Page 5 of 7
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:17 am
by _Dad of a Mormon
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?
I will try to do that at a later time. But my response was to your question, not to the original post, so I wasn't attempting to give a summary and full explanation like the other posts.
Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea to give a more complete explanation and will do so later.
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:33 am
by _beefcalf
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?
GR33N,
There are a few more subjects which might be included in any discussion of the Book of Mormon and the possibility of 19th-century fingerprints therein. Here are three:
Money digging and 'slippery treasure': Money digging was quite common in the late 18th and early 19th century in the areas where Joseph Smith was raised. Reference to treasures 'slipping away' or 'slippery treasure' are found in the Book of Mormon.
Title of Liberty: The United States was, the year the translation of the Book of Mormon commenced, just over 50 years old. The concept of liberty, and the flag under which that liberty was enjoyed, was still high in the minds of the citizens of our young nation. These concepts are mirrored in Alma 46:13 as the Title of Liberty.
Secret Societies and Secret Combinations: With the William Morgan affair still fresh in the minds of the general public, along with the passions these events raised against Freemasonry and other secret societies, we should not be very surprised to find them also making an appearance in Smith's Book of Mormon, and indeed, we find them referenced throughout.
Food for thought.
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:08 pm
by _GR33N
beefcalf wrote: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?
GR33N,
There are a few more subjects which might be included in any discussion of the Book of Mormon and the possibility of 19th-century fingerprints therein. Here are three:
Money digging and 'slippery treasure': Money digging was quite common in the late 18th and early 19th century in the areas where Joseph Smith was raised. Reference to treasures 'slipping away' or 'slippery treasure' are found in the Book of Mormon.
Title of Liberty: The United States was, the year the translation of the Book of Mormon commenced, just over 50 years old. The concept of liberty, and the flag under which that liberty was enjoyed, was still high in the minds of the citizens of our young nation. These concepts are mirrored in Alma 46:13 as the Title of Liberty.
Secret Societies and Secret Combinations: With the William Morgan affair still fresh in the minds of the general public, along with the passions these events raised against Freemasonry and other secret societies, we should not be very surprised to find them also making an appearance in Smith's Book of Mormon, and indeed, we find them referenced throughout.
Food for thought.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17728
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:51 pm
by _Buffalo
The authors of the Book of Mormon were amazing clear in their predictions of events that happened before the book was published. They foretold Christopher Columbus, Joseph Smith, the pilgrims, the Catholic church, the Revolutionary war, the formation of the Bible (including its name), Jesus Christ, the virgin Mary, John the apostle and John the baptist, the disbelief of the Native Americans, etc. These are very clear, detailed predictions using precise language and often precise names.
Such specific prophesies are practically unheard of, except in other cases where prophesies were also recorded after they were already fulfilled. An example of this is Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple. (Temple destroyed 70 CE; oldest Matthew text 200 CE). Even that prediction looks a little vague compared to some of the very specific prophesies in the Book of Mormon.
And yet, the Book of Mormon is extremely vague, in the manner of fortune tellers and astrologists, about any prophesies that would come to pass after the Book of Mormon was translated. Certainly there is nothing specific enough to nail down to any single event. Just the usual vague warnings of destruction, earthquakes, etc.
So we have this dichotomy of very specific prophesies about the past (from Joseph Smith's perspective), and very vague prophesies about the future (from Joseph Smith's perspective). This doesn't seem to make much sense under the paradigm of the Book of Mormon being a real history of ancient peoples of the Americas and their inspired prophets. It makes a lot of sense, however, when we note that it's much easier to predict that which has already happened than that which has not yet happened. Anyone can do the former. It's hard to do the latter. In other words, The Book of Mormon was composed in the 19th century.
Another interesting note: while the authors of the Book of Mormon were able to exactly describe, in detail, events thousands of years in the future, they couldn't describe their own present day in any exact language. For instance, they claimed to use steel swords, but apologists tell us they meant clubs with sharp rocks in them. They said they rode horses, but apologists suggest they meant tapirs. They said they raised goats, apologists suggest they actually meant deer. The Nephites seem to be very fuzzy about the present, but amazingly clairvoyant about the future, so far as we understand the future to mean anything that happened before the time of Joseph Smith.
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:54 pm
by _Tarski
bump for second round....
(get ambitious guys!)
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:17 pm
by _consiglieri
Buffalo wrote:And yet, the Book of Mormon is extremely vague, in the manner of fortune tellers and astrologists, about any prophesies that would come to pass after the Book of Mormon was translated. Certainly there is nothing specific enough to nail down to any single event. Just the usual vague warnings of destruction, earthquakes, etc.
I agree with you that this is a trenchant criticism of the Book of Mormon, Buff.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:43 pm
by _Buffalo
consiglieri wrote:Buffalo wrote:And yet, the Book of Mormon is extremely vague, in the manner of fortune tellers and astrologists, about any prophesies that would come to pass after the Book of Mormon was translated. Certainly there is nothing specific enough to nail down to any single event. Just the usual vague warnings of destruction, earthquakes, etc.
I agree with you that this is a trenchant criticism of the Book of Mormon, Buff.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Thanks!
By the way, I prophecy in the name of the Lord that Obama will win the 2008 presidential election. Also, Reagan will win in 1980.
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:37 pm
by _TrashcanMan79
Nicely done, Buffalo. Does anyone know if any apologists have taken a stab at addressing this?
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:17 pm
by _CaliforniaKid
TrashcanMan79 wrote:Nicely done, Buffalo. Does anyone know if any apologists have taken a stab at addressing this?
If I were an apologist, I'd point out that it doesn't really prove anything, no matter how suggestive it may be. It's a bit like the golden plates being taken away, or the 116 pages being conveniently replaced by the abridgment of Nephi. To an outsider, these things are huge red flags. But from an apologist's point of view, the only thing that matters is that these things don't
disprove their faith.
Re: Summaries of most trenchant criticisms
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:33 pm
by _Quasimodo
King Pharaoh. When I first tried to read the Book of Mormon this stood out to me. It's a small point in relation to many of the other excellent points in this thread, but I think it's the most damning.
The word "Pharaoh" originally meant "great house" in Egyptian. It later became an Egyptian word for "ruler".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh No King of Egypt was ever named Pharaoh. It's understandable that a semi-literate Joseph Smith would have mistaken "Pharaoh" for the King's name from reading the KJV Bible.
Genesis 41:15 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.
It's unacceptable that God would make that mistake. This small error is enough to condemn the Book of Mormon as a lie. It's always the little things that trip one up.