Defense Counterpart to Tarski's Criticism Summary Thread

[_GR33N]

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.

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.

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.

Food for thought.

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?

I agree, plenty of food for thought.

[_thews]

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17727&p=440080#p440080

To date, I have not had one single Mormon apologist willing to just admit that it was in fact Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to tell of the descendant of Ham. The reason they cannot is simple... because it proves Joseph Smith was a fraud who lied about translating things. What needs to be thrown under the bus here is both actual Mormon history from the history of the church, and the integrity of William Clayton. One could answer the question honestly without diversion, or one could tuck tail and plead ignorance

Based on the available evidence I don't see why anyone would admit that Joseph Smith made any official translation of the Kinderhook plates. Not because they would cast doubt upon his prophetic calling but that there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the events.

You have William Clayton mentioning "President J." twice in the journal entry and the history of the Mormon church printing the "words of the Prophet" along with quotes from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. When you say there are too many unanswered questions, there can always be a smoke screen if you keep asking questions without answering them. If it wasn't Joseph smith who made the Kinderhook translation to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? What is your main question that remains "unanswered" acknowledging the data presented?

With the delay in confession what were the real motives for Mr. Wiley and co. at the time of the supposed hoax? Were they hoping to get Joseph to buy the plates as he had purchased the Book of Abraham papyrus?

This point is moot and meaningless regarding who made the descendant of Ham translation.

Why didn't Joseph Smith offer to buy the plates? Why wasn't he more interested in the plates? It seems the newspaper reports of the events were more interested in the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Kinderhook plates than the Prophet himself.

again, you follow the lead of FairMormon and just keep asking "what if" questions without answering them. Direct quotes quoting "President J." twice and the history of the church are hard evidence. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? Water it down and tell who it could possibly be?

I don't mean to divert from the question as I agree with you concerning the inclusion of this strange event in the history of the church. The truth is that it is an event that was noted for historic purposes. It may have been looked upon at the time as faith promoting by William Clayton. It seems as such. William Clayton maybe guilty of sensationalizing the event living in such exciting times as those were. Many people have been guilty of the same thing.

You are simply ignoring the evidence and theorizing reasons/questions you could attempt to find fault with the evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence, but many. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith, then who told of the descendant of Ham? Please acknowledge the data presented... are you calling William Clayton a liar?

Thanks

[_GR33N]

You have William Clayton mentioning "President J." twice in the journal entry and the history of the Mormon church printing the "words of the Prophet" along with quotes from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. When you say there are too many unanswered questions, there can always be a smoke screen if you keep asking questions without answering them. If it wasn't Joseph smith who made the Kinderhook translation to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? What is your main question that remains "unanswered" acknowledging the data presented?

With the delay in confession what were the real motives for Mr. Wiley and co. at the time of the supposed hoax? Were they hoping to get Joseph to buy the plates as he had purchased the Book of Abraham papyrus?

This point is moot and meaningless regarding who made the descendant of Ham translation.

Why didn't Joseph Smith offer to buy the plates? Why wasn't he more interested in the plates? It seems the newspaper reports of the events were more interested in the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Kinderhook plates than the Prophet himself.

again, you follow the lead of FairMormon and just keep asking "what if" questions without answering them. Direct quotes quoting "President J." twice and the history of the church are hard evidence. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? Water it down and tell who it could possibly be?

I don't mean to divert from the question as I agree with you concerning the inclusion of this strange event in the history of the church. The truth is that it is an event that was noted for historic purposes. It may have been looked upon at the time as faith promoting by William Clayton. It seems as such. William Clayton maybe guilty of sensationalizing the event living in such exciting times as those were. Many people have been guilty of the same thing.

You are simply ignoring the evidence and theorizing reasons/questions you could attempt to find fault with the evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence, but many. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith, then who told of the descendant of Ham? Please acknowledge the data presented... are you calling William Clayton a liar?

Thanks

Thews, I can see this is a real sticking point for you and I can follow your line of logic. As I said, I don't mean to divert from the core problem as you see it but the truth is that there really is a lot of circumstantial and hearsay evidence with the whole Kinderhook Plates issue. We know that the quote in Church History about the translation alludes to Joseph Smith making a judgement as to the origin of the plates. We know that William Clayton was apparently a key pawn in the Kinderhook fraud. We know that there was a lot of excitement in the newspaper reports concerning the event. My point with the questions is that there is A LOT that we don't know surrounding the whole thing.

Is a one line "translation" of the origin of the Kinderhook plates so damning to Joseph's prophetic calling? With no further reference by Joseph Smith to the plates and their origin or additional translation or information gathered from the "translation" that is be significant in any way (other than as a possible faith promoting story as I've mentioned earlier) I find it hard to put so much emphasis on it.

