Christians and L.D.S.- given the cite provided, how can anyone throw stones??

[Cartooniverse]

Jesus died in 33 C.E. And, according to this document (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html)

It is no accident that, in about 180, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, could already speak clearly and definitively about the fourfold Gospel, specifically citing those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He does so as he is opposing things he deems heretical. Thus, already in the second century, he has a strong sense of what amounts to orthodoxy when it comes to the story of Jesus.

Even before Irenaeus, from the middle of the second century, we have the witness of Justin Martyr, the great opponent of Marcion and his aberrations. In his Dialogue with Trypho (160), he calls the canonical Gospels "the reminiscences" of the apostles and says they were read and used in worship in his day. Nothing comparable is said about any other gospels, not even the Gospel of Thomas.

We can say without hesitation that various books that were to become part of the New Testament were already seen and used as authoritative and acceptable in the second century in various parts of the church, both Eastern and Western—and that their listing as authoritative in the early fourth century was without serious debate.

Let us say this is entirely accurate, and true. (Not always the same thing). If we presume accuracy and truth, then 127 years after the death of Jesus the four Gospels were already being regarded as canon.

Let's zip ahead oh, say, one thousand seven hundred years. Now, it's 1823 C.E. According to L.D.S. official historical website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_hist.htm)

In 1823, at the age of 17, he received three visitations from Moroni (some texts say Nephi) at the time of the Autumn Equinox. The angel revealed to Joseph the location of golden tablets on which was written the history of two early American tribes. He went to the site and found:
A breastplate, such as might have been worn by an ancient Israelite.
Golden plates upon which ancient American authors Ether, Mormon, Lehi and Nephi had recorded additions to Biblical history
The Urim and Thummim. These were two "stones in silver bows" which appear in Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6 of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were apparently devices (perhaps in the form of flat stones) that the high priest consulted to determine the will of God. They might have worked something like a pair of dice. Smith claimed that through the stones "and by the gift and power of God" he was able to translate the unknown script on the golden plates into English
Brass plates upon which another author, Laban, had quoted from Hebrew Scriptures and recorded genealogies.

That was 1823. Lets jump ahead 127 years. That'd make it 1950. Now let's give ourselves another 56 years of historical perspective. In the time of the 3rd century C.E., the four Gospels were not only seen as canon, but were/ had become the basis of Christianity and accepted as the word of God, as written by four men.

Why is it that in the 21st century, roughly 183 years after Joseph Smith had his revelations, that there is such a bitter dispute? Have Christians absolutely no sense of their own history? Why is it that the idea that slowly taking 100 or 300 years to accept writings as canon and the word of God works for ancient history, but as a more modern event that entire concept is regarded as heresey and worse?

I wasn't raised a Christian but I would love to hear from scholars within both churces. Why are the four Gospels defendable as canon / word of God, but a similar series of revelations and transcriptions are derided in the extreme by ( some ) Christians?

Who can say which is a true word, total fiction, acceptable historical writings or a synthesis of those concepts?

Cartooniverse

[tomndebb]

Well, by definition, the canon includes those works accepted by the believers as true. Introducing new books after more than a millennium and a half is going to raise the hackles of people who think the canon has already been defined. To the extent that the new books disagree with the old books, adherents of the old books are going to condemn the new books as spurious.

(I am not even going to get into other aspects of the discussion, since the question posed simply asks a "why" regarding acceptanceof a book into the cannon.)

Beyond that, some Christians have shaped their own view of the development of the canon to support their own theology. If they have invested a lot of emotional energy in believing that the gopels were written by God holding the quills of the evangelists while they inscribed His Word, then texts that differ will be seen by that group as even more loathesome.

[Menocchio]

Well, the Gospels, at least, take place in a verifiable historical context. That is, we know that the Jews were in Palestine at the time when they supposedly took place. We can even indenpendently verify the existance of some of the characters! You can't say the same thing about Smith's revelations.

There's also the fact that the LDS books didn't surface until nearly 2000 years after the events, while, as you stipulate above, the orthodox gospels appear much earlier. It's not hard proof, but it makes them easier to swallow, IMHO.

[tomndebb]

To note a fairly pertinent analogy, the "new" books that have been accepted by Christians as "new revelation" have not been embraced by Jews who hold to their own, older canon.

[cosmosdan]

I was a member of RLDS many years ago and we also held not only the Book of Mormon but the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. {LDS do also} The Doctrine and Covenants is newer revelations given through the prophet of the church and prayed about and accepted by the church as a whole at world conference.

What occurred to me at the time is that if God gave revelation to men through the Holy Spirit in ancient times that became scripture why wouldn't we expect God to continue to give revelations to men in the same way. I wondered, is there anything to indicate that it was God's plan that we have a certain collection of books and that would be the end. The answer is No, nothing indicates certain books would be the the complete and final written revelation of God to man.

Fast forward a couple of decades plus. My beliefs have changed and I've learned a lot more about Christian history, revelation and scripture. Turns out there's nothing to indicate it was God's plan that any book or writing be considered sacred. That's man's idea.

The idea that the Bible is the complete and final collection is simply a tradition held by many Christians and passed down from generation to generation. Although many people have come to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture as well the book is a couple of thousand years behind in momentum for being accepted as sacred writing. I doubt that it will ever gain as wide spread acceptance as the Bible has.

It's tradition plain and simple.

This thread relates to another thread discussing other ancient manuscripts from early Christianity. Other gospels that won't be canonized either.

Also related is there is evidence that J Smith created his vision story and the BOM was compiled by him from other sources available to him, not given to him by an Angel. That might effect it's canonization as well.

[Miller]

I don't see what's so persuasive about those cites. Sure, you found two guys who, way back then, believed that the New Testament should consist of only those four gospels. These guys are remembered and revered because their viewpoint won out in the end. That doesn't mean that there weren't ten times as many people back then who believed that the New Testament should consist of an entirely different set of books.

[Wendell Wagner]

Cartooniverse writes:

> Jesus died in 33 C.E.

More commonly, it's argued that the year was 30 C.E.

[Cartooniverse]

Wendell, I sit corrected. Sorry.

Miller, in a way that is my point. Validation through age alone is hard to swallow. That old chestnut- bury a commonplace item and dig it up in 10,000 years and it's revered as an important artifact. What if there were ten times the number of folks who advocated for a different set of Gospels, or an expanded set beyond that four. Then what? I am aware that advocating a point of view in 160 C.E. was a different proceedure than it is in 2006 in a modern democracy. Still and all, it's fascinating that there are other gospels, other bibles ( the Gnostic one, amongst others ) that are very much fringe element texts. As you say, ten times as many folks may have wanted another set to become canon- but the people in power at the time promoted an agenda that best served their needs. ( No different than today, of course. )

tomndebb, I agree with what you say. Jews really aren't in the business of embracing any new testament writings, though. The Torah and Haf-Torah are pretty much it. ( Not counting a gargantuan amount of Talmudic writings ). I was asking, as the OP states, why is it okay to vilify a 160-odd year old testament, when it's not okay to do so with a testament that was carefully assembled 100-300 years after the death of Jesus? ( In no way am I trying to besmirch people's faith in EITHER testament, I am questioning why one set of canon is rejected so heavily, and if it is just the passage of time that defines the difference.)

Menocchio, you said they took place in a verifiable historical context. I would debate that. Define verifiable- anyone writing down a history of events has a skew, a point of view. It is not unreasonable to think that written histories of 100-300 C.E. that focus in on that part of history, and that area of the world, were written by people happy to promote the point of view that the four gospels have been accepted as the only true words. Again, no offense intended- but verifiable? We have to look no further than Russian history to see what that means. Or, as they called it when I was in school, Russian Revisionist History- " Trotsky? What Trotsky?? We know of no Trotsky". People write what serves their interests at the moment, and frequently those histories can be called into question later on. Now, I do believe the cite I provided- that there was an agenda being put forth by people between 160 C.E. and 300 C.E. to formalize the writings and in a way, insulate the newly fashion Christian faith from any other writings. There were to be the four Gospels, period. It is not some loathsome concept, it is how things are done. No question.

However, I am questioning the creation of a sense of validity solely by the passage of years, compared to the L.D.S. doctrines and their origination. We can look back 2,000 years and find a variet of religions and faiths. We can look back 1,000 years and see some too. Not just Jews, Christians or Moslems. What about Wots, Celts, all of Asia and it's religions, Mayans, Incas, Inuit and so on. The patina of history has validated those religions, which is why I wonder how the world's fastest-growing religion will be percieved 300 years from now.

[Antinor01]

Menocchio, you said they took place in a verifiable historical context. I would debate that. Define verifiable- anyone writing down a history of events has a skew, a point of view. It is not unreasonable to think that written histories of 100-300 C.E. that focus in on that part of history, and that area of the world, were written by people happy to promote the point of view that the four gospels have been accepted as the only true words. Again, no offense intended- but verifiable? We have to look no further than Russian history to see what that means. Or, as they called it when I was in school, Russian Revisionist History- " Trotsky? What Trotsky?? We know of no Trotsky". People write what serves their interests at the moment, and frequently those histories can be called into question later on. Now, I do believe the cite I provided- that there was an agenda being put forth by people between 160 C.E. and 300 C.E. to formalize the writings and in a way, insulate the newly fashion Christian faith from any other writings. There were to be the four Gospels, period. It is not some loathsome concept, it is how things are done. No question.

It sounds like his point was more that we know that there were jews in that area of the world at that time. We know from other sources that a number of the people mentioned in the texts did actually exist. Not that the events described took place exactly in the way the bible says, but that it's plausible from a historical perspective.

The events described in the BOM lack that outside verification.

[Menocchio]

Menocchio, you said they took place in a verifiable historical context. I would debate that. Define verifiable- anyone writing down a history of events has a skew, a point of view. It is not unreasonable to think that written histories of 100-300 C.E. that focus in on that part of history, and that area of the world, were written by people happy to promote the point of view that the four gospels have been accepted as the only true words.

Wait, are we misunderstanding each other, or are you suggesting that there may not have been Jews and Romans in 1st century AD Judea? That the early Christians forged earlier Pagan Roman and Greek accounts of the area, and that they got the Jews to play along? Even among themselves?

I'm not saying that there's independent proof of the life of Christ (there isn't really, and there would be if there was a conspiracy to alter history to support the gospels), but we know that the Jews and Romans were real and present in that time and place. We're even pretty sure about characters such as Herod and Pilate (do we know if any of the apostles are real? I think we do, but I may be mistaken).

In contrast, we cannot prove that the tribes mentioned in LDS holy text ever existed. In fact, most current studies suggest they aren't. Because we know the general setting of the Canonical gospels to be accurate, it gives the works some authenticity the LDS works lack.

[dangermom]

... I wonder how the world's fastest-growing religion will be percieved 300 years from now.
Just for accuracy, we're not the fastest-growing church around. I think the JWs and Pentecostals and SDAs are all ahead of the LDS Church. IIRC, we come in around #5.

Otherwise I have not got much to add to this thread so far!

[JThunder]

(do we know if any of the apostles are real? I think we do, but I may be mistaken).
Even the most hardened skeptics and liberal historians generally acknowledge that the Apostles existed. This includes Paul, who is described as an Apostle even though he was not one of the original twelve.

[OneCentStamp]

According to L.D.S. official historical website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_hist.htm)


Sorry, but that is NOT an official website of the LDS Church. They're relatively even-handed in their treatment of the subject, but factually inaccurate in several key places:

1) The brass plates were not among the things Joseph Smith was purportedly shown by the angel.

2) "They may have worked like a pair of dice?!?" Come on. Joseph Smith's own writings are vague on the subject, but there's nothing in them AFAIK to support such conjecture.

~ Ben
Non-bitter ex-Mormon

[Whack-a-Mole]

Sure, you found two guys who, way back then, believed that the New Testament should consist of only those four gospels. These guys are remembered and revered because their viewpoint won out in the end.

More true than you may know. The Gospel of Judas has recently come to light and it seems Bishop Irenaeus decided that it should not be included among the gospels.

A "Gospel of Judas" was first mentioned around 180 A.D. by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as heresy because it differed from mainstream Christianity. The actual text had been thought lost until this discovery.

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/

[Voyager]

I'm not sure I get the point of the OP. The canonization of the Gospels was done by believers in Christianity, as was the canonization of the Book of Mormon. LDS, being better organized, did not have a bunch of conflicting works to sort through (though I'm not an expert in LDS history, so correct me if I'm wrong.) The spread of Christianity to pagans had little to do with the content of the NT.

As for historical accuracy, perhaps Jews at the time you're speaking of still remembered there were no odd earthquakes in Jerusalem, no census, and no miracles to the best of anyone's recollection. If religious works got accepted or rejected based on proven historical accuracy, the canon would be a bit sparse.

Who should be doing or accepting what? That's what I don't get.

[CalMeacham]

2) "They may have worked like a pair of dice?!?" Come on. Joseph Smith's own writings are vague on the subject, but there's nothing in them AFAIK to support such conjecture.



I assume this is referring to the Umim and Thumim, and your statement about them as referred to in LDS scripture is, I think correct. But the Urim and Thumim referred to in the canonical Old Testament (are they supposed to be the same? I confess I don't know) have, it has been conjectured, been used as devices to make decisions by lot. I don't recall where I read this -- Asimov's Guide to the Bible, perhaps, or Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (neither of which is a scholarly source on the OT, but which quote reputable sources) -- I think. The suggestion was that "Urim" and "Thumim" might come from words meaning something like "Light" and "Darkness", and that the priest asked a Yes-or-No question and reached into the bag containing them, and the color of the stone retrieved would determine their course of action depending upon which stione he drew. This being from the days before the formulation of mathematical ideas of chance (so goes the reasoning), the choice must therefore have been decreed by God.


It's a plasusible enough theory for the Old Testament U and T. But I agree that nothing I've seen in LDS scripture or commentary suggests this interpretation. Some old writings suggest that the Urim and Thumim were like a pair of spectacles, and old Church Art I've seen in the Museum across from Temple Square does ndeed depict them that way.

[smiling bandit]

I suppose I ought to mention the Catholic/Orthodox view concerning the texts...

We picked them out. Specifically, church elders looked at all of the gospels and texts and prayed and considered each one. Then they chose the ones they felt were correct and truthful. There were specific and concrete theological reasons they denied the accuracy of the others.

[Cartooniverse]

Wait, are we misunderstanding each other, or are you suggesting that there may not have been Jews and Romans in 1st century AD Judea? That the early Christians forged earlier Pagan Roman and Greek accounts of the area, and that they got the Jews to play along? Even among themselves?.

Oh gosh no. We misunderstood each other. I wasn't trying to say anything of the kind. My last name is one of the 12 Tribes of Israel- I know full well who was around back then !!

[cosmosdan]

I suppose I ought to mention the Catholic/Orthodox view concerning the texts...

We picked them out. Specifically, church elders looked at all of the gospels and texts and prayed and considered each one. Then they chose the ones they felt were correct and truthful. There were specific and concrete theological reasons they denied the accuracy of the others.

Where did you get this information? As I understand it the process took place over a number of years with many of the books being considered scripture for generations before officially canonized.

I am sure some books were rejected not because of a lack of authenticity but because of a disagreement with the theology of the winners of the power struggle.

That's also why some of the text was changed in the copying process. If wording it differently supports the theology we like then change the words and call it translation.

[Sampiro]

Oh gosh no. We misunderstood each other. I wasn't trying to say anything of the kind. My last name is one of the 12 Tribes of Israel- I know full well who was around back then !!

Billy Vern Issachar is that you? Damn son, how you been? (And you still have my Trapper Keeper.)

[yBeayf]

Where did you get this information? As I understand it the process took place over a number of years with many of the books being considered scripture for generations before officially canonized.
It's common knowledge among anyone with a passing familiarity with how the present canon was established. The picking of the correct texts tooks place over many years, but essentially, if a book agreed with the faith, it was accepted; if a book disagreed with the faith, or wasn't widely known, or was known to be spurious, it was either rejected or failed to be widely accepted.

[cosmosdan]

It's common knowledge among anyone with a passing familiarity with how the present canon was established. The picking of the correct texts tooks place over many years, but essentially, if a book agreed with the faith, it was accepted; if a book disagreed with the faith, or wasn't widely known, or was known to be spurious, it was either rejected or failed to be widely accepted.

Uh huh Thats what I said. That isn't what smiling bandit said, which is who I posed the question to.

[yBeayf]

Uh huh Thats what I said. That isn't what smiling bandit said, which is who I posed the question to.
What is different about what you and I said and what he said?

[cosmosdan]

What is different about what you and I said and what he said?

Originally Posted by smiling bandit
I suppose I ought to mention the Catholic/Orthodox view concerning the texts...

We picked them out. Specifically, church elders looked at all of the gospels and texts and prayed and considered each one. Then they chose the ones they felt were correct and truthful. There were specific and concrete theological reasons they denied the accuracy of the others.

I may be reading it wrong but this seems as if it's describing an event rather than a process that took place over a period of years. In rereading it I see it could be either. I also realize that the Orthodox view is somewhat softened from actual events. Kinda like our history books.

[Cartooniverse]

Billy Vern Issachar is that you? Damn son, how you been? (And you still have my Trapper Keeper.)

<----laughing. Ahhh, how easy a tastk it would be to screw with you. No, that is not my name but right now I wish it were !!!! :D :D :D ( what is a Trapper Keeper? )

Indeed, from the little I have read, it was a process of "translation" ( revising, which is not unique to the story of Christianity of course ), and a lot of decades/centuries of sifting through various Gospels and accountings.

To me as a non-believer, it is a fascinating process to think about which is why I asked about the newness ( and seemingly huge rejection ) of LDS doctrine by non-LDS members. The process of examining and either accepting as canon or rejecting as non-canon was the reason for my O.P.

What a week to be pondering this. The next eight days are heavy hitting ones for Jews and Christians worldwide.

[smiling bandit]

I may be reading it wrong but this seems as if it's describing an event rather than a process that took place over a period of years. In rereading it I see it could be either. I also realize that the Orthodox view is somewhat softened from actual events. Kinda like our history books.

The fact that it didn't take place in one afternoon's teatime doesn't mean it didn't happen as I described. generally, the older texts, closer to the actual events, were accepted. Newer texts (including Gnostic texts) were often deemed fakes and, as they disagreed with the theology everyone thought rational and spiritually accurate, were discarded (actually, had generally not been picked up in the first place).

[Cardinal]

The L.A. Times just about a month ago had an article about how in addition to the archeological, linguistic, anthropological evidence, we now have DNA evidence that says, "Hey, those New World natives are Central Asians." This has caused a major problem for the LDS church, as the entire point of the Book of Mormon is that the American Indians are Jews.

This all as opposed to the fact that Herod, Pilate, Roman prefects in the gospels, the Hittites, Jericho, and others I can't think of have been found in digs. Heck, the family crypt of Caiaphas (high priest who tried Jesus) was found in the early 90s.

[cosmosdan]

The fact that it didn't take place in one afternoon's teatime doesn't mean it didn't happen as I described. generally, the older texts, closer to the actual events, were accepted. Newer texts (including Gnostic texts) were often deemed fakes and, as they disagreed with the theology everyone thought rational and spiritually accurate, were discarded (actually, had generally not been picked up in the first place).

I think the point is that not everyone agreed on what was rational, spiritually accurate, or theologically correct. Not everyone agreed on what Jesus actually taught or what his teachings meant. It's 2000 years later and it's pretty much the same today. There's just more people who don't agree.
There's no way to know if the people who declared certain books cannon and decided what theology would become "official" Christianity {which meant government sanctioned} were the ones who were closest to what Christ taught. The books were chosen not because they agreed with Jesus teachings but because they agreed with the theology of those doing the choosing. Men!
Having been declared sacred in such a manner there's no way of knowing if the teachings of Jesus were better represented in the books we are familiar with or the books discovered since then such as the gospel of Thomas or Judas.

Christian tradition is just that , tradition. Nothing wrong with it until people confuse tradition with the truth. The concept that the "true" church or "true" Christianity continued from Jesus death until now in the form of "official" Christianity is just a nice tradition. There really isn't much solid evidence to suggest that's true. There is however evidence to the contrary.

[Cartooniverse]

Women !
:)

Agreed. If 2,000 years ( give or take 24 years ) has given the chosen Gospels the patina of truth, well....

As Cardinal ( great member name for this thread ) pointed out, all of those folks existed 2,000 years ago- but what has been written is clearly not 100 % accurate. How could it be? Do we truly think that the written accounts of the details of the American Revolutionary War are 100% accurate, without any bias or alteration by the authors of such texts? Please.

You said the L.D.S. Church has a major problem now that D.N.A. evidence is being offered. Cite, please? I was unsure from your wording if you were saying that you felt they had a problem, or if the Church had made public statements to that effect, subsequent to the release of D.N.A. evidence linking Early North American peoples to Asia.

As I said in my OP, I'm not attacking OR supporting either gospel. The point was to ask if it is just the passage of time that has given a certain "heft" to the Gospels, and if 2,000 years the L.D.S. BOM might well be given identical "heft" ( i.e., spiritual respect ).

Herod? Lived. Jesus? Lived. Ciaphus? Lived. Judas? Lived, I am guessing. Did they all do as written? Did Jesus Christ rise from the grave after three days and Ascend? -shrug- show me a scrap of vellum that is an eyewitness report and I'll show you eyewitness reports claiming that huge bombs brought down the World Trade Centers. The pertinent folk existed, no doubt- but it takes the leap of faith that's well outside of this thread, to define the veracity of the Gospels as Truth.

If we can accept that idea in this thread, at least for the sake of argument, then the matter of D.N.A. is irrelevant, is it not?

[cosmosdan]

Women !
:)

Agreed. If 2,000 years ( give or take 24 years ) has given the chosen Gospels the patina of truth, well....

As Cardinal ( great member name for this thread ) pointed out, all of those folks existed 2,000 years ago- but what has been written is clearly not 100 % accurate. How could it be? Do we truly think that the written accounts of the details of the American Revolutionary War are 100% accurate, without any bias or alteration by the authors of such texts? Please.

You said the L.D.S. Church has a major problem now that D.N.A. evidence is being offered. Cite, please? I was unsure from your wording if you were saying that you felt they had a problem, or if the Church had made public statements to that effect, subsequent to the release of D.N.A. evidence linking Early North American peoples to Asia.

As I said in my OP, I'm not attacking OR supporting either gospel. The point was to ask if it is just the passage of time that has given a certain "heft" to the Gospels, and if 2,000 years the L.D.S. BOM might well be given identical "heft" ( i.e., spiritual respect ).

Herod? Lived. Jesus? Lived. Ciaphus? Lived. Judas? Lived, I am guessing. Did they all do as written? Did Jesus Christ rise from the grave after three days and Ascend? -shrug- show me a scrap of vellum that is an eyewitness report and I'll show you eyewitness reports claiming that huge bombs brought down the World Trade Centers. The pertinent folk existed, no doubt- but it takes the leap of faith that's well outside of this thread, to define the veracity of the Gospels as Truth.

If we can accept that idea in this thread, at least for the sake of argument, then the matter of D.N.A. is irrelevant, is it not?


I think it is much more likely, given the scholastic and archaeological evidence available now and is yet to be discovered, that neither the Bible or Book of Mormon will be seen as sacred inerrant scripture. But rather historically and religiously significant books written by men. In that sense they might have similar heft.

[Atticus Finch]

Herod? Lived. Jesus? Lived. Ciaphus? Lived. Judas? Lived, I am guessing ... The pertinent folk existed, no doubt...Various Herods lived, yes, but there's not a scrap of evidence outside of religious doctrine for the existence of the others till nearly a century after they're supposed to have lived, and then only a few dubious sources for Jesus. I'm guessing Ciaphus = Kephas = Peter.

[TokyoBayer]

I'm not sure I get the point of the OP.That's the only statement I can understand in this thread. What is the point of the OP?

Many, if not most religions are founded by people who claim a new revelation from a god who tells something different from the existing thoughts. It's accepted or not and it continues or not. Time doesn't help, either the newness or the longevity.

LDS, being better organized, did not have a bunch of conflicting works to sort through (though I'm not an expert in LDS history, so correct me if I'm wrong.).Fair enough, since no one else is stepping up, I'll take the honors.

Mormons are just better organized at not letting airing the dirt out in public. The great Prophet, Brigham Young, the second leader of the Church and the man who took control in the chaos after the founder, Joseph Smith was killed, became convinced that Adam was God, Himself. This theory has been quietly laid to rest by the subsequent Church leadership, but this is as radical of a conflict as anything which early Christianity has to offer.

FWIW, Mormonism can't throw stones either. The Doctrine and Covenants, a record of God's constant revelations ends with Joseph Smith. There really isn't an explanation of why God would talk to the first Prophet so much and then ignore the rest.

[CalMeacham]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse
Herod? Lived. Jesus? Lived. Ciaphus? Lived. Judas? Lived, I am guessing ... The pertinent folk existed, no doubt...

Various Herods lived, yes, but there's not a scrap of evidence outside of religious doctrine for the existence of the others till nearly a century after they're supposed to have lived, and then only a few dubious sources for Jesus. I'm guessing Ciaphus = Kephas = Peter.

"Ciaphus" is obviously "Caiaphas", high priest of Jerusalem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas

[Reloy3]

Mormons are just better organized at not letting airing the dirt out in public. The great Prophet, Brigham Young, the second leader of the Church and the man who took control in the chaos after the founder, Joseph Smith was killed, became convinced that Adam was God, Himself. This theory has been quietly laid to rest by the subsequent Church leadership, but this is as radical of a conflict as anything which early Christianity has to offer.

FWIW, Mormonism can't throw stones either. The Doctrine and Covenants, a record of God's constant revelations ends with Joseph Smith. There really isn't an explanation of why God would talk to the first Prophet so much and then ignore the rest.


Shoot, TokyoPlayer, we know you are not a fan of the Mormon Church, but for someone who says he has a background as a former active member, a full-time missionary no less, you seem to make a lot of basic mistakes. The Adam-God theory was labelled as a theory by Brigham Young himself. He said he was just speculating. Honestly, a few of your post seem like they are lifted right off of some "Evangelicals want to save Mormons from going to Hell" website.

If you were an LDS Missionary, then you would know (or have forgotten) that sections of the Doctrine & Covenants have been written by Brigham Young (136), Joseph F. Smith (138), Wilford Woodruff (OD1) and Spencer W. Kimball (OD2). And if you are implying that the vast majority of 21st century LDS church members don't believe in continuing revelation, nor that it isn't taught as part of modern instruction, then you are being disingenuous and contradicting your own posts in other threads.

Honestly, TokyoPlayer, I was, at one point, happy to see your input in most threads on the LDS church, because frankly, the former-member-skeptic view is valuable and often needed, but at least be factual and give the LDS church some consideration as to accuracy.

[TokyoBayer]

The Adam-God theory was labelled as a theory by Brigham Young himself. He said he was just speculating.Cite?

The sites which I've read have Brigham Young clearly stating that Adam was God.

For example (http://www.irr.org/MIT/WDIST/wdist-ag-jdv1p50.html) Brigham Young — Adam came into the garden of Eden with a celestial body and one of his many wives, he is our Father and God.

If you were an LDS Missionary, then you would know (or have forgotten) that sections of the Doctrine & Covenants have been written by Brigham Young (136), Joseph F. Smith (138), Wilford Woodruff (OD1) and Spencer W. Kimball (OD2).

It has been 23 years since my mission, so I'll concede that there are points which I have forgotten. And, I'll give you section 136 from Brigham Young, since that quotes the Lord directly. OD1 by WW does not claim revelation.

When the Lord talks to Joseph Smith it's direct and to the point:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.


After Brigham Young, while the Lord still gives revelation, he loses His direct voice. From the OD2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2)

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood What's more, the members were then called on the agree to the revelation, certainly something which did not occur when God was talking through Joseph Smith.
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
And if you are implying that the vast majority of 21st century LDS church members don't believe in continuing revelation, nor that it isn't taught as part of modern instruction, then you are being disingenuous and contradicting your own posts in other threads.Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify the point. The Mormon Church and its members still believe in continued revelation. However, in contrast to the 132 sections reveled to Joseph Smith over a twenty-year period, there have only been couple since in the 162 years, and not with a direct voice from God. I see this a similar the the RCC church, which IIRC, belives in divine inspiration for the Pope, but doesn't add to the bible. Sure, the Mormon church has added a couple, but not many.

[Monty]

What's more, the members were then called on the agree to the revelation, certainly something which did not occur when God was talking through Joseph Smith.

Two things,

(1) What's your take on the introduction to the D&C (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro) in which the twelve apostles bore record that the Holy Ghost informed them that Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations were true?

(2) Were the faithful called on to agree to the revelation or were they asked their opinion on a proposal to accept it as a revelation. My reading of that part you quoted shows it's the latter. Feel free to mention that it's just mind-controlled rubber-stamping, though.

[TokyoBayer]

(1) What's your take on the introduction to the D&C (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro) in which the twelve apostles bore record that the Holy Ghost informed them that Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations were true?
(2) Were the faithful called on to agree to the revelation or were they asked their opinion on a proposal to accept it as a revelation. My reading of that part you quoted shows it's the latter. Feel free to mention that it's just mind-controlled rubber-stamping, though.The Book of Mormon also has the three and eight witnesses (which have their own problems, but that's straying a bit far), so involving others wasn't without precedence. However having a few not-disinterested parties sign their names is something completely different.

I ask the question, why the change in voice? Revelations to Joseph Smith come as the following, which if found my randomly opening up the D&C

HEARKEN, my servant John, and listen to the words of Jesus Christ, your Lord and your Redeemer.
For behold, I speak unto you with sharpness and with power, for mine arm is over all the earth.Then, as I had quoted in my previous post
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood What is interesting is that there aren’t any officially released notes on how the revelation was given. Where the God of Joseph Smith used to give commandments directly, it seems that the God of Spencer Kimball only gives warm feelings.

Seriously, why does the Lord lose His nerve? Is he slowing down in his old age? If He will tell Joseph Smith to marry other women or be destroyed, or revels the Word of Wisdom banning alcohol the Ten Commandments, or everything else that God does and doesn't put that to a vote, (IIRC, it doesn’t say “Thou shall not kill unless more than 50% of you disagree with me”) why the need for the Church to submit the will of God to a vote of the faithful? Even if it just a sustaining vote, is there anywhere else that is happening?

[Monty]

The Book of Mormon also has the three and eight witnesses (which have their own problems, but that's straying a bit far), so involving others wasn't without precedence. However having a few not-disinterested parties sign their names is something completely different.

So, you admit that there's a precedent for it. The rest of your comment there is irrelevant.

I ask the question, why the change in voice? Revelations to Joseph Smith come as the following, which if found my randomly opening up the D&C

Why did the Lord leave the decision to dice (or whatever was used) for replacing Judas? Maybe, and this is just my speculation, the Lord decided a different approach was needed. Perhaps that's also why he allowed the dice trick referred to above.

[Monty]

Seriously, why does the Lord lose His nerve? Is he slowing down in his old age? If He will tell Joseph Smith to marry other women or be destroyed, or revels the Word of Wisdom banning alcohol the Ten Commandments, or everything else that God does and doesn't put that to a vote, (IIRC, it doesn’t say “Thou shall not kill unless more than 50% of you disagree with me”) why the need for the Church to submit the will of God to a vote of the faithful? Even if it just a sustaining vote, is there anywhere else that is happening?

Ever thought of asking the Lord why He "lost his nerve?" Anyway, I don't see any nerve losing there. What I do see is you applying your own arbitrary standards to the Lord. I also see, in your bit about the prohibition on killing, a very feeble strawman.

[TokyoBayer]

Of course, I'm given Him a hard time, but that still doesn't answer the fundamental questions.

OK. Throw away the "Thou shall not kill, if 51%. . . "which I put in as a deliberate exageration, but answer the question "Why did the God of Joseph Smith talk directly to his people, but the God of SWK doesn't put His voice on record." Methinks that Joseph Smith could have been talking to someone else, but why does a God change so radically? Especially if this is supposed to be the same God?

Is there a case of God putting His will to the vote?

[Monty]

I already provided to you an example of God putting his will to the roll of the dice (or whatever was meant at the time by "lot").

Actually, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the vote is. It's the Church, as a body, voting that they will "support and sustain" the revealed word. Basically, IMHO, your description of the event is no different than saying that just because the majority of the people on planet Earth do not accept the Bible as the word of God, it therefore is not the word of God.

[Mrs O'Malley's Cow]

Also related is there is evidence that J Smith created his vision story and the BOM was compiled by him from other sources available to him, not given to him by an Angel. That might effect it's canonization as well.

I would like to take this a step further. The Book of Morman and the rest is not backed up by the historical record. The places that he talks about have not been found and are not written about elsewhere.

The Golden Plates were only seen by Joseph Smith. That is suspect. Where are they? Mormons will tell you that the angel Marconi took them back to heaven. Only ONE person seeing something is not reliable evidence and having no other record of it makes it even worse.

[Monty]

I would like to take this a step further. The Book of Morman and the rest is not backed up by the historical record.

Book of Morman? Is that the one on the shelf to the left of the Book of Norman? :)

The places that he talks about have not been found and are not written about elsewhere.

Tell me about Sodom and Gomorrah, please. Exactly where were they?

The Golden Plates were only seen by Joseph Smith. That is suspect.

That is incorrect:

The Testimony of Three Witnesses (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss)
The Testimonyof Eight Witnesses (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns)

Where are they?

What happened to Enoch? Where's Lot's wife?

Mormons will tell you that the angel Marconi took them back to heaven.

Or at least radioed it there. :) Anyway, what's currently believed is that the golden plates were returned to the Angel Moroni. It's not known what Moroni did with them, only that he "has them in his charge." (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth)

Only ONE person seeing something is not reliable evidence and having no other record of it makes it even worse.

How about twelve people (Joseph Smith, Jr., and the eleven individuals cited above) claiming to have seen it? By the way, where are the other records for every single event reported in the Bible? Especially, where are the other records of the sun standing still?

------

As with any other religious group, the Latter-day Saints came to a conclusion as to what they would consider to be the corpus of their canon. At some point, something was included or left out based on the concensus of the group--be it the leadership, a general conference, or the entire membership--designated to make such a decision. Perhaps those groups prayed about it, perhaps those groups made a study of the items in question first, perhaps those groups had a mass hallucination, perhaps they had another means of determining their answer.

All that is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP:

Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Who can say which is a true word, total fiction, acceptable historical writings or a synthesis of those concepts?

Basically, the deciders for the groups concerned decide and they do it based on whatever authority they are claiming.

[cosmosdan]

I would like to take this a step further. The Book of Mormon and the rest is not backed up by the historical record. The places that he talks about have not been found and are not written about elsewhere.

The Golden Plates were only seen by Joseph Smith. That is suspect. Where are they? Mormons will tell you that the angel Marconi took them back to heaven. Only ONE person seeing something is not reliable evidence and having no other record of it makes it even worse.


I really don't know about that. I was a member of RLDS that was reorganized by Joseph Smiths son. We of course believed we were the rightful heirs of Joseph's legacy and Brigham Young and the others such as William Strang were heretics.
I remember reading way back then that there were Indian legends of a white bearded God associated with a cross. It might be an interesting subject for another thread.

Actually I think the angel was named Moroni and Marconi was an Italian inventor {telegraph?} :)
I also remember the plates were seen by the three witnesses whose testimony is in the front of the Book of Mormon. That doesn't make it a lot better. My opinion is that Joseph Smith was a charlatan. The story of the golden plates and the Urim and Thu min makes little sense. {although I once accepted it} What appealed to me was the idea that God continues to reveal himself to to mankind and that he reached out in love to people in other parts of the world. That part of my belief remains intact. The difference is now I see scripture as just a word made up by mankind. Joseph Smith got his ideas from books available to him in his day. There are theological ideas in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that are very interesting. I'm curious to know where Smith got his ideas although some say it was from books on Gnosticism and/or the Kabbalah.
Either way, regardless of the motives of Joe Smith I believe that good sincere people in LDS and RLDS {now community of Christ} will seek and find God's guiding spirit. It's one of the beautiful things about the Holy Spirit. Even a church founded by a charlatan can be a tool to help folks find their way if their heart is sincere.

[cosmosdan]

Book of Morman? Is that the one on the shelf to the left of the Book of Norman? :)

And I could write the Book of Norman, claim it was revelation and it would have as much validity as anything now referred to as scripture.


Tell me about Sodom and Gomorrah, please. Exactly where were they?
It is reasonable to expect some archaeological evidence to certain events described in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. If the major events have no evidence it is reasonable to think they are myth.


That is incorrect:

The Testimony of Three Witnesses (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss)
The Testimonyof Eight Witnesses (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns)

Handy that these few people saw some plates and they weren't preserved for any experts that might verify them, ain't it?

Or at least radioed it there. :) Anyway, what's currently believed is that the golden plates were returned to the Angel Moroni. It's not known what Moroni did with them, only that he "has them in his charge." (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth)
Is it a pun that if you drop the i the Angels name would be Moron? Was that Joseph's way of thumbing his nose at the believers?


How about twelve people (Joseph Smith, Jr., and the eleven individuals cited above) claiming to have seen it? By the way, where are the other records for every single event reported in the Bible? Especially, where are the other records of the sun standing still?

Did any of those people deny their testimony before they died? How closely related were they? the testimony of these witness doesn't really lend much credibility.

------

As with any other religious group, the Latter-day Saints came to a conclusion as to what they would consider to be the corpus of their canon. At some point, something was included or left out based on the consensus of the group--be it the leadership, a general conference, or the entire membership--designated to make such a decision. Perhaps those groups prayed about it, perhaps those groups made a study of the items in question first, perhaps those groups had a mass hallucination, perhaps they had another means of determining their answer.

All that is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP:

I believe the Book of Mormon is just as spiritually significant as the Bible. I also think Smith made it up.

[tomndebb]

Is it a pun that if you drop the i the Angels name would be Moron? Was that Joseph's way of thumbing his nose at the believers? The word moron was coined 66 years after Joseph Smith was murdered, taken from a Greek root for fool. While it is "fun" to link the name of the angel with the (now disused) psychometric term, there is no legitimate connection between them.

[Monty]

And I could write the Book of Norman, claim it was revelation and it would have as much validity as anything now referred to as scripture.

To you, that is. Perhaps your proposed Book of Norman might have some neat ideas for living and acting and some folks decide that it's a pretty good blueprint. Nothing stopping those folks from claiming that your Book of Norman is their scripture.

It is reasonable to expect some archaeological evidence to certain events described in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. If the major events have no evidence it is reasonable to think they are myth.

Depends on what you expect scriptures to be: a guide to living or a science/history textbook.

Handy that these few people saw some plates and they weren't preserved for any experts that might verify them, ain't it?

Lots of stuff in lots of scriptures for lots of religions is handy.

Is it a pun that if you drop the i the Angels name would be Moron? Was that Joseph's way of thumbing his nose at the believers?

I seriously doubt it. (http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/11/14#14)

Did any of those people deny their testimony before they died?

I don't recall. I do recall hearing that one or more of them fell out with Joseph Smith, Jr., but those individuals didn't recant their testimonies regarding the Book of Mormon.

How closely related were they?

I've no idea. I do know, however, that in some families the relatives get along and in some families the relatives don't get along.

the testimony of these witness doesn't really lend much credibility.

To you. Evidently, for over twelve million people (http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-602-8,00.html), it does lend a lot of credibility.

I believe the Book of Mormon is just as spiritually significant as the Bible. I also think Smith made it up.

Smith made up the Bible? (Just kidding; check your antecedents.)

To you, obviously, neither tome is spiritually significant. On the other hand, to quite a number of people, those tomes are very significant.

[GIGObuster]

The word moron was coined 66 years after Joseph Smith was murdered, taken from a Greek root for fool. While it is "fun" to link the name of the angel with the (now disused) psychometric term, there is no legitimate connection between them.
Unrelated too, but let's not forget that the land of Moron is a kingdom founded by the Jaredites, according to the book of Mormon.

[Stan Shmenge]

I cannot believe anyone could take the word of Joseph Smith about anything. The man was a convicted swindler. A pure con-man. The fact that the "Revalations" of this crook have been shown to be scientificly ridiculous should be enough to dissuade any person of the validity of his cult.

Just to be evenhanded: In Genesis, the snake told the truth, and God was a liar. :D

[cosmosdan]

To you, that is. Perhaps your proposed Book of Norman might have some neat ideas for living and acting and some folks decide that it's a pretty good blueprint. Nothing stopping those folks from claiming that your Book of Norman is their scripture.

There's a series called conversations with God that is interesting. I don't know of anyone claiming it's scripture but it fits the profile for scripture given in 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "for profit" should be added.

Personally, I think there's a great misunderstanding about what inspiration is and isn't which has resulted in the so called holy books from many religions being elevated to a status that is as limiting as it is helpful. I suppose it's all just a natural part of human development, spiritual and otherwise.

Depends on what you expect scriptures to be: a guide to living or a science/history textbook.

I think the standards are set by believers who claim scriptures to be the word of God for all mankind and also historically accurate. What someone believes is their own business until they declare their "truth" to be what all people should believe and actively attempt to accomplish that. When folks attempt to pass laws that affect others based on the truth they claim to be in their scriptures then others have a right , even an obligation to challenge those beliefs.
Fortunately not all believers do that but even then I think it's acceptable and even helpful to discern the truth from religious tradition.

I seriously doubt it. (http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/11/14#14)

So do I now that Tom has explained it. I think my sarcasm was bordering on violating GD guidelines. I'll tone it back a notch or two.

I don't recall. I do recall hearing that one or more of them fell out with Joseph Smith, Jr., but those individuals didn't recant their testimonies regarding the Book of Mormon.
I've no idea. I do know, however, that in some families the relatives get along and in some families the relatives don't get along.

There are mixed stories which I haven't done any serious research on. I'd be interested in reading something about them from an impartial historian.


To you. Evidently, for over twelve million people (http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-602-8,00.html), it does lend a lot of credibility.

As one who formerly believed I would say it likely isn't the witnesses that lend credibility to their beliefs. My guess is that the majority of those 12 million have never seriously researched and questioned what they've been told by the church. {I know I didn't at the time} Beyond tradition I would also believe that many have had real spiritual experiences. It is emotionally powerful to have a spiritual experience and it is easy in human nature to then associate that experience with a church or a set of beliefs.

Smith made up the Bible? (Just kidding; check your antecedents.)
I get it. Good one :)
To you, obviously, neither tome is spiritually significant. On the other hand, to quite a number of people, those tomes are very significant.
You have misunderstood me. I meant instead that they are both significant regardless of their source. Certainly very significant to me in my own spiritual journey. The spiritual journey is one that occurs within each individual and the details of what external elements stimulate that journey aren't all that relevant. If a bogus preacher who is in it for the money speaks the words of Christ to a crowd someone in that crowd can have a real spiritual epiphany regardless of the preachers motives. I was moved by several things in the Book of Mormon and appreciate them still. I don't have to believe it's the word of God or the story of Joseph Smith for that to be so. Eckankar is a belief started by Paul Twitchell who borrowed theology from a little known Indian belief system and presented it as his own. Although he was bogus by presenting these ideas into the spiritual consciousness of many people he helped their spiritual journey. I have similar feelings about Smith.

[cosmosdan]

I cannot believe anyone could take the word of Joseph Smith about anything. The man was a convicted swindler. A pure con-man. The fact that the "Revalations" of this crook have been shown to be scientificly ridiculous should be enough to dissuade any person of the validity of his cult.

Just to be evenhanded: In Genesis, the snake told the truth, and God was a liar. :D

I think that last line might be why people wouldn't take your statements about Smith to seriously. The last time I looked at it the evidence against Smith was enough for me but not overwhelming. I can understand how true believers might see it as inconclusive and just more slander. When people who are emotionally committed to opposing the LDS beliefs publish ill researched information or outright lies about Smith it makes the real information harder to discern and easier to dismiss by believers.

[Monty]

There's a series called conversations with God that is interesting. I don't know of anyone claiming it's scripture but it fits the profile for scripture given in "for profit" should be added.

Here's a good one for you; it's from The Legend of Biel:
I choose so not to believe.

Yeah, it's in the negative, but it's still a pretty good summation of humanity's attitude on a lot of things.

Personally, I think there's a great misunderstanding about what inspiration is and isn't which has resulted in the so called holy books from many religions being elevated to a status that is as limiting as it is helpful. I suppose it's all just a natural part of human development, spiritual and otherwise.

When I took a class on Mysticism (studying what it is, not how to do it) at University of California at Davis, that very issue was brought up by the professor.

I think the standards are set by believers who claim scriptures to be the word of God for all mankind and also historically accurate. What someone believes is their own business until they declare their "truth" to be what all people should believe and actively attempt to accomplish that. When folks attempt to pass laws that affect others based on the truth they claim to be in their scriptures then others have a right , even an obligation to challenge those beliefs.
Fortunately not all believers do that but even then I think it's acceptable and even helpful to discern the truth from religious tradition.

Fair enough. In my church's Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1), we have this little bit as Article 11:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So do I now that Tom has explained it. I think my sarcasm was bordering on violating GD guidelines. I'll tone it back a notch or two.

Fair enough. I really don't think it's that bad. Actually, I thought you were just repeating a lame joke.

There are mixed stories which I haven't done any serious research on. I'd be interested in reading something about them from an impartial historian.

There's the rub. It's hard to find impartial historians on that issue. I guess Jan Shipps would be a likely candidate. I also would be interested in reading such research.

As one who formerly believed I would say it likely isn't the witnesses that lend credibility to their beliefs. My guess is that the majority of those 12 million have never seriously researched and questioned what they've been told by the church. {I know I didn't at the time} Beyond tradition I would also believe that many have had real spiritual experiences. It is emotionally powerful to have a spiritual experience and it is easy in human nature to then associate that experience with a church or a set of beliefs.

Consider my comment about the Mysticism course repeated here.

I get it. Good one :)

Glad you liked it. It's the Linguistics person in me (since that was my major) sneaking out.

You have misunderstood me. I meant instead that they are both significant regardless of their source. Certainly very significant to me in my own spiritual journey. The spiritual journey is one that occurs within each individual and the details of what external elements stimulate that journey aren't all that relevant. If a bogus preacher who is in it for the money speaks the words of Christ to a crowd someone in that crowd can have a real spiritual epiphany regardless of the preachers motives. I was moved by several things in the Book of Mormon and appreciate them still. I don't have to believe it's the word of God or the story of Joseph Smith for that to be so. Eckankar is a belief started by Paul Twitchell who borrowed theology from a little known Indian belief system and presented it as his own. Although he was bogus by presenting these ideas into the spiritual consciousness of many people he helped their spiritual journey. I have similar feelings about Smith.
Thanks for the explanation.

[Monty]

BTW, cosmosdan, did you ever read Divergent Paths of the Restoration?

And if any mods happen by, could one of y'all fix the coding in post #52? That [/i] tag after "believe" should be a [/quote] tag.

[tomndebb]

I cannot believe anyone could take the word of Joseph Smith about anything. The man was a convicted swindler. A pure con-man. The fact that the "Revalations" of this crook have been shown to be scientificly ridiculous should be enough to dissuade any person of the validity of his cult.

Just to be evenhanded: In Genesis, the snake told the truth, and God was a liar. :DEvery time the CoJCoLDS shows up in a thread, we can pretty well expect to encounter a few similar comments,

HOWEVER,
you (and other posters) will note that the origins of the LDS are not really the point of this thread; it is an exemplar of the issue under discussion. The discussion surrounds the general notion of how writings come to be Holy Scripture and whether it is mere age or some other quality that lends credence to such writings.

If anyone needs to challenge Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other persons or events in the LDS history, they are free to do so--IN A SEPARATE THREAD.
I am aware that a challenge to Smith's legitimacy could be used to simply close this discussion, which is why it is not really relevant to this discussion.

[ /Moderating ]

[Stan Shmenge]

LDS are fine people, but the more you know about them the weirder it gets. I don't buy any religion, but honestly, LDS is every bit as bizzare as Scientology. The whole Native Americans are a lost tribe thing is just the beginning. Ever heard of "Bathtub full of Worms"? Absolutely warped.

[Monty]

You must've missed post #54, hey, Happy Wanderer?

[Stan Shmenge]

Every time the CoJCoLDS shows up in a thread, we can pretty well expect to encounter a few similar comments,

HOWEVER,
you (and other posters) will note that the origins of the LDS are not really the point of this thread; it is an exemplar of the issue under discussion. The discussion surrounds the general notion of how writings come to be Holy Scripture and whether it is mere age or some other quality that lends credence to such writings.

If anyone needs to challenge Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other persons or events in the LDS history, they are free to do so--IN A SEPARATE THREAD.
I am aware that a challenge to Smith's legitimacy could be used to simply close this discussion, which is why it is not really relevant to this discussion.

[ /Moderating ]

From the OP: "Why are the four Gospels defendable as canon / word of God, but a similar series of revelations and transcriptions are derided in the extreme by ( some ) Christians?"

So the fact that Smith was a known charlatan has nothing to do with the post? Christians have to have some esoteric theological explanation, as if theology were just a game of chess? Isn't enough for a Christian to point and say, "well, for one thing, the guy was a schemer."

If we had some kind of time machine and could go back and investigate the authors of the Bible we might find similar shenanigans, but we don't have a time machine so the credibility of the proponents cannot be assailed. Such is not true with Smith. We know with reasonalbe certainty that he was in the business of fleecing the yokels with mumbo jumbo. This mars the credibility of his testimony, severely so, IMHO.

[Stan Shmenge]

You must've missed post #54, hey, Happy Wanderer?

Evedently yes :D

[tomndebb]

If we had some kind of time machine and could go back and investigate the authors of the Bible we might find similar shenanigans, but we don't have a time machine so the credibility of the proponents cannot be assailed. Which was pretty much the point of the OP. I don't have a problem with people attempting to debunk Mormonism (or Christianity, Judaism, or Islam), I just think that making that an issue in this thread would be a hijack.

Can you provide evidence that God did not come to Smith, shake him out of his deceitful ways, and present him with a new testament? If you cannot show Smith's notes in which he schemed to perform a Hubbard-like scam, then your comments are a hijack to this thread.

[Mr. Slant]

LDS are fine people, but the more you know about them the weirder it gets. I don't buy any religion, but honestly, LDS is every bit as bizzare as Scientology. The whole Native Americans are a lost tribe thing is just the beginning. Ever heard of "Bathtub full of Worms"? Absolutely warped.

Good point, but this is the kind of thing we need to keep out of this thread.
If you step outside of a religion's cultural context, you'll find a dozen unbelievers each armed with 127 convincing arguments or unanswered questions about any given religion.

[cosmosdan]

Fair enough. In my church's Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1), we have this little bit as Article 11:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I think that's a great sentiment that is not always in practice. I have a dear old friend who is a member of RLDS. A small independent branch that retained that name when the church became Community of Christ. My point to her was that by her small group claiming the right to break off from the dictates of the world church and not accepting the message of their own prophet they were claiming there right to worship accprding to their own beliefs and conscinece. That assertion includes in my estimation some moral obligation to allow others that same privalage. Where is the line drawn? Doesn't your church still send out missionaries to convert others? Don't young LDS men knock on doors and try to convince people of the LDS message? Nothing wrong with that except that when it happens they invite their beliefs to be questioned and challenged. I think that kind of discussion can help move spirituallity forward as long as in the end we can respect that basic right spoken of in article 11. I may be an encounter in someone's journey but I can respect and even revere the truth that their path is not my own and their relationship with God and where it takes them is unique to them. IMHO there's an attitude difference between allowing others to worship incorrectly and actually understanding and respecting the individuals spiritual journey. To know that within humanity's struggle to know God and ourselves neither the Pagan, Mormon, Baptist, Buddhist, Atheist, or Muslim are completely right or wrong. We are simply on the path with more to discover.

Fair enough. I really don't think it's that bad. Actually, I thought you were just repeating a lame joke.
I do that sometimes


There's the rub. It's hard to find impartial historians on that issue. I guess Jan Shipps would be a likely candidate. I also would be interested in reading such research.

Thanks for the name. I will look her up.

[cosmosdan]

BTW, cosmosdan, did you ever read Divergent Paths of the Restoration[i]?

And if any mods happen by, could one of y'all fix the coding in post #52? That tag after "believe" should be a tag.[/QUOTE]

No, tell me about it.

[Monty]

Doesn't your church still send out missionaries to convert others? Don't young LDS men knock on doors and try to convince people of the LDS message?

Inviting others to join one's group is different than forcing one to join one's group. I guess that's where the line's drawn. As you said above, there's nothing wrong with sending out missionaries.

Divergent Paths of the Restoration is a survey of churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith, Jr. It was written by a former LDS member who's now one of the top guys in the Community of Christ church. It's a very good book; however, pretty expensive now that it's out of publication.

[cosmosdan]

Inviting others to join one's group is different than forcing one to join one's group. I guess that's where the line's drawn. As you said above, there's nothing wrong with sending out missionaries.

Divergent Paths of the Restoration is a survey of churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith, Jr. It was written by a former LDS member who's now one of the top guys in the Community of Christ church. It's a very good book; however, pretty expensive now that it's out of publication.

Aha! Inviting {interesting word choice} is not the same as activly trying to convince others that ones specific religion is indeed the best choice, or the closest to God's will, or the most theologically correct, or whatever the concept is. That kind of activity might arguably be a little contrary to article 11.
article 11.5
"we'll let you worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but first we have to try like hell to show you you're wrong and we're right"

I have no problem with missionaries in general. It seems to me that if you have sincere beliefs, then wanting to share them with others is natural. I think the exchange of spiritual ideas and concepts helps to move spirituality forward, A little friendly conflict and controversy is a healthy thing. The problem is when one party is interested in the exchange being one way only.

I feel compelled to make it a two way exchange whenever possible. I claim the right to determine my own spiritual path but I am aware that my path is not right for everybody. I tend to be impatient with those who imply that their path is the right one for others.

[cosmosdan]

BTW, I looked up the book you mentioned. Looks interesting. I also looked up the author. I found a Book titled "The Prophet Puzzle" that looks good. I'll check my local library.

[TokyoBayer]

So, you admit that there's a precedent for it. The rest of your comment there is irrelevant.Apples and oranges. I was pointing out the differences. If you were to carefully read the post, I'm sure you could see this.

Actually, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what the vote is. It's the Church, as a body, voting that they will "support and sustain" the revealed word. Basically, IMHO, your description of the event is no different than saying that just because the majority of the people on planet Earth do not accept the Bible as the word of God, it therefore is not the word of God.
And actually, you're misrepresenting my position.

[Monty]

Actually, I'm not.

[cosmosdan]

Of course, I'm given Him a hard time, but that still doesn't answer the fundamental questions.

