• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

LDS II: The Mormons

[snipped for brevity]


Indeed, a "host of others [you] have asked," the cumulative weight of which (as I have already said) justifies my claim that you believe there is no evidence for anything in the BoM. Oh, wait, could I have overreached in arriving at that conclusion? No, because you are unable/unwilling to cite a single passage for which there is evidence.

You are attempting to discredit your interlocutor's position for not providing you with evidence that supports your case and contradicts his own?

That is a quite peculiar rhetorical position. I'm sure there must be a logical fallacy named for this tactic. I just don't know what it's called.

Do your own homework.
 
Hence the claim that Smith was illiterate or nearly so. He didn't "translate" the stone so much as read magically appearing text. The only way there could BE errors would be if Smith wasn't very good at reading very small selections of text. One wonders why, if the stones were "smart" enough to provide the English word, they also didn't notice Smith had stupidly written "Horse" instead of "Tapir" or "Steel" instead of "Bronze" and repeat the correct word until he got it right. God has a LOT to learn about interface design.

To the credit of the LDS, sidestepping the extensive errors of the BoM by depicting Smith as a marginally literate simpleton is internally consistent with the BoM itself. The men chosen to be prophets in the BoM tend to be idiots at best. Intelligence is not highly prized in the BoM.

Unfortunately for Mormons there was a self correcting process:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used"


Doesn't leave much dodging room.
 
Linguistically speaking, this passage from the Book of Mormon is interesting because it mixes both familiar English words for animals and, presumably, Reformed Egyptian or other foreign words for them:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.19?lang=eng#18
Ether 9:19

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

I'll leave it to others to figure that out.
 
Of course not. How would it be possible for an organization the size and reach of the LDS Church to not have, in some unintended way, impacted someone negatively?



You may want to qualify your statement. As it stands, it suggests that the entire BoM text is of "erroneous caliber." That is incorrect. Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.

Wow. So are you now suggesting that the efforts of the LDS church and community to influence social policy and civil legislation were not intended to have an impact on anyone? If that is the case, you should seriously consider hanging out with a crowd less stupid.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. How would it be possible for an organization the size and reach of the LDS Church to not have, in some unintended way, impacted someone negatively?



You may want to qualify your statement. As it stands, it suggests that the entire BoM text is of "erroneous caliber." That is incorrect. Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.
Unintended? I can believe that the Church viewed that their actions would impact individuals in a way that was for their better good as the Church saw it, whether the impacted individuals agreed or not. But the Church certainly intended to impact non-believers in a way that the unbelievers certainly might themselves view as negative. Or why try to make a law at all, rather than just a Church rule restricted to the believers? The Church simply"knew better" and that the laws was really for the unbeliever's own good. I have found that often the most painful injuries are due to a religion trying to "help" you in this manner. Does any Church have a right to decide based on their doctrine how I, an unbeliever, should lead my private life if my decisions do not hurt anyone, or affect in any manner a non-consenting adult?

And are you suggesting that the posters here are claiming that the obvious errors in the BoM are errors of God, and not of Smith? At least on this point I suspect we would all agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Some?

OK, sidestepping that downplaying (as there are scores of errors, not "some" errors); how about you address your claim regarding Hebrew idioms which you still have not answered which I have repeatedly asked for from you?
In the interest of clarity, why don't you assign a numerical value to "scores" and "some"? Re. Hebrew idioms, I named my source, which you are free to consult. How about you do that?

Also; I never once asserted that the errors in the BoM were by any hand other than a human - so taking the time to say that if there are errors in the BoM they are the fault of humans is rather unneeded; of course the errors in the BoM are by humans.

You overlook the fact that Joseph Smith said he translated the BoM by divine power. That is the context in which he said "If there are errors, they are the fault of men" (words to that effect).

And unintentional is not a quality I think summarizes the entire history of the LDS impact upon citizens.

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

I am not claiming the LDS is evil, or purely errant in their enterprise; no, but they do hold beliefs that are oppressive in nature and have enforced them over their history in manners which have negatively impacted citizens.

If you're going to make that charge, you're obligated to elucidate with some examples. BTW, if the Church were to "enforce" its beliefs on others, it would probably lose its 501(c)(3) status.
 
You did make a claim about Hebrew idioms up thread. How about you just offer evidence for what you claimed? It was your claim, it hardly seems like a lot to ask for you to substantiate it.
 
Unfortunately for Mormons there was a self correcting process:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used"


Doesn't leave much dodging room.

Some?

OK, sidestepping that downplaying (as there are scores of errors, not "some" errors); how about you address your claim regarding Hebrew idioms which you still have not answered which I have repeatedly asked for from you?
In the interest of clarity, why don't you assign a numerical value to "scores" and "some"? Re. Hebrew idioms, I named my source, which you are free to consult. How about you do that?



You overlook the fact that Joseph Smith said he translated the BoM by divine power. That is the context in which he said "If there are errors, they are the fault of men" (words to that effect).



Sorry, I don't understand your point.



If you're going to make that charge, you're obligated to elucidate with some examples. BTW, if the Church were to "enforce" its beliefs on others, it would probably lose its 501(c)(3) status.

You overlook the fact that there was no translation.
 
Re. Hebrew idioms, I named my source, which you are free to consult. How about you do that?
I apologize if I missed that citation, but I do not recall seeing that listed source.
Can you re-post that citation?

In the interest of clarity, why don't you assign a numerical value to "scores" and "some"? Re. Hebrew idioms, I named my source, which you are free to consult. How about you do that?
For starters, there have been at least over 3,000 errors corrected in publishing the BoM over the years since its circulation, however - if you want a tangible list that is digestible of anachronisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon

Can you cite your charge of "some" by number?

You overlook the fact that Joseph Smith said he translated the BoM by divine power. That is the context in which he said "If there are errors, they are the fault of men" (words to that effect).
I'm not addressing your holy divinity; do with that as you will.
I questioned the Hebrew comment you made and later also pointed out that the errors folks were talking about were indeed valid errors.

You defended the errors by assigning them to humans.
Assigning them to humans as errors (in any context) is where everyone else starts, so there's no reason for you to assign these errors to humans - obviously they are made by humans.

I don't really understand the defensive position you are proposing without me demanding it from you - I am not demanding you to defend your deity's capacity of knowledge.

I have discussed nothing regarding your deity.

Everything I have discussed is within the context of humans.

Sorry, I don't understand your point.
What do you not understand about the sentence:
unintentional is not a quality I think summarizes the entire history of the LDS impact upon citizens.

If you're going to make that charge, you're obligated to elucidate with some examples. BTW, if the Church were to "enforce" its beliefs on others, it would probably lose its 501(c)(3) status.
You are a very strange member of the LDS; I'll tell you that much.

Let's start with some expressions by those who felt oppressed:
"what is SO HARMFUL about being LDS?"
From Kakan:


Below, "Mormonism" refers to cultural and religious practices, wholeheartedly practiced with sincerity over long time periods. Impact is lessened for those less entangled or less sincere in their attempts to be perfect Mormons. These are assertions presented without support or data to keep the rant short...but hit the button and I'll send you supporting sub-rants... :-)

1) Mormonism stunts growth by denying people the opportunity to explore, practice and learn
a) normal sexual exploration and personal standard development is denied
b) normal emotional boundaries and preferences are not allowed expression
c) normal spiritual exploration and doubts are rigidly repressed
d) normal intellectual exploration is silenced by appeals to higher authority

2) Mormonism creates rigid, defensive, judgmental personalities--painful to be and painful to be around

3) Mormonism creates self-critical, perfectionist, self-hating personalities, who often then battle depression--very painful to be and painful to be around

4) Mormonism creates obedient, submissive personalities who lose the ability to generate their lives on their own and seek guidance from outside for simple and intensely personal things, resulting in a sense of helplessness and disassociation from one's own feelings and preferences. See stunted growth above.

5) Mormonism encourages premature, inappropriate and inauthentic commitments, which creates enormous levels of guilt, shame and loss when the growing healthy soul finally begins to question those commitments and begins to dismantle them--or submit to living a shriveled, stunted, inauthentic life
a) heterosexual marriage for gays and lesbians
b) marriage for young people still learning who they are
c) marriage for people who shouldn't marry, or shouldn't marry until later in life
d) child-bearing/child-rearing for young people still half-formed themselves
e) child-bearing/child-rearing for people who just don't want/shouldn't have kids, or not herds of kids

6) Mormonism betrays its most sincere adherents, destroying their ability to trust and to relate, and taking from them unrecoverable years, energy and freedom. Because Mormonism is based on a false and misleading founding story/set of scriptures/principles for living a full life--those brave enough to question will eventually uncover the fraud and confront their unwitting losses. These individuals suffer a devastating sense of betrayal, often losing their ability to trust and connect to teachers, institutions, leaders and mates until the betrayal is understood and healed by time and insight. If this insight comes mid to late in life, lost opportunities, inappropriate commitments and other leftover baggage from one's years as a Mormon must be grieved and let go--a necessary but often very painful process accompanied by bouts of rage and resentment...leading to problems in relationships with others that on the surface have nothing to do with Mormonism, but very much do.

From Tami:

LDS church harmful? How about when your parents can't put you ahead of their
own church service?

I had a serious car accident on a Saturday several years ago. When informed
that I wasn't going to be admitted to the hospital, but still needed to be
watched overnight (my head cracked the windshield), my dad decided they didn't
need to come up until after he could attend to his sunday duties as stake
president the next day.

OK, that's minor compared to when my sister (who had a 4 month old daughter and
a less-than-supportive husband at home) miscarried a couple of weeks before
this last christmas. On the Friday before christmas, she went in for a D&C
procedure. Were my parents at her side? Hell no. But were they in town the
very next day for their monthly temple service? Hell yes. (It's a 3 hour
drive from my parent's house to the temple, one way.) Did they stop by to see
my sister at all while they were not more than 10 minutes from my sister's
house? Hell no. When I asked my mother why, she replied, "Well, they're just
coming home next week...we'll see them then."

Serve the lord ... to hell with your family and your family values.

Let's see ... the dirge-like "Follow the Prophet" primary song that's pounded
into the children's little heads. The whispered testimonies for kids to
parrot. 12 year old boys being taught that they have more authority in their
home than their mothers. The constant invasion of privacy by the incessant
interviewing processes. The lesson learned by all those prying interviews? You
have no right to keep anything private. Everything is fair game for
questions. Anything you keep private is a sin.

From Sandy:

1. In my opinion, Mormonism teaches conflicting messages about
the "specialness" of being Mormon. On one hand, you're taught that
you were more valiant in the pre-existence if you were born into the
church, but on the other hand, you're plagued with feelings of self-
doubt and feeling like you're never good enough because the ultimate
goal of perfection is always hanging out there.

2. The idea that when someone "doesn't get it", they must not be
living worthily. I see this flawed thinking among depressed Mormons
especially - they think that they're suffering from depression
because of some spiritual flaw that they have.

3. The church also teaches that the "The Glory of God is
Intelligence", but then they go off and label intellectuals as "The
enemy of the church".

4. The concept that the teachings of certain prophets are doctrine,
but the teachings of others are "opinion" or even "false doctrine".
How do they justify drawing that line?

5. Last but certainly not least - Mormon women are marginalized, and
most certainly not seen as equals with men in the church. The
oppression I experienced as a Mormon woman was stifling, and yet, I
just assumed that that's the way it was supposed to be.

There's also Young's infamous quote:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
Journal of Discourses vol 10 p.110

Clearly this is not the LDS position today, but my claim was that regarding the LDS history.
Your claim was that all oppressive positions were simply unintentional.

Then there's the oppression of same-sex individuals.
In this regard, I need not even cite (which is easy to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints), for all I have need to do is point that my own MOTHER is one who altered her outward sexual preference just to fit in with the LDS paradigm she was pressured to fit in with.

She wanted acceptance and there was no acceptance for her same-sex biological want.
In response, she elected to marry an ultra-conservative LDS man and suddenly play the role (abnormally) of heterosexual ultra-conservative LDS wife.

Not intentionally oppressive?
Exactly how is the massive pressure against homosexuality not intentionally oppressive?

There's also the oppression of the genders in that I have personally spoken to women who have left the LDS faith because they are worn out from the chauvinistic bias built into the paradigm of the community - equally frustrated women are battling currently for the right to be part of the priesthood, which is currently not permitted.

We can continue to proceed in like fashion, but the point is that they are passively bias and oppressive with quite the overt intention, and this is saying nothing at all about support and propositions within government legislation (as others have also mentioned).
 
I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.
The LDS church in my hometown sits on a large parcel of land that is extremely valuable due to its location and beautiful surroundings. That church pays no property taxes thus requiring me, personally, to pay a higher tax bill.



Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence.
I don't know how to rate importance so I took the first sentence of the Introduction:
The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.
That is self-evidently true. One can compare the BoM and the bible. How that comparison comes out depends.

Now, I've done what you asked for. Your turn: Answer JasonR's question.
 
So you think the Book of Mormon is a fraud?

The existence of the Book of Mormon had to be logical to me. It had to make sense. When I started looking around, it seemed like there were people everywhere saying that the Book of Mormon was a fraud. Since I knew that “validity draws fire”, it made me want to read it more and dig deeper into the topic. I noticed that most of the people that condemned the Book of Mormon the loudest, had never even read the book.
.

Here are the key leading questions suggested to rebut skeptics' requests for evidence of the truth of the BOM. Astonishing as it is, this seems to be the best case LDS have for countering claims that the religion is based on a fraud. It's difficult for me to believe that this was written by a person honestly seeking the truth about the BOM in the year 2014. (Material below quoted from linked page)


  1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?
  2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?
  3. The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.
  4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?
  5. If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.
  6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?
  7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
  8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?
  9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
  10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.
  11. And the most important question to ask yourself is “How do I feel while I read the Book of Mormon?”
 
In all this time in this thread, has skyrider 44 provided any of the evidence asked of him, or has he only tried to change the subject each time? Just curious...
 
I know these aren't your positions, Olowkow...I'm just taking the opportunity to offer my thoughts on these points you supplied from that source.
  1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?
    Joseph Smith was not uneducated; he was a treasure hunter and seer by trade with his Father. By consequence of the occupation, he would be versed in history in context to artifacts. In his youth, he was openly enthusiastic to discuss Ancient Native American history. He valued seer rocks and placed his head in hats where he had placed a seer rock and used these to attempt to locate the targeted treasure/artifact.

    What Smith lacked was a formal and traditional education at a school.
    This, however, did not mean that he was simply a moron sitting idle on a farm.
    He was given to intense study and favored this over school books of the like his siblings would employ.

    It is a misrepresentation to charge that everything written is beyond the capacity of Joseph Smith to have comprehended or have had the ability or social context to have made.

    He grew up in the North East during the Great Awakening and Manifest Dynasty and was a treasure seer for hire and was personally greatly fascinated with ancient Native American history.

    These qualities are not equal with the representation of ignorance.
    It is not as if the BoM came from an Indonesian four year old girl in the same period.

  2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?
    This is highly contentious and there is nothing specifically remarkable in the BoM over the Bible in this regard.
  3. The book includes findings in that region that no one hads discovered yet.
    True.
  4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?
    Firstly; again, Joseph Smith wasn't an idiot from Dumb and Dumber - have to be the only religion on the planet to constantly insult their own founder....anyway, no; not an idiot and 200 semitic names is rather simple - especially when copying and re-purposing many same roots.
  5. If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.
    I don't blame imaginings of humans for the behavior of humans; humans make up these ideas of blaming outside moral agencies - at the end of the day, the human is responsible.
  6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?
    According to Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, aliens.
  7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
    A pale holy figure, of various kinds - not of one kind, being extant in diverse populations within a given region does not verify the authenticity of a text.
    If it were to show anything at all, it would have been either a) how pattern finding behavior works in the human brain when applied in context to spiritual want, or b) it would be that it shows how disregarding people can be of ethnic cultures of other peoples and how they will simply try to re-purpose them as their own beliefs; often rather ignorantly as well.

  8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?
    "Because one legend proposed another legend, my legend is the right legend because it is that other legend referenced by the first legend."
    Sure; that makes solid sense.

  9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
    Yes it could. It obviously did.
  10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.
    It is contradictory of itself, the Bible, the Talmud, the Torah, modern LDS practices, sometimes just contradictory of general human logic and nature itself.
  11. And the most important question to ask yourself is “How do I feel while I read the Book of Mormon?”
    Honestly; I read the Book of Moron originally wanting it to be interesting.
    Here's my problem with it, however.

    See, I can read the Tanakh, Torah, and even the Talmud and Christian Bible and research them and find the layers of the cultures which produced them - I can, and have for years, study the cultures which produced the writings as best as can be discerned and sympathize a relation between them.
    If someone was greatly mistaken about reality, at least I'm reading an actual cultural fingerprint and time capsule of one representative of a cultural belief of a given past time in history and it is observable as being from that context.

    I read the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, and I'm reminded of reading C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien.
    Except that I would venture their enterprises in creating cultures far surpassed Joseph Smith's.

    Joseph Smith's works are very flat and one dimensional from a paleographic perspective.
    There's no culture to learn about from the texts beyond the culture from which Joseph Smith is from.

    All paleographic considerations end up resulting to that end; there's nothing in it in which represents some aspect of ancient Hebrew culture - instead, it represents one man's understandings and imaginings regarding Hebrew culture in his mind if it were ancient.

    And it's often grossly out of alignment with what we know today regarding the Hebrew culture in ancient times.
 
Last edited:
I apologize if I missed that citation, but I do not recall seeing that listed source. Can you re-post that citation?

Yes, in a subsequent post.

For starters, there have been at least over 3,000 errors corrected in publishing the BoM over the years since its circulation, however - if you want a tangible list that is digestible of anachronisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon

It's very old news, but be advised that the "over 3,000 errors corrected" have involved spelling (not standardized in J.S.'s day), punctuation, capitalization, and grammar. Your statement falsely suggests that those "3,000 errors corrected" involved doctrine; they did not.

Can you cite your charge of "some" by number?

You did the nit-picking; hence you must have a number in mind.


I'm not addressing your holy divinity; do with that as you will.
I questioned the Hebrew comment you made and later also pointed out that the errors folks were talking about were indeed valid errors. You defended the errors by assigning them to humans.

I merely quoted a statement by Joseph Smith.

Assigning them to humans as errors (in any context) is where everyone else starts, so there's no reason for you to assign these errors to humans - obviously they are made by humans.

Critics use the so-called errors as proof that the BoM was written (not translated) by Joseph Smith. That's why Smith made a point of saying that such errors were not of divine origin. Understand?

I don't really understand the defensive position you are proposing without me demanding it from you - I am not demanding you to defend your deity's capacity of knowledge. . . . I have discussed nothing regarding your deity.

". . . defensive position [I am] proposing": What are you talking about?

Everything I have discussed is within the context of humans.

Of course it is; that is your paradigm. If something cannot be weighed, smelled, heard, tasted, seen, or felt, it does not exist—that's basically the nature of your paradigm.

I'm out of time. I'll respond to the balance of your post tomorrow.
 
Yes, in a subsequent post.
I hope sooner than later; this is the primary interest I have - the rest of your conversation is far less interesting.

It's very old news, but be advised that the "over 3,000 errors corrected" have involved spelling (not standardized in J.S.'s day), punctuation, capitalization, and grammar. Your statement falsely suggests that those "3,000 errors corrected" involved doctrine; they did not.
I suggested nothing, nor did I remove or separate types of errors.
I simply listed errors, then I ALSO (DO NOT IGNORE) provided you with specific and more critical issues.

You did the nit-picking; hence you must have a number in mind.
You charged the abnormality; also, I gave you mine - you didn't give yours.

I merely quoted a statement by Joseph Smith.
Quoted for no needed reason.
It is irrelevant. God is not in question - Joseph Smith is.
The only thing that tells me is that Joseph Smith accepts responsibility for his publication - good, that's what most humans do.

Critics use the so-called errors as proof that the BoM was written (not translated) by Joseph Smith. That's why Smith made a point of saying that such errors were not of divine origin. Understand?
No; you are talking to I don't know who, but none of this had anything to do with anything I have been discussing with you.
You went off on some tangent about the errors being caused by humans; yep.

Moving on.


". . . defensive position [I am] proposing": What are you talking about?
Why even bring up that errors were by humans? Obviously they are.
The issue is that the errors exist; since the original claim is that the BoM is right evidenced by its accuracy.

When pointing out that errors exist, I am told that means the humans are the error and not the source - to which, duly noted...I never charged that any being other than a human being was responsible for the errors...now about the errors existing and that standing in opposition to the claim that the BoM is right by evidence of its accuracy....


Of course it is; that is your paradigm. If something cannot be weighed, smelled, heard, tasted, seen, or felt, it does not exist—that's basically the nature of your paradigm.
No, I was discussing errors with the BoM's account of history, the claim of historical accuracy of the BoM being used as evidence for it being divine, Hebrew idioms in the BoM being used as evidence of the BoM being divine, Joseph Smith being claimed as uneducated as evidence of the BoM being divine.

I never once weighed in on physicalism versus meta-physicalism.
For as far as reality may be the case, I may be someone who believes in Native American nature spirits of my family line; we never discussed these things you are just summarizing for me - nor are they relevant.

I could believe in the great goddess and consider your god vial; it would be irrelevant to the point regarding the accuracy of history, Joseph Smith's competency, and the state of the BoM as remarkable or not and in which manner.

I'm out of time. I'll respond to the balance of your post tomorrow.
OK
 
Last edited:
Yes, in a subsequent post.<snip for space>

Might you, in that subsequent post, finally answer the question about where, specifically, in your opinion, the exciting events of the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have been located?

Might you, in that subsequent post, finally answer the question about when, specifically, in your opinion, the exciting events of the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place?

Might you, in that subsequent post, finally answer the question about when, specifically, in your opinion, þͤ Fludde is to be supposed to have taken place?

I would appreciate it.
 
So you think the Book of Mormon is a fraud?


.

Here are the key leading questions suggested to rebut skeptics' requests for evidence of the truth of the BOM. Astonishing as it is, this seems to be the best case LDS have for countering claims that the religion is based on a fraud. It's difficult for me to believe that this was written by a person honestly seeking the truth about the BOM in the year 2014. (Material below quoted from linked page)


  1. Could an uneducated boy come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own that was historically accurate and prophetic in nature?
  2. Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?
  3. The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.
  4. How could Joseph Smith come up with roughly 200 new names in the Book of Mormon and then have them turn out to be Semitic in nature?
  5. If one says the devil put him up to it…then why would Satan want to publish another testament of Jesus Christ and a book that does nothing but promote righteousness. Jesus said that a house divided against itself would fall.
  6. Who were the “other sheep” that would hear Jesus’s voice in John 10:16?
  7. Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?
  8. If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?
  9. How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered.
  10. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.
  11. And the most important question to ask yourself is “How do I feel while I read the Book of Mormon?”

Funny, I don't see a mention of horses or steel.
 
This really isn't a new observation, but what bugs me about this conversation is the sensation of dishonesty. It's not how conversations about historic evidence go--and I've had a kazillion of them about a much more recent period.

If one doesn't have evidence, one says so.

Below is how my one-sided end of a conversation might sound on a topic that I might actually be discussing:

"Well, I don't know what happened to him, but demographically, free blacks tended to leave the south at that time, so I wouldn't be surprised if he refused to return to his master."

"Oh, he's on the census next door? Guess he did."

"Wait, that man is 25 years older, could it be his father who was too old to leave or had a more emotional connection to his master? What about this man in Oregon? But without biographical info, we can't connect him to the east."

"Hold on, what about this story about a guy from Richmond who acted as a cook for this wagon train going out west? Is that him?"

There's not a lot of "Yes he did and I know he did and I have faith that evidence will come forth to prove that he did if we just wait." It's about digging (metaphorically or literally) for what current evidence is available and analyzing it, looking where it indicates more evidence might be found, analyzing that, and so forth. I've not done archaelogical investigations at all, only occasionally reading the reports, but I doubt that such conversations go much differently.

This conversation just has the wrong smell test.
 
Last edited:
The LDS church in my hometown sits on a large parcel of land that is extremely valuable due to its location and beautiful surroundings. That church pays no property taxes thus requiring me, personally, to pay a higher tax bill.

If non-profit organizations like the Church did not do what they do (operate everything from soup kitchens to spouse abuse shelters), government would have to carry out those functions. Consequently, your tax bill would be much higher than it is today. Do you really believe bureaucrats are efficient money managers?
 

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