DiscussMormonism.com

Tarski wrote:Let me help.
Does anyone thing that the Book of Mormon is made up by someone rather than being a translation of an ancient religious record?

WHY?

Put it down in words.


Remember, the newcommers may not have even heard of elephants, steel, or about KJV Bible cribbing etc.
Someone needs to put down the usual stuff since I think it is still good and apologetic responses insufficient.

Tarski - I just saw this thread tonight and will work on a post addressing the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

wenglund wrote:One of the challenges in creating this list is that there isn't much in the way of unanimity among the critics on specific issues.

You're wrong. There is very much in the way of unanimity among the critics on specific issues.

Dr. Shades wrote:

wenglund wrote:One of the challenges in creating this list is that there isn't much in the way of unanimity among the critics on specific issues.

You're wrong. There is very much in the way of unanimity among the critics on specific issues.

Shades... I think it's matter of whatever helps Wade get through the night. Kinda like Dorothy with the Oz mantra: there's no place like home... there's no place like home...

Well, due to lack of time, I decided just to make it short and sweet. It will at least open the door.

There are numerous difficulties with the currently popular placement of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, in the limited geography model. Several can be read about on my website here:

mormonmesoamerica.com

(by the way, I know some links are broken, but I truly hate websiting so procrastinate it as long as possible)

I’m not going to focus on the more obvious problems, like the numerous serious anachronisms in the text in this post. Instead I’m going to focus on what I perceive as the most serious problem for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

Despite protests of some apologists to the contrary, the Book of Mormon actually describes a very complex society. It has a bureaucracy, a military, a standardized monetary system, and some sort of governmental coordination and cooperation between numerous polities. The Nephite polity, at its apex, would have been, at the very least, a complex chiefdom and possibly a city-state. Either would have been one of the more powerful polities of the region and time period. The trajectory of the development of Mesoamerican culture and government was that the less powerful polities, either by force or choice, tended to mimic the more powerful polities. This tendency is traced back to the Olmec period, and even beyond.

So even if, as the apologists claim, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, what is evidence of absence is the absence of a “Nephite-shaped hole” in Mesoamerican history. In other words, even if specific Nephite polities were forever lost, never to be discovered in the jungles of Mesoamerica, we would still see the impact of those polities in the discoveries that have been made. To date, there is no Nephite-shaped hole. Apologists implicitly recognize this when they argue that the Nephite polity was actually quite minor, and one should not reasonably expect it to have had any impact whatsoever on the larger host culture. Yet this contradicts how the Book of Mormon describes the polities therein.

Oddly, at the same time that apologists protest that Book of Mormon polities would be minor and insignificant, when they do suggest a site as a possible Book of Mormon polity, the sites are, indeed, ruins of formerly powerful polities for the time and region. A good example is Kaminaljuyu, often offered as a possible site for the City of Nephi. In fact, they have very little choice but to choose a site of this size and power, due to the fact that the text, within a very short frame of time, begins to describe a very complex, classed society. The problem is that Kaminaljuyu was an extremely powerful polity in its day. This is described in more detail on my website page here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesan ... aminaljuyu

To use Kaminaljuyu as an example, if it had been actually led by a Judeo-Christian group with the culture described in the Book of Mormon, then we would see the impact of that in the entire trajectory of Mesoamerica.

We don’t.

While I have focused on Mesoamerica, the unfortunate reality for those who support an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon is that this problem is only magnified by any other setting in ancient America. As John Sorenson, and other defenders of Mesoamerica LGT well know, Mesoamerica was home to the most complex and advanced polities in ancient America during the Book of Mormon time frame. So any other choice would be even worse in that the comparative power and complexity of the culture described in the Book of Mormon would be even more impressive in other regions.

Women in the LDS Church

Women are in submission to men in the LDS church. One can conclude that the church is sexist or that God is, or both.

Feminism, which is the belief in equal rights and protection for women, is considered an "enemy" of the LDS church according to at least one leader and many members. Several high profile LDS feminists have been excommunicated for their feminist beliefs (see September Six).

This topic could fill volumes on its own. I will try to just hit on some main issues within the doctrine and culture that many women find harmful.

*Women who marry in the temple begin their marriage by disclosing a "new name" to their husband. He, otoh, keeps his new name secret from her for the rest of their lives.
During the exchange where the woman gives her new name to her husband it is symbolic of him being the one who gets her into the Celestial Kingdom.

*The woman "gives herself" to her husband in a temple marriage while he does not give himself to her, he receives her.

*Women must covenant to hearken to their husbands as he hearkens to God. Men are to hearken to God. This places a man between a woman and her God. It places the husband at the head of the wife, rather than them being an equal partnership.

*Women must cover their faces during prayer in the temple. For many women this has a negative feeling and seems degrading.

*Women are banned from the priesthood, both power and office.

*Women were at one time able to use consecrated oil to anoint and bless the sick. They had special washing and anointings for women soon to give birth. These things are no longer allowed (although, mothers can put their hands on their own children to bless them).

*Polygamy.

*Men may be sealed to more than one woman while living (one earthly wife at a time, but multiple sealings). A woman CANNOT be sealed to more than one man while she is alive. This is true even if the first husband is dead and buried.

*Men rule over women in every aspect of the church. Even those auxilaries which women preside over are actually governed by men-high couselors, bishopric, etc. Men make all the ultimate decisions as far as curriculum, callings, releasings, activities, etc.

*Women must be interviewed by a man in order to receive a TR (and full blessings of the church). These interviews always ask intimate, personal questions such as underwear habits and sexual activity.

*When a women is brought before a church court she cannot have any women on the panel and is not allowed to have a women stay with her at all times during the trial.

*Garments. They were patterned after mens underwear. Nuff said.

*There are teachings in the church that indicate a woman/girl is responsible for a man/boy being able to keep his thoughts "pure." If a female doesn't dress "modestly" it is her fault if a male has sexual thoughts about her.

*There are teachings in the church that a woman's virginity is worth more than her life. No man will want her if she is sexually experienced (a.k.a. licked cupcake, chewed gum, etc).

*The lessons and activities for the girls in the church are geared towards motherhood and homemaking and getting married. Activities include things such as dressing up in wedding dresses to taking pictures outside the temple and baking cookies for the boys. Meanwhile, the boys have the scouting program and participate in activities that build skills that could help in choosing a profession. Scouting often gets more money than the girls programs.

Scattering them on a single thread still seems inefficient. Perhaps a blog or a restricted forum with a thread for each argument but where only one can post and all can view. The one allowed poster receives updated arguments from the rest of you and updates the appropriate thread.

Or what about..... ta da.....an AntiFairWiki.org? Or (less work) you could all contribute to the existing FairWiki.

Someone can do that too if they want but personally I think a single thread here would be helpful.

I think apologists should be able to resist arguing here since it is nothing but a place to lay out the critical perspective.

Go ahead and start a defensive thread later if you want.

Sock Puppet's contribution above is just fine as an example of what I wanted.

Well I think for most part one could defend very well by simply linking to the appropriate article on fairwiki. But I suppose that would be no fun.

Newsflash! Mormon Apologist doesn't think much of the various criticisms of his beloved church! More at 11!

Read this history of the church here where William Clayton quotes "President J." or Joseph Smith on the pending translation of a known hoax:
http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm


"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 5, p. 372

What FairMormon has to say:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_rela ... ook_Plates

Evidence from William Clayton's journal

The Kinderhook plates were first brought to Nauvoo on 29 April 1843. Clayton's journal entry is for 1 May 1843 and Charlotte Haven's letter is dated 2 May 1843. On Wednesday (3 May) or Thursday (4 May) the Times and Seasons noted: "Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac simile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it" The indication here is that no translation had yet occurred. It seems reasonable that what we get in Clayton's journal is largely the product of the rumor mill; hearsay, and not what actually transpired. (Actually, we know that his description of the plates discovery is entirely erroneous, leaving us to speculate on the issue of translation).

Clayton was certainly with Joseph much of the day on 1 May, but, not "all day," and certainly there were other things occurring. Among other things, Joseph's marriage to Lucy Walker at which Clayton officiated.

Note how they use outright lies to cast doubt on William Clayton... one of Joseph Smith's most trusted friends. They clearly don't "know" anything other than to make claims based on nothing but distortion.

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life "in his own words." It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words "I have translated a portion" originally read "President J. has translated a portion...."

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However...speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the "History of Joseph Smith" was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909

A common ploy of Mormon apologists is to make a false claim, verify it, and then rejoice that they are the ones who are actually correct. In the above, they make the claim that "Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton". Why would anyone draw the conclusion that the writing of a scribe of Joseph Smith in his own journal would be from Joseph Smith? It doesn't "appear" to be the writing of Joseph Smith... this is an outright lie. Use this metric as a gauge to place trust in actual yellow journalism. Note their conclusion that "we just don't know" is another outright lie. We do know... it was "President J.", or Joseph Smith who told of the descendant of Ham, just as the history of the Mormon church dictates.

The actual journal entries (note the first reference to "prest. Josephs" followed by the second):
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/clayton-diaries

1 May 1843, Monday
Nauvoo 2

May 1st. A.M at the Temple. at 10. m J to L.W. P.M at prest. Josephs
... I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County ...
Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of
the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham
through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his
kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth
Allen 2, p. 117

And FairMormon's brilliant conclusion:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_rela ... ook_Plates

Conclusion

The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

All we can conclude from the Clayton account is that there was considerable interest in the plates, a variety of stories concerning them, and anticipation that Joseph might translate, as the conspirators claimed they hoped he would.

Note how the questions are "answered" with further questions. If Joseph Smith didn't make the translation to tell of the descendants of Ham, then without saying it, FairMormon is calling William Clayton a liar. If "President J." or Joseph Smith didn't make the Ham translation, then who did?

Since one can't trust FairMormon to present facts as they actually happened (per the history of the church), here's some actual facts:

http://www.rickgrunder.com/VanNorman/Ki ... erhook.htm

John Taylor was unable to provide an illustration of these plates for his early report in the Times and Seasons, but he and Wilford Woodruff were naturally eager to publicize the wonderful discovery. Accordingly, a few weeks later, they printed the broadside now at hand, and reproduced the encouraging editorial from Quincy, along with the affidavits from Kinderhook. The plates are shown in three horizontal rows of four sides each (fronts and backs of the six plates); they are apparently woodcuts, with white hieroglyphics against black backgrounds in the shape of the plates.



Just above the facsimile of the plates, we find the promise that "The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the ' Times & Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed." Indeed, speculation was running high in Nauvoo on this subject, and according to William Clayton's journal:

"President J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found, and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." -Kimball, p.73; cf. History of the Church 5:372

The Mormons used the Kinderhook plates as a faith promoting story until one was found:


As is the case with many fabrications and outright lies the Mormon church uses to hide who Joseph Smith really was, their only option here is to attempt to cast doubt by introducing distortion. While they claim "we just don't know" when it comes to who made the translation, William Clayton often called Joseph Smith "President J." and referred to Brigham Young as "President" as well.

Quotes from some apologists on the board:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=428007

Simon Belmont wrote:No one that I know of claims that Joseph successfully translated any portion of the Kinderhook plates. I am perfectly fine with accepting that he attempted, in good faith, thinking his gift applied to all encounters with supposed artifacts.

Pahoran wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise I was supposed to read it with microscopic pharisaical legalism. Had I known that, however, I would still have answered the question truthfully and honestly, instead of allowing you to set up an intellectually dishonest false dilemma.

The "I" is obviously William Clayton; he traced the plates into his journal.

There is no "I" in the original version of that passage. That is the only "intellectually honest" answer, which explains why you don't want to hear it.

Note how Wade comes close to telling the truth here, but then makes a statement that there could be other options... based on nothing.

Wade Englund wrote:One can reasonably induce that it was William Clayton who wrote in the first person for Joseph Smith for the first sentence above, and he also wrote in the third person for the underlined portion above.

In other words, one can reasonably induce that the quote above was Clayton's record of what Joseph Smith had said.

Was Clayton's record an accurate representation of what Joseph said? One can reasonably conclude in both the affirmitive or the negative, and reasonably be uncertain either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And what does Dr. Daniel Peterson have to (not) say when asked:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42

Daniel Peterson wrote:

thews wrote:Thanks for responding to the question Dr. Peterson, but I find it hard to believe you don't know and have no opinion.

Difficult to believe or not, I don't know, haven't researched the matter, don't particularly care, and prefer not to speak off the top of my head regarding questions of straightforward historical fact to which I've paid no attention at all.

To date, I have not had one single Mormon apologist willing to just admit that it was in fact Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to tell of the descendant of Ham. The reason they cannot is simple... because it proves Joseph Smith was a fraud who lied about translating things. What needs to be thrown under the bus here is both actual Mormon history from the history of the church, and the integrity of William Clayton. One could answer the question honestly without diversion, or one could tuck tail and plead ignorance as Dr. Daniel Peterson has chosen to do.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:

GR33N wrote:Dad, is the scripture quoted the evidence your referring to that shows the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation? Or are there other evidences that you can provide?

That's part of it. But in addition to that, I think there is linguistic evidence that clearly shows that who ever ultimately wrote it was attempting to write King James English and failing because they didn't understand the grammar. That may be too short of an explanation, but that's the gist of it.

I'm going to choose to respect the guidelines of the original post and not provide any counter points to the criticism in this thread. I would only say that since this thread is a place to list the criticisms of the LDS faith maybe you could provide more evidence than "I think".

I'll ask again... can you provide evidence that clearly shows that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation?

GR33N wrote:
I'm going to choose to respect the guidelines of the original post and not provide any counter points to the criticism in this thread. I would only say that since this thread is a place to list the criticisms of the LDS faith maybe you could provide more evidence than "I think".

I'll ask again... can you provide evidence that clearly shows that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation?

To answer your question, look a few posts above this and answer my question. Who was it who was quoted as translating the Kinderhook plates claiming they were the record of a descendant of Ham?

Per the rules of the thread, post your retorts here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17728