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

[_The Nehor]

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.

Yes, because the main reason Moroni came was to teach mesoamerican history and make sure Joseph had an ironclad understanding of their culture, way of life, indigenous people they interacted with, etc. The whole book coming forth for the salvation of a ruined world should take a back seat to idle curiosity about ancient american culture. The book was intended to be a wake-up warning to the world telling them to repent now. I think too many critics and some apologists have this weird idea that the book came forth primarily to explain mesoamerican history. The writers of the Book of Mormon gave very, very little of that and most of what we have is incidental, details thrown in casually while trying to get their point across. They were too busy with impassioned pleas to listen to what they have to say.

[_Canucklehead]

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.

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

[_Canucklehead]

Yes, because the main reason Moroni came was to teach mesoamerican history and make sure Joseph had an ironclad understanding of their culture, way of life, indigenous people they interacted with, etc. The whole book coming forth for the salvation of a ruined world should take a back seat to idle curiosity about ancient american culture. The book was intended to be a wake-up warning to the world telling them to repent now. I think too many critics and some apologists have this weird idea that the book came forth primarily to explain mesoamerican history. The writers of the Book of Mormon gave very, very little of that and most of what we have is incidental, details thrown in casually while trying to get their point across. They were too busy with impassioned pleas to listen to what they have to say.

And that's why the book is filled with dozens upon dozens of pages detailing war and military tactics?

[_The Nehor]

Yes, because the main reason Moroni came was to teach mesoamerican history and make sure Joseph had an ironclad understanding of their culture, way of life, indigenous people they interacted with, etc. The whole book coming forth for the salvation of a ruined world should take a back seat to idle curiosity about ancient american culture. The book was intended to be a wake-up warning to the world telling them to repent now. I think too many critics and some apologists have this weird idea that the book came forth primarily to explain mesoamerican history. The writers of the Book of Mormon gave very, very little of that and most of what we have is incidental, details thrown in casually while trying to get their point across. They were too busy with impassioned pleas to listen to what they have to say.

And that's why the book is filled with dozens upon dozens of pages detailing war and military tactics?

Yes, a short warning of what war is like. The boredom and the hopelessness, the dissension from within, the quick excitement of a battle, and then descending back into the humdrum affairs of killing each other. I dislike those chapters. I think I'm supposed to.

[_bcspace]

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

So why are you reading between the lines something that isn't there?

[_Canucklehead]

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

So why are you reading between the lines something that isn't there?

What we have is Joseph Smith' account of what Moroni told him in an angelic visitation. That's all that we have with Smith's first vision account too.

If the resurrected, exalted Moroni got some pretty basic facts wrong, or if Joseph wasn't bright enough to understand what an angel was telling him, how are we to believe that he didn't misunderstand what God was telling him too? Heck, maybe God didn't really understand the plan of salvation either when he told Joseph Smith that "The New and Everlasting Covenant" was required for exaltation. Or maybe Smith just misinterpreted it and wrote it down incorrectly. After all, we don't have the exact words that God said to Smith and how he interpreted them, we just have Smith's account of the revelation.

[_The Nehor]

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

So why are you reading between the lines something that isn't there?

What we have is Joseph Smith' account of what Moroni told him in an angelic visitation. That's all that we have with Smith's first vision account too.

If the resurrected, exalted Moroni got some pretty basic facts wrong, or if Joseph wasn't bright enough to understand what an angel was telling him, how are we to believe that he didn't misunderstand what God was telling him too? Heck, maybe God didn't really understand the plan of salvation either when he told Joseph Smith that "The New and Everlasting Covenant" was required for exaltation. Or maybe Smith just misinterpreted it and wrote it down incorrectly. After all, we don't have the exact words that God said to Smith and how he interpreted them, we just have Smith's account of the revelation.

Hence why we have the whole Holy Ghost thing. You know that thing we keep talking about that reveals the truth of things. I highly recommend it.

[_Chap]

I think too many critics and some apologists have this weird idea that the book came forth primarily to explain mesoamerican history. The writers of the Book of Mormon gave very, very little of that and most of what we have is incidental, details thrown in casually while trying to get their point across.

Yeah right. That's why Smith begins his description of the Book of Mormon by saying:

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. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

He didn't think the Book of Mormon had any significance at all as a historical work. That's why he introduced it like that.

And weren't the lost 116 pages more historical and less religious in emphasis than the 'small plates' stuff that replaced them?

Elsewhere, I notice that we are at the apologetic phase where we hear the mantra 'all you have is conjecture' sprayed about like fire-foam by people who produce, well, rather a lot of conjectures in order to avoid the obvious implications of the texts we are discussing, like "How do you know that Moroni wasn't just talking about his own people and omitting all mention of others?"

The essential thing is to give a third party reading the post the impression that the TBMs still have a case.

As Coggins/Droopy would say "Keep up the pose".

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

So why are you reading between the lines something that isn't there?

What we have is Joseph Smith' account of what Moroni told him in an angelic visitation. That's all that we have with Smith's first vision account too.

If the resurrected, exalted Moroni got some pretty basic facts wrong, or if Joseph wasn't bright enough to understand what an angel was telling him, how are we to believe that he didn't misunderstand what God was telling him too? Heck, maybe God didn't really understand the plan of salvation either when he told Joseph Smith that "The New and Everlasting Covenant" was required for exaltation. Or maybe Smith just misinterpreted it and wrote it down incorrectly. After all, we don't have the exact words that God said to Smith and how he interpreted them, we just have Smith's account of the revelation.

See, BCScapce and Nehor are on board with my theory. I should write a book. It would sell like hotcakes. I just need to get a PhD attached to my name.

[_Chap]

Yep, and that's all we have when it comes to the first vision too.

So why are you reading between the lines something that isn't there?

What we have is Joseph Smith' account of what Moroni told him in an angelic visitation. That's all that we have with Smith's first vision account too.

If the resurrected, exalted Moroni got some pretty basic facts wrong, or if Joseph wasn't bright enough to understand what an angel was telling him, how are we to believe that he didn't misunderstand what God was telling him too? Heck, maybe God didn't really understand the plan of salvation either when he told Joseph Smith that "The New and Everlasting Covenant" was required for exaltation. Or maybe Smith just misinterpreted it and wrote it down incorrectly. After all, we don't have the exact words that God said to Smith and how he interpreted them, we just have Smith's account of the revelation.

Hence why we have the whole Holy Ghost thing. You know that thing we keep talking about that reveals the truth of things. I highly recommend it.

But people sometimes wrongly think they are receiving revelation from that source, don't they? How do we know that didn't happen to Smith at crucial points in his career?