Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[tkdnick]

Sophie & Fool:

Why does it matter where the name came from? People name things based on all kinds of reasons. As far as I’m concerned Joseph Smith can name anything whatever he wants (obviously he can’t name anything else since he’s dead ).

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

What the critics point to doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you, personally believe there are serious problems with the BoM. If you, personally believe there are serious problems with the book your religion holds to be the word of God, why would you stay? If I came to the conclusion that there were serious problems with the Catholic church, I wouldn’t stick around.

I must confess I don’t know of the Pre- or Post-Jerome stuff. I do know that either is possible. It’s possible Joseph had other sons. It’s also possible that they were speaking of other kin, whether that be cousins, fellow tribe members, whatever. It’s possible that the verses that mention this were talking about both Joseph’s other sons AND next of kin. Though I don’t see how that fits with you believing that there are serious problems with the BoM…

I am trying to draw a parallel.

If you think that every individual belief of the Catholic Church is the best read of history and the Bible, then I guess that is nice for you. I do not.

I would not adopt a Protestant view were I to cease to be a LDS not because the Catholic Church has the most solid individual positions, but because the entirety of the Catholic framework is superior to the entirety of the Protestant framework.

So despite the fact that there are not clear historical records that establish the BOM as an ancient American record and despite other issues that may be even more concerning, on the whole I think the supernatural theory for the BOM far better explains the BOM and the CoJCoLDS than does the fraud theory.

So names like JRR listed do not even rise to the level of notable, names such as Kish only provide the slightest of warm feelings but are really of very little note. No site of great lose of life battle as described in the BOM is a problem, Nahom is a powerful evidence. On the whole I think the problems are better accounted for with the supernatural theory than are the evidences with the fraud theory.

Not that you agree, but have I succeeded in communicating what I am trying to say?

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Not that you agree, but have I succeeded in communicating what I am trying to say?

Tom: I would like to start by commending you. You are one of VERY FEW LDS members I have ever talked to who is not ALL about the “burning in the bosum”. I can’t tell you how many LDS members have told me that I can “know” everything based solely on a burning in my bosum. It is nice to have discourse with someone who is researching, etc. and uses “logic” as a part of his faith walk.

Maybe I’m just dense or slow (or both!), but I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying…or at least how it fits with what you said before. You said earlier (paraphrase) that you believe there are serious problems with the BoM. Yet you still believe in the veracity of the LDS church. Got it right so far?

I’ll continue, and hopefully explain my question better…What do you do with these problems you see in the BoM? Do you just overlook them because you believe the truth of the LDS church, meaning the problems with the BoM are insignificant to you? Do you question the veracity of the LDS church because of the problems?

Coincidentally…What IS your belief regarding the LDS church? Do you believe it to be THE true church of Jesus? Or do you believe it is simply the best option out there?

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

Again, I claim no proof. I claim that intellectually the supernatural explanation accounts for the data much better than a naturalistic explanation.

Charity, TOm

I have seen no evidence to prove anything was supernatural. It is more than likely that Joseph Smith plus family and friends were lying. The “witnesses” did not see anything except a covering. That is hardly supernatural.

Sorry to sound so harsh but the facts are very much on the thin side, and there is not a shred of evidence that supports the statements of the LDS with regard to the BOM about its origin. The claims are of the same calibre as that of the Muslims with their Koran.

MaggieOH

 

[mormon_fool]

MaggieOH:

I have seen no evidence to prove anything was supernatural. It is more than likely that Joseph Smith plus family and friends were lying.

The liklihood of lying is decreased, at least in my eyes, when the all the witnesses stood by their statements even though 6 out of 11 became disaffected with Joseph Smith and quit the organization. They would have had every incentive then to expose this event if it didn’t really happen, but they chose not to.

The “witnesses” did not see anything except a covering. That is hardly supernatural.

Of the two sets of witnesses, numbering 3 and 8, only the 3 claimed to have supernatural elements (such as the presenting angel) associated with their viewing of the plates. The 8 had a natural experience in broad daylight, viewing and touching the plates

I don’t think your statement can be defended that they only saw plates through a covering in light of many statements that describe their experience. For example:

“Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.”

ref: scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns

It is true some people handled the plates some of the time through a covering or in a box, but it is also true that some people saw the plates un-covered. Numerous sources could be cited to this effect. For example see:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=235

Hope that helps,

fool

 

[cestusdei]

Apparently they later admitted they had only seen the plates with spiritual eyes. Most were related to Smith. Some later left the Mormon church. While they didn’t ever exactly admit they had lied, who would?, one has to wonder why if they really saw them they would have left Smith.

 

[mormon_fool]

cestusdei:

Apparently they later admitted they had only seen the plates with spiritual eyes.

Well those admissions only come from the 3 witnesses that saw an angel along with the plates. Notably this line of skepticism can not also be applied to the 8 who had a more natural viewing.

But let’s continue this line of skepticism. The 3 could have seen the plates in a hypnotic or mystical trance. One problem with this is that the witnesses affirm a lot of the same, vivid details even after they separate. There has been a lot of recent discussion along these lines presented by critic Dan Vogel on the FAIR boards, if some one wants to follow a current debate on this.

A possible explanation that the plates were only seen with spiritual eyes comes from the obvious observation that humans seeing angels is not natural. Conditions have to change from physical to spiritual to see spiritual things. Consider a passage of LDS scripture:

“All spirit is matter, but more fine and pure , and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 130:7-8)

Most were related to Smith.

Three out of the 11 were. Five were from the Whitmer family and two married into the Whitmer family.

Some later left the Mormon church.

5 stayed in the Mormon church until death, two left and came back, and even the other four never denied their witness of the plates. Which strengthens the credibility of their testimonies in my view.

While they didn’t ever exactly admit they had lied, who would?, one has to wonder why if they really saw them they would have left Smith.

They not only didn’t admit to lying, but they continued to re-affirm their statements. They had reputations of being honest citizens. The ones that left believed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. All of them continued to believe and promote the Book the Mormon. The real question is why did they continue to believe the Book of Mormon after they left Smith? The answer is they must have really saw something!

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

It is nice to have discourse with someone who is researching, etc. and uses “logic” as a part of his faith walk.

TOm:

Thank you. I do think there is a large group of folks who engage in this. Most of the stuff I post has already been discussed at FAIRS or FARMS.

I do like the Catholic Church’s focus on history and logic. I have learned a lot.

tkdnick:
You said earlier that you believe there are serious problems with the BoM. Yet you still believe in the veracity of the LDS church. Got it right so far?

…What do you do with these problems you see in the BoM? Do you just overlook them because you believe the truth of the LDS church, meaning the problems with the BoM are insignificant to you? Do you question the veracity of the LDS church because of the problems?

TOm:

Ok, I see were I may have been less than clear. There are a few folks who claim to be LDS and do not embrace the historicity of the BOM. I am not one.

The BOM speaks of many thousands killed in a 400AD battle. Where are the bodies?

1.  Many groups of ten thousand warriors are mentioned.  It seems possible that these groups of ten thousand referred to a military group (like the Romans centurions).  These groups may have been significantly smaller.

2.  Earlier in the BOM they disposed of bodies from battles by sending them to the ocean.  This could have eliminated the bodies.

3.  Earlier in the BOM it was prophesied that very many would leave the faith and many would die.  Perhaps the dead were very few and most just apostized.

4.  We have no idea where this battle took place so we do not know were to look.

5.  1400 years in a jungle can erase much evidence of bodies.

The above are a few things I look to in order to explain the absence of finding bodies on some hill somewhere. I do not see why a neutral observer would find the above a win for the LDS apologists. I think it turns a strong negative into a much less strong negative.

When I look at Don Bradley’s response to Nahom, I think he turns a strong positive into a less strong positive. When I look at the evidences and the problems with their responses, I think the supernatural explanation is stronger on the whole than the naturalistic explanation. So I intellectually believe the BOM is what it says it is.

I however can acknowledge that there are big problems. LDS apologists have addressed virtually every problem proposed. Some things I think are so effectively addressed they become positives for the BOM (Christianity in 600BC). Some things are merely mitigated some or a lot.

I have actually questioned the veracity of the CoJCoLDS. I looked to the Catholic Church as the solution if the CoJCoLDS was false. I felt that my intellect directed me to the CoJCoLDS, but I realized (and I still believe) that it is impossible to completely rule out the Catholic Church (there are no “fatal flaws.”)

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:
Coincidentally…What IS your belief regarding the LDS church? Do you believe it to be THE true church of Jesus? Or do you believe it is simply the best option out there?

To answer this I must depart from logic. Logic tells me that it is the best option. My spiritual witness tells me that is the one true church for me. I have never received some kind of spiritual witness that tells me that the spiritual witnesses of others are false, from the devil, or …

I wonder sometimes what sort of spiritual communication God provides to folks who are willing to tell me that my spiritual witness is of the devil. Are they willing to make greater leaps from what God has communicated to them than I am from what He has communicated to me?

Or do they receive substantively different communication. If this is the case, why?

I do not have the answers to these questions.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

While they didn’t ever exactly admit they had lied, who would?, one has to wonder why if they really saw them they would have left Smith.

One would wonder why Judas Iscariot left Jesus Christ if he really saw all those miracles it seems he should have seen had he been a disciple.

Faith is a spiritual thing.

Charity, TOm

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

Did you read what the Atheist had to say. It was their position that Homer’s work was much more than a story of fiction to the Greek Pagan’s. I do not really think this has much to do with the historicity of the BOM, but I do think it points to the unsoundness of saying that the Bible is the word of God because it is historical.

Charity, TOm

No I did not read what the Atheist had to say. However, I contend that the Atheist is in error if he/she believes that Homer’s work was seen in the same light as the Judeo-Christian manuscripts that make up the Bible.

I do agree with the comparisons and conclusions that you are drawing when you rely upon the statement of someone who claims not to believe in God, especially one who does not appear to have a knowledge of the ancient Greek way of life.

It is the Scripture, that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that in fact support the existence of the ancient pagan mythology. The Scripture mentions some of these gods and goddesses by name: Astarte and Diana get a special mention. St. Paul spoke about the temples to all the Greek gods that he saw in Athens and he acknowledged that the Greeks also acknowledged the “Unknown God”, the One that St. Paul declared is Christ. What is true is that the authors of the Scripture wrote against the pagan gods as they pointed out how these gods were in fact an imitation of man. They myths regarding these gods existed in the minds of the pagans such that the stories about their gods echoed their own pagan behaviour, thus reinforcing that kind of behaviour. St. Paul spoke against these very pagan practices.

Homer’s work was not held up to be Scripture to the pagans. That seems to be some modern idea that is not supported by the facts of ancient history. If it were true then one would also see evidence of something similar in other ancient civilizations. The evidence does not exist.

When Alexander the Great marched into Asia and the Middle East he was met by the high priest from Jerusalem. As a result of that meeting, Jerusalem was spared from being invaded. It was only after the death of Alexander that despair came upon the Hebrew people once again. The story regarding that period can be read in the Books of the Maccabees. The abomination was the setting up in the Temple, a statue of Jupiter. Ptolemy invited the priests of Judah to come to Alexandria in order to translate into Greek the Torah, and the other religious manuscripts. This showed the high regard that the Greeks had for these sacred writings. As far as I am aware they did not attempt to force the stories from the Illiad and the Odyssey onto other nations as though they were “sacred”.

There is simply no parellel in the ancient world to the ancient manuscripts that make up the Old Testament of the Bible. These manuscripts plus the manuscripts of the New Testament gives us the whole collection that is the revealed Word of God.

On the other hand the BOM does not have anything that can concretely tie the “writings” to any ancient nation. There is no support in the Americas and more so there is no support in the ancient lands of the Middle East. There are no tribes with the names of tribes as mentioned by Joseph Smith, and this only adds yet another reason to reject as a forgery the writings of Joseph Smith.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

One would wonder why Judas Iscariot left Jesus Christ if he really saw all those miracles it seems he should have seen had he been a disciple.

Faith is a spiritual thing.

Charity, TOm

It is true that it is hard to understand why Judas Iscariot chose to turn his back upon what he had witnessed. However, it is in fact quite easy to explain why Judas became the one who betrayed Jesus.

First of all, there had to be one amongst the Apostles who would betray Jesus because this was a prophecy of Scripture that had to be fulfilled. Second, one has to understand the mindset of the Jew at this time and also a continuing mindset of the Jews until this day i.e. the understanding that the Jews have about who the Messiah will be. What was expected at the time was a man who would be a king, who would take back the throne from Herod’s family, and who would be a warrior king leading the Jews once more into battle against their oppressive invaders (the Romans). Third, there are at least two hints in the Scripture about the mindset of Judas that require careful reading - (a) there was a plot to seize and make Jesus king against his will. Judas was a part of that plot; (b) since Judas believed, as Jews continue to believe that the Messiah would lead the Jews into battle, he saw himself in an exalted role, and when he saw that his plans were not going to happen, then he took it upon himself to bring about the destruction of the ministry of Jesus; (c) Judas was a thief, and if he sinned in this way, then it is more than likely that he committed other sins despite the fact that he was an Apostle; (d) we do not know for sure at what stage Judas began his betrayal against Jesus, we only know of his final betrayal. How do you think that the Pharisees seemed to be so well informed about the movements of Jesus throughout the Middle East?

It was not a matter of faith for Judas. It was a matter of his own greed and his own desire to be important. Judas believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but he could not comprehend why Jesus did not do things according to “plan”, even though Jesus did fullfil the Scripture.

MaggieOH

 

[TOmNossor]

MaggieOH,

Thank you for your comments. It is my opinion that your comments betray a difference in the degree of skepticism you apply to religious structures you embrace and religious structures you do not embrace. This of course is only my opinion and you make good points.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

mormon fool:

Well those admissions only come from the 3 witnesses that saw an angel along with the plates. Notably this line of skepticism can not also be applied to the 8 who had a more natural viewing.

But let’s continue this line of skepticism. The 3 could have seen the plates in a hypnotic or mystical trance. One problem with this is that the witnesses affirm a lot of the same, vivid details even after they separate. There has been a lot of recent discussion along these lines presented by critic Dan Vogel on the FAIR boards, if some one wants to follow a current debate on this.

A possible explanation that the plates were only seen with spiritual eyes comes from the obvious observation that humans seeing angels is not natural. Conditions have to change from physical to spiritual to see spiritual things. Consider a passage of LDS scripture:

“All spirit is matter, but more fine and pure , and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 130:7-8)

Three out of the 11 were. Five were from the Whitmer family and two married into the Whitmer family.

5 stayed in the Mormon church until death, two left and came back, and even the other four never denied their witness of the plates. Which strengthens the credibility of their testimonies in my view.

They not only didn’t admit to lying, but they continued to re-affirm their statements. They had reputations of being honest citizens. The ones that left believed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. All of them continued to believe and promote the Book the Mormon. The real question is why did they continue to believe the Book of Mormon after they left Smith? The answer is they must have really saw something!

Mormon,
I suggest No Man Knows My History by Brodie. Quoting Mormon scripture, the very scripture that is in dispute, is not really helpful. The interrelationship of the “witnesses” would cause problems in any court. It raises serious doubts. The ones who left did not deny their “witness”. Why? Because most people don’t want to admit they had lied. If they believed in the BOM then why leave Smith? It would be like believing the Bible, but then renouncing Jesus Christ. Does that make any sense?

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

It would be like believing the Bible, but then renouncing Jesus Christ. Does that make any sense?

Actually, your parallel is very flawed.

The Bible is a book about Jesus Christ. The BOM is not a book about Joseph Smith. Instead the BOM is a book delivered to the world by Joseph Smith.

I think you and I both agree that it was the Catholic Church that delivered the Bible to the world. So the proper parallel would be, “It would be like believing the Bible, but then renouncing the Catholic Church.”

This seems to be a pretty common thing in this world.

While I would suggest like you probably do that to call the Bible inerrant and reject the Catholic Church is a hard road to defend, there are many intelligent honest folks who do.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

To answer this I must depart from logic. Logic tells me that it is the best option. My spiritual witness tells me that is the one true church for me. I have never received some kind of spiritual witness that tells me that the spiritual witnesses of others are false, from the devil, or …

I wonder sometimes what sort of spiritual communication God provides to folks who are willing to tell me that my spiritual witness is of the devil. Are they willing to make greater leaps from what God has communicated to them than I am from what He has communicated to me?

Or do they receive substantively different communication. If this is the case, why?

Well, while some people may simply rely on pure logic, I am not one. So your departing from logic doesn’t bother me all that much. Now if that departure from logic was your ONLY reason/proof, that would be another story…

So if I can paraphrase/recap…You believe the LDS church is the one church for you, but maybe not for everyone. Did I get that right?

Well I obviously do not agree with you that the LDS church is the right church, but am not so “hardcore” as to say that your spiritual experience is of the devil. I do know that there can be a psychosomatic response, where your brain thinks it’s supposed to think something or experience something and so it creates that “thing”. For example…the burning in the bosum. It’s possible that a person thinks they’re supposed to have that, so their brain tells their body to have it. Not that this is limited to this situation, it happens in all kinds of situations. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that is what you have/had. I’m saying it is possible, as it’s possible in lots of situations. Happens all the time in medical research especially.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I think you and I both agree that it was the Catholic Church that delivered the Bible to the world. So the proper parallel would be, “It would be like believing the Bible, but then renouncing the Catholic Church.”

THANK YOU! It is SO nice to hear a non-Catholic say this! So few acknowledge which church created/compiled the Bible.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Well, while some people may simply rely on pure logic, I am not one. So your departing from logic doesn’t bother me all that much. Now if that departure from logic was your ONLY reason/proof, that would be another story…

So if I can paraphrase/recap…You believe the LDS church is the one church for you, but maybe not for everyone. Did I get that right?

Well I obviously do not agree with you that the LDS church is the right church, but am not so “hardcore” as to say that your spiritual experience is of the devil. I do know that there can be a psychosomatic response, where your brain thinks it’s supposed to think something or experience something and so it creates that “thing”. For example…the burning in the bosum. It’s possible that a person thinks they’re supposed to have that, so their brain tells their body to have it. Not that this is limited to this situation, it happens in all kinds of situations. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that is what you have/had. I’m saying it is possible, as it’s possible in lots of situations. Happens all the time in medical research especially.

Tkdnick:

So if I can paraphrase/recap…You believe the LDS church is the one church for you, but maybe not for everyone. Did I get that right?

TOm:

Close enough. I would rather say that every part of me demands that the CoJCoLDS is the church God has prepared for me (or me for it or something). I can not approach what is right for others with near so much certainty.

The concept of the “invisible church” is easier to embrace from a LDS framework than from a Catholic framework. This is a possible explanation. The post mortal uniting with the CoJCoLDS is a possible explanation. The individual needs met better within some earthly churches together with invisible or post-mortal uniting is a possible explanation. And of course since I do not know anyone as I know myself, it is also not impossible that they are choosing less optimal paths (But the understanding I have of the God and His gospel tells me that sincere followers of God will be right with Him even if it is a less optimal path they walk. After all we are all hypocrites. None of us do as we believe).

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Close enough. I would rather say that every part of me demands that the CoJCoLDS is the church God has prepared for me (or me for it or something). I can not approach what is right for others with near so much certainty.

The concept of the “invisible church” is easier to embrace from a LDS framework than from a Catholic framework. This is a possible explanation. The post mortal uniting with the CoJCoLDS is a possible explanation. The individual needs met better within some earthly churches together with invisible or post-mortal uniting is a possible explanation. And of course since I do not know anyone as I know myself, it is also not impossible that they are choosing less optimal paths (But the understanding I have of the God and His gospel tells me that sincere followers of God will be right with Him even if it is a less optimal path they walk. After all we are all hypocrites. None of us do as we believe).

Thanks.

 

[oat_soda]

TOm, the issue with your religion is that it claims to be “christian”. if john smith came up with a totally new religion by revelation from a divine being, then this would be a different problem.

if you look into church history, you find out there were always heresies. in fact, Jesus did say that many will come in my name saying i am he and in galicians it says that even if an angel comes with a different gospel, let him be an anathema. for instance, arianism was refuted by appealing to tradition, or what the church has always and everywhere believed which can be shown to have been handed down by a succession of bishops to the apostles and Jesus himself. without this way of discernment, it is impossible to say you are following the way Christ wanted. without tradition, anyone could say they have new revelation.

now, you don’t hold this criteria to mormonism because you believe revelation has continued up to today. the problem is your faith is based on in some part to historical christian beliefs and practices, such as the bible. if you consider yourself christian or at least related to christianity you are automatically subjecting your faith to historical scrutiny and investigation because mormonism doesn’t claim to be entirely new. it defines itself on christianity’s apostasy and its later restoration according to joe smith’s revelation from an angel.

you have failed to show any serious evidence that supports the claims of mormonism. the fact is there is absolutely NO historical evidence which supports anything in the BOM. this is why your faith should be rejected. it inherently contradicts itself by on one hand saying that it is the true historical christianity and on the other hand refusing to hold your beliefs to the historical record. Mormonism objective truth is BASED ON FEELINGS and is therefore an irrational fantasy.