LDS

[abaddon]

The following is a summary I have compiled from Jesus The Christ by James E. Talmage:
We should avoid gluttony, we should avoid extremes in all our habits of eating; and as was told unto Adam, so is it told unto us:
The Word of Wisdom, like other revelations that have come in the present dispensation, is not wholly new. It is as old as the human race.
All the essentials and principles of the Word of Wisdom were made known unto Adam in his immortal state... that he must not take into that body certain things which were there at hand. He was warned if he did, his body would lose the power which it then held of living for ever, and that he would become subject to death.
The Lord said "Touch not these things, for in the day that thou doest it thy life shall be shortened and thou shalt die"... therein consisted the fall... the eating of things unfit, the taking into the body of the things that made of that body a thing of earth.

Not in the Bible.
Not in the BoM.
Written by a man.
Rejected by your own criteria.

 

[Pup]

Would it really make any difference to you if he was found guilty?

That's what I don't get about this whole glass-looking trial thing. Admittedly, trial records are interesting glimpses into obscure people's lives--I don't disagree with that--but I don't see how it would have any affect on the overall views of either believers or skeptics.

Skeptics use it to point out that Smith was a known fraudster. The implication seems to be that if only he were a trustworthy young man who never told a lie, his story about the angel and the gold plates might be worth considering, but since he's a known liar, it can't possibly be true. Seriously?

Evidence against the supernatural claims is so overwhelming, worrying about Smith's reputation is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This isn't a he-said-she-said case where we need to assess the credibility of all the witnesses, to figure out who threw the first punch.

And then, on the believers' side... The classic story of the sorcerer's apprentice is so basic to this kind of legend, it would be surprising not to find it: Young man just discovering his supernatural powers tries to use them, screws up.

Of course God is going to slap him down a few times, before he's worthy enough to use his powers to translate the plates. He even says it took several years of just going to the Hill Cumorah, before the angel would let him have them.

So from a historian's viewpoint, I'd love to see a trial transcript, because it's cool to get a first-hand glimpse of somebody who will become famous, when they're a nobody and no one realizes what lies in store.

But from a theological/skeptic's viewpoint, it seems as irrelevant as pointing out that Jesus was accused of interfering with tax collectors and posing as a government official, and he all but admitted it in court.

Skeptics would say that even if Jesus was a historical preacher, it would be the least important evidence against his divinity. Believers would say, "Helloo? Luke 23."

 

[Pup]

Yes, and also Doctrine and Covenants 27:3, which says that you may not purchase wine or strong drink of your enemies.

Exactly. One can't have it both ways: that "wine" meant "grape juice" in reference to the sacrament in the D&C, but "alcoholic wine" in reference to the Word of Wisdom in the D&C. Either the early Mormons were using alcoholic wine for the sacrament, or the Word of Wisdom bans non-alcoholic grape juice specifically.

 

[Janadele]

Jesus The Christ was written by Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, within the sacred walls of the Salt Lake Temple. in a Council room on the fourth floor under request and appointment from the Presiding Authorities of the Church.

The completed work was read to and approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve and is published by the LDS Church.

Not in the Bible.
Not in the BoM.
Written by a man.
Rejected by your own criteria.

 

[eight bits]

Pup

That's what I don't get about this whole glass-looking trial thing.

First, so long as the truth of the tale is disputed, it is reasonable to inquire into the character of the witnesses to its truth. Since there's only one witness to any of the critical stuff, that one witness can expect to be examined carefully.

Second, these charges are immediately relevant to the story that we are gathered to examine. It appears that this is not the first time that Smith told such a story. It appears that the basic method of "translation," by whatever coincidence, closely resembled something Smith had done in the past.

Tsig is right, it really doesn't matter if he were aquitted. Whether Smith violated the laws of New York long ago isn't our concern, nor is whether the state proved the case after it had accused him. We are interested in possible sources for the story besides divine inspiration. Previous practice is a candidate source.

Also, it will not do to plead youthful indiscretion. We have the mature Smith's account, in his History of the Church. of why people thought he had involvement with treasure hunting.

56 In the year 1823 my father’s family met with a great aaffliction by the death of my eldest brother, Alvin. In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna county, State of Pennsylvania; and had, previous to my hiring to him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me, with the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to work for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

But we know that that is false. It is not hence arose that very prevalent story, is it? Hence is that he was brought to trial for the activity.

The mature Smith was less than candid about this. It is reasonable to wonder whether he might have been uncandid about other aspects of the story, too.

 

[Resume]

Skeptics use it to point out that Smith was a known fraudster. The implication seems to be that if only he were a trustworthy young man who never told a lie, his story about the angel and the gold plates might be worth considering, but since he's a known liar, it can't possibly be true. Seriously?

Evidence against the supernatural claims is so overwhelming, worrying about Smith's reputation is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I'm pretty sure Hitchens used this tack concerning Smith, and I think he used it to inject a little realism into the charade. Talk about golden plates and virgin births and such is all pretty heady to a person ready to be credulous; relating the common grifter nature of the founder is an act of demystification that's needed when levelling the discussion. Of any religion.

 

[Pup]

Here's a bit of random trivia. Joseph Smith wasn't the only person to "translate" an ancient history of the American Indians circa 1830ish.

There was also the Walam Olum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walam_Olum

Same thing: guy stumbles upon an ancient history of the Lenni Lenape Indians written in symbols on wood, translates it, offers some drawings of the original symbols, but loses the original. The main difference is that Constantine Rafinesque claimed a mundane origin (an Indian gave it to a doctor who gave it to him), and he really was fairly knowledgeable about Lenape culture and history, so could believably be a translator.

Although it was published by a fellow who was, face-to-face, probably at least as nutty-seeming as Joseph Smith, it was accepted as genuine well into the late 20th century by both whites and the Indians it described. (I couldn't remember Constantine Rafinesque's name, and actually found it by googling crazy botanist Transylvania University. His wikipedia entry was the second hit. )

It makes one wonder that if Joseph Smith had just dialed back the supernatural claims and said he'd translated it by mundane means, how far he could have gone in convincing anthropologists the Book of Mormon was genuine.

 

[Pup]

First, so long as the truth of the tale is disputed, it is reasonable to inquire into the character of the witnesses to its truth.

It's disputed in the sense that two sides disagree, but I don't see that it's disputed in the sense that there's evidence for both sides and we need something to tip the balance.

Believers, by definition, won't be swayed by evidence since they're looking for a mythic story, and those who are swayed by evidence already have more than enough.

We are interested in possible sources for the story besides divine inspiration. Previous practice is a candidate source.

Sure, the trial gives insight into Smith as a person and puts him into the context of his times. I'm all for that. See this post, for example.

But the way the above is worded makes it seem like, if no other sources could be found, it just might be divine inspiration. I think that's taking the dispute too seriously. For those whose view of the story is based on evidence rather than mythos, there really isn't any dispute. And I'd say the same thing if I were on the other side: If it's about the mythos, the trial doesn't undercut it at all--it's easily incorporated into the story.

The mature Smith was less than candid about this. It is reasonable to wonder whether he might have been uncandid about other aspects of the story, too.

The fact that he said God and angels came to him seem to be even stronger evidence that he was less than candid about his life. He may have believed, in some sense, that they did, but he was clearly trying to present his life as more mythic than reality.

Again, this just seems like rearranging the deck chairs, if its purpose is to address the dispute. If the purpose is to understand him and his times better from a historian's view, sure--it's a great nugget of information.

 

[bruto]

Plural marriage has been a requirement at various times since the time of Adam, but only for the time period specified by the Lord. Alcohol will always be harmful to the human body, this does not change.

But what you've just said is a contradiction of what you just said before. Cat Tale was wondering what would happen to church policy if alcohol is found not always to be harmful. You in turn said that only the Lord can say yes or no to restrictions. You cannot then turn around and say that Alcohol will always be harmful and the law will never change, unless you redefine "always" and "never" to mean "until the Lord decrees otherwise," just as happened with other issues. Everything you do is according to the current decrees of the Lord, and if it changes, it changes. You yourself accept that, and accept the changes. If The Lord apparently changed his stance on race and plural marriage when it was appropriate to, and presumably according to the needs of the world, you ought to allow the same possibility for everything else.

 

[RandFan]

Section 89
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng

5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

And the part about boiling water to avoid cholera? Why did god not tell the Mormons to boil their water? Many saints died of water born diseases crossing the plains. Why did god care so much about wine but not care about boiling water? Something doesn't add up.

 

[bruto]

By the way, welcome to Cat Tale. I'm ambivalent about the position here, because on the one hand I can certainly understand RandFan's concern about faith simply stonewalling against fact. One certainly hopes that persons of faith will remain open to new ideas and facts, even those that challenge their faith. On the other hand, if you do have faith, Cat Tale is also right that faith itself is the only argument for it, and (as I had hoped briefly Janadele had figured out) attempting to argue faith as if it were open to evidence or proof is a very sticky tar baby indeed.

 

[Cainkane1]

Jesus The Christ was written by Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, within the sacred walls of the Salt Lake Temple. in a Council room on the fourth floor under request and appointment from the Presiding Authorities of the Church.

The completed work was read to and approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve and is published by the LDS Church.

This pretty much sums up the authorship of all holy books. Someone sat down somewhere and wrote a book. No divine inspiration or anything else. Just someones idea of a god and a religion and some laws.

If god existed and inspired the books they would all pretty much read the same. Same philosophy, same laws etc.

Joseph Smith is no more guilty than any other author.

 

[Mashuna]

And the part about boiling water to avoid cholera? Why did god not tell the Mormons to boil their water? Many saints died of water born diseases crossing the plains. Why did god care so much about wine but not care about boiling water? Something doesn't add up.

An alternative way to clean kill off various nasty creatures in unclean water? Make it into weak beer.

 

[TjW]

No... not "wine" as the word means today. but the pure fruit of the vine. Not fermented nor alcoholic.

Were you there?

 

[poblob14]

I think we have some Greek scholars on other fora here, but as far as I know "oinos" - the word translated as "wine" in the New Testament - pretty clearly meant the fermented stuff.

Of course, I learned that at the feet of the Jesuits, who are a) damned dirty Cat'lics, and b) pretty well known for being able to hold their liquor, so I could be wrong.

 

[TjW]

It was in 1851 that it went from wisdom to a commandment, that was under Brigham Young. [editted to add, but they still didn't push members to abide by it, and probably for good reason].

Here's an interesting side-note that I just found. It goes along with Pup's post (I think he posted it, we at least talked about it), about how the portion of the WoW concerning meat is often overlooked within the church. I'm a born carnivore so it's something that I confess a problem with as well, but... I once asked why we don't abstain from meat anymore and was told it was because we have modern day refrigeration. That initially the portion about meat in the summer dealt with spoilage. But I was just looking up about it and found this absolutely interesting -- it's not about spoilage, it's about animals having spirits, and that God gave them to us to use only in times of necessity.

Lorenzo Snow in a meeting on May 5, 1898 [he was President of the council at the time] "believed that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and that it should be carried out to the letter. In doing so, he said, members should be taught to refrain from eating meat except in dire necessity, particularly since Joseph Smith taught that animals have spirits... [he said] he looked upon the Word of Wisdom as a commandment and that all members should observe it, but for the present, he said, no definite action should be taken except the members should be taught to refrain from the use of meat."

Unfortunately, this wasn't something that he was to make stick, during his presidency.

This brings up a deep philosophical point: Without bacon or coffee, would it really be breakfast?

 

[Cat Tale]

Would it really make any difference to you if he was found guilty?

Are you assuming that when I say that it would make a difference that I mean it would shake my faith? No. It's just when people are having a little friendly discussion and one says that the "public record is clear," and yet there is no public record that shows the result, they get called on it. Just like the LDS members have been called on our statements.

And, since I love history, it would change the way I view facts, though my faith isn't based on evidence.

 

[RandFan]

Are you assuming that when I say that it would make a difference that I mean it would shake my faith? No. It's just when people are having a little friendly discussion and one says that the "public record is clear," and yet there is no public record that shows the result, they get called on it. Just like the LDS members have been called on our statements.

And, since I love history, it would change the way I view facts, though my faith isn't based on evidence.

The following is the most objective analysis of the trial I've seen. The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr.

There is little doubt in my mind that Smith was involved with "magic" to find buried treasure prior to the first vision. The seer stone(s) predates the Urimm and Thummim. Odd that Smith was implicated in this activity before he claims to have been visited by an angel.

As for faith. It's like the toxoplasma parasite. It rewires the host's brain so that the organism will put the life of the parasite ahead of the organism. Once infected mice are no longer afraid of cats. Turns out that to replicate the parasite must get into the stomach of a cat.

Religion is the same. It rewires human brains so that the faith is protected. The faith becomes more important than the host. See: The Law of Sacrifice. And it is impervious to facts and reason. Works for all faiths. Works so well that people like Muslim freedom fighters will gladly die for faith.

"I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." --Harriet Tubman

 

[Shalamar]

Jesus The Christ was written by Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, within the sacred walls of the Salt Lake Temple. in a Council room on the fourth floor under request and appointment from the Presiding Authorities of the Church.

The completed work was read to and approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve and is published by the LDS Church.

The response goes AFTER the quote to make it easier to read!

 

[Pup]

Here's some trivia, about why hot drinks were discouraged in the 18th and early 19th century. Those trying to find an evidence-based reason for things in the Word of Wisdom generally look toward modern medical advice, but to see where Joseph Smith was coming from, it helps to look at medical beliefs of his day and see how he was offering what would have sounded like typical evidence-based advice:

From a summary of observations on influenza, from a Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine, 1833 London:

"A cool temperature, both in drinks, in the air of rooms, and in the quantity of bed-clothes, was found to be useful; while, on the contrary, warm rooms, hot drinks, and cordual sudorifics, agravated the violence of the disorder."

From Observations on the Ill Health of American Women, Virginia, 1839, talking about "the diseased appearance and premature decay of our teeth":

"How much of his national and most unfortunate effect is to be attributed to our taking our food, and especially our drinks, at so elevated a temperature? It would be an interesting subject of inquiry, if some one who has the requisite leisure and suitable opportunities, would investigate this matter thoroughly and philosophically; and he would confer a public benefit of no little magnitude if he could ascertain its causes and poit out the appropriate remedies. There can be no doubt, that extremely hot drinks always injurethe teeth, giving rise to inflammation and subsequent caries..."

Health and beauty advice from 1834:

"Avoid likewise the excessive use of hot drinks, such as coffee, chocolate, and tea, particularly the last... The too liberal use of this liquid is not a little prejudicial to the purity and fairness of the skin. Tea taken immoderately and hot, not only has a tendency to weaken the organs of digestion, but causes fluctuations and congestions in the humors of the face, and requently brings on a degree of debilitating perspiration."

Elements of Pathology and Therapeutics, 1829:

"These and other inflammatory affections are also aggravated, and, after having been relieved, are sometimes renewed, by whatever increases the action of the heart, and therefore the momentum of the blood; as mental emotions, muscular exertions; heat of fires, baths, warm clothing, and crowded rooms; food; spirituous liquors; hot drinks; late hours, &c.

Much earlier, London 1765:

"Of causes which increase the diseases of the people, with general considerations.
First cause, the great care employed to force the sick to sweat, and the methods taken for that purpose; the danger of hot chambers; the danger of hot drinks and heating medicines..."

More health advice from Edinburgh, 1739:

"Those who keep their Blood cool and clean, are never troubled with Breakings-out, like many others, who may be known to be Drinkers of hot Drinks, and to use a hot full Diet, by their Faces being full of Blotches.

So hot drinks were behind everything from decayed teeth, to skin eruptions, to increased symptoms of influenza, inflammatory diseases and poor health in general. It's no wonder God discouraged them.