Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[money]

money - I hope that you also read the document I posted a link to that discusses that video and provides some additional information.

Man, I'm going to have to start posting embedded video - it gets much more attention than dumb old links that you have to read.

I read through most of the fairwiki site you posted. I can say that I don't know what is biased and unbiased information in this issue, but it does strike me as unsuprising that your site relies on "Mormon Scholars" for their apologetics, while the criticism comes from non-mormon sources.

For example you quote them as saying that only 13% of the papyrus was recovered, while the historians from the video say that only a bit more it would be expected. It seems to me the mormon scholars have (unsuprisingly) decided a priori that the story is true and are cherry picking as best as they are able. But this is just my impression and perhaps I am mistaken.

The world is not divided into pro-mormon and anti-mormon, as some of your comments seem to suggest. The truth exists outside of this spin, and I would expect a secular source to give better analysis of an issue than one with a vested interest in it.

You say you've tangled with the 911 conspiracy folk, and I'm sure you're not buying into their arguments and links. But the people who want to believe bushco was behind 911 use those arguments to support their position. To me the similarities are obvious.

For example, would you expect Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses or homeopaths to be biased in their arguments and what they claim as evidence? Why would LDS scholars be immune from that bias?

In any case, you have to admit that the papyrus had great potential to be actual proof of the truth of your religion, but turned out to be something that your religion had to explain away, right?

I read with interest your account of your charismatic companion who had many converts. Of course, among missionaries, they say that you can't judge a missionary by his (or her, I suppose) number of converts... My brother recently returned from a mission in Mexico where he converted dozens and dozens of people. In contrast, his best friend went to Thailand, where he converted one person. In two years. My brother says his main competition were Jehovah's Witnesses, and that they were roughly as successful as the LDS church was. My question is this: if you were a JW instead of LDS, and had a charismatic and successful missionary companion, would these experiences be strong evidence to you that the JWs have the true church?

If you don't have time for all this I understand. FWIW, I think you've handled yourself quite well and that this has been a very interesting thread...

 

[money]

Likely the same as rcronk. Actually, when I first found out about the Book of Abraham controversy I was not bothered by it at all. It wasn't until I started seriously questioning and I the issue came up again that I was willing to consider the alegations.

Until a believer can entertain "what if...?" then nothing will change their mind.

This doesn't surprise me...

I recently asked my sister (who is LDS) what her opinion on this issue was, and she didn't have much to say. She did tell me that if I asked this to missionaries, that I would be labeled "unteachable" and they'd probably leave me alone.

But that's BS! I'm teachable, I just recognize that praying about the truth of something is a piss poor way to actually discover the truth.

Anyhow, thanks for the response, and your continued efforts in this thread.

 

[rcronk]

About conspiracy theorists (CTists)...

As I said, I have been debating them for years. I have wondered why they stick so solidly to a belief, twisting any evidence you throw at them to match that predetermined belief. Sounds eerily familiar, huh? I have come up with a few theories of my own.

First of all, I have found that for myself and others I've talked to, as humans, most of us, if not all of us, seem to have a need to feel loved, important, useful, etc. I've found that these needs can be derived from many sources. I have also worked with people who are recovering from various addictions and have seen some very interesting parallels that I'll discuss below.

When I've talked to CTists, I have seen that they seem to be deriving a sense of importance, superiority, elitism, or a savior complex from the CT. They seem to depend upon the "hit" they get when they enlighten someone with their CT as much as someone who is addicted to a substance gets a hit from that substance. So not only are they driven to believe in the CT itself, but they are driven to share the CT with others.

It seems that the connection that gets formed between the belief in the CT and the feelings of self worth they get from sharing the CT becomes so strong that anyone who attacks the CT is perceived subconsciously by the CTist as attacking their self worth directly - attacking the source of their importance and usefulness.

The CTists I've spoken to never realize that this connection has been made. Rather than break the connection between the CT and their self worth, they defend the CT to the death because the alternative is misery. Many times the CTists I know personally have misery in some form or another (who doesn't?) and the defense and sharing of the CT can also be used to medicate that misery or depression - just like an addiction. In the same way that you can't walk up to someone and get them to stop smoking cigarettes by telling them about lung cancer, you can't just explain this connection to a CTist and have them stop using the CT as a medication - even if they "get it" deep down.

I see the obvious parallels between conspiracy theories as I have explained them above and belief in religion. In fact, as I have visited and sat in different congregations I have identified various reasons why people would choose various religions (Mormonism included) to medicate their pains. Reincarnation, for example, can medicate terrible familial relationships by showing that the family is something that can be thrown away and perhaps you'll get a better one next time around. Of course, all of this is anecdotal and I have thought about doing surveys and making it a little more scientific to see if my theories hold water, but I haven't done that yet.

For me personally, I used atheism as a medication for guilt. Many claim that the religion itself causes the guilt - I disagree, as usual - but that's outside the scope of my current thoughts. As many here have said, no, I don't think I was a "true atheist" - as I have gotten to know many of you and have seen what that means.

I have found in myself desires to medicate through my beliefs and have tried my best not to do so and to change the way I think, believe, and act to eliminate those things. In fact, I used to say "I know" to many things, when I really only believed them. These things were based on feelings and as has been pointed out here very well, over and over and over again, feelings can be unreliable and therefore are not a good way to learn truth. I have let go of those things and have accepted that I only believe them and don't know them.

However, there are the original four core things that I have come to know (that I have mentioned earlier) and these four things did not come by feelings. They came in a subjective way that I cannot explain and I cannot prove - and that's extremely annoying to myself and everyone here. It also sounds very arrogant that I would receive knowledge and that apparently others haven't. I don't know what to do with that except reiterate that according to James 1:5 and the conditions set forth there, anyone anywhere can do this and receive knowledge and wisdom from God as long as they follow the instructions given.

Now this is important. I see myself being extremely skeptical of anything that goes against these four things that I have received as being true and one could very well say that on the outside it appears very similar to how a CTist behaves. I agree, but I see a difference. In the CTist case, I have found that they are addicted to and have their self worth falsely attached to their belief and will fight any attacks on it blindly to the death. In myself, I cannot deny the subjective evidence I have received - I know that it is true - and so I am forced to be skeptical of anything that goes against it.

So, assuming that God exists, (I know, I'm pushing it here) and assuming that it is possible to receive knowledge directly from Him and know it is true, (I know, I know, your heads are about to explode now) it would be valid to be skeptical of anything that people brought to me that conflicted with that knowledge. And it would look the same way a CTist fighting to protect his self worth does.

I'm being very open and honest here and I hope I can trust all of you to not take a knife and drive it through me at this point. I am hoping that we can honestly and kindly take a look at what I've just thrown onto the table. articulett, I hope it's useful to you because I know you've asked so many times "why do these people hold fast to these beliefs in the face of contrary evidence"? And I hope it's useful as a place where we can come together and understand each other better and thereby more effectively communicate moving forward - not just us here right now, but anyone we come in contact with in the future.

 

[Scot Ferre]

I recently asked my sister (who is LDS) what her opinion on this issue was, and she didn't have much to say. She did tell me that if I asked this to missionaries, that I would be labeled "unteachable" and they'd probably leave me alone.

But that's BS! I'm teachable, I just recognize that praying about the truth of something is a piss poor way to actually discover the truth.

It might be a "piss poor" way of getting an answer from God about the truth, but it has worked for many people. Some people may never get an answer, though, due to various reasons.

The fact that it worked for many people is an indication that there's something to it.

 

[rcronk]

money - I appreciate you reading the links I provided. Yes, it's really hard to find someone who doesn't have a vested interest to do studies defending the Mormon church (or attacking it - or even discussing it objectively for that matter - who cares about the Mormons?). So I expect Mormons to be the ones defending themselves - though there are studies, like the Book of Mormon word-printing one that was done by non-Mormons.

BTW, the companion of which you speak was not charismatic nor did he have tons of converts. I studied his every move as he said, "I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God" and could see nothing different from what I was doing or saying. In fact, he was from Argentina and we were in Chile - and people from Chile and Argentina generally don't like each other that much because of their shared border and the conflicts from the past. If anything people would have more reason to hate him than cry and claim that they know that what he is saying is true. As for your question, my knowledge and belief is based on what I have received from God. These outside evidences are mainly confirmatory of that knowledge.

If a missionary thought you were unteachable for asking a question, that would obviously be wrong. I don't agree that this would happen but I guess it would depend upon the weakness of the missionary and with what attitude you brought the question up. I've argued issues with people and discussed civilly the very same issues and the former always ends up just being an argument and a waste of time and the latter (like this thread) ends up being a good experience for all involved.

 

[articulett]

It might be a "piss poor" way of getting an answer from God about the truth, but it has worked for many people. Some people may never get an answer, though, due to various reasons.

The fact that it worked for many people is an indication that there's something to it.

Yep... just like something must have made those hijackers sure they'd get their virgins in heaven--

And some godly force must be responsible for speaking in tongues-- the bible says that's a sure sign....

And there must be some reason so many people claim to have been visited by aliens...

And some reason that so many people come here to tell us their true (subjective) woo that they no for sure is true, but it never quite measures up with the other true woo... and there's never any more evidence for one than the other-- just a bunch of people who sound amazingly sure of themselves and their truths and that nothing in the world could change their mind.

It's easy to change a skeptics mind-- just a wee bit of actual measurable evidence-- real stuff... that you can use to understand further... like DNA-- not stuff you have to spin a story about or write to prophets about... real solid scientific facts like we've used to advance medicine and technology and our understanding of radiation and the way the brain works and the way that humans are prone to self deception....

 

[articulett]

Obviously, yes - but I have to tell you, whatever bias anyone has, the information presented on the LDS website is accurate and straightforward. It might be somewhat biased, but at least I don't think the official website has any hidden agendas - it's mostly informative, if anything.

Having said that, the official website is lacking some information in some areas, but their search engine, while not as good as Yahoo!'s, should yield many results into what you're looking for.

Yes... and the Scientology site says you don't have to have faith... just work the program for yourself and you will see by the changes in your life how true it is...

Would you go there if you wanted to understand what Scientologists believed and what they are told and how they come to be so certain (and rich and famous?)

 

[Scot Ferre]

Yes... and the Scientology site says you don't have to have faith... just work the program for yourself and you will see by the changes in your life how true it is...

Would you go there if you wanted to understand what Scientologists believed and what they are told and how they come to be so certain (and rich and famous?)

I want to know *all* possible sources of information. I've heard Scientologists' side, and others' sides. The list of negative *deeds* seem to outnumber the positive from Scientologists.

The LDS Church seems to have the opposite - the number of *positive deeds* outnumber the bad. I'd know which one I'd prefer.

One of the mottos is - "Choose the Right".

 

[RandFan]

Did you think the podcast was pretty balanced?

The podcast is very, very good and very fair, IMO. Thanks BTW, you have been an excellent source.

I'd like to find out more... but I wouldn't go to a Scientology site to find out about Scientology or a Speaking in Tongues site to learn about speaking in tongues. I thought the 2 part podcast on Mormonism was pretty clear and fair-- I'm eager to have misperceptions corrected but not "explained away"...

Good point. I'm happy to go to the appologist sites but there is a limit I can take of them.

I don't mind if someone doesn't want to go to sites that I link to. I don't argue by link. I will add links to buttress what I say but I never demand anyone go to them.

I think my arguments should stand or fall on their own. Peculiar I know.

...or told I need to wait until someone hears back from their apologist organization. I don't believe in prophets getting messages from god and I think it's manipulative to tell people they can pray to know if the book of Mormon is true and a "subjective experience" will confirm it. I do think it's very interesting the way they indoctrinate and the ernestness with which they try to be true to their faith. But it sure doesn't make it true. And it seems terribly hard to unlock a mind that believes they've been given a "sign". I don't believe in "signs"-- but I understand why humans would evolve to seek them and allow them to guide them. It must feel comforting to think that in the big wide universe, your little ol' self is "chosen" and on the path to a greater purpose.

Does it matter if it's true? Can anything change the mind of someone who believes they can know something true by subjective feelings? By faith? By trusting that it IS true? By believing with all their might that it's true? I think it's interesting that he divides knowledge in Mormon vs. Anti-mormon... and I divide it into fact and evidence based information vs. everything else (opinions, semantics, myths, beliefs, stories, delusions, mottos, anecdote, hearsay, feelings, illusions, perceptions, etc.) The key is to have a person believe that the "faith" matters more than the "truth", I think.

Thanks.

 

[Elind]

I'm being very open and honest here and I hope I can trust all of you to not take a knife and drive it through me at this point. I am hoping that we can honestly and kindly take a look at what I've just thrown onto the table. articulett, I hope it's useful to you because I know you've asked so many times "why do these people hold fast to these beliefs in the face of contrary evidence"? And I hope it's useful as a place where we can come together and understand each other better and thereby more effectively communicate moving forward - not just us here right now, but anyone we come in contact with in the future.

Yes you sound honest, and I believe you are. I never thought different. You are also much more rational than many "fundamentalists" that come here (no offense intended about FLDS), but to me you are still a fundamentalist.

My opinion, and I think I've expressed it before, is not that you have a lack of reasoning ability. Clearly you admit you cannot rationalize your core beliefs. Yet you do focus on details that might provide the "proof" that you want for people like me, even while I have already drawn my conclusions on much simpler and broader issues. Anything else will tend to be seen by me as fitting ever vanishing details through an ever smaller hole, proving nothing.

I think that you have your life invested in LDS. Your friends, your family, your work probably, your apprenticeship, your travels with the church. Everything.

Honestly, I don't think you can afford to give that up, and you shouldn't; for yourself and for others who would be affected.

While atheists like a good debate, and some write books and give lectures for profit, but one difference is that they don't evangelize in my experience.
I don't want to convert anyone to see their life made less happy, but if they are already heading that way and want to chat here......

I still don't really understand why someone like you (as opposed to Kurious Kathy) is here at all.

 

[articulett]

I want to know *all* possible sources of information. I've heard Scientologists' side, and others' sides. The list of negative *deeds* seem to outnumber the positive from Scientologists.

The LDS Church seems to have the opposite - the number of *positive deeds* outnumber the bad. I'd know which one I'd prefer.

One of the mottos is - "Choose the Right".

What are these positive deeds? The Mormon Massacre? Joseph Smith sleeping with other men's wife per his prophet status? Arrogance? Historical revisionism? What are the bad deeds of the Scientologists? Have they been involved in any massacres? Are they claiming magical gold plates? Do women need men to live "happily ever after"? Is the job of women to spawn more Scientologists? I don't find you more likable then the few Scientologists I know. What amazing deeds am I missing? Or are these subjective things too?

 

[rcronk]

articulett - In the posting frenzy above, I wanted to make sure you didn't miss my comment #643 and I wanted to get your feedback on it.

 

[money]

It might be a "piss poor" way of getting an answer from God about the truth, but it has worked for many people. Some people may never get an answer, though, due to various reasons.

The fact that it worked for many people is an indication that there's something to it.

Yes, people are good at convincing themselves of strange things. It cuts down on cognitive disssonance.

It doesn't make their views correct, however.

Also, what articulett said.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I see the obvious parallels between conspiracy theories as I have explained them above and belief in religion. In fact, as I have visited and sat in different congregations I have identified various reasons why people would choose various religions (Mormonism included) to medicate their pains. Reincarnation, for example, can medicate terrible familial relationships by showing that the family is something that can be thrown away and perhaps you'll get a better one next time around. Of course, all of this is anecdotal and I have thought about doing surveys and making it a little more scientific to see if my theories hold water, but I haven't done that yet.

I hope this doesn't come off as condescending, as it's meant very, very sincerely.

I'm really proud of you rcronk. You've come a long way here, and wherever your journey takes you, I will consider you a genuine critical thinker.

 

[money]

money - I appreciate you reading the links I provided. Yes, it's really hard to find someone who doesn't have a vested interest to do studies defending the Mormon church (or attacking it - or even discussing it objectively for that matter - who cares about the Mormons?). So I expect Mormons to be the ones defending themselves - though there are studies, like the Book of Mormon word-printing one that was done by non-Mormons.

BTW, the companion of which you speak was not charismatic nor did he have tons of converts. I studied his every move as he said, "I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God" and could see nothing different from what I was doing or saying. In fact, he was from Argentina and we were in Chile - and people from Chile and Argentina generally don't like each other that much because of their shared border and the conflicts from the past. If anything people would have more reason to hate him than cry and claim that they know that what he is saying is true. As for your question, my knowledge and belief is based on what I have received from God. These outside evidences are mainly confirmatory of that knowledge.

If a missionary thought you were unteachable for asking a question, that would obviously be wrong. I don't agree that this would happen but I guess it would depend upon the weakness of the missionary and with what attitude you brought the question up. I've argued issues with people and discussed civilly the very same issues and the former always ends up just being an argument and a waste of time and the latter (like this thread) ends up being a good experience for all involved.

Interesting, thanks for the response. I should clarify that I asked my sister, who is a member but has not gone on mission these questions, so she could be wrong about me being unteachable.

The first thread I read your posts in was the one that spawned the book exchange thread. In it (and forgive me if I don't look up your exact words) you urged us to pray about the truth of the BoM and see for ourselves if it is true. I remember thinking, "wow, this guy doesn't get us at all."

Do you now see why this would be a bad angle with skeptics? As articulett has put it, why we see your particular brand of woo as indistinguishable from anothers?

 

[rcronk]

I'm done listening to the first podcast and have a few notes on it.

About half way through the first podcast, they go into some detail on the character of Joseph Smith. Their perspective on it is a little skewed as times have changed a bit:

"McKeever and Johnson ask if today's people could accept a known money digger as their prophet. As there are no modern day "money diggers" that I am aware of, the question is somewhat odd. However, can we accept someone from the nineteenth century that came from a culture of thousands of other money diggers as an eventual prophet? The answer is obviously yes, as millions of Latter-day Saints currently do accept Joseph as the first prophet in this dispensation.

Joseph's money-digging youth is certainly no secret. When asked if he was a money digger, Joseph said, "Yes, but it was never a very profitable job...only got fourteen dollars a month for it." His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, explained the prevalent money digging story as originating from Joseph's employment as a hired silver mine digger for Josiah Stowell. Lucy said that Joseph 'endeavored to divert [Stowell] from his vain pursuit,' however, he ultimately succumbed, as Richard Bushman concludes, to 'pressure from neighbors, from the enthusiastic and well-off Josiah Stowell, from his own father, and from cruel, unrelenting poverty.'

Walker states that within Joseph's Vermont money-digging region, 'twenty-seven towns or a tenth of Vermont's communities dug for treasure, with rural areas also joining the pursuit. Here money digging was 'very common' and was considered an 'honorable and profitable' employment.' He, as well as Quinn, quote an editor of a newspaper local to the Vermont money-digging area who claimed he could name 'at least five hundred respectable men, who do, in the simplicity and sincerity of their hearts, verily believe that immense treasures lie concealed in the Green Mountains, many of whom have been industriously and perseveringly engaged in digging it up.'" - link

It was also mentioned that Joseph Smith was lazy without any citing of sources to that fact. Here are some sources that say otherwise:

"Another favorite assertion of anti-Mormons is that Joseph Smith was a lazy individual who went out of his way to avoid manual labor (both as a youth and as an adult). Documents produced by nineteenth-century critics such as David Stafford, Joseph Capron, Daniel Hendrix and Parley Chase are usually called forth in order to substantiate this claim. This is one of those charges that is hysterically funny to those researchers who are familiar with early LDS documents. As can be seen by the timeline on the screen, Joseph Smith was a hard worker throughout his entire life and he worked especially hard during the Nauvoo period of Church history. The quotations found on the bottom of this slide should make modern anti-Mormons think twice about putting any stock in the lazy prophet argument. They come from eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's work ethic and say things such as, 'He enjoyed doing hard physical labor, …any kind of work that needed to be done'; 'he assisted in mowing grass, with a scythe, many a day, putting in ten hours good hard work'; 'He was strong and active, and could build more rods of good fence in one day than most men could do in two.' When the Prophet's brother William was questioned about the accusation that Joseph was a lazy person he made these insightful comments:

'We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then, by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good day's work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either… Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys. We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision.'" - link

They also speak about what sounds like a misunderstanding of what is called the "law of consecration":

"The law of consecration concerns the consecration of all one's time, talents, and substance to the building of the Kingdom of God. In the spirit of this law members of the New Testament Church renounced the practice of "serving Mammon" and lived with common ownership of all their substance.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common. (Acts 4:32)

Similarly, the Lord instituted a program called "the United Order" in the Restored Church, and at one time the Saints lived with all things in common. Various revelations to Joseph Smith delineated exactly how this order was to be administered. (e.g. see D&C 51, 82, 104) Unfortunately, the Saints proved themselves unready to live such a lofty law and therefore it was held in abeyance and the lesser law of tithes and offerings was instituted: Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. (D&C 64:23)" - link

They claim that they sold all of the land "when it comes time to be kicked out and moved." They kind of leave out the fact that the Mormons were being killed and their houses burned. I don't see how they are running out of their houses being chased by a mob and working out a deal to sell their burning houses at an inflated price. That doesn't make sense. I'd like to see the documentation that would back up these claims.

It then goes into Joseph Smith seducing young women in the church - again undocumented by the speaker - I get that it's a vocal interview, but to make such accusations and move on is a bit irresponsible. I've read many of these stories and it's interesting to see what was really going on based on the actual accounts of people involved. In the beginning, as new things were being revealed to Joseph, many thought that women had to be sealed to the prophet but remain married to and living with their husbands - it was just a religious rite and nothing more that had something to do with progression. Many were sealed under that misunderstanding but as the doctrine was clarified, that practice stopped. In other circumstances, for example, with Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor and others, it was a test to see if they would give up what was most valuable to them and no sealing or marriage actually took place at all. Joseph Smith had many people seeking to kill him and he had to find ways to be able to know who he could trust:

"Glen M. Leonard described those few that entered into the relationships as having to "endure a more severe test of their faith." He recounted Joseph's request of Heber C. Kimball to take his wife as his own eternal companion. While Heber labored extensively with "soul-searching, fasting, and prayer," he finally agreed to give her to Joseph. When Heber told Joseph of his decision, the prophet simply wept at his act of faith. It was at this point, which is key, that Joseph informed Kimball "that the request was an Abrahamic test of his willingness to submit his will to the Lord's and that the sacrifice of his wife would not be required." Joseph then sealed Heber and his wife as eternal mates. John Taylor passed this test with the same results. After Taylor informed the prophet that he could have his wife, Joseph said that he did not want her, rather he simply wanted to know where he stood." - link

I don't know what it would be like to be alive in the 1800's with people out to kill me but I think it might change my perspective on things just a bit. In the above links, they discuss these instances further.

The story of Joseph's murder is different than I have heard before. They claim that he was sleeping around with all of the member's wives (see above links for more information) and they all got mad and published a paper on the printing press, Joseph orders the printing press destroyed, the senate of Illinois charges Joseph and Hyrum for destroying the press, a mob appears, apparently the disgruntled men whose wives Joseph's sleeping with, the guards never stop them and he's shot, stumbles out a window and his wife Emma is there when he dies. Here is what is documented:

"Even before the Prophet Joseph Smith went to Carthage, there were signs that his life was in danger: Illinois Governor Thomas Ford going to Hancock County with a force of more than twelve hundred state militiamen, Warsaw and Carthage citizens in mass meetings passing resolutions to "utterly exterminate" the Mormon leader, Illinois officials confiscating state arms from the Nauvoo Legion while allowing other militias to retain theirs.

The whole countryside was in a state of confusion. Mormons feared and distrusted their enemies, and their enemies feared the power of the Mormons if provoked. Rumors bred rumors. Armed men practiced military drills everywhere. Day after day men crossed and recrossed the Mississippi River from Missouri as attacks upon Nauvoo were planned and canceled.

Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press.

After posting bail in Carthage, Joseph and Hyrum were released pending the next term of the circuit court. However, the brothers faced a second charge of "treason" for calling the Nauvoo Legion to assemble on June 18 and for declaring martial law—actions that had been prompted by justified fears of mob attack on Nauvoo. But Justice of the Peace Robert F. Smith, who also served as captain of the unruly Carthage Greys militia, left the courtroom without calling Joseph and Hyrum to answer the second charge.

Later, when they were back in their room in the Hamilton House (a hotel, tavern, and Carthage social center where the governor and other officials also were lodged), Constable Bettisworth reappeared to take Joseph and Hyrum to jail to await trial for treason. A warrant known as a mittimus was needed for such action, their legal counsel explained, and before a mittimus could be issued, the law required that the prisoners be brought before the justice of the peace again for an examination. To everyone’s surprise, the constable pulled a mittimus from his pocket, signed by Robert F. Smith. Joseph objected to "such bare-faced, illegal, and tyrannical proceedings." James W. Wood, Joseph’s lawyer, went down the hall to the governor. Ford refused to intervene, and the Prophet, Hyrum, and several other brethren were escorted to Carthage Jail.

Hancock County rabble followed the brethren to the jail, milling about, shouting at the guards, and sitting on their haunches against a pole fence surrounding the yard. They joked and cursed and spat on the ground.

Governor Ford met with militia leaders and citizens in the Hamilton House on the morning of 27 June 1844. Notwithstanding they had planned a military display in Nauvoo with all state militias participating, the governor had decided against it. But as a concession to militia leaders’ wishes, he would lead a force to Nauvoo “to terrify the Mormons from attempting any open or secret measure of vengeance.” However, he announced, the force would not be large—only Captain Dunn’s company of Union Dragoons from Augusta, the small township in the extreme southeast corner of Hancock County. All other militias, with the exception of the two companies in Carthage—the Greys and the Riflemen, assigned to guard the jail—were to be disbanded immediately.

Commotion broke out in the room. To those favoring a march to Nauvoo, the order to disband was merely more of the “Ford reasoning.” But to those planning the Prophet’s death, the import of the governor’s orders became apparent. The troops were to be disbanded in Carthage! Once the responsible had left for their homes, the residue would become an armed and lawless mob." - link

There was also some misunderstanding about who would be the next prophet among the people, and some of that confusion led to some people splitting into what are now known as the FLDS and RLDS churches. Here's what is documented:

"On that occasion the Prophet Joseph rose up and said to us [the twelve apostles]: 'Brethren, I have desired to live to see this temple built. I shall never live to see it, but you will. I have sealed upon your heads all the keys of the kingdom of God. I have sealed upon you every key, power, principle that the God of heaven has revealed to me. Now, no matter where I may go or what I may do, the kingdom rests upon you.'" - link

"Brigham Young was ordained an Apostle on February 14, 1835, in Kirtland, Ohio. Brigham Young was sustained as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on April 14, 1840. Then, in the spring of 1844, Joseph conveyed to the Twelve the responsibility to carry the work forward, reaffirming that the keys and authority would remain with them after his death. With the dissolution of the First Presidency at the death of the Prophet Joseph, Brigham Young became the presiding high priest of the Church. The First Presidency was reorganized on December 5 and sustained by the body of the Church on December 27, 1847." - link

So the podcast started out pretty good but then slid into common anti-Mormon claims. He wouldn't have gotten such information from Mormon missionaries and so my guess is that he googled "Mormons" and found the plethora of anti-Mormon information that is out there. That's disappointing - I had good hopes for this podcast at the beginning.

 

[rcronk]

tanstaafl - Thanks. It doesn't sound condescending - it sounds just about right. I feel I have made progress here and I owe it to people here who have stuck with me while I figure some of these things out. I can be stubborn but I eventually figure things out. Thanks again for the kind words.

money - Yes, I get why praying to know the answer wouldn't go over well here. I finally understand "y'all's" point of view. I agree with it to some extent too. I agree that people can be deceived but I also have found something as I have tried it that seems different than self-deceit. I know that only means something to me, so let me throw out a few objective evidences.

I'm actually ashamed of myself for not thinking of this before. The Book of Mormon itself is objective evidence of the truthfulness of this work. Let me suggest a few places to look into this book and how amazing it is.

1. The Book of Mormon contains chiasmus. "Chiasmus is a form of parallelism used as a poetical structure in some ancient writings from the Middle East and Greece. The word chiasmus derives from the Greek letter chi (X) which symbolizes the top-to-bottom mirror image reflection achieved by elements of text. Chiasmus was a common form of presenting ideas among those with literary skills in the ancient world and was used to create powerful poetry. This form, however, was not widely appreciated as a hallmark of ancient writing in the middle east until this century [the 1900's]. While chiasmus is now increasingly recognized as a hallmark of ancient Semitic writings, it does not prove anything per se, for chiasmus does occur in some modern texts by accident. In fact, one can force a weak, contrived chiasmic pattern to fit into many texts if one is willing to work hard enough. However, if a passage shows a chiasmatic structure that is related to and enhances the meaning of the text, that is tightly and densely woven into the text, with consistent multiple layers, then one may suspect that such a passage was crafted rather than accidental." - link

Here are a couple of examples from the Book of Mormon (there are many more at the above link):

(a) And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the NAME of Christ
--(b) must be CALLED by some other name;
----(c) therefore, he findeth himself on the LEFT HAND of God.
------(d) And I would that ye should REMEMBER also, that this is the NAME
--------(e) that I said I should give unto you that never should be BLOTTED out,
----------(f) except it be through TRANSGRESSION;
----------(f') therefore, take heed that ye do not TRANSGRESS,
--------(e') that the name be not BLOTTED OUT of your hearts.
------(d') I say unto you, I would that ye should REMEMBER to retain the NAME
----(c') written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the LEFT HAND of God,
--(b') but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be CALLED,
(a') and also, the NAME by which he shall call you.

Alms 36
(a) My son, give ear to my WORDS (1)
--(b) KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of God and ye shall PROSPER IN THE LAND (2)
---(c) DO AS I HAVE DONE (2)
----(d) in REMEMBERING THE CAPTIVITY of our fathers (2);
-----(e) for they were in BONDAGE (2)
------(f) he surely did DELIVER them (2)
-------(g) TRUST in God (3)
--------(h) supported in their TRIALS, and TROUBLES, and AFFLICTIONS (3)
---------(i) shall be lifted up at the LAST DAY (3)
----------(j) I KNOW this not of myself but of GOD (4)
-----------(k) BORN OF GOD (5)
------------(l) I sought to destroy the church of God (6-9)
-------------(m) MY LIMBS were paralyzed (10)
-------------- Fear of being in the PRESENCE OF GOD (14-15)
---------------(o) PAINS of a damned soul (16)
----------------(p) HARROWED UP BY THE MEMORY OF SINS (17)
-----------------(q) I remembered JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD (17)
-----------------(q') I cried, JESUS, SON OF GOD (18)
----------------(p') HARROWED UP BY THE MEMORY OF SINS no more (19)
-------------- (o')--Joy as exceeding as was the PAIN (20)
--------------(n') Long to be in the PRESENCE OF GOD (22)
-------------(m') My LIMBS received their strength again (23)
------------(l') I labored to bring souls to repentance (24)
-----------(k') BORN OF GOD (26)
----------(j') Therefore MY KNOWLEDGE IS OF GOD (26)
---------(h') Supported under TRIALS, TROUBLES, and AFFLICTIONS (27)
--------(g') TRUST in him (27)
-------(f') He will deliver me (27)
---------(i') and RAISE ME UP AT THE LAST DAY (28)
----(e') As God brought our fathers out of BONDAGE and captivity (28-29)
---(d') Retain in REMEMBRANCE THEIR CAPTIVITY (28-29)
--(c') KNOW AS I DO KNOW (30)
-(b') KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS and ye shall PROSPER IN THE LAND (30)
(a') This is according to his WORD (30).

A. order of his Son (v. 2)
-B. ordained (v. 3)
--C. called (v. 3)
---D. foreknowledge of God (v. 3)
----E. prepared (v. 3)
-----F. foundation of the world (v. 5)
------G. Only Begotten Son (v. 5)
-------H. high priesthood (v. 6)
--------I. his rest (v. 6)
-------H'. high priesthood (v. 7)
------G'. his Son (v. 7)
-----F'. foundation of the world (v. 7)
----E'. prepared (v. 7)
---D'. foreknowledge of all things (v. 7)
--C'. called (v. 8)
-B'. ordained (v. 8)
A'. order of the Son (v. 9)

2. What could easily be described as "reformed Egyptian" is used by authors contemporary to Lehi and his family. This is what the Book of Mormon itself is claimed to be originally written in. How would Joseph Smith, a farm boy (or anyone in the early 1800's for that matter) know that such a book could - and, given the circumstances, probably should - have been written in "reformed Egyptian?" - link

3. There are many other archaeological and historical evidences for the Book of Mormon's authenticity here.

articulett - Sorry, I and others keep burying my original post that I want your feedback on. Let me know what you think of my post #643 in this thread. Thanks.

 

[Elind]

In fact, one can force a weak, contrived chiasmic pattern to fit into many texts if one is willing to work hard enough.

Huh?

 

[Tanstaafl]

One thing I've been wondering about. In following one of the links that was posted here, I think it was one of the video clips, it was said the Joseph Smith was writing a dictionary of the heiroglyphics to use in later translation work, which ultimately led to the book of Abraham.

If so, is this dictionary still around? It seems that that would be a definitive way to determine if his translation was really that, or if he was just making things up.

 

[rcronk]

Elind - I think they're saying that you might be able to find a weak simple chiasmus by accident in everyday text if you look really hard. However, the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is quite strong and found all over in it. Hey I'm not an English major either, so some of my sentences probably come across a bit garbled too.

Tanstaafl - The story as I understand it is that Joseph translated the papyri through the power of God and then afterward he and others set out to match the English translation back to the original hieroglyphics to create a Rosetta stone of sorts that could then be used by anyone to translate hieroglyphics into English. They evidently ended up starting at the wrong end of the scroll and therefore failed at their attempt.