Summaries of most trenchant criticisms

[_Patriarchal gripe]

Parley Pratt prophesied ..................
Mormon apostle Parley Pratt proffered the following.................
Pratt added the following .......................

Not everything a LDS leader says is prophesy or doctrine. Past and present LDS leaders can and have voiced their opinion. I am sure some have even included a "thus sayeth the lord", and it still is just opinion and does not prove the restored gospel is false.

Don’t criticize, even if it is true

Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

" As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."



No Public Criticism Allowed

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68

"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.”
"Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)"
"Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations."
"A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause."
"Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately."



Leaders will not lead you astray

Boyd K. Packer, General Conference October, 1992

Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.



Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, October 6, 1890

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.



L. Tom Perry, General Conference Oct. 1994 (Quoting Journal of Discourses, 9:289)

The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as [they are] capable of doing so.



Brigham Young Journal of Discourses v 9 p 289

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for it they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”



David B. Haight, Ensign, January 1974, You are Different

President Lee once remarked that President Heber J. Grant counseled: “Brethren, keep your eye on the President of this Church. If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don’t need to worry; the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead this people astray.”

[_CSA]

Dallin H. Oaks states...............
Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said ................
Boyd K. Packer, General Conference October, 1992...................
Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, October 6, 1890................
L. Tom Perry, General Conference Oct. 1994 (Quoting Journal of Discourses, 9:289)..........
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses v 9 p 289 ....................
David B. Haight, Ensign, January 1974, .......................
President Lee once remarked ................
President Heber J. Grant counseled:................

Yes it is a shame that ego and opinion sometimes gets in the way of truth. If some of these things they said were completely and factually true, then there would be no need for members to get on their knees, fast, ponder and pray about them, but we are encouraged to get personal revelation for the things that the lord's servants give to us, to determine if they may be opinion or of God.

[_ludwigm]

Dallin H. Oaks states...............
Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said ................
Boyd K. Packer, General Conference October, 1992...................
Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, October 6, 1890................
L. Tom Perry, General Conference Oct. 1994 (Quoting Journal of Discourses, 9:289)..........
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses v 9 p 289 ....................
David B. Haight, Ensign, January 1974, .......................
President Lee once remarked ................
President Heber J. Grant counseled:................

Yes it is a shame that ego and opinion sometimes gets in the way of truth. If some of these things they said were completely and factually true, then there would be no need for members to get on their knees, fast, ponder and pray about them, but we are encouraged to get personal revelation for the things that the lord's servants give to us, to determine if they may be opinion or of God.

"there would be no need for members to get on their knees, fast, ponder and pray about them"
In my life I didn't get on my knees, didn't fast, ponder and pray about anything. I DID think instead.

"we are encouraged to get personal revelation"
I am encouraged to think.

"the lord's servants give to us"
The lord's servants say they are the lord's servants. They may err.
(psssthh... don't tell them they are lying, and we know they are doing that...)

[_CSA]

"there would be no need for members to get on their knees, fast, ponder and pray about them"
In my life I didn't get on my knees, didn't fast, ponder and pray about anything. I DID think instead.

"we are encouraged to get personal revelation"
I am encouraged to think.

"the lord's servants give to us"
The lord's servants say they are the lord's servants. They may err.
(psssthh... don't tell them they are lying, and we know they are doing that...)

So on judgement day, when asked if you turned to God for answers to important questions, your answer will be "No, I used my own understanding of things, not yours." Others will say "I turned to God and prayer for answers to these important questions." If you don't believe in a judgment day then your answer is the right one for you, if you do believe in a judgement day then I am not sure if you will get a free pass with that answer.

[_Milesius]

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.

Jesus' prophecy was not vaticinium ex eventu. Not only does the prophecy lack the exactness that is the hallmark of vaticinium ex eventu but all of the gospels (with the possible, but by no means certain, exception of Luke, ) were written before 70 AD/CE. Incidentally, even if it were the case that the oldest extant copy of Matthew dates to 200 AD/CE (I'd have to check), it does not follow that Matthew was written after 70 AD/CE.

[_beefcalf]

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.

This is pretty "slippery" evidence :) Is your assumption that Joseph's experience with 'slippery treasure' predating the writing of the Book of Mormon and therefore maybe the source of inspiration for him to include these terms and ideas in the book? The instruction he received from Moroni previous to his 'slippery treasure' experiences may have put the phrase in his head. Joseph's mother talks about how Joseph would relate stories to her about the Book of Mormon people told to him by Moroni before he received the gold plates and before he was accused of money digging.

GR33N: B.H. Roberts pointed out that the timeline does not allow sufficient time for Moroni to have educated Joseph Smith in the many various cultural aspects of the Nephites and Lamanites. Roberts concludes that Smith must have already had this knowledge and/or sufficient imagination prior to the point he claims to have met with Moroni. (link)

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.

Patriotism is a universal theme. Every country has some level of patriotism in every generation. There is arguably as much patriotism in this country today as there as in the early 19th century. The scriptural reference in the Book of Mormon to patriotism only strengthens its validity. It may be stranger to not have some reference to patriotism.

GR33N: You and I both live in a world of 'nations'. The United Nations was founded prior to my birth by several decades. When I travel and find myself talking to people from distant corners of the earth, the topic of nationality is often broached even prior to learning first names. The idea of nationality is tightly interwoven with our identity. But this was not always the case. Nationalism is a fairly recent development. And the idea that 'nation' was an important aspect of one's identity is certainly new. The rise of nationalism can be dated to the time of the American and French revolutions. There is very little reason to think that Jewish people coming from Jerusalem would ever develop our concept of 'nation'. That slot in their psyches was already filled with 'God's Chosen People' or 'Jew'. Raising a flag and waving it around as a symbol of your national identity today is patriotism. In the Book of Mormon it is a glaring anachronism. It is a political innovation lifted straight from the 18th century and dropped in the 3rd century... where it stands out like a sore thumb.

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.

Just like patriotism there have always been people (media) who will feed on conspiracy theories whether true or not. This again is just as universal as patriotism in most societies. In researching the story of William Morgan which I had never heard of before, there is some interesting issues. William Morgan wanted to expose Freemasonry and was thought to be an enemy to Freemasons. If in this example Freemasonry is the "secret combinations" and Joseph Smith being associated with the Freemasons wouldn't it be odd for Joseph to include stories in the Book of Mormon that denounce secrete combinations (Freemasonry) if that was fresh in the minds of the general public?

GR33N: Keep in mind the timeline. The Morgan affair had happened just prior to Smith beginning the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the anti-Masonic hysteria was still quite high during the entire period the book was produced. By 1835, however, the fever had died down. Smith did not become a Mason until 1842.

(GR33N's original response can be found here)

[_Buffalo]

Bump.

Is it time yet for the apologists to create their own counter thread?

[_Buffalo]

Another criticism, so far apparently unanswered by apologists:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20147

Summary from Dr. W:

As long as we are waiting, and so that folks can get the backstory from the earlier thread, here is my earlier (slightly edited) post from PostMormon.org on the subject:

The case has been made that "Reformed Egyptian", as copied into the Anthon "Caracters" transcript by Joseph Smith, were comprised largely of a Latin shorthand known as Tironian Notes (notae Tironianae).

According to Arc (a long since banned MADB poster), among the Tironian notes, Gaelic, and Ogham code, all of the letters, signs and symbols in the Anthon transcript can be identified. And they have nothing to do with Egyptian (or Hebrew for that matter).

This seemed to catch the apologists, including DCP, completely off guard.

The graphic below was shown. The column on the left in the illustration below shows characters from the Anthon "Caracters" transcript, created by Joseph Smith and carried by Martin Harris to Prof. Anthon and Dr. Mitchell for their review.

The column on the right below shows corresponding Tironian note characters.

[/quote]

Arc proposes that Stephen Mack, who was known to have interest in, and access to, a manuscript or its facsimiles that was, at the time (before 1827), believed to be of Middle Eastern origin shared this information with his nephew, Joseph Smith, Jr.

Arc continues: Mack died in 1827 and so Joseph Smith probably felt safe in using the characters as his "Reformed Egyptian". Since nobody then in the US could translate the Tironian notes, and they were thought to be of Phoenician origin, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

In fact, since Smith would have logically assumed that Mitchell or Anthon may have seen the MS in question but were unable to translate it, and further assumed that they also believed it to be of Phoenician origin, it probably looked like a sure bet.

The manuscript in question was later shown to be written by Irish Catholic(s) in the 17th century making frequent use of Tironian notes. Other characters in the Anthon Transcript appear to be in a later shorthand known as Irish Ogham. Between Tironian notes and Ogham shorthand, all (or essentially all) of the non-Gaelic characters in the Anthon transcript can be identified.

In the end, however, the characters had nothing to do with Egyptian, or "reformed Egyptian" or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language. They are what they are (a Latin shorthand first developed in about the 3rd Century AD and used until the 17th). The idea that they were "reformed Egyptian" came most likely from Joseph Smith's fertile imagination.

Turns out that one Richard B. Stout apparently did the original research on this and makes a pretty good case. R.B Stout's work on this can be found here.

What was entertaining to me was to see the responses of the folks on MADB who were willing to respond to Arc. Especially telling (and in line with the other apologetics thread) was the response (of lack thereof) from DCP. DCP was on the thread like a coat of paint initially, but did not (has not yet) come back to refute or do his magic apologetics dance for Arc after it became clear that there was some research behind the assertions.

When considered along with the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook Plates, and the Greek Paslter incidents, this perfectly plausible explanation for the origin of "reformed Egyptian" makes an even stronger case against the veracity of Joseph Smith and his revelations, (if any stronger case were needed).

And from Chap:

Responses are not exactly flooding in, are they, even though we are up here in Celestial were there can be no discourtesy or aggression?

Here is what I added to the thread on this subject in Terrestrial:

I have readthe Fair Wiki article on the Anthon transcript. It says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the linked [tFarms Review article by John Gee, 'Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript'[/url]. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entitled Anthon Transcript.. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article 'New Light: "Anthon Transcript" Writing Found?' published in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 8, Issue - 1, Pages: 68-70, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1999.. It says a lot about attempts to find resemblances between the 'Caractors' and scripts found in the Americas - but says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

I have read the article 'The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith. David E. Sloan, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 5, Issue - 2, Pages: 57-81, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1996'. That says nothing about the Detroit MS, nor about the close resemblance between the 'Caractors' and the Latin shorthand forms ('Tironian notes').

So far as I can see, no-one seriously disputes that the 'Caractors' MS is a copy of writing that Joseph Smith claimed to come from the Nephite plates. And yet not only do we have a close resemblance between 60% of those characters and Tironian shorthand, but we even (in the excellent and detailed oliverycowdery.com article) have cogent reasons to come to the following conclusion:

And what a perfect cipher the Detroit Manuscript offered Joseph! None of the contemporary newspaper accounts even hints that "the learned" ever ascertained what this alphabet which bore the closest resemblance to ancient Phoenician might be. The "Saxon" accounted for the minimal Irish translated by Grace, but all that is ever claimed regarding the "strange abbreviations" is that they were Phoenician-like (but not Phoenician) and that their presence actually hindered the translation of the Gaelic in the book. That and the fact that Dr. Mitchill was struck by their similarity to "signs and symbols" in the margins of an old Latin Bible. Why wouldn't Joseph assume he could use them as his "reformed Egyptian" characters with impunity? After all, the best and the brightest had failed to identify them. Let Martin Harris shop around for an opinion; the worst that could be expected was a judgment that they were similar to ancient Phoenician -- good enough for the likes of the gullible Harris. But if the brightest of the lot, Mitchill, had taken the bait, as has been pointed out, Joseph would have been "the theme and wonder of the land."

The second of the three Gazette articles "unearthed" by Dale Broadhurst confirms my deductions about the contents of the Detroit Manuscript. I submit that this confirmation also lends further credence to other theories proposed above. And while, like the gold plates, it has disappeared, unlike the Book of Mormon plates, the old Irish book was once put on public display for anyone to view, not hidden in a box for a select few to "heft." The fact that its ever having existed cannot be brought into question makes the Detroit Manuscript's evidence weightier than Joseph's "gold."

Again, I would charge (now with bolstered conviction) that the myriad of connecting evidence demands the verdict that Detroit's "Ancient Manuscript" is the obvious and logical source of the story Joseph Smith, Jr. eventually refined regarding the Book of Mormon's "coming forth," and of the "signs and symbols" on the "Anthon transcript" purposefully misidentified as "reformed Egyptian."

[quote="Chap"]Has there really been no attempt at an effective apologetic response to this? It certainly seems, prima facie, to be a massive hole beneath the waterline for the Book of Mormon - potentially a far more damaging event for Joseph Smith's credibility than the business of the Book of Abraham, which is goodness knows bad enough.[/quote

[_hagoth7]

Again, for an extensive reply to this from years ago, try a search for Tiro or Tironian on mormondialogue.org.