How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

[_Uncle Ed]

...

I would disagree. Church's or other organization are human organizations, so how they interpret and act on dogma can have harmful effects. Some of that may not even be recognized by adherents of the dogma. Harm can be very connected to dogma, just as good can be.

That's what I said, we agree here: dogma "how they interpret" it is the core, defining harm or good, not the dogma per se. We can of course ferret out harmful dogmatic beliefs from various religions, but those obvious exceptions prove the rule: that almost all dogmatic beliefs are benign or even good, and it is only when fanatics or "conservatives" within those religions warp the dogma into harmful acts that we suffer for it. The very same dogma can be the source of good when they continue benign.

And what would those be?

You allude to one of them below: 19th century knowledge about the Arabian peninsula, the coastlines of the Red Sea, etc. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of these details, yet the Book of Mormon is placed accurately there. Many of the cultural inferences in the Book of Mormon are finding ancient American associations, if you want to see them instead of play "lalalala" they are increasing in number as research uncovers more knowledge about those early cultures. I happen upon these here and there all the time, but to be clear, I am not a Book of Mormon historicity believer, so I do not "collect" these things: I only acknowledge that TBMs do have a position of strength where the research is concerned, since nothing has been found to disprove the Book of Mormon and much can be said to confirm it. My reasons for not believing it to be a historical account are complicated by my religious world view, which cannot be crammed back into Mormonism again. That doesn't really explain anything, and to embark on such a topic would derail this thread.

I have no idea what you mean by strange. Anachronism are indicators of a texts claimed authenticity. The Book of Mormon has plenty to indicate it is not ancient as it is claimed. I also don't know for sure what you mean by sense of humor, other then it is a way to try and get around all the problems. I don't find them good arguments that God would joke around this way. The simplest explanation is that one is just trying anything to ignore the problems.

"Strange anachronisms" would be things like Benjamin's address following ancient custom and 19th century American camp meeting layout at the same time. Again, I don't "collect" these things, and I recall examples only sporadically. I do recall having read of many similar examples, which can be looked at both from a 19th century influential pov and an ancient pov simultaneously.

Then there is Royal Skousen's observed collection of Elizabethan and Medieval English turns of phrase in the Book of Mormon that were dead in Joseph Smith's time and locale, and predate the KJV, making the Book of Mormon partly a dictated late Medieval text if the evidence is taken literally. So another "strange anachronism", this time defying any attempt to make a connection between Joseph Smith and ancient America.

"God's" sense of humor is manifest everywhere. There is such a thing as "the perfect joke", and "42" brushes the margins of it. So too does our penchant for arguing pro and con about religion based on what we "know"; when in reality, we are ALL destined to discover that we "have been mistaken about a great, many, things".
...

Funny some always run to subjective truth when they cannot back up what they are trying to defend. The show breaking bad is a great show. That is a true statement for me. A subjective one. It could be false for someone else. Objective truths, which is really what we are talking about are those statements that are true at all times. They are true for everyone regardless of whether they accept it or not. How most members define the church is true would be an objective truth claim. The Book of Mormon is a story about a real people who came from the old world to the new is an objective truth claim.

There was a great deluge, plagues of Egypt, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, mighty Jewish kingdom of Jerusalem, and the "real" people inside all of those stories. That is likewise an objective truth claim. Religious faith of traditional Christians and Jews depends on those people and events being literally true. None of it is supported by empirical evidence. Also, none of it has been disproved by evidence. The Book of Mormon's much more recent truth claims are no more or less credible to believers.

There is a growing number of "believers" who have to alter their truth paradigm in order to continue believing, and the most central alteration is moving away from literal historicity into allegory and myth. Whether this will work over time, or is actually the well developed signs of a fatal "disease", the loss of faith and belief, is a question not yet answered....

[_Themis]

That's what I said, we agree here: dogma "how they interpret" it is the core, defining harm or good, not the dogma per se. We can of course ferret out harmful dogmatic beliefs from various religions, but those obvious exceptions prove the rule: that almost all dogmatic beliefs are benign or even good, and it is only when fanatics or "conservatives" within those religions warp the dogma into harmful acts that we suffer for it. The very same dogma can be the source of good when they continue benign.

1% bad is enough to cause serious harm to people. Some religions are better, some worse. In the end I think more accurate beliefs will create mucy more good then less correct beliefs.

You allude to one of them below: 19th century knowledge about the Arabian peninsula, the coastlines of the Red Sea, etc. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of these details, yet the Book of Mormon is placed accurately there. Many of the cultural inferences in the Book of Mormon are finding ancient American associations, if you want to see them instead of play "lalalala" they are increasing in number as research uncovers more knowledge about those early cultures. I happen upon these here and there all the time, but to be clear, I am not a Book of Mormon historicity believer, so I do not "collect" these things: I only acknowledge that TBMs do have a position of strength where the research is concerned, since nothing has been found to disprove the Book of Mormon and much can be said to confirm it. My reasons for not believing it to be a historical account are complicated by my religious world view, which cannot be crammed back into Mormonism again. That doesn't really explain anything, and to embark on such a topic would derail this thread.

Actually knowledge was very available to Joseph. It's also a mistake to limit it to Joseph, since he may not be the sole author of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon cultures also does not fit with ancient America. It does fit a 19th century American culture so much better. That they spend there time looking for associations that we could do with any groups around the world is not very compelling. In the end you don't even have a belief the Book actually represents any group of real people, so how would you expect any good evidence they did exist?

"Strange anachronisms" would be things like Benjamin's address following ancient custom and 19th century American camp meeting layout at the same time. Again, I don't "collect" these things, and I recall examples only sporadically. I do recall having read of many similar examples, which can be looked at both from a 19th century influential pov and an ancient pov simultaneously.

I suppose they are strange if one wants to believe the Book of Mormon is ancient, but quite normal from the POV of 19th century fiction.

Then there is Royal Skousen's observed collection of Elizabethan and Medieval English turns of phrase in the Book of Mormon that were dead in Joseph Smith's time and locale, and predate the KJV, making the Book of Mormon partly a dictated late Medieval text if the evidence is taken literally. So another "strange anachronism", this time defying any attempt to make a connection between Joseph Smith and ancient America.

I would have to look it up, but this also was not very compelling. Using any of the old English is a problem. Funny that the best evidences for the Book of Mormon are very subjective, and seem to be more stretches of interpretation. The evidences against are far better. In fact DNA is the newest and deadliest to those who understand it. Especially the new DNA research going on. To get a better understanding you could visit Simon's site http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.ca/

"God's" sense of humor is manifest everywhere. There is such a thing as "the perfect joke", and "42" brushes the margins of it. So too does our penchant for arguing pro and con about religion based on what we "know"; when in reality, we are ALL destined to discover that we "have been mistaken about a great, many, things".
...

This is not an argument, but made up to help one ignore the real arguments. The reason it is not an argument for the LDS church is because you can use it for everything. Something that can be used to argue for everything really argues for nothing.

There was a great deluge, plagues of Egypt, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, mighty Jewish kingdom of Jerusalem, and the "real" people inside all of those stories. That is likewise an objective truth claim. Religious faith of traditional Christians and Jews depends on those people and events being literally true. None of it is supported by empirical evidence. Also, none of it has been disproved by evidence. The Book of Mormon's much more recent truth claims are no more or less credible to believers.

Again, the Bible actually has ancient history, even if much may not be accurate. The Book of Mormon has no established history. None. The Book of Abraham is an even more obvious fraud. This is a huge difference. Credibility to the believer does nothing to establish it as objectively true. Only that some believe it.

There is a growing number of "believers" who have to alter their truth paradigm in order to continue believing, and the most central alteration is moving away from literal historicity into allegory and myth. Whether this will work over time, or is actually the well developed signs of a fatal "disease", the loss of faith and belief, is a question not yet answered....

That should tell one something about the state of evidence for LDS truth claims. I hope the church can keep up on the changes it needs to make. It could be a better force for good in the world.

[_Uncle Ed]

1% bad is enough to cause serious harm to people. Some religions are better, some worse. In the end I think more accurate beliefs will create mucy more good then less correct beliefs.

There is no reason to select LDS beliefs for particular scrutiny or criticism. The contents of LDS scripture are quite impressive on their own to stand up to the definition: origins and historicity claims are aside. That is why comparison to the Bible is apt. Any other religion's "holy books" are likewise comparable. None of them are more than manmade, which is to say, "God breathed" in moments of intense metaphysical pondering. But men wrote them all, and often under circumstances that critics would adequately define as "delusional".

Actually knowledge was very available to Joseph. It's also a mistake to limit it to Joseph, since he may not be the sole author of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon cultures also does not fit with ancient America. It does fit a 19th century American culture so much better. That they spend there time looking for associations that we could do with any groups around the world is not very compelling. In the end you don't even have a belief the Book actually represents any group of real people, so how would you expect any good evidence they did exist?

Joseph Smith was largely ignorant. He was the sole author as far as any attachable connections can show. All "other authors" are at best theoretical. B. H. Roberts felt to say that Joseph Smith was capable of the imaginative effort required to produce the book alone. Lately, the controversial Grant Palmer has advanced that single author theory, but allowed that possible connections to other "authors" exist, which he explored quite extensively.

19th century content/influence is inevitable, since that is the milieu from which the book derived. That does not mean that ancient cultures don't have their influence, probably a major influence.

Imho, to "God" all of spacetime in this created world are of a single aspect. None of it is separate from the rest. So our demand that "history" be linear and causative without anachronism is fallacious. Anytime that "God" is giving influence, especially when said influence is sought for, we can expect strange, otherwise inexplicable, things to occur. Our science will be boggled and shut down by the resulting conundrums from examination.

I would have to look it up, but this also was not very compelling. Using any of the old English is a problem. Funny that the best evidences for the Book of Mormon are very subjective, and seem to be more stretches of interpretation. The evidences against are far better. In fact DNA is the newest and deadliest to those who understand it. Especially the new DNA research going on. To get a better understanding you could visit Simon's site http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.ca/

Skousen was not making any compelling argument in support for the Book of Mormon, he was making an observation of anomaly and quirkiness in Joseph Smith's book. The appearance of dead phrases has no explanation, and Skousen said that such content makes the Book of Mormon (at least partially) originate from late Medieval English sources. As I said, conundrums mount the further into examination of the Book of Mormon one goes; and nobody has gone further or spent more of his life doing that than Royal Skousen, in the area of textual analysis.

The latest on DNA criticism is that the opposite is true: DNA from a small admixture into a large population will lose all traceability. There is no way at the present state of the technology to make conclusive statements either way vis-a-vis Book of Mormon people and their origins from ancient history using DNA.

This is not an argument, but made up to help one ignore the real arguments. The reason it is not an argument for the LDS church is because you can use it for everything. Something that can be used to argue for everything really argues for nothing.

What are "real arguments"? I thought that if an argument was taking place that that is all we require to have a "real" argument. So something that can be used to argue against everything can be used to argue for something. Just because it can be used to argue for other things doesn't mean it can't be used to show support for LDS beliefs.

Again, the Bible actually has ancient history, even if much may not be accurate. The Book of Mormon has no established history. None. The Book of Abraham is an even more obvious fraud. This is a huge difference. Credibility to the believer does nothing to establish it as objectively true. Only that some believe it.

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov? If Jericho was the only positively identified Old Testament site, and none others had left a trace that had been found up to now, would the Bible be verified by one discovered site? Many would think so, others would want more, and still others would continually demand that more needed to be discovered before they would believe any of it as anything more than some kind of weird coincidence created by observer bias....

[_Chap]

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov?

Yup. Who wouldn't? Same as I'd change my mind about the Tooth Fairy if I found her in the act of taking a tiny discarded incisor from under my child's pillow. Same as I'd change my mind about Santa Claus if I looking up into a Christmas sky and saw ... you get the idea?

What will YOU do given that nobody has ever found such a place yet despite a whole lot of looking? How long does it take without finding anything before that affects YOUR point of view?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yup. Who wouldn't? Same as I'd change my mind about the Tooth Fairy if I found her in the act of taking a tiny discarded incisor from under my child's pillow. Same as I'd change my mind about Santa Claus if I looking up into a Christmas sky and saw ... you get the idea?

What will YOU do given that nobody has ever found such a place yet despite a whole lot of looking? How long does it take without finding anything before that affects YOUR point of view?

I'd change my mind in a heartbeat if there were just one, single, lonely piece of solid, positive evidence in favor of Mormonism. In my experience every bullseye trotted out turns out to be more BS than bullseye, and instead of making me rethink my unbelief the apologetic stuff makes me think it's worse than I thought if they have to resort to dishonesty and misdirection to find "bullseyes."

[_Equality]

Skousen was not making any compelling argument in support for the Book of Mormon, he was making an observation of anomaly and quirkiness in Joseph Smith's book. The appearance of dead phrases has no explanation, and Skousen said that such content makes the Book of Mormon (at least partially) originate from late Medieval English sources. As I said, conundrums mount the further into examination of the Book of Mormon one goes; and nobody has gone further or spent more of his life doing that than Royal Skousen, in the area of textual analysis.

Can you be so kind as to provide a link to the peer-reviewed journal in which Skousen's article on the "dead phrases" and "late Medieval" linguistic connection to the Book of Mormon text appears? Thanks in advance.

[_Shulem]

I'd change my mind in a heartbeat if there were just one, single, lonely piece of solid, positive evidence in favor of Mormonism. In my experience every bullseye trotted out turns out to be more BS than bullseye, and instead of making me rethink my unbelief the apologetic stuff makes me think it's worse than I thought if they have to resort to dishonesty and misdirection to find "bullseyes."

I'd have to change my mind to and confess that Joseph Smith really could translate Egyptian if the garbage he published about the Faicsmile No. 3 vignette was correct. Heck, poor Joe Smith didn't get one thing right. He lied about every single thing he ever said about Facsimile No. 3 because he couldn't translate Egyptian and the Mormon holy ghost couldn't either!

Mormon revelations from the so-called prophet Joseph Smith have been PROVEN to be uninspired gibberish. Science and modern Egyptology have slapped the face of Mormonism so hard that it will never be able to get up again.

Paul O

[_Themis]

There is no reason to select LDS beliefs for particular scrutiny or criticism.

This site is primary about Mormonism. That means most criticism of religion will be directed at the LDS religion. You need to stop making incorrect assumptions people think Mormonism is the worst, or even a evil religion. Some certainly may, but not most.

The contents of LDS scripture are quite impressive on their own to stand up to the definition: origins and historicity claims are aside.

Depends on who you talk to. I tend to think Joseph was very talented.

That is why comparison to the Bible is apt. Any other religion's "holy books" are likewise comparable. None of them are more than manmade, which is to say, "God breathed" in moments of intense metaphysical pondering. But men wrote them all, and often under circumstances that critics would adequately define as "delusional".

The world has seen many great writers. I don't think God is needed to explain some of the great inspiration people have.

Joseph Smith was largely ignorant. He was the sole author as far as any attachable connections can show. All "other authors" are at best theoretical. B. H. Roberts felt to say that Joseph Smith was capable of the imaginative effort required to produce the book alone. Lately, the controversial Grant Palmer has advanced that single author theory, but allowed that possible connections to other "authors" exist, which he explored quite extensively.

It doesn't eliminate the possibility, and there is some evidence to suggest it. The core story of the Book of Mormon was already there before the Book of Mormon came along.

19th century content/influence is inevitable, since that is the milieu from which the book derived. That does not mean that ancient cultures don't have their influence, probably a major influence.

Not according to Skousen. Ancient cultures have influence on us today. This is why it is easy to see many connections.

Imho, to "God" all of spacetime in this created world are of a single aspect. None of it is separate from the rest. So our demand that "history" be linear and causative without anachronism is fallacious. Anytime that "God" is giving influence, especially when said influence is sought for, we can expect strange, otherwise inexplicable, things to occur. Our science will be boggled and shut down by the resulting conundrums from examination.

You might want to read up on what anachronism are. Also this God speculation is something you don't really know.

Skousen was not making any compelling argument in support for the Book of Mormon, he was making an observation of anomaly and quirkiness in Joseph Smith's book. The appearance of dead phrases has no explanation, and Skousen said that such content makes the Book of Mormon (at least partially) originate from late Medieval English sources. As I said, conundrums mount the further into examination of the Book of Mormon one goes; and nobody has gone further or spent more of his life doing that than Royal Skousen, in the area of textual analysis.

Again, this doesn't help the Book of Mormon. The Gold plates are not supposed to be written in English. I agree with Equality that you need to back this up. The simplest explanation is that Skousen is wrong and falling victim to his bias about the Book of Mormon. Does Joseph use these phrases in other areas? English is also not used in very consistent ways.

The latest on DNA criticism is that the opposite is true: DNA from a small admixture into a large population will lose all traceability. There is no way at the present state of the technology to make conclusive statements either way vis-à-vis Book of Mormon people and their origins from ancient history using DNA.

Not really. Mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA doesn't just disappear. Certain conditions have to happen. The text of the Book of Mormon just does not support this. This is just another bad apologetic of it's not impossible. It some of the worst kind of defenses. You also need to keep up on what is going on in DNA research. I take it you didn't read any of the link I gave you.

What are "real arguments"? I thought that if an argument was taking place that that is all we require to have a "real" argument. So something that can be used to argue against everything can be used to argue for something. Just because it can be used to argue for other things doesn't mean it can't be used to show support for LDS beliefs.

If one can use an argument for everything, then is is not really an argument for anything. This is your problem of God joking around. It is essentially an argument that can be used to try and get around any problem. Evolution. God just made it look that way as a joke or to test your faith. I can do this all day. It's not really a good argument for anything.

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov? If Jericho was the only positively identified Old Testament site, and none others had left a trace that had been found up to now, would the Bible be verified by one discovered site? Many would think so, others would want more, and still others would continually demand that more needed to be discovered before they would believe any of it as anything more than some kind of weird coincidence created by observer bias....

I will alter my POV based on new evidence. Apologists are the kind of person that cannot do this or has a very hard time doing it. Now you seem to have different beliefs then your average LDS active member. The church is obviously not true. There is mountains of evidence against and nothing really good in favor. This is exactly what we would expect if Joseph was making it up.

[_Themis]

I'd change my mind in a heartbeat if there were just one, single, lonely piece of solid, positive evidence in favor of Mormonism. In my experience every bullseye trotted out turns out to be more b***s*** than bullseye, and instead of making me rethink my unbelief the apologetic stuff makes me think it's worse than I thought if they have to resort to dishonesty and misdirection to find "bullseyes."

I'd have to change my mind to and confess that Joseph Smith really could translate Egyptian if the garbage he published about the Faicsmile No. 3 vignette was correct. Heck, poor Joe Smith didn't get one thing right. He lied about every single thing he ever said about Facsimile No. 3 because he couldn't translate Egyptian and the Mormon holy ghost couldn't either!

Mormon revelations from the so-called prophet Joseph Smith have been PROVEN to be uninspired gibberish. Science and modern Egyptology have slapped the face of Mormonism so hard that it will never be able to get up again.

Paul O

This is what hit me so hard is that it all really shows he was making things up. We can look at the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, WoW, etc. WoW is taken from the temperance movement. God got that one wrong about hot drinks. Joseph couldn't even get anything really right with the papyri.

[_Uncle Ed]

What will you do if somebody finds "Zarahemla" or any other Book of Mormon place? Will one find change your pov?

Yup. Who wouldn't? Same as I'd change my mind about the Tooth Fairy if I found her in the act of taking a tiny discarded incisor from under my child's pillow. Same as I'd change my mind about Santa Claus if I looking up into a Christmas sky and saw ... you get the idea?

What will YOU do given that nobody has ever found such a place yet despite a whole lot of looking? How long does it take without finding anything before that affects YOUR point of view?

My pov doesn't expect any discoveries. Nice to know that your respect for other people's religious beliefs is on a par with pixies, fairies and elves, and probably pink elephants inhabiting Uranus.

If I am mistaken and a RL Zarahemla exists as a ruin someplace, and all that that implies, I will be okay with accepting that ancient Nephites practiced a form of the Law of Moses, then Christianity, and finally paganism and extinction according to the record. None of that requires that the Nephite religion be the "one true and living church upon the face of the whole earth in which the Lord is pleased", etc. There is no such thing and never was, because "God" is not in the business of creating infinite worlds and making every sapient soul move through a single paradigm of ordinances. Talk about a limited concept! "God Is Infinite", and that includes infinitely varied, individual souls who connect to none other but "God In Total". The evidence of this single planet denies the assertion that there is one religion pleasing to "God" and authorized to "save" people, and that everybody else who doesn't belong to that singular religion is destined to be "lost" to a greater or lesser degree.

My belief is that it is the individual and his/her choices that make religion work, not a set of manmade doctrines and ordinances....