After typing the above paragraphs I found a website with what I think is a great short video of the Kinderhoook issue. I know you are looking for answers to this and maybe this video and help answer some of those questions.

http://defendingldtruth.weebly.com/joseph-smith-and-the-kinderhook-plates.html

[_sock puppet]

...there really is a lot of circumstantial and hearsay evidence with the whole Kinderhook Plates issue. We know that the quote in Church History about the translation alludes to Joseph Smith making a judgement as to the origin of the plates. We know that William Clayton was apparently a key pawn in the Kinderhook fraud. We know that there was a lot of excitement in the newspaper reports concerning the event. My point with the questions is that there is A LOT that we don't know surrounding the whole thing.

Point well taken, and if applied to other incidences of JSJr's life, well, we'd take the Book of Mormon and BoAbr with grains of salt, the ever changing (while he was living) versions of the first vision would keep one with your skepticism of the scribes' records from accepting any aspect of any of those first vision accounts--in fact, with that line of reasoning, impeaching what the scribes wrote, you toss most all of JSJr out the window since it was the scribes that did nearly all of the writing.

Thank you, GR33N, for providing another tool for debunking JSJr and Mormonism altogether.

[_Sethbag]

Is a one line "translation" of the origin of the Kinderhook plates so damning to Joseph's prophetic calling?

Yes, it is. The "one line" executive summary by Joseph Smith on the authorship of the Kinderhook Plates reveals that Joseph Smith attempted once again to pass himself off to his followers as possessing knowledge from on high that they could not possibly know. It demonstrates that this attempt was fraudulent in nature. It calls into question every other claim Joseph ever made that was based on supernatural knowledge.

Gr33n, let me ask you, do you believe the bones discovered by the Elders under the mound in Illinois really were the bones of a white Lamanite named Zelph, who served under the great Prophet Onandagus, and was renowned from the Rocky Mountains to the sea in the East? Do you believe that the pile of rocks found on the hill in Adam-Ondi-Ahman, in Missouri, really were the remnants of the very altar a real man named Adam offered sacrifices to God upon, around 6000-7000 years ago, upon his expulsion from the Garden of Eden?

Do you not see that Joseph Smith had a long-established pattern of making outlandish pronouncements to his followers, when presented with ancient things they had discovered and brought to him or showed him? How can you possibly take this guy seriously?

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, and again, and again, and again, shame on me for still having enough Faith to keep believing anyway." -- my LDS version of the old proverb

[_thews]

You have William Clayton mentioning "President J." twice in the journal entry and the history of the Mormon church printing the "words of the Prophet" along with quotes from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. When you say there are too many unanswered questions, there can always be a smoke screen if you keep asking questions without answering them. If it wasn't Joseph smith who made the Kinderhook translation to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? What is your main question that remains "unanswered" acknowledging the data presented?

again, you follow the lead of FairMormon and just keep asking "what if" questions without answering them. Direct quotes quoting "President J." twice and the history of the church are hard evidence. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith who made the translation of the Kinderhook plates to tell of the descendant of Ham, then who did? Water it down and tell who it could possibly be?

You are simply ignoring the evidence and theorizing reasons/questions you could attempt to find fault with the evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence, but many. Again, if it wasn't Joseph Smith, then who told of the descendant of Ham? Please acknowledge the data presented... are you calling William Clayton a liar?

Thanks

I don't mean to divert from the question as I agree with you concerning the inclusion of this strange event in the history of the church. The truth is that it is an event that was noted for historic purposes. It may have been looked upon at the time as faith promoting by William Clayton. It seems as such. William Clayton maybe guilty of sensationalizing the event living in such exciting times as those were. Many people have been guilty of the same thing.

Thews, I can see this is a real sticking point for you and I can follow your line of logic. As I said, I don't mean to divert from the core problem as you see it but the truth is that there really is a lot of circumstantial and hearsay evidence with the whole Kinderhook Plates issue. We know that the quote in Church History about the translation alludes to Joseph Smith making a judgement as to the origin of the plates. We know that William Clayton was apparently a key pawn in the Kinderhook fraud. We know that there was a lot of excitement in the newspaper reports concerning the event. My point with the questions is that there is A LOT that we don't know surrounding the whole thing.

Is a one line "translation" of the origin of the Kinderhook plates so damning to Joseph's prophetic calling? With no further reference by Joseph Smith to the plates and their origin or additional translation or information gathered from the "translation" that is be significant in any way (other than as a possible faith promoting story as I've mentioned earlier) I find it hard to put so much emphasis on it.

After typing the above paragraphs I found a website with what I think is a great short video of the Kinderhoook issue. I know you are looking for answers to this and maybe this video and help answer some of those questions.

http://defendingldtruth.weebly.com/joseph-smith-and-the-kinderhook-plates.html

Since there's an entire thread for this topic to you, the answer is in it:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17768&p=440476#p440476