In retrospect, the thing that bothered me most

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Re: MM

Post by _MormonMendacity »

Gazelam wrote:Joseph Smith was a translator, evidence to that fact is overwhelming. Here is one website dealing with just that: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml I suggest that if you want to weed out your bitter root you spend more time studying the evidence than the criticism. To question is good, but look for answers instead of more questions.

Made up Mormonism? Joseph was the Prophet of the Restoration. Did Christ "make up" Christianity when he sought to restore the Jews from the Law of Moses?

I have shown you evidence for the Book of Mormon on other threads. Most notably the Temple in Cusco.


Let's just deal with one point at a time, Gaz.

Here is the major problem with the claim of "translator" -- we have nothing to prove he was a translator.

Can you at least agree with that?

Here are my reasons for claiming that we have no evidence.

1. No plates. The Book of Mormon could just as easily have been an original work (even if I ignore how much appears to be taken from other works) because none of us have any "normal, physical, scientific" way to know that he translated it. The plates are not available to examine, so we have no way of knowing if he translated from plates or just told what was in his head.

2. The Book of Abraham papyri are more damaging that helpful because they do not show his ability to translate. I could have been impressed if the story went like this: "I got the papyri and began to translate them. I discovered they were mostly funerial texts with nothing of importance on them. One of them was good. It contained the story of Abraham. I translated that then burned it." -- or -- "None of the texts were of value. But it got me to thinking about Abraham and I received a revelation that I am now going to call 'The Book of Abraham'."

But instead we got a drawing that has been passed around inside the PofGP that has nothing to do with the description underneath it. It sure sounds like he couldn't translate.

3. The Kinderhook plates. The apologists have to do a lot of explaining about this and the previous two points to make it sound like something less than his failed attempt to detect these mock-ups. He told people things about them that were not true and didn't detect the fraud.

So, seriously, Gaz. Just the notion that he somehow could translate is only supported by wild gyrations from people like Lindsay and FARMS.

Isn't it time you rethought your defense and started looking at it like maybe he was a fraud when it came to this special power that he claimed to have? You have nothing to base your belief on or believe me...the Church would produce the plates. That's why they don't. There weren't any.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Re: MM

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

MormonMendacity wrote:2. The Book of Abraham papyri are more damaging that helpful because they do not show his ability to translate. I could have been impressed if the story went like this: "I got the papyri and began to translate them. I discovered they were mostly funerial texts with nothing of importance on them. One of them was good. It contained the story of Abraham. I translated that then burned it." -- or -- "None of the texts were of value. But it got me to thinking about Abraham and I received a revelation that I am now going to call 'The Book of Abraham'."

But instead we got a drawing that has been passed around inside the PofGP that has nothing to do with the description underneath it. It sure sounds like he couldn't translate.
Once the LDS "scholars" realized none of the papyrus was "translated" and that is was not old enough for the supposed Abraham to have written upon it, they started coming up with things like the catalyst theory and of course the missing papyrus which does not hold water.

Joe said he was TRANSLATING, now they say it merely helped him daydream.

Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Re: MM

Post by _MormonMendacity »

Polygamy Porter wrote:
MormonMendacity wrote:2. The Book of Abraham papyri are more damaging that helpful because they do not show his ability to translate. I could have been impressed if the story went like this: "I got the papyri and began to translate them. I discovered they were mostly funerial texts with nothing of importance on them. One of them was good. It contained the story of Abraham. I translated that then burned it." -- or -- "None of the texts were of value. But it got me to thinking about Abraham and I received a revelation that I am now going to call 'The Book of Abraham'."

But instead we got a drawing that has been passed around inside the PofGP that has nothing to do with the description underneath it. It sure sounds like he couldn't translate.
Once the LDS "scholars" realized none of the papyrus was "translated" and that is was not old enough for the supposed Abraham to have written upon it, they started coming up with things like the catalyst theory and of course the missing papyrus which does not hold water.

Joe said he was TRANSLATING, now they say it merely helped him daydream.

Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.

That's what's funny. This could all be so easly solved with some minor evidence -- you know, something we don't have to twist and contort to accept as evidence. I don't think I'm being difficult when I ask for something more than unsubstantiated claims.

I really doubt that the apologists would accept these claims from someone else. I suppose that's why they don't believe that the priests of Ra were really following the true god -- there's no proof that Ra's priests actually spoke with Ra.

Same difference, I guess.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: MM

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Polygamy Porter wrote:Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.


This, in my opinion, lends additional credence to the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: MM

Post by _Runtu »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Polygamy Porter wrote:Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.


This, in my opinion, lends additional credence to the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins.


Yes, I agree, but then you also have to factor in that Joseph was 100% dedicated to the "translation" effort, bogus as it may have been, in 1829-30, whereas he was trying to run his church/scam at the same time he was coming up with the Book of Abraham.
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Re: MM

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Polygamy Porter wrote:Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.


This, in my opinion, lends additional credence to the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins.
I read somewhere that Emma was quoted as saying the following concerning the supposed translation of the Book of Mormon, "Joseph would pick up right were he left off the night before"

Yeah, that would be easy, especially when you have handwritten pages from Rigdon tucked down into his hat.. "lets see, I will finish this page and start the next page tomorrow", old Joe would think to himself...
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Re: MM

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

Runtu wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Polygamy Porter wrote:Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.


This, in my opinion, lends additional credence to the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins.


Yes, I agree, but then you also have to factor in that Joseph was 100% dedicated to the "translation" effort, bogus as it may have been, in 1829-30, whereas he was trying to run his church/scam at the same time he was coming up with the Book of Abraham.
Of course he was, he and Rigdon thought that they were going to strike it rich by selling the book.. but we all know that did not happen...

Anytime I hear people talk about how "dedicated" Joe was, I remind them of other recent religious leaders who have similar claims... and they believe it too.. so what.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: MM

Post by _Runtu »

Polygamy Porter wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Polygamy Porter wrote:Also compare the amount of "translation" work he did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham... he must have been outta his translation mode during the Book of Abraham time as he did that MUCH slower and produced FAR less that the breakneck translation of the Book of Mormon.


This, in my opinion, lends additional credence to the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins.


Yes, I agree, but then you also have to factor in that Joseph was 100% dedicated to the "translation" effort, bogus as it may have been, in 1829-30, whereas he was trying to run his church/scam at the same time he was coming up with the Book of Abraham.
Of course he was, he and Rigdon thought that they were going to strike it rich by selling the book.. but we all know that did not happen...

Anytime I hear people talk about how "dedicated" Joe was, I remind them of other recent religious leaders who have similar claims... and they believe it too.. so what.


I tend to think the book was a collaborative effort created from several sources, but I don't think it matters much. The book is what it is: anachronistic, unbelievably boring, and poorly written. There are very few of the "plain and precious truths" of Mormonism to be found in its ostensibly most sacred book.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

MormonMend ;-) said:
That's what's funny. This could all be so easly solved with some minor evidence -- you know, something we don't have to twist and contort to accept as evidence. I don't think I'm being difficult when I ask for something more than unsubstantiated claims
(bold added)

I think the 'bold' request could quite legitimately be asked of the Old Testament. And, of the New Testament as it's based on the Old. Does doing so nullify any 'good' that might come by applying any "sound doctrine" (read, sensible ideas) in either the O or the N?

It seems to me, many are quick to spot Joseph Smith's active imagination, and excitedly/calmly reject the Book of Mormon as something less than it is claimed to be.

At the same time however, they accept with little question the "Christian-Doctrine-Theology", whether LDS or nonLDS, of the "Fall", "Redemption", "After-life" and "Heaven"!

Please folks, "...I ask for something more than unsubstantiated claims" of the whole-holiness Judeo-Christian movement. Warm regards, Roger
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

Roger Morrison wrote:MormonMend ;-) said:
That's what's funny. This could all be so easly solved with some minor evidence -- you know, something we don't have to twist and contort to accept as evidence. I don't think I'm being difficult when I ask for something more than unsubstantiated claims
(bold added)

I think the 'bold' request could quite legitimately be asked of the Old Testament. And, of the New Testament as it's based on the Old. Does doing so nullify any 'good' that might come by applying any "sound doctrine" (read, sensible ideas) in either the O or the N?

It seems to me, many are quick to spot Joseph Smith's active imagination, and excitedly/calmly reject the Book of Mormon as something less than it is claimed to be.

At the same time however, they accept with little question the "Christian-Doctrine-Theology", whether LDS or nonLDS, of the "Fall", "Redemption", "After-life" and "Heaven"!

Please folks, "...I ask for something more than unsubstantiated claims" of the whole-holiness Judeo-Christian movement. Warm regards, Roger

No arguments there.

In the old carnival "shell game" the three shells and the pea are only used to distract your attention. When you're actually being cheated, the pea is not under ANY of the shells and the carni is just talking away a storm about how you're supposed to "keep your eye on the shell with the pea. Keep watching that shell. You know which one."

You tell a story about Moses on the mountain for a month. Nothing too interesting. But then...Moses "reminds" everyone how there was constant lightning on the mountain...that was the finger of God chiseling out the 10 Commandments. Now everyone remembers the lightning and they can see the plates with the carvings. No one asks, "Are you sure you aren't the one who chiseled the plates? Are you chiseling us now?"

There is little difference between any of these scams. They all smell.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Post Reply