MustardSeed Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 31 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: For a hot minute I thought I'd major in genetics with a desire to go into human genetics because I was deeply interested in it. Studying Chemistry helped me decide there's better ways to study humans with luv, BD You picked wisely. You’re an asset. 1
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Brutus's ordinary knife was lost over the eons in the way that ordinary objects are. And yet you do not demand production of the knife as a precondition for accepting the historical narrative of Caesar's assassination. 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Surely you aren't implying the plates are ordinary objects that disappeared due to carelessness in the same way. No. I am saying that even normative historiography does not necessarily require a ancient artifact to currently exist and be available for inspection in the here and now as a precondition to accepting that the artifact existed in the past. Consider other "biblical" artifacts which are alleged to exist. Noah's ark. The rod of Moses. The Ark of the Covenant. The "True Cross." Do you, as consistency might require, demand that belief in the existence of these things anciently can only be reasonable if they are available now? Do you snarkily imply that if they "physically existed, they wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air"? I noted Brutus' knife (or whatever stabbing implement it was) because I doubt you dispute the various historical statements pertaining to the assassination of Caesar (even though none of them were written by eyewitnesses, and all of them were written well after the event). I submit that your rejection of the witnesses' testimonies is substantively arbitrary. You reject these statements on an a priori basis, not a reasoned, evidence-based one. I have addressed this point before: Quote 1. I think the witness statements constitute "evidence" as to the existence of the Gold Plates, and the the Testimony of the Three Witnesses constitutes "evidence" of the provenance of the Gold Plates. 2. I think Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses does a good job of establishing the character and overall integrity of these men. Also, this FAIR article does a good job of addressing some of the ad hoc speculations about the Witnesses that come up. 3. In 2021, Daniel C. Peterson published an Interpreter article: Variety and Complexity in the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon From the abstract: Quote This paper examines the testimonies of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon— not only the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, but many others who experienced and testified of the reality of the Book of Mormon plates. Together, these testimonies offer impressive support for the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Mormon and, thus, the Restoration. The variety and complexity of their collective testimony makes finding a single, alternative, non-divine explanation for the witness experiences challenging, indeed. Dr. Peterson does a fairly "deep dive" into examining the witness statements. This article is very much worth a read. 4. Dr. Peterson also published two briefer "Notes on Evidence" in 2021: A Note on Evidence (Part One) A Note on Evidence (Part Two) And excerpt from the first one: Quote There is a zealous atheist who comments multiple times daily on my blog. (He’s entirely welcome to do so, by the way. He’s polite and — by social media standards, anyway — quite respectful.) One of his recurring themes is that there is no evidence at all to support the claims of theism. I find that assertion deeply problematic and difficult to take seriously. As I’ve said here several times before, I can understand people who say that they find the evidence insufficient or unpersuasive. To say that there is no evidence at all, however, is merely hyperbolic rhetoric. It’s not true. There’s evidence for all kinds of things. Very often, in fact, there’s contradictory evidence. The daily “rising” and “setting” of the sun, for example, was long reasonably thought to be evidence for a geocentric cosmos. Giovanni Schiaparelli’s 1877 observations of Mars were plausible evidence, in their day, for what he called canali or “channels” (somewhat misleadingly rendered into English as canals). There is evidence for the wave nature of light and for its particularity. There is often evidence pointing to both the guilt and the innocence of a criminal suspect. There is evidence for William Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays attributed to him, but there is also some intriguing evidence that Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, might have been the author. One problem is that my blog’s resident atheist appears to conflate evidence with proof. But they are quite distinct. Or, perhaps more accurately, proof seems to me to be a subset of evidence — a smaller Venn diagram circle, if you will, within a much larger circle. ... There can be valid evidence that points toward the truth of a proposition but that may nevertheless fall short, and perhaps even far short, of demonstrating that proposition to be true. Examples are not at all difficult to find or to imagine: For example, a witness comes upon Frank, who is bloody and kneeling beside the dead body of Bob and with the fatal knife within easy reach of his hand. It may be that Frank is actually guilty of Bob’s murder, of course, and the scene witnessed by the observer would certainly count as evidence tending in that direction. But other evidence might come forward to suggest, or even to prove, that Frank had in fact been trying to save Bob. That’s why he was kneeling. That’s why he was covered in blood. The available evidence may or may not be sufficient to “coerce” a single conclusion. Accordingly, juries are instructed to find a defendant “not guilty” — even in cases where most if not all of the jurors suspect that he did it — if the evidence doesn’t demonstrate his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” They’re told to find against a plaintiff in a civil suit if his complaint is unsupported by “the preponderance of the evidence.” The standard is not “beyond any doubt at all,” or “decisively proven by every piece of evidence without exception.” I added my two bits worth here: Quote And then there are different types of evidence. Direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, character evidence, hearsay, and so on. A few additional thoughts: 1. The proposition to be established matters. What is to be proved or disproved is a factor in evaluating the evidence. 2. The context and venue matter. A scientific theory that can be empirically tested and replicated may therefore be reasonably expected to meet a very high evidentiary standard. In contrast, a historian's theory about a historical event may be far less empirically testable, but may nevertheless be "proven" under a different evidentiary standard. 3. The type of evidence matters. What kinds of evidence are available, how much, etc. can vary quite a bit. 4. The provenance and authentication of the evidence matters. The "chain of custody" of evidence can matter quite a bit. Evidence can be misconstrued or fabricated. 5. The probative weight of the evidence matters. A drug-addled homeless guy with cataracts who was standing across the street from a shooting may claim he recognized the shooter. But if the purported shooter has multiple credible witnesses and GPS data and hotel reservations and plane tickets that put him 1,000 miles away on the day of the shooting, then his cumulative evidence will likely carry more probative weight than the countervailing eyewitness evidence. 6. The requisite quantum of evidence matters. Legal proceedings use various quanta (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt). Historians use other quanta, and scientists use still other quanta. 5. Another important point raised by Dr. Peterson (same link as above) : Quote There’s much more to say about such matters, of course, but I would like to move on to another of my atheistic guest’s major and recurrent themes: The only evidence that really counts, he declares, is “tangible evidence.” The rest is just “stories.” (He seems, frankly, by the use of that word, to be obscuring — for illicit rhetorical advantage — the crucially important difference between fictional yarns like those about Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe, and historical narratives like Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War and William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. And, whether he intends to do so or not, his disdain for “stories” appears to entail the conclusion that, unlike (say) geophysics and plant physiology (which deal in tangible evidence), history and courtroom witness testimony and similar things are not and cannot be sources of genuine knowledge. ... There is relatively little tangible, physical, material evidence, for instance, for details of the reign of Caesar Augustus or for the age of Justinian and Theodora. Fortunately, we have such writers as Dio Cassius and Suetonius and Procopius. Obviously, such sources have to be weighed and judiciously used (particularly in the case of Procopius!). The memoirs of Albert Speer, a leading figure in Hitler’s Third Reich, are extremely valuable even if sometimes very self-serving. They must be used with care — as must Flavius Josephus’s narrative of the first Jewish revolt against Rome, in which he was an important and (to my taste, anyway) a very problematic participant. To dismiss them as worthless because they’re merely “stories” would be silly. And if that rule were followed very widely, it would utterly destroy most of our understanding of ancient and medieval history. ... My atheist commenter is, of course, taking particular aim at my claim that the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses have strong evidentiary value. He has never seriously considered them and knows little or nothing about them, but his response, sight essentially unseen, is that their testimonies have no evidentiary value whatever. They’re just “stories,” he declares, rather oddly adding to that blithe dismissal the claim that they “can’t be examined.” But, of course, they can be examined, and they have been examined. I think people who are genuinely interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon need to come to terms with these things. Some folks are apparently ditching the entire notion of the examination of evidence (see, e.g., here). However, I think there are plenty of people who, like the authors of the above report about the 2020 election, feel that the issue at hand (here, the origins of the Book of Mormon) is important. Important enough to seriously and scrupulously and fairly examine the evidence. As Dr. Peterson aptly notes, there is evidences that not only "can be examined" but "have been examined." On the Latter-day Saint side, I think it is becoming increasingly incumbent upon us to fairly examine the evidence to see what it has to say. On the skeptic/cynic side, I think there is no particular obligation or duty to formulate a cohesive alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon. But if they do choose to present such an alternative explanation, I think at that point it does become incumbent upon them to lay out their arguments, evidences, reasoning, etc. As Dr. Peterson noted here: Quote I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?” To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.” Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack. Well to me, that simple-minded little dichotomy that this person refused to give an answer to. or refused to take part in, is still a really important question. If Joseph Smith didn’t have the plates, did he know that he didn’t have plates, or did he think that he did? He is correct. Whether the plates were real or not is "a really important question." The credibility of the Witnesses is "a really important question." I think this is so regardless of which "side" you are presently on. ... I still think we have a lot of evidence that merits examination. The witness statements, the various other statements about the Plates, the "plausible" explanations for how the Plates could be authentically ancient (tumbaga, etc.). I believe that the conclusions reached on this issue will, in the end, still come down to "faith" of one sort or another. The "testable" secondary evidences neither prove nor disprove the origins of the Book of Mormon, but I think they nevertheless merit serious attention and scrutiny. Thoughts? 15 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about this. It never ceases to surprise me how so many ardent critics of the Church instantly become aggressively apathetic and indifferent to scrutinizing Church-related topics when they are asked to rationalize and demonstrate the validity of their preferred explanations/perspectives. Dan Peterson had it right: "I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack." Again, on the skeptic/cynic side, I think there is no particular obligation or duty to formulate a cohesive alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon. But if they do choose to present such an alternative explanation, I think at that point it does become incumbent upon them to lay out their arguments, evidences, reasoning, etc. There is, in my view, a notable streak of intellectual dishonesty, even moral cowardice, in those who present alternative theories regarding the physicality of the Plates, the competency of the Witness statements, etc., but then altogether refuse to substantiate or justify those theories. 15 hours ago, Analytics said: In your paradigm, if God wanted people to have reasonable evidence that the plates are real, he wouldn't have performed such an astonishing miracle of making the plates vanish. These are your presuppositions, which you are imputing onto us. Let's not do that. In my paradigm, God wants His children to use faith, study, prayer, humility, etc. to seek out truth and confirm it through personal revelation. I think God creates environments and opportunities for us to choose to believe in divine truths, rather than have them imposed so as to negate the ability to meaningfully choose. 15 hours ago, Analytics said: Clearly, God didn't want there to be reasonable evidence of there existence. That depends, I suppose, one what you mean by "reasonable evidence." I suspect you arbitrarily, and in a priori fashion, exclude the Witness statements from this category. Correct? 15 hours ago, Analytics said: In my paradigm, I'm stating the obvious. You are stating what is convenient, and conclusory, and undemonstrated. No argument. No evidence. No analysis. No explanation. All intellectual curiosity goes straight out the window the moment the Plates and the Witnesses, and the evidences therefore, come into view. I am reminded of the aggressively and intentionally obtuse posture taken by John Weldon, who is ideologically aligned with you re: opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but whose opposition is sectarian, not secular. But his sectarian position somehow ends up being shockingly similar to your secular one. See here: Quote I'm reminded here of the back-and-forth discussion many years ago between Paul Owen, an evangelical scholar, and John Weldon. Owen, with another evangelical academic, Carl Mosser, had previously written a very blunt assessment of how evangelicals were responding to the claims of the LDS Church and scholarship being generated by LDS writings in support of those claims: Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? ... Subsequent to the publication of this paper, an evangelical critic of the LDS Church, John Weldon, wrote a response to it, and Paul Owen then wrote a response to Mr. Weldon. Although both parties were on the "same side" (both are evangelicals, both are critical of the claims of the LDS Church), they had substantially different ideas as to the merits of LDS scholarship. I am sort of seeing this same divergence of opinion here. For example, Mr. Owen wrote this: Quote I note at the beginning of appendix 1 that Mr. Weldon writes: "The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publishes literature in defense of Mormonism, especially the Book of Mormon ." This statement is a factual error, not in terms of what is stated, but what goes conspicuously unstated. As Carl Mosser and I have extensively documented, FARMS does far more than simply defend the Book of Mormon: They are actively engaged in "Ancient Research." They are not FMS; they are FARMS. Why is this important? Because, by ignoring FARMS involvement in the wider field of academic historical research, Mr. Weldon hides from his readers (most of whom probably have little exposure to FARMS) the fact that many of the scholars associated with this organization are respected experts in fields directly pertinent to LDS apologetic claims; fields such as Second Temple Judaism, Ancient Near Eastern literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Egyptology. By contrast, no researcher currently involved in apologetic responses to LDS scholarship has any acknowledged expertise in such areas. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, NO MATTER HOW LONG WE HIDE OUR HEADS IN THE SAND. How on earth can our pastors, most of whom have at best a M.Div. level seminary training, be expected to give their flocks substantive replies to the FARMS literature which is increasingly being used in LDS proselytizing activities? How can our laypeople successfully convince their Mormon friends of the superior plausibility of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity when our researchers in the apologetics community have no better arguments to offer than: FARMS scholarship is obviously wrong, because we already know Mormonism is a false religion? Put yourself in the Mormon's shoes. Would you find that to be a convincing argument? (Emphases added). And here: Quote The heart of the problem is Mr. Weldon's refusal to seriously engage LDS scholarship; and this comes to the surface again under the heading Needless Concerns . Brother Weldon tells us: "But at another level, the alleged new evidence for Mormonism isn't impressive--and it never will be when it comes to defending the truth claims of Mormonism." The intellectual narrow-mindedness displayed here is astounding. Of course, such evidence will fail to convince Brother Weldon; but it sure does seem impressive to folks in the LDS Church! In case Brother Weldon has forgotten, THEY are the ones that we Christians are supposed to be talking to. THEY are the ones who need to be shown why FARMS scholarship does not establish the historical and theological truth claims of the Mormon religion. And they are sure as shootin' going to find FARMS scholarship a lot more "impressive" than the frighteningly lame argument: "In a similar fashion, Mormonism is so clearly false on doctrinal grounds, one need not worry their scholarship could ever prove much of anything." My goodness, does Brother Weldon realize how utterly pathetic that must sound to a Mormon's ears? Does he care?! (Emphasis added). Thanks, -Smac Edited February 23, 2024 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 35 minutes ago, Teancum said: I have spent countless hours drilling into all these issues to come to the conclusions I have. And yet you cannot be bothered to articulate the evidence and reasoning that took you to those conclusions. This happens pretty much every time the Plates and the Witnesses come up for discussion. Daniel Peterson has commented on this: Quote DP: I remember a friend, an academic friend, was saying, ‘What was the point of the plates? I mean, it’s not clear that Joseph absolutely needed to be looking at them in order to receive the revealed translation. They had to be near to him, they didn’t always have to be right there.’ And I said, ‘Well for one thing, they’re an absolutely indigestible lump in the throats of people like you who want to say that he just made it up.’ I mean, he’s got all these objects he’s got to produce. It takes it out of the realm of the subjective, it’s not just Joseph having this happy little fantasy that he’s created for himself. No, there are all these heavy objects that other people see and heft and move around. Emma has to move the plates around. Lucy Mack Smith feels the breastplate through a cloth, maybe even sees it. She said she could see the glint of the metal through the thin linen cloth. That’s a really complicated thing, and so I’m imagining, did none of the neighbors notice that Joseph had this metal foundry going on there south of Palmyra, smoke belching out as he pounded out his plates and made his breastplate and made all these specialty objects. Where did learn all this metallurgy? CBF: Right. DP: Just, it’s not plausible. CBF: So why do you think the angel even brought those if just the plates would have been enough? DP: I think for one thing, it does make the counter-explanation harder because you’ve got so many more things to account for, things that are way beyond the capacity of Joseph Smith to do. Now, by the way there was an idea floating around early on that maybe Oliver Cowdrey was a blacksmith or something like that and he had the ability to do it. Well, what we know about Oliver Cowdrey is that he was a fairly slightly built person– not your image of the village blacksmith with the broad and sinewy arms and all that sort of thing, pounding things out with a sledgehammer. That’s not Oliver. Oliver is a bookish sort of guy. He becomes a lawyer, he’s a politician, he’s a writer, he’s an intellectual. So, they’re looking around at first. They drop it pretty quickly because Oliver just isn’t possible as a blacksmith that’s just not gonna fly. So people have basically ignored that issue, but I think it’s a really important one. (Emphases added.) 35 minutes ago, Teancum said: I don't owe you anything more than I wish to spend time on. You are quite right. Mine was a request. Nothing more. Thanks, -Smac 1
Danzo Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, BlueDreams said: I think it was a very very common (almost universal) opinion in the earlier days of the church. I'm not sure of the BoM peoples. Part of that is just pragmatic. There's not a major tone difference between native populations and and middle eastern people. So what would have mostly stuck out was maybe hair color and texture diversity and/or facial features... not skin. I think the closest I could imagine actual skin tone is ironically what rodheadlee was joking about: tanning. If the lamanites were wearing very little they would have tanned more and that has been an indicator of class distinctions in past cultures. Of course wearing very little would have easily been seen as going against socio-religious values too for them. Some of the dress description would have likely looked like their siblings had chosen to run around in their underwear. With luv, BD My wife, who is 100% native turns really dark when exposed to the sun (I turn red). When she was young, her nickname was "la negra", something her siblings still call her today. 1
teddyaware Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 It’s always sad to observe the spiritually unenlightened as they go on and on blindly commenting about things of deep spiritual import that the’ll never be able to comprehend without first obtaining the clarifying revelatory influence of the Holy Ghost. In order to properly understand the reasons why the Lord placed a curse on the Laminates, it must first be understood that it was God’s pure and perfect love that motivated him to temporarily curse the Lamanites in order to produce a positive outcome to an otherwise very negative but unavoidable situation. Until it’s understood that God’s chastening hand is one of the strongest evidences of his everlasting love and mercy for the children of men, the unenlightened will continue to rage in their ignorance as they endlessly grope around in the darkness. 23 For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness. 24 HE DOETH NOT ANYTHING SAVE IT BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WORLD; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. (2 Nephi 26) Until it’s understood that the Lord put a curse on the Lamanites because his loving desire was to mercifully maximize their chances for salvation in the end due to the fact that he perfectly understood that the wickedness, false traditions and hostility toward Christ of the Lamanites was caused by an intense intergenerational brainwashing that started when Laman and Lemuel decided they weren’t going to allow Nephi to be their spiritual leader. Father Lehi succinctly sets forth the Lord’s reasons for the curse, and the greater blessings of salvation that will eventually spill out from the curse after it would be lifted. 5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it. 6 Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents. 7 Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever. [2 Nephi 4) The pivotal question each individual must ask himself is this: if the Lord himself is able to powerfully prove that the temporary curse he placed on the Lamanites generated a much greater harvest of salvation than if he had never instituted the curse in the first place, should the curse still be be considered morally unacceptable even though a much greater good provably redounded to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel as a consequence of the curse? And apropos to this thread’s specific discussion a final question needs to be asked: if the Lord is able to one day prove that the “skin of blackness” (whatever that might turn out to be) also worked to generate a much greater harvest of saved Lamanites in the end, should it still be considered wrong? With regard to the above two questions, I’m guessing many will say the Lord was wrong even though the curse worked out for the best in the end. And I will even go so far as to say that if even the affected Lamanites were to testify to them that the curse turned out to be a great blessing of salvation in disguise, many here would rather go down with a sinking ship name “Rebellion” rather than ever have to admit the Lord wisely did the right thing.
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) If the Book of Mormon somehow found its way to a community that was all of one skin color that they did not view as white (since there was no contrasting to darker skin in a racial sense in their tradition though perhaps the tanning type of contrast between castes existed), but as a variation of brown and who were not even aware that there were different skin colors than their own, would they have understood the “skin of blackness” as something completely new to them, as God turning someone’s skin color very dark? Might they have instead interpreted it as something different? They would be aware of skin color changes with disease and emotion, of course, as well as tanning. Granted the book was not given to a culture like this, I am just seeing if anyone believes there actually is enough information in the text to convey the skin physical darkening interpretation. If you do believe the info is there, could you please quote the verses you think convey this? Edited February 23, 2024 by Calm
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: am saying that even normative historiography does not necessarily require a ancient artifact to currently exist and be available for inspection in the here and now as a precondition to accepting that the artifact existed in the past. I think using artifacts from 200 years ago would make your point better than 2000 years ago since we have evidence of physical existence as of 200 years ago.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And yet you do not demand production of the knife as a precondition for accepting the historical narrative of Caesar's assassination. Let’s run with this a little bit. I think a more apt analogy would be if the story told us that Brutus killed Caesar with a light saber. If this was the story, then, yes, I think we should be very skeptical of it, unless the light saber is actually produced.
Teancum Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You are quite right. Mine was a request. Nothing more. This from you: Quote But it sure is convenient that you can toss it out there, then retreat from actually having to substantiate it. Ever. ...is more than a request. It was a passive aggressive demand.
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Quote And yet you do not demand production of the knife as a precondition for accepting the historical narrative of Caesar's assassination. Let’s run with this a little bit. "Let's run with this" apparently means "let's substantially distort what Spencer just said, and then make fun of that distortion." To wit: 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think a more apt analogy would be if the story told us that Brutus killed Caesar with a light saber. I don't think that is apt at all. There is no historical narrative along these lines. I think you are presenting this as an excuse to, in a priori fashion, refuse to address the Witness statements about the Plates. 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If this was the story, then, yes, I think we should be very skeptical of it, unless the light saber is actually produced. "If." Meanwhile, the actual historical narrative is that Brutus stabbed Caesar with some sort of implement. But by Roger's logic, the if the implement "physically existed" it "wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air." Ipso facto, we can dispute that Brutus stabbed Caesar with an implement. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, teddyaware said: Until it’s understood that the Lord put a curse on the Lamanites because his loving desire was to mercifully maximize their chances for salvation in the end due to the fact that he perfectly understood that the wickedness, false traditions and hostility toward Christ of the Lamanites was caused by an intense intergenerational brainwashing that started when Laman and Lemuel decided they weren’t going to allow Nephi to be their spiritual leader. Father Lehi succinctly sets forth the Lord’s reasons for the curse, and the greater blessings of salvation that will eventually spill out from the curse after it would be lifted. 5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it. 6 Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents. 7 Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever. [2 Nephi 4) So Lehi is arguing that if his grandchildren were raised the right way they wouldn’t abandon that way and asks that the punishment be assigned to their parents. So what exactly is keeping the blame from falling back one more generation? Were Laman and Lemuel not brought up the right way? 1 hour ago, teddyaware said: The pivotal question each individual must ask himself is this: if the Lord himself is able to powerfully prove that the temporary curse he placed on the Lamanites generated a much greater harvest of salvation than if he had never instituted the curse in the first place, should the curse still be be considered morally unacceptable even though a much greater good provably redounded to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel as a consequence of the curse? And apropos to this thread’s specific discussion a final question needs to be asked: if the Lord is able to one day prove that the “skin of blackness” (whatever that might turn out to be) also worked to generate a much greater harvest of saved Lamanites in the end, should it still be considered wrong? With regard to the above two questions, I’m guessing many will say the Lord was wrong even though the curse worked out for the best in the end. And I will even go so far as to say that if even the affected Lamanites were to testify to them that the curse turned out to be a great blessing of salvation in disguise, many here would rather go down with a sinking ship name “Rebellion” rather than ever have to admit the Lord wisely did the right thing. So your argument is that cursing a bunch of people who won’t benefit from it is to the ultimate good because other people will benefit from it. So really the cursed amongst us are the most righteous of all as they follow in the path of the Savior? Should we not all seek to come under the curse of God since God will use that cursing to benefit others? Wouldn’t that be the truest sacrifice? Isn’t it selfish to follow the gospel when you could do a greater service to unborn generations by sinning and being cursed?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted February 23, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 23, 2024 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Let's run with this" apparently means "let's substantially distort what Spencer just said, and then make fun of that distortion." To wit: I don't think that is apt at all. There is no historical narrative along these lines. I think you are presenting this as an excuse to, in a priori fashion, refuse to address the Witness statements about the Plates. "If." Meanwhile, the actual historical narrative is that Brutus stabbed Caesar with some sort of implement. But by Roger's logic, the if the implement "physically existed" it "wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air." Ipso facto, we can dispute that Brutus stabbed Caesar with an implement. Thanks, -Smac You really don’t see the difference between a commonly available object and an extraordinary one? If I said that this morning I wrote my shopping list on a piece of paper and then travelled to the grocery store on a flying fiery chariot would you find both parts of that story equally credible when I fail to produce both the shopping list and the flying fiery chariot? 6
Danzo Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 Race is a cultural phenomenon that is completely dependent on our own cultural expectations and not on skin color. My wife has dark skin, her nickname is la Negra (literally translated as Black Woman). But no one in America would call her a "Black Woman" in English. Being called Black doesn't really have a lot to do with skin pigment, but everything to do with our cultures. People with much lighter skin than my wife would be called black and people with even darker skin than my wife wouldn't be Black. I remember when my children were young we were having a conversation about race (something they had to learn and school, it really didn't come naturally to them). I explained that people considered me to be "White". I still remember their response. "Dad, you are not white, you are pink". 3
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: This from you: Quote But it sure is convenient that you can toss it out there, then retreat from actually having to substantiate it. Ever. ...is more than a request. It was a passive aggressive demand. There is no demand in there. It's more of an observation, the accuracy of which you have previously demonstrated, and I suspect you will continue to do so. You and I talked about this back in 2016: Quote Quote I think it likely Jospeh wrote it and produced it himself. He may have had others assist. Who I do not know. I think Oliver Cowdery may have assisted but not sure. I have found the Spalding theory a bit compelling but also problematic. But it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now. Feel free to take that as a concession if you wish. This sounds more off-the-cuff than anything else. And since you don't want to discuss it ("it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now"), there doesn't seem to be much point in attempting further discourse about it. But this goes to Dr. Peterson's point. As audacious (or "fantastic" if you insist upon it) as the truth claims about The Book of Mormon are, the alternative theories are even more so, even less plausible. Hence Dr. Peterson's statement about why he "can't manage to disbelieve." The LDS Church has both a claimed witness of the Spirit on an individual/personal level, and also supplemental, ancillary analysis of The Book of Mormon and its origins. Meanwhile, the critics have . . . well, not much of anything to offer in contravention. After nearly 200 years, you'd think they'd have some coherent theory, but they don't. I find that interesting. You in 2016: "But it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now." You in 2024: "I have spent countless hours drilling into all these issues to come to the conclusions I have. I don't owe you anything more than I wish to spend time on." Not much has changed in the 8-year interval between these statements, even after spending "countless hours drilling into all these issues." Again, Dan Peterson had it right: "I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack." But this is only an intellectual incumbency, that's all. These discussions seem to be a "shoe is on the other foot" kind of thing. Normally it's the Latter-day Saints whose averments about the founding events of the Restoration get heavily scrutinized. Here, though, the Plates and the Witnesses are, as Peterson notes, "an absolutely indigestible lump in the throats of people like you who want to say that he just made it up." When folks present such alternative explanations, I think at that point it does become incumbent upon them to lay out their arguments, evidences, reasoning, etc. But it hardly ever happens. Ann Taves tried it a few years ago, and I certainly admire the effort. That was ten years ago, though, and her theory doesn't seem to have garnered much attention or traction since then. Meanwhile, it's predecessors are getting a bit long in the tooth, and are likewise not getting much attention: Quote The text of The Book of Mormon exists. The LDS Church has presented an explanation as to how that text came to exist. Just ask any missionary. In contrast, critics and dissidents have presented alternative explanations as to the origins of the text. That is certainly their prerogative. But at that point they are the ones making a claim. They are the ones asserting that the Church's teachings about the origins of the book are factually false. They are the ones making assertions about naturalistic or quasi-religious-but-still-rejecting-the-Church's-position explanations for The Book of Mormon. The "Inspired Fiction" theory is an example of such countervailing explanations for the existence and content of the text, as is the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory (and other "multiple author" theories), the "Joseph Smith as the sole author" theory, the "View of the Hebrews" theory, Grant Palmer's "The Golden Pot" theory, "The Late War" theory, and so on. I think the varied explanations can be reduced to three categories: Category A: Naturalistic / Secular Explanations - This one covers most of the attempts to explain authorship. Someone, prior to and/or during Joseph Smith's time (ca. 1827) wrote the text. Either Joseph Smith wrote it, or he colluded with others in the writing of the text and passing it off as a divinely-inspired "translation." The above-referenced Spalding-Rigdon, "View of the Hebrews," "Golden Pot," "Late War" and "multiple author" theories are fall into this category. ... Category B: Naturalistic / Non-Secular / "Inspired Fiction" Explanations - This category attempts to reconcile, to some extent, Category A and Category C. See, e.g., here: Quote Non-secular authorship theories (those involving some sort of “spiritual” element) usually fall into one of the following categories: Joseph Smith’s own story that he received the plates from an angel and translated them by “the power of God,” but that the work thus produced is simply inspirational fiction. Joseph Smith created the book through “non-divine” (i.e., satanic) inspiration. Joseph Smith wrote the book without any knowledge of what he was writing through a process called “automatic” or “spirit” writing. Closely related to this theory is that Joseph wrote the book during fits of Epilepsy. Category C: "Divinely Inspired" - The Church's explanation for the text is summed up in the "Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith" published with the BOM. Thanks, -Smac
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: Let's run with this" apparently means "let's substantially distort what Spencer just said, and then make fun of that distortion." You’re right. I forgot the part where Brutus got the light saber from an alien Jedi who directed the murder. The Jedi demanded the weapon back afterwards. (and if this sounds ridiculous to you, both stories sound about equally ridiculous to me.)
OGHoosier Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) This is actually a good opportunity for me to put down some thoughts I've been simmering. The Witnesses, I think, do away with any variety of "innocent hallucination" or mystical transfixation or any such hypotheses with regard to Joseph Smith. Likewise, I think stylometry and ancient literary forms render his authorship of the Book of Mormon exceedingly unlikely. We know by experience that these evidences are not universally compelling, because they abut the edge of the "impossible." Or rather, they put one to the "which is more likely, X or Y" question that often comes up around these quarters. Here comes the old Sherlock Holmes chestnut: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." After all, perhaps the analyses suffer from hidden methodological flaws. Perhaps the literary techniques are accidents. Or perhaps the Witnesses, against incentive or inclination, maintained the lie their whole lives. Maybe they duped themselves into actually believing it in later years. When one takes as one's doctrine the idea that religious and spiritual conviction stem ultimately from biologically-programmed hallucinations, or when one views God as so-improbable-as-to-be-impossible, the solution space is basically endless because the exact capabilities/constraints of the mind cannot be plumbed by us - even in principle. It is an endless explanatory playground which defies Bayesianism, admitting no authority but intuition, hinging all on one concept - the impossible. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In a sense we're running up on the same problem that doomed the infamous Dale Interpreter Article - the subjectivity of probability assessment. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm waiting on a copy of They Flew: A History of the Impossible by Yale historian Carlos Eire. Here is a review for those interested. The subject of the book is not, as I understand it, the experiences themselves - rather it is an exploration of how our concepts of the "impossible" are culturally contingent. As I'm reading it - or perhaps I'll wait until I'm done - I intend to post excerpts and the thoughts that accompany them. The question of our intuitions and their connection with the world is, in my opinion, the great question underlying all religious epistemology. Worse, it underlies the epistemology of all value by attacking what C.S. Lewis called "the Tao" - the concept of binding value itself. Perhaps @mfbukowski can tell us what awaits on the other side of that question. And, having blown off all that steam, I'm going back to my Iain McGilchrist. Edited February 23, 2024 by OGHoosier 1
Teancum Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 20 hours ago, smac97 said: Over many years, yes. And with plenty of help from others (see above). And we know who those others are (unlike the mysterious "whoever" you referenced). So Joseph received help from others in receiving revelation? Did other write his sermons? I would agree that others may have been recorders and editors with his approval. Yet we have this from Joseph: Quote “When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught?” History of the Church, 6:366 So even though he later edited, changed and back filled doctrine that was not in some original revelations he seemed pretty confident in them. This seems to attest to his talented ability to write and to preach. 20 hours ago, smac97 said: But far less complex and lengthy than the BoM text. I don't find the Book of Mormon complex at all. Much of it is repetitive. THe war sections are boring and simplistic. The doctrine is not complicated and reflects theological discussions of his day. The book also takes large amounts of content from the Bible. It overly uses the phrase "and it came to pass." It is contradictory on its positions and teaching about the Godhead. It contains very little unique doctrine. Most of those of other Christian faiths with whom I have discusses that book , and who are familiar withy it, find little to criticize as far as its doctrine. And but for the modalist passages they agree with what it teaches on the Godhead. They just don't think it was from god. THe D&C contains a much more complex tapestry of doctrine and weaves it together quite well as the Joseph's theology developed. Same for the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. 20 hours ago, smac97 said: Frankly, I don't. Ok. Frankly I do. I also still think he could have had help. I think the Spaulding manuscript and Sydney Rigdon is still a good theory. But more and more I think Joseph was capable. He certainly had the time. He claims to have had an angel visit him for four years before receiving the plates. That is plenty of time to write the book. Lucy Smith relates that Joseph often entertained them with tales of the ancient inhabitants of America long before he produces the Book of Mormon. This articles that argues that Joseph could have written the book: https://medium.com/@jellistx/fact-checking-mormon-history-could-joseph-smith-have-authored-the-book-of-mormon-8b5a29a6f519 Some excerpts: Quote Elder B. H. Roberts, a President of the Seventy and one of the foremost Mormon scholars of the early twentieth century, elaborated: (Studies of the Book of Mormon, p 244) Whence comes the young prophet’s ability to give these descriptions “with as much ease as if he had spent his whole life” with these ancient inhabitants of America? Not from the Book of Mormon, which is, as yet, a sealed book to him; and surely not from Moroni, since he had had but one day and night of interviews with him, during which there had been several interviews, it is true, but these had been occupied with other subject matter than the things enumerated by Lucy Smith. These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare’s and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard’s. Quote Early letters from Joseph survive that refute Emma’s claim that “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter.” One example is this one to Oliver Cowdery in October 1829, as the Book of Mormon was being prepared for publication: Respected sir I would in form you that I arrived at home on sunday morning the 4th. after having a prosperous journy, and found all well the people are all friendly to <us> except a few who are in opposition to evry thing unless it is some thing that is axactly like themselves and two of our most formadable persacutors are now under censure and are cited to a trial in the church for crimes which if true are worse than all the Gold Book business. we do not rejoice in the affliction of our enimies but we shall be glad to have truth prevail there begins to be a great call for our books in this country the minds of the people are very much excited when they find that there is a copy right obtained and that there is really books about to be printed… At first glance this looks pretty rough, but it’s actually typical for nineteenth century correspondence: spelling was creative (and influenced by regional accents), punctuation was optional, and paragraphing was infrequent. When we modernize these, it becomes quite readable: Respected sir, I would inform you that I arrived at home on Sunday morning the 4th after having a prosperous journey, and found all well. The people are all friendly to us, except a few — who are in opposition to every thing unless it is something that is exactly like themselves. Two of our most formidable persecutors are now under censure, and are cited to a trial in the church for crimes, which if true are worse than all the Gold Book business. We do not rejoice in the affliction of our enemies, but we shall be glad to have truth prevail. There begins to be a great call for our books in this country. The minds of the people are very much excited when they find that there is a copyright obtained and that there are really books about to be printed. It’s important to recognize that the same kind of editorial cleanup applied here was also made for the Book of Mormon itself. Much of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was irrecoverably damaged by water after being placed into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo temple, but about 30% of it survived. Here is the beginning of 1 Nephi 3, dictated with Oliver Cowdery as scribe: & it came to pass that I Nephi returned from speaking with the Lord to the tent of my father & it came to pass that he spake unto me saying behold I have dreamed a dream in the which the Lord hath commanded m me that thou & thy Brethren shall return to Jerusalem for behold Laban hath the reckord of the Jews & also a genealogy of my forefathers & they are engraven upon plates of Brass wherefore the Lord hath commanded me that thou & thy Brethers should go unto the house of Laban & seek the reckords & bring them down <hither> into the wilderness & now behold thy Brethers murmur saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them but behold I have not required <it> of them but it is a commandment of the Lord therefore go my Son & thou shalt be favoured of the Lord because thou hast not murmured and it came to pass that I nephi said unto my father I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men Save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them Compare the finished text here. Printer E.B. Grandin was able to take a stream-of-dictation manuscript, much like I did with Joseph’s letter, and turn it into a readable book with only minor changes. Quote Long Biblical Quotations I want to tackle the question of the content of the Book of Mormon in a separate essay, but there is some overlap with its creation when we look at the presence of large passages from Isaiah and Matthew in the text. Emma testified specifically that “[Joseph] had neither manuscript or book to read from.” David Whitmer, in whose house most of the Book of Mormon was translated, gave one of our most detailed descriptions of how Joseph dictated the Book: Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Joseph mixed Biblical references and quotations throughout his personal and prophetic work, but we have no evidence that his talents included the kind of prodigious memorization necessary to reproduce dozens of pages nearly verbatim from the KJV. Does this mean that he must have translated it from the Nephite record? We can actually answer that question from the text of the Book of Mormon. Careful analysis shows that the Book of Mormon depends on the KJV itself, rather than independent sources from the brass plates (for the Old) or the words of Jesus (for the New). David Wright explains in “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon”, Book of Mormon Isaiah reproduces the KJV text literally except for a few words or phrases here and there. If it were an independent translation, one would expect to find synonymous but not identical wording. There is a focus on changing words which are italicized in the KJV, which Joseph would have known indicated non-literal interpolations from the original Hebrew. Sometimes Joseph’s deleting of italicized words creates ungrammatical or unclear English. Book of Mormon Isaiah preserves numerous obscure, problematic, and erroneous translations of the KJV. Some variants in the Book of Mormon are inconsistent with and therefore show an ignorance of Hebrew language and style, and some even depend upon the ambiguity of the English language. The Book of Mormon portrays its Isaiah text as deriving from no later than about 600 BC, when the character Lehi left Jerusalem. Yet it cites several chapters from Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55), which is demonstrated by overwhelming evidence to have been written around the time Cyrus conquered Babylon (539 BC). Wright goes on to explain each point in more detail. For a similar examination of New Testament passages, see Ronald Huggins, “Did the Author of 3 Nephi Know the Gospel of Matthew?” Both believing and skeptical scholars accept that this evidence refutes the testimony of Emma and David Whitmer — that Joseph must have used a copy of the Bible or excerpts from it while translating, at least for the passages in question. Writing in The Ensign, Richard Anderson explains that [T]he language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” [Emphasis in the original.] For further reading see: Quote Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon. This is the most thorough work on Book of Mormon translation by a believing scholar. Like Blake Ostler, Gardner concludes that the Book has a core of authentic ancient writing, but with substantial expansion by Joseph. B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon. After a careful look at internal and external evidence, Roberts (Assistant Church Historian and a member of the First Council of Seventy) concludes as we have here that Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon. Also see Brigham Madsen, “B. H. Roberts's Studies of the Book of Mormon,” where Madsen, who edited the posthumous publication of Studies, responds to attempts to discredit Roberts’s work. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. A modern skeptical perspective focused on Joseph’s early life and the production of the Book of Mormon. 20 hours ago, smac97 said: The D&C doesn't describe extensive details of an "ancient world," nor does it include unusual proper names (many of which have plausible etymological roots that comport with Joseph's narrative), or extensive descriptions of geography, or of calendar systems, or of weights and measures, or descriptions of realistic battles. There are no "complex narratives," etc. We will have to disagree about how complex the BoM is. As noted, I don't find it as such. You do. While a believer I enjoyed reading it because I enjoyed all the scriptures I then believed were from God. But I would say that the ones I enjoyed studying most were the New Testament, The Doctrine & Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Mormon and the Old Testament, in that order. But perhaps 8 years or so before my faith started unraveling I was appreciating the Book of Mormon more, primarily because I was focused more on the message of the atonement of Jesus Christ. 20 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think "apologists" impute his intelligence, just his education and writing ability and information at the time the Book of Mormon text was being produced. Through both personal study and revelation, and over a period of many years, Joseph came to be fairly erudite. But that wasn't the case during the period the text was being produced. Thanks, -Smac Based on my study of his life I think he was rather talented right from the get go and start of his ministry.
Teancum Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 23 hours ago, smac97 said: There is no demand in there. It's more of an observation, the accuracy of which you have previously demonstrated, and I suspect you will continue to do so. Wow. You really went back to 2017. 8 years ago. You have far to much time on your hands. Since that date I have read and listened to much more on the production of the BoM. I just posted a more substantive post for you. And your comment above is another passive aggressive comment. You seem to excel at such comments. Edited February 24, 2024 by Teancum
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: You’re right. I forgot the part where Brutus got the light saber from an alien Jedi who directed the murder. The Jedi demanded the weapon back afterwards. (and if this sounds ridiculous to you, both stories sound about equally ridiculous to me.) Would the story be less ridiculous if there were contemporary first-hand accounts from people who had seen and heard Brutus' lightsaber? If Brutus' wife felt the hilt of the lightsaber under the tablecloth as she straightened the dining room table? If the lightsaber produced something that could be studied by subsequent generations? 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Would the story be less ridiculous if there were contemporary first-hand accounts Can you point me to these contemporary first-hand accounts? We have the statements written in the Book of Mormon. It’s unknown who authored those statements. What other first-hand accounts do we have from the 11 witnesses? Where they recorded their experience contemporaneously? A journal entry? A letter to a close friend? Preferably within a month or two of the event as memory changes overtime. Edited February 23, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: So what exactly is keeping the blame from falling back one more generation? Were Laman and Lemuel not brought up the right way? I have wondered that myself. 3
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Should we not all seek to come under the curse of God since God will use that cursing to benefit others? Aren’t we all under the curse of the Fall, which has led to separation from God for humanity? I think you mean even more cursing.
bluebell Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 On 2/21/2024 at 7:36 PM, pogi said: I never implied that I think all culture is good. And yes, all culture (just like morals) are relative/subjective. I How so? Culture (in this context) is another word for customs. Are you saying that all customs that exist in the world are morally relative? Quote If I wasn’t clear, I am speaking more of traditional culture and not a lot of the problems, including alcoholism, that came with the European invasion of these peoples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans As far as racial identity goes, that was also lost (not just their culture) by many Native Americans who were placed in these programs (of course they had to be baptized first and abandon their “superstitions” in order to enter the program). I haven’t heard anybody address this yet. How is this any better than baseball baptisms? The success/retention rate was about on par to baseball baptisms. I see a major parallel. It was not ok. None of that was what I was responding too. I was responding to your reply to Danzo, who also didn't seem to be responding to any of this. Perhaps you and Danzo are talking about two different things but you didn't notice? 1
bluebell Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 On 2/22/2024 at 10:18 AM, Thinking said: Swinging is swapping partners. I know that, I just don't get how you would suggest he has those subconscious feelings or desires?
Teancum Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 On 2/22/2024 at 3:18 PM, smac97 said: And then we have the Plates, the witnesses, etc. Now, you can certainly disagree with the Church's teachings about how the text came about. However, you slide all sorts of unsubstantiated presuppositions into your six-word statement ("JS or whoever wrote the BoM..."). And if you were to ever elaborate on the evidence regarding authorship by Joseph Smith or "whoever," I think you would immediately resort to "mysterious" claims (who is "whoever"? where did Joseph get his information and writing skills?) and all sorts of "spin doctor{ing}" (there being no substantial evidence that Joseph Smith had the knowledge/skill to write it, nor any evidence of the mysterious and anonymous "whoever"), which is what you are complaining about here. Alternatively, I suspect you will refuse to make no particular effort to explain or substantiate or otherwise advance your claim that "JS or whoever wrote the BoM." "Someone." Can I look forward to you making any sort of effort to advance this "19th century product" thesis? The text needs to be accounted for. The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for. The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for. A conclusory assertion that "JS or whoever" wrote it just doesn't have much persuasive value. Thanks, -Smac So here are some of my thoughts on the plates and the witnesses. Human beings are animals that are easily deceived. We are superstitious. We fall for con men quite easily. Even today in our modern world people fall into all sorts of things. I just watched a show about a bunch of Trumpists who believe in some numerology along with the alphabet who think that JFK and JFK Jr are descendents of Jesus Christ, as is Trump. Kennedy and his son are really not dead. They expected them both to show up on a recent anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and join Trump to win the presidency. The promoter of this little cult like group unfortunately died a year or so ago. Yet his follower think it is part of the plan and he is in hiding now as well and will show up, along with the Kennedy's, and save the day. I will concede to you I do not have a lot of answers for the plates other than it seems to be that subterfuge on creating something the looked and felt like gold plates would not be tough IMO. The culture of the time and place where and when Joseph lived was highly superstitious. Many believe in magic and other practices that we would call the occult. Joseph senior and junior has a history of unsuccessful treasure digging and seemed to be able to always come up with some reason why the treasure his peep stone indicated was there could not be found. So he had some practice. Martin Harris was extremely gullible and had a history of falling for all sorts of schemes. David Whitmer only had a frontier education. Cowdery was likely the smartest of the three. The plates were allegedly only actually seen by a small few persons. And they were only on seen under a cover, or handled by a few more. Not a large group to deceive. Nor a large group of which some could have colluded with Joseph. GIven all this I don't find the story of plates to compelling and the fact that they disappeared or were taken back by an angel is simply to convenient. So really, with all this scat "evidence" for the plates I don't find the story of the plates compelling at all and it is on you and others that believe there were plates that were ancient and that they were delivered by an angel and son on to prove they were real. And really you can't and have little to go on. So no. Nobody but believers need to address the plates. It is not the job of the skeptic. This is true of all claim of supernatural intervention especially when the message that results is to follow the claims and teachings of the so called prophet making the claims.
Recommended Posts