A rather strong point against the Book of Mormon, from Joseph Smith ...

[_William Schryver]

Chap:

Apparently, if Smith does not say something like "Course, there weren't no others in this here country before the first settlement", it leaves the way open to vast rafts of humanity to have been pouring in for millennia!

I am trying to think of a way that someone can make an argument like that without either being in bad faith or suffering from a state of mental confusion. Can't do it. Charity therefore forbids further comment.

At the root of this comment is the fundamentalist mindset to which I have often referred (and which Trevor, for one, has consistently misinterpreted).

In the mind of so many exmormons, especially in the context of their explication of the reasons for their rejection of their former faith, everything that Joseph Smith (or, for that matter, any prophet or apostle) has ever said or written, or is alleged to have said or written, or is even commonly-believed to have said or written – that is the word of God himself; the “gospel”; the definitive expression of Mormon orthodoxy; the doctrine to which all believers must pledge allegiance or otherwise be branded as heretics.

This extreme position is one which has been condemned during every generation of the church, from the time of Joseph Smith to the present day, and those who have been inclined to believe such things are all but guaranteed to eventually separate themselves from the church.

I find it ironic that the only people demanding such an unyielding definition of “prophetic utterance” are those who have ceased to believe in any such thing, while those who affirm the continuing reality of God communicating to man insist on the imperative of inspired judgment as an essential component in discerning the mind and will of God.

Therefore, if Joseph Smith was of the belief that Lehi and his party set foot on the shores of an uninhabited continent (he wasn’t, and they didn’t), then believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon must necessarily incorporate that concept into any defense of the book, regardless of the fact that the text of the book itself will not support such conclusions.

Of course, to most intelligent people, such illogical and fundamentalistic extremism is utterly absurd. Indeed, I am trying to think of a way that someone can make an argument like that without either being in bad faith or suffering from a state of mental confusion. Can't do it. Charity therefore forbids further comment.

[_Who Knows]

Will - i, for one, am not claiming that this is evidence against the Book of Mormon. I'm merely claiming that Joseph Smith was wrong (with what he said in the wentworth letter). Would you agree?

[_beastie]

Nice dodge, will.

It wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark. It was a revelation, as claimed by Joseph Smith.

Of course, you're quite free to claim that people who actually believe that "revelations" from God ought to have some accuracy and reliability are fundamentalists, but you're going to have to include the vast majority of prophets, apostles, teachers, and members of the Mormon church with that brush.

[_bcspace]

I agree with cksalmon that arguing against nonsense ("there might have been settlers before the first settlers") is to dignify it with a degree of attention it does not deserve.

Here Chap dodges the issue of context in the Wentworth letter and essentially admits defeat.

[_cksalmon]

Therefore, if Joseph Smith was of the belief that Lehi and his party set foot on the shores of an uninhabited continent (he wasn’t, and they didn’t), then believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon must necessarily incorporate that concept into any defense of the book, regardless of the fact that the text of the book itself will not support such conclusions.

I agree that we can't lay this mistake squarely on Joseph Smith's shoulders. It was actually an angel of the Lord who revealed the false information about the aboriginal inhabitants of North America. Perhaps we have a rogue field agent in play here. A double agent, so to speak. The fundamentalist can hardly be held responsible for misinformation presented him by an angel of the Lord. Better to trust in the apologetic arm of man than the Lord's angelic representative, I suppose.

Or, how could Smith have guessed so wrongly in this case? Answer: he wasn't guessing. He just happened to trust an angelic, but, unfortunately, inaccurate, crib sheet.

Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here Chap dodges the issue of context in the Wentworth letter and essentially admits defeat.

lol. Speaking of nonsense...

[_Chap]

I agree with cksalmon that arguing against nonsense ("there might have been settlers before the first settlers") is to dignify it with a degree of attention it does not deserve.

Here Chap dodges the issue of context in the Wentworth letter and essentially admits defeat.

See what I mean? The sitzfleisch tactic. You stop talking, I keep talking, so I win!

[_Chap]

Schryver:

Therefore, if Joseph Smith was of the belief that Lehi and his party set foot on the shores of an uninhabited continent (he wasn’t, and they didn’t), then believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon must necessarily incorporate that concept into any defense of the book, regardless of the fact that the text of the book itself will not support such conclusions.

Of course, to most intelligent people, such illogical and fundamentalistic extremism is utterly absurd. Indeed, I am trying to think of a way that someone can make an argument like that without either being in bad faith or suffering from a state of mental confusion. Can't do it. Charity therefore forbids further comment.

I am glad that Schryver has come over to play. bcspace was beginning to look a little lonely out there on his limb. But has Schryver never heard the military maxim 'never reinforce failure'?

The problem is not about Lehi and party (read the thread, Schryver) but about the Jaredites. In the Wentworth letter, Smith tells us that he had the benefit of a lecturette from an angel (you do believe the prophet when he tells us that, don't you Schryver?), in which he was

informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent.

So Smith is now in possession of some really reliable information here about the origins of the original inhabitants of America from the angel who is the guardian of the golden plates - who is of course Moroni, who knows exactly what is on the said plates because he was the last pre-modern human to read them.

When a few lines later Smith says of the book on the golden plates:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel.

I can't see why you don't feel:

(a) Smith meant what he said when he states that the Jaredites made 'the first settlement' in America.

(b) He felt extra sure of what he was saying because an angel had already told him all about the 'origins' of 'the aboriginal inhabitants of this country' and 'whence they came'.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Will,

Therefore, if Joseph Smith was of the belief that Lehi and his party set foot on the shores of an uninhabited continent (he wasn’t, and they didn’t), then believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon must necessarily incorporate that concept into any defense of the book, regardless of the fact that the text of the book itself will not support such conclusions.

I think even apologists agree that Joseph Smith stated his beliefs in the Wentworth letter.

OK, so do you think the angel gave Joseph Smith incorrect information? Or that Joseph Smith misrepresented the angel?

How do you explain the fact that the angel spoke to Joseph Smith and the knowledge Joseph Smith received was completely wrong?

BC, I ask you the same questions; how do you account for the completely wrong information received by Joseph Smith through a person visit by an angel?

Anyone else?

~dancer~

[_Dr. Shades]

The silence is deafening.