The Problem Of Historicity

[Vance]

The fact alone that Joseph pretended to translate documents that were later found (after the discovery of the rosetta stone) to be something completely different just conforms his previous reputation as a con-man.

Your "fact" is not a fact at all, but rather speculation. There is no proof that the extant documents are the ones from which JS translated.

But hey, don't let "facts" get in the way of posting someone else's drivel.

[Gazza]

Your "fact" is not a fact at all, but rather speculation. There is no proof that the extant documents are the ones from which JS translated.

But hey, don't let "facts" get in the way of posting someone else's drivel.

Nonsense, we only need go off of what pictures JS and the church has published themselves to know he didn't "translate" anything.

[3DOP]

Nonsense, we only need go off of what pictures JS and the church has published themselves to know he didn't "translate" anything.

 

Gazza, hello.

 

The thread, if I understand it, is of the highest importance for explaining to people like me and presumably you, why Mormonism is compatible with a philosophy that proposes that ALL history is subjective, and maybe even that all knowledge is subjective too. I don't think I can ever begin to agree with the view at all. I don't think all LDS today will be comfortable with it either. But who knows? I do see why this could be the future for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I see why it is appealing. It seems to me that much that is foundational in Mormonism, especially as it regards their exclusive claims to have Restored a lost Gospel, are incompatible with this new theory of knowledge. It seems to me that if this view is adopted, there is an inconsistency between a switchover to this ahistorical philosophy at this time, and the way Joseph Smith founded the Church, and the way his successors preached the Restoration and apostasy. I think there is lack of continuity there. But...there is lack of continuity between the Catholic Church of today, and the Catholic Church of Joseph Smith's day. How do I as a Catholic overcome that? What about your church? How do the claims of your church fare in the light and shadows of the nearly 2,000 years since Christ ascended to His Father? Okay, you don't have Book of Abraham problems. But you have problems. What are they?

 

Anyway, if they will win me, they have to appreciate how I believe. If I will win them, I have to appreciate how they believe. Otherwise, never the twain shall meet. Many are always okay with that. But I find in most serious Mormons a spirit that I have, a deep desire to share what they think is good and beautiful, and true, at least to them. That is why I keep hanging out with them. 

 

Regards and best wishes that you will join the ride here with deep convictions of your own, but prudent ways of explaining why we should join your church.

 

3DOP

Edited August 19, 2014 by 3DOP

[Gazza]

Gazza, hello.

 

The thread, if I understand it, is of the highest importance for explaining to people like me and presumably you, why Mormonism is compatible with a philosophy that proposes that ALL history is subjective, and maybe even that all knowledge is subjective too. I don't think I can ever begin to agree with the view at all. I don't think all LDS today will be comfortable with it either. But who knows? I do see why this could be the future for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I see why it is appealing. It seems to me that much that is foundational in Mormonism, especially as it regards their exclusive claims to have Restored a lost Gospel, are incompatible with this new theory of knowledge. It seems to me that if this view is adopted, there is an inconsistency between a switchover to this ahistorical philosophy at this time, and the way Joseph Smith founded the Church, and the way his successors preached the Restoration and apostasy. I think there is lack of continuity there. But...there is lack of continuity between the Catholic Church of today, and the Catholic Church of Joseph Smith's day. How do I as a Catholic overcome that? What about your church? How do the claims of your church fare in the light and shadows of the nearly 2,000 years since Christ ascended to His Father? Okay, you don't have Book of Abraham problems. But you have problems. What are they?

 

Anyway, if they will win me, they have to appreciate how I believe. If I will win them, I have to appreciate how they believe. Otherwise, never the twain shall meet. Many are always okay with that. But I find in most serious Mormons a spirit that I have, a deep desire to share what they think is good and beautiful, and true, at least to them. That is why I keep hanging out with them. 

 

Regards and best wishes that you will join the ride here with deep convictions of your own, but prudent ways of explaining why we should join your church.

 

3DOP

 

Hello,

 

Great points.  I think you misunderstand my position.  I do have book of Abraham problems, big ones, its in fact something that indisputabley proves Joseph Smith to be a fraud. 

Other problems?  Please read the article "three strikes your out.." in my post here.  The BoM is disprovable on several levels.  It claims that plants, animals, socieities, and certain people or decenscencts were in mesoamerica when we know otherwise. 

 

As for your catholothism, I suggest you research the first thousand years of Christianity, and pre-christian mythology and religions.  Belief in the bible and Christ is nearly as rediculous, here is a good watch, note the timeline in the first 10 min. --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik7GRQ9hoVY.

 

I would read up on http://www.exmormon.org/, before thinking about joining. 

.

[Gazza]

May I call you Schultz?  Like Schultz (hogans Hero's) your post shows you "know understand nothinggggg". 

 

Nothing? Hmmm, why don't you go ahead and address any of the points raised, or perhaps your faith is too high and your education level too low to understand the issues. 

 

I was raised in the Church BTW, I've probably forgoten more about religion than you know.

 

G

 

The article link again, since it was cut...

 

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/three-strikes-youre-outthe-quick-and-dirty-case-against-mormonism-367.html

[teddyaware]

Nothing? Hmmm, why don't you go ahead and address any of the points raised, or perhaps your faith is too high and your education level too low to understand the issues. 

 

I was raised in the Church BTW, I've probably forgoten more about religion than you know.

 

G

 

The article link again, since it was cut...

 

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/three-strikes-youre-outthe-quick-and-dirty-case-against-mormonism-367.html

The thing you don't understand is that to a testimony-bearing Latter-day Saint it's the powerful inspiration found in the end product of Joseph Smith's translations that matter and not whether or not the Prophet  translated ancient scriptural records in a way that conforms to the usual meaning of the word translate. I know by the revelations of the Spirit that the prophet's translations are true, and I get closer and closer to God each time I read them and abide by the divine precepts found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

From my vantage point, former members of the LDS Church who unwisely attempt to bring down the Restored Kingdom of God are unwittingly fulfilling the prophecy of Lehi's dream, wherein he saw those who once held fast to the iron rod and partook of the precious fruit of the tree of life but then wander off into forbidden paths. Eventually these former believers cross the spiritual Rubicon, as it were, and are at last found numbered among those who stand at the windows of the large and spacious building, pointing in solemn mockery at those who remain steadfast and faithful to the Restored Kingdom. Nothing but frustration and disillusionment will be the fruit the apostate's labors because, come what may, God's holy decrees concerning the ultimate triumph of the Restored Kingdom will be fulfilled:

“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” (Joseph Smith)

Edited August 19, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

You brush over the book of Abraham like it's no big deal.  The fact alone that Joseph pretended to translate documents that were later found (after the discovery of the rosetta stone) to be something completely different just conforms his previous reputation as a con-man.  http://mormonismdisproved.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-of-abraham-fraud-explained.html

 

Morover, there are archaeloloical fallacies, anthropological fallacies, and biological fallacies that disprove the BOM--

 

Three Strikes, You're Out!--The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism

Kyle J. Gerkin

The Mormon religion was built on a 19th century American-Christian foundation. Thus, Mormons share many Christian convictions, such as a belief in the divinity of Jesus, and a reverence for the Christian Bible as a sacred text. To be sure, Mormon doctrine has enough theological peculiarities to put it outside of the pale of what many would consider "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity, but perhaps not more so than dozens of other Christian sects. In any case, due to its Christian basis, the same general arguments can be made against Mormonism as can be offered in opposition to Christianity. However, Mormonism has one particularly unique feature, which sets it apart, and opens it to the charge of demonstrable falsehood: The Book of Mormon (BoM).

Mormonism's founder and first "prophet," Joseph Smith, was purportedly visited by an angel named Moroni on the night of September 21, 1823 in Palmyra, New York.[1] Moroni informed Joseph that he was chosen to do God's work, and directed him to unearth a set of "golden plates" from a nearby hill. Upon the plates was recorded an ancient history of the American Indians. Apparently due to a lack of purity, Joseph was not allowed to recover the plates until four years later, at which point he began to "translate" them. According to Joseph, they were written in a hieroglyphic language known as "reformed Egyptian." His method of "translation" was to stare into a set of "seer stones"; an action which was followed by the appearance of the text in Joseph's mind, conveniently translated into King James-style English. Joseph could then dictate to his scribe who sat on the other side of a curtain, behind which the scribe was forbidden to peek.[2] In this way, the BoM was produced. After the book was published in 1830, the plates were whisked away to heaven by the angel Moroni.

 

Please do not put large amounts of cut & paste on our board. Reduced to Fair Use.

Very old news.

 

There are lots of threads about the BOA and THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.  Take it to another thread please.  You are clearly not well informed about the Mormon side of this VERY old argument.

 

Get informed and then make an intelligent argument after you understand the issues.

[mfbukowski]

And yet your journey to this belief in and testimony didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened as a direct result of other people. Either other people in the past leaving their written testimony or other people in the present talking to you about their experience. 

Wrong.

 

All I did was read Moroni 10:4

[mfbukowski]

OK I do not want to make this a Book of Abraham thread

 

Stop discussing it or as OP I will have the thread closed.

[danielwoods]

Wrong.

 

All I did was read Moroni 10:4

 

Now you're contradicting yourself. Unless you want to claim that Moroni 10:4 wasn't written by someone in the past? 

[Vance]

Nonsense, we only need go off of what pictures JS and the church has published themselves to know he didn't "translate" anything.

LOL!!!!

First you claim that the extant document WAS the source of JS's translation and NOW you claim that it wasn't.

In the future, please keep your story straight.

Now, back to the real topic of this thread.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nonsense, we only need go off of what pictures JS and the church has published themselves to know he didn't "translate" anything.

Uh, OK well..... see you there. Where do I turn in my temple recommend? You have convinced me wholly that JS "made it all up".

 

The "pictures" prove it. Lol hahahahah. Probably the best argument I have heard in years. I mean that seriously. It has been years since I heard something so utterly stupid.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

OK I do not want to make this a Book of Abraham thread

 

Stop discussing it or as OP I will have the thread closed.

OK. I just had to post what I did because this dude clearly has no clue. So that is the last I will talk about it on this thread. Carry on.

[ERayR]

Nothing? Hmmm, why don't you go ahead and address any of the points raised, or perhaps your faith is too high and your education level too low to understand the issues. 

 

I was raised in the Church BTW, I've probably forgoten more about religion than you know.

 

G

 

The article link again, since it was cut...

 

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/three-strikes-youre-outthe-quick-and-dirty-case-against-mormonism-367.html

 

Deleted - not relevant to thread

Edited August 19, 2014 by ERayR

[Spammer]

Delete.   

Edited August 19, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Delete.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I am repeating this for a reason because it is so CRYSTAL clear to me and so hard for people to understand and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.  You are not the only one.

 

WE CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A WORLD OF OBJECTS DISTINCT FROM OURSELVES.

 

WE CANNOT KNOW ABOUT SUCH A WORLD BECAUSE KNOWING ABOUT IT MAKES SUCH A WORLD NOT DISTINCT FROM OURSELVES BY DEFINITION

 

We cannot get outside ourselves and say - "Oh - look! there is a world I cannot experience just over there" BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD BE TO EXPERIENCE IT!

 

And if we cannot know about it, certainly we cannot see if it "corresponds" to anything we DO know about.

 

We cannot know about what we cannot know about!!!

 

So the question doesn't even make sense!

 

Is that clear at all?

 

I know it is a major paradigm shift with how one sees reality, but it is as clear as can be once you see that.  The position becomes indisputable.  That's why virtually all philosophers of this generation hold something like this position

 

Edit:

Richard Rorty puts this much better than I have:

 

If what we know about the "world out there" isn't determined by the object known, if all we experience is our subjective states and not the "world out there", i.e., if our knowing is determined by those states, then we can never logically claim to know anything about the world, or even that there really is a "world out there".  Rorty says it's common sense to believe this, but if he also thinks that "We cannot know anything about the world of objects distinct from ourselves" he has no ground to believe it.   Unless something in our thoughts and language corresponds to the external world, we have no basis for determining whether any proposition about the world is true or false, even the most basic of propositions about external reality that "there really is a world out there distinct from ourselves".  Believing we aren't brains in vats becomes an article of faith, not anything based on knowledge or experience.  That means you have no basis to determine whether the powerful spiritual experiences you've had validly refer to God or to some other external cause, or to some flaw in your subjective experience apparatus.  To say "I know the Book of Mormon is true" thus has nothing to do with anything external to you (e.g. God, Joseph Smith, the text of Moroni 10:4, Moroni himself, the LDS Church, your fellow ward members who bear their testimonies about experiences they've had similar to your own, etc., all of whom may or may not exist, you can never really know since you're trapped inside of a purely subjective world with no objective referents).  Given the position you take, I can see how you can validly say that you experienced what you experienced, but can't see how you can reasonably link those experience to anything outside of yourself, anything that isn't you.  You've ruled out any possible correspondence between those subjective experiences and anything outside of your subjective self.  Saying "God revealed something to me" is therefore meaningless.  It's just language...mere words that have no connection to anything real outside of your brain.

 

IMO, this is just a situation of wanting your cake and eating it too.  The pragmatic philosophy you employ destroys the foundation for any knowledge of a reality outside of ourselves but you still assert that you have knowledge of something outside of yourself, namely God.  As I asked in a previous post, why does God get a pass when we "cannot know anything about the world of objects distinct from ourselves"?  What are the grounds for concluding that God is the author of your spiritual experiences (as a Mormon you surely believe God is distinct from you and is therefore an object)?  On what objective basis do you make that determination, as opposed to a purely subjective "I just know"?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Albert Einstein.

[ERayR]

 I can see how you can validly say that you experienced what you experienced, but can't see how you can reasonably link those experience to anything outside of yourself, anything that isn't you.  You've ruled out any possible correspondence between those subjective experiences and anything outside of your subjective self.

 

For me:  When it is about something outside of me (Moroni's promise) it is a personal experience that connects me to that outside event/thing.  I can share it but I can not give it.  You must get your own.

[Spammer]

For me:  When it is about something outside of me (Moroni's promise) it is a personal experience that connects me to that outside event/thing.  I can share it but I can not give it.  You must get your own.

 

If "we cannot know anything about the world of objects distinct from ourselves" then you don't know that Moroni's promise exists outside of you and is distinct from you.  You can never know, in principle, whether your personal experience connects you to anything outside of you.

[ERayR]

If "we cannot know anything about the world of objects distinct from ourselves" then you don't know that Moroni's promise exists outside of you and is distinct from you.  You can never know, in principle, whether your personal experience connects you to anything outside of you.

 

It is sufficient.  Can you prove anything really exists outside of yourself?

[Spammer]

It is sufficient.  Can you prove anything really exists outside of yourself?

 

Nope.  This will make for an interesting conversation the next time missionaries stop by to see how my family is doing.  As always, they'll turn to inviting me to come back.  I'll say "I don't think so.  I have no idea whether you exist and you have no idea whether I exist.  What would be the point?  For all I know, I'm a brain in a vat and you're a figment.  I just think I'll keep doing what I'm doing.  Thanks, anyway!"  I've never tried that approach.  Could be fun.  

Edited August 19, 2014 by Spammer

[ERayR]

Nope.  This will make for an interesting conversation the next time missionaries stop by to see how my family is doing.  As always, they'll turn to inviting me to come back.  I'll say "I don't think so.  I have no idea whether you exist and you have no idea whether I exist.  What would be the point?  For all I know, I'm a brain in a vat and you're a figment.  I just think I'll keep doing what I'm doing.  Thanks, anyway!"  I'm never tried that approach.  Could be fun.  

 

Faith is the acceptance of things outside of ourselves. 

[Spammer]

Faith is the acceptance of things outside of ourselves. 

 

With no basis on which to conclude that your experiences correspond with anything outside of yourself, that faith, all faith, is blind.  With such a philosophy, the only response to someone saying "I know the church is true" is "no, you don't know that".  Without a philosophy that allows for correspondence between what you experience and the world outside, you can never honestly say that you know anything outside of yourself.  

Edited August 19, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Now you're contradicting yourself. Unless you want to claim that Moroni 10:4 wasn't written by someone in the past? 

Oh gosh.

 

Nevermind.