OK. Throw away the "Thou shall not kill, if 51%. . . "which I put in as a deliberate exageration, but answer the question "Why did the God of Joseph Smith talk directly to his people, but the God of SWK doesn't put His voice on record." Methinks that Joseph Smith could have been talking to someone else, but why does a God change so radically? Especially if this is supposed to be the same God?

Is there a case of God putting His will to the vote?

The difference in appraoch from J Smith and SWK can be attributed to the differnce in the men rather than any change in God.

The vote has already been explained. My understanding of it was that it was the committment Monty spoke of and a way for the church through prayer and fasting to feel assured they were recieving the will of God rather than their leader who happens to be a less than perfect human.

In the case of RLDS certain changes were accepted by the world church but not by
certain congregations and so there have been some splits.

[TokyoBayer]

My understanding of it was that it was the committment Monty spoke of and a way for the church through prayer and fasting to feel assured they were recieving the will of God rather than their leader who happens to be a less than perfect human. My point is that Mormon church seems to have run into something similar to the early Christianity. A lot of direct relevations at the early stage and then it radically changes. When God was talking through Joseph Smith, He didn't seem concerned if the people were concerned if it was God or JS, but then now that there isn't a direct voice of God (e.g., "This is the Lord, and I now command that blacks are to receive the full blessings of the priesthood") it becomes necessary to have confirmation from the masses.

[cosmosdan]

My point is that Mormon church seems to have run into something similar to the early Christianity. A lot of direct relevations at the early stage and then it radically changes. When God was talking through Joseph Smith, He didn't seem concerned if the people were concerned if it was God or JS, but then now that there isn't a direct voice of God (e.g., "This is the Lord, and I now command that blacks are to receive the full blessings of the priesthood") it becomes necessary to have confirmation from the masses.

I understand what you're saying. RLDS had a similar problem with woman in the priesthood. That was one of the "revelations" that caused some to split off. I just finished a book by a biblical scholar that indicates one of the early apostles was a woman but men changed the passage. Kinda ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that your phrasing puts the responsibility on God, as if he changed his mind. I don't see that as a valid argument. The responsibility is on man and his degree of resistance or surrender. If one prophet uses certain language and one uses another it's the choice of those two men to do so.

[ralph124c]

The claim was made that Smith was known to be a charlatan and con man. Is there written proof of this? I understand that Smith was born in Vermont, and moved to upstate NY as a child. Are there any court records of Smith? Did he deceive people (as alleged)? I recall reading that Smith was involved in some efforts to locate "buried treasure"- do records of this incident survive?

[cosmosdan]

The claim was made that Smith was known to be a charlatan and con man. Is there written proof of this? I understand that Smith was born in Vermont, and moved to upstate NY as a child. Are there any court records of Smith? Did he deceive people (as alleged)? I recall reading that Smith was involved in some efforts to locate "buried treasure"- do records of this incident survive?
The evidence is disputed but real enough in my opinion. here's (http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htm) a link that tells about it. Add to this evidence that the idea that American Indians were lost tribes of Israel was a popular theory at the time. Oliver Cowdery {Joseph's second in command} published a book on the subject before he met Smith. Also there was a couple of books circulating before the Book of Mormon came out that spoke of the ideas expressed in the Book of Mormon, one a work of fiction about buried plates containing ancient secrrets. One of the arguements put forth is that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon on his own given his background and education. The fact is he was not alone. I have often wondered where some of the Book of Mormon theology came from because it's actually pretty interesting. Recently I've read articles that Smith may have gotten hold of books about Gnosticism and other mystic religions and borrowed from them. It's not too hard to believe that. IMHO Smith was a charlatan but by introducing new theological ideas he actually helped move spirituality forward.

[Cartooniverse]

IMHO Smith was a charlatan but by introducing new theological ideas he actually helped move spirituality forward.

Well, bust my buttons. Exactly what I was trying to say in my O.P.

Jesus was seen as quite the charlatan/heretic by the Romans, and look where He is today. However, Jesus also introduced radically new theological ideas and in doing so he actually helped move spirituality forward.

And, if the newest findings in real factual archaeologically proven documentation is being read properly, perhaps Jesus actually asked Judas to betray him, to move the cause along.

As I said, the patina of almost 2,000 years. Given another 2,000 years I wonder how L.D.S. will be viewed.

[Cartooniverse]

** Side note to those who may have just been insulted by what I wrote. I meant no insult at all. In fact, despite not being a Christian, I DO respect the concept of Jesus enough to have capitolized His name in my post up there. I was simply remarking upon how the powers in place at the time percieved him, and what they do with him based on that perception. My personal feelings aren't what this thread is about, but I find His message to be sublimely beautiful. :) **

[cosmosdan]

Well, bust my buttons. Exactly what I was trying to say in my O.P.

Jesus was seen as quite the charlatan/heretic by the Romans, and look where He is today. However, Jesus also introduced radically new theological ideas and in doing so he actually helped move spirituality forward.

And, if the newest findings in real factual archaeologically proven documentation is being read properly, perhaps Jesus actually asked Judas to betray him, to move the cause along.

As I said, the patina of almost 2,000 years. Given another 2,000 years I wonder how L.D.S. will be viewed.

Care to provide any cites on the statement I bolded? We don't really know what the details of Jesus life were or if Jesus actually existed at all. We have a great story about the man. Actually his theological ideas may have been radical to the area he lived in but Buddha had taught much the same about 600 years before so it wasn't all that new.

The difference is we may never know about the reality of Jesus {unless some startling new discovery is made} but we can be reasonably sure about Joseph Smith if we care to really examine the evidence. What I hope happens is that people realize the spiritual principles and how they apply to our lives is much more relevant than the details of a story about a man. However, when you say LDS you're talking about a specific organization, not spiritual principles. I'm hoping in 2000 years we have grown enough spiritually to realize neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon or the Koran or anything else is the "word of God" and that religions with structured dogma and doctrine and various splinter groups are very much the minority.

[BobLibDem]

So the fact that Smith was a known charlatan has nothing to do with the post? Christians have to have some esoteric theological explanation, as if theology were just a game of chess? Isn't enough for a Christian to point and say, "well, for one thing, the guy was a schemer."

People do change. The Apostle Paul was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion.

So what became of those brass plates, stones, or whatever? I would think they would be revered relics.

[Cartooniverse]

We don't really know what the details of Jesus life were or if Jesus actually existed at all.

-sigh- You are not going to turn my thread into a B.B.Q. Pit thread. Got that? If you feel this way, I respect it. Take that kind of statement to the Pit, piss of the entire world, that's fine and dandy. Please do not attempt to derail this discussion again. We've all been doing just fine right on through Page 2. Please do not attempt to wreck this thread.

As a person, you are free to refute the incredible cross-referenced written accounts of the time of 2,000-odd years ago and say that Jesus never existed. If you are insisting on DNA or a burial site that can be excavated and examined, then I am sorry. Nobody's stepping up to provide you with that.

A lot of the time, history is accepted as fact because of a plethora of written accounts, each one independant and yet supporting the statements of the others by dint of shared facts. Choosing to absolutely deny the plausability of the statement " Jesus existed on Earth as a person around the year 1 C.E. " is a choice you can make. But you can't very well demand cite as though I'm proclaiming that aliens really are hidden in Roswell.

[tomndebb]

-sigh- You are not going to turn my thread into a B.B.Q. Pit thread. Got that? If you feel this way, I respect it. Take that kind of statement to the Pit, piss of the entire world, that's fine and dandy. Please do not attempt to derail this discussion again. We've all been doing just fine right on through Page 2. Please do not attempt to wreck this thread.I have already supported your basic intention to pursue the origins of canonicity without letting this thread turn into one more "bash Joseph Smith" attack on the LDS. However, here you have siezed on one phrase out of a response to you and overreacted, thus ignoring the actual statement made.
You asserted that the Romans viewed Jesus as a charlatan and a heretic. It is quite within scope (since you introduced the topic) to note that we have no idea whether Jesus was actually viewed as a "charalatan/heretic" by the Romans (or even the Jews if that was simply a typo).

You made an assertion in the context of defending your thesis. It is perfectly logical to challenge that assertion, given that its removal would seem to weaken your position, when your assertion does not actually appear to be supported by evidence. If you want the thread to stay on topic, then don't throw out gratuitous claims that cannot be supported.

[Cartooniverse]

What I seized upon was the quote I ....um......seized up- which was saying that nobody knew if He even existed. That was the genesis of my last post. You are correct, I cannot prove that he was considered a heretic.

I withdraw the claim.

I suppose that I, nor you, nor anyone else can definitively prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed on this Earth, since there are no witnesses extant to swear under oath, or provide irrefutable evidence.

Therefore, I withdraw the comments made in the last two posts.

It is 2006. I had no idea that saying that Jesus of Nazareth existed was a gratuitous claim- to use your exact words in replying to my exact post just above. Please accept my apologies in this regard.

I will attempt to contribute to this thread without making such gratuitous claims.

[cosmosdan]

-sigh- You are not going to turn my thread into a B.B.Q. Pit thread. Got that? If you feel this way, I respect it. Take that kind of statement to the Pit, piss of the entire world, that's fine and dandy. Please do not attempt to derail this discussion again. We've all been doing just fine right on through Page 2. Please do not attempt to wreck this thread.

That was not my intention at all. I was more interested in hearing a cite for the section I bolded just as I asked for. I am somewhat familar with the NT and don't recall the romans considering Jesus a heretic or charlatan. Thats all.

As a person, you are free to refute the incredible cross-referenced written accounts of the time of 2,000-odd years ago and say that Jesus never existed. If you are insisting on DNA or a burial site that can be excavated and examined, then I am sorry. Nobody's stepping up to provide you with that.

A lot of the time, history is accepted as fact because of a plethora of written accounts, each one independant and yet supporting the statements of the others by dint of shared facts. Choosing to absolutely deny the plausability of the statement " Jesus existed on Earth as a person around the year 1 C.E. " is a choice you can make. But you can't very well demand cite as though I'm proclaiming that aliens really are hidden in Roswell.

I did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way. You read too much into my statement. As a spiritual person I prefer to believe Jesus existed and taught the wonderful things that I have come to revere. As a rational reasonable person I was simply stating what I believe to be a fact {not as an attack in any way} that we don't know with certainty based on historical evidence, if Jesus existed. In much the same way I would acknowledge I can't prove God exists although I am a believer.

From my own studies I haven't found an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts testifying to the existence of Jesus. I'd be gratified to see them if you have any such references. Regardless, I hope you understand that was not the cite I was requesting. Nor was I attempting to hijack the thread.

[cosmosdan]

People do change. The Apostle Paul was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion.

So what became of those brass plates, stones, or whatever? I would think they would be revered relics.


Angel took em to heaven. I believe that's how the story goes.

[Monty]

They're gold plates and were returned to Moroni. What Moroni did with them is not known.

From here:
When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

[Monty]

{Ahem} From here (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth).

[liberty]

I was a member of RLDS many years ago and we also held not only the Book of Mormon but the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. {LDS do also} The Doctrine and Covenants is newer revelations given through the prophet of the church and prayed about and accepted by the church as a whole at world conference.

What occurred to me at the time is that if God gave revelation to men through the Holy Spirit in ancient times that became scripture why wouldn't we expect God to continue to give revelations to men in the same way. I wondered, is there anything to indicate that it was God's plan that we have a certain collection of books and that would be the end. The answer is No, nothing indicates certain books would be the the complete and final written revelation of God to man.

Fast forward a couple of decades plus. My beliefs have changed and I've learned a lot more about Christian history, revelation and scripture. Turns out there's nothing to indicate it was God's plan that any book or writing be considered sacred. That's man's idea.

The idea that the Bible is the complete and final collection is simply a tradition held by many Christians and passed down from generation to generation. Although many people have come to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture as well the book is a couple of thousand years behind in momentum for being accepted as sacred writing. I doubt that it will ever gain as wide spread acceptance as the Bible has.

It's tradition plain and simple.

This thread relates to another thread discussing other ancient manuscripts from early Christianity. Other gospels that won't be canonized either.

Also related is there is evidence that J Smith created his vision story and the BOM was compiled by him from other sources available to him, not given to him by an Angel. That might effect it's canonization as well.

So, do you feel that an uneducated person was able to create the bom.

[cosmosdan]

So, do you feel that an uneducated person was able to create the bom.

If you read post # 72 you'll have an idea what I think. I don't recall Smith's formal education but formal education doesn't always indicate intelligence or savvy. Smith obviously had considerable interpersonal skills. It's not impossible that he wrote the Book of Mormon borrowing ideas from several sources. Since Cowdery seems to have published a book about the Indians being one of the lost tribes of Israel it seems more likely that he helped Smith.

[liberty]

I believe the bom to be the truth. They even had scholars try to write a mock bom in the amount of time JS translated the gold plates and they couldn't do it.

[E-Sabbath]

I think it's safe to say three things at the moment.

1: The Book of Mormon exists.

2: The Book of Mormon makes certain claims that are verifiable, in relation to the origin of the native american tribes.

3: Archelogical evidence tends to... not match the claims the Book of Mormon makes.

[liberty]

Many things have happened to the America's since the gold plates that has changed Archelogical evidence. The same goes for the Bible. Neither the BOM or Bible was designed to be proven true or false. These are books of Faith, which is the keyword.

[cosmosdan]

I believe the bom to be the truth. They even had scholars try to write a mock bom in the amount of time JS translated the gold plates and they couldn't do it.

Who's they? What scholars? If the stories are true about Joseph reporting his first vision years before he actually took possession of the plates, that means he had years to plan or even write the BOM before the alledged translation began.

[cosmosdan]

Many things have happened to the America's since the gold plates that has changed Archelogical evidence. The same goes for the Bible. Neither the BOM or Bible was designed to be proven true or false. These are books of Faith, which is the keyword.

No disrespect to your beliefs but do you realize you just contradicted your previous post. When people claim a book is the word of God and that book makes historical claims it should be challenged and verified or proved false if possible. That's how we discover the truth, which is what Jesus said would set us free.

Faith is the substance of things not seen. A book that makes historical claims is definitely seen and so is the archaeological evidence that points to the veracity of those claims.

Sincerely. I think there's some great stuff in the Book of Mormon. I have a couple of copies myself. Whatever spiritual insight it offers isn't diminished if Smith and others borrowed the ideas from some place else.

[Cartooniverse]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]That was not my intention at all. I was more interested in hearing a cite for the section I bolded just as I asked for. I am somewhat familar with the NT and don't recall the romans considering Jesus a heretic or charlatan. Thats all. //snip// I did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way. You read too much into my statement. [QUOTE]

We understand each other very well. The post above was directed at tomndebb and the comments he made regarding my wording.

Now, I do agree I can't provide cite where Jesus was called a heretic. Hence my apology. You did say, however, that we have no evidence that Jesus even existed. ( See my quote of your post, from # 75. ). Yet now you are saying you did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way.

Which is it?

[cosmosdan]

We understand each other very well. The post above was directed at tomndebb and the comments he made regarding my wording.

Now, I do agree I can't provide cite where Jesus was called a heretic. Hence my apology. You did say, however, that we have no evidence that Jesus even existed. ( See my quote of your post, from # 75. ). Yet now you are saying you did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way.

Which is it?

Bolding mine

No, I did not say that. Considering your response that seems to be how you read it.

in post 74. I said We don't really know what the details of Jesus life were or if Jesus actually existed at all.

I did not say no evidence

I explained it in post 80
As a rational reasonable person I was simply stating what I believe to be a fact {not as an attack in any way} that we don't know with certainty based on historical evidence, if Jesus existed.

To refute the existence of Jesus would be to claim that he did not exist. I made no such claim. I actually acknowledged that their is historical evidence {the opposite of the statement you just made} and that that evidence is inconclusive.

You however made claims there is an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts testifying to the existence of Jesus.

Care to provide a cite for that or were you throwing out more info that you have no backing for? I've done a little research in that area and would say there is just a smattering of non biblical references to Jesus in other writing of that era. I'd be happy for you or anyone else to show me more.

[TokyoBayer]

{Ahem} From here (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth).Monty's source is an abreviation of the full Joseph Smith First Vision which can be read here. (http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1)
This narrative forms one of the key beliefs of Mormonism; known by all and taught to prospective members. This simple, but powerful account is taken as the literal history of Joseph Smith. It reflects the Mormon idea of the Deity with a separate God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost, and the arch adversary, the devil, who is active in the world.

What is less known among the faithful is that this clearly written prose is itself the result of Joseph Smith's evolution in his concept of god, starting from his monotheism, through a "binitarianism" (a new word for me), phase, in which JS taught there were only two persons within the Godhead and finally ending with a concept of a plurality of Gods, where there are other Gods besides the three in the Trinity. Interestingly, the Mormon Church is much less vocal these days about God's God, and seems to be backing off from that, at least publicly. That wasn’t the case in my days, and I hope that current Mormons aren’t cheated from this experience.

The First Vision account itself was written many years after the fact, but -- unlike biblical events -- contains elements which can be historically examined. According to the orthodox version, the key event which triggered JS to start searching and set in motion the events in God's appearance and the restoration of the true gospel was a religious revival which Smith said happened in his 15th year. This great revival was said by Smith to have caused upheavals, and involved the whole town. Because of the scale of the event, the young Smith studied the bible, read a scripture which invited people to pray to god, and then, as they say, the rest is history.
Unfortunately for the story, there are independent historical sources, such as newspapers, from which we find out that in this year there wasn't such a revival. There was a revival several years later, but this would have conflicted with his storyline.

This is where we come back to the OP. Scholars can say this or that about the Bible, (and they do) but that was a couple of thousand years ago. OTOH, Mormonism started less then 200 years ago, and there are enough documentation to provide strong evidence that Mr. Smith was a fraud. There isn’t anyway of going back 1900+ years ago and recovering documentation about if Christ actually lived or not, but the documentation which casts doubts oh the sanitized version of early Mormonism is too well preserved.

[Monty]

So, what about the bit in the Bible about the sun standing still? Doesn't that make it a fraud?

[cosmosdan]

So, what about the bit in the Bible about the sun standing still? Doesn't that make it a fraud?

Claiming that the Bible is the word of God and that it was God's divine plan that we have it, is as demonstratably false from the evidence as the evidence against Joseph Smith.

It isn't the Bible that is a fraud. It's that certain beliefs about the Bible are simply wrong and IMHO that limits spiritual development and in some cases creates a gulf between people which certainly is not what Jesus preached.

As I mentioned before, I think The Book of Mormon is pretty significant spiritually and historically , but I don't believe Smith's story of where it came from. I don't think it's necessary to believe the story to appreciate what the BOM and D&C has to offer.

Personally I see all "holy" writings" as part of man's spiritual search. Their meaning is determined by how they resonate within the individual not by any claim of spiritual authority. If we open our hearts and minds a little to at least consider what different paths offer and then have the courage to choose our own {while allowing others to do the same} Open discussion {not competition} of spiritual ideas and how that applies to our lives is a beautiful thing.

[TokyoBayer]

So, what about the bit in the Bible about the sun standing still? Doesn't that make it a fraud?Gosh, one would have hoped for a stronger defence of the most important person messanger of god, save Christ himself, but I guess that's par for the course.

So what is your take on the Old Testiment? Do you stand by everything in there?

How old is the earth? Was it created 7,000 years ago?

[Cartooniverse]

Care to provide a cite for that or were you throwing out more info that you have no backing for? I've done a little research in that area and would say there is just a smattering of non biblical references to Jesus in other writing of that era. I'd be happy for you or anyone else to show me more.

Sure. As has been discussed, until about 300 C.E., there WERE no "Biblical references" because various writings had not been chosen as canon upon which to found the new religion. Therefore, I assert that everything written in the Four Gospels is not in fact biblical writings, but writings that were written between the time of the death of Jesus and about 170 years after his death. Me, I don't cotton to the idea that someone writing 170 years post mortem can say anything in the way of a direct quote, but someone writing 20 or 30 years hence? Sure. You bet. At least SOME of the Gospels were written down oral histories of what occurred and were witnessed firsthand.

If I set out to create a religion and, oh, say, call it the religion of Cecil then I have plenty of canon from which to compose the Book of Cecil. His first published book came out in what, 1973 or something? Earlier than that of course are the columns themselves. In any event, I get to take written words that were not composed and chosen solely to create a religion, and I get to create a religion out of them.

Such was the case with the earliest-written of the Gospels. Those who witnessed and worked with Jesus were in a position to write about it. Whether or not said writings became a part of the Four Gospels of Jesus and were the foundation for a religion is largely besides the point. Cecil wrote columns. I base a religion upon them. Did he write them just so I could do this? No, he did not. Were the earlier of the Gospels composed solely to serve the needs of a few powerful Romans? No, sorry, but they were not- nobody can look into the future. The Gospel written 30 years after the death of Jesus could not have been created solely to become canon and a part of the Bible now used in Christianity- history doesn't work that way and we all know it.

Therefore it is reasonable for me to say that citing the earlier of the Gospels as authentic writings attesting to the existence of the man Jesus Christ is valid. Writings created more than a century after his death stretches the accuracy thing to the limits in my view.

A perusal of Wikipedia yielded this :

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:
Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship over most of the last 2 millennia has generally come to different conclusions assigning earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70
The general consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical Gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient. On the strength of an early commentator it has been suggested that Matthew may have originally been written in Aramaic, or that it was translated from Aramaic to Greek with corrections based on Mark. Regardless, no Aramaic original texts of the Gospel accounts have ever been found, only later translations from the Greek (see Peshitta). It is widely argued by Christians that the Gospels were based on an earlier oral tradition, thus explaining the dating gap between Jesus' death and their date of composition. Another view is that the gospels were put into writing shortly before the disciples and other eye witnesses would pass on. A similar phenomenon was seen in more modern times with the large number of Holocaust survivors recording their stories in the 1990's near the end of their natural life spans.

Let's say that the first one or two were written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. That does not invalidate them as accurate texts, as oral history was much more the norm back then opposed to now.

[Monty]

Gosh, one would have hoped for a stronger defence of the most important person messanger of god, save Christ himself, but I guess that's par for the course.

So what is your take on the Old Testiment? Do you stand by everything in there?

How old is the earth? Was it created 7,000 years ago?

What the heck are you talking about?

[Wendell Wagner]

Cartooniverse writes:

> If I set out to create a religion and, oh, say, call it the religion of Cecil then I
> have plenty of canon from which to compose the Book of Cecil. His first
> published book came out in what, 1973 or something? Earlier than that of
> course are the columns themselves. In any event, I get to take written words
> that were not composed and chosen solely to create a religion, and I get to
> create a religion out of them.

Blasphemer! Any true devotee of the Master knows that the first columns came out in 1973 (although Cecil underwent two changes of bodily form between then and 1978, at which time he achieved his Perfect Form) and that the first book came out in 1986. You will now not be allowed to become one of the Inner Circle of the Master's disciples. Indeed, you are now in the running to become the Great Satan.

[tomndebb]

Indeed, you are now in the running to become the Great Satan. Well, maybe Mephistopheles. I'm pretty sure that Marilyn has the Great Satan job secured.

[Cartooniverse]

Well, maybe Mephistopheles. I'm pretty sure that Marilyn has the Great Satan job secured.


Mephistopheles is not your name
I know what you're up to just the same
I will listen hard to your tuition
And you will see it come to it's fruition


-Shrug- Hey, it's a job. Someone has to assume the mantle of Prince of Darkness and taunt the holy of holies, Cecil, from afar.

Thank goodness I'm prepaid for another year. :D

And, Wendell, you're half-right. The columns started in 1973. The Straight Dope: A Compendium of Human Knowledge (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345333152/sr=8-1/qid=1146252273/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9904147-3421602?%5Fencoding=UTF8) was published on May 12, 1986 by Ballantine, though it's original copyright date is 1984.

I think we ought to have a party. That was 20 years ago this coming May 12. We could call it " Dopo De Mayo"

:)

Cartooniverse

[cosmosdan]

Sure. As has been discussed, until about 300 C.E., there WERE no "Biblical references" because various writings had not been chosen as canon upon which to found the new religion. Therefore, I assert that everything written in the Four Gospels is not in fact biblical writings, but writings that were written between the time of the death of Jesus and about 170 years after his death. Me, I don't cotton to the idea that someone writing 170 years post mortem can say anything in the way of a direct quote, but someone writing 20 or 30 years hence? Sure. You bet. At least SOME of the Gospels were written down oral histories of what occurred and were witnessed firsthand.

If I set out to create a religion and, oh, say, call it the religion of Cecil then I have plenty of canon from which to compose the Book of Cecil. His first published book came out in what, 1973 or something? Earlier than that of course are the columns themselves. In any event, I get to take written words that were not composed and chosen solely to create a religion, and I get to create a religion out of them.

Such was the case with the earliest-written of the Gospels. Those who witnessed and worked with Jesus were in a position to write about it. Whether or not said writings became a part of the Four Gospels of Jesus and were the foundation for a religion is largely besides the point. Cecil wrote columns. I base a religion upon them. Did he write them just so I could do this? No, he did not. Were the earlier of the Gospels composed solely to serve the needs of a few powerful Romans? No, sorry, but they were not- nobody can look into the future. The Gospel written 30 years after the death of Jesus could not have been created solely to become canon and a part of the Bible now used in Christianity- history doesn't work that way and we all know it.

Therefore it is reasonable for me to say that citing the earlier of the Gospels as authentic writings attesting to the existence of the man Jesus Christ is valid. Writings created more than a century after his death stretches the accuracy thing to the limits in my view.

A perusal of Wikipedia yielded this :


Let's say that the first one or two were written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. That does not invalidate them as accurate texts, as oral history was much more the norm back then opposed to now.

I see....

So what you referred to earlier as an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts is actually the gospels? That's a stretch. I think it was more honest when you withdrew an earlier statement admitting you couldn't back it up.

Consider this. Oral tradition is fine but is not a measure of accuracy. We don't know for sure who the authors of the gospels were or if they knew and walked with Jesus or merely repeated stories told to them.

The authors of Matthew and Luke almost certainly had a copy of Mark as a reference in writing since many verses from are repeated in them. That indicates they are not independent accounts. It can also be argued fairly successfully that although these books weren't canonized until much later they were still written as religious texts to promote a certain belief. And so these then are your incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts?

I stated before that we really don't know from an historical point of view if Jesus actually existed. {That means he may have but based on historical evidence we really don't know}You've offered nothing other than what I already acknowledged in the way of an argument. You certainly haven't backed up your statement.

Once again, I'm not arguing the Jesus didn't really exist. I'm simply asking for a little honesty and accuracy in considering the evidence, as well as not misquoting and misrepresenting what I've said.

[Cartooniverse]

-sigh- Look, I didn't mean to misrepresent you and I do apologize. However, it's incredibly disingenuous to say that someone has to provide a cite besides the earlier Gospels to prove that Jesus existed. You are asking for honesty and accuracy in considering the evidence and my position is that the very fact that the early Gospels were written by people who were direct associates of Jesus' should be evidence enough.

I am sorry I don't have a few dozen bulletproof indepentant cites to cross-reference the claim. It was 2,000 years ago and well....... documentation wasn't what it is now. :)

[cosmosdan]

-sigh- Look, I didn't mean to misrepresent you and I do apologize. However, it's incredibly disingenuous to say that someone has to provide a cite besides the earlier Gospels to prove that Jesus existed. You are asking for honesty and accuracy in considering the evidence and my position is that the very fact that the early Gospels were written by people who were direct associates of Jesus' should be evidence enough.

If there is someone being disingenuous here it is you {even if it's unknowingly} The facts are that we don't know if the gospels were written by direct associates of Jesus. To claim they were is simply an false claim. It is a Christian tradition not backed by evidence. That is exactly what I'm speaking of when I request accuracy and honesty. This information is not hard to find. The SDMB has a report on "who wrote the Bible" that is very informative. Someone who spews false facts is either too lazy to do the research or just in denial.

I am sorry I don't have a few dozen bulletproof independent cites to cross-reference the claim. It was 2,000 years ago and well....... documentation wasn't what it is now. :)
The point is that you were the one that made claims you couldn't back up with cites. That's the kind of challenge you should expect in GDs and I'm grateful for a forum that has standards like that. If you can't back up your claims then learn not to make them.

Actually there are several non biblical references about Jesus from various writers of that era including Josephus (A.D. 37-100), Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55?-after 117)
and a few others. None of it makes us sure Jesus existed from an historical point of view because of the inaccurate nature of historians in that age. Which just happens to be , what I asserted several posts ago.

[E-Sabbath]

To the extent that historical claims made in the bible are testable, some have been tested and found to be true. Some have been tested and found to be false. Some have been tested and found to be inconclusive.
True: There was a city known as Jericho.
Almost assuredly false: The great flood. We may have found the origin of the story, but a flood covering the entire earth would leave certain marks which are clearly not present.
Inconclusive: The precise historical existance of one man of Nazareth. However, as these things go, there's no strong evidence against it and some evidence for it. Some, but not all, of that evidence was forged.

The Books of Mormon have certain testable historical claims. Those that can be tested and are unique to the book, have, by and large, been found to be false.

This says little to the use of the book as a religious revelation, and more to the use of the book as a historical artifact.

Are we in reasonable agreement here?

[Cartooniverse]

Someone who spews false facts is either too lazy to do the research or just in denial.

That's just about as harsh as your language needs to get in this thread, ok? I didn't accuse you of being a liar, have the good graces to be as polite in return. No, I'm not a Moderator but I did start this thread and have tried very hard to speak to folks without making the heated discussion personal. Speaking of the Boards, if you need to call people names, see that little tab titled, "BBQ Pit"? Go for it. :) I respect your views even if I don't automatically flip over and support them suddenly.

No, I was not trying to "spew false facts", nor was I attempting to be disingenuous. We are in disagreement over what is a valid cite and what is not. That is fine, I respect that. The fact that Josephus also lived around that time makes him no more or less valid a cite than another person writing about the existence of Jesus. ( I say "around" because the birth date you supply has him born after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn't mean he wasn't able to write articulately about Jesus, does it? If I chose to interview many people who knew someone influential who died when I was a child ( Bobby Kennedy OR Martin Luther King, Jr. ) and write about their lives, that hardly would invalidate my writings just because I wrote about them afte they died. So, I accept Josephus as a reasonable cite- even though he never could have met Jesus Christ) It simply makes him another cite ( which I do of course recognize ).

I read the SDMB report on Who Wrote The Bible. Thanks for informing everybody else about it though, it is an excellent resource !!

Just so we're clear, on a personal level. I'm not a Christian. This isn't about defending my faith, it's about comparing two religious texts and why one is accepted as the word of God and the other is routinely slammed as impossibly unbelievable.

[cosmosdan]

That's just about as harsh as your language needs to get in this thread, ok? I didn't accuse you of being a liar, have the good graces to be as polite in return. No, I'm not a Moderator but I did start this thread and have tried very hard to speak to folks without making the heated discussion personal. Speaking of the Boards, if you need to call people names, see that little tab titled, "BBQ Pit"? Go for it. :) I respect your views even if I don't automatically flip over and support them suddenly. So your reference to me as incredibly disingenuous is fine but my expressing an opinion is impolite. Let's add that you again misrepresented my position again by indicating I insisted you provide non biblical references. I never insisted any such thing. I merely asked what you referred to when you said an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts. You presented the gospels as such and I pointed out they hardly qualify. They are not a plethora, nor are they independently written.

No, I was not trying to "spew false facts", nor was I attempting to be disingenuous. We are in disagreement over what is a valid cite and what is not.
Incorrect. You did present false facts when you referred to the gospels as written by people who were direct associates of Jesus. That's another claim you can't back up with evidence. IMO making such a claim when you seem to have done enough reading to know better, repeatedly misrepresenting and misquoting me, and refusing to simply admit you made a claim you can't really support is being disingenuous.
That is fine, I respect that. The fact that Josephus also lived around that time makes him no more or less valid a cite than another person writing about the existence of Jesus. ( I say "around" because the birth date you supply has him born after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn't mean he wasn't able to write articulately about Jesus, does it? If I chose to interview many people who knew someone influential who died when I was a child ( Bobby Kennedy OR Martin Luther King, Jr. ) and write about their lives, that hardly would invalidate my writings just because I wrote about them afte they died. So, I accept Josephus as a reasonable cite- even though he never could have met Jesus Christ) It simply makes him another cite ( which I do of course recognize ).
I never presented anyone as a direct associate of Jesus since we don't know if we have anything written someone who fits that description. You did make such a claim. Having non biblical references to Jesus simply adds a little more credence to the idea that he actually lived. That's all.
I read the SDMB report on Who Wrote The Bible. Thanks for informing everybody else about it though, it is an excellent resource !!
Then you should know better than to make the claims you have made in this thread.

Just so we're clear, on a personal level. I'm not a Christian. This isn't about defending my faith, it's about comparing two religious texts and why one is accepted as the word of God and the other is routinely slammed as impossibly unbelievable.
That's right. I mentioned the simple fact that we're not sure if Jesus actually existed only as a minor aside and it blew up from there. In your responses you have misquoted me and made claims that you can't support so it has gone on longer than it should have without furthering the discussion. I have no wish to continue.