LDS

[DragonLady]

Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves.

That is flat out not true, and I believe you know that.

We ask for credible, unbiased sources. Not a single person here has, to my knowledge, claimed an article from someplace like The Onion or The National Enquirer to back up an argument.

The problem with Mormon sites is they keep tap dancing around the verifiable facts. That doesn't work no matter who does it, or for what purpose.

Since you're still here...tell me what happened to the stone box JS found the golden plates in. If he took it with him, why would he be carrying the plates around in a pillow case? If he didn't take it, one would assume it is still there on the hillside...so...has the church mounted any searches for it? I'm sure you realize what an incredible boost it would be for the LDS if a recognized, credible archeologist was to find that box and properly catalog and authenticate it where it sits?

 

[jsfisher]

Nice try, JS.

I am not JS. Please do not refer to me that way. JS, in this thread, refers to a convicted con-artist of the 19th century.

There's just one little problem with your analysis: You fail to take note of the long dashes sprinkled throughout the introduction. Those long dashes serve as subject transitions/breaks. Thus, the long dash that precedes "And now," (which you somehow left out of your reproduction) signifies a conclusion to the entire introduction, not merely to the Book of Ether.

I left out nothing. As I stated, I cited the original introduction to the Book of Mormon. You know, the one Joseph Smith wrote. All those dashes you reference were not in the original. They were added later by people improving on the word of God.

By the way, even with the em-dashes that have since been added, your case still goes unsupported. There are three of them, and they cannot each signify conclusion, nor do any signify full-stop, thought change.

Stop all this post hoc fabrication. Had the author of the introduction (or any of those who revised the holy words) meant there to be a break for the final "And now", then there would it would have been a third paragraph. There isn't. You are wrong.

 

[tyr_13]

That is flat out not true, and I believe you know that.

We ask for credible, unbiased sources. Not a single person here has, to my knowledge, claimed an article from someplace like The Onion or The National Enquirer to back up an argument.

The problem with Mormon sites is they keep tap dancing around the verifiable facts. That doesn't work no matter who does it, or for what purpose.

Since you're still here...tell me what happened to the stone box JS found the golden plates in. If he took it with him, why would he be carrying the plates around in a pillow case? If he didn't take it, one would assume it is still there on the hillside...so...has the church mounted any searches for it? I'm sure you realize what an incredible boost it would be for the LDS if a recognized, credible archeologist was to find that box and properly catalog and authenticate it where it sits?

http://www.lds.org/locations/hill-cumorah-visitors-center

It's an impressive building actually. No, they don't have the stone box there.

EDIT: The Palmyra temple too.

 

[abaddon]

Nice try, JS. There's just one little problem with your analysis: You fail to take note of the long dashes sprinkled throughout the introduction. Those long dashes serve as subject transitions/breaks. Thus, the long dash that precedes "And now," (which you somehow left out of your reproduction) signifies a conclusion to the entire introduction, not merely to the Book of Ether.

Argumentum ad punctuum. Nice.

 

[StankApe]

Argumentum ad punctuum. Nice.

It's kinda like dismissing an opposing viewpoint on politics based on their tennis serve isn't it? lol

 

[Giordano]

I am not JS. Please do not refer to me that way. JS, in this thread, refers to a convicted con-artist of the 19th century.



I left out nothing. As I stated, I cited the original introduction to the Book of Mormon. You know, the one Joseph Smith wrote. All those dashes you reference were not in the original. They were added later by people improving on the word of God.

By the way, even with the em-dashes that have since been added, your case still goes unsupported. There are three of them, and they cannot each signify conclusion, nor do any signify full-stop, thought change.

Stop all this post hoc fabrication. Had the author of the introduction (or any of those who revised the holy words) meant there to be a break for the final "And now", then there would it would have been a third paragraph. There isn't. You are wrong.

Jsfisher,

I really have to favor your interpretation. The fault referred to does not appear to refer to the accuracy of the BofM.

 

[jsfisher]

Do you even know the process? Joseph put his head into a hat and then repeated what he saw to a scribe who wrote it down. How does that process result in "deer" becoming "horse"? How do these flaws get in there? If I'm not wrong the Smith proof read what was written.

Smith: Deer.
Harris: Horse?
Smith: That's right.
Harris: Okay, so horse it is.

When looking for moral guidance, I do what many others do: I ask, "What would Bud and Lou say?"

Costello: Deer.
Abbot: Are you getting familiar? I don't know you that well.
Costello: No, deer!
Abbot: Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're a little hoarse.
Costello: Hoarse?
Abbot: Yes, dear.
Costello: Next line....

 

[RandFan]

When looking for moral guidance, I do what many others do: I ask, "What would Bud and Lou say?"

Costello: Deer.
Abbot: Are you getting familiar? I don't know you that well.
Costello: No, deer!
Abbot: Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're a little hoarse.
Costello: Hoarse?
Abbot: Yes, dear.
Costello: Next line....

 

[DragonLady]

http://www.lds.org/locations/hill-cumorah-visitors-center

It's an impressive building actually. No, they don't have the stone box there.

EDIT: The Palmyra temple too.

Thanks! They certainly are beautiful.

 

[jsfisher]

Thanks! They certainly are beautiful.

They are indeed! Next time I have business in the Rochester area, I may just swing by the Vistors' Center. I looks very interesting.

 

[Giordano]

. . . Much of what I saw in the BOM was flat out incorrect. DNA proves it and so does many other things [emphasis by me].

Are you sure about that? I suggest you enter "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" into your search engine, then enter "DNA" into the search box. You will get links to nine articles that cast doubt on claims such as yours, including "A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist" and "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?" In an introduction to the articles ("Prolegomena to the DNA Articles"), Daniel C. Peterson concludes: "Given the grossly inflated claims of the Book of Mormon critics on this issue, these carefully and scientifically grounded defenses do precisely what they needed to do: They pop the balloon." (Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Vol. 15, Issue 2)

Of course, the critics' rejoinder will be that the articles are biased, originating as they do from an LDS institution.* Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves. How very fascinating.

*Note that the Church, in a disclaimer preceding the articles, does not necessarily endorse them.

I don't care that the authors are biased, although they desperately appear to be so. I care that the articles are limited to speculation and hand waving, rather than representing actual experiments or studies. No data is presented, versus the many DNA studies that have provided hard core evidence for an Asian origin of the existing native American populations. No wonder the Church is unwilling to endorse the articles.

You do realize that DNA evidence has proven that a subpopulation of Ethiopeans does have "Jewish" origins, just as their oral history had maintained, despites these people strongly resembling their non-Jewish neighbors. Yet somehow this type of link cannot be detected in native Americans by the same approaches? Come on!

 

[Slowvehicle]

The witnesses couldn't see the plates but they knew how heavy the plates were, therefore: "So using the statements of the witnesses, it seems logical that the plates weighed about 50 pounds give or take 10 pounds. We summarily reject the critics' arguments that the plates must have weighed 200 pounds."

That's some skepticism and critical thinking.

Joe: I have a full grown elephant that weighs 50 pounds.
Bob: That's not possible.
Tim: Here is a pillow case with a full grown elephant in it.
Bob: Wow, you are right, it is about 50 pounds.


Edited to add: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

...is that a "deer" elephant, or a "tapir" elephant...or the elephant that is one of the new world cameloids?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

...odd...

In post #1068 you claimed that Smith said "most perfect"; now you claim Smith said, "most correct". Would you care to clarify, perhaps with a citation?
...And, just to keep things symmetrical, would it be unfair of me to insist that the citation not come form a "pro-mormon" site?

 

[tsig]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

IOW they're both just works of fiction?

 

[jsfisher]

...odd...

In post #1068 you claimed that Smith said "most perfect"; now you claim Smith said, "most correct". Would you care to clarify, perhaps with a citation?
...And, just to keep things symmetrical, would it be unfair of me to insist that the citation not come form a "pro-mormon" site?

The (non-canonical) introduction to the Book of Mormon itself quotes Joseph as saying, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

The switch to using the word, perfect, seems to be common usage attempt at equivalence.

The choice of perfect versus correct is probably a quibble not worth pursuing.

 

[skyrider44]

I am not JS. Please do not refer to me that way. JS, in this thread, refers to a convicted con-artist of the 19th century.

I apologize (perhaps you should, too--for character assassination).

: I left out nothing. As I stated, I cited the original introduction to the Book of Mormon. You know, the one Joseph Smith wrote. All those dashes you reference were not in the original. They were added later by people improving on the word of God.

In Joseph Smith's day, spelling, many definitions, and punctuation were not standardized. In fact, work on an acceptable dictionary of the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary, was not even started until 1857, under the direction of Prof. James Murray (he died before it was completed, some four decades later). Today, as you may know, the "Oxford" is the gold standard of English language dictionaries.

In light of the foregoing, your reproduction of the original introduction is irrelevant. Why? Because as later editions of the BoM were published, editors changed the introduction to clarify Joseph Smith's intended meaning. They could clearly see (as could virtually anyone) that the last sentence was meant to summarize the entire introduction, not merely the Book of Ether. Common sense and context told them that. Why would Joseph Smith summarize only the Book of Ether in his introduction to the entire book? That makes no sense.

: By the way, even with the em-dashes that have since been added, your case still goes unsupported. There are three of them, and they cannot each signify conclusion, nor do any signify full-stop, thought change.

There are, in fact, nine em dashes (1979 triple combination), and they are not functionally limited to signifying a conclusion. Em dashes are used to indicate a break or change in thought, an unfinished sentence, and, yes, to set off summaries or definitions. (Geraldine Woods, Webster's New World Punctuation: Simplified and Applied, p. 114; Wikipedia, "Dash," "em dash)

: Stop all this post hoc fabrication. Had the author of the introduction (or any of those who revised the holy words) meant there to be a break for the final "And now", then there would it would have been a third paragraph. There isn't. You are wrong.

Excuse me, but you err. You fail to recognize the non-standardization of punctuation in Joseph Smith's day (and for years thereafter), but more tellingly you cannot explain why the previous eight em dashes fail to yield to new paragraphs.

I'll be charitable: Consider the possibility that you may be in over your head.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The (non-canonical) introduction to the Book of Mormon itself quotes Joseph as saying, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

The switch to using the word, perfect, seems to be common usage attempt at equivalence.

The choice of perfect versus correct is probably a quibble not worth pursuing.

Thank you. I disagree that it is a "quibble", particularly when referring to supposedly "divinely inspired" texts--there is a difference between "correct" and "perfect" (like unto the differences between "horse", "deer" and "tapir", or the difference between "steel" and "bronze"). I am still interested in seeing what skyrider has to say about this.

 

[Empress]

The (non-canonical) introduction to the Book of Mormon itself quotes Joseph as saying, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

The switch to using the word, perfect, seems to be common usage attempt at equivalence.

The choice of perfect versus correct is probably a quibble not worth pursuing.

Yes, I generally heard it as "most correct" though I do recall people occasionally saying "most perfect". I never considered it to be much different.

What's more important is that the "most correct" book clearly isn't. Many people are already aware of this, but for anyone reading who isn't, one of the most important changes was the alteration from "a white and delightsome people" to a "pure and delightsome people". LDS say that this was a clarification, since it was never intended to refer to skin color. The passage is 2 Nephi 30:6:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall a know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/30?lang=eng

Of course, most people are aware of the racial history of the church (not surprising given the time JS lived) so it's expected that that stated reason for the change is given a bit of the stink eye. Esp when you read the earlier chapters. 2 Nephi 5:21 states:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Clearly, at that point they are specifically talking about black skin as a curse, so when the people are being good again, it seems reasonable that god would take the curse off, making them white. This also goes along with a myth that I heard as a child: that darker-skin people will find themselves becoming whiter when they join the church and grow in their testimony. Yes, that really was a belief, at least among some Mormons.

 

[DragonLady]

I apologize (perhaps you should, too--for character assassination).



In Joseph Smith's day, spelling, many definitions, and punctuation were not standardized. In fact, work on an acceptable dictionary of the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary, was not even started until 1857, under the direction of Prof. James Murray (he died before it was completed, some four decades later). Today, as you may know, the "Oxford" is the gold standard of English language dictionaries.

In light of the foregoing, your reproduction of the original introduction is irrelevant. Why? Because as later editions of the BoM were published, editors changed the introduction to clarify Joseph Smith's intended meaning. They could clearly see (as could virtually anyone) that the last sentence was meant to summarize the entire introduction, not merely the Book of Ether. Common sense and context told them that. Why would Joseph Smith summarize only the Book of Ether in his introduction to the entire book? That makes no sense.



There are, in fact, nine em dashes (1979 triple combination), and they are not functionally limited to signifying a conclusion. Em dashes are used to indicate a break or change in thought, an unfinished sentence, and, yes, to set off summaries or definitions. (Geraldine Woods, Webster's New World Punctuation: Simplified and Applied, p. 114; Wikipedia, "Dash," "em dash)



Excuse me, but you err. You fail to recognize the non-standardization of punctuation in Joseph Smith's day (and for years thereafter), but more tellingly you cannot explain why the previous eight em dashes fail to yield to new paragraphs.

I'll be charitable: Consider the possibility that you may be in over your head.

Wow. I'm not sure I agree with what you say; I'll have to read it in more depth tomorrow. But, I do want to congratulate you on writing a clear argument and posting what appear to be fairly credible references.

 

[tsig]

Thank you. I disagree that it is a "quibble", particularly when referring to supposedly "divinely inspired" texts--there is a difference between "correct" and "perfect" (like unto the differences between "horse", "deer" and "tapir", or the difference between "steel" and "bronze"). I am still interested in seeing what skyrider has to say about this.

Since a living prophet can overcall a dead one the church has a perfect 'get out of jail free' card if they want to use it that broadly. The current prophet could proclaim that the BoM was relevant to JS's time but has been overtaken by cultural differences.

Oh wait...