LDS II: The Mormons

[Craig4]

Describe these disruptive debates about how the money was spent please.

 

[Craig4]

[qimg]http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z323/slowvehicle/tapir.jpg[/qimg]

"A tapir, a tapir, my kingdom for a tapir". Yeah, not really seeing it.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't know the Church could read members' minds.

Neither can the North Koreans but they punish people for thought crimes.

How this works skyrider is that when people state their thoughts they are then punished for having bad thoughts.

Of course, that's why they have released Joseph Smith's personal papers.

Milk before meat Sky.

That's an undisputed fact.

 

[halleyscomet]

Then why do you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time minimizing the importance of Paul?

I'm not. Your the one making claims that he and his epistles are of elevated theological importance above the other apostles and epistles. Such a claim is at odds with the theology of all the denominations I've ever studied. I've repeatedly asked you if your claims are LDS dogma and if so, if you could link to information on that position. You have consistently and repeatedly FAILED to support your claims.

Do you really not realize that YOUR claims are the ones at odds with typical Christian dogma?

Why are you arguing about things you refuse to support?

Are you unaware that some faithful LDS reject the plates story as the origin of the BoM, but still find valuable, unique spiritual insights in the book?

I'm aware of them, and such Mormons are taking steps in the right direction. Do you accept the plates origin of the BOM?

Critics have had to backtrack re. claims that some statements in the BoM are false. I can cite examples if you're interested.

Citation needed. I'd LOVE to see the examples you can come up with. Let's start with horses. How do LDS apologists explain away the references to horses in the BOM?

I'm a quiver with antici-

pation

 

[halleyscomet]

If the BoM "really is a divine document" how would Satan be able to trick millions of Mormons into missing God's "real message" in the book?

As I tried to convey in my "Pilgrim's Progress" analogy, tricking people into believing an extend parable is a literal history is going to radically skew any efforts to interpret it.

Perhaps a less theological example may help. A parable is in order.

Imagine a teacher. This teacher is trying to teach his students some mathematics. He assigns them a worksheet full of word problems. The students however decide that instead of working out the maths on the sheet, they'll debate the accuracy of the events described in the word problems. Why is Johnny taking five apples from Larry without offering compensation? Where did this happen? The problems describe a Farmer's Market in a town named Springfield. What state was this Springfield in? The farmers were selling "local produce at the peak of ripeness" but the fruits mentioned ripen at different times of the year and grow in different climates, how can this be?

The students spend the entire period trying to find out where the word problems happened and trying to prove they REALLY happened. When the teacher collects the papers, they haven't learned a lick of math, because they've been so distracted by a failure to understand that the stories on the pages were there to teach them lessons, not as a literal history.

Now, you of course ask what relevance this has to what we're discussing. In this parable, God is the teacher, and the worksheets are his word. We are the students. The collection of the papers is, of course, death.

You are so focused on trying to prove the Springfield farmer's market was real, that you're not learning any of the math on the pages. That is, you are so busy trying to prove your holy scriptures a literal history that you are failing to learn any of the moral lessons they may contain. This is to your detriment and Satan's benefit.

As I note above, if the BoM is a divine document, Satan is tricking no one.

Teaching people to lie about archeology to support a literal interpretation of the BOM isn't at triumph for Satan? Making people read the tall tales of Nephi as if they actually happened isn't going to alter the message they convey? Making people waste their time trying to explain away a parable's apocryphal mentions of horses in pre-columbian America isn't an accomplishment for anyone trying to pervert the message taken from reading the text?

To give a more pragmatic example, which do you think Satan would prefer, $20 Million spent building a tacky "Creation Science" theme part with a replica of Noah's Ark, or $15 Million spent on feeding the poor and another $5 Million spent on evangelism and outreach?

 

[halleyscomet]

"A tapir, a tapir, my kingdom for a tapir". Yeah, not really seeing it.

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon: Horses

The apologist position on Horses in the BOM seems to boil down to two divergent claims:

1. The absence of evidence does not prove there were no horses.

2. "Horse" referred to a different animal.

Argument #1 is putting the cart before the horse, pun intended. 1 John 4:1 tells us to "test the spirit"

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

A Christian must test the Book of Mormon before deeming it scripture, and a lack of evidence to support one of it's claims does not constitute support for the claims. A lack of evidence that there were domesticated horses at that time and place does not constitute support for claims of the BOM being a literal history, no matter how much theological spin one puts on it.

Claim #2 is dependent upon there being animals we can prove existed at the time described that could have been interpreted as "horses" in "reformed Egyptian. Mike Ash tries to engage in such linguistic gymnastics in the essay Horses in the Book of Mormon. One of his big problems is that he has to make a large number of assumptions about "Reformed Egyptian" a language for which there are NO extant examples and NO written accounts outside of Mormon scripture.

Let's test his core argument however and assume the vague "Reformed Egyptian" word often translated as "horse" just referred to a vague "leaping" or pack animal. According to this apologetic, the same word would refer to deer, tapirs, llamas, rabbits and a host of other animals useable either for hunting for domestication. It's a very, very bad sign when your chief defense involves watering down a word to the point of being useless. Without some actual Reformed Egyptian to study it's a rather comical post-hock rationalization, but it'll be fun to take a charitable look at it.

1 Nephi 18:25
25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of
promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were
beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and
the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all
manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we
did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of
copper.

I LOVE this verse because it's so packed full of anachronisms, but the word "horse" is the one we care about now. There's no evidence of asses being in the new world either, and the phrase "the ass and the horse" seems to suggest a connection not unlike the one a 19th century American would draw from the terms. That said, if we assume Smith was an inept translator whose guidance was haphazard and incompetent at best, we can see how a vague "leaping" animal could be paired with an ass and declared a horse. The post-hock stands, but it casts the accuracy of Smith's translation into doubt in the process.

2 Nephi 12:7
7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there
any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses,
neither is there any end of their chariots.

If we grant "chariot" is a REALLY grand term for a small cart, then llamas are contenders for this verse. Llamas can pull carts.

2 Nephi 15:28
28 Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and
their horses' hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels
like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.

A bit of light Googling suggests the Guanaco can run about 35 mph and a llama about 20 mph. They're going to be a lot slower when pulling a cart, but this is a prophetic passage, so we'll grant Nephi some artistic license in calling a llama pulling a cart a "whirlwind."

Enos 1:21
21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the
land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of
herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and
goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

It's so tempting to go off on the other anachronisms in these verses, but I'm going to focus on horses. The incredibly vague theoretical "Reformed Egyptian" word survives this test as well. You can just as easily write "and also many deer," or "and also many tapir" or even "and also many llamas" without changing the meaning.

Alma 18:9
9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now
the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the
watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and
chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there
had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the
father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

Alma 18:10
10 Now when king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his
horses and his chariots he was more astonished, because of the
faithfulness of Ammon, saying: Surely there has not been any
servant among all my servants that has been so faithful as this
man; for even he doth remember all my commandments to execute
them.

Here again we get to these pesky carts being called "chariots." To make these passages work we need to assume llamas pulling carts. While the implication is that these are battle chariots, the reality would necessitate them being no more than lightweight supply carts, or carts for transporting officers. Given the realities of armed conflict having a fleet of carts to resupply troops could be a significant combat advantage. The image is of Roman style chariots being pulled by noble steeds. The closest we can get to reality is sledges or carts (probably sledges given the archeology) pulled by llamas.

Alma 18:12
12 And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses
and the chariots for the king and his servants, he went in unto
the king, and he saw that the countenance of the king was
changed; therefore he was about to return out of his presence.

If we take the "horses" as llamas and the "chariots" as supply sledges, this verse describes not just a rush to get troops into combat but preparation for a prolonged conflict where it'll be necessary resupply troops.

Of course, assuming Llamas requires we assume most of the Book of Mormon happened largely in South America, with little to no activity in North America.

There are other "Horses and chariots" verses like Alma 20:6. I'm going to skip over them because they offer no real variation from the ones I've already quoted. For all of them, we can consider "llamas and supply sledges" a valid interpretation if we grant the translator a MASSIVE dollop of hubris and theatrical license AND assume all theories about any of these passages being set in North America are false.

Here we come to an interesting question. The ONLY way these passages work is if we have llamas pulling small carts or sledges, NOT horses pulling chariots. The image Smith used in his "translation" therefore creates a false impression of the alleged reality. He describes useful tactical supply carts as weapons of direct war and moves events that would have happened in limited regions of South America to North America. If There's ANY truth to the Book of Mormon, most the action in the book happened in what we now call Peru.

The exaggeration inerrant to Smith's "translation" casts doubt upon the entire narrative. If llamas and sledges become horses and chariots, what other exaggerations were introduced and by whom? Is Smith responsible for the tall tale aspects of the story, or did he merely translate another person's lies and exaggerations?

Of course, these problems go away if we consider the Book of Mormon to be a parable rather than a literal history. Instead of deceptive passages that mislead you about the events and circumstances described, it becomes a tale of heroism and conflict with a deeper message than "So what ELSE did Nephi lie about?"

 

[halleyscomet]

You know, it's kinda tempting to go through the anachronisms and determine the most likely locations for the events in the BOM.

I'm certainly not the first to conclude that if the BOM happened the bulk of it had to happen in Peru. Check out this fascinating claim:

http://www.answers.com/Q/Are_elephants_native_to_Peru

Anyone know if this is an established legend, or a bit of more recent fan fiction?

 

[Olowkow]

It is claimed by some that the rate of antidepressant use is much higher among Mormons than the general population.

• Is this evidence that participation in the LDS Church is inordinately stressful due to pressure for Mormons to appear "perfect?"

According to FairMormon.org the answer is, "No".

Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.... Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed. http://en.fairmormon.org/Utah/Statistical_claims/LDS_use_of_antidepressants#cite_note-1

Without further research, critics of the Church have no convincing evidence that higher anti-depressant use in Utah is caused by problems or difficulties associated with being a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint.

There are obviously many possible reasons for this high correlation which do not constitute evidence of causation. For instance, the results could indicate that Utahans are more enlightened about depression and mental illness and therefore don't stigmatize these conditions. In such a social climate more people are willing to seek help and are prescribed drugs. Or, Utahans enjoy excellent health care programs.

A 2013 paper found that, based upon Twitter metrics, Utah is in the top five most happy states:
The happiest 5 states, in order, are: Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Utah and Vermont. The saddest 5 states, in order, are: Louisiana, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware and Georgia. [11] If we are to blame the Church for Utah's antidepressant use, then we must also credit the Church for Utah's over-all happiness.

Well, ....maybe.
I'm not convinced this article successfully addresses an argument that explains the problem. Their conclusions are generally based on vague claims such as:

In religious people generally, 59% of studies from 1985–1995 suggest a positive benefit on mental health; another 26% were neutral.

Utah has a low rate of recreational alcohol use, especially among practicing Mormons who completely abstain from alcoholic beverages. Alcohol is commonly used by adults as an aid to stress relief, a "lubricant" for social interactions, and to "treat" (unwittingly or not) symptoms of anxiety, depression, and the like. Since many Mormons will not consider alcohol an "option," they could be more likely to seek help from a professional instead of turning to commercially available mood-altering substances.

This sounds more like an anti-Mormon site than like apologetics from a FairMormon point of view.

 

[halleyscomet]

There was a time when the Church did disclose its finances. That policy led to disruptive debates about how the funds were being allocated.

What sorts of debates were there?

What kind of expenditures did the congregations take issue with?

 

[Pup]

Utah has a low rate of recreational alcohol use, especially among practicing Mormons who completely abstain from alcoholic beverages. Alcohol is commonly used by adults as an aid to stress relief, a "lubricant" for social interactions, and to "treat" (unwittingly or not) symptoms of anxiety, depression, and the like. Since many Mormons will not consider alcohol an "option," they could be more likely to seek help from a professional instead of turning to commercially available mood-altering substances.

This sounds more like an anti-Mormon site than like apologetics from a FairMormon point of view.

That particular explanation just sounds intuitively right to me, though of course I'd bow to studies that give greater evidence for another reason.

But if one wants a drug for stress, anxiety, depression, etc., and one is taught it's only socially acceptable to go that route if one gets permission from a doctor first, then one will be more apt to head for a doctor than the corner liquor store, because the doctor makes it okay.

Even among the nonreligious, even among skeptics, there's a tendency to say "see a doctor" rather than "try drinking a little more alcohol," when one is trying to give a socially acceptable, responsible answer to someone complaining of mental health issues. Whether that's actually better or worse for society is open to debate, but it seems widespread and would only be more exaggerated in a state with additional religious pressure.

 

[Olowkow]

With regard to the article posted at FairMormon.org, I would have expected an explanation more along the lines of what the diagnosed reasons for this apparently endemic depression might be in a largely (62%)Mormon state, rather than extensive arguments that the cause could not possibly be the fault of the Mormon religion. I got the impression that the consumption of huge quantities of anti-depressants by Mormons is not shocking or even unusual among LDS adherents, who are known to claim that their faith sustains them through stressful or depressing times.

Alcohol, of course is a depressant, so drinking when depressed is not a good idea. Anti-depressants have several chronic side effects on health, including lowering the libido. Could they be using these as a type of birth control?

 

[Craig4]

The issue with the horses and chariots is more than not finding either horses or chariots. It's that the landscape archeology of pre-colonization Mezo America does not support there having been either horses or wheeled vehicles. The lifeways of people with domesticated work animals and wheeled transport change. Roads become important. Trade takes on new proportions. There's a cascade of impacts that should be present in the archeology that simply aren't there. These aren't small details either; these are huge impacts from a human changed landscape.

 

[skyrider44]

. . .Again, feel free to present empirical, objective, non-anecdotal, date-appropriate, practical, objective evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, that the pre-colombian mesoamericans used and kept horses; or husbanded bovine cattle; or cultivated wheat, and barley; or smelted steel; or knew the elephant. I have asked you to do so for quite some time.

Someone who takes your position (i.e., we already know everything there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment) might be accused of believing science is static. Of course, it is anything but.

Are you unaware that the late British archaeologist M. F. Ashley Montague (non-LDS), who taught at Harvard, "suggested that the horse never became extinct in America? According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses bred with early American horses."
He is joined by non-LDS Canadian researcher Yuri Kuchinsky, who also believes that there were pre-Columbian horses.

(I'm out of time . . . sources and more info. later.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon: Horses

The apologist position on Horses in the BOM seems to boil down to two divergent claims:

1. The absence of evidence does not prove there were no horses.

2. "Horse" referred to a different animal.

Argument #1 is putting the cart before the horse, pun intended. 1 John 4:1 tells us to "test the spirit"



A Christian must test the Book of Mormon before deeming it scripture, and a lack of evidence to support one of it's claims does not constitute support for the claims. A lack of evidence that there were domesticated horses at that time and place does not constitute support for claims of the BOM being a literal history, no matter how much theological spin one puts on it.

Claim #2 is dependent upon there being animals we can prove existed at the time described that could have been interpreted as "horses" in "reformed Egyptian. Mike Ash tries to engage in such linguistic gymnastics in the essay Horses in the Book of Mormon. One of his big problems is that he has to make a large number of assumptions about "Reformed Egyptian" a language for which there are NO extant examples and NO written accounts outside of Mormon scripture.

Let's test his core argument however and assume the vague "Reformed Egyptian" word often translated as "horse" just referred to a vague "leaping" or pack animal. According to this apologetic, the same word would refer to deer, tapirs, llamas, rabbits and a host of other animals useable either for hunting for domestication. It's a very, very bad sign when your chief defense involves watering down a word to the point of being useless. Without some actual Reformed Egyptian to study it's a rather comical post-hock rationalization, but it'll be fun to take a charitable look at it.



I LOVE this verse because it's so packed full of anachronisms, but the word "horse" is the one we care about now. There's no evidence of asses being in the new world either, and the phrase "the ass and the horse" seems to suggest a connection not unlike the one a 19th century American would draw from the terms. That said, if we assume Smith was an inept translator whose guidance was haphazard and incompetent at best, we can see how a vague "leaping" animal could be paired with an ass and declared a horse. The post-hock stands, but it casts the accuracy of Smith's translation into doubt in the process.



If we grant "chariot" is a REALLY grand term for a small cart, then llamas are contenders for this verse. Llamas can pull carts.



A bit of light Googling suggests the Guanaco can run about 35 mph and a llama about 20 mph. They're going to be a lot slower when pulling a cart, but this is a prophetic passage, so we'll grant Nephi some artistic license in calling a llama pulling a cart a "whirlwind."



It's so tempting to go off on the other anachronisms in these verses, but I'm going to focus on horses. The incredibly vague theoretical "Reformed Egyptian" word survives this test as well. You can just as easily write "and also many deer," or "and also many tapir" or even "and also many llamas" without changing the meaning.



Here again we get to these pesky carts being called "chariots." To make these passages work we need to assume llamas pulling carts. While the implication is that these are battle chariots, the reality would necessitate them being no more than lightweight supply carts, or carts for transporting officers. Given the realities of armed conflict having a fleet of carts to resupply troops could be a significant combat advantage. The image is of Roman style chariots being pulled by noble steeds. The closest we can get to reality is sledges or carts (probably sledges given the archeology) pulled by llamas.



If we take the "horses" as llamas and the "chariots" as supply sledges, this verse describes not just a rush to get troops into combat but preparation for a prolonged conflict where it'll be necessary resupply troops.

Of course, assuming Llamas requires we assume most of the Book of Mormon happened largely in South America, with little to no activity in North America.

There are other "Horses and chariots" verses like Alma 20:6. I'm going to skip over them because they offer no real variation from the ones I've already quoted. For all of them, we can consider "llamas and supply sledges" a valid interpretation if we grant the translator a MASSIVE dollop of hubris and theatrical license AND assume all theories about any of these passages being set in North America are false.

Here we come to an interesting question. The ONLY way these passages work is if we have llamas pulling small carts or sledges, NOT horses pulling chariots. The image Smith used in his "translation" therefore creates a false impression of the alleged reality. He describes useful tactical supply carts as weapons of direct war and moves events that would have happened in limited regions of South America to North America. If There's ANY truth to the Book of Mormon, most the action in the book happened in what we now call Peru.

The exaggeration inerrant to Smith's "translation" casts doubt upon the entire narrative. If llamas and sledges become horses and chariots, what other exaggerations were introduced and by whom? Is Smith responsible for the tall tale aspects of the story, or did he merely translate another person's lies and exaggerations?

Of course, these problems go away if we consider the Book of Mormon to be a parable rather than a literal history. Instead of deceptive passages that mislead you about the events and circumstances described, it becomes a tale of heroism and conflict with a deeper message than "So what ELSE did Nephi lie about?"

Well said! Hear, hear!

 

[Slowvehicle]

The issue with the horses and chariots is more than not finding either horses or chariots. It's that the landscape archeology of pre-colonization Mezo America does not support there having been either horses or wheeled vehicles. The lifeways of people with domesticated work animals and wheeled transport change. Roads become important. Trade takes on new proportions. There's a cascade of impacts that should be present in the archeology that simply aren't there. These aren't small details either; these are huge impacts from a human changed landscape.

 

[abaddon]

Someone who takes your position (i.e., we already know everything there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment) might be accused of believing science is static. Of course, it is anything but.

Are you unaware that the late British archaeologist M. F. Ashley Montague (non-LDS), who taught at Harvard, "suggested that the horse never became extinct in America? According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses bred with early American horses."
He is joined by non-LDS Canadian researcher Yuri Kuchinsky, who also believes that there were pre-Columbian horses.

(I'm out of time . . . sources and more info. later.)

Did you somehow miss the fact that the horse precipitously teetered on the brink of total extinction before it ever was artificially imported to the US?

 

[Craig4]

Why thank you.

 

[jsfisher]

Claim #2 is dependent upon there being animals we can prove existed at the time described that could have been interpreted as "horses" in "reformed Egyptian.

How could this be? I thought it was the Book of Abraham that was translated from reformed Egyptian; the Book of Mormon was rock-in-dark-hat divine vision thing, no?

Then again, isn't the Book of Mormon touted as the most perfect of all texts precisely because it is completely free of translation errors?

Geez, it seems almost like Smith fabricated the whole thing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Someone who takes your position (i.e., we already know everything there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment) might be accused of believing science is static. Of course, it is anything but.
Are you unaware that the late British archaeologist M. F. Ashley Montague (non-LDS), who taught at Harvard, "suggested that the horse never became extinct in America? According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses bred with early American horses."
He is joined by non-LDS Canadian researcher Yuri Kuchinsky, who also believes that there were pre-Columbian horses.

(I'm out of time . . . sources and more info. later.)

Thank you so very much for your excellent honesty in providing quoted material without attribution.

It is interesting to note that Shields (http://www.shields-research.org/Books/Sperry/AChap18.htm )(NOT a "non-LDS source") has the following:

M. F. Ashley Montagu relates some traditions about the mammoth and then says:

There is even a possibility that in certain parts of the country the mammoth may have lingered on up to as recently as five hundred years ago. In several conversations with the writer, Professor William Berryman Scott, the doyen of American paleontologists, has given it as his opinion that, had the first of the Spanish discoverers of America penetrated into the interior, it is quite possible that they might have met with the living mammoth. Another distinguished American paleontologist, whose special interest is the horse, is, I understand, of the opinion that the horse never became extinct in America.14...
...14 As quoted by Harris, op. cit., p. 92

A couple of interesting things:

1. "Harris" is Franklins Stewart Harris, a Mormon apologist (not a "non-LDS source"); the opus cited is the second edition of The Book of Mormon : message and evidences (1961) (not a "non-LDS source"), published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not a "non-LDS source"). I am in the process of borrowing an online copy.

2. Further, in spite of your unsubstantiated claim, it is not Montagu, but an unnamed and unsourced "distinguished American paleontologist" who is "of the opinion that the horse never became extinct in America", at least according to the quote in Shields.

3. No evidence is proffered for the second-hand hearsay opinion, which is not Montagu's.

As for Kuchinsky, he accepts the Spencer lake Horse Hoax (http://archaeology.about.com/od/frauds/a/spencer_lake.htm) as a genuine artifact, over and above the recorded confession of the hoaxer. You may be using the term, "evidence", in a different way than scholars do.

Not to mention, many if not all of Kuchinsky's "early dates" are post-Colombian, ranging from an "amazingly early" date of 1567, though the late 1600's (http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/tran/9h0.htm,http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/tran/9h0.htm.)

 

[halleyscomet]

How could this be? I thought it was the Book of Abraham that was translated from reformed Egyptian; the Book of Mormon was rock-in-dark-hat divine vision thing, no?

Then again, isn't the Book of Mormon touted as the most perfect of all texts precisely because it is completely free of translation errors?

Geez, it seems almost like Smith fabricated the whole thing.

Most of the Egyptian papyri that smith "translated" were destroyed, but a few pages survived. Those pages, as well as Smith's own sketches of some of the material he "translated" are of a bog-standard Egyptian funerary text.