LDS

[Craig4]

That decision is solely your own.

Well obviously I'm not going to be taken in by the blatant dishonesty of Smith and his silly little books. Why then though is it okay for you to try to convert me and we're not supposed to try to save you all from your irrational and bogus superstitions?

 

[AdMan]

That aside, religious belief is not an "irrational" idea.

Yes, religious belief is an irrational idea. I'll be happy to argue this with anyone who disagrees.

And I would be surprised if you didn't think you'd find such arguments at the JREF forums.

 

[Pixel42]

These ad hoc explanations are so poor that at best they can only keep Mormons from apostatizing but not all of them. Few if any reasonable and informed individual would accept the explanations.

No-one who wasn't heavily emotionally invested in the validity of the Book of Mormon would consider such pathetic post hoc rationalisations adequate. Janadele and skyrider must surely realise that, so why do they just point to them and not even try to argue a case?

It's painfully obvious to an objective observer that the Book of Mormon was made up by someone who knew almost nothing about the time and place in which he was setting his story, and therefore made numerous elementary mistakes. Smith could have avoided some of the most egregious just by doing a little background reading first but didn't even bother to do that, indicating a degree of contempt for those he was scamming which sadly proved to be justified. Not only were the people of his time taken in by his clumsy fake (which is perhaps excusable given the limitations of their educations and access to historical information) but some are still falling for it now, despite that information - and additional evidence like the DNA analysis of native Americans - being readily available to almost everyone.

 

[asydhouse]

And in other news, neither skyrider nor janadele have bothered to speak to my request for enlightenment as to the nature of the answer god never bothered giving me in my sincere supplication for the truth, as the missionaries promised me, 100% guaranteed.

Since the discussion is obsessed with documentation and grammar, I guess the raw soul goes unremarked.

I would think, given your claims, that my experience would be of more relevance to the OP than all this clerical debate.

Why are you disrespecting me, Skyrider? Janadele?

Hello?

 

[eight bits]

Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest mind of any century, believed in Alchemy. Alchemy is without evidentiary basis.

Actually, it has a fine evidentiary basis. It was the interpretation of the evidence that was faulty, as would be predictable with an incomplete hypothesis set, an ontology with too many degrees of freedom, and a community of evidentiary interpreters who had no idea about the effects of unconscious psychological mechanisms like projection (the better understanding of which being among the enduring contributions of alchemy to the ongoing enterprise of science).

Rationality does not magically guarantee that an adept will find right answers, rather it makes possible a material-bound process by which answers about material things reliably improve. It is condescending for the heir of centuries of progress painstakingly accumulated on those harsh terms to sniff at the "irrationality" of an effective but early worker in the very same process. No offense intended, and not even personally directed solely to RandFan.

Newton's analysis of the Protestant scriptures probably has more relevance to a Mormon thread than his alchemy. Newton managed both to arrive by reason at a rejection of Nicene trinitarianism, and to construct an exegesis of Biblical prophecy (Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John).

An irrational pastime? No, Newton's examination of the revealed religions prevalent in his era and birthplace led him both to improve the precision of the hypotheses on offer (and so to make reasoned criticism easier) and to favor an increased weight for "natural theology" relative to revealed theology. These are steps in the right direction, and that is about the best that rationality can be expected to achieve, beginning from where Newton actually began his investigations, with only the one lifetime to apply.

And what is natural theology? That's the thing that impels us to say there is something wrong with a revealed story which places horses under saddled riders in the New World a few thousand years ago. It is also the thing that impels us to say that if the original word actually was "deer" instead of "horse," then there's something radically wrong with the translation, which is fatal since the original text is unavailable and this radically flawed translation is all we have. All we have, that is, after a direct personal intervention of God's appointed angel.

It might even get us to thinking that if the God of this attempted but patently failed revelation can't or won't get a simple message out, or doesn't notice that his previous messages didn't get through, either, then perhaps we need to be doing something else instead of standing by, waiting for more messages.

Not that God as a sad sack doesn't have a certain comic appeal. You have to admit that it would explain a lot. For example, it would be a screwball's self-discovered spokespeople who'd manage to disappear unnoticed in history, or else get noticed only too well as caravan robbers and psychic treasure hunters.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This matter has been in the anti-Mormon playbook almost since the Book of Mormon first came off the press.

What is the significance of that to me? I haven't read them.

Let's see, the following did not exist in the pre-Columbian Americas according to the critics: certain animals/insects (cows, elephants, horses, silkworms, bees, swine); chariots, coins, compasses, gunpowder, windows, masonry/cement, swords, olive culture, legal codes and concepts, barley, metals, pre-Christian Christianity--and oh, so much more.

And you're still ok with blind belief in something which claims those existed when they clearly did not?

Discoveries since Joseph Smith's day have narrowed that list considerably. (BTW, he couldn't have known about some of the items mentioned in the BoM--nor could have anyone else.) To get up to date on LDS scholarship, I suggest you enter "Book of Mormon/Anachronisms" into your search engine. Click on the FAIR Wiki link.

No, I'm asking you. I'm not going to be swayed by pro-Mormon propaganda.

I'm fully cognizant that I make this suggestion in vain, inasmuch as LDS scholarship can't possibly be objective. Still, there may be an open mind or two "out there." You never know.

You seem to be saying that you're fully cognizant that there are no open minds in the Mormon church since they can't be objective. Can you try to be objective for a moment and answer for yourself about the anachronisms?

 

[Cleon]

That aside, religious belief is not an "irrational" idea.

Sure it is (and I say that as a deist).

If you believe that, then you must also believe that the following were beset with irrational ideas:
Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck--the list goes on.

And the problem with that is what, exactly? These men are all great scientists and thinkers, but they all have one other thing in common - each and every one was a human being.

Human beings are irrational. Every single one of us. You can have the most brilliant, logical, analytical mind in the world - but you're still human, and that comes with all the same emotional trimmings, cognitive dissonance, insecurities, and various other psychological quirks.

Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that their outlook, beliefs, or actions are 100% rational is lying to themselves as well as to you.

 

[skyrider44]

Actually, it has a fine evidentiary basis. It was the interpretation of the evidence that was faulty, as would be predictable with an incomplete hypothesis set, an ontology with too many degrees of freedom, and a community of evidentiary interpreters who had no idea about the effects of unconscious psychological mechanisms like projection (the better understanding of which being among the enduring contributions of alchemy to the ongoing enterprise of science).

Rationality does not magically guarantee that an adept will find right answers, rather it makes possible a material-bound process by which answers about material things reliably improve. It is condescending for the heir of centuries of progress painstakingly accumulated on those harsh terms to sniff at the "irrationality" of an effective but early worker in the very same process. No offense intended, and not even personally directed solely to RandFan.

Newton's analysis of the Protestant scriptures probably has more relevance to a Mormon thread than his alchemy. Newton managed both to arrive by reason at a rejection of Nicene trinitarianism, and to construct an exegesis of Biblical prophecy (Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John).

An irrational pastime? No, Newton's examination of the revealed religions prevalent in his era and birthplace led him both to improve the precision of the hypotheses on offer (and so to make reasoned criticism easier) and to favor an increased weight for "natural theology" relative to revealed theology. These are steps in the right direction, and that is about the best that rationality can be expected to offer, beginning from where Newton actually began his investigations.

And what is natural theology? That's the thing that impels us to say there is something wrong with a revealed story which places horses under saddled riders in the New World a few thousand years ago. It is also the thing that impels us to say that if the original word actually was "deer" instead of "horse," then there's something radically wrong with the translation, which is fatal since the original text is unavailable and this radically flawed translation is all we have. All we have, that is, after a direct personal intervention of God's appointed angel.

It might even get us to thinking that if the God of this attempted but patently failed revelation can't or won't get a simple message out, or doesn't notice that his previous messages didn't get through, either, then perhaps we need to be doing something else instead of standing by, waiting for more messages.

Not that God as a sad sack doesn't have a certain comic appeal. You have to admit that it would explain a lot. For example, it would be a screwball's self-discovered spokespeople who'd manage to disappear unnoticed in history, or else get noticed only too well as caravan robbers and psychic treasure hunters.

I regard this as an insightful, nay, magnificent post, its flawed--sometimes dense--analysis of Newton's religious beliefs and aspects of Mormonism notwithstanding. Joseph Smith never said the Book of Mormon was perfect (contrary to the endlessly repeated claims that are at the top of the critics' hit list). He said it was the most perfect book, which means he knew it wasn't error-free.

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so. In their fervor to find what is wrong with the LDS Church's keystone scripture, critics have overlooked what is right with it. It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that their outlook, beliefs, or actions are 100% rational is lying to themselves as well as to you.

For the record, I never said that the scientists I listed were "100% rational" in "their outlook, beliefs, or actions."

 

[skyrider44]

. . . excelling in science doesn't imply one's religious views must be equally correct or "rational."

You state a revelation of the obvious. Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I regard this as an insightful, nay, magnificent post, its flawed--sometimes dense--analysis of Newton's religious beliefs and aspects of Mormonism notwithstanding. Joseph Smith never said the Book of Mormon was perfect (contrary to the endlessly repeated claims that are at the top of the critics' hit list). He said it was the most perfect book, which means he knew it wasn't error-free.

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so. In their fervor to find what is wrong with the LDS Church's keystone scripture, critics have overlooked what is right with it. It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals.

*ahem* "This matter has been in the "pro-mormon" playbook for more than 180 years."

You seem to be saying that pro-mormon material is true, despite its flaws, but what you call "anti-mormon" material is false, because of its biases...never mind what evidence indicates.

Can you direct me to any empirical evidence of the existence of horse-or-tapir-driven chariots, or tack and husbandry (be it deer-fitted, horse-fitted, cameloid-fitted, or otherwise), in the new world?
Can you direct me to any empirical evidence of the claimed semitic descent of any indigenous new world population?

...and to take a page from your book, can you do so without relying on "pro-mormon propaganda"?

 

[Pixel42]

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist.

And have succeeded. The evidence that that's exactly what it is is overwhelming.

It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals

Such as? Examples, please. It's a long time since I read it, but I don't recall any spiritual insights.

 

[eight bits]

skyrider44

Thank you for the kind words. Flawed? Well, you and I do disagree about many things, no doubt some of them came up in my post. Dense? Newton's beliefs were dense. I take my subject as I find him.

Joseph Smith never said the Book of Mormon was perfect (contrary to the endlessly repeated claims that are at the top of the critics' hit list). He said it was the most perfect book, which means he knew it wasn't error-free.

I'm happy to note the hedge, but that's a nasty problem in a direct revelation.

You know, the really neat thing about engraved plates is that you can make rubbings of them. I realize Smith might have had to give back the plates themselves, but he didn't have to give back his source text. And since, according to the hedge which you noted, he realized that his translation wasn't error-free, surely preserving his source would have been a priority.

It's a pity that neither the man nor the supernatural agent of God seems to have thought of that.

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so.

That may be. My understanding is that Smith was a proud member of the treasure-hunting guide profession, and "psychic" is the modern generic term for the methodology he overtly brought to his work. What relationship, if any, that factual circumstance might have with a widespread impression that he was a con man, I am content to leave to others to judge for themselves.

 

[Pup]

You know, the really neat thing about engraved plates is that you can make rubbings of them. I realize Smith might have had to give back the plates themselves, but he didn't have to give back his source text. And since, according to the hedge which you noted, he realized that his translation wasn't error-free, surely preserving his source would have been a priority.

Well, there's the Anthon Transcript.

The Anthon Transcript (often identified with the "Caractors" document) is a small piece of paper on which Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote several lines of characters. According to Smith, these characters were from the Golden Plates

However, there's some disagreement over whether the surviving piece of paper is actually the original that Joseph Smith wrote out to show to Professor Anthon.

The church stance, linked off of lds.org and found at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Anthon_Transcript?lang=eng seems to suggest that it's accepted as a genuine sample, whether it's the same one shown to Professor Anthon or not:

Even if the document is not the original, it almost certainly represents characters either copied from the plates in Joseph Smith's possession or copied from the document carried by Harris.

 

[jsfisher]

I regard this as an insightful, nay, magnificent post, its flawed--sometimes dense--analysis of Newton's religious beliefs and aspects of Mormonism notwithstanding. Joseph Smith never said the Book of Mormon was perfect (contrary to the endlessly repeated claims that are at the top of the critics' hit list). He said it was the most perfect book, which means he knew it wasn't error-free.

Being blatantly dishonest in your implications is unworthy of you. I remind you of number eight among the Articles of Faith:

We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.​

It is abundantly clear how the LDS Church views the Book of Mormon. Is cherry-picking remarks from Smith to deliberately obscure these facts necessary for you to defend your faith?

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so.

So his arrest and conviction for being a con-artist has no bearing?

In their fervor to find what is wrong with the LDS Church's keystone scripture, critics have overlooked what is right with it. It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals.

I and others have tired to explore the good that comes from LDS doctrine. You and Janadele have been silent in that effort. That aside, though, for your sweeping assertion about spiritual insights to have any weight, you'd first need to deal with the evidence the Book of Mormon is the tragically misinformed fabrications of a conman.

Can you do any of that? So far, the best either you or Janadele have done is regurgitate shallow post hoc rationalizations or un-evidenced denial. Not very convincing.

 

[tyr_13]

Didn't the native peoples of North and South America already have their own narratives about their origins, long before Mormonism came along? From what I've read, those narratives are very different from what the Mormons say about their history.

In my view, that's a profound spiritual fly in the ointment.

It's not that I think that the Native American narratives are objectively true history, any more than the BoM version is. But telling the entire native population of two continents that their received narratives are wrong because they contradict the received narrative of a small group of invading settlers is rude to the point of being sinister.

How, historically, have the native peoples of the Americas reacted to the attempted amending of their origin stories by the Church of LDS? Have most of them accepted and acknowledged that they are actually descendants of the patriarch Abraham? Have they declared their gratitude to the founders and prophets of LDS for illuminating their past?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Being not far from Palmyra New York, interested in native history and in religious traditions especially local ones, it kind of surprises me that this never came up before. I'll have to ask the elder next time I see him to see if he knows anything on the subject.

 

[tsig]

I regard this as an insightful, nay, magnificent post, its flawed--sometimes dense--analysis of Newton's religious beliefs and aspects of Mormonism notwithstanding. Joseph Smith never said the Book of Mormon was perfect (contrary to the endlessly repeated claims that are at the top of the critics' hit list). He said it was the most perfect book, which means he knew it wasn't error-free.

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so. In their fervor to find what is wrong with the LDS Church's keystone scripture, critics have overlooked what is right with it. It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals.

Joe's mother said that they used to sit around the kitchen table and Joe would regale them with stories of ancient cultures told with so much color and detail that you'd think Joe had actually visited them.


Interesting.

 

[Pup]

It's painfully obvious to an objective observer that the Book of Mormon was made up by someone who knew almost nothing about the time and place in which he was setting his story, and therefore made numerous elementary mistakes. Smith could have avoided some of the most egregious just by doing a little background reading first but didn't even bother to do that, indicating a degree of contempt for those he was scamming which sadly proved to be justified. Not only were the people of his time taken in by his clumsy fake (which is perhaps excusable given the limitations of their educations and access to historical information) but some are still falling for it now, despite that information - and additional evidence like the DNA analysis of native Americans - being readily available to almost everyone.

I agree with the first and last part, but I'm not so sure about the middle part. Considering he was a relatively young man in a poor family, at a time when books on obscure topics cost close to the daily pay of a laborer and large free lending libraries weren't in every small city, I don't think that more information was readily accessible. It was more of a case of the blind leading the blind.

It's not like he could just google to find a range of scholarly inquiry on the topic, so if he did come across a few random books, they might even be things like this:

A Star in the West, or A Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Ten Tribes of Israel

Yes, he might have looked up more information on the early Americas, because the lack of horses, for example, was long known. For example (1746):

http://books.google.com/books?id=6rI-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA284&output=html

It has been observed already, that there were not to be found either in Peru, or any other part of America, when the Spaniards arrived there, any Horses, Cows, Elephants, Camels, Asses, Mules, Sheep, or Hogs.

But his premise was an alternate history in which people from the Middle East settled in the Americas several hundred years before the birth of Christ. The common meme was that such societies no longer exactly resembled Israelites because they had changed over time, so even had he known (or if he did), I'm not sure it would contradict the meme to have the tribes more closely resemble the Middle East at the start and then degenerate to what the Spaniards found.

For example, from the 1819 Literary Gazette, London, speaking of indigenous people in Brazil:

http://books.google.com/books?id=u18p4WbHivYC&pg=PA728&output=html

Early writers, fond of theory, and looking every where for the lost tribes of Israel, suppose these people to be of Jewish origin, because names were found among them resembling David and Solomon; because it was their custom, that a survivor should raise up seed to his deceased brother, and because their garments, which were long enough to reach the ground, were gathered up with a girdle... Other vestiges of a civilization from which they had degraded, were found among them. They had little idols wrought in copper...

Apparently speaking about battle with the Spaniards (era not specified) the author writes on the same page: "the arrows were headed with wood, or bone, or iron..."

A person reading that article and using it to write speculative fiction that filled in the gaps would, I think, feel justified in imagining an early civilization more like a Biblical one, before it degraded to what the Spaniards found, and not consider that some things were hard-and-fast anachronisms.

That's the kind of popular thought running around at the time.

I don't know if anyone has studied what books, exactly, Smith and the people in his community had access to, or what reviews and newspaper articles on the subject, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried.

I'm just not getting vibes that Smith felt contempt for his "victims." Yes, he felt superior to them in the sense that he clearly loved the ego boost of being able to speak for God and have people believe him. But like I mentioned in a previous post contrasting him to P. T. Barnum, he didn't seem to have an out-of-character side where he made fun of the rubes, justified fooling them because they enjoyed it, and spoke as himself. He was as much part of the game as he was the one running it.

 

[dafydd]

Being not far from Palmyra New York, interested in native history and in religious traditions especially local ones, it kind of surprises me that this never came up before. I'll have to ask the elder next time I see him to see if he knows anything on the subject.

The elder what?

 

[Cainkane1]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also known as LDS /Mormon, is a Christian denomination, but is neither Protestant nor Catholic... it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.

No it isn't. The LDS is a fabricated religion and is the result of the imagination of a farmboy. I have to say this though. The Mormons are no more guilty of this than any other religion. Its all a farce. Catholics, muslims, buddists are all the result of peoples imaginations.

My mentor Captain Jack Fink straightened me out about this. He says why condemn the LDS when none of its true?