Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

If the translation came from God, that is pretty much equivalent. Either Joseph Smith made up the words themselves or they came form God. Even if the gold plates existed, we all agree that Smith couldn't have read any ancient language written on them. We're still left with this dichotomy: Either the words in the BoM came from the mind of Joseph Smith, or they came from the mind of God. It seems to me that holds true even if God is actually quoting ancient human writers.
 
rcronk said:
Tanstaafl - Yes, it implies that the video is incorrect. Earlier I posted information about how the ink from the hieroglyphics overwrote the ink from the English, showing that the English was written first and the hieroglyphics were being matched up to the English. I appreciate your objective tone. You could also take a look at http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers for more information.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I haven't gone back to the moderated forum. I would like to. It's just a commitment I haven't wanted to tackle as of late. It seems like trying to prove trivial truths. I apologize.

From your link.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.
Click to expand...
So the entire argument is settled.

No need to consider the papyrus at all. It was either made up or it was given to Joseph Smith by god.

The problem is that Joseph Smith over and over said he was translating the papyrus. Why did the Mormon Church purchase mummies and other artifacts so they could procure the papyrus if it wasn't the source of the text? Why put the facimilies in the BOA? Why didn't Joseph Smith simply state that he wasn't translating the BOA he was recieving revelation?

This is the kind of stuff that really bothers me. As a Mormon I would find this very convenient and very embarrassing.

That wiki article is quite damning on its face.
 
RandFan - Perhaps to lessen the commitment, you could summarize the rest of your items in one post on the moderated thread. I could reply and we could call it good, unpin the two threads and let people continue to comment in this thread if they desire? I am also a bit tired but I do want to know what your items are. What do you think? ETA: I am also getting tired and want to wrap this up.

As for your questions - it seemed that physical location to the item being translated had something to do with translating with the Urim and Thummim, if that is true, then purchasing the mummies would make sense. The facsimiles had truths in them that could have been passed down through the Egyptians and they may have lost their original meaning. Or Joseph Smith could be a fraud. I understand the viewpoint. I accept the possibilities, but what I have received subjectively refutes that he was a fraud. You can guess that I may be deceived. I get it. I would only find it convenient and embarrassing if I assumed it were a false story, which I don't.

I don't know anything for sure about the details of the Book of Abraham and the events surrounding it - I really don't know for sure. I do know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know that means nothing to you and goes against everything you believe, but have some mercy on me. If it's true that I know these things, can you see how frustrating it is to know something and to not be able to prove it? And to be called a blind believer, just looking for ways to twist the "facts" into something that matches what I want to believe. It's frustrating.
 
Last edited:
RandFan - I looked at the link you posted about Spaulding and View of the Hebrews. Yes, there are some similarities and many of these similarities were common theories of the time.

"I have even heard claims that Oliver Cowdery's family had a connection to Ethan Smith. (If Oliver knew of anything close to plagiarism involved in the Book of Mormon, it's interesting that he never mentioned it or denied his testimony of the divinity of that book, even during the time when he was bitterly upset with Joseph Smith and had left the Church.)" - link

Emma Smith was also a scribe and, as I quoted before, she said he had no other books to rely on. If Joseph had plagiarized from these books, there would either be copied text from the books or he would have to write it in his own words. The wordprinting tests suggest that neither happened. Spaulding didn't match the Book of Mormon and Joseph didn't either. Objective studies disprove the theory that he plagiarized or paraphrased simply based on some coincidental similarities.
 
Last edited:
By the way rcronk, I'm not sure if you ever cruise through the community section, but you should. You've been nominated for a language award.
 
rcronk said:
Emma Smith was also a scribe and, as I quoted before, she said he had no other books to rely on. If Joseph had plagiarized from these books, there would either be copied text from the books or he would have to write it in his own words. The wordprinting tests suggest that neither happened. Spaulding didn't match the Book of Mormon and Joseph didn't either. Objective studies disprove the theory that he plagiarized or paraphrased simply based on some coincidental similarities.
Click to expand...
They are not simply coincidental similarities. They are very specific similarities. I don't think Emma's quotes prove anything. I'm very skeptical of what she says.
 
Tanstaafl - Thanks for the info - I'll check it out. What's a language award? It can't be for my English speaking! Maybe I should start posting in Spanish. :) ETA: Ok, I finally found the community section and found the language award thread and found my nomination on the forth page. Thanks Tanstaafl - I appreciate it! I hope it can bring some people together and help us all find some common ground and stop arguing past each other so much.

RandFan - Fair enough (What about Oliver? He didn't out Joseph's plagiarism even during the time he had left the church and was bitter toward Joseph.). What do you think about my proposal to accelerate our schedule? I'm starting to feel guilty about my other priorities I'm taking time away from and so I think we either need to call it good now or we could do a items summary with a few back and forths and then call it good. I'm ok with whatever you want to do.
 
Last edited:
RCRONK - Elind - Please provide your evidence that he copied anything other than a few chapters of Isiah (which are clearly identified in the text as being from Isiah and is included for a specific reason) and a chapter or so of Christ's teachings from the New Testament that He delivered to the people on the American continent (which was also identified as being the same thing He taught to those in the New Testament).

I'm going by memory here and I can't get into literary research like you, but I believe I have read several summaries of the obvious copying or rephrasing from other texts. One source is Krakauer, who references others.

But, again, we are addressing this issue from different perspectives and we will never meet, even though we can appreciate the exchange perhaps, for that reason. You are arguing, using what I think are esoteric word analyzes to prove that, (since we "know" that J. Smith "dictated" the book) J. Smith could not have "created" it, and therefore the plates must have been real, and therefore God must have placed them there, and therefore God exists.

I and others have been through many years of life and come to the conclusion that God (certainly as you see it) does NOT exist. Therefore we conclude (along with other circumstantial evidence and Occam) that the plates are a lie, and that the book was a compilation of a misguided but obviously talented mind. A "religious genius" as he has been called by detractors.

You see, we are coming from different directions, but for you the point we are coming from is by far the hardest goal for you to reach, whereas word analyzes are just an intellectual puzzle game from our (apologies to anyone not agreeing with me, or us) perspective.
 
rcronk said:
RandFan - Fair enough (What about Oliver? He didn't out Joseph's plagiarism even during the time he had left the church and was bitter toward Joseph.). What do you think about my proposal to accelerate our schedule? I'm starting to feel guilty about my other priorities I'm taking time away from and so I think we either need to call it good now or we could do a items summary with a few back and forths and then call it good. I'm ok with whatever you want to do.
Click to expand...
You assume Oliver knew of the plagerism.

To be honest with you I don't feel like continuing with the the moderated thread at this time. My hearts not in at the moment.

I didn't have any illusions when I began this and I appreciate your willingness to be polite. I give you high marks for that.

I've always said that if a person was convinced that the moon did not exist nothing could persuade him against his belief. Take the scrolls, after all the debate it comes down to "well, Joseph didn't get the BOA from the scrolls. God revealed it to him".

Using the same logic, if I were so inclined not to believe that the Moon is real I could simply say that the Moon is an optical illusion created by Satan. Hell, I could argue that the Earth is flat. How could anyone convince me otherwise?

Who knows, I might just be the guy that believes that the moon doesn't exist. The reason I don't think I am is that I'm willing to question every idea and belief and use Occam's razor and rely on objectivity, the evidence is just so overwhelming.

IMO, and based on my experience, to buy Mormonism, one must construct elaborate and convoluted explanations of things to believe that this guy in New York who very likely knew of the Hebrew view and the Saplding Manuscript and who has been documented to be a guy who reads stones before he ever had a vision should be the person god would reveal a striking similiar account (not so much Spalding btw) to and direct to a hill to uncover metal plates.

Here's the kicker. The plates and all of the work to compile and protect them were a complete waste of time. Joseph Smith never needed them to produce the BOM. God just needed to reveal it to him.
 
Yes, rconk... I'm biased as you would be if someone was telling you similar explanations as to why Star Wars is true or contains deep truths... the same with Scientology. Even if I can agree on little bits and pieces... the huge premises you have started with are just so mythological to me (e.g. that there is an invisible god who reveals things oddly and cryptically to male prophets and you can know who they are by asking god and getting a subjective "sign" affirming you are on the right path.) To me, there's nothing that makes Mormonism sound more likely to be truer than "talking in tongues" or alien visitation.

In Science, when things are real, the evidence can't help but accumulate... you don't need excuses and to look for signs-- and when you are on the right track,--you do tests to falsify your conclusions-- just so you make sure you aren't fooling yourself. You do double blind tests... you do things taking into account the ways humans are known to fool themselves... and when you don't understand something-- you just fill in the facts you can and don't leap over anything with "faith" or "god" or "supernatural"-- because that has never lead to any new knowledge in all of human history. It tends to be a stopping point for further inquiry, actually. It feels like you have a true or special answer-- but it's a useless, unverifiable answer.

Darwin was published around the time the BoM was. And since that time, we've discovered chromosomes and DNA and reams of useful and corroborating info. And the details keeep getting filled in... and as we developed new tools for discovery, it only became more so-- all humans learn more. Contrast to things like the Shroud of Turin or the BoA-- where the tools show us that these things are not what they claim to be unless your deity is into "mind games". Explaining away the results is like young earth creationists saying Satan planted dinosaur bones to fool people... or god made the earth look old to fool people. It's assuming you have the truth and manipulating the facts to fit that truth. Science takes the facts where they lead... even if it's not in the direction one would hope. That is the only way to really have the truth. All your explanations and apologetics and all the anti-Mormon sites and all the biased people in the world-- still don't make faith a good way to know the truth. In fact... all of that is irrelevant as to whether faith can bring understanding of anything true. It sure can convince people they have truth-- but I can't see it bringing actual truths-- and there is just no evidence that it does. And even if I could be convinced of that-- I would have no more reason for believing that the hijackers are enjoying virgins than that Mormon men were enjoying multiple wives on other planets. Even if one scenario sounded better (as reincarnation did to me), it still doesn't make it true-- even if it feels true and I see signs and I want it to be true-- It STILL doesn't make it true.

I know that every woo believer has an answer... just as the truthers do... when you ask what evidence if any would change their mind-- there just is none... the standards to disprove their notions are impossible. And really-- all you'd need to convince a skeptic is good sound tangible measurable evidence that a god or gods exist... that he communicates through "faith"... that he has prophets and communicates cryptically... mostly through revelation--but with help from old relics or disappearing gold plates and seeing stones. It's too huge and unlikely and makes god look so piddly and human and male--like a superhero or something.... not "real"--certainly not scientifically prescient or omniscient in any outstanding way.

You could point to presents under the tree each year as proof of Santa, you know... if I said that it was your parents, you could take me to their wrapping paper storage closet and prove they don't have the wrapping paper your presents are wrapped with... or that the paper is "special" and can't be found in any store-- but it still doesn't mean Santa is real. See?

I know this is insulting. In your head the world is Mormon and anti-mormon... but there is just one truth-- and there are millions of opinions about what that truth is. I'll stick withe the facts that are the same for everybody for now. It's not so insulting really-- I feel the way about your beliefs that you feel about all the beliefs you don't believe in. And the truth remains the truth no matter whether anyone believes it or not.
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
pixel42 - "Nothing the LDS teaches seems reasonable" - really? The LDS church teaches that people should be generous and charitable to each other. That's reasonable. It teaches that we should be healthy and take care of our bodies. that's reasonable. It teaches that we should allow others to believe as they wish. That's reasonable. If you really meant that the history of how the LDS church came to exist sounds unreasonable - I agree with you. It's an abnormal story. I have done a lot of research about it. Have you? Is the unreasonableness really just the straw man that has been set up for you or is it the truth? How do you know? From what I've seen here of people's research about Mormonism, I think you're looking at a straw man
Click to expand...
I was referring to the teachings that are unique to the LDS. That includes, but is not limited to, Smith's account of its origins.

I've been reading Scot Ferre's posts about his beliefs on another board for a couple of years. I was so impressed by his obvious sincerity and conviction that shortly after I "met" him I did some googling to find out more about his church. I even found the Book of Mormon online and read some random samples of it.

To say I was unimpressed by what I discovered would be a considerable understatement. From the little I'd previously known of the LDS I'd assumed it was just a minor offshoot of Christianity, with no major differences. I never expected its additional teachings to be so - I'm sorry, but I have to say it - utterly ridiculous. I take the point that most are not inherently much more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, though frankly that isn't saying much. But the fact that its origins are so recent, and we therefore know so much about its originator and the circumstances in which it arose, make it impossible to swallow. It genuinely amazes me that even as many as 12 million people - 0.02% of humanity - manage to take its teachings seriously.

rcronk said:
If it's true that I know these things, can you see how frustrating it is to know something and to not be able to prove it?
Click to expand...
I do sympathise. But the problem is that your 'knowledge' is based on your assumption that your interpretation of your subjective experiences (as confirmations from God) is the correct one. But that is only one of several possible interpretations. There is no good reason to think it is the correct one, and several good reasons - the ease with which such experiences can be artifically stimulated, the fact that people of other religions report identical experiences as confirmation of their own completely different beliefs, the fact that some of the things these experiences supposedly confirm (i.e. LDS teachings) are no more credible than Santa Claus - to think it is not.
 
Last edited:
rcronk, perhaps I missed this earlier in the thread, but what exactly were the subjective experiences that led you to believe in Mormonism? I don't think your sincerity is in question, if you say, for example, that you spoke to god, I will believe that you believe it.
 
Elind – You have no objective proof that God doesn't exist so why can you "come to a conclusion" that he does not exist and then use that "conclusion" to say that the plates, etc. are not true? My arguments have been against incorrect information. For example, many have said that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I brought evidence that disproves that incorrect assertion. I never suggested that "it therefore" came from God – never, not once. The only purpose of bringing up that evidence was to correct the incorrect assertions being put forth. That's all.

RandFan – Thanks – I try (and fail at times) to be kind and civil. I am getting better at it, I think. The moon exists. The earth is banana-shaped. You say the evidence is just so overwhelming but I say that much of it has been incorrect and I have corrected it. Most of it is circumstantial. None of it is definitive and without alternate explanation. You wouldn't (and haven't) accepted that kind of evidence from me. Your kicker assumes that you know what the circumstances and requirements were for translating. Some guesses have been made, but nobody knows for sure.

articulett – Thanks. I think you missed another of my posts to you. You have asked many times "why" CTists and theists hold to beliefs and I put forth a specific theory about that in post 643. I asked for specific feedback about what you think about that theory. It's the part that had to do with human needs and addiction. (I'd like to add to that theory that different people give different wieght to different kinds of "evidence" too.) Could you give me feedback on that part of the post. I very much value your feedback on this specific theory. Thanks.

Pixel42 – I suggest you read and study the entire Book of Mormon instead of just "some random samples" of it before forming an opinion about it. I would also suggest you objectively study the doctrines of the Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) thoroughly before forming an opinion on them. You may say that you don't care, but you and others cared enough to come to this thread and make statements about these doctrines without having thoroughly researching them fully or objectively, so you and others must have some level of caring about this.

My experience here has been that most here don't know much about the Mormon church but tend to comment a lot about it as if they did. Based on some of the incorrect things posted here, I can understand why many here are looking at me cross-eyed - wondering what kind of deluded individual I need to be to believe in these straw-men.

You stated that my "'knowledge' is based on [my] assumption that [my] interpretation of [my] subjective experiences (as confirmations from God) is the correct one," as though your statement is a fact. The real story is that you have absolutely no idea and no objective (or even subjective) evidence that this is the case. Why do you and others get to make such unsupported statements completely unchallenged but I can't? Was anyone going to call Pixel42 on this unsupported accusation? Why not?

And as I said in the beginning of the "Smart Kid" thread – there IS a Santa clause – it's your parents! That's why there's evidence. Kids' ideas of Santa's attributes is incorrect because of toungue-in-cheek false teaching, but that's all - Santa doesn't live at the north pole, he lives in your house - he's not a fat guy with a beard, well, for some of us he is depending on what our fathers look like - he's really one or two people who stayed up late to put the dang swing set together - he doesn't have a magic sleigh that travels the world in hours, he's got a minivan that traveled from WalMart. I think the same is true of God – we all have some (or many) incorrect ideas about His existence and attributes because of false teachings.

Many here have misconceptions about Mormonism. Was anyone here going to find out that the podcast was full of serious factual errors? Nope – everyone I saw commenting on it said things like, "yup, good stuff, very accurate." I was the only one who looked into it and found out it was incorrect on many serious points. Again, why can't we be agnostic instead of atheist? Why can't we be objective? This includes me - but surprisingly, it's looking like it includes all of you too.

Marcus – Hi.

Tanstaafl – Thanks for looking up those posts for me.
 
Last edited:
Tanstaafl said:
Marcus, I think what you're looking for is described in this post from an earlier thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2744593#post2744593

and better yet, here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2706506#post2706506
Click to expand...

That clears it up, thanks. Would there be any point in pointing out that this type of altered mental state can easily be induced by the brain itself, without any need for supernatural intervention?
 
Marcus - With all due respect, saying "this type of altered mental state" implies that you actually know for a fact exactly what I am experiencing, which you don't. It may seem similar as I express it in English but that doesn't mean it is the same.

Out of curiosity, how exactly is the "altered mental state" you are speaking of "easily induced"?
 
I don't want to speak for Marcus, but they have been able to artificially reproduce the mental state that gives you a profound feeling of being connected to something greater than yourself, which many people experience as a connection to god.

Of course, we can't know exactly what your experience felt like. Just like you can't know that believers in other religions haven't had exactly the same experience as you had.
 
Tanstaafl - Thanks for the clarification. Specifically how do they "artificially reproduce" this mental state?

Again, why isn't everyone here jumping on Marcos for making an objectively unsubstantiated claim but if I ever hint to coming close to doing such a thing, it's a dog-pile on rcronk? Could it really be as simple as whether people agree or disagree with the unsubstantiated claim that's being made? Can we be honest here?
 
I think it's been done in more than one way. It comes down to stimulating a specific area of the brain. I think it's been done with electrodes, and also with a helmet that applies a strong magnetic field to that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

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

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom