Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[HappyJackWagon]

If we don't know how we got it then how do we know its wrong?

Because what we were originally told is verifiably false with the evidence we have.

Abraham did not write it with his own hand.

The JS translations of the facimilies do not match scholarly translations by those who can read the language and are familiar with the funery texts and images.

 

This leaves us with scripture that was received by a process that is accepted by the church as inaccurate and provides a text which is verifiably inaccurate.

[DBMormon]

DB,

 

Some on this board are just going to be haters. Don't let them slow you down. You're doing a great work which I personally find much value in. Your podcasts have been helpful to me too. Keep up the great work.

 

That said, your post back a couple of pages ago stated that even if we had the plates and the BoM texts were proven not to be a translation you would not do mental gymnastics to explain why it can still work. You will accept that there is no good evidence or reasoning but you will still believe. To find truth I think we need to be open to the idea that what we currently choose to accept might be wrong and not dig our heals in to say "I'm going to believe it anyway."

 

 

Happy Jack, Thank you for your words.  In reference to you saying that we all need to accept the repercussions of truth and let things go rather than hold on, I should clarify.  The issue in my mind is not that simple as I don't see the issue in a vacuum.  I totally agree if we are talking about one issue you are absolutely right, if proven to be not true and mental gymnastics are needed, then we should be willing to abandon nonsense in favor of truth no matter the cost.  I am 100% with you on that.  The issue for me is we are talking about 100's of issues and spiritual experiences.

 

Reasons to have faith and stay

- Book or mormon is a vehicle for truth for me

- Church more than any other entity brings me sanctification

- My spiritual experiences while serving a s a Bishop were more than warm fuzzies

- When I Asked God about leaving the Church (at the low of my crisis) I received a direct answer from what I interpret as God that shared with me that while he was not at this moment going to tell me about ultimate truth, he was willing to tell me that the Church is where "I" needed to be and I would be worse off leaving the Church.

- there are 100's of these reasons

- Many Doctrines (premortal life, eternal families, sanctification and justification, and others) all speak to my heart very directly

- I see evidences that I don't think the critic explains away well (Chiasmus, Apocalypse of Adam, Is name your person (Oliver, Sidney R., and others) deceived or part of the fraud as both angles have deep holes)

 

Reasons to leave and let go of belief

- narrative much different than church and its members taught me

- church seemed content with me holding false narrative

- BOM has viable problems

- BOA has viable problems

- Joseph's behavior has viable problems

- I don't align my belief the same as the Church wants me to align my beleif

- I feel I am ahead of the Church on social issues

 

there are 100's of these

 

In the end it is which evidence, experience, and beliefs I value and in the end I see the decision as an act of agency (Agency I did not have when it all fit perfectly  and seemed undoubtedly true or when I was in the dark night of the soul and all was obviously false) and absolutely a choice.

 

I choose to stay (with the caveat of my reasons to leave and disbelieve far outweigh my reasons to stay and believe and have faith... and I am not reacting out of emotional angst)

 

That is how i see this as more complex than your perception of what I am saying.

Edited November 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[DragonLancer]

Well, anyhow, I've spent enough time on this thread, and I think that what I have said has been adequate to represent my point of view.  If you are not interested, more power to you.  If you wish to dismiss my work, more power to you.  If you wish to profit by my work, more power to you.    Good day.

 

Ed Goble

[DBMormon]

here's a question to you, how often did you even read the BOA before all of this?

 

I have read it all the way through twice.  I have reads parts of it numerous times but I will also admit, I am (like the Church seems to be as Happy Jack pointed out) hesitant to make it my focus.  I have read the BOM perhaps a dozen times all the way through and often rely on it and the New Testament for most of my insight and points to be made.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I think it would be helpful at this point if you could link us to your critique, assuming it is not already covered in the links that drums12 provided earlier.

See drums12 at post #14.

[HappyJackWagon]

DB, I understand what you're saying. I envision our minds as scales that are continually weighing these things out. There are many problems. They seem heavy and sometimes the scales seem to tip in the negative direction but there are many good things in the church which even that out. The most important, heaviest weight on the positive side is the peacekeeping with my family, the positive faith community, and the sense of purpose and hope that it might be true.

 

It sometimes feels like I'm in limbo, teetering inside a van on the edge of a cliff. If the weight shifts too much I'll go over the side. I could back the vehicle up and tell myself that I will stay no matter what, yet that doesn't quite feel honest and discounts additional negative weights that may be added. So I can't make a final decision because I'm trying to keep myself open to new information hoping that the positive will outweigh the negative.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that's a great question for the general membership of the church. How often is the BoA referenced in manuals and conference talks? How often do members read the BoA as a family or in individual study.

 

I would wager that for most, the answer would be "seldom".

I think this is an ill-considered claim.

 

For one thing, there is an entire CES institute course of study and student manual devoted to the Pearl of Great Price, of which the Book of Abraham is a substantial part.

 

For another, in the Sunday School gospel doctrine Old Testament course teacher's manual, there are frequent citations and reading assignments from Abraham in the early lessons as it augments and illuminates portions of Genesis.

 

Lest there be any doubt about how the Book of Abraham is esteemed in the Church of Jesus Christ, this introductory paragraph in the Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham should dispel that notion:

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture. This book, a record of the biblical prophet and patriarch Abraham, recounts how Abraham sought the blessings of the priesthood, rejected the idolatry of his father, covenanted with Jehovah, married Sarai, moved to Canaan and Egypt, and received knowledge about the Creation. The book of Abraham largely follows the biblical narrative but adds important information regarding Abraham’s life and teachings.

There is significant knowledge about the pre-mortal existence, not found in the Bible, that can be drawn from the Book of Abraham.

 

As the Gosepl Topics essay explains:

 

The book of Abraham clarifies several teachings that are obscure in the Bible. Life did not begin at birth, as is commonly believed. Prior to coming to earth, individuals existed as spirits. In a vision, Abraham saw that one of the spirits was “like unto God.”⁹ This divine being, Jesus Christ, led other spirits in organizing the earth out of “materials” or preexisting matter, not ex nihilo or out of nothing, as many Christians later came to believe.¹⁰ Abraham further learned that mortal life was crucial to the plan of happiness God would provide for His children: “We will prove them herewith,” God stated, “to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them,” adding a promise to add glory forever upon the faithful.¹¹ Nowhere in the Bible is the purpose and potential of earth life stated so clearly as in the book of Abraham.

 

In that regard, my observation is that this passage from the Book of Abraham is one of the more oft-quoted in the Church:

 

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the ^aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the ^bnoble and great ones;

 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast ^achosen before thou wast born.

 24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell;

 25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

 26 And they who ^akeep their first ^bestate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second ^cestate shall have ^dglory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

 27 And the ^aLord said: Whom shall I ^bsend? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And ^canother answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will ^dsend the first.

 28 And the ^asecond was angry, and kept not his first ^bestate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

 

To say that this passage is "seldom" cited in the Church is absurd on its face.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

That is essentially how the Book of Mormon was translated. The witness evidence suggests he did not use or refer to the plates in translation.

The witness evidence is a bit more complex than that:

Joseph did use the plates at first, and actually drew off charactors from the plates themselves at the outset, even translating some of them (at least for the Harris-Anthon expedition).  However, at some  point the plates and interpreters were taken away by the angel -- due to the 116 pages debacle.

 

Perhaps already while Martine Harris was copyist, and certainly when Oliver and others were copying from Joseph's dictation, the plates were not referred to.  Instead, Joseph placed his seer stone in his large hat, put his face in the hat to exclude the light, and read words in bright letters, when they had been copied, then he would read another phrase.  It is claimed that the English words were preceded by Egyptian characters, so a connection of some sort with the plate content is not out of the question, at least in the way that a modern electronic device can display any language text, and translate it (if you have the app).  Thus, in the same way that I no longer need an actual LDS Hymnbook during my Sunday block of meetings (my iPad or tablet takes its place), so Joseph did not require the physical plates to be present.  He had his device in his hat instead, which was linked to the plates in some way.

 

This seems to me not at all unreasonable today, though it undoubtedly seemed odd to people only a couple of decades ago.

[DBMormon]

DB, I understand what you're saying. I envision our minds as scales that are continually weighing these things out. There are many problems. They seem heavy and sometimes the scales seem to tip in the negative direction but there are many good things in the church which even that out. The most important, heaviest weight on the positive side is the peacekeeping with my family, the positive faith community, and the sense of purpose and hope that it might be true.

 

It sometimes feels like I'm in limbo, teetering inside a van on the edge of a cliff. If the weight shifts too much I'll go over the side. I could back the vehicle up and tell myself that I will stay no matter what, yet that doesn't quite feel honest and discounts additional negative weights that may be added. So I can't make a final decision because I'm trying to keep myself open to new information hoping that the positive will outweigh the negative.

 

The Apologist feels the need to minimize the reasons to leave list as if all is well.  The critic tends to dismiss everything on the reason to stay side.  The balanced person is able to validate both sides of the list and declare what he has chosen in spite of evidence and reason on both sides.  Hence for one who stays, I see myself as balanced in that way.  I am comfortable validating and acknowledging the issues.  Others do this as well.  Many want to as I have interviewed numerous people who say way more off the air than on and many want to be more balanced publicly but they know that will bring criticism from the conservative branch and some even risk losing their jobs.

[CA Steve]

The witness evidence is a bit more complex than that:

Joseph did use the plates at first, and actually drew off charactors from the plates themselves at the outset, even translating some of them (at least for the Harris-Anthon expedition).  However, at some  point the plates and interpreters were taken away by the angel -- due to the 116 pages debacle.

 

Perhaps already while Martine Harris was copyist, and certainly when Oliver and others were copying from Joseph's dictation, the plates were not referred to.  Instead, Joseph placed his seer stone in his large hat, put his face in the hat to exclude the light, and read words in bright letters, when they had been copied, then he would read another phrase.  It is claimed that the English words were preceded by Egyptian characters, so a connection of some sort with the plate content is not out of the question, at least in the way that a modern electronic device can display any language text, and translate it (if you have the app).  Thus, in the same way that I no longer need an actual LDS Hymnbook during my Sunday block of meetings (my iPad or tablet takes its place), so Joseph did not require the physical plates to be present.  He had his device in his hat instead, which was linked to the plates in some way.

 

This seems to me not at all unreasonable today, though it undoubtedly seemed odd to people only a couple of decades ago.

It still seems odd, at least to me, Robert. If, as you suggest, JS was given a device that was akin to Google translate, it raises many questions. JS used a rock that he already had in his possession to continue with the translation after the U&T were taken. If God is capable of providing a device like that to be used to translate or change an ordinary stone into an electronic device, why not just provide a complete manuscript? If the rock was actually changed into some type of translation device why was it necessary to hide it in a hat? We don't have to use hats today to read our own mobile devices? Why the need to "study it out in his mind" if the words were just appearing on an electronic device? And then I think there are a variety of issues raised with the translation itself if one assumes actual words were appearing on the stone.

[Robert F. Smith]

Because what we were originally told is verifiably false with the evidence we have.

While it is true that this claim is often made, it is itself false or misleading at best.  All depends on what version of the "evidence" you go by.  And you actually list some examples of this specious evidence:

 

Abraham did not write it with his own hand.

This is a prime example of the misinformation and folklore we often hear.  Of course Abraham did not write it with his own hand, any more than St Paul wrote the papyrus copies of his letters which we have today.  Several of his original letters to the Saints were actually signed by him, and the copies continue to carry that same claim (I Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, II Thess 3:17, Philemon 19).  Does this render the copies of his letters fraudulent?  We do not have the originals of those letters, nor of any other part of Holy Writ -- which have continued to carry those claims for thousands of years!!.

 

Another example comes from the stelae of Hammurabi's famous laws.  We have some of those original stelae, which claim to have been written by Hammurabi personally.  He certainly did not carve each one.  Indeed, the vellum or papyrus copies of his laws were undoubtedly created by his legal staff using previous legal codes, and copies made by palace scribes.  Hammurabi merely exercised final approval and then promulgated those laws.  He was neither author nor scribe.   He certainly did not carve them in stone.  It helps to have a sense of perspective and historical reality when considering such questions.

 

The JS translations of the facimilies do not match scholarly translations by those who can read the language and are familiar with the funery texts and images.

Joseph Smith's explanations of the BofA facsimiles do not comport with the translations or interpretations provided by anti-Mormons, it is true, but most of those are provided selectively and second hand by those who cannot read the documents anyhow.  It is a better plan, in my opinion, to consult with independent interpretations by professional Egyptologists and ancient Near Eastern experts who are not told beforehand that they are dealing with a Mormon issue.  In other words, consult standard Egyptological publications on the documents and illustrations in question.  I have done that myself, and the results are summarized in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, version 8, online at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham , which drums12 cited above.

 

This leaves us with scripture that was received by a process that is accepted by the church as inaccurate and provides a text which is verifiably inaccurate.

Not sure what you mean by "accepted by the church as inaccurate," but it certainly does not provide "a text which is verifiably inaccurate."

[DragonLancer]

It still seems odd, at least to me, Robert. If, as you suggest, JS was given a device that was akin to Google translate, it raises many questions. JS used a rock that he already had in his possession to continue with the translation after the U&T were taken. If God is capable of providing a device like that to be used to translate or change an ordinary stone into an electronic device, why not just provide a complete manuscript? If the rock was actually changed into some type of translation device why was it necessary to hide it in a hat? We don't have to use hats today to read our own mobile devices? Why the need to "study it out in his mind" if the words were just appearing on an electronic device? And then I think there are a variety of issues raised with the translation itself if one assumes actual words were appearing on the stone.

 

I am done responding to comments on this thread about my theory.

However I am going to say this with regard to a seer stone and the hat.

If an astronomer is trying to detect a planet around a star by actually detecting its light, he has to do so by filtering out the light from the parent star that overwhelms the light coming from the planet.

If we listen to the spirit, we have to train ourselves filter out all the other voices and busy phenomena around us.

If you take a picture with an old school camera with film in it, you have to have a dark space within the camera with only a small hole to allow a small amount of light in through it to take the picture for a small instant of time.  That enclosed dark space in the camera allows the picture to be taken without being overwhelmed by excess light from the surroundings.

If you develop a picture the old school way, you must do so in a dark room so the development process of your prints do not get overwhelmed by excess light.

Contrary to Brant Gardner's "seeing something in one's mind" theory of the seer stone, the only context that using a hat makes sense is to get rid of the excess light from ones surroundings.

In other words, if the seer stone puts out light to show images in a miraculous way, then it makes perfect sense to get rid of excess light around you so you can concentrate on the small amount of light emanated from the stone.

[stemelbow]

The witness evidence is a bit more complex than that:

Joseph did use the plates at first, and actually drew off charactors from the plates themselves at the outset, even translating some of them (at least for the Harris-Anthon expedition).  However, at some  point the plates and interpreters were taken away by the angel -- due to the 116 pages debacle.

I agree that I oversimplified the witness evidence to make a point. But regarding the Harris-Anthon expedition I'm not sure we can draw from that that Joseph used the plates other than to provide characters for consideration.

 

Perhaps already while Martine Harris was copyist, and certainly when Oliver and others were copying from Joseph's dictation, the plates were not referred to.  Instead, Joseph placed his seer stone in his large hat, put his face in the hat to exclude the light, and read words in bright letters, when they had been copied, then he would read another phrase.  It is claimed that the English words were preceded by Egyptian characters, so a connection of some sort with the plate content is not out of the question, at least in the way that a modern electronic device can display any language text, and translate it (if you have the app).  Thus, in the same way that I no longer need an actual LDS Hymnbook during my Sunday block of meetings (my iPad or tablet takes its place), so Joseph did not require the physical plates to be present.  He had his device in his hat instead, which was linked to the plates in some way.

 

This seems to me not at all unreasonable today, though it undoubtedly seemed odd to people only a couple of decades ago.

It seems a little unlikely that Joseph or the witnesses would know, if there were characters from which the translation came, were sequentially characters on the plates if the plates were not consulted, during the whole ordeal. I think it possible to argue that the witness (Whitmer) who suggested the characters appeared along with the English translation, took liberty in describing what he thought was happening inside that hat. Harris, for instance, only mentioned that English words would appear.

[Robert F. Smith]

It still seems odd, at least to me, Robert. If, as you suggest, JS was given a device that was akin to Google translate, it raises many questions. JS used a rock that he already had in his possession to continue with the translation after the U&T were taken. If God is capable of providing a device like that to be used to translate or change an ordinary stone into an electronic device, why not just provide a complete manuscript? If the rock was actually changed into some type of translation device why was it necessary to hide it in a hat? We don't have to use hats today to read our own mobile devices? Why the need to "study it out in his mind" if the words were just appearing on an electronic device? And then I think there are a variety of issues raised with the translation itself if one assumes actual words were appearing on the stone.

These are all legitimate considerations or questions, Steve.

 

While we know that Joseph had more than one seerstone in his possession, we do not know how God might activate such a solid state device for this particular function, nor do we know which particular technology most approximates the bright screen which is sometimes described on the stone in the hat.  I prefer a light-emitting diode (LED) display because it fits that description better than a liquid crystal display (LCD), but exercise your own preference for some device which is best looked at in darkness.  Some have suggested that this also aids in concentration, so that, if we have Joseph in a psycho-feedback loop with the Holy Spirit and the device in the hat, his brain may have been fully engaged (studying it out continuously), leaving him exhausted and needing a break from time to time.

 

Why not provide a complete manuscript?  Well, Royal Skousen theorizes just that based upon the very archaic language detectable in the text, with words and phrases no longer extant in Joseph's time.  However, in that case the device merely transmits that early text verbatim and Joseph merely reads it to his scribes.  No need to study it out in his mind.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[CA Steve]

I am done responding to comments on this thread about my theory.

However I am going to say this with regard to a seer stone and the hat.

If an astronomer is trying to detect a planet around a star by actually detecting its light, he has to do so by filtering out the light from the parent star that overwhelms the light coming from the planet.

If we listen to the spirit, we have to train ourselves filter out all the other voices and busy phenomena around us.

If you take a picture with an old school camera with film in it, you have to have a dark space within the camera with only a small hole to allow a small amount of light in through it to take the picture for a small instant of time.  That enclosed dark space in the camera allows the picture to be taken without being overwhelmed by excess light from the surroundings.

If you develop a picture the old school way, you must do so in a dark room so the development process of your prints do not get overwhelmed by excess light.

Contrary to Brant Gardner's "seeing something in one's mind" theory of the seer stone, the only context that using a hat makes sense is to get rid of the excess light from ones surroundings.

In other words, if the seer stone puts out light to show images in a miraculous way, then it makes perfect sense to get rid of excess light around you so you can concentrate on the small amount of light emanated from the stone.

Which is why comparing it to an ordinary hand held device and the technology of today does not make sense to me, since there is no need to place them in a hat in order to see them, or no need to study out in our minds in order to read them and so on. In fact if we assume that God actually did place some sort of advanced technology in the stone, is it reasonable to assume it would have had the issues you describe? Certainly God is capable of providing a more efficient form of technology than one that needed to have the light shielded.

[DragonLancer]

God did provide a more efficient form of technology once in the form of the Liahona.

No it is not reasonable to assume that if the stone had "technology" of a sort, that it would have those issues.

That is why, I don't buy that seer stones have technology.  There are enough mechanisms for light production in nature to justify the assumption that the light emitting from a seer stone is natural light of some form.  I also believe natural processes would be behind a stone producing images too.  Don't ask me to theorize on what that would be.

 

God did not give Adam 21st century technology in the garden.  He taught him enough for his technology to be at the bronze age level.

The seer stone and the urim and thummim did the job.  God didn't have to provide something when something was already available.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

It seems a little unlikely that Joseph or the witnesses would know, if there were characters from which the translation came, were sequentially characters on the plates if the plates were not consulted, during the whole ordeal. I think it possible to argue that the witness (Whitmer) who suggested the characters appeared along with the English translation, took liberty in describing what he thought was happening inside that hat. Harris, for instance, only mentioned that English words would appear.

We do not have direct testimony from Joseph himself, but I have no doubt that he spoke of various aspects of the process to his immediate associates, and that is likely how they came up with their explanations.  I doubt that they just invented the method  on which they seem to agree in a number of particulars.  See my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” 28pp.(Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages .

[omni]

Hypothetically, if JS just made the BoA up, how would we expect the defenses of the BoA to differ from what we are currently seeing?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Abraham did not write it with his own hand.

This is a prime example of the misinformation and folklore we often hear.  Of course Abraham did not write it with his own hand, any more than St Paul wrote the papyrus copies of his letters which we have today.

We now accept that Abraham didn't write them with his own hand so JS must have meant something else, right? But JS and the people of the time believed that it was the writings of Abraham ... By His Own Hand. We may not accept it now, but they did.

 

 

Quote

This leaves us with scripture that was received by a process that is accepted by the church as inaccurate and provides a text which is verifiably inaccurate.

Not sure what you mean by "accepted by the church as inaccurate," but it certainly does not provide "a text which is verifiably inaccurate."

 

What I mean is, even the church acknowledges that JS didn't translate the BoA in a traditional way as was once taught. That is why they are floating multiple theories about it. They don't know how it was done either but essentially accept that it wasn't JS translating the actual papyrus.

[stemelbow]

Hypothetically, if JS just made the BoA up, how would we expect the defenses of the BoA to differ from what we are currently seeing?

I'm probably not understanding what you're asking but I'm interested.

Why would there be a difference in the defense if JS was lying about it? If we have all the data we have regarding it, but really JS was lying about it?

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm probably not understanding what you're asking but I'm interested.

Why would there be a difference in the defense if JS was lying about it? If we have all the data we have regarding it, but really JS was lying about it?

I think that's the point. The defense would look the same if JS had made it up.

[stemelbow]

We do not have direct testimony from Joseph himself, but I have no doubt that he spoke of various aspects of the process to his immediate associates, and that is likely how they came up with their explanations.  I doubt that they just invented the method  on which they seem to agree in a number of particulars.  See my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” 28pp.(Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages .

But it's possible that Whitmer thinking he knew what was going on in the hat, added something that simply was not what was going on in the hat. And as I said, if the reformed Egyptian characters did appear in the hat, it is unlikely Joseph could possibly have known if the characters appearing in the hat were the characters that came out sequentially on the plates because it is said he simply did not use the plates while reading out the words from the hat.

[stemelbow]

I think that's the point. The defense would look the same if JS had made it up.

Well of course. If Jesus never was, the defense that He exists would still look the same as it does. If man never did land on the moon, the defense would all be the same that it is today.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hypothetically, if JS just made the BoA up, how would we expect the defenses of the BoA to differ from what we are currently seeing?

If Joseph just made it up, then we would be likely to find lots of actual anachronisms (not the specious ones we so often hear).  There would then be no possible defense for the BofA.  It would have been impossible for me to find systematic support for its authenticity, such as I indicate in my "Brief Assessment."

[Robert F. Smith]

Well of course. If Jesus never was, the defense that He exists would still look the same as it does. If man never did land on the moon, the defense would all be the same that it is today.

Nonsense.