Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Bazooka wrote:
Uncle Ed wrote:He was very young, and later admitted that at this time in his life he fell into error as the youthful will, but did not commit any big sins.


On January 12, 1838, faced with a warrant for his arrest on a charge of illegal banking, Smith fled with Rigdon to Clay County, Missouri...


Kirtland Safety Society

HERE in section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants are the rules set down by way of commandment from God governing the practice of polygamy. You'd agree that disobeying a direct commandment from God is a pretty big sin, right?
So tell, us....how does the way Joseph practiced polygamy compare with the rules God laid down?

The Kirtland banking fiasco, like the rest of Joseph Smith's endeavors, is controversial. He evidently announced months ahead of time that he disagreed with the speculation spirit that had entered into it and was withdrawing his money from it. He "prophesied" that it would not prosper with the spirit of speculation that had entered into it. The banking disaster that swept the Union caught the Kirtland bank and it collapsed. Joseph Smith was then blamed for everything, rational argument was not possible, his life was threatened and he fled. How cowardly of him!

"Plurality of wives" doctrine has facets. Joseph Smith was living by some (the more pleasurable ones) and had not implemented some, and was in violation of one, engaging in it without his first wife's permission and counsel. How big a sin and how enduring is not possible to say. I've already defended Joseph Smith's temporary situation as, well, temporary; he intended to get the whole structure of plurality of wives up and running. He also intended to finish the Nauvoo temple, prepare to move out west, campaign for the presidency of the USA, establish the New Jerusalem (as commanded), and a raft of other unfinished business. Life ran him down like a steamroller. He had lived enough for two lifetimes and he wasn't even forty yet. "Sin" is a relative concept, colored by circumstances....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Molok
_Emeritus
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Molok »

Uncle Ed wrote:Is that what you want to see in print? Oh, alright: Joseph Smith lied.

It was a little lie, a "whopper" digging in the fields of superstition.

He repented. Are you saying he didn't? There is no evidence of recidivism back to money digging....


Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!
_Always Changing
_Emeritus
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Always Changing »

Molok wrote: Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. They didn't give the legal system time enough to convict him of that.
Problems with auto-correct:
In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Bazooka »

Uncle Ed wrote:"Plurality of wives" doctrine has facets. Joseph Smith was living by some (the more pleasurable ones) and had not implemented some, and was in violation of one, engaging in it without his first wife's permission and counsel. How big a sin and how enduring is not possible to say. I've already defended Joseph Smith's temporary situation as, well, temporary; he intended to get the whole structure of plurality of wives up and running. He also intended to finish the Nauvoo temple, prepare to move out west, campaign for the presidency of the USA, establish the New Jerusalem (as commanded), and a raft of other unfinished business. Life ran him down like a steamroller. He had lived enough for two lifetimes and he wasn't even forty yet. "Sin" is a relative concept, colored by circumstances....


Can you quote from Section 132 the rules governing polygamy that Joseph actually complied with?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Bazooka »

Uncle Ed wrote:The Kirtland banking fiasco, like the rest of Joseph Smith's endeavors, is controversial. He evidently announced months ahead of time that he disagreed with the speculation spirit that had entered into it and was withdrawing his money from it. He "prophesied" that it would not prosper with the spirit of speculation that had entered into it. The banking disaster that swept the Union caught the Kirtland bank and it collapsed. Joseph Smith was then blamed for everything, rational argument was not possible, his life was threatened and he fled. How cowardly of him!.



CFR
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Nevo »

Molok wrote:Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

Hopefully not.

(However there is this: https://dcms.LDS.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL2185653&dps_func=stream)
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Blixa »

Nevo wrote:
Molok wrote:Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

Hopefully not.

(However there is this: https://dcms.LDS.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL2185653&dps_func=stream)


I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Nevo »

Blixa wrote:I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?

It's "Hinkle" (George M. Hinkle).

The name is clearer here: http://eadview.LDS.org/digitalAsset/image/full/FL2185655
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Runtu »

Nevo wrote:
Blixa wrote:I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?

It's "Hinkle" (George M. Hinkle).


That's what I think, too.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Chap »

Chap wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:I have not seen anything in these findings that would render the Book of Mormon a text unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired.


Seriously, is there any objective evidence that could ever do that for you? I don't ask that sarcastically. If I felt that the 'Lord of the Rings' was worthy of scriptural status and capable of being viewed as divinely inspired, what could you do to stop me? I might even feel the same way about Dianetics. Scriptural status is (is it not?) conferred on a text by social means, especially childhood socialization into certain religious habits. It is not inherent in the text in any objectively verifiable way.


Kishkumen wrote:Hey, Chap. If scriptural status is granted by a community, then it is the job of the community to justify such status to its own satisfaction. I doubt we disagree on this.


Oh, I do agree. That's why I think it is both pointless and misleading to say things like

Kishkumen wrote:I have not seen anything in these findings that would render the Book of Mormon a text unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired.


Because nothing in any 'findings' could ever render any text, including 'The Cat in the Hat' "unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired".

Chap wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:So, I have never seen this in terms of a "silver bullet" to kill Mormonism ...


If your Mormonism is flexible enough, it can dodge a whole stream of dum-dum diamond-tipped platinum bullets.

But people who just believed that what the missionaries told them was true? It should do damage to a lot of that kind of Mormonism, I would think.


Kishkumen wrote:That is the reason I wrote the last quarter of my post. Sure, if you cultivate a naïve understanding in people, then it is no wonder that they will fly apart when that simplistic view is challenged.

I think the difference between the two of us is that you and I place a much different value on the more nuanced or mature view of religion.


"Nuanced or mature": what's not to like? I mean, how can one ever imagine anyone not thinking that their own point of view on a religious matter was not "nuanced and mature"? Those adjectives tell us nothing except that the person who uses them is describing their own religious beliefs.

People who actually believe in the doctrines currently taught to converts by the CoJCoLDS are, it seems "naïve" and "simplistic". I find that attitude deeply patronizing and superior, and would prefer to confer on them the dignity of just being plain wrong.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply