LDS

[Cat Tale]

Wow. Who is the aesthetically challenged depiction in your avatar of?

I don't honestly see what the big deal is about Joseph Smith being convicted or not. The point is, he admits himself that he had impure thoughts about the plates, which is why he kept getting shocked when he tried to get them. As I said, I read the evidence from both sites and I don't see where there's enough evidence to say one way or the other.

The first account of the trial was in 1831, (five years after the fact), and put in an Evangelical magazine that already had some strong anti-opinions about the church. So it's questionable, based on the readership it's meant to go out to.

Oliver Cowdery's account is hearsay, he didn't know Joseph Smith at that time, not till April 5, 1829, so he most likely told an account given him by Joseph.

Noble's account is also hearsay since he didn't attend the trial.

The Pearsall account details the trial, and gives the verdict of guilty at the end. Unfortunately, the pages were torn from the judge's book and taken west, so they are no longer in the docket book in New York. Of course, they were lost by the Methodist church, who was given custody of them. Therefore, without them we cannot verify the truthfulness of their existence, or the account.

The Purple account is an eyewitness account of the trial, but given the fact that it was 51 years after the fact, and apparently notes were not used, it's hardly what I would call credible.

So truth be told, we're sitting here stalemated. I'm curious, surely someone's checked to see if there's any evidence of pages having been torn out of that docket.

 

[Cat Tale]

I'm surprised that a writer for FAIR missed the following, seems obvious: link:

3.Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.
Why? What changed from the 1830s to the end of the 19th century when suddenly there started to be a significant interest?

Really? He has to ask? I don't know, what might have been going on in the 1870s to make the public want to know about the Mormons?

I'm blown away that Mr. Anderson missed such an important point. If you take 1826 and add 46 years to it you get 1872. The government had just passed the Morrill Act of 1862, which-banned polygamy in the United States. Of course the church considered it part of their First Amendment rights and continued to practice it until the end of the 19th century.

To enforce the law a suit was brought up in the US Supreme Court, Reynolds vs the US. By now the Church had moved pretty much to the western states and wasn't much thought about by easterners. It's interesting how by the 1860s there was a little more interest in newspapers and periodicals, but by the 1870s, and 80s it really began to swell in the non-LDS population, but this is when more and more reports were coming back, and lots of talk about polygamy, Smith, gold plates, etc. (not that this was new, but it was re-emerging what with the movement to end polygamy). The church's critics thought it would also be a good time to remind people about Smith's past since he was founder of Mormonism and introduced polygamy.

About 1870/72 Mark Twain wrote Roughing It, where he met and talked with Brigham Young, 1875 Mrs. Stenhouse wrote her rather scathing book about being a polygamist wife, newspapers abound about polygamy and Smith... There was a much bigger interest in the church 46 years after the trial because of polygamy. And of course talking about Joseph Smith being convicted of being a "glass-looker" would just be one more thing to excite the people against the church.

But while we argue over petty issues with Joseph Smith, who may or may not have been convicted of a misdemeanor, does it shake our faith that we had church leaders who were convicted and served time in prison for a felony? It doesn't bother me in the least. I'm just saying that maybe we're expecting perfection out of common men who have been called to do great things.

 

[gabeygoat]

just want to chime in and agree with others, it's been a breath of fresh air to have Cat Tale in this thread.

 

[Pixel42]

I agree that Joseph Smith's past failings are irrelevant to the question of whether he was really chosen by God to receive a special revelation, though he does seem an odd person to pick if God wanted the revelation to be taken seriously by others.

The more important question is whether that revelation is remotely plausible, or whether it looks more like the kind of story and clumsy mistake-riddled fake a conman with a limited education might have come up with.

 

[pakeha]

...The more important question is whether that revelation is remotely plausible, or whether it looks more like kind of story and clumsy mistake-riddled fake a conman with a limited education might have come up.

This would also apply to the Book of Abraham, IMO.

 

[eight bits]

Cat Tale

I don't honestly see what the big deal is about Joseph Smith being convicted or not.

I couldn't agree more. However, his pre-revelation experience with money-digging, including what may have been entirely legal, constitutionally protected free-speech, treasure-hunting guidance, does explain the unusual methods he later used to make his translation. The background information also raises the question why, in his History of the Church, Smith attributed his reputation as a money-digger to something entirely different, not mentioning this.

Everybody contributes to this thread independently. I try to focus on factual things that aren't in dispute as much as possible. For example, you and I aren't in dispute, because you report Smith saying it of himself, that the thought occurred to him that both the plates themselves and the book he could make from translating them would be money-spinners.

Nothing wrong with that. Have you seen the price tags on tweedy academic books these days? Nobody needs to apologize for thinking that they might do well by doing good.

So, with that established, we can wonder why the thought didn't occur to make a rubbing of the plates. That would be quick, simple and a money-spinner, too. It would likewise address other concerns which we know that he (or Moroni, his adviser in this venture) had about possible imperfections in the translation. It would be a big help with whether barley maybe was grass and horses actually were deer, and so on.

Moroni or God would know that, even if Smith didn't (although Smith was aware that every other previous revelation of God, without exception, had suffered from such defects) But the basic thought of making something from the plates seems to be just the sort of thing that would occur to Smith, based on what he tells us he was thinking about. And yet, this opporunity for doing well by doing good was squandered.

 

[Pup]

Not to mention, there are plenty of references to strong drink in the Bible. The side-effects of alcohol and other common drinks have been known for ages.

Yes, medical discussions of the negative affects of alcohol and tobacco were common in Joseph Smith's day, just as they are now.

My main point, though, was that the medical community today doesn't recognize any negative side effects of "hot drinks" as a category. Caffeine, yes, but that comes in both hot and cold drinks, and there are other hot drinks (even in the period, like broth) that don't contain it.

So a prohibition against hot drinks is an example of the Word of Wisdom including a specific medical fad of the late 18th-early 19th centuries. We tend to read it as a prohibition against caffeine today because that's as logical as tobacco and alcohol--and there was growing understanding about the nervous effects of too much tea and coffee--but the temperature was also considered the problem, in the period.

Abstaining from meat in the summer was also a specific period health recommendation:

From Sure Methods of Improving Heath, and Prolonging Life, London 1828:

"In the summer, our diet should be almost wholly vegetable, at least during the hottest months, and especially with the plethoric; while in the winter, we may safely recur to a proper mixture of both kinds of food."

From the American Farmer magazine, "On Diet," 1823:

"During the summer health may be most effectually preserved by vegetables and diluent liquors. Considerable care should be taken to abstain from provisions that are heavy and difficult to be digested, but especially from wine and brandy."

The closest overall advocate to the Word of Wisdom, at about the same time in America, was Sylvester Graham, he of graham cracker fame. His Defence of the Graham System of Living, 1835, is online. His ideas weren't really new--he himself quoted doctors ranging back to the 18th century--but he promoted them harder than most. He was against alcohol and tobacco, and of course one should avoid "the excessive use of hot drinks." (p. 151). On meat in the summer, he says (p. 123):

Reason and experience emphatically exclaim, 'eat no animal food [meat];" but if it is used at all, let it be eaten as seldom as possible, avoiding high-seasoned meat, and abstaining from animal food during the warm months of summer.

 

[Darat]

Yes, medical discussions of the negative affects of alcohol and tobacco were common in Joseph Smith's day, just as they are now.


...snip....

And often fed into the new religions/cults that started up during those times, for instance the Methodists with their prohibition against alcohol.

Once again it shows that even "revealed" religions only ever revealed what was the prevailing knowledge and opinion of the day.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also known as LDS /Mormon, is a Christian denomination, but is neither Protestant nor Catholic... it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.

How did this post spark a 1700+ post thread in such a short time frame?

 

[jsfisher]

In fact, no sincere, reasonably objective seeker of truth would even consider making such a statement absent compelling, unambiguous evidence.

Let's see: We have disagreement whether someone was convicted of a particular crime. There is much less disagreement as to whether there was an arrest and a trial. There is reasonable evidence about the character and behavior of the individual consistent with the charges. The major point of controversy is whether there was a conviction.

A guilty conviction was entirely plausible outcome of the trial, consistent with the facts. Yet, skyrider44 would require compelling, unambiguous evidence, a high standard indeed.

On the other hand, we have disagreement whether someone had a mysterious vision of an angel/ghost from the distant past, translated text by magical means, and concocted a true history of early America.

For this latter implausible fairy tale, inconsistent with established fact, skyrider44 does not require compelling, unambiguous evidence, only blind faith.

 

[Janadele]

Plus three "split off" threads.

How did this post spark a 1700+ post thread in such a short time frame?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Skyrider44, if you wish to ignore the problem of false claims made in the BoM regarding past American civilizations, that is your prerogative. But given that you have accused others of being unable to present cogent arguments, and of being unwilling to admit error, it seems rather disingenuous of you to so blatantly ignore such a huge problem with LDS doctrine.

 

[Cat Tale]

Double post

 

[Cat Tale]

How did this post spark a 1700+ post thread in such a short time frame?

I'm not sure why someone who's going to treat all scientific and historic evidence as anti-Mormon, would start this on a skeptics forum. Skeptics aren't anti-Mormon, as seems to be a common theme in the thread, they're inquisitive about things from their own fields, or things they happen to have an interest in. One who studies archaeology, for example, may know that horses were extinct in the Americas about 11,000 BC, so to read that in 600 BC the Jaredites had horses, would seem odd to him/her. It's not that they're anti, they're just inquisitive.

In the process of putting away books the other day, that I had out for this thread, I was getting ready to put away the Book of Mormon institute manual when I decided to see what it might say about barley, horses, etc. I didn't see anything on barley, but the Church's stance on horses is they were non-existant at the time of Lehi's arrival.

It's been extremely painful to me to watch something that I treasure and love look like trash because people couldn't, or wouldn't, defend it. I knew instantly what would happen, and I was not surprised when it did. For someone who claims that all questions are anti-Mormon, I'm not sure why she chose to cast her pearls before the swine (no insult intended, of course). To me, this thread has caused more harm to the Church than good, and that's what I feared would happen. Edited to add that I don't think people who question the church are anti-Mormon or swine if they're asking honest questions, just that if others think people are anti-Mormon, why would they choose to post here?

While I owe no explanation to Janadele, my Stake Patriarch told me that I have a special gift from Heavenly Father, an "analytical mind." If this is a gift, then why should I hide it under a bushel? Why should I be afraid to study things out in my mind? What I write on this thread is either church doctrine or teachings, or the church takes no stand on (i.e. evolution, and that sort of thing).

 

[RoboTimbo]

To me, this thread has caused more harm to the Church than good, and that's what I feared would happen. Edited to add that I don't think people who question the church are anti-Mormon or swine if they're asking honest questions, just that if others think people are anti-Mormon, why would they choose to post here?

While I owe no explanation to Janadele, my Stake Patriarch told me that I have a special gift from Heavenly Father, an "analytical mind." If this is a gift, then why should I hide it under a bushel? Why should I be afraid to study things out in my mind? What I write on this thread is either church doctrine or teachings, or the church takes no stand on (i.e. evolution, and that sort of thing).

Belated Welcome Cat Tale! I'll add to the chorus of people who appreciate your honest answers and willingness to discuss the difficult questions which seems so sadly lacking in others.

What did you think of Janadele's admonition that you turn yourself in for thought crime?

If you are honest you will inform your Bishop and Stake President of your beliefs and take the consequences...

 

[RandFan]

To me, this thread has caused more harm to the Church than good, and that's what I feared would happen. Edited to add that I don't think people who question the church are anti-Mormon or swine if they're asking honest questions, just that if others think people are anti-Mormon, why would they choose to post here?

Another one of my pet peeves.

"Everything happens for a reason". I've heard that and said that more times than I can remember.

"Satan desires to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" --3 Ne. 18:18

Of course we are supposed to live good examples to bring souls to god and to keep others from straying. Yet everyone is supposed to have their testimony tested and everything happens for a reason.

I wish the LDS Church would choose between Calvinist determinism and theological free will. But that's the thing, theology doesn't square. Unless you are a deist it's likely that you worship a god that is not amenable to reason. The apologetics are transparently ad hoc rationalizations. They are not cogent and do not of themselves convince unbelievers in theology the way scientific discoveries eventually convince those who at first do not believe in the discoveries of science. I.e. Red Shift, Solar Wind, Heliocentrism, relativity, quantum mechanics, hi pylori is a cause of ulcers, etc., etc..

 

[Shalamar]

Plus three "split off" threads.

Is english not your first language?

 

[zooterkin]

My last girlfriend moved to Texas from New York and was having a hard time of it. Then she got lots of attention and love from Mormons. She became a Mormon, got married, and had a child within half a year.

That is impressive. Is gestation for Mormons shorter than for the rest of us?

 

[skyrider44]

Randfan asked if you had any 3rd party source.

In books alone, criticism of the LDS Church, some of it poorly researched, could fill a large U-Haul truck. Have some critics relied on some of these books to denigrate the LDS Church? A person would have to be incredibly naïve to answer in the negative. In fact, echoes of some of the wording used in some of the books shows up in posts on this forum--without attribution.

Here's a fraction of the "library":

The Mormon Mirage: Seeing Through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism, Hank Hanegraaff; Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Ernest H. Tares; Mormonism: One Nation Under Gods, Richard Arbanes; The Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin; Covering Up the Black Hole and Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, Jerald and Sandra Tanner; Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, Norman L. Geisler; Behind the Mask of Mormonism, John Ankerberg and John Weldon; Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters.

There is much more, some of it brim with religious bigotry.

FAIR reviews each book, pointing out misrepresentations and outright distortions. The reviews are available at FAIR Wiki under the heading "Criticism of Mormonism Books." I recommend it for those interested in discovering "the rest of the story."

 

[Shalamar]

I get the feeling that any book or source that criticize the LDS church is immediately bigoted, and hateful.

Only sources that show the LDS church as being true are accurate, right?