. And short of a compete "makeover", which seems impossible at this juncture, I cannot see his reputation being restored. And with his "fall from grace", so too falls every "prophet" of antiquity; since it was only the "restoration" which gave me any hope that scripture could be preserved from the morass of religion-making since the dawn of time.... " (post #166, Apr 9, 2011, at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__160). Again, self-contradictory by moving the goal posts. You pretend to seriously debate facts, and then when they don't pan out, you claim "sour grapes" -- you didn't really need them anyhow. And a further example of this bad tendency follows:

"Probably all of this is a waste of time if we really think about it. Other than honing your rhetoric, writing and debating skills nothing gets accomplished by these interchanges. I have noticed that authors are writing to themselves first and foremost; the writing discipline requires convincing power, and the author is convincing himself in the creation and presentation of his thesis. In miniature, the same phenomenon occurs "here".... "(post # 172, Apr 10, 2011, same place).

"the man Joseph Smith. He is fairly easily studied, via his own writings, the writings of those who knew him and the context of early 19th century America. There is no mastery of esoterica required here. Simple, plodding, continuous reading over an extensive period of time, will produce a weight of opinion on the one side or the other. What other method is a "student of the gospel" expected to apply? If it is supposed to work then the resulting paradigm must have been achieved by the very method recommended. I did that: I read from the "best books", prayed, desired to know truth, etc. I still do all that (albeit in a somewhat abated fashion, as books largely fail to convey anything of new value in this area of Church/religious history: I am not particularly interested in trivia/flyspecks, but rather metaphysics)." (post #176, April 10, 2011, online at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__160). The study of history is easy. No special training required. Just jump in and read! No critical thinking skills required.

"there is no way to reconcile such a limited theology and cosmology with the observable universe and my 'satiable imagination. To hold fast to ONLY Mormonism as encompassing "all truth" I would have to put science, imagination and all "questing" on hold. " (post # 189, Apr 10, 2011, on MDDB at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__180). Here evincing no awareness of the grandeur Mormon theology & cosmology. I almost feel sorry for the Beast.

"a tipping point comes, either in or out of faith, and that tipping point is belief and unbelief. Not disbelief. The disbeliever never wanted to believe in the first place. The believer can become an unbeliever. It isn't always (or even often) a desire to be so. It just occurs when facts get in the way.

"So the person who encases himself in belief without facts is invulnerable. As long as facts are not sought, and are actively ignored or pushed away, belief systems cannot be assailed or breached.

"But how many of us are that dedicated to mindless observance, without any curiosity as to what is happening to those we know and possibly love? Not many, I am saying. It is only a matter of time before the sheer volume of information being talked about penetrates the carapace of every living soul; either in this world or the next." (post # 12, June 13, 2011) What false "facts" got in the way?

"the "heaps of earth" are lacking, for now. But should they be produced and shown to be iron slag heaps, we can move on to the long, long list of other BoM assertions without foundation.

"observer bias and circular logic, which of course is the most fundamental kind of false logic. Are any immune? I doubt it.... " (post #73, online at http://www.mormondia...ls/page__st__40). Out of his own mouth.

"And in any case, "existing heaps of earth and their supposed date of creation, by themselves, do not provide any great evidence of support for the BoM" (post #92, same). Out of both sides of his mouth.

"Critics are never convinced by arguing such minutia because the BoM has basic problems of a much greater depth than the spelling or choice of particular words. And we are both of us, I am confident, aware of the long list of objections that apologists defend fecklessly (if (re)conversion is the intended/anticipated conclusion), and critics bring up constantly, all to no purpose. You either believe the book on some level or you dismiss it." (post #83, same). "all to no purpose," since Beast is impervious to facts and has established his hard core apriori belief system (which will allow of any objection to justify any illogical claim possible).

"history is unreliable because it all passes through the manipulative minds and hands of men. Go to the earliest writings of Mormon teachers and tell me that their "inspired" view of the history of the African Negro is historical, and then explain to me how any of them could possibly know what they assert about the "seed of Cain" being the line through which the "less valiant in the preexistence" are born into this world." (post #93, same). Mormon folklore and racism instead of Joseph and his brethren ordaining black people to the priesthood, and Joseph campaigning to free the slaves. Having been fed a diet of false LDS belief, it is no wonder that the Beast was disappointed in what he perceived to have been the fundamental basis of Mormon theology. Hint: It was false and unreliable, Beast.

"You can be assaulted by an avalanche of "facts" that deny your paradigm of the truth, but if you are not convinced in your feelings ("a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") you are not converted. I have arrived at the position where it won't matter if the entire world disagrees with what I feel is right, I will still follow what feels right." (post #96, same). Facts be damned.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Questing Beast]

I excised most of your reply since it was largely self-contradictory, stream-of-consciousness gobbledegook.

Fascinating dismissal from generality.

I do recall a meaningful afternoon spent at UCLA listening to a debate hosted by the Dept of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures between Israel Finkelstein and Larry Stager, both very knowledgeable and experienced archeologists with very different views. It was hard-hitting but amicable. These guys clearly respected each other, but they gave each other what for! We didn't come to hear pat answers from one side of the issue. Nearly all of us present were serious biblical scholars, archeologists, or formal students in rigorous programs. None of us were under the false impression that we could read just one book and suddenly have command of the field. We had been at this for years.

Good for all of you. Are you suggesting that in order for a typical "layperson" to get sufficient insight into the blatant dichotomies in scripture, and religious assertions, that "we" must steep ourselves in years and years and years of esoteric lore, like you?

You, on the other hand, have been playing at this for years, without any indication that you take the questions we have been addressing on this thread at all seriously. On this thread and others you have made statements which, when they are shown to be clearly false, you backtrack and declare that it didn't matter anyway, since there are so many other issues to fall back upon. Despite all the false data you have accumulated, it never dawns on you that your premature conclusions (as described by you) are based on false premises and mediated by bad logic. Here is a sampling of your sorry, but enlightening statements:

"Nothing in the BoM text works out when travel distances are compared to the North American setting" (post #144, Apr 9, 2011, at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__140). This is correct on the short distances, but is clearly based on unsupportable assumptions about Joseph Smith's supposed knowledge of BofM geography.

"Supposed knowledge of BofM geography", is a dismissal of written evidence as invalid. Someone said, that JS said, blah blah blah about something about the BoM, ergo, it can be dismissed, since JS did not write it himself. If we limit what we think JS said to only our favorite sources, the ones we say are reliable, and chuck all the others as unreliable, then we have precious little left with which to engage others in discussion. It is apparent that JS did in fact say on many occasions things about BoM geography which do not fit the real world, and were contradictory.

"they began to cover the face of the whole earth" (post #144), Shows here an inability to understand that both BofM and Bible often use "earth" the same way "land" is used, which is appropriate since they are translations of the same word in each case. We simply do not know the extent of the distances intended, but there is certainly no need for them to be planetwide or hemispherewide.

You are ignoring the additional definitive part where the text says "from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east", words to that effect. I am not going to look up the exact passage, it's there. Aside from the Sorensen approach, where the sea east and north are the same, because of the way Central America twists until Sorensen's "narrow neck of land" is now north and south instead of east and west, there is no way to show these north, south, east and west seas that the population filled up the lands between.

"Actually, the reason for my disbelief in the dogmatic claims of the Church and its apologists of literalism is not related to physical evidence for or in conflict with the BoM or any other "artifacts" of faith. It is Joseph Smith the man that I have come to disagree with, intensely. And short of a compete "makeover", which seems impossible at this juncture, I cannot see his reputation being restored. And with his "fall from grace", so too falls every "prophet" of antiquity; since it was only the "restoration" which gave me any hope that scripture could be preserved from the morass of religion-making since the dawn of time.... " (post #166, Apr 9, 2011, at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__160). Again, self-contradictory by moving the goal posts. You pretend to seriously debate facts, and then when they don't pan out, you claim "sour grapes" -- you didn't really need them anyhow. And a further example of this bad tendency follows:

What you take for sour grapes is my accepting that this becomes a poor use of my time, discussing physical evidence details, when these only formed a catalyst to my recognizing what my core problem with organized religion/dogma has been all along: and that is, God doesn't limit his work to that way. I can see no evidence at any juncture that mankind is any better or worse off in any or no religion: people are just as good without it and just as bad within it. Prophets are for their own folk, not to be extended as judges of the entire earth of unbelievers, etc. I don't "move goalposts", I return to other aspects of "my dilemma" when I have had enough of one aspect. You ought, since you've taken the time and made the effort to "research me", to grant that taken all together as a holistic objection to organized religion/dogma, there isn't anything I have said that can be construed as "moving goalposts"; I am not doing this to win any arguments. I am making points that I feel are valid.

"Probably all of this is a waste of time if we really think about it. Other than honing your rhetoric, writing and debating skills nothing gets accomplished by these interchanges. I have noticed that authors are writing to themselves first and foremost; the writing discipline requires convincing power, and the author is convincing himself in the creation and presentation of his thesis. In miniature, the same phenomenon occurs "here".... "(post # 172, Apr 10, 2011, same place).

Well, yeah, I just returned to this in the comment immediately preceding this one.

"the man Joseph Smith. He is fairly easily studied, via his own writings, the writings of those who knew him and the context of early 19th century America. There is no mastery of esoterica required here. Simple, plodding, continuous reading over an extensive period of time, will produce a weight of opinion on the one side or the other. What other method is a "student of the gospel" expected to apply? If it is supposed to work then the resulting paradigm must have been achieved by the very method recommended. I did that: I read from the "best books", prayed, desired to know truth, etc. I still do all that (albeit in a somewhat abated fashion, as books largely fail to convey anything of new value in this area of Church/religious history: I am not particularly interested in trivia/flyspecks, but rather metaphysics)." (post #176, April 10, 2011, online at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__160). The study of history is easy. No special training required. Just jump in and read! No critical thinking skills required.

Are you saying that or are you saying that I am saying that? Because I am saying that you are saying that excessive "critical thinking skills are required". And I am saying that if God wants study to result in acquired truth then the evidence should lead to it and not first to increased confusion. Or are most people just supposed to raise families and have no sufficient time to devote to real in depth study, ergo, turn off all critical thinking and just accept what their teachers tell them? BS. If anyone studies truth they should see it verified by all facts that come to light as they plod along, slowly adding on book after book, for as long as they choose to read more books. Instead, what we wind up with is controversy piled upon disagreement layered over denial and even caveats from the "teachers" that we ought not to go there, because it isn't "faith promoting" and we might damage or destroy our testimonies. More BS. The implication is that only "canon" ought to be our reading fare, leave the rest out. But if we do study from the rest, we realize that the sources taken by the Church are far more extensive than the official history allows, and say many more things than the history wants to be said; yet we are somehow supposed to ignore all of that left out stuff because it is unreliable or even dangerous. Cherry picking the source material is what churches do.

"there is no way to reconcile such a limited theology and cosmology with the observable universe and my 'satiable imagination. To hold fast to ONLY Mormonism as encompassing "all truth" I would have to put science, imagination and all "questing" on hold. " (post # 189, Apr 10, 2011, on MDDB at http://www.mormondia...m/page__st__180). Here evincing no awareness of the grandeur Mormon theology & cosmology. I almost feel sorry for the Beast.

I am wholly aware of the "grandeur" of Mormon theology and cosmology. It amounts to asserting a physical world as God's Home, near Kolob, far away from Earth, and an unbroken series of gods that did not create anything, but merely organized eternally existing matter and intelligences into some "plan of salvation" which denies any other idea on the subject as valid or possessing saving authority, etc. Yes, that's about it in a nutshell. Oh, one other aspect, we can also becomes gods if we obey, otherwise we will just be servants to "the gods".

"a tipping point comes, either in or out of faith, and that tipping point is belief and unbelief. Not disbelief. The disbeliever never wanted to believe in the first place. The believer can become an unbeliever. It isn't always (or even often) a desire to be so. It just occurs when facts get in the way.

"So the person who encases himself in belief without facts is invulnerable. As long as facts are not sought, and are actively ignored or pushed away, belief systems cannot be assailed or breached.

"But how many of us are that dedicated to mindless observance, without any curiosity as to what is happening to those we know and possibly love? Not many, I am saying. It is only a matter of time before the sheer volume of information being talked about penetrates the carapace of every living soul; either in this world or the next." (post # 12, June 13, 2011) What false "facts" got in the way?

The stuff left out of the official history, along the way, a process that all religions are guilty of. Mormonism is founded on a construct, after the fact, not evidence contemporary with Mormonism's founding. A neat story was put together over the years and we inherited it long after it was firmly in place. But the written evidence is there, and it doesn't take years and scores of books to see it repeated by honest scholars and historians like Todd Compton, for example.

"the "heaps of earth" are lacking, for now. But should they be produced and shown to be iron slag heaps, we can move on to the long, long list of other BoM assertions without foundation.

"observer bias and circular logic, which of course is the most fundamental kind of false logic. Are any immune? I doubt it.... " (post #73, online at http://www.mormondia...ls/page__st__40). Out of his own mouth.

"And in any case, "existing heaps of earth and their supposed date of creation, by themselves, do not provide any great evidence of support for the BoM" (post #92, same). Out of both sides of his mouth.

I allowed for my ignorance, which isn't the first time and won't be the last. But "heaps of [Olmec] earth" do not prove the massive metal working for warfare that typified Jaredite civilization. Or were the "swords" that had cankered rusty blades rare specimens and the Limhites left all those macuahuitls behind?

"Critics are never convinced by arguing such minutia because the BoM has basic problems of a much greater depth than the spelling or choice of particular words. And we are both of us, I am confident, aware of the long list of objections that apologists defend fecklessly (if (re)conversion is the intended/anticipated conclusion), and critics bring up constantly, all to no purpose. You either believe the book on some level or you dismiss it." (post #83, same). "all to no purpose," since Beast is impervious to facts and has established his hard core apriori belief system (which will allow of any objection to justify any illogical claim possible).

In order for the BoM and Bible to be "true" in the sense of exclusively true, i.e. all non Judeo-Christian religions and scientific evidence in direct refutation of literal scriptural truth claims, God would have to establish ONE religious approach and curse with ignorance and lack of presence/miracles/metaphysical events, all other religions but his "one true and living church". Instead we see billions of people including non believers in God, established in moral environments, seeking good far in excess of bad, behaving themselves justly, and making the world better with each passing generation. The world did not melt down because of two world wars and countless other wars of the last century, supposedly while the wicked were growing in number and wickedness, and the righteous were separating from them getting ready to hunker down for "the end times" ushering in the Millennium, etc. and etc. None of these countless billions of "others" believe in the BoM or even know it exists, and a few millions that do don't care, they have their own religion or don't want one. Show me how bad the world is today compared to yesterday. It's a paradigm without foundation.

"history is unreliable because it all passes through the manipulative minds and hands of men. Go to the earliest writings of Mormon teachers and tell me that their "inspired" view of the history of the African Negro is historical, and then explain to me how any of them could possibly know what they assert about the "seed of Cain" being the line through which the "less valiant in the preexistence" are born into this world." (post #93, same). Mormon folklore and racism instead of Joseph and his brethren ordaining black people to the priesthood, and Joseph campaigning to free the slaves. Having been fed a diet of false LDS belief, it is no wonder that the Beast was disappointed in what he perceived to have been the fundamental basis of Mormon theology. Hint: It was false and unreliable, Beast.

And it was fundamentally believed by BY, et al. "authorities" of the LDS faith at one point. You are reduced to cherry picking what BY et al. authorities said, in order to bolster a religious world view that is revealed by God through priesthood authority. That same authority believed a lot of incorrect stuff and taught it as doctrine.

"You can be assaulted by an avalanche of "facts" that deny your paradigm of the truth, but if you are not convinced in your feelings ("a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still") you are not converted. I have arrived at the position where it won't matter if the entire world disagrees with what I feel is right, I will still follow what feels right." (post #96, same). Facts be damned.

Facts are what I like. Not assertions and cherry picking over the sources....

Edited April 1, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

There are facts and then there are facts. Facts are tricky things. Historical facts can get mangled as we know they can, or can be lost forever. Axiomatic facts like 2 plus 2 equals 4 tend to crop back up. Facts about the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Vedas, the Koran, etc. sometimes and frequently do get mangled and lost forever, but the religious truths that Joseph Smith, Jr. taught are pretty thorough and convincing, so I suspect that even if he was lied out of history along with the Book of Mormon -- that the theology and beliefs would just eventually rise up again. Are there other paths to enlightenment, yes probably. The question we all eventually have to face is do we believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. accurately described what is eternally true -- that we are gods in embryo, that we are all spiritually related, that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother, etc. and if we do believe that? Then yes, we plow ahead with our beliefs, develop a healthy capacity for cognitive dissonance, and hope that someday we get everything else untangled. We respect the beliefs of others and gain what enlightenment we can from them, and we never try to force our beliefs on them. Eventually, unless the atheists are right and we just permanently cease to exist consciousness and all, we will know to what extent we got it right or wrong -- and if the atheists are right, well then we won't know anything at all or actually care.

[CASteinman]

Precisely my stance for many years, I believed the Bible because I believed the BoM. The Bible "fell" after the BoM for me. It wasn't until I finally admitted that Joseph Smith was just a genius intent on playing at religion-making, that I accepted the wealth of internal evidence that the BoM contains, showing it to be a 19th century creation. Under inspiration? Sure, why not? But that is the key book for those playing the Mormon "game". It is the same for all the Judeo-Christian religions; the Bible is the key book, or a key book, for playing their religion "games". Others play different "games", each with its own established (original) paradigm, and each "game" morphing as the generations roll by. I was going to start a new thread on this topic of "God as the great player", willing and encouraging all manner of "games", or paradigms, in which people get involved. It makes sense of all the religions on this planet. And I do see a reason to believe that all religions containing sincere believers, who live equally commendable lives, should be valid paths. To not allow this is to submit to dogmatism, even bigotry, vis-a-vis the beliefs of "everyone else", which divides people and makes their "games" into tools of conflict and even war....

It has occurred to me this weekend that many people have come to this condition -- which I term "their disappointment". Maybe you have some other term for it. But it strikes me that you came to some point of great emotional upheaval and disappointment in God and all things related with God.

Here is my question: Do you feel now that you have "risen" to some higher state of insight -- and that those who still hold to faith in God to be "blinded" in a way or somehow "less" -- I don't know -- "honest" or "insightful" or "observant" or "thoughtful" or maybe "intelligent"? Are you somehow superior now to the person you used to be? Or do you feel a loss in yourself? A -- maybe tiny -- empty spot inside that you used to feel more happy with?

[Stone holm]

It has occurred to me this weekend that many people have come to this condition -- which I term "their disappointment". Maybe you have some other term for it. But it strikes me that you came to some point of great emotional upheaval and disappointment in God and all things related with God.

Here is my question: Do you feel now that you have "risen" to some higher state of insight -- and that those who still hold to faith in God to be "blinded" in a way or somehow "less" -- I don't know -- "honest" or "insightful" or "observant" or "thoughtful" or maybe "intelligent"? Are you somehow superior now to the person you used to be? Or do you feel a loss in yourself? A -- maybe tiny -- empty spot inside that you used to feel more happy with?

I suspect for some they set a rather rigid truth test that does not allow them to say, "Hm, well this particular thing smells fishy so I will just kind of quarantine it in my mind for awhile". The result is that if anything smells of fish they throw the whole kit and kaboodle overboard. Well have to have a healthy ability to admit to possible inconsistencies and even contradictions as we continue to pursue the truth else wise we hit a bump and decide there is no such thing as truth.

[CASteinman]

I suspect for some they set a rather rigid truth test that does not allow them to say, "Hm, well this particular thing smells fishy so I will just kind of quarantine it in my mind for awhile". The result is that if anything smells of fish they throw the whole kit and kaboodle overboard. Well have to have a healthy ability to admit to possible inconsistencies and even contradictions as we continue to pursue the truth else wise we hit a bump and decide there is no such thing as truth.

Well, I was just wondering how it felt.

[Questing Beast]

It has occurred to me this weekend that many people have come to this condition -- which I term "their disappointment". Maybe you have some other term for it. But it strikes me that you came to some point of great emotional upheaval and disappointment in God and all things related with God.

Here is my question: Do you feel now that you have "risen" to some higher state of insight -- and that those who still hold to faith in God to be "blinded" in a way or somehow "less" -- I don't know -- "honest" or "insightful" or "observant" or "thoughtful" or maybe "intelligent"? Are you somehow superior now to the person you used to be? Or do you feel a loss in yourself? A -- maybe tiny -- empty spot inside that you used to feel more happy with?

My "upheaval" was religious not spiritual. I've never lost confidence in "God" and a loss of faith in dogmatic religion has made me think about "God" more than I ever did before. Nobody can give me knowledge about "God", I know that it must come from myself, with "God" showing me.

I immediately felt closer and more dependent on "God" when I admitted all at once that I had figuratively "jumped off a cliff", and left my religion studies behind, along with the testimony that those studies were attempting to build. Since that moment I have never tried to climb back up to the dead end that my path had ended at, the cliff. Instead I have wandered off in a pleasant mist, a mysterious and nonthreatening landscape, toward the next horizon above the mists. I fully expect to see where I have gone when I get "there", and the next valley of mysterious terrain that I cannot see into from the mistless ridge. But over that mist-filled valley I can see the next horizon that I am making for. Leaving out the imagery, I do not feel a bit more enlightened as regarding knowledge of facts or having answers. But I do feel "lighter" than I ever did before, as if my mind has been cleared out and is now slowly being refilled with metaphysical insights. I see "God" as infinitely greater than I ever conceived of God the Father, as Mormons understand him to be. My theology is now, I am finding out, much closer to the philosophic than the religious, although I have virtually no education in philosophy. Nothing about how I am makes me superior in any way, just different than I was, and I like the difference even with its uncertainty.

Elsewhere I recently paraphrased a quote that I heard a couple of days ago: how we need mystery more than answers. Further detail of that quote insists that by not seeking answers, but rather more of the mystery, we actually find out more about a thing that way. This must absolutely apply to thinking more about "God"....

[CASteinman]

I see "God" as infinitely greater than I ever conceived of God the Father, as Mormons understand him to be. My theology is now, I am finding out, much closer to the philosophic than the religious, although I have virtually no education in philosophy. Nothing about how I am makes me superior in any way, just different than I was, and I like the difference even with its uncertainty.

So .. seeing "God" as infinitely greater than Mormons do... doesn't make you better.

Why not?

[Stone holm]

Well, I was just wondering how it felt.

Oh my guess it feels kind of hollow until they fill it up with other stuff.

[Questing Beast]

I might be mistaken. Enthusiasm causes us to make mistakes, after all. I'm taking all of this very, very slowly, because I don't want to assume things that are not real in my world. I've asserted that imagination is all possible, since a finite mind cannot imagine something impossible to "God". But that does not mean that most of what I imagine is at all relevant to this world. So going forward carefully and as impassively as possible is probably a good policy....

[Robert F. Smith]

Fascinating dismissal from generality.

Have a fair-minded and unbiased third party read it. You sometimes have a hard time expressing yourself coherently, Beast.

Good for all of you. Are you suggesting that in order for a typical "layperson" to get sufficient insight into the blatant dichotomies in scripture, and religious assertions, that "we" must steep ourselves in years and years and years of esoteric lore, like you?

My point was that serious scholarship is not accomplished through by-gosh-and-by-golly learning. Rigor, formal discipline, and years of acquiring data, followed by serious engagement with the issues and with scholars who differ in interpretation (another form of peer review, through which we keep each other honest). You remind me of the sort of people who think that they can represent themselves in court despite not knowing anything about the law, or someone deciding to do brain surgery with no training. Perhaps in the movies anybody can be an amazing karate-ka with little or no training. In fact, in every discipline, it takes years of hard work and sacrifice -- along with an apprenticeship to a master.

"Supposed knowledge of BofM geography", is a dismissal of written evidence as invalid. Someone said, that JS said, blah blah blah about something about the BoM, ergo, it can be dismissed, since JS did not write it himself. If we limit what we think JS said to only our favorite sources, the ones we say are reliable, and chuck all the others as unreliable, then we have precious little left with which to engage others in discussion. It is apparent that JS did in fact say on many occasions things about BoM geography which do not fit the real world, and were contradictory.

Training in historiography and critical thinking skills might have helped you see what many mainstream historians regularly see: Surface impressions are often false. Being gullible about sources is merely one indicator of lack of training. Do you want to be a "rube," or do you want to take seriously the need to restrain yourself. You were so ready to just accept whatever Frederick G. Williams said. So here too, you are so ready to attribute authenticity to the cases in which it appears on the surface that Joseph wrote and published something. Real historians (Mormon and non-Mormon) are not so gullible. And, even in cases where Joseph may in fact have expressed an instant opinion, you apparently believe that he had some special insight or knowledge -- on geography, for example. Yet, we have no reason to believe that Joseph's having translated the BofM gave him any special insight into the geography at all. The same applies to his possible knowledge of ancient Egyptian. His translation wasn't based on his knowledge of geography or Egyptian, but on reading words off the surface of a stone (a solid-state LED?).

You are ignoring the additional definitive part where the text says "from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east", words to that effect. I am not going to look up the exact passage, it's there. Aside from the Sorensen approach, where the sea east and north are the same, because of the way Central America twists until Sorensen's "narrow neck of land" is now north and south instead of east and west, there is no way to show these north, south, east and west seas that the population filled up the lands between.

As with macuahuitls, you are a literalist who strains out gnats and swallows camels. If straw men seem second nature to you, so too does missing the real point about seeming difficulties. The kinds of formulaic and all-encompassing statements which concern you so deeply are utterly typical of writers even in modern times. Ordinary people regularly make untrue statements about the world which they know to be untrue, such as that the sun came up this morning, and it set later today. Of course the sun did not rise or set, but the Earth turned on its axis. You need to adopt hard-boiled standards.

What you take for sour grapes is my accepting that this becomes a poor use of my time, discussing physical evidence details, when these only formed a catalyst to my recognizing what my core problem with organized religion/dogma has been all along: and that is, God doesn't limit his work to that way. I can see no evidence at any juncture that mankind is any better or worse off in any or no religion: people are just as good without it and just as bad within it. Prophets are for their own folk, not to be extended as judges of the entire earth of unbelievers, etc. I don't "move goalposts", I return to other aspects of "my dilemma" when I have had enough of one aspect. You ought, since you've taken the time and made the effort to "research me", to grant that taken all together as a holistic objection to organized religion/dogma, there isn't anything I have said that can be construed as "moving goalposts"; I am not doing this to win any arguments. I am making points that I feel are valid.

A perfect example here of you moving the goal posts again, i.e., if your objection turns out to be false, then it didn't matter anyhow. That is either blatant dishonesty, or the offhand yokelization of serious thinking which you seem to thrive on. Wouldn't you rather talk turkey, i.e., deal with substantive rather than ephemeral issues?

Are you saying that or are you saying that I am saying that? Because I am saying that you are saying that excessive "critical thinking skills are required". And I am saying that if God wants study to result in acquired truth then the evidence should lead to it and not first to increased confusion. Or are most people just supposed to raise families and have no sufficient time to devote to real in depth study, ergo, turn off all critical thinking and just accept what their teachers tell them? BS. If anyone studies truth they should see it verified by all facts that come to light as they plod along, slowly adding on book after book, for as long as they choose to read more books. Instead, what we wind up with is controversy piled upon disagreement layered over denial and even caveats from the "teachers" that we ought not to go there, because it isn't "faith promoting" and we might damage or destroy our testimonies. More BS. The implication is that only "canon" ought to be our reading fare, leave the rest out. But if we do study from the rest, we realize that the sources taken by the Church are far more extensive than the official history allows, and say many more things than the history wants to be said; yet we are somehow supposed to ignore all of that left out stuff because it is unreliable or even dangerous. Cherry picking the source material is what churches do.

O.K. So anything you don't like is "excessive," or some other negative. God gave you a brain and presumably expects you to use it. Like driving skills, some of us take them more seriously than others, have less violations (tickets) and less accidents, and thus lower insurance premiums. That isn't a plot against the Beast, but merely common sense. What about all that is so difficult for you that you insist here on creating an extended straw man about religion and the Church? You may be annoyed and confused, but that is no reason to rail against imaginary persecution by a mythical religion. If you don't bring skepticism and your best critical thinking skills to the table, you are not really at that table.

I am wholly aware of the "grandeur" of Mormon theology and cosmology. It amounts to asserting a physical world as God's Home, near Kolob, far away from Earth, and an unbroken series of gods that did not create anything, but merely organized eternally existing matter and intelligences into some "plan of salvation" which denies any other idea on the subject as valid or possessing saving authority, etc. Yes, that's about it in a nutshell. Oh, one other aspect, we can also becomes gods if we obey, otherwise we will just be servants to "the gods".

That's a pretty sorry, straw man version of the grandeur of Mormon theology and cosmology. You cannot have read or thought much about the subject to come up with such a thin gruel.

The stuff left out of the official history, along the way, a process that all religions are guilty of. Mormonism is founded on a construct, after the fact, not evidence contemporary with Mormonism's founding. A neat story was put together over the years and we inherited it long after it was firmly in place. But the written evidence is there, and it doesn't take years and scores of books to see it repeated by honest scholars and historians like Todd Compton, for example.

I don't mind the position you take so much as the near totally incompetent way in which you take it. At least Sterling McMurrin, unbeliever though he was had good, coherent arguments to make. In so doing, he did not find it necessary to falsify the record or the facts. One astonishing example of that was an occasion many years ago when McMurrin (a professor at the Univ. of Utah) had a debate with Hugh Nibley (BYU), in which Nibley attacked some less desirable characteristics of BYU, and McMurrin actually defending BYU in response.

]I allowed for my ignorance, which isn't the first time and won't be the last. But "heaps of [Olmec] earth" do not prove the massive metal working for warfare that typified Jaredite civilization. Or were the "swords" that had cankered rusty blades rare specimens and the Limhites left all those macuahuitls behind?

Here you not only continue moving the goal posts from no iron, to no heaps of earth, to no "massive metal working for warfare," but that last even creates a straw man not justified by the BofM text. Have you no shame?

In order for the BoM and Bible to be "true" in the sense of exclusively true, i.e. all non Judeo-Christian religions and scientific evidence in direct refutation of literal scriptural truth claims, God would have to establish ONE religious approach and curse with ignorance and lack of presence/miracles/metaphysical events, all other religions but his "one true and living church". Instead we see billions of people including non believers in God, established in moral environments, seeking good far in excess of bad, behaving themselves justly, and making the world better with each passing generation. The world did not melt down because of two world wars and countless other wars of the last century, supposedly while the wicked were growing in number and wickedness, and the righteous were separating from them getting ready to hunker down for "the end times" ushering in the Millennium, etc. and etc. None of these countless billions of "others" believe in the BoM or even know it exists, and a few millions that do don't care, they have their own religion or don't want one. Show me how bad the world is today compared to yesterday. It's a paradigm without foundation.

The invidious straw man again. This time false claims about the LDS Church as being very narrow, superficial, and monomaniacal. The Joseph Smith and his successors who constantly argued that all religions have some truth is conveniently forgotten by you, well-named "Beast." Instead you offer a caricature as false as any ever offered.

And it was fundamentally believed by BY, et al. "authorities" of the LDS faith at one point. You are reduced to cherry picking what BY et al. authorities said, in order to bolster a religious world view that is revealed by God through priesthood authority. That same authority believed a lot of incorrect stuff and taught it as doctrine.

Who is really guilty of "cherry picking"?

If infallibility were an LDS doctrine, one might understand why you attack Brother Brigham for his racism and other short-comings, thus missing the forest for the trees. Of course it was reprehensible that Brigham did not rise to the height of understanding that Joseph possessed, but it was nothing unusual for the times, and just plain silly in view of LDS assumptions about the human nature of all religious leaders. Some Mormons are even raised to believe in that perfect, wartless view of LDS leaders, and then are shocked when reality intrudes. Since you clearly do not know the full history of African American members of the Church and that some were ordained early on and even served multiple missions before Brigham became President of the Church, your portrait on this matter lacks perspective and truth. You cherry pick the facts you seek to use as a weapon.

Facts are what I like. Not assertions and cherry picking over the sources....

I only wish that were true, but your own words convict you: "with what I feel is right, I will still follow what feels right." (post #96, same).

If you really were committed to facts, you wouldn't just wave them off so often. I frequently hear the Mormons condemned for following their feelings of the Holy Spirit. Would you have us believe that your feelings here are anything other than your own personal, emotional proclivities? Would you even believe the witness of the Holy Spirit?

Edited April 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Questing Beast]

Have a fair-minded and unbiased third party read it. You sometimes have a hard time expressing yourself coherently, Beast.

There is a difference between coherence and consistency. I thought you were pointing out that I am not consistent, that I "move the goalposts". I was addressing that assertion, asserting again that you are mistaken.

... Rigor, formal discipline, and years of acquiring data, followed by serious engagement with the issues and with scholars who differ in interpretation (another form of peer review, through which we keep each other honest). You remind me of the sort of people who think that they can represent themselves in court despite not knowing anything about the law, or someone deciding to do brain surgery with no training. Perhaps in the movies anybody can be an amazing karate-ka with little or no training. In fact, in every discipline, it takes years of hard work and sacrifice -- along with an apprenticeship to a master.

I have denied being a "scholar". I have admitted many times that I lack education in philosophy, and that goes for formal training in the study of history as well. Are you saying that for anyone to be able to grasp the context of Joseph Smith, et al. historical writers that s/he must go to university and get the paper? Are you saying that it is impossible to glean truth and perspective from a historical writer without the paper (just to be clear, I mean "degree")? Are you saying that someone studying Church history by reading Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al. "uneducated men and women", cannot read them and come to a true judgment of their words without getting the paper first?

Training in historiography and critical thinking skills might have helped you see what many mainstream historians regularly see: Surface impressions are often false. Being gullible about sources is merely one indicator of lack of training. Do you want to be a "rube," or do you want to take seriously the need to restrain yourself. You were so ready to just accept whatever Frederick G. Williams said. So here too, you are so ready to attribute authenticity to the cases in which it appears on the surface that Joseph wrote and published something. Real historians (Mormon and non-Mormon) are not so gullible. And, even in cases where Joseph may in fact have expressed an instant opinion, you apparently believe that he had some special insight or knowledge -- on geography, for example. Yet, we have no reason to believe that Joseph's having translated the BofM gave him any special insight into the geography at all. The same applies to his possible knowledge of ancient Egyptian. His translation wasn't based on his knowledge of geography or Egyptian, but on reading words off the surface of a stone (a solid-state LED?).

Interesting. You will qualify Joseph Smith's own quoted words, by dismissing Williams, et al. his contemporaries who said, "Joseph said this". We have very, very little in Joseph Smith's own hand. Shorthand was not used during his sermons, as it later was during B Young's discourses, so we only have incomplete recollection of what Joseph Smith actually said by a contemporary member of the congregations listening to Joseph Smith talk. When several accounts of his words are compared inconsistencies crop up. This has plagued Church historians and they have had to reconcile what he said. When he dictated to a scribe and went over the recorded dictation, i.e. the method of composition of the D&C and much of the Church History content, we have a (probably) more accurate recording of what he said. I am not aware that I have given veracity (a pass) to Williams or any other contemporary above Joseph Smith himself - which is why I take the 1832 hand-written account of his "first vision" over any other.

As with macuahuitls, you are a literalist who strains out gnats and swallows camels. If straw men seem second nature to you, so too does missing the real point about seeming difficulties. The kinds of formulaic and all-encompassing statements which concern you so deeply are utterly typical of writers even in modern times. Ordinary people regularly make untrue statements about the world which they know to be untrue, such as that the sun came up this morning, and it set later today. Of course the sun did not rise or set, but the Earth turned on its axis. You need to adopt hard-boiled standards.

A perfect example here of you moving the goal posts again, i.e., if your objection turns out to be false, then it didn't matter anyhow. That is either blatant dishonesty, or the offhand yokelization of serious thinking which you seem to thrive on. Wouldn't you rather talk turkey, i.e., deal with substantive rather than ephemeral issues?

You are mistaking abandonment of "the field" for moving goalposts again. I abandon the field all the time, when I point out again that "it doesn't matter", because none of it gets at the core problem: God does not establish one dogmatic religion and expect all who would "be saved" to fit themselves to it. That concept is not supported by any evidence other than the circular logic applied by "true believers". There is nothing to break the deadlock of mutually exclusive claims to "God's favor". That is why none of the sidebar topics "matter anyway", in the end. I am probably guilty of misleading through participation. I naturally, always, loved a good argument/debate. I was/am weak.

O.K. So anything you don't like is "excessive," or some other negative. God gave you a brain and presumably expects you to use it. Like driving skills, some of us take them more seriously than others, have less violations (tickets) and less accidents, and thus lower insurance premiums. That isn't a plot against the Beast, but merely common sense. What about all that is so difficult for you that you insist here on creating an extended straw man about religion and the Church? You may be annoyed and confused, but that is no reason to rail against imaginary persecution by a mythical religion. If you don't bring skepticism and your best critical thinking skills to the table, you are not really at that table.

You won't believe it, or might LOL to read this, but what I am using now is my best critical thinking. Compared to what I limited myself to when attempting to continue as a TBM, I am an amazingly critical thinker now. Perhaps this takes a lot more time, to really get over the way of thinking of the past, and adopt a fresher more effective approach. Those accepting the truth of a faith crisis probably suffer the collective effects of a sort of "collateral damage" to their mind, from all the years of being fed a dumbed-down dogmatic approach to seeing life, the universe and everything. It takes time to recover, for some a lifetime to recover, I guess.

That's a pretty sorry, straw man version of the grandeur of Mormon theology and cosmology. You cannot have read or thought much about the subject to come up with such a thin gruel.

Oh come on, asserting that there is essentially more to it is inaccurate. You can line up the stock scripture references. I know them all. Few they are indeed. The rest is just a paltry collection at attempts at "Mormon mysticism". We individually attach "add-ons" to the official doctrine vis-a-vis God and the afterlife. And what I gave in brief is not a "straw man". I am not knocking down anything, just pointing out that Mormon theology and cosmology is limiting, as are all other dogmatic, closed theologies and cosmologies. "Mormon mysticism" can finish up with, "We don't know more than this from the revelations", and then go on to give personal opinions about the unanswered questions. That is not "Mormon theology and cosmology", it is the added efforts of mystics.

I don't mind the position you take so much as the near totally incompetent way in which you take it. At least Sterling McMurrin, unbeliever though he was had good, coherent arguments to make. In so doing, he did not find it necessary to falsify the record or the facts. One astonishing example of that was an occasion many years ago when McMurrin (a professor at the Univ. of Utah) had a debate with Hugh Nibley (BYU), in which Nibley attacked some less desirable characteristics of BYU, and McMurrin actually defending BYU in response.

I do not know the man McMurrin, but I know Nibley "intimately" through his collected writings. I am sorry that you find my phraseology so "totally" incompetent/incoherent. Try to ignore me, it's probably the only way to remove the added stress I slip into your day.

Here you not only continue moving the goal posts from no iron, to no heaps of earth, to no "massive metal working for warfare," but that last even creates a straw man not justified by the BofM text. Have you no shame?

I am not doing what you say deliberately. The meaning of the BoM text (Mosiah and Ether) to me is that Jaredites left a welter of artifacts of their final war lying about in plain sight. Examples of this prodigious warfare were brought back to Limhi and his people by the explorers, which included metal (iron/steel) sword blades, not stone and wood weapons, nowhere described as typical of Jaredite civilization. The "Olmec" "heaps of earth" alluded to, that I was not previously aware of, do not suit the extensive refinement of iron ore if all they are is earth piled up to remove already usable metal from the ground, i.e. no smelting. You don't get iron/steel weapons in profusion (to arm millions of people) without leaving behind a lot of slag. So, not moving goalposts, but requiring evidence to fit the asserted facts. "Heaps of earth" in context must be slag heaps, since we have Jaredite swords of iron/steel. And so far as I know, the "Olmec" "heaps" are not slag heaps, just piles of rocks and dirt.

The invidious straw man again. This time false claims about the LDS Church as being very narrow, superficial, and monomaniacal. The Joseph Smith and his successors who constantly argued that all religions have some truth is conveniently forgotten by you, well-named "Beast." Instead you offer a caricature as false as any ever offered.

The LDS faith is just as narrow as any other exclusive religious paradigm; it requires all men to accept "Mormon" baptism and the following ordinances. It does men no good to "cling to their religion" if it is only a shadow of "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth". Muslims and Jews claim likewise, as do RCC members, and a host of lookalike denominations who assert that their way is "THE WAY". This is the ages-old dogmatic control applied, in this modern age, yet again. If I have ever used the words "superficial" or "monomaniacal" to describe religion (but I don't recollect ever doing so), I don't leave out any exceptions. All religions contain "some truth".

Who is really guilty of "cherry picking"?

If infallibility were an LDS doctrine, one might understand why you attack Brother Brigham for his racism and other short-comings, thus missing the forest for the trees. Of course it was reprehensible that Brigham did not rise to the height of understanding that Joseph possessed, but it was nothing unusual for the times, and just plain silly in view of LDS assumptions about the human nature of all religious leaders. Some Mormons are even raised to believe in that perfect, wartless view of LDS leaders, and then are shocked when reality intrudes. Since you clearly do not know the full history of African American members of the Church and that some were ordained early on and even served multiple missions before Brigham became President of the Church, your portrait on this matter lacks perspective and truth. You cherry pick the facts you seek to use as a weapon.

Since B Young is the successor to Joseph Smith's more enlightened "emancipation' of the Black Man, the Church has a problem with its history as having properly succeeded Joseph Smith, thus it's insistence on ignoring or passing off B Young's less savory teachings. Changing the history does not change the evidence. I know it was Joseph Smith who ordained Negroes, and B Young who relegated them back to subhuman status. And yes I use the word "subhuman" in its 19th century context, as applying to a race separate from all other (higher) race. The irony is that Joseph Smith's BoM is accused as a "racist book" because the Lamanites are "cursed with a skin of blackness", and by association Joseph Smith is accused of racism, when it was in fact B Young et al. who brought that distinction upon the Church as a "racist church", not Joseph Smith.

...

If you really were committed to facts, you wouldn't just wave them off so often. I frequently hear the Mormons condemned for following their feelings of the Holy Spirit. Would you have us believe that your feelings here are anything other than your own personal, emotional proclivities? Would you even believe the witness of the Holy Spirit?

Quite the opposite: I respect everyone who does his/her best to follow feelings, since "facts" are few and incomplete. As presented "facts" can be used to support wholly opposite pov. Not very useful. My disappointment with Mormon "history" actually began years before, with my disappointment with secular history. After finally reading the original sources (albeit in English, so not strictly "original" at that, but the best I and 99% of readers can do), I realized just how subjective the seminal histories are, how what I had taken as truth was actually highly influenced by observer bias, and worse still, in conflict with peers who held opposing pov, which further tainted the observer biases with the pursuit of eminence, i.e. peer consensus. The disseminating of history was secondary to winning. I saw/see little exception to this tendency in relating history. So not only is history "His Story" (heh, perhaps Michael Jackson's most insightful title to a piece of music), but it is pitted against his rivals' versions. When you take this back far enough, "history" isn't: it is polemical, sycophantic, political, in other words manipulated by the powers-that-be, always. Scripture is just religious history conveying dogma. The only way it can be useful to see into the mind of "God" is on an individual basis. And if "scripture" (the holy books) does not speak to an individual, there is plenty of other communication from "God" occurring in other literature and from the entire world continuously. Rather than "God" being remote and hard to find, "God" is in fact everywhere and "speaking" through creation all the time....

Edited April 2, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Robert F. Smith]

In virtually all your comments in reply to mine, Beast, you either missed the point or equivocated. Had you been in a high school or college class, turned in a composition on some subject, then received it back with a grade and some red marks here and there on it, you would basically ignore the teacher's comments. Since I am not your teacher, and you are not being graded for performance on this thread, I suppose that it doesn't matter much to you whether your performance here is adequate in someone else's opinion. You seem completely self-satisfied and unteachable. The RLDS Church Historian, Richard P. Howard, used to speak about a particular person's "invincible ignorance." Mostly that just comes from lack of humility -- the assumption that one has it all figured out, that any cognitive dissonance is undesirable and upsetting, so why entertain any other approaches to a subject?

You need a paradigm shift, Beast. And that can only come when you allow yourself to be challenged in a serious manner. I recommend some tough classes at a local college or university. Subject yourself to real learning challenges. Grow. Let your mind get wrenched around a bit. In the process, you'll find yourself renewed and reinvigorated for intellectual repartee. It's not about getting a degree, which is something I have not suggested. But it is about not carelessly running amuck with fallacies of every sort. I know TBMs every bit as shallow as you, so it has nothing to do with being a believer or not. It has to do with being honest and open to information and not imagining that you already have all bases covered. You clearly do not.