LDS

[RandFan]

You provide an insightful analysis; I commend you for it.

My point is simply that what we regard as bizarre or absurd or ridiculous today was, in ages past, taken seriously and widely accepted and practiced. Hence, those who regard Joseph Smith's activities as those of a "crook" and "con man" (fisher's characterization) appear to be lacking in perspective.

We've moved beyond supernatural. Every time a supernatural explanation was given for a phenomenon and we found the truth, it always turned out to be not supernatural.

Science is batting 1000
Supernatural is batting 0

Your claim is silly. Con artists rely on this kind of sloppy thinking to fleece the sheep.

 

[skyrider44]

Where did the events depicted in the BoM take place?

Your question requires a separate thread. Perhaps you would like to start one.

 

[dafydd]

Your question requires a separate thread. Perhaps you would like to start one.

Dodge. Where did the events take place? It wouldn't take you long to answer.

 

[dafydd]

. Hence, those who regard Joseph Smith's activities as those of a "crook" and "con man" (fisher's characterization) appear to be lacking in perspective.

They have the right perspective about the fictional BOM.

 

[skyrider44]

We've moved beyond supernatural. Every time a supernatural explanation was given for a phenomenon and we found the truth, it always turned out to be not supernatural.

I'm not so sure about "Every time," but, in general terms, I agree with you.

: Your claim is silly. Con artists rely on this kind of sloppy thinking to fleece the sheep.

To what claim of mine are you referring?

 

[RandFan]

Your claim is silly. Con artists rely on this kind of sloppy thinking to fleece the sheep.

To what claim of mine are you referring?

The claim that we lack perspective (or appear) to lack perspective. As we progress we move away from supernatural explanations. There is no reason whatsoever to think that some day we will think of Smith's activities as something other than claiming to be able to use supernatural means to find buried treasure.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not so sure about "Every time," but, in general terms, I agree with you.

Would you agree that there has never been a confirmed supernatural explanation for any event?

 

[dafydd]

Would you agree that there has never been a confirmed supernatural explanation for any event?

A good question. i would say no. If anybody has proof of the contrary I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[skyrider44]

Dodge. Where did the events take place? It wouldn't take you long to answer.

This thread is about the alleged criminal activities of Joseph Smith, beginning with his 1826 trial.

It seems to me you would jump at the chance to start a thread in which you "prove," for example, that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative, or that it's a 19th century work, or that many of the items referenced in the BoM didn't exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Surely, you know all about such matters, don't you?

 

[DragonLady]

This thread is about the alleged criminal activities of Joseph Smith, beginning with his 1826 trial.

No. This thread is about the LDS church, of which Joseph Smith was the founder.

It seems to me you would jump at the chance to start a thread in which you "prove," for example, that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative, or that it's a 19th century work, or that many of the items referenced in the BoM didn't exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Surely, you know all about such matters, don't you?

Why don't you save us the time by proving there is archaeological evidence for the BoM narrative, that it's other than a 19th century work, or that the items in question did exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times?

You know all about them, don't you?

 

[RandFan]

This thread is about the alleged criminal activities of Joseph Smith, beginning with his 1826 trial.

It seems to me you would jump at the chance to start a thread in which you "prove," for example, that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative, or that it's a 19th century work, or that many of the items referenced in the BoM didn't exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Surely, you know all about such matters, don't you?

I'm completely lost. Honestly I'm not sure what your point is or how it is relevant to the issue at hand. I left the Mormon Church after years of exhaustive study. I did not want to leave. I did not want to stop believing. I had much to lose including friends and family. Some of them I did lose relationships with. Leaving cost me and I knew that was a risk before I decided to stand up for my conscience and what I believed.

I do very much think that I'm competent when it comes to this question. I was a stalwart Mormon and a true believer for more than 30 years. I saved up for my mission and sacrificed two years of my life because I believed. I think I've demonstrated a good working knowledge of both the apologetics and the criticisms. So, I'm confident to discuss Mormonism. I'm also sincere.

Anyway, what was your point?

 

[tsig]

You provide an insightful analysis; I commend you for it.

My point is simply that what we regard as bizarre or absurd or ridiculous today was, in ages past, taken seriously and widely accepted and practiced. Hence, those who regard Joseph Smith's activities as those of a "crook" and "con man" (fisher's characterization) appear to be lacking in perspective.

I thought Smith spoke for god? Did god also lack perspective?

 

[skyrider44]

The claim that we lack perspective (or appear) to lack perspective. As we progress we move away from supernatural explanations.

Indeed we do (move away from supernatural explanations), which proves my claim; i.e., some of those who allege that Joseph Smith was a crook make that judgment from a 21st century perspective. They don't understand that in the 1830s many perceived Smith's activities as legitimate, among whom was Josiah Stowell. Even today, dowsing rods are used in parts of Germany and other countries as a means to locate underground water even though scientific experiments have proved them to have no such capability. In 1986 the Norwegian army used dowsing rods in an attempt to locate soldiers buried in an avalanche, and during the Vietnam war some U.S. soldiers used the rods to try to locate weapons and tunnels.

It appears that the move away from the supernatural is not yet complete, your unqualified statement notwithstanding.

: There is no reason whatsoever to think that some day we will think of Smith's activities as something other than claiming to be able to use supernatural means to find buried treasure.

Probably so, but some users of dowsing rods today do not regard them as dependent on the supernatural. I'm not so sure that Smith did, either. Many of his contemporaries viewed him as having a gift--supernatural or otherwise.

 

[skyrider44]

I'm completely lost. Honestly I'm not sure what your point is or how it is relevant to the issue at hand.

I

Please see dafydd's post (1903).

 

[tsig]

This thread is about the alleged criminal activities of Joseph Smith, beginning with his 1826 trial.

It seems to me you would jump at the chance to start a thread in which you "prove," for example, that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative, or that it's a 19th century work, or that many of the items referenced in the BoM didn't exist in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Surely, you know all about such matters, don't you?

Seems to me you would jump at the chance to provide a straightforward answer to a question but sadly you seem more concerned with counting coup than actually presenting your religion.

 

[tsig]

Indeed we do (move away from supernatural explanations), which proves my claim; i.e., some of those who allege that Joseph Smith was a crook make that judgment from a 21st century perspective. They don't understand that in the 1830s many perceived Smith's activities as legitimate, among whom was Josiah Stowell. Even today, dowsing rods are used in parts of Germany and other countries as a means to locate underground water even though scientific experiments have proved them to have no such capability. In 1986 the Norwegian army used dowsing rods in an attempt to locate soldiers buried in an avalanche, and during the Vietnam war some U.S. soldiers used the rods to try to locate weapons and tunnels.

It appears that the move away from the supernatural is not yet complete, your unqualified statement notwithstanding.



Probably so, but some users of dowsing rods today do not regard them as dependent on the supernatural. I'm not so sure that Smith did, either. Many of his contemporaries viewed him as having a gift--supernatural or otherwise.

None of this shows that Joe's fantasies had any relationship with reality.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Indeed we do (move away from supernatural explanations), which proves my claim; i.e., some of those who allege that Joseph Smith was a crook make that judgment from a 21st century perspective. They don't understand that in the 1830s many perceived Smith's activities as legitimate, among whom was Josiah Stowell. Even today, dowsing rods are used in parts of Germany and other countries as a means to locate underground water even though scientific experiments have proved them to have no such capability. In 1986 the Norwegian army used dowsing rods in an attempt to locate soldiers buried in an avalanche, and during the Vietnam war some U.S. soldiers used the rods to try to locate weapons and tunnels.

It appears that the move away from the supernatural is not yet complete, your unqualified statement notwithstanding.



Probably so, but some users of dowsing rods today do not regard them as dependent on the supernatural. I'm not so sure that Smith did, either. Many of his contemporaries viewed him as having a gift--supernatural or otherwise.

Given the number of people we have encountered on this forum who are genuinely have the delusion that they have such powers, I am willing to grant that Joseph Smith may have believed himself to have such abilities, although I am skeptical of this.

But what of his claims?

The fact that you are ignoring the problem that Smith's claims regarding American history are flat out disproved by mountains of scientific evidence suggests to me that you are well aware if the difficulty that this poses. Given that you have accused others of evading issues and being unwilling to admit error, your own evasions strike me as simple intellectual cowardice.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed we do (move away from supernatural explanations), which proves my claim; i.e., some of those who allege that Joseph Smith was a crook make that judgment from a 21st century perspective. They don't understand that in the 1830s many perceived Smith's activities as legitimate, among whom was Josiah Stowell.

Joseph took the money but didn't deliver what he promised. There would have been no need for a complaint if Smith had done the honorable thing and paid the guy back.

Even today, dowsing rods are used in parts of Germany and other countries as a means to locate underground water even though scientific experiments have proved them to have no such capability. In 1986 the Norwegian army used dowsing rods in an attempt to locate soldiers buried in an avalanche, and during the Vietnam war some U.S. soldiers used the rods to try to locate weapons and tunnels.

That some people believe in dumb things is no reason to excuse other people of doing the same.

It appears that the move away from the supernatural is not yet complete, your unqualified statement notwithstanding.

That's why we are here. We tackle these absurd claims. There's never been any evidence for the supernatural and honest people don't take other people's money based on unproven claims.

Probably so, but some users of dowsing rods today do not regard them as dependent on the supernatural. I'm not so sure that Smith did, either. Many of his contemporaries viewed him as having a gift--supernatural or otherwise.

When in history have people been able to look at rocks in a hat and find treasure? Either Smith was being dishonest or he was deluded.

Let's cut to the chase. Smith never saw anything in his hat. If you want to argue he was delusional then that's fine but that makes me wonder why god would rely on a delusional individual.

 

[skyrider44]

Given the number of people we have encountered on this forum who are genuinely have the delusion that they have such powers, I am willing to grant that Joseph Smith may have believed himself to have such abilities, although I am skeptical of this.

But what of his claims?

The fact that you are ignoring the problem that Smith's claims regarding American history are flat out disproved by mountains of scientific evidence suggests to me that you are well aware if the difficulty that this poses. Given that you have accused others of evading issues and being unwilling to admit error, your own evasions strike me as simple intellectual cowardice.

Did you miss my post in which I invited _____ (I forget who) to start a thread about, in your words, "mountains of scientific evidence" that disprove the Book of Mormon? Bring it on--the barley, the "utter" lack of archaeological evidence, the items that could not have existed in the Americas in the pre-Columbian era, the "work of the 19th century," etc.

As for me being guilty of "simple intellectual cowardice," are you unaware of forum rules that forbid personal (ad hominem) attacks? I should think that tactic--one of last resort in debate--would be beneath you.

 

[RandFan]

Did you miss my post in which I invited _____ (I forget who) to start a thread about, in your words, "mountains of scientific evidence" that disprove the Book of Mormon? Bring it on--the barley, the "utter" lack of archaeological evidence, the items that could not have existed in the Americas in the pre-Columbian era, the "work of the 19th century," etc.

We did. No one has explained how a staple crop that was not indigenous to the Americas are claimed to have been in the Americas before Columbus. No Swords or scimitars have been found. No Chariots. No horses.

And no reasonable explanations. Nothing. We've asked and asked. No Barley in the Americas. The native Americans are not descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

It doesn't have the ring of truth. How can you simply blame such an egregious error on human fallibility? Joseph didn't translate. He looked into a hat and saw the letters and words that he was supposed to dictate to his scribe. How in that process do we fail to have maize mentioned in the BofM but we do have barley? Saying it's simply human error doesn't square.

No one will answer.