• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

LDS II: The Mormons

I think most of the mistakes can be put down to sheer ignorance. Joseph Smith simply didn't know that so much of what he saw around him had been brought from the old world; he just assumed that horses, barley etc had always been there.
 
I think that an be explained by the very tiny print at the bottom of the page (embiggened for readability):
The views or opinions expressed by the Nephi Project or this web site are not the official position of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Click to expand...


That may well be true, but their mission statement gives us their real story:

The Nephi Project is dedicated to discovery. We know that The Book of Mormon is a true history and that compelling empirical evidence still exists to support that assertion. The Nephi Project is self- supported through public awareness programs that highlight its discoveries. These include live presentations, books, films and the Internet.

We support individual projects with the following objectives:
1.) Discovering evidence for the Lehi–Nephi Trail to Bountiful.
2.) Understanding the methods and materials used by Nephi to build his ship.
3.) Gaining insights into Nephi’s ocean voyage to the New World.
4.) Discovering the lands of the Nephites in the New World.
Click to expand...
My translation:Shoehorn whatever we can find that agrees with us into the BoM.​
 
I'm have real problems with the quote function. The above post is in response to Post #1535:

halleyscomet said:
I now present: the Nephi Project, a site that says "Is the Book of Mormon a true history? We believe it is" on the same page where they have a logo proclaiming them to be an "Independent Research Group."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It was worse than you think; still is

halleyscomet said:
I've reached the conclusion he put as much effort into it as his intellect could manage.
Click to expand...

I fear that Joe put only enough effort into it to fool the clodhoppers he set out to fool. He knew the contents of his mark-barrel pretty well, and coolly estimated how little it would take to gull them.

And it's working yet.
 
SezMe said:
I think that an be explained by the very tiny print at the bottom of the page (embiggened for readability):
​


That may well be true, but their mission statement gives us their real story:


My translation:Shoehorn whatever we can find that agrees with us into the BoM.​
Click to expand...

I'd say that this is going to end poorly but for the organizers and backers it won't. They've already declared victory. Of course they won't publish anything anywhere real scholars can get at them so they'll maintain their blissful ignorance.
 
halleyscomet said:
I've reached the conclusion he put as much effort into it as his intellect could manage.
Click to expand...
To be fair, given how many followers his cult attracted, he didn't do too badly. Exactly where the credit or the blame for this falls, I leave to others. To snare the credulous is pretty easy, but to snare the skeptic is unrewardingly hard, diminishing returns and all that. A good mountebank knows just when to jump off the train.

Mr. Smith may have been many things, and lacked many others, but he seems to have had the measure of his audience pretty well. I mean, like, where's your tabernacle, wise guy?:p
 
Pixel42 said:
I think most of the mistakes can be put down to sheer ignorance. Joseph Smith simply didn't know that so much of what he saw around him had been brought from the old world; he just assumed that horses, barley etc had always been there.
Click to expand...
This. ^

When you figure what limited information he had available, he imagined what seemed like a reasonable world. If they had it in biblical times, based on the Bible, he just figured it was everywhere.

I still think Smith was the first victim of his own con game. He was obsessed with telling these stories to his family, before he ever started a book.
 
bruto said:
To be fair, given how many followers his cult attracted, he didn't do too badly. Exactly where the credit or the blame for this falls, I leave to others. To snare the credulous is pretty easy, but to snare the skeptic is unrewardingly hard, diminishing returns and all that. A good mountebank knows just when to jump off the train.

Mr. Smith may have been many things, and lacked many others, but he seems to have had the measure of his audience pretty well. I mean, like, where's your tabernacle, wise guy?:p
Click to expand...

I doubt if anyone has ever died or murdered in his name so there's that.
 
tsig said:
I doubt if anyone has ever died or murdered in his name so there's that.
Click to expand...

Lots of killing and dying. I don't know if one would call it "in his name," but certainly one could say that if there hadn't been a Mormon Church, a lot more people might have had a chance to live a natural lifespan.

Hmm... If a Protestant kills a Mormon because he hates the Mormon religion, does that count as both killing for Joseph Smith and dying for him? Or would it be for Christ in both cases? Or killing for Christ and dying for Joseph Smith? And ditto if a Mormon kills a Protestant in revenge.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
This looks like the inverse of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. As soon as research hits the bulls eye of some Mormon belief, some other "variety" of LDS interpretation will move the bulls eye somewhere else. Ergo, the BoM cannot be falsified.

.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the interpretations of Mormonism are so varied that you can't say anything negative about it, then you would be equally hard-pressed to say anything positive about it.
 
Pup said:
Lots of killing and dying. I don't know if one would call it "in his name," but certainly one could say that if there hadn't been a Mormon Church, a lot more people might have had a chance to live a natural lifespan.

Hmm... If a Protestant kills a Mormon because he hates the Mormon religion, does that count as both killing for Joseph Smith and dying for him? Or would it be for Christ in both cases? Or killing for Christ and dying for Joseph Smith? And ditto if a Mormon kills a Protestant in revenge.
Click to expand...

I was referring to no one dying in hallyscomets name. Joe Smith Jr has a lot of bodies to his credit.
 
John Jones said:
Indeed. If the interpretations of Mormonism are so varied that you can't say anything negative about it, then you would be equally hard-pressed to say anything positive about it.
Click to expand...

A new prophet comes a long to give us the straight truth of the lord that has gotten confused thru the years* then his followers start disagreeing among themselves about the truth of the lord and a new prophet comes along to give us the straight truth of the lord.

So it goes.

*insert lots of killing, raping and robbing here
 
Pup said:
Lots of killing and dying. I don't know if one would call it "in his name," but certainly one could say that if there hadn't been a Mormon Church, a lot more people might have had a chance to live a natural lifespan.

Hmm... If a Protestant kills a Mormon because he hates the Mormon religion, does that count as both killing for Joseph Smith and dying for him? Or would it be for Christ in both cases? Or killing for Christ and dying for Joseph Smith? And ditto if a Mormon kills a Protestant in revenge.
Click to expand...
never mind, already said....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom