So why’d you make it?
That’s pretty amusing. The Tanners’ claim to fame is some of the most egregious selective quoting, misleading emphases and extravagant uses of ellipsis I’ve ever seen.
They have so badly impeached themselves, there’s little more anyone can do to discredit them. There was a lengthy discussion a few years ago about them on the *.religion.mormon usenet groups. The culmination of the discussion was a post that absolutely destroyed any appearance of propriety the Tanners might have had. Here’s the link (thank you Google groups).
Additionally, Tom Nibley’s review of the Tanners’ Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon similarly tears that to shreds [here](Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon).
Now, keep in mind that the Tanners derive their income from attacking the LDS church. That’s pretty much guaranteed to not be an objective source. You might as well ask Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for an unbiased description of the Democrat party. You’d laugh too hard to even be able to hear the response, would you not?
So someone wouldn’t say “If you were being selective on the Mormon side, you would disregard everything they wrote that was against Mormonism.”
They actually make an income from what they do? Are they getting rich from it? Like the Mormon church? 
btw - Didn’t someone here (Rico?) say that the Tanners actually helped the Mormon church with the Hoffman forgeries? I wonder what their ulterior motive was for that. Maybe so they could sell some more books or something.
Is that the same David Charles Pyle who used to, &/or still does, post at Zion’s Lighthouse? If it is, he seems like a strange choice for writing about someone else’s impropriety.
I wouldn’t blow away all of what the Tanners have put out based on some claims that in no way addresses all the documentation they’ve turned up. Even if you remove the statements of the Tanners, the documents are oftentimes sufficiently self explanatory in themselves. Like I said to Monty, to be that selective would be stupid.
One of the many sub-arguments running through this thread has concerned the relative historical plausibility of the events concerning Joseph Smith as compared to those of the bible. Partly_Warmer suggested that Joseph Smith was obviously a liar on that basis and Monty, Stccrd, Diogenes and others piled on, suggesting that (at best) there was no more reason to believe biblical claims than Smith’s.
I don’t believe any of it (biblical or Smith). But I do think that to suggest Smith’s stories are merely as implausible as biblical stories shows a lack of perspective.
We have very little evidence of events 2000 years ago. We have tiny fragments here and there. If we have any evidence at all that an event occurred, that carries some weight. The lack of corroborating evidence for that event is not too damning, given the lack of much evidence at all about anything.
If we have any evidence at all of an event occurring 170 years ago, then that carries some weight. But if there is a lack of the type of corroborating evidence for that event that one might expect to find, that is very damning.
Why? Because 1830 is a just around the corner. American civilisation has not fallen between then and now. Language has not changed much between now and then. American was subject to the same stable government then as now. In 1830 there were daily newspapers that we still have. Printing was commonplace. We would have more written historical information from the year 1830 than we would have for the whole Roman era, at a guess.
So when, in all of that information, we do not have a single piece of corroborating evidence from outside of Smith’s own followers that his revelations were other than the purest moonshine, then that suggests very strongly that that is what they are.
(Note to FoL: it is not necessary to quote a post in its entirety when it’s only 2 posts above yours.)
I have no knowledge of the Tanners’ finances. I do know that they derive income from attacking a belief system, and as such have a financial incentive to tear down the LDS church. Do you have some claim about the “Mormon church” getting rich? That’s a laugh riot. Do you have specific claims to make?
The fact remains that the Tanners have a financial incentive to pursue whatever means necessary to show whatever negative press about the LDS church they can find, misqote, or manufacture. I don’t feel compelled to spend any more effort sifting through the trash heap of their so-called “research” than I already have.
Wow, you’re ready to accept whatever random claim is made here about something as controversial as that? Amazing. You’ll forgive me if I don’t have the same low standards for research that you seem to.
The links I provided show how they have very carefully misquoted, selectively quoted, or flat out lied about a source to make it mean something other than it means. To believe them in anything that isn’t independently corroborated after seeing their crippling bias would be foolhardy.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. I didn’t read the links on the first page. (I have no intention of lying to make my argument seem better.) It’s been many years since I waded though Mormon theology. That hardly means I’ve forgotten my conclusions.
And it doesn’t change the nature of the result–I wasn’t just making it up–I was using different sources:
“…critics of Mormonism have shown convincing proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple plagiarisms of the King James Bible.”
www.catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp
The OP asked whether “The Book of Mormon” was the testament of Jesus. The answer is that three religions I know relatively well do not.
I’m not saying that Mormonism hasn’t contributed to American society, to family life, or to upholding spiritual values. And it’s apparent that the people who are arguing here are doing so honestly. Maybe we should let it go at that.
Well, I’m not so sure that’s a good basis to write off old Joe.
There is no debate that Smith existed. There is no debate that he started a church, after claiming to have seen and talked to God and an angel or two. All of these things (along with most all of the major events of Smith’s life and death) are corroborated by contemporary sources. Much more so than the life and times of Jesus, as we would expect from an event 1800 years closer in time.
So there are plenty of witnesses to the mundane events. The question then becomes: Can we reasonably dismiss Smith’s claims because the witnesses to the more miraculous things such as the golden plates are from “insiders”?
I would say no, that isn’t enough cause (by itself) to dismiss them. Imagine you’ve given an incredible revelation as to the absolute truth of the universe. You’ve been told that the things you’ve learned and the artifacts you’ve been shown are very sacred and not for public display and should be treated with great care and respect. Isn’t it reasonable to suppose you might be very careful about who you allowed to see the artifacts? Isn’t it possible that you would get people who were close and trusted associates to act as witnesses?
And how do you go about getting witnesses that your revelations from God are real and not imagined? Call the local paper? It basically can’t be done. If you can’t (or don’t) show some undisputable artifacts around, there isn’t much in the way of proof to be reported no matter how many newspapers are published in your town.
For the record, I think the arguments about the differences in the various flavors of Christianity are like arguing whether the Invisible Pink Unicorn is truly more pink in the left ear or the right ear. Once you’ve accepted the all-powerful being who creates and destroys on a whim, saying that your miracles are silly while mine are divinely executed seems a little silly.
I just wouldn’t dismiss Smith on the grounds that the local papers and pundits don’t back up his claims. I wouldn’t expect them to.
Ugly
Ok, I just got back from a “How to Argue with Mormons” site – apparently I’m picking some of the wrong points to dwell upon – and, not being a professional apologist, I must say I’m not that interested in following through with their instructions. I doubt much of anybody else here would be interested in the process, either. We’re talking dozens and dozens of examples, counter-examples, etc., which they warn will likely take weeks to sink in . . . seems ill-suited for a message thread.
Is it possible we could continue discussions, Ugly, Diogenes, Princhester, et al., in a different thread at some point? Without dragging specifics about people’s religion into it? Alternate topic lines:
- What’s a miracle, and what constitutes evidence for one?
- How certain can we be about history that was transmitted orally?
- What’s a testament, and what difference does it make?
- Where’s the burden of proof for reputed historical events?
I don’t think anyone was saying that the New Testament and the Book of Mormon are EXACTLY comparable in every way. The point was that, like all spiritual matters, the miracles of Jesus are a matter of faith, and for one sect to say to another sect “OUR miracles are valid because they happened a long time ago, but YOU guys are liars” is just plain silly.
Not only is it just plain silly, blowero, it belies one’s prejudices in the matter.
“Theres no proof Jesus was resurrected”?
Well, they never found the body…
So there’s three possibilities, right?
[list=1][li]He lived, died, and was resurrected.[/li][li]He lived, died, and someone really did find the body but just moved it so it just looked like He was resurrected.[/li][li]He never lived.*[/li]
I’ve chosen to believe possibility 1. I guess there could be other possibilities, though.
emarkp> (Note to FoL: it is not necessary to quote a post in its entirety when it’s only 2 posts above yours.)
FL> Fair enough. I’ll use the posting approach I used to be more familiar with.
emarkp> I have no knowledge of the Tanners’ finances.
FL> And yet you seem to be making a big deal about their finances, including bolding your previous comment about it.
emarkp> I do know that they derive income from attacking a belief system, and as such have a financial incentive to tear down the LDS church.
FL> Anyone know how well the Tanners are doing financially from their work?
Well, I guess I could check into the financial affairs of the proMormon side. I’m thinking that maybe the same may be able to be said for some of the proMormon book writers, apologists, etc. - that they could have a financial incentive to protect and enhance the Mormon church and its arguments. But, maybe I’m wrong. Anyone know anything about this?
emarkp> Do you have some claim about the “Mormon church” getting rich? That’s a laugh riot. Do you have specific claims to make?
FL> Hmmm. Looks like I’ll have to ask my Mormon friend about his comments to me off and on about the Mormon church’s investments - how much land the Mormon church owns, how many orchards they have, how …
Maybe he’s being deceived? Maybe he’s deceiving me?
emarkp> The fact remains that the Tanners have a financial incentive to pursue whatever means necessary to show whatever negative press about the LDS church they can find, misqote, or manufacture.
FL> Here’s another fact: You have yet to prove that finances are influencing their activities.
emarkp> I don’t feel compelled to spend any more effort sifting through the trash heap of their so-called “research” than I already have. Wow, you’re ready to accept whatever random claim is made here about something as controversial as that? Amazing. You’ll forgive me if I don’t have the same low standards for research that you seem to.
FL> “I don’t have the same low standards for research”? This from a person who belongs to, and vociferously supports, a “Believe it now. We’ll show you the compelling evidence we have later - when we can find it.” group? LOL
emarkp> The links I provided show how they have very carefully misquoted, selectively quoted, or flat out lied about a source to make it mean something other than it means. To believe them in anything that isn’t independently corroborated after seeing their crippling bias would be foolhardy.
FL> Well, I guess we can go both ways with this. Since the Mormon church, its leadership, etc., has already had to back away from some of their claims, and can’t seem to substantiate a lot of the others - and since you’re supposed to be the better researcher:
Show us all here your excellent “independently corroborated” evidence you have for Mormon claims, and silence us unbelievers once and for all. At least your best objective evidence if you have too much. Original documents, North American archaeology site locations, etc., would be good.
Do you realize what this means? Jimmy Hoffa was resurrected.:eek:
Harry, there is certainly no doubt that you are entitled to have whatever opinions you wish.
But, since this opinion was a proposition advanced in Great Debates, I have to ask:
Cite?
Could we maybe declare a moratorium on picking on the Mormons? They’re nice enough people, and they don’t make nuisances of themselves by incessant witnessing (unlike some Evangelical Protestants I could mention).
Yeah, the “Israelites settled the New World” thesis is a load of unsubstantiated tosh, but so are the origin stories of every other world religion. Does anybody who is not a devout Muslim really believe the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed? Does anyone who is not a devout Christian believe in the Resurrection? Does anyone besides the Hindus believe cows are sacred? As long as the Mormons don’t bother anyone else, they shouldn’t be bothered.
Now, of course, if we had a noisy Mormon come to the Dope and start evangelizing to the heathen, I’d be the first to set phasers on “Vaporize,” but, as it stands, it seems more like the noisy heathen are laying into the Mormons.
The only reason I’ve jumped on the bornagains in the Pit is because of the “gay people are sinners” sentiments that have been expressed. As long as people don’t witness to me or consign me to eternal torment, and just leave me the hell alone, I’m content to leave them alone.
So, again, let’s not gore the Mormons’ oxen, hmm?
Sure. Mohammed’s job was to start a reformation that would instill a new and vibrant faith in the Christianity which the Greek theologians had reduced to ritual and philosophical dispute. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted what God was trying to tell him.
This theory is advanced, with what seriousness I don’t know, by Harry Turtledove, Orthodox Jew, leading scholar of Byzantine history, and perhaps the world’s foremost author of alternate-world stories.
quoted from: http://www.pridedepot.com/features/oped/Jbla_qmormon.htm
Still feel that way after reading this. gobear?
One of the many reasons I left the LDS religion - their stand that homosexuality could be “cured” by “aversion therapy” and if it was not, then the person would either have to live a celibate life or be excommunicated.
No, I’m not gay. But who am I to say you can’t be? And why should it affect any friendship that may be there?
Once again, my $0.02.
I never said I didn’t have problems with the LDs position on homosexuality, but you’ll notice that none of the Mormons here have said, to my knowledge, word one on the subject. I see no reason to pick on the Mormons just because I disagree with their church. Of, course, if the Mormons made homophobic posts, we’d go round and round. The LDS Doper contingent have been exemplary, tolerant folks, and I have no quarrel with them.
It seems to me that there is a difference between asking legitimate questions about the LDS Church from a skeptical perspective and induging in a witch hunt. It’s fine to question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but not to bait Mormons by making biased and unfair comments.