The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-16-1999, 05:24 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
In Doyle's book A Study in Scarlet, he includes several chapters about the Mormons in 19th-cenury Utah, and their closed, regimented society, including their pronouncement of death against anyone who dared try to leave. As the story develops, a man named Jefferson Hope has trailed two men to London, and kills them, avenging a hapless young woman apparently forced to marry one of them, a Mormon drunkard.
So I'd like to know:
1) Did Doyle have a severe vendetta against Mormons?
2) Are the Sherlock Holmes books available in Mormon country?
For the record, I am NOT a Mormon.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-16-1999, 05:45 PM
Court Jester Court Jester is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
This is from memory from a class I had about 20 years ago, so if others have better dope, it would not surprise me. At the time the book was written, Doyle knew nothing about the Mormons, and little about Utah. Mormons were in the news quite a bit at that time, as they had started to send missionarys to Europe. It was also around the time that Utah was being considered for statehood. So Doyle picked up a few clues from the sensational press, a few clues from Americans he had talked to, and made everything else up from whole cloth (and used the whole 9 yards.) Doyle considered the Holmes books to be light garbage that he really didn't need to spend much time on. His lack of continuity is legendary to the true fans. Poor Watson, he was usually John, but his wife (or is it one of his wives?) called him James at one point. Of course that could be why he later ended up not married and back at Baker Street. He also was hit by a bullet that could travel, sometimes causing shoulder, hip, lower leg or back problems.
I am sure that the Holmes stories are available in Utah and other places where there are many Mormons, but I have no idea what the Elders of the LDS have to say about them.



------------------
A hat with bells on is not funny, it is the jester underneath.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-16-1999, 05:59 PM
Gaudere Gaudere is offline
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 6,116
Any true Sherlockian know that there are no continuity problems! You see, Watson had two wives and he was loathe to bring up that he had remarried; the second called him James because John's middle name was "Hamish" which she translated to "James". Anything in the Canon can be explained, requiring only the intervention of a minor deity and wildly improbable speculation.

I used to be a big Sherlock fan, but I never liked the Mormon stuff in SiS; too dull. So I can't help out, and my copy of The Annotated Sherlock Holmes is fifty miles away.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-1999, 06:01 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
Well...to be fair about it, I have also noted that Jan Harold Brunvand--not a Mormon--lives in Utah and Mormons have figured in some of his urban legend stories. If the religion were as bad as portrayed in A Study in Scarlet, the elders in Utah might have suppressed Brunvand's books or threatened him; obviously nobody is going to disregard the First Amendment here...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-16-1999, 06:31 PM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,080
In Baring-Gould's wonderful ANNOTATED SHERLOCK HOLMES, a note references Michael Harrison's The Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, citing that the British reading public of 1887 was "quite willing to believe these slanders on the Mormons. Mid Victorian England was convinced that the Mormons 'stole English servant girls, to spirit them out of the country and make them White Slaves in a Mormon harem.' Harrison writes, "There were riots over the Mormons, especially when the servant-girls [compared] their lot below-stairs with the prospects offered of life in a state which has never known unemployment..."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-16-1999, 09:32 PM
dasmoocher dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Happens that I was reading James Randi's "Flim Flam!" last night. Chapter 2 deals with Doyle's espousal of the existance of Fairies. Makes you wonder about his views on other subjects.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-16-1999, 10:09 PM
B. Hamilton B. Hamilton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
<Well...to be fair about it, I have also noted that Jan Harold Brunvand--not a Mormon--lives in Utah and Mormons have figured in
some of his urban legend stories.> Actually I am a Mormon and JHB's books are a favorite of mine. Mormons have their own version of Urban Legends that parallel "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" and others. Although they are not church doctrine, they are still repeated as happening to a friend of a friend. Mark Twain writes about the Mormons in his book _Roughing It_. I don't take offense at a little sarcasm. I found it quite funny myself.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-16-1999, 10:13 PM
B. Hamilton B. Hamilton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
I can't figure out why whenever I have posted to this board, portions of my post are missing even though I had cut and pasted them from my word processor. The last post should have started out with this sentence: "Well...to be fair about it, I have also noted that Jan Harold Brunvand--not a Mormon--lives in Utah and Mormons have figured in
some of his urban legend stories."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-17-1999, 08:41 AM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,080
B. Hamilton -- My guess is that you are using the symbols < and > in your posts, with no spaces around them. The < symbol is used as a code (for example < i > with no spaces between the < and the i indicated italics.)

If you're going to use the > and < symbols, be sure to have a blank spaces surrounding them. That will solve the disappearance prob, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-1999, 01:42 AM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Gaudere said:
Quote:
Anything in the Canon can be explained, requiring only the intervention of a minor deity and wildly improbable speculation.
And this differs how from reality?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-21-1999, 01:16 AM
smilingjaws smilingjaws is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
On behalf of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, there are some historical events about the beginnings of the LDS church that were known in his time.
An account of some of these actions is found at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadowscontents.htm

This account includes copies of documents of the period including the words of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and testimony of those involved in the Mountains Meadows Massacre.

Here is a brief snoposis of what is covered:
_______________________
It is not necessary to give the details of the blood atonement murder of William R. Parrish and his son Beason for "apostasy,"
at Springville, in 1856; of the murder of Rosmos Anderson by the leading priesthood of the Parowan "stake of Zion" in 1856,
because Philip Klingensmith, bishop of Cedar City, Utah, coveted the buxom Scandinavian stepdaughter of Anderson as his plural wife, and whom Anderson also wanted as his plural, and with whom, as alleged, he had committed adultery as the last and surest effort to secure a "recommend" to enter the "holy order of celestial marriage"; of the castration of Tom Lewis, at Manti, Utah, in 1856, because Bishop Warren Snow was lecherously ambitious to polygamously marry the girl with whom
Lewis was keeping company; of the inexpressibly cowardly murder of William Hatton at Fillmore, 1856, by a man who could
be named, and who was the agent of the "prophets, seers and revelators" at Salt Lake City, and whose handsome widow the
unspeakable "Prophet" Heber C. Kimball soon after added to his celestial harem; of the murder, by prophetic instructions, at
Farmington, during the spring of 1858, of four of the Aiken party, and while "Johnston's" army at Ham's Fork was preparing to enter Utah, and of the cowardly assassination of two others of the Aiken party by a present high churchman and his companion, who, under pretense of conducting them from Utah by the southern route to California, shot them in the back at a point some four or five miles south of Nephi, about 110 miles south of Salt Lake City; of the midnight murder, later on, of King, Brassfield and others who became obnoxious to the Mormon leaders. This is an abbreviated history of the Mountain Meadows massacre
- not of the entire diabolical results of the teaching of unquestioning obedience and blood atonement by the vicegerents of the Mormon god.
_______________

I am posting this in the interest of truth and full disclosure. I am not trying to malign the LDS church in any way.

For a nice list of books about the LDS church and its origins (both Mormon approved and nonapproved works) see: http://www.california.com/~rpcman/MO3.HTM
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-21-1999, 02:51 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Mountain Meadows Massacre

Monument to be restored
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-21-1999, 02:57 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Oops. Let me try that again:
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/jan/01021999/utah/71508.htm
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-1999, 10:52 PM
smilingjaws smilingjaws is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Thanks, Snark--It's nice to see people being honest and open about the past--nice remarks by all.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-1999, 03:49 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
To 647: I think it's in The Straight Dope Tells All that Cecil printed a letter from an attorney representing Uri Geller (whose antics I will not discuss here). It seems James "The Amazing" Randi wound up getting sued by Uri Geller regarding something Randi had written; Geller won, presumably in a libel suit. I won't go into Doyle's discussion of fairies; if we're going to discuss impeaching Doyle because of his writings about fairies, or Mormons, or whatever, perhaps we should also impeach Mr. Randi, inasmuch as he wound up getting sued (successfuly, at that) for libel by Mr. Geller.
Furthermore, I found a quotation by Brigham Young that appeared in Volume 55 of Journal of Discourse:
"I have many a time dared the world to produce as mean devils as we can....we can deal the cards with the smartest shavers, can cut and shuffle the cards, and take their money from them. We can beat the world at any game."
One religious commentator followed this quotation with, "In direct contrast Jesus admonished us to remain separate from the world and cautioned us about following blind leaders ["the blind leading the blind"]. (Scripture quotations followed.)
Who knows? Conan Doyle may have had copies of Journal of Discourse to refer to.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-1999, 06:02 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
On the subject of Brigham Young's fallibility:

Are Prophets Infallible?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-1999, 06:14 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Sorry, I meant to provide the following quotation from that web site. And remember, Jesus himself was accused of being a "winebibber" and consorting with sinners, and thus condemned by some of the Jews.

Quote:
As we can see, the Prophets and Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not claim absolute perfection or infallibility. We should also note that ancient prophets also presented the clear understanding that God's servants continued to sin or "make mistakes," and were thus fully human despite a divine commission:

"Noah occasionally drank wine to the point of drunkenness and unconsciousness (Genesis 9:21, 23). Abraham acquiesced in his wife's mistreatment of his second wife (Genesis 16:6). Jacob "with subtlety" and deception obtained his brother's blessing from his blind father Isaac (Genesis 27:12, 35), and also hated his first wife Leah (Genesis 29:30-31). Moses at the least committed manslaughter prior to his call as a prophet (Exodus 2:12-14), and after that call occasionally exhibited doubt in God's word, fierce anger, and boastful arrogance (Exodus 4:10-14, 5:22-23, 32:19; Numbers 20:10-12). The Lord had to intervene directly to prevent Samuel from choosing the wrong man as king (1 Samuel 16:6-7). Daniel sought forgiveness for his sins while prophet (Daniel 9:20). Jonah resisted the commandment of God to him (Jonah 1:2-3, 4:1) James and John, as apostles, delighted in the thought of their opponents being destroyed (Luke 9:52-56) and pridefully sought to elevate themselves above the rest of God's children in the eternities (Mark 10:35-38). Peter was impudent, boastful, arrogant, and cowardly as an apostle during the life of Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23, 26:69-75; John 13:8-9, 18:10-11). Despite Christ's command to send the Gospel to all nations at His ascension (Matthew 27:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47), it required another specific revelation to Peter to persuade him that the Gospel should be taken to those who were not Jews (Acts 10-11), and even years after that revelation Peter continued to demonstrate his prejudice (Galatians 2:1,9,11-14). Nor did Peter hesitate to criticize the approach of his fellow apostle Paul in teaching the Gospel (2 Peter 3:15-16); Paul likewise boasted that he had publicly condemned Peter and "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11-14). Moreover, conflicts between Barnabus and Paul resulted in the disruption of their mission (Acts 13:2, 15:36-39)."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-1999, 06:29 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
It irked me to find an item in Pearl of Great Price--Mormon Scripture--that sounded so out of line it inspires my negative appraisal of the religion. Articles of Faith, Verse 8:
"We accept the Bible as the Word of God so far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God."
Forgive me for being blunt, but that passage sounds more like something from a "nut journal" than Holy Scripture. It suggests a convenient lever for Mormons to reject any Scripture--the Bible, that is--that runs counter to Mormon doctrine, and I can produce plenty of that, believe me.
As for the negative passages in the Bible, some commentators have said "No other book [than the Bible] vibrates with such agonizing honesty." Yes, Jesus was not believed in, hated without cause--but even this was prophesied. I would not expect any book that professes to be divine revelation to distort or hide the truth.
And remember--Journal of Discourse is not part of the Book of Mormon. Young's statement I quoted sounds like an arrogant boast. Neither God Almighty nor Jesus Christ makes such boasts in Scripture.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-24-1999, 07:21 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
dougie_monty wrote:

Quote:
It irked me to find an item in Pearl of Great Price--Mormon Scripture--that sounded so out of line it inspires my negative appraisal of the religion. Articles of Faith, Verse 8:
"We accept the Bible as the Word of God so far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God."
Forgive me for being blunt, but that passage sounds more like something from a "nut journal" than Holy Scripture. It suggests a convenient lever for Mormons to reject any Scripture--the Bible, that is--that runs counter to Mormon doctrine, and I can produce plenty of that, believe me.
Well, Mormons do believe that the Bible has had many "plain and precious truths" removed from it through the course of time, either through scribal error or as the work of designing, corrupt men. The Book of Mormon had no such history of being copied, re-copied, etc. and therefore was preserved in its original state, unadulterated.

Quote:
< snip > And remember--Journal of Discourse is not part of the Book of Mormon.
And it's not scripture, either.

