Jason Bourne wrote:A plausible response it that the scrolls were a catylist for revelation given to Joseph Smith and that they were not a direct translation. In that case anachronistic texts woul be expected. This is not a proof beyond a doubt that it is false though I agree it is high on the problem list.
Sorry, that theory's just not 'plausible' any more.
For me at least this (treasure digging) is a non issue. I just don't think the folly of doi g this while very young with pressure from his father and given the culture he lived in can be used to prove that Church is false.
But it is an issue. It directly reflects on Joseph Smith's character. Could Joseph Smith really find buried treasure? Or was he making bogus claims. Here is what you said earlier regarding polygamy:
Presonally this (polygamy) is one of the biggest issues because it addresses the character issue and that impact whether I can trust his claims.
The treasure digging issue does exactly the same thing. It calls Joseph Smith's character into question. Especially since Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon using the exact same method he used to find buried treasure.
Last edited by canpakes on Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
If the people who were supposed to have written the Book of Mormon were supposed to have come from the Middle East, but DNA shows the American Indians did not, I'm not sure what else one needs. You have to jump through some pretty big hoops to make the Book of Mormon work in the face of this evidence.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the idea the Indians are all direct descendants of Lehi, that they family of Lehi mingled with a small group and that they were in fact limited in the geography. If such is the case we would not expect to find their DNA in the population. I understand that many leaders have taken a stance that the Indians ALL are descended from Lehi. In fact the D&C has a revelation directing missionaries to go the the borders of the Lamanites to preach and that Zion would be located in the borders by the Lamanites. So perhaps this position can be argued to be official from that stand point. Still that this seems not to be a deal killer at least in and of itself. Even with the other stuff you and Runtu post to say WE KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE seems a strech. To say due to this and other evidences we have concluded that we no longer believe it is true is much better.
But to tell you the truth, that's not as compelling evidence for me as the simple fact that Joe Smith was a known con man. Does it make any sense to any intellectually honest person that the god of the universe would choose a con man to restore his church, or is it more likely he made it up? Again, start aiming for those hoops to make that work for you.
You say it is a fact he was a con man? What are your facts? No opinions please. And by the way I am not trying to make it work for me. I do no think the LDS Church is the ONE TRUE Church but I do not know it is not for certain and I do think it has some God given truth and some of that came through Joseph Smith.
There's absolutely no question that the only way a person will justify or rationalize away these things is if they're motivated to do so due to an investment in the theology/religion. No otherwise sane person need try to explain it away with stating the obvious: it's a hoax
Why is it obvious?
Jason,
I think that Runtu & Schmo are just saying that the purponderance of the evidence would lead an unbiased juror to conclude that the evidence does not support the claim that the Church is true. Maybe God will someday provide that evidence but at this point I find that an unlikely possibility.
Well, you'll never actually catch me saying that I know the church isn't true. I don't know it, just like I don't know for sure that the sun will rise in the morning. But based on my experience and the evidence at hand, I'm pretty confident that the sun will rise.
I also don't know that OJ Simpson killed his wife. I wasn't there. How do I know for sure? A case was made for him not doing it that convinced 12 jurors to return a "not guilty" decision. But you know what? I still think he did it. That's what common sense tells me based on the evidence. No amount of "Simpson's not a murderer" apologetic gymnastics will likely convince me otherwise.
It's a matter of probabilities, Jason. Given the evidence, it is highly improbable the church is what it says it is. It seems obvious based on the evidence (not to mention a modicum of common sense).
This is fair. For me though while I have modified my views I still enjoy religion and I like the LDS Church. Maybe I have no common sense but I am feeling pretty happy about where I am at.
I haven't said I KNOW it's not true. I believe it to be highly unlikely that it's true. Nothing's impossible, but it sure doesn't look like the true church to me.
Here is what you said in this thread:
Of course, this is a purely hypothetical situation because the church is not actually true. ;)
You say it is a fact he was a con man? What are your facts? No opinions please. And by the way I am not trying to make it work for me. I do no think the LDS Church is the ONE TRUE Church but I do not know it is not for certain and I do think it has some God given truth and some of that came through Joseph Smith.
I think his glass-looking escapades, which no one disputes, are pretty good evidence that he was a con man. That he used the same method to produce the Book of Mormon doesn't inspire confidence (no pun intended).
I think Bushman had some reasonable and thoughtful comments on this. The method of how he got the Book of Mormon does not worry me really. I find truths in there whether or not what it claims is histrionically accurate.
Why is it obvious?
I figure that the best way to tell if it's a hoax is to ask yourself how you would respond to a similar story from someone else.
Yes I can agree with this but really we all at one point heard the story and decided to believe it. More so if one is a convert as an adult.
A man seeks buried treasure using a peepstone. He claims to have found buried plates which he translates using said peepstone. The book he translates is littered with anachronisms and describes no known civilization in the ancient New World. He essentially quits working once the book is produced and lives off the kindness of his followers thereafter. He continually revises his theology, usually in response to new information or a crisis within his church. He promises wealth untold for people who invest in his unauthorized bank and then flees the scene when the bank fails. He claims to translate Egyptian, but his translation is found to be erroneous. Unbeknownst to his wife, he takes at least 33 women as plural wives, 8 of whom are already married. When a follower decides to expose the plural marriages, he destroys the printing press that would have been used to expose him.
If the man's name were James or Haroldson or Hancock, you wouldn't even consider the man's claims, would you
This really is the crux of it and why I tell many that the Church by not disclosing an accurate history makes it more difficult to do an honest assessment of whether one should trust the person making the claim.
Jason Bourne wrote:This really is the crux of it and why I tell many that the Church by not disclosing an accurate history makes it more difficult to do an honest assessment of whether one should trust the person making the claim.
I like your approach to this Jason, even though I disagree with your conclusions. I think by taking your position, you may be less "stunned" by new evidence that may come closer to disproving church claims...but you're also in a good position if it somehow IS true. It helps that you enjoy attending the meetings....
I tried your approach for a while, but became quite irritated attending meetings when I kept hearing teachings I couldn't accept. The cog-dis really tore me up, and I came to feel much more spiritual by taking a hike in the mountains while the fam went to church.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jason Bourne wrote:Here is what you said in this thread:
Of course, this is a purely hypothetical situation because the church is not actually true. ;)
You must have missed the winking smiley.
I think Bushman had some reasonable and thoughtful comments on this. The method of how he got the Book of Mormon does not worry me really. I find truths in there whether or not what it claims is histrionically accurate.
I thought Bushman's abrupt transition from peepstoning to seerstoning was forced, but obviously you didn't think so. But I agree that it's the historicity, not the method of production, that concerns me.
Yes I can agree with this but really we all at one point heard the story and decided to believe it. More so if one is a convert as an adult.
Of course we did. What's your point? Once I stepped back and actually looked at it, it seemed obvious to me. YMMV.
This really is the crux of it and why I tell many that the Church by not disclosing an accurate history makes it more difficult to do an honest assessment of whether one should trust the person making the claim.
Yup. There's a reason they don't tell the investigators everything. And it's not milk before meat.
My problem with the Church's teachings is way more fundamental than Joseph Smith. My problems with the teachings go all the back to the "Plan Of Salvation". To me it's stupid, pourly thought out, and unreasonable. Frankly a God how would approve such a plan is not worthly of being praised. IMHO
Can you imagin emulating the "Plan Of Salvation" in the way you punish an reward your children. Would you go and banish or kill 1/3 of your children if they didn't agree to do things "your way". If one of your children breaks the rules would you set up a plan that would have other of your children beat to death your oldest child and forse the rule breaker to praise the older child before you would forgive him. Why not (being all powerful) do you not just forgive your child directly yourself.
Well, all I can say is that is that I am sure as hell glad I didn't grow up in such a family. Nor, would I want to go back to such a unrathional desaplinarian, dispot and tyrant. Sorry the Plan Of Salvation makes no rathional sense to me.
So even if Joseph Smith was telling the true, I would have no desire to go to the Celestial Kingdom.
Runtu wrote:Over on the board-that-must-not-be-named, Garden Girl asked me this question:
Okay, John W... as an apostate (are you really) what would it take to retain you, or I should say "regain" you (rhetorical question only). But think about it... Most of the time I quite enjoy your posts and have wondered not only about you but some of the others on the board.
The only answer I can think is that I would go back if it were true. Granted, there is much I really dislike about the church: its manufactured guilt, its relegation of women to a secondary caste, its deceptive glossing over of embarrassing doctrines and history, its using of families to keep people in line, and so on.
But if it actually were God's true church, I'd have to swallow my objections and go back.
Of course, this is a purely hypothetical situation because the church is not actually true. ;)
What would it take for you to go back?
Hello,
I would go back only if Kelly Clarkson would want to get marry to me in the temple. That is the only way I would ever go back to the temple, and be active in the LDS Church again.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter