LDS

[Slowvehicle]

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

...not according to the OP...

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?

It seems to me that you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Smith claimed that an "angel" "dictated" the words of "god" to him. A simple primary source search demonstrates that domestic barley, domestic horses, domestic cattle husbandry, and steel technology have never been shown to exist in the pre-Colombian new world (to say nothing of elephants, pigs, and so on).

Explanations such as claiming that "horse" means "deer", or that the "chariots were pulled by tapirs", or that "pig" means "peccary" are simply special pleading.

In the official account, "god" "dictated" a word that Smith transcribed as "horse".

-Was this a simple transcription error? ("god" said "alpaca", but Smith wrote down "horse")
-Was this an histirocal error? ("god" got the dates wrong)
-Was this hidden knowledge? (the horse, barley, et al. were, in fact, there, but all trace of them was obliterated, or remains to be discovered)
-Was this a storyteller's mistake? (Smith extrapolated horses and the rest into a tale he was spinning, not thinking that he would be found out)

If you have what you think is evidence of the pre-Colombian world that contradicts current understanding, I would appreciate it if you would offer it. As it stands, your religious text makes a claim that is not supported by evidence (like the crucifixion-day zombie horde; like the post-mortal fecundity of Osiris; like the effect of the first word spoken by Ganesh).

 

[skyrider44]

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.

It was Smith who suggested they abandon the effort, a fact you conveniently overlook. And as for giving the money back, hmmm. . .you pay a surgeon a "zillion" bucks to rid yourself of killing back pain, and the operation isn't a success, whereupon the surgeon returns what he has been paid to you and/or your insurance company--right? Wouldn't that be the "honorable thing"? Eh?

How do you know that Smith promised Stowell (sp) that the digging enterprise would succeed? The fact is, you don't. Stowell approached Joseph, not the other way around.

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

I never said it was.

(Out of time. . .later)

 

[RandFan]

It was Smith who suggested they abandon the effort, a fact you conveniently overlook.

How is that good for Smith? If I gave money to someone to find treasure I would want to them to keep looking until they found it. Otherwise I would figure I was being taken. That little nuggest does not help your case.

And as for giving the money back, hmmm. . .you pay a surgeon a "zillion" bucks to rid yourself of killing back pain, and the operation isn't a success, whereupon the surgeon returns what he has been paid to you and/or your insurance company--right? Wouldn't that be the "honorable thing"? Eh?

That surgeon has years of education, residency, and must be certified to perform the operation. What did Smith have that the average con-artist does not have? What talents and abilities justified Smith's fee?

How do you know that Smith promised Stowell (sp) that the digging enterprise would succeed? The fact is, you don't. Stowell approached Joseph, not the other way around.

If someone asked me to look for treasure I would tell them I had no proven abilities to find treasure. Smith?

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

I never said it was

But that is the inference from your argument. You are the one who introduced deluded dowsers (and most are deluded though some are dishonest).

Again, that doesn't help your case. That some people are deluded and believe in dousing, or that some people are dishonest and use dowsing, doesn't justify what Smith did. You are trying to provide context but it's hurting your case.

 

[Cat Tale]

Just saw this old post and since I kinda like ya, jsfisher, I thought I'd take a stab at it.

By the way, before you arrived I'd asked about the upper levels of LDS Church management. Do I understand correctly that there is a prophet and a council of some sort? The prophet as a role that parallels that of the Pope?

There is the Prophet (today it's President Thomas S. Monson). He's known as prophet, seer and revelator and has complete stewardship over the church. He has two councilors and among the three they make up the First Presidency of the Church. Following them there is the Council of the Twelve apostles, as well as the Seventy.

When the time comes for the Church to fully embrace new doctrine, it will come from the prophet.

Basically all of the men (The First Presidency, Twelve, and Seventies) are special representatives of the Church, special witnesses for Christ, and teach doctrine of the Church.

What can you tell me about the powers

Well, he'd have all the powers of the priesthood, not really sure what they all entail.

responsibilities

To do whatever needs done, including to preside over our general conferences (held in April and October of every year)

and privileges of them?

Dunno. Never really looked into that.

Hope this helped! Sorry to be so long in the answering.

 

[tsig]

Just saw this old post and since I kinda like ya, jsfisher, I thought I'd take a stab at it.



There is the Prophet (today it's President Thomas S. Monson). He's known as prophet, seer and revelator and has complete stewardship over the church. He has two councilors and among the three they make up the First Presidency of the Church. Following them there is the Council of the Twelve apostles, as well as the Seventy.

When the time comes for the Church to fully embrace new doctrine, it will come from the prophet.

Basically all of the men (The First Presidency, Twelve, and Seventies) are special representatives of the Church, special witnesses for Christ, and teach doctrine of the Church.

Well, he'd have all the powers of the priesthood, not really sure what they all entail.

To do whatever needs done, including to preside over our general conferences (held in April and October of every year)

Dunno. Never really looked into that.

Hope this helped! Sorry to be so long in the answering.

The priesthood is restricted to men?

 

[tsig]

It was Smith who suggested they abandon the effort, a fact you conveniently overlook. And as for giving the money back, hmmm. . .you pay a surgeon a "zillion" bucks to rid yourself of killing back pain, and the operation isn't a success, whereupon the surgeon returns what he has been paid to you and/or your insurance company--right? Wouldn't that be the "honorable thing"? Eh?

How do you know that Smith promised Stowell (sp) that the digging enterprise would succeed? The fact is, you don't. Stowell approached Joseph, not the other way around.



I never said it was.

(Out of time. . .later)

It's not that the operation wasn't a success it's that the surgeon didn't even have a knife.

You know if you think about it, if you could really find gold would you need anyone elses' money?

 

[jsfisher]

Just saw this old post and since I kinda like ya, jsfisher, I thought I'd take a stab at it.

Ah, shucks, ma'am, I kinda like you, too. Don't tell Pup, though.

There is the Prophet (today it's President Thomas S. Monson). He's known as prophet, seer and revelator and has complete stewardship over the church. He has two councilors and among the three they make up the First Presidency of the Church. Following them there is the Council of the Twelve apostles, as well as the Seventy.

When the time comes for the Church to fully embrace new doctrine, it will come from the prophet.

So, the prophet can create new doctrine (and I presume amend existing doctrine). Does that also include revisions of the Book of Mormon? Is prophet's privilege over doctrine because of some special relationship with God, much like the Catholic Pope is supposed to have?

Are the leadership positions appointments for life? How are the appointments made (especially for the prophet).

 

[Empress]

Ah, shucks, ma'am, I kinda like you, too. Don't tell Pup, though.



So, the prophet can create new doctrine (and I presume amend existing doctrine). Does that also include revisions of the Book of Mormon? Is prophet's privilege over doctrine because of some special relationship with God, much like the Catholic Pope is supposed to have?

Are the leadership positions appointments for life? How are the appointments made (especially for the prophet).

The prophet is prophet for life, and upon his death, the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (kind of a group of underlings under the prophet) then becomes the next prophet. Thomas Monson is prophet now, and IIRC the next will be Boyd K Packer. Not sure how you become one of the apostles, but my bet would be playing good politics in the church.

The prophet has a direct line to god, which is why RandFan has asked the resident Mormons in this thread about Mark Hoffman and the Salamander letter. Hoffman was forging documents including the Salamander letter which was supposedly written by an early church member and gave a different version of JS's discovery of the gold plates. The documents were bought up by the church. Gordon B Hinkley, who was prophet at the time should have been told by god that he was buying fake documents that showed the church in a bad light, but somehow god plumb forgot to mention that during any of their little chats.

Prophets can get new revelations, and change doctrine. The most well-known example of this is when Utah wanted to become a State in the late 1800s, but the US would never allow it while polygamy was being practiced. Wildred Woodruff, who was prophet at the time, revealed that polygamy was no longer a church doctrine.

And in response to tsig's question, yes only men hold the priesthood, which is the power in the Church. Now don't go thinking women don't have a place in the church. There's always the nursery.

It's really something to see a new baby being blessed. A group of Elders (usu including the father, if he holds the priesthood) stand in a circle with the baby in the center. The men all place one hand on the baby, the other on the man's shoulder next to him while one of them gives the blessing. The mother of the baby who actually carried the infant for nine months and went through the agony of childbirth? Not involved in any way. Doesn't even get to hold the baby while it's being blessed.

 

[Cat Tale]

So, the prophet can create new doctrine (and I presume amend existing doctrine). Does that also include revisions of the Book of Mormon?

That's a good question about revisions on the Book of Mormon, never really thought about it. I suppose to do that the Church would have to admit that the book has errors. I mean, Joseph Smith started his own translation of the Bible, which now belongs to the RLDS [Missouri Church]. Sooo... I guess it would take a revelation first that would amend the 8th Article of Faith. But of course, from a LDS perspective, if God wants to change something, he'll do it through his prophet. It's just like the addition to the Doctrine and Covenants when polygamy ended, or African Americans got the priesthood.

Is prophet's privilege over doctrine because of some special relationship with God, much like the Catholic Pope is supposed to have?

Yes, or at least similar, I think. I confess to not knowing much about Catholics despite having a Catholic sister. For some strange reason, my Catholic, Episcopalian, and Born Again siblings and I don't discuss religion anymore when we visit.

Are the leadership positions appointments for life? How are the appointments made (especially for the prophet).

Yes, they are a life-term. The President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church has always been the one to be called to the Presidency, upon the death of the previous president.

Well, gotta shut down soon for the night.

 

[skyrider44]

... It seems to me that you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Smith claimed that an "angel" "dictated" the words of "god" to him. A simple primary source search demonstrates that domestic barley, domestic horses, domestic cattle husbandry, and steel technology have never been shown to exist in the pre-Colombian new world (to say nothing of elephants, pigs, and so on).

It's possible that you're not current on the status of scholarship re. the Book of Mormon (some of the assertions you make are fossilized). FAIR notes that there is growing evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. John Clark has assembled a list of 60 items named in the BoM, including steel swords, barley, cement, thrones, and literacy. "In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those 60 items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. . . . [however] we find in 2005 that 45 of those 60 items (75%) have been confirmed"
(FAIR, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon," Michael R. Ash).

Presumably, you and others will auto-reject the foregoing, but archaeology is a dynamic science and time is not on your side.

: If you have what you think is evidence of the pre-Colombian world that contradicts current understanding, I would appreciate it if you would offer it.

Are you prepared to "appreciate" what I state above? Of course not.

 

[Cat Tale]

The priesthood is restricted to men?

Thankfully yes.

 

[Shalamar]

Thankfully yes.

Why thankfully?

 

[RandFan]

It's possible that you're not current on the status of scholarship re. the Book of Mormon (some of the assertions you make are fossilized). FAIR notes that there is growing evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. John Clark has assembled a list of 60 items named in the BoM, including steel swords, barley, cement, thrones, and literacy. "In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those 60 items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. . . . [however] we find in 2005 that 45 of those 60 items (75%) have been confirmed"
(FAIR, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon," Michael R. Ash).

Presumably, you and others will auto-reject the foregoing, but archaeology is a dynamic science and time is not on your side.

Are you prepared to "appreciate" what I state above? Of course not.

I sure am. One problem. Your citations are missing. I can't appreciate what you state if you have no sources. Don't forget, this is a skeptics site.

Thank you in advance for providing the source.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's possible that you're not current on the status of scholarship re. the Book of Mormon (some of the assertions you make are fossilized). FAIR notes that there is growing evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. John Clark has assembled a list of 60 items named in the BoM, including steel swords, barley, cement, thrones, and literacy. "In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those 60 items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. . . . [however] we find in 2005 that 45 of those 60 items (75%) have been confirmed"
(FAIR, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon," Michael R. Ash).

Presumably, you and others will auto-reject the foregoing, but archaeology is a dynamic science and time is not on your side.



Are you prepared to "appreciate" what I state above? Of course not.

Perhaps I should have expected that I would need to say, "demonstrable, empirical evidence". It is possible that you are not current on the dubious validity of inherently biased "research". You reject sources as "anti-mormon" if they disagree in any particular with the mormon party line--have you any evidence from archaeologists, or paleontologists, or anthropologists, or geneticists, or mammologists, who do not work for, or report to, a wholly-owned LDS house organ?

FAIR is hardly an unbiased source.

Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that steel was forged in the pre-colombian Americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that mesoamericans demonstrate semitic descent in their DNA?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that horses were raised and ridden, or that domestic cattle were husbanded, or that domestic pigs were kept, in the pre-Colombian Americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that domestic barley was cultivated in the pre-Colombian Americas?

If such has been found, and published, and subjected to scrutiny, do be so kind as to link to it.

Or, consider answering, instead of evading, my questions.

 

[RandFan]

Thankfully yes.

But this is your personal preference. What about women who disagree with you? Again, this is an example of ad hoc reasoning. In any event, gender roles are largely cultural. There's some controversy as to the extent that gender roles are cultural. But there is little doubt that most of what we think of today as gender roles are just human constructs.

There's no intrinsic psychological or physiological reason why women cannot be leaders over men or perform the same duties as priesthood holders.

 

[Cat Tale]

Why thankfully?

That's one of those things that would require a lot of faith. Maybe it's just the baggage that I brought with me from the Methodist church, but I don't want the responsibility. I have enough responsibilities that I don't get done in a day.

 

[jsfisher]

It's possible that you're not current on the status of scholarship re. the Book of Mormon (some of the assertions you make are fossilized). FAIR notes that there is growing evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. John Clark has assembled a list of 60 items named in the BoM, including steel swords, barley, cement, thrones, and literacy. "In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those 60 items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. . . . [however] we find in 2005 that 45 of those 60 items (75%) have been confirmed"
(FAIR, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon," Michael R. Ash).

Why the indirect reference? Why not go directly to Clark? It is was a presentation at the 2005 FAIR conference. The text is available here.

There are two things that bother me about the link. First, none of the presentation materials are included. Second, the text has no citations for sources.

That's disappointing. I guess we were just supposed to accept it all on faith.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why the indirect reference? Why not go directly to Clark? It is was a presentation at the 2005 FAIR conference. The text is available here.

There are two things that bother me about the link. First, none of the presentation materials are included. Second, the text has no citations for sources.

That's disappointing. I guess we were just supposed to accept it all on faith.

Thank you! Now to read...

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

Why the need to start another thread? Unlike the claim regarding the role of faith in formulating scientific hypotheses, this issue is directly related the the subject of this thread, which is the LDS church. Surely you can introduce your evidence here.

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.

I, and others, have. As you say, there is no archaeological or genomic evidence to support the claim made by Smith.

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.

Expressing my opinion that you are afraid to address the issue of the total lack of empirical support for your claims is not a personal attack. If you feel otherwise, then you are welcome to report my post to the moderation team. Expressing said opinion did, however, serve its intended function: it lead to you actually responding to the issue, rather than continuing to ignore it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's possible that you're not current on the status of scholarship re. the Book of Mormon (some of the assertions you make are fossilized). FAIR notes that there is growing evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. John Clark has assembled a list of 60 items named in the BoM, including steel swords, barley, cement, thrones, and literacy. "In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those 60 items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. . . . [however] we find in 2005 that 45 of those 60 items (75%) have been confirmed"
(FAIR, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon," Michael R. Ash).

Can you point to a single peer reviewed scientific publication that supports the American history alleged by the BoM? Why do you always fall back on FAIR apologetics? How is citing FAIR any different from citing some Vatican appointed council regarding the alleged miracles of saints?

I'll ask you again: is there a massive anti-Mormon conspiracy within the scientific community that is determined to cover up the evidence that confirms the BoM?

Presumably, you and others will auto-reject the foregoing, but archaeology is a dynamic science and time is not on your side.

So the evidence will be found, in the future, sometime...

Where is the genetic evidence that any indigenous American populations are descended from Semitic ancestry?