Quote:
Young's statement I quoted sounds like an arrogant boast. Neither God Almighty nor Jesus Christ makes such boasts in Scripture.
I refer you to the link I provided above about prophets not being infallible. If Brigham Young boasted inappropriately, does that mean the LDS church isn't true? Hardly, IMHO. Not everything that came out of his mouth was scripture, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-24-1999, 07:32 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
I must point out that the consensus of Bible textual critics is that, and I quote, "the last foundation for doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed." This conclusion was reached after the finding of a fragment of the Gospel of John dating from A.D. 150--some 50 years after the original was written. There are many thousands of manuscripts of the Bible, in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, etc.--how many for the Book of Mormon? If it was produced from golden plates, where are they? Jesus told us not to hide our light under a bushel basket.
If you have manuscripts from which the Book of Mormon was produced, by all means show me.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-1999, 07:40 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
dougie_monty wrote:

Quote:
There are many thousands of manuscripts of the Bible, in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, etc.--how many for the Book of Mormon? If it was produced from golden plates, where are they? Jesus told us not to hide our light under a bushel basket.
If you have manuscripts from which the Book of Mormon was produced, by all means show me.
The golden plates from which the BoM was translated were taken back by the angel Moroni, to be returned at a future date for further translation. (A portion of the plates was sealed and JS was not allowed to translate that portion.)

Why doesn't God reveal Himself in a way that no one can dispute His existence? Why doesn't He just say, "Look, here I am; here's irrefutable proof that I exist!" and show Himself to us all? The answer to that, as well as to your question is, faith is required of all of us. It's only after our faith has been tested that we receive answers to such questions.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-24-1999, 07:56 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
I'd say faith has not been a problem where preserving the Bible is concerned. There has been plenty of that.
You may know that stone walls and "steles" survive from millennia ago, from Egypt and other ancient civilizations; we have clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions, preserved splendidly, from Akkadia, Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, etc. But their message is a dead message. The Bible, on the other hand, was written out on parchment or vellum--but written and rewritten (read "copied") over the centuries because people cared enough to preserve it. (Note Gamaliel's admonishment to the priests in the fifth chapter of Acts.) The Jewish Sopherim were so meticulous in their recopying they counted not only the words but the letters--and even noted a letter in the Hebrew word for "belly" in the 11th chapter of Leviticus as the middle letter of the Pentateuch!
People have said I have a photographic memory; in any case, I have seen countless copies of the Book of Mormon in libraries and used bookstores, and all have the same typeface, obviously printed from the same stereotypes. (That's a term used in typography for a plate printing a whole page.)
On the other hand, I know that the Catholic Church found a manuscript of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible, now known as Vatican MS. No. 1209, in the 16th Century. They would not allow non-Catholic scholars to examine it, until the late 19th Century, when the Codex Sinaiticus appeared; the Church produced facsimile copies of No. 1209 lest it be eclipsed. And you say the golden plates were taken away. All I can say is--if the shoe fits wear it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-24-1999, 09:04 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
I refuse to take responsibility for actions performed by the angel Moroni, who was acting for God when he took the plates. If you don't like God's actions, take Him up on it, not me.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-24-1999, 09:21 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,999
Gee, Dougie; if you're going to reject the BoM or PoGP because something in it contradicts something in the Bible, won't you then have to reject the Bible itself since it contradicts itself?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-24-1999, 09:49 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
dougie_monty wrote:

Quote:
I'd say faith has not been a problem where preserving the Bible is concerned. There has been plenty of that.
Yet how many people without faith actually accept the Bible as truth? Some people wouldn't believe it was true if the dead rose from their graves and started preaching it on street corners. You need more than external evidences to accept spiritual truths, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-26-1999, 06:51 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
To Monty: I have been over the issue of the Bible's alleged contradictions--I've read it through five times and found none--so many times I consider the notion to be redundant and not worth resuscitating.
I think I missed a point earlier when I referred to Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, Verse 8: "We accept the Bible as the Word of God so far as it is translated correctly..." I should have pointed out to the person who tried to rebut this statement that, contrary to his point, the verse refers to the Bible's translation, not its textual integrity; and that is fully established so far as I am concerned. This person tried to tell me that there are textual deficiencies in the Bible.
Therefore, it's interesting that the Book of Mormon borrows passages from the Bible:
1 Nephi 10:18; 2 Nephi 27:23; Alma 31:17; Mormon 9:9; Moroni 10:19--Hebrews 13:8.
1 Nephi 20, 21--Isaiah 48, 49.
1 Nephi 22:25--John 10:9, 14, 16.
2 Nephi 7, 8--Isaiah 50-52:2.
Alma 31:37--Luke 12:22.
Alma 34:36--Psalm 95:8, 11; Hebrews 3:8-11, 9:27.
Helaman 10:7--Matthew 16:19.
3 Nephi 20:23-25--Acts 3:22-25.
3 Nephi 12:3-18, 21-28, 31-45--Matthew 5:3-18, 21-28, 31:45.
And so on.
3 Nephi duplicates, in chapters 24 and 25, the 3rd and 4th chapters of the book of Malachi. If you look in a Jewish translation of Malachi, you will find that the 6 verses that appear as Chapter 4 in the King James Version are just the last 6 verses in the third chapter. The 4th chapter division did not appear until the Middle Ages.
The chapter and verse divisions we are familiar with in the Bible were not added generally until the invention of printing in the 15th Century; but the Masoretic Hebrew text, dating from the 9th Century, did use verse divisions.
On the basis of this evidence the text of the Book of Mormon is suspect, and to me it seems that Moroni could do better.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-26-1999, 06:54 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
The point of the above is that, although Mormons seem to question the Bible's textual integrity, the Book of Mormon seems to contradict such questioning, in that it duplicates so much of what is already in the [/i]Bible.[/i]
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-26-1999, 07:52 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Dougie_monty, did you know that there are actually verses in the New Testament that quote the Old Testament? Heresy! You seem to be saying, "If God said it twice, it can't be true!"

Actually, Mormons don't believe that the whole text of the Bible is in error (obviously, since the BoM quotes from it so often). Most of it has survived intact and error-free. But according to the BoM, many "plain and precious truths" have been lost from the Bible, which are restored in the BoM. Are you so offended by the concept of biblical errancy that you can't concede that the original text could have been modified in the slightest way down through the ages?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-27-1999, 02:17 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,999
Quote:
To Monty: I have been over the issue of the Bible's alleged contradictions--I've read it through five times and found none--so many times I consider the notion to be redundant and not worth resuscitating.
Alleged? You must really be from another planet if you think that facts which have been proven are merely alleged to be true!

I've no idea what your background is; however, statements such as yours above are exactly what I'm accustomed to seeing from badly homeschooled fundies! Please note that I said "badly homeschooled" and not merely "homeschooled."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-29-1999, 02:26 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
To Monty,
I am prepared to bolster my assertion with documentation but this is not the proper forum for it. E-mail me at montgomerydou55@hotmail.com and I will send you the documentation.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-29-1999, 02:35 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
Furthermore, the other point I was trying to make was that, on one hand the Book of Mormon borrows many passages verbatim--and very long ones too--from books of the Bible--and from a centuries-old, error-ridden English translation at that. This suggests to me that Joseph Smith was totally taken in by those who think the King James Version was brought down from Heaven in 1610. (I assure you that, according to Book of a Thousand Tongues, the KJV of 1610 looked radically different from editions published today, along with containing the apocryphal books; Smith wouldn't recognize it, most likely).
Besides--and here is a more cogent point--compare the dates of writing assigned to book of the Book of Mormon with the generally accepted dates of completion of the New Testament--A.D. 41 for Matthew; A.D. 50-75 for most of the other NT books; A.D. 96-98 for John, 1, 2, and 3 John, and the Revelation. I intend to do this myself and locate a number of anachronistic quotations--they'd have to be anachronistic when the assigned times of writing are compared.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-29-1999, 04:50 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Dougie, the thing you seem to be missing is that the Book of Mormon was written by inspired men, and thus they were given the correct words to write by direct inspiration of God. And unless you believe that God is not omniscient, you have to admit that Deity could see the future as well as know exactly what He would say to biblical prophets in the future, and give this information to the writers of the BoM.

Say you made a time machine out of a DeLorean and travelled back to 600 B.C.E. Once there, you discovered that one of the Jewish prophets knew all about automobiles in the future and could describe how they worked perfectly. What would be your explanation of this miraculous foreknowledge? Could God possibly have given that prophet this information, or is Deity's foresight limited? Could this be called an "anachronism"?

Anyway, if God is truly all-seeing, then it stands to reason that He is able to quote passages of scripture that haven't been written by others yet, and still use the exact wording and style that He would give to the future prophet. Check out 2 Nephi chapter 29 for God's answer to the contention that He can't speak the same words twice to two different nations, at two different times. There are no anachronisms to God if He is fully aware of the future and chooses to reveal part of that future to His prophets.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-29-1999, 05:22 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
I find it difficult to believe that the Book of Mormon is written by inspired men, as you claim, when, right at the start it says "I make it [the record] of my own hand," in 1 Nephi 1:3. (Compare this to 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired of God.")
You may have read Why I Am a Mormon by Wallace F. Bennett. In it he says, "We recognize the Bible's limitations as well as its value. We do not ascribe final authority to any of its statements because we believe that God has reestablished the authority to speak in his name and has given it to righteous men." It seems difficult for me to reconcile such a deprecation of the Bible with the plethora of borrowed passages from it, in the Book of Mormon. Besides, Galatians 1:8 lays a curse on anyone--even "an angel from Heaven"--who shall attempt to propagate an extra-Biblical message that lays claim to being a Christian revelation.
Joseph Smith's mother Lucy wrote, in Joseph Smith, the Prophet, that "Martin Harris, the first person to take an active interest in the golden plates" was a dreamer and a fanatic, and affirmed he had visited the moon! I can't imagine Moses or David or Ezra or Luke or John making such a wild claim--one corroborated by one of his own relatives.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-29-1999, 05:59 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
dougie_monty wrote:

Quote:
I find it difficult to believe that the Book of Mormon is written by inspired men, as you claim, when, right at the start it says "I make it [the record] of my own hand," in 1 Nephi 1:3. (Compare this to 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired of God.")
Yes, Nephi made his record with his own hands. So did Paul in his epistles. Are Paul's writings suspect too, simply because he wrote them with his own hands?

Quote:
You may have read Why I Am a Mormon by Wallace F. Bennett. In it he says, "We recognize the Bible's limitations as well as its value. We do not ascribe final authority to any of its statements because we believe that God has reestablished the authority to speak in his name and has given it to righteous men." It seems difficult for me to reconcile such a deprecation of the Bible with the plethora of borrowed passages from it, in the Book of Mormon. Besides, Galatians 1:8 lays a curse on anyone--even "an angel from Heaven"--who shall attempt to propagate an extra-Biblical message that lays claim to being a Christian revelation.
Actually, Galatians 1:8 says the curse will be on anyone who "preach[es] any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you ..." In other words, anyone who preaches anything else than the [restored] gospel of Mormonism (if you will) will be cursed. I have no problem with this passage and I see no discrepancy, as I believe that the LDS faith is the same faith as Paul preached.

It all boils down to one question: is there such a thing as modern revelation, both to prophets and to everyone else? If so, then you can find out for yourself whether the BoM is true, directly from God. (James 1:5; Moroni 10:3-5). If not, what happened to God's ability to speak to man? Did He somehow lose it?

Quote:
Joseph Smith's mother Lucy wrote, in Joseph Smith, the Prophet, that "Martin Harris, the first person to take an active interest in the golden plates" was a dreamer and a fanatic, and affirmed he had visited the moon! I can't imagine Moses or David or Ezra or Luke or John making such a wild claim--one corroborated by one of his own relatives.
Martin Harris wasn't a prophet.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-29-1999, 06:40 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
I think I should digress here, Snark, to the posting on November 20th by Smiling Jaws, supra; you read his posting and then tell me 1) Where the blame rests and 2) If this is the religion commanded by God. --Titus 1:6.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-29-1999, 06:58 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
http://www.mormons.org/response/hist...eadows_EOM.htm

The blame for the Mountain Meadows Massacre rests solely on those who did it. As for other alleged atrocities (and remember, SmilingJaws is quoting an anti-Mormon who uses loaded words and propaganda to get his points across), they are the works of individuals, not of the LDS church. [sarcasm]God forbid that any traditional Christian has ever committed an atrocity! [/sarcasm]

Like I said, Dougie, it all boils down to, do you accept modern revelation as valid or not? If so, you can with faith ask God whether the LDS church is the true religion or not, and whether or not the Book of Mormon is true (again, see James 1:5 and Moroni 10:3-5). If not, what happened to the God who is "the same yesterday, today and forever"? Is God's mouth stopped?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-29-1999, 07:12 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
Let me put it this way: I refer again to Galatians 1:8, as well as prohibitions in Deuteronomy and Revelation (almost at the very end) against adding to God's word. (Note that at the very end of the Gospel of John--which, as reckoned above, was the last book of the Bible canon to be written--John says that very likely the scrolls containing all the things that Jesus did would be so many and so voluminous the whole world couldn't contain them.)
That said, I answer that no, I do not accept modern revelation. At the very least, you can tell by what I have written that in that regard I assert that the Book of Mormon does not pass muster.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-29-1999, 07:26 PM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Interesting that Deuteronomy should have a prohibition against "adding to God's word." I was of the notion that there is more to the Bible beyond the book of Deuteronomy. Obviously, that prohibition is against adding to the book of Deuteronomy, not against adding to the Bible. Same with the scripture in Revelation.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-29-1999, 08:35 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,999
Dougie:

So help us all out here, will you? You're saying that the Book of Revelations prohibits adding more books to the Bible. Yet, you're also saying that the Gospel of John was written after the book prohibiting additions?

Gee, that means the Gospel of John isn't part of the Bible!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-29-1999, 08:43 PM
smilingjaws smilingjaws is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Here is the Mormon Bishop John Lee's memoirs http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm
Again, I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but I do believe "the truth will set you free."
I think it's a shame that the LDS church is still trying to hide their roots. It was heartening that they finally admitted that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. Unfortunately, the track record for LDS admitting to the past is poor. I know of no better proof than the excommunication of scholars like Michael Quinn and Fawn Brodie, devote Mormons, who published works of historical accuracy that were considered heretical because they reported facts rather than dogma.
Please don't say that Lee's testimony is of an anti-mormon--he was a Mormon Bishop.
I don't understand why the LDS church tries so hard to had the past--why can't they just admit that many of their beliefs were just plain wrong and that their leaders--including Joseph Smith--did some quite wicked things in the name of God. I doubt they would lose many members and they would gain respect for truthfulness.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-30-1999, 09:01 AM
Snark Snark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
[I had to have my previous posting deleted, as I may or may not have slandered someone in the process of replying.]

While we're on the subject of wickedness, why don't we talk about Governor Boggs's extermination order, or the massacre at Haun's Mill, or the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in cold blood by an angry mob? Fact is, the only reason the Mormons were in Utah to begin with is because no one would tolerate their different beliefs, and they were driven from town to town, sometimes tarred and feathered, raped, murdered, etc. So if some of the early Mormons were a bit militant and overprotective of their territory, I can hardly blame them. I do condemn the actions of those at the Mountain Meadows Massacre, however. I'm just saying that a persecuted people with their backs against the wall tend to be a little touchy when it comes to defending what was taken away from them so many times: their freedom, their lives, their right to worship as they pleased. So don't talk to me about "Mormon wickedness." The wickedness of the citizens of the good old USA in days of yore against the Mormons far exceeded anything the Mormons did.

I won't be replying further to this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-30-1999, 11:29 AM
smilingjaws smilingjaws is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
I truly am not trying to slander the LDS church. But it is not slander to present the non-LDS-sanitized version of history. While Joseph Smith is considered a great martyr for his religious beliefs, the truth is far more complex. He came to Missouri, claiming that the land was ordained for the Mormons by God. His followers, the Danites, terrorized the original inhabitants and legal landowners of the area as well as terrorizing Mormons who were opposed to the new principles of polygamy and various prounouncements of the prophet Smith. It is entirely understandable (though not justifiable) that the fearful "gentiles" turned on Joseph Smith and his followers who publically advocated driving out "gentiles" and taking their property, and who clearly demonstrated their intentions by terrorism.

The Southern Baptists several years ago fully acknowledged their sin of racism and repented of their actions. They recognized the need for honest assessment of their organization. The Germans have faced their part in WWII Holocaust and have tried to make amends. A foundation built on lies, deceit, and half-truths cannot stand. That's why it is so refreshing that the Mormon church has finally acknowledged the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I hope one day they will be able to stop trying to whitewash the rest of their past and accept the unpalatable truths along with the many good aspects of their religion.

Check out his site for historical perspective on the persecution of Mormons in Missouri-the Danites, the burning of the Expositor Press, the prophesies of Joseph Smith that Missouri was the inheritance of the Mormons and the call to expell the "Gentile" inhabitants. http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/legacy1.htm

In one of his revelations Joseph Smith revealed that Independence was the "center place" of Zion: "Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion. And thus saith the Lord your God... Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse." (Doctrine and Covenants 57: 2-3)
In another revelation Joseph Smith quoted the Lord as saying: "And thus, even as I have said, if ye are faithful ye shall assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies." (Doctrine and Covenants 52: 42)
In still another revelation we find that those who opposed Mormonism would be "plucked out." "And the rebellious shall be cut out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (Doctrine and Covenants 64: 35-36)
David Whitmer, who was one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following: "The main reason why the printing press was destroyed, was because they published the Book of Commandments. It fell into the hands of the world, and the people of Jackson county, Missouri, saw from the revelations that they were considered by the church as intruders upon the land of Zion, as enemies to the church, and that they should be cut off out of the land of Zion and sent away. The people seeing these things in the Book of Commandments became the more enraged, tore down the printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, page 54)


Some other sites of interest:

The Mormon Church hides its true history http://www.exmormon.org/disease.htm

Covering up polygamy http://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm

Blood atonement http://www.exmormon.org/bloodatn.htm
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-01-1999, 03:37 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
Touché!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-01-1999, 10:10 PM
Guest
 
Touche, my butt!

I seem to remember a biblical passage where God commanded the Israelites to move in on the Canaanites, to kill every man, woman and child, and to take their land. But of course that was just a metaphor or something...God would never actually take someone's land away from them or favor the righteous over the wicked, hmmm?

And what about the Indians? Seems to me that those very Missourians you're defending had to have taken their land from the Indians. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

And BTW, I'm not posting as "Snark," as I promised not to.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-01-1999, 11:11 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,999
Gee, Snark; I thought the "touche" was in response to my comment about the addition of the Gospel of John after the Book of Revelations. But that could just be because I've quit reading anything smilingjaws has to say on this issue. After all, SJ just posted a bunch of links to the same site--some anti-mormon propogandist site, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-01-1999, 11:41 PM
Guest
 
Jaws does seem to heavily favor anti-Mormon web sites, doesn't he? Well, nobody's perfect. I hope that someday he finds the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-02-1999, 05:00 PM
dougie_monty dougie_monty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gardena, CA 90248-3235
Posts: 8,141
I think a posting of mine here was misunderstood. God's command in Deuteronomy was "you must not add..."(my emphasis.) The Israelites were commanded not to interpolate their own writings onto the Scriptures; it didn't mean there would be no more Scripture! Evidence of this is shown early on in Luke, when Jesus read from the scroll of the Prophet Isaiah--the 61st chapter. This would indicate that Isaiah's book, written some 700 years after Deuteronomy, was canonical Scripture. (Incidentally, no part of the "Apocrypha" is cited anywhere in the New Testament.)
The latter part of Revelation, which includes the other prohibition against uninspired additions to the Bible, includes many citations from the "Old Testament," particularly the last chapters of Ezekiel; and the very last book written, the Gospel of John, likewise cites liberally the Hebrew Scriptures.
In The Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 20:23-25 copies the spurious text at 1 John 5:7, 8 in the KJV "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and there are three that bear witness on earth"; this phrase, according to all modern authorities, appears in no good Greek text. (The Alexandrine manuscript, which doesn't carry the interpolation, arrived in England too late for it to be used in assembling the Greek text prepared about 1585 for the "New Testament" volume of the Authorized or King James version. I bet that if the Alexandrine manuscript had arrived in time, and the phrase in question therefore omitted from 1 John in the KJV, it wouldn't have appeared in 3 Nephi either.)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-02-1999, 05:27 PM
smilingjaws smilingjaws is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Hey, I'd be glad to post from pro-Mormon sites if they didn't constantly edit and change the original texts! Most of these sites post the words of YOUR prophets and leaders, not mine!

Hope you guys one day find the truth Don't be too disappointed when you don't get your own planet--it'd be a lot of work to develop your own laws of nature, physics, etc, anyway (she said with a wink and a smile)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-02-1999, 08:59 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,999
Sure, SJ; so long as you're not too disappointed when you're denied entry into whatever paradise you postulate. Or is the expression "Judge not lest ye be judged" no longer the words of Scripture?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-03-1999, 08:13 AM
pldennison pldennison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Can someone clear up a pair of running themes for me, so I can be straight on them?

1) Anything supportive of the LDS church is "the truth," and anything critical of the LDS church is "anti-Mormon propaganda." Is that a fairly accurate assessment?

2) "Judge not, lest you be judged" applies only to the person being addressed, not to the speaker; and applies only to negative judgements and not positive ones. Is that a fairly accurate assessment?

------------------
"I prefer shows of the genre, "World's Blankiest Blank."
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.