As per your name, I to am a ‘stickler’ for details. If someone lays claim to knowledgeable authority regarding the LDS Faith, teaching ridiculous statements like the LDS believe the Pseudepigrapha to be canonical, but not know what either canon or the Pseudepigrapha are, I have issues with that. I have few pet peeves, but one really big one are religious bigots. I have learned the vast majority of ‘anti-mormon points’ are based on a false premise, are deliberately misleading, or are choking the intended target with a big ol’ chunk of meaty doctrine. In fact, I have in storage quite a collection of anti- material. Anti-mormon, -catholic, -muslim, -jewish, etc…
When in the RSA I bumped into Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim apologist. Most of his Muslim Evangelical work was aimed at non-European Indian community. Many of his pro-Muslim/Anti-Christian booklets throw out dozens of ‘facts’ showing the bible in a bad light, Christian doctrine to be logically inconsistent with the bible, and lots of ad hominem attacks against specific Christian personalities etc. I was very interested to see the tactics used against the LDS Faith turned around and used against other Christian faiths. Deedat had mastered the idea of choking investigators into Christianity could be scared away from faith in Christ by choking them with big pieces of meat.
The LDS Church has taught from the beginning the idea that many of the books in the Bible are not authored by those normally claimed to. Yet the Church still considers the writings canon. I do find it interesting that someone will at one time bash the Church for considering some parts of the Bible not canon and unworthy of faith and in the same breath bash the Book of Mormon for perceived faults.
Yes, and it looks like your issues are big enough you ignore the actual conversation to flog your soundbites. Erdosain said nothing about what you call the pseudoepigrapha. He described some books of the bible as being pseudoepigraphic, which is a perfectly cromulent word that means falsely attributed to a particular author and describes many of the books of the bible.
This statement contradicts the statements of Emma Smith, Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, among others. Do you not believe the “Three Witnesses” when they describe the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated?
David Whitmer describes the translation process in some detail here. The testimonies of all involved in the translation concur with Whitmer’s description.
Not quite. While Constantine did make Christianity the state religion, he still allowed freedom of worship. It wasn’t until the Emperor Justinian came along that non-Christian religions began to be suppressed and persecuted.
Thank you, Inner Stickler.
Sorry, you are wrong. Is The Ensign a good enough source for you? (The Ensign is the official Mormon publication.)
[QUOTE=Elder Russell M. Nelson, A Treasured Testament, Ensign, July 1993, page 61]
The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. [Oliver Cowdery’s brother-in-law] David Whitmer wrote:
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.’ (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 12.)”
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying Russell M. Nelson (who you publicly affirm twice a year to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator) doesn’t know his Church history? Some sources say Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, several refer to him using his peepstone. It appears that he even translated with his hat when the golden plates weren’t even in the room. One wonders why God even bothered with them.
This is not my experience at all. Do you have any quotes or references for this, because I think you are wrong. Let’s go to the LDS Bible Dictionary. It’s printed in the back of your LDS Bible, if you want to follow along.
[QUOTE=LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Genesis]
Among other things, latter-day revelation certifies to Moses as the original author of Genesis.
[/QUOTE]
Most biblical scholars think Genesis has multiple authors.
[QUOTE=LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Epistles of Peter]
The Prophet Joseph Smith said that “Peter penned the most sublime language of any of the apostles” (HC 5:392).
[/QUOTE]
Oh, dear. No one believes the Epistles of Peter were written by Peter or even that the same person wrote both. But Mormons can’t admit that because Joseph Smith didn’t know that.
The only reference I can find that even admits the possibility of Biblical authorship problems is this one:
[QUOTE=LDS Bible Dictionary entry for Pauline Epistles]
[The Epistle to the] Hebrews . . . was placed last because some have questioned whether or not it was written by Paul. . . . The epistle is built on a carefully worked-out plan. Some have felt that the literary style is different from that of Paul’s other letters. However, the ideas are certainly Paul’s.
[/QUOTE]
That’s it. The full sum of evidence I can find for your position. I am open to being corrected if you have any proof. I was a Mormon for a long time and never heard anyone open to the possibility that the books of the Bible were not written by their purported authors.
Ahem.
Please feel free to address any more of my many errors. We both may learn something.
ahh yes…must be a conservative thing, always forget to notice the “-ic” at the end (nod to Cohen).
Let me understand this correctly, you have no problem quoting an 82 year old David Whitmer paraphrasing Oliver Cowdery use of a ‘seer stone’, third person and some 50 years later, as a refutation against the Church? Hmmm, if you believe David Whitmer regarding this, are you going to also believe him when he said to many visitors and, I quote from his An Address to All Believers in Christ,
- It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were,"Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.‘’ He died here in Richmond, Mo., on March 3d, 1850. Many witnesses yet live in Richmond, who will testify to the truth of these facts, as well as to the good character of Oliver Cowdery. The very powers of darkness have combined against the Book of Mormon, to prove that it is not the word of God, and this should go to prove to men of spiritual understanding, that the Book is true. To show the reader what I have had to contend with, I give you below a copy of a leaflet which I had printed and distributed in March, 1881.
"Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:
"It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the BOOK OF MORMON.
"To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:
"That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.
" ‘He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;’ it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand."*
It should also be noted that David Whitmer was very bitter about the Church, but he still never contradicted his testimony regarding the Book of Mormon as one of the three witness’.
As I quoted above, it was good enough for Russell M. Nelson and the editorial board of The Ensign. Not to mention all the other people (Martin Harris, Emma Smith, and William Smith) that corroborate his account of Joseph using his seer stone in his hat. If you want, I can even point you to websites of current believing Mormons where they acknowledge the seer stone in the hat and debate whether it’s been concealed from the general membership.
Welcome to reality, Zedd. But thank you for confirming my point about how most Mormons know shockingly little about their own history, thanks to a church that obfuscates it at all turns, and tries to bully them out of reading anything not approved by the leadership.
I believe the witnesses to the Book of Mormon eventually admitted to seeing the book with their “spiritual eyes.” Nobody saw the actual gold plates except Joseph Smith.
The Book of Mormon directs investigators to “pray if this is true,” and then await a feeling from the Holy Ghost described as a “burning in the bosom.” If this feeling is obtained, then the person is said to have a testimony, and the person will tell others “I know the Book of Mormon to be true.”
~VOW
Another question, regarding the translation of the BOM.
Smith claimed that the BOM was engraved upon the mysterious “golden plates”-which later disappeared. Since Smith (who claimed to be