YH8 Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 1) Joseph was a common man, with a wild imagination, his pattern in life was shoot first and then wiggle his way out later. Most everything he did, shows this pattern, and in the end it was this pattern that led to his death. 2) There is no other witness to the BOM people, or teachings, or any other thing that JS taught. To believe Mormonism you have to believe this man from New York and all he said, theres no other way around that. He is the sole witness. There is no other record of what he teaches anywhere that would complement what he brought forth.3) The view I hold is the only view I've seen that allows all the problems and contradictions that abound in the Mormon faith, and that
Magyar Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Nice try, Markk. But the Koran never claims to be a history of any actual people, written by a score of ancient authors. Rather, it consists solely of inspired utterances, according to its solitary recipient, Mohammed. Neither does Dianetics. I have read the Koran cover to cover. I'm still reading Dianetics.Whereas the Book of Mormon does. Its internal evidences of genuine battle strategy, natural history (i.e., the effects of natural disasters such as drought and volcanoes), human pyschology, Near Eastern writing styles and other details, deserve much deeper study than they ever get from the critics.You might produce a credible book based on World War II, because you have spent years, as you said, in study of that matter. Joseph had neither the time nor the inclination to research (nor, in 1830, access to vast scholarly resources on) the Middle East and Mesoamerica in 600 B.C. That's a wee bit more remote, too, than WWII, which I could still find eyewitnesses to within my own family. A better example might be to "invent" an entire set of scriptures set in the era of Genghis Khan, and have them win acceptance by millions of people, including many Mongolians themselves. Good luck.Mohammed spent decades receiving the revelations of the Koran and they were not written down until after his death. He was lucky enough to have adequate financial support to afford him the leisure to do so. Whereas Joseph cranked out his massive book within a couple years time, as a very young man, while dodging assassins and trying to eke out a living as a farmer.
John Russell Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Hi John,I disagree, JS had a very vivid imagination, he was a money digger and talked people into digging up their yard looking for treasure, that speak volumes of his ability to see a product. His mother told if hoe he would entertain their family with stories, that speak volumes of his imagination. The history of how people followed
wenglund Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Hi Markk,My comments should in no way be construed as insulting your intelligence. I am sure you have a fine, well learned, and capable mind. It is just that on this issue, I don't think you grasp the rich depth and complexity of the points and questions raised.To put it into terms that you may understand, suppose that I, with little or no construction knowledge or experience, were to propose that a 19th century English peasant, with little or no construction knowledge or experience, built the Gloucester Cathedral ( http://www.gloucestercathedral.org.uk/ ). Were I to supposedly support this proposition by claiming that the peasant could easily have made some exact and inexact copies of windows and doors from the Victorian chapel down the way, and rely for the rest of the construction upon his wit and wild imagination. Then, wouldn
Markk Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Wade,I am not in the least bit offended, like I said I'm in construction. Now that I'm older I manage very large projects and get beat up daily by subcontractors, my skin is very thick, and to tell you the truth I really understand both sides of the coin. I wouldn
emaughan Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Joseph lived in the times of Indians and very religious zealous people, he was raise in times of Indian wars and after the revolution and the war of 1812, he knew war and Indians and had the same mind set of the time that there were evil savages. It makes perfect sense.You haven't read the book, have you? Reading the book and then comparing what is written in it to the view of the NAs in the early 1800s shows a HUGE difference. I think that as long as you rely on antiMo sources to feed you your info, your arguments will continue to be greatly flawed.
Markk Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Emaughan,Sure I have read the book and was taught it from a early age. The whole Lamanite issue and the curse of the dark skin to Indians says allot. Today LDS apologists make excuses and try to teach around the curse, but back in 1840 it made perfect sense. A Indians life wasn't worth much in those days, to allot of people, and when Joseph taught the Indians were cursed Jews, many ate it up. Compound that with the religious zeal of the day, which Joseph undoubtedly knew about, add a little imagination...it's certainly possible for JS to write the BOM.Please tell me the anti sources I lean on? I have some Tanner books I rarely read, and most of those are photocopies of LDS works. I read Shadow or Reality about ten years ago, and I recommend a little Book by Marvin Cowen which I can't remember the name right now, most my info is from books I get at the DI, and books that were my Grandfathers who was a patriarch and had a massive library. I got a great book the other day called
Dale Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Hi,Markk perhaps the book from Marvin Cowans is entitled Mormon Claims Answered. I actually like the book because of it's compact size. I also own the Mormonism Shadow or Reality? book. My testimony is both books are flawed when compared to LDS apologetics. LDS do ok in the history debate. Mormonism Researched ministry is writing a rebuttal to FAIR. My guess if FAIR decides it needs to it can defend itself.Why is the curse something that needs to apologize for? The Nephite's had been blessed by the curse. It kept them from intermarrying & falling into their idolatrous ways. If the Nephite's didn't have racial prejudices there wouldn't have been any way to keep the Lamanites & Nephite's apart. I suggest you buy a copy of Echoes & Evidences of the Book of it convinces me that Joseph Smith Jr. did not write the Book of Mormon.Sincerely,Dale
Markk Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Dale,Good to here from you. Your correct in the name of Cowens book, but I disagree that the books are flawed, I believe they are both done very well, and LDS apoligests just create more problems in their attempt to defend.I don't know that I said the curse needed to be apoligized for, although it should be, what I said is LDS apoligest's make excuses for the doctrine and teach around it...ie why the Indians don't turn white, as the BOM clearly says in words and context.Do you really believe that Indians are a cursed nation, and what is the sign of that curse?MarkJohn 1:12
John Russell Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Markk,Could you expound on the Indian wars that were going on during Joseph's lifetime? And perhaps you also could comment on your perspective of Mormon treatment of Amerinds during Joseph's life, and how it compared to other frontier groups.
John Russell Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Markk, you earlier asked me to:Read the possible view I sent forth with Wade, the problem with your statement is that there are several ways JS and those involved said it happened. It not on a solid foundation.I am at a loss to discern what specific items you are referring to. What is not on a solid foundation? I'm not big on indefinite pronouns......
YH8 Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Compound that with the religious zeal of the day, which Joseph undoubtedly knew about, . . . Are you conceding that there were religious revivals going on in Joseph SMith's day? That is pretty rare among LDS detractors. You must not have gotten to that part of the antimo lit. Maybe you thought it wasn't an important issue.I agree with emaughn. If thinking more than superficially, it is hard to swallow the idea that the Book of Mormon is anti Native AMerican. Particualry when you look at the historical context of LDS views on Native Americans. However, you'd also have to be interested in non-critical accounts of LDS history. I'm wondering if (if what Markk says about his family history is true; 34 year member, grandfather a Patriarch, for starters) Markk is working hard to disprove something he never believed in because his grandfather apparently was a strident believer (Most Patriarchs are TBMs) and it is hard to square his family history with what he has chosen to believe in the religious arena.
Markk Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Hi YH8,You said.."I'm wondering if (if what Markk says about his family history is true; 34 year member, grandfather a Patriarch, for starters) Markk is working hard to disprove something he never believed in because his grandfather apparently was a strident believer (Most Patriarchs are TBMs) and it is hard to square his family history with what he has chosen to believe in the religious arena..."Almost missed that one, thats a typical responce, when I left the church members blamed it on everything but the truth on why I left, they even blamed it my wife. But if you really want to know why, its because I was honest with LDS history and finally go enough faith in God to give it to Him and not a bunch of confusion from a by from NY.MarkJohn 1:12
ink Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 That argument doesn't hold up. For example, see "The Divine Source of the Book of Mormon in the Face of Alternative Theories Advocated by LDS Critics" by Daniel C. Peterson @ http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001PetD.htmlInteresting. Daniel invokes Occam's Razor to defend the translation, not realizing(?) all the other "mental gymnastics" that it creates. I agree that the simplest explanation which can encompass the entirety is likely the correct one, but I don't think that a divine origin is the simplest. He also skipped over the best explanation for a hoax scenario; that there never were any gold plates to begin with (heck, Emma picked them up in a box with one hand!).He would like everyone to believe that the witnesses were of the highest calibur, but even Joseph said "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."And in David Witmer's own words, "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints'..." [Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887.]Not one of the eleven witnesses ended up a member of the church.Not to beat a dead horse, but Markk has asked for any sort of outside corroboration which will positively attest to the historicity of the book of Mormon. If there really isn't any, then what is the simplest explanation for this problem? Also, Joseph didn't have 2 months to write the book of Mormon; he had several years. He took about two months only to dictate it. We know that Joseph became very skilled in linguistics later in his life (he even studied Hebrew), so it's not very much of a stretch to consider that he was somewhat above the "poor, uneducated farmboy" level at this point.Also also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Spaulding manuscript as possible inspiration for the story. Jews in ancient America was a fairly common meme in Joseph's day. Joseph's mother recalled occasions where Joseph would tell the whole family "elaborate" stories detailing the life of ancient americans long before he received any angelic visits. Just another coincidence, or is there a pattern here?Sorry, I didn't want to derail the thread, but the paper demanded some sort of response; so in that light, I'll present another pseudo-anachronism:3Nephi 14:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."Matt 7:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."Perfect match. Let's hear it for accurate translation!Oh wait, what does the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible say?JST St. Matthew 7:1-3 "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment. For with what judgment ye shall judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."Interesting. So, either Nephi was mis-quoted in exactly the same manner as Matthew (highly unlikely), or the JST is grossly incorrect. Joseph seems to have made another mistake. What's the simplest explanation?
Dale Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Hi,Mark I do believe skin color can be a sign of a curse by God. I believe the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel also was a curse by God. I believe Adam & Eve being kicked out of the garden & suffering death also was a curse by God. With those books I have solid research that resolves the concerns I had. My stepmother had been a Nazarene before she became LDS. Her copy of Mormon Claims Answered was pretty marked up. At the time I read his book I was in my teens. I just don't see him as having a solid case against Mormonism. I think some LDS apologetics is pretty good myself. ----------Ink the Joseph's statement of the witnesses flaws did not mean they lied about atleast about the Book of Mormon. I think it's false logic to believe the witnesses had to be perfect or they can't be trusted in regards to anything.With the Book of Mormon his family believed he had plates? Nobody believed he had a secret manuscript. Nobody ever saw a manuscript while he dictated. This means if he had a manuscript he committed the whole thing to memory. And then he dictated the whole things to scribes who believed he had plates. Some accounts have him looking in a dark hat & into a stone. So he not only memorized the whole thing but had the ability to write well on top of a photo-graphic memory.Sincerely,Dale
Markk Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Hi Ink,I believe that with or without the Spaulding mss there is ample evidence for a JS authorship, I really believe he was very "street smart" and really had no idea how it would go, but when it started going he just ran with it. Fawn Brodies book really shows how most his revelations came to get him something, or to get out of a jamb. The one thing that really hits home when a Mormon starts to really test their faith is that there is controversy in almost every aspect of his ministry, it just never seems to stop. Just like the witness thing you brought up, they are such a important part of the Churches testimony, yet when the truth is first learned of their real history, it's just more controversy. And the only thing that really explains this is that he made it up.MarkJohn 1:12
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 heck, Emma picked them up in a box with one hand!First time I have heard of this. The way I heard it was as covered in "Chapter 2: Informal Witnesses of the Plates" of "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" by Richard Lloyd Anderson @ http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=270657 , which reads:"I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work." [saints' Herald 26 (1879):290]At any rate, how heavy were the plates? The answer may surprise you. For example, see "The Book of Mormon Plates" by Janne M. Sjodahl (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001. Pp. 22
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 And in David Witmer's own words, "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints'..." [Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887.] From "Chapter 11: The Case against the Witnesses" of "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" by Richard Lloyd Anderson @ http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=270666, we read:What kind of a "voice" did David hear then? David does not really say; he only implies that it was audible by comparing it with the command to testify of the Book of Mormon. 34 But there are problems with that because David Whitmer did not treat the two experiences equally in his long lifetime. He only mentioned the undefined voice at Far West once, in this last writing to fellow believers
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Not one of the eleven witnesses ended up a member of the church. This is demonstrably false. Oliver and Martin returned. Hyrum was still a member when he was killed along with Joseph...
1dc Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 When I said witness, I meant another witness to Mormonism as a whole, not the witness of JS and his associates. No one from Israel testified that Jews left in boats, no other Mesoamerican testimonies of Jews in the Americas. I said "There is no other record of what he teaches anywhere that would complement what he brought forth." If what he claimed is true, there would be some other tangible proof of such, but there is none, if I'm wrong give me one?I gave you 11 witnesses to its veracity + many more. Ignore them as you have.As to the rest of your post that just getting personal, but I understand when you can't answer a thought , just call names, but it's OK I really do understand. I have laid out a very clear possibility of how the BOM came about, and it explains why there is so much confusion on everything the man did. LOL. Your can choose to ignore the answer as not being on the vein you had hoped for, but it was answered. I answered your "sense" in the language you chose to use. You are the one who described people as not having "sense". If you are offended by a reflection of how others might feel about your comments, then it will be a good lesson if you listen to it. If you choose to ignore that too . . well, I guess I expect that.Remember that the LDS teachers have taught and teach that the Christian church is not the true church and have no Godly authority, I found a quote today in a new old book I found at Deseret Industries today..."Precisely the same causes, the heterogeneous mass of Protestant denominations have no more claim to divine authority, or to a true Christian Church, than the corrupt fountain, whence they emanated..."(Masterful Discourses of Orson Pratt. page 320) This was preached behind a pulpit.He'd be wrong on the authority issue if Christ has appeared and personally granted you God's authority to create covenants with God that are bound on earth and heaven, even as Peter was given. Believe us, or don't . . we'll consider your theory the same way.The Christian church? You mean the "one" Christian church which has literally been at war among its own members so many times and places over the last let's say 700 years (the most modern 1/3 of the time since Christ was resurrected)? By whose authority were those wars fought? Perhaps the same authority that contends against LDS instead of for Christ today? Argue as you may, you cannot serve two masters. While LDS handling of persecution and schisms are certainly not perfect, they are more mild and Christ-like IMO. Believe us, or don't . . we'll consider your opinion the same way.
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 If there really isn't any See "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" by by Matthew Roper @ http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Also, Joseph didn't have 2 months to write the book of Mormon; he had several years. He took about two months only to dictate it. We know that Joseph became very skilled in linguistics later in his life (he even studied Hebrew), so it's not very much of a stretch to consider that he was somewhat above the "poor, uneducated farmboy" level at this point. "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text" by Royal Skousen (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998. P. N/A) reads: All of this evidence (from the witnesse's statements, the original manuscript, the printer's manuscript, and from the text itself) is thus consistent with the hypothesis that Joseph Smith could actually see (whether in the interpreters themselves or in his mind's eye) the translated English text
pseudogratix Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Spaulding manuscript as possible inspiration for the story. DCP mentioned it in his article. Also see FAIR Topical Guide > Scripture and Influential Writings > Book of Mormon > Environmental Influences > Spaulding Theory @ http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai115.html
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.