How Did Joseph Smith Know All Of This?

[why me]

If you need it to be, fine. More power to you. But don't presume that it has to be for everyone.

I never presumed otherwise. However I can challenge your assumptions.

[canard78]

Well, this is true. What we know is that 11 men saw the plates and gave testimony to it.

Again, would have to challenge this. We know that 11 men said they had seen plates. We don't know what they saw. Only what they said they saw. The witness statement of the 8 was not written by them. We don't even have an original with their signature on.

But what does that prove? Maybe nothing. But then we need to ask why would they do it their all life and also on their deathbeds. If these plates did not exist I would say that these men had terrible lives knowing that they lied and people were suffering for that lie. Likewise for Emma who also felt the plates under a cloth, so she claims.

I suppose that when it comes to faith, we have no proof. Sad. But it does make the journey interesting.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. I don't know what they saw or how or what the memory of it became. I agree that they never denied it.

Proof would indeed by handy sometimes. There's obviously some incredible quality to faith that I don't fully understand. Behaviour based on faith and even uncertainty perhaps has the ability to build Christlike humans in a way that proof does not.

[pdkegel]

Hello.

Biblical Hebrew tends to write only consonants and LONG vowels. Hebrew "kelev" (dog), using Latin letter equivalents, is written "klb.

All known oral languages use vowels and consonants although some languages in the Caucasus' region have only one or two vowels.

[Calm]

The witness statement of the 8 was not written by them. We don't even have an original with their signature on.

Do you see that as an issue given that they never said something along the lines of "Oh, by the way, that witness statement that has my name on it, not really how I wanted to describe the experience; I would have said....."?

[MDalby]

I think this thread would be incomplete if we failed to also include the finding of the Nihmite (NHM) altars that are in the right place, in the right time period and also in the right relationship to another place as what is stated in the Book of Mormon.

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom (NHM).

(1 Nephi 16:34)

[Calm]

Behaviour based on faith and even uncertainty perhaps has the ability to build Christlike humans in a way that proof does not.

Faith demands a person put themselves on the line for something they believe in, but cannot prove. There is little risk in doing something because one knows it is right, there is much more personal engagement and commitment, imo, when we have to actually think and analyse whether or not we should do something, whether or not it is "good".

When everyone agrees a war is wrong and millions are marching in protest to it, one may feel great to be part of the crowd, but does one really give of oneself in such an action? Contrast that to marching in a protest to a war where the vast majority of your community is in support of...what that might mean to how different you experience that protest, the fear, the potential of being rejected by those you care about....how much more important does that belief and action supporting that belief become to you?

And therefore how much more lifechanging accepting fully and being willing to stand up for that belief will be...

Edited August 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Do you see that as an issue given that they never said something along the lines of "Oh, by the way, that witness statement that has my name on it, not really how I wanted to describe the experience; I would have said....."?

You're right of course. No-one ever retracted their testimony.

[Questing Beast]

If a person disbelieves the book of mormon, it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true.

I have no trouble with a metaphysical source for all mystical writings. Some of us live more in the metaphysical realm than the empirical, or at least sometimes in the metaphysical more than the empirical. Those would be the times when revelations occur, and inspired writing that even contains little known or unknown details. Everything to "God" is NOW, so there are no such things as anachronisms from that Source....

[cinepro]

(I've probably used my entire sarcasm quotient for the day in one post).

For shame!

[why me]

Do you see that as an issue given that they never said something along the lines of "Oh, by the way, that witness statement that has my name on it, not really how I wanted to describe the experience; I would have said....."?

You are right. And not to mention that fact that many of the Whitmer's left the church and still left their name attached to the book of mormon. But for Canard, this proves nothing except perhaps the witnesses lived a lie until they died.

[Calm]

You are right. And not to mention that fact that many of the Whitmer's left the church and still left their name attached to the book of mormon. But for Canard, this proves nothing except perhaps the witnesses lived a lie until they died.

Please don't put words in canard's mouth. That isn't fair, civil or kind.

[canard78]

For shame!

Wow. So not only does the Ensign teach us that we have to believe in a literal flood, but it also says that the entire communication system of the United Kingdom is evil.

I was chatting with my Mum the other day and she said "I really miss the days when the Ensign was a place where you could find really well researched articles." And this from one of the most devoted members I know.

[canard78]

You are right. And not to mention that fact that many of the Whitmer's left the church and still left their name attached to the book of mormon. But for Canard, this proves nothing except perhaps the witnesses lived a lie until they died.

Please refer to this post for my perspective on what you've just said.

[jwhitlock]

Wow. So not only does the Ensign teach us that we have to believe in a literal flood, but it also says that the entire communication system of the United Kingdom is evil.

I was chatting with my Mum the other day and she said "I really miss the days when the Ensign was a place where you could find really well researched articles." And this from one of the most devoted members I know.

Well golly, it would appear that you have absolute evidence that there was no flood. Please do provide that evidence so we can all bathe in the enlightened glow that skeptics so clearly exude.

And since dear old Mum was obviously being sarcastic, that seems to categorize your own attempt to redefine what the Ensign is saying as a bit of a contradiction. It seems to me that this particular pot shot at the church backfired a bit.

[canard78]

Well golly, it would appear that you have absolute evidence that there was no flood. Please do provide that evidence so we can all bathe in the enlightened glow that skeptics so clearly exude.

And since dear old Mum was obviously being sarcastic, that seems to categorize your own attempt to redefine what the Ensign is saying as a bit of a contradiction. It seems to me that this particular pot shot at the church backfired a bit.

I was wondering if someone would get riled at my sarcasm. Given it was intended and commenting on the ills of sarcasm that's also called irony.

Though now I've had to explain it I suppose it's now just a damp squib.

As for the flood. Oh, I don't know... Maybe take a trip on a boat to the many islands of Asia pacific where creatures unique to those islands live and have done for 1000s of years. Then tell me how Noah got a mating pair from that island and kept them fed and away from predators in a small boat for a month. Then once you've worked that out tell me how he managed to take a tour around Asia pacific dropping them back off on each island before getting washed up on mount Sinai.

I'm happy with some of the lessons represented in the story (except for the one about a God that would drown 99.99% of all living humans and creatures by way of 'reboot') but the notion that every living creature today can trace their origins to a mating pair 5,000 years ago is somewhat ridiculous.

That's not a critical view. I know lots of faithful Mormons who see the Noah story as either symbolic and/or geographically limited.

3 Nephi talks about the whole earth shaking. But I take it to mean "the whole earth that we Nephites are aware of." Not the entire planet.

[canard78]

I never presumed otherwise. However I can challenge your assumptions.

That's true. You can. Challenge away. This board would be a bit boring if we all just shared assumptions without a challenge.

So here are my assumptions/beliefs which I'm happy to have challenged:

- I believe God inspires men to write scripture in different times and cultures.

- I believe the affect of applying the principles of claimed scripture is a better test of its validity than praying about it or in studying its historical origin, but I accept the last two still have merit.

- I don't think Joseph was a fraud or con artist. Nor do I think his successors were.

- I think it's possible for Joseph to be a prophet and for Nephi etc to have never existed.

- I think the Nephites might have existed. I doubt this will ever be proven by historical study. But historical study can show that they could have existed.

- I think there is viability to some of the evidence for the Book of Mormon's ancient origin, but not all of it. Some of it is just coincidence.

- I think there is viability to some of the evidence for the Book of Mormon's modern origin, but not all of it. Some of it just coincidence.

- I believe that whoever was the original author (Nephi/Mormon or Joseph) that ultimately the inspiration for the content came from a divine source. Probably not word for word, but the principles and lessons are divine, not entirely man-made.

- I do not believe Skousen/others theory that Joseph was simply an AV system for God. I don't believe he was reading off a spiritual TelePrompter.

How did Joseph produce the Book of Mormon? I believe exactly what we claim. He dictated the book by revelation/inspiration.

My 'hung verdict' on the origin is a different process of study to the question of whether the words in book that exists today are of divine origin or not.

I'm happy to discuss either. But the conclusion of the first will not make or break the conclusion of the second.

[Calm]

Maybe take a trip on a boat to the many islands of Asia pacific where creatures unique to those islands live and have done for 1000s of years. Then tell me how Noah got a mating pair from that island and kept them fed and away from predators in a small boat for a month.

Cryogenics...once frozen, he could just stack them all up in the extra large walk in freezer to thus only require one cyrogenic unit.

[canard78]

Cryogenics...once frozen, he could just stack them all up in the extra large walk in freezer to thus only require one cyrogenic unit.

That... at the very least... is a theory

[jwhitlock]

I was wondering if someone would get riled at my sarcasm. Given it was intended and commenting on the ills of sarcasm that's also called irony.

Though now I've had to explain it I suppose it's now just a damp squib.

Intended sarcasm goes both ways, doesn't it - though I don't see any need to explain mine.

As for the flood. Oh, I don't know... Maybe take a trip on a boat to the many islands of Asia pacific where creatures unique to those islands live and have done for 1000s of years. Then tell me how Noah got a mating pair from that island and kept them fed and away from predators in a small boat for a month. Then once you've worked that out tell me how he managed to take a tour around Asia pacific dropping them back off on each island before getting washed up on mount Sinai.

I'm happy with some of the lessons represented in the story (except for the one about a God that would drown 99.99% of all living humans and creatures by way of 'reboot') but the notion that every living creature today can trace their origins to a mating pair 5,000 years ago is somewhat ridiculous.

That's not a critical view. I know lots of faithful Mormons who see the Noah story as either symbolic and/or geographically limited.

3 Nephi talks about the whole earth shaking. But I take it to mean "the whole earth that we Nephites are aware of." Not the entire planet

Easy to cast doubt, and bring up all kinds of questions when there's really no intent to try to understand what the story of the flood, for instance, really means.

We present valid scenarios that are very possible for the truth claims of Joseph Smith. Instead of presenting compelling evidence as to why those scenarios are not possible, skeptics instead try to raise question of doubt or just dismiss those scenarios as invalid. It's SOP and it doesn't take much of a gift to develop that particular method of criticizing the church.

So when we get to something like the flood, and critics sneer about the church's viewpoint on the flood, I expect to see compelling evidence telling me why it didn't happen and couldn't have happened, not just questions about things that don't have ready explanations that can be trumpeted as some kind of "proof". They aren't proof, they're rationalized support for doubts.

Such shallowness of methodology can be demonstrated in response to your last observation about how "ridiculous" it is for current populations to trace their origins to one mating pair. You seem to forget that particular scenario happens all the time in nature in closed ecosystems, such as species being released on islands and breeding large populations that have no genetic flaws. Many species do that; the inbreeding problems related to humans are a current restriction of our DNA. It is by no means impossible that such inbreeding ab humans did not cause abnormalities in the past, since we do know that significant DNA changes can occur in short periods of time.

So now I've offered a plausible counter to one of your doubt-casting questions. That can be repeated for all of them, and that's where the difference between us becomes apparent. Unfettered with skeptical doubts, I can now try to understand what the story of the flood really means, while those driven by their doubts effectively bar themselves from coming to an understanding of the truth.

And the same applies to Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham. Understanding that Joseph was called of God and the BoA was given by God enables me to then try to understand the truths both taught / teach, and the enlightenment that comes from them. Dan's observations demonstrate the plausibility of the truth claims of both, and then it is left to us either confine ourselves by our skepticism or free ourselves with the knowledge both provide.

Good luck with your chosen path.

[canard78]

Easy to cast doubt, and bring up all kinds of questions when there's really no intent to try to understand what the story of the flood, for instance, really means.

-SNIP-

Good luck with your chosen path.

And good luck with yours... or were you still being sarcastic?

Can I just check? You'd like to turn this thread into a debate on who has the most evidence for/against a global flood? If so, could you define how far you take the literal global flood? One that covered the whole globe, killing all other humans and birds/land animals/insects other than the ones who went into and came out of the ark? One that was 15 cubits above the highest land peak (Everest). I'm willing to have this discussion but I want to be certain what basis we have it on. MDalby, if you object just say the word.

If people want to read the Old Testament literally that's fine. I just don't think it's a topic that the Ensign needs to dictate to Mormons. It's not a 'faith requirement' to believe in a literal read of the Old Testament.

It is this line in particular I object to:

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Really? All LDS belong to this group? So given I don't accept the literal message of the global flood, only the symbolic one (and possibly a 'half-history' or 'limited geography' one) does that disqualify me from being Latter-day Saints?

[Bikeemikey]

If a person disbelieves the book of mormon, it would be best served to come up with an idea about how it came to be and then, find if that way were realistically possible through research. If this can't be done than it is only wishful thinking that it were not true.

Religious belief is not a rational assessment of facts.

This kind of thinking regarding religion is just silly.

[MDalby]

Can I just check? You'd like to turn this thread into a debate on who has the most evidence for/against a global flood? If so, could you define how far you take the literal global flood? One that covered the whole globe, killing all other humans and birds/land animals/insects other than the ones who went into and came out of the ark? One that was 15 cubits above the highest land peak (Everest). I'm willing to have this discussion but I want to be certain what basis we have it on. MDalby, if you object just say the word.

I would prefer that we keep this thread regarding the OP and not sidetracked on the flood. Thanks Canard!

[jwhitlock]

Can I just check? You'd like to turn this thread into a debate on who has the most evidence for/against a global flood? If so, could you define how far you take the literal global flood? One that covered the whole globe, killing all other humans and birds/land animals/insects other than the ones who went into and came out of the ark? One that was 15 cubits above the highest land peak (Everest). I'm willing to have this discussion but I want to be certain what basis we have it on. MDalby, if you object just say the word.

Last I looked, you were the one who brought up the flood as another way to criticize the church - just as you've expressed the same skepticism about Joseph Smith. I merely responded back that you obviously must have compelling evidence that it did NOT happen. I also responded that critics like to cast doubt, but don't seem to ever present absolute evidence that things aren't what the church claims.

So far, you simply continue to try to cast doubt without presenting compelling evidence to the contrary that makes it clear it couldn't have happened. I've responded to one of your doubt-casting claims (which I noticed you didn't bother to respond to), so I'm going to assume that you really don't have any compelling evidence at this point.

Again, considering that you brought it up, I find it disingenuous that you say I want to turn this into a debate about the flood. Nice piece of misdirection there.

Edit - and it even looks like you hoodwinked MDalby into believing I was turning it into a debate. Quite deceptive, I'd say.

If people want to read the Old Testament literally that's fine. I just don't think it's a topic that the Ensign needs to dictate to Mormons. It's not a 'faith requirement' to believe in a literal read of the Old Testament.

It is this line in particular I object to:

https://www.lds.org/...-babel?lang=eng

Really? All LDS belong to this group? So given I don't accept the literal message of the global flood, only the symbolic one (and possibly a 'half-history' or 'limited geography' one) does that disqualify me from being Latter-day Saints?

Have you written in to the Ensign to express your particular concern about this? I've found that any subject has at least two (and usually more) sides that can be supported with whatever evidence supporters want to muster. Personally, I don't find the flood issue worth arguing about and I don't base any part of my faith on any particular interpretation of what might have happened. However, since I don't doubt the foundational truth claims of the church and its prophets (and the number of foundational claims are really quite simple and limited), and since the flood is not one of those foundational truth claims, I can take a more dispassionate look at the flood and understand that there are ways that a global flood could have happened. They're as plausible as the doubt claims you list.

In this thread, my main interest is simply at looking at how critics undermine the truth claims of the church by casting doubt. I find reasonable and plausible evidence (from a rational standpoint) to support the church in its foundational truth claims, including the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Book of Abraham as scripture. I can do as well with plausible counterpoints to your doubt claims (such as you making an assumption that Everest actually existed at the time of the flood), but somehow I don't think that they would be accepted.

So let us know if you have something really, truly compelling that is the silver bullet that busts at least one church foundational truth claim, let alone all of them. Casting doubt doesn't count.

Edited August 3, 2013 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

Religious belief is not a rational assessment of facts.

Garbage. Absolute rubbish.

[Calm]

Religious belief is not a rational assessment of facts.

This kind of thinking regarding religion is just silly.

Religious belief is rational thought combined with faith...faith and reason both contribute. Reason allows for faith to be nurtured.