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

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:34 pm

If I was an apologist, I would agree with all of the Wentworth letter, and agree that Joseph Smith was taught that the Book of Mormon characters were the original inhabitants of the Americas. But he was taught these things by Moroni. I would focus my attention on Moroni. How credible was Moroni? His people were wiped out be Lamanites. I'm sure this traumatized him. He could not have possibly been in the right state of mind to recall events that occurred hundreds of years earlier. Besides, he wasn't even born when Lehi and his crew arrived in America. He was probably taught this Nephite-Centric history by his forefathers. He probably tried to tell Joseph that the Earth was flat, and Joseph had to correct him. Moroni was not a scholar or an intellectual. He was a prophet and prophets are not perfect when speaking of worldy things.

I would make such an awesome apologist.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:46 pm

I would suggest that Moroni taught Joseph about his people and Joseph took what he said to mean that they were the sole inhabitants of the continent.

Don't know about the fallible Moroni theory. I don't think most angels are traumatized individuals though I doubt they are infallible. Heck if I were to die tomorrow I might be one. Do you really think I'll become some kind of master of Universal Truth in one day in the Spirit World.

Post by **_Chap** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:17 pm

Come on now.

Moroni is a resurrected and exalted being. He is used to hanging out in the Celestial Kingdom.

Don't you think that he took the opportunity up there to have a really good talk to the people who wrote the documents of which he was the last custodian - Nephi, Ether and all the rest? And then there are the other exalted and righteous people of old, such as The Brother of Jared (whose name he was no doubt pleased to learn at last.) The idea that Moroni was ill-informed on the history of the settlement of the Americas by Jaredites and Nephites, and about who else if anyone they found there is really a bit of a stretch for the imagination.

And we have to remember too that Joseph Smith is not supposed to know anything about the descent of the Indians from Book of Mormon peoples before he received his lecturette on the historical demography of America from Moroni. Are we to suppose that he too was a victim of some sort of 'principal ancestors' misunderstanding when Moroni told him where the Indians came from, and it was only as a result of that that he said

The principal nation of the second race [Nephites] fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

What kind of a prophet is this if he can't come away with an accurate impression and recollection after an interview with an exalted being? You'll be saying next he didn't record the First Vision accurately, or that Jesus was having a bad hair day when he made his declaration about the creeds of all churches being an abomination.

Show some respect here, please.

Post by **_Canucklehead** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:35 pm

Chap wrote:What kind of a prophet is this if he can't come away with an accurate impression and recollection after an interview with an exalted being?

That's precisely it, isn't it? What's the good of trumpeting to the world that the one true church of Jesus has been restored via a modern-day prophet if said prophet can't even get elementary facts about his religion straight?

Why should we believe that Joseph Smith got anything right with regards to tithing, temples, the word of wisdom, baptism, missionary service, plural marriage, etc. when he couldn't even understand the very basics about a book that he supposedly translated by the gift of God, having had conversations with God himself, Jesus himself, resurrected angels, Peter/James/John, etc. etc.? If he couldn't even grasp the basic plot of his book, why should we trust him on anything else that he chose to foist upon us?

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:37 pm

Chap wrote:
What kind of a prophet is this if he can't come away with an accurate impression and recollection after an interview with an exalted being? You'll be saying next he didn't record the First Vision accurately, or that Jesus was having a bad hair day when he made his declaration about the creeds of all churches being an abomination.
Show some respect here, please.

Hmmm. I like those ideas. Apologists have already retreated to the "(Insert name) is not infallible and that was just his opinion not dotrine." I'm just taking it to the next level. How big of a stretch is it to say Bruce R. McConkie taight things that were wrong and not dotrinal, Brigham young and Joseph Smith taught things that were wrong and not-doctrinal, and expand it to the ancient prophets taught things that were wrong and not doctrinal? What makes the ancient prophets better than the Latter day prophets? And once you go down that slippery slope, who's to say that everything Jesus said was perfectly correct and non-doctrinal? I'm sure he sometimes shared his opinion with people, especially with his close friends, the same one's who wrote the scriptures. Who's to say his opinions didn't get recorded in the scriptures? Calling all churches an abomination sounds like "just opinion" to me.

This is an awesome apologetic defense. It's essentially bullet-proof.

Post by **_Canucklehead** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:57 pm

Yeah, it's bulletproof, but see my post above...

Apologists begin assigning prophetic pronouncements to the category of "mere opinion" at the risk of watering down the entire gospel to the point of meaninglessness.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:09 pm

And we have to remember too that Joseph Smith is not supposed to know anything about the descent of the Indians from Book of Mormon peoples before he received his lecturette on the historical demography of America from Moroni. Are we to suppose that he too was a victim of some sort of 'principal ancestors' misunderstanding when Moroni told him where the Indians came from, and it was only as a result of that that he said

The principal nation of the second race [Nephites] fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

What kind of a prophet is this if he can't come away with an accurate impression and recollection after an interview with an exalted being? You'll be saying next he didn't record the First Vision accurately, or that Jesus was having a bad hair day when he made his declaration about the creeds of all churches being an abomination.

Do you have a transcript of what Moroni said? I notice that principal is used twice in the same paragraph before your quote. You're still in the mode of wishful thinking.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:13 pm

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?

I've addressed this. What wrong information?

Post by **_Canucklehead** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:14 pm

bcspace wrote:
Do you have a transcript of what Moroni said? I notice that principal is used twice in the same paragraph before your quote. You're still in the mode of wishful thinking.

I, for one, always imagined Moroni as a cheeky little player of semantic games.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:15 pm

I, for one, always imagined Moroni as a cheeky little player of semantic games.

But so far, this is all you have; some imagination of what Moroni must've said and how Joseph Smith took it.