LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

And just how has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs on you?

False answer. You are responding to this statement (snipped by you and not attributed):

Why not Satanism? Probably because Satanists aren't running amok trying to impose their beliefs on non-Satanists.

That statement does not say that Mormons succeeded in anything.

That statement does not say that the thing Mormons were trying to do was to the specific maker of the statement.

It is ridiculously disingenuous after all this time to pretend that the LDS church has not tried to promote its beliefs in the form of civil legislation. You may rightfully note that the LDS church has not enjoyed notable success of late, but this does not mean it has not tried. You may contend that this was a legitimate exercise on their part, but you cannot then at the same time contend that it did not happen.

Even if you are right that the LDS church should be able to do all it has done to promote legislation and social policy, and even if you are right that the legislation and social policy are true, righteous and great, these are then appropriate points of discussion. You cannot turn off a discussion simply by stating to a person that the LDS church has never succeeded in impacting him personally.

 

[Craig4]

Answers to question marks establish the foundation for producing evidence. It's clear that you have no answer to my question.

I don't now nor have I ever claimed any knowledge or expertise in he Hebrew language. I have no idea what these idioms are or why the are in the BoM. It hardly seems important in the face of the whole horse and steel thing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Then why don't you simply admit that you don't know all there is to know about the PC Americas, including the fact that at least some of the items you characterize with certitude as anachronisms in the Book of Mormon may not be anachronisms at all. You deny claiming that you know all there is to know, yet you are adamant about deficiencies in the BoM—even deficiencies of a minute nature. You come across as a world-class expert on the PC Americas.

Why should I join you in a lie? Why should I repudiate a claim I never made, and that you have had to lie in order to pretend that I made?

I say again (in hopes that you might actually read one of the multiple iterations): there is no evidence, none, not a scintilla, not a sniff, not a colorable suggestion, of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years", and that incorporated the horse (in all its civilization-altering ramifications), and the cultivation of european grains (to the extent that the grains would be common enough, and plentiful enough, to serve as the basis for the value of minted currency [currency, it should be pointed out, that has also not been demonstrated to exist]), and the husbanding of kine and swine, and steelmongery, in the pre-colombian americas. Not one of those has been demonstrated, by the presentation of evidence, to exist; much less has a civilization incorporating all of them even been hinted at.

If you choose to claim that such evidence actually exists, in fact, you are welcome to present it. Do be aware that (for instance) the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax is not evidence of a pervasive horse culture, but of an admitted and confessed fraud; the Plains Tribes having the horse at the "amazingly early" date of the 1600's is not evidence of a pre-colombian horse culture, but a post-colombian horse culture; that the Hohokam "barley" is not evidence of pervasive cultivation of barley, but of opportunistic, and isolated, gleaning of a wild barley species; nor are onyx and obsidian blades evidence of steelmongery.

Your perfervid hope that, someday, evidence of such things may be found is just that--and empty hope. Unless and until such evidence is discovered, presented, and available of evaluation, it is proper, and correct, and the only honest assessment possible, to say that such evidence has not been shown to exist. Until there is such evidence, there is no such evidence.

You may cling to your superstition-fueled hopes as it suits you. You should not pretend that your hopes constitute evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Answers to question marks establish the foundation for producing evidence. It's clear that you have no answer to my question.

As you have, for instance, no answer to the repeated question as to when, in your opinion, the exciting events of the american chapters of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place; or where, in your opinion, the mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" is to be supposed to have been located.

 

[Pup]

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.

By copying the language of the King James Bible, which included them also, even if unknowingly. Was that supposed to be a hard question?

 

[Olowkow]

In the interest of fairness, you might consider what organizations founded the first universities and hospitals in America.

Harvard, Pennsylvania State, University of Georgia, first public university. Lots of universities claim to be the first. As for the first hospital, very likely Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Hospital in 1751. Secular organizations are just as capable of charitable acts.

And just how has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs on you?

So far I have not personally been affected by your religion in any negative way. I rather like and admire Mormons generally. I think it was a combination of Prop 8 fanaticism and Mitt Romney's duplicitous pandering nature and defensiveness about his religion that tainted my otherwise positive image of LDS. I must say though that I glimpsed what a potentially dangerous bullet we dodged politically.

Some religions have been relentless in their attempts to influence laws with their superstitions: abortion availability, marriage equality, mandatory prayers in schools, school curricula, AGW denial, evolution denial in public school books, sodomy laws, "one nation under God" in the pledge, "in God we trust" on currency, and limiting liquor sales are just a few areas. Much of religion's meddling with the law is culturally taken for granted and beyond the reach of courts it seems.

 

[JaysonR]

...claims to know everything there is to know about the PC Americas, even to the extent of knowing whether or not BoM peoples could possibly have developed a system of minted coinage, or used a bovine knife, or crafted a compass. ...

Argument from ignorance.

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.

Please cite an alleged Hebrew idiom in anything alleged to have been written by Joseph Smith which itself does not already exist in like form as an idiom within the standard Christian Bible?

Also: My wife's entire family is LDS - technically I'm registered as LDS (I'm an atheist), and I am versed in Hebrew anthropology and paleography.

Further: please explain why Greek idioms are also preserved in these writings?

 

[Pacal]

The existence of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon proves little.

See http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/chiasmusandthebom.htm

Which says:

First, this poetic style [Chiasmus] has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.

...​

A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claims that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable he picked up this style from his studies.

Further the above piece states that Joseph Smith's other writing that are not "translations" of ancient texts show chiasmus.

the author states that:

Since chiasmus occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture. In fact, many nursery rhymes have this same type of structure (e.g. Hickory Dickory Dock).

The author concludes with:

Chiastic structures in Joseph Smith's writings do not prove them authentic any more than those in James Strang's book prove his writings to be inspired. As one person pointed out on the Recovery From Mormonism Board, "The chiasmus 'evidence' is like trying to prove from a piece of music that its composer must have studied music theory. And yet there are tons of music, fulfilling the basics of music theory, produced by people who couldn't even read and had no formal training whatsoever."

So it appears that the alleged chiasmus is easily explained and proves zero.

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by skyrider44
You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

A credible answer for LDS adherents is that an angel appeared with a pile of golden plates and Smith put them in his hat and used stones to translate them after which they and the angel disappeared?

But it's far from a credible answer for me. This does not pass the Occam's Razor test for the best hypothesis.

How was he able to include ancient writing styles? It's not so much how did he technically pull it off, that's relatively easy, (e.g. Mark Hofmann) but rather morally, how could someone run such a successful con involving family and friends and not feel guilt or remorse, while still seeming so beatific to his marks? That might be a more productive question. Think Bernie Madoff, a high functioning sociopath with people skills. While he may not necessarily have been a financial genius, I agree with Harold Bloom that Joseph Smith was a "religious genius".

In his highly interesting book The American Religion (1993), Harold Bloom (himself perhaps the most famous US literary critic of the past several decades) famously described Joseph Smith (1805-1844; 'the Mormon Prophet') as an authentic religious genius.

But, although this comment showed that Bloom had understood the magnitude of Smith's achievement, this was something of a back-handed compliment!

 

[Pup]

This is actually a genuine question I ought to know the answer to but I'm too lazy to look up and my resident Mormon isn't available right now.

If the gold plates were written in Reformed Egyptian, why would they preserve (supposedly) Hebrew and other ancient language forms? If the answer is the same--such forms were common and/or copied from other languages by the Reformed Egyption writer who was subconsciously picking them up by ear--then why would it be remarkable that Smith would pick up on them when he was copying Reformed Egyptian into pseudo-KJV English?

 

[skyrider44]

Why should I join you in a lie? Why should I repudiate a claim I never made, and that you have had to lie in order to pretend that I made?

I say again (in hopes that you might actually read one of the multiple iterations): there is no evidence, none, not a scintilla, not a sniff, not a colorable suggestion, of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years", and that incorporated the horse (in all its civilization-altering ramifications), and the cultivation of european grains (to the extent that the grains would be common enough, and plentiful enough, to serve as the basis for the value of minted currency [currency, it should be pointed out, that has also not been demonstrated to exist]), and the husbanding of kine and swine, and steelmongery, in the pre-colombian americas. Not one of those has been demonstrated, by the presentation of evidence, to exist; much less has a civilization incorporating all of them even been hinted at.

You contradict yourself. I accept your claim that you have never said you know everything about the PC Americas, but with a proviso. Based on your statements, including the one hereon, you know everything about the PC Americas as it relates to the Book of Mormon. Your repeated declarations that there is no evidence re. specific passages in the book inexorably leads one to believe that you know everything about those passages in the context of the PC Americas. The fact is that doesn't happen to be the case. You are wrong, for starters, about some of what you label as anachronisms. I listed those in an earlier post, but I will list them again later today.

 

[JaysonR]

Mormon 9:33
"And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record."

 

[Slowvehicle]

You contradict yourself. I accept your claim that you have never said you know everything about the PC Americas, but with a proviso. Based on your statements, including the one hereon, you know everything about the PC Americas as it relates to the Book of Mormon.

This is, simply, a lie, and a lie you keep repeating. Do yourself a favour, and go back, and read what I have actually said, not what you wish I had said; or what you are prepared to claim I have said. How odd that your club is so lax on false witness--or is this "legitimate lying for Jesus"?

I will also point out, again, that you continue your fundamental dishonesty of editing, of altering my words, without admitting you have done so.

I am prepared, even eager, to examine any evidence about the pre-colombian americas which you, or anyone else,may present. However, when that "evidence" consists of (for instance) the "Clark Chart", which lists steelmongery as "confirmed" in the pre-colombian americas, not because there is physical evidence of such (forges, mines artifacts, artistic representation, contemporaneous accounts), but because it is "reasonable" to "believe" steelmongery was known in the pre-colombian americas.

Nowhere have I claimed to "know everything" about the pre-colombian americas, and it exposes your desperation to continue to make that false claim; OTH, assiduous reading uncovers not a single creditable bit of evidence that the anachronism of the BoM are anything but Smith's inventions.

Are you repudiating the claims, put forth in the BoM, that there was a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years", that incorporated the horse, the cultivation of european grains, the minting of currency, the husbanding of kine and swine, and steelmongery, in the americas, in the time before the Colombian Exchange? Are those claims and implications not written into the "most perfect of books", ostensibly from 'god' itself?

If those (and other) anachronisms are not, in fact, in the BoM, feel free to point that out--although one wonders why it would have taken you nigh on to two years to (finally) advance such an idea.

So please, tell me:

Does the BoM refer to a civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years", in the pre-colombian americas?

Does the BoM refer to wars waged in chariots, drawn by horses, and fought with steel weapons, in the pre-colombian americas?

Does the BoM advance the claim that the value of minted currency in the pre-colombian americas was based on the value of barleycorns?

Does the BoM contain references to kine, and swine, and elephants, in the pre-colombian americas?

Please do not try the dodge that your 'god' does not know the difference between a horse and a tapir, or that Smith (and Moroni) just got it wrong. If the claims above (and others, equally preposterous) are not, in fact, in the BoM you would do your club a great service by pursuing those who make the claims in the first place, and demonstrating that those passages are not in the BoM, instead of continuing to make dishonest arguments about what I have said.

If, (for instance) the BoM does not, in fact, contain the claim that coinage was minted in the pre-colombian americas, then the lack of evidence of such is no problem. If (for instance) the BoM does not, in fact, claim that barley was cultivated by a civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" to the point that the value of a barleycorn could be used to set the value of minted currecny,then the utter lack of evidence of barley cultivation throughout the pre-colombian americas is no problem.

Do consider an honest approach.

Your repeated declarations that there is no evidence re. specific passages in the book inexorably leads one to believe that you know everything about those passages in the context of the PC Americas.

It may lead you to such a belief. A scholar, familiar with the genre, would understand that the phrase, "no evidence has been presented", means just that.

I invite you, as I have all along, to enlighten me. Be so kind as to present actual, physical, practical, non-anecdotal, non-specially pled, empirical evidence, in the hands of actual archaeologists, metallurgists, anthropologists, historians, ethnographers, botanists, biologists, zoologist, and linguists, of the pervasive existence of the anachronisms Smith wrote into the BoM. I will be fascinated to read your sources.

As a friendly suggestion, do consider making sure your sources actually support your claims; that is, do try to avoid cherry-picking, and quote-mining, and "research"-by-title. Also, as is the practice in honest scholarship, provide links to your primary sources.

The fact is that doesn't happen to be the case. You are wrong, for starters, about some of what you label as anachronisms.

I encourage you to provide evidence for this claim. Be specific; and be aware that (for instance) the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax and the "amazingly early date" of the "early1600s" are not, in any honest way, "evidence" of a pervasive horse culture that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" in the pre-colombian americas.

I listed those in an earlier post, but I will list them again later today.

I wonder in what "earlier post" you "listed those".

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is actually a genuine question I ought to know the answer to but I'm too lazy to look up and my resident Mormon isn't available right now.

If the gold plates were written in Reformed Egyptian, why would they preserve (supposedly) Hebrew and other ancient language forms? If the answer is the same--such forms were common and/or copied from other languages by the Reformed Egyption writer who was subconsciously picking them up by ear--then why would it be remarkable that Smith would pick up on them when he was copying Reformed Egyptian into pseudo-KJV English?

I ran into this phenomenon a lot, in seminary.

Because American English no longer employs the tuyores, or formal/informal distinction of Victorian English ( still seen in the Romance Languages), "thee" and "thou" come to be seen as "holy addresses"; that is, "special language" for addressing 'god' instead of a distinction between formal and intimate address.

Because American English no longer uses canted verbs, "hast/hath/havest/haveth" conjugations sound all "special-y", even when misused.

Smith was trying to make his invention sound like the "real" bible--the KJV (with all its linguistic peculiarities).

One sees the same kind of thing in "Bad Hemingway" competitions--adoption of the sound of a style without understanding its structure.

 

[Giordano]

I usually respond to statements that have completely ignored my last post with a simple citation of my last post. So skyrider 44 may wish to read or re-read my post 1634 (or so if the list has been changed by the moderators). My point once again is that no one is claiming that they know everything about pre-Columbian Americas, but that we know enough to exclude certain of the claims in the Book of Morman. Just as we can exclude a year 1200 airport or a Pharoh 's steam railroad. These "facts" would contradict many things we do already know, and would have had such a major impact on history they would have left a lot of evidence in the things we have unearthed. To argue, " Well you can't know everything" is a silly argument, especially given a total lack of evidence of the existence of the opposite of what is known. Again, we are not talking about a claim as to the color of Cochise's shirt on Sunday 1862, but such a major claims that would be evident in what we already know. And they are not.

 

[Giordano]

And just how has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs on you?

Well, when I tried to buy some wine with my dinner in Salt Lake City in 1970, I had to order from an adjacent store because the restaurant couldn't serve alcohol at that time. I understand things have changed, and that this is frivolous, but are you claiming that this unusual ban had nothing to do with the LDS Church? More seriously: what about the successful attempt by the Church of Later Day Saints to ban SSM in California by Prop 8? It was overturned in the courts eventually but it prevented friends and family from getting married for several years. Is that a serious enough imposition?

 

[Myriad]

Skyrider, I get the feeling that you and Slowvehicle are talking past each other, because you are interpreting his phrase "there is no evidence for..." in an unusual way and Slowvehicle isn't realizing that.

When phrased like that, it means "there is no known evidence for..." or "no one is exhibiting any evidence for..." It does not mean that no such evidence might exist hidden and unknown somewhere in the world, so it also does not mean that no evidence will ever be discovered.

One would indeed need some sort of topic-specific omniscience to make those latter claims. But that's not what Slowvehicle has been doing.

 

[Giordano]

I have never called you dishonest or a liar, but I have lost track of the number of times you have pejoratively applied those terms to me. And you seek an apology? Amusing.

Can someone accuse someone else of making dishonest statements only if the person so accused already used the term "liar?" I am not willing to call you a liar, because that goes into motivation, but it sure seems to me that you have accused Slowvehicle of statements that aren 't really what he has stated. I will only say that you are inaccurate in your accusations.

 

[Giordano]

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.

I am under the impression that these are not ancient Hebrew literary writing styles, but instead the type of English writing that Smith would have access to from the existing Translations of the Old and New Testaments all around him, and being uneducated, would have assumed that was the way God speaks (rather than how the translators liked to make it sound). In fact, a better educated person would have recognized this and would not have made this error..

 

[Slowvehicle]

Skyrider, I get the feeling that you and Slowvehicle are talking past each other, because you are interpreting his phrase "there is no evidence for..." in an unusual way and Slowvehicle isn't realizing that.

When phrased like that, it means "there is no known evidence for..." or "no one is exhibiting any evidence for..." It does not mean that no such evidence might exist hidden and unknown somewhere in the world, so it also does not mean that no evidence will ever be discovered.

One would indeed need some sort of topic-specific omniscience to make those latter claims. But that's not what Slowvehicle has been doing.

I appreciate your generosity. Given the number of times I have corrected him, ss44's insitence that I have claimed to know "everything there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas seems to be, at best, disingenuous equivocation.

I will be interested to see if the "evidence" he claims he plans to present, "later", is just a re-iteration of the "Montagu quote" (that is not a statement of Montagu's opinion, but a statement about something Montagu said about someone else's opinion, and an unidentified someone else. at that), or a re-iteration of Kuchinsky's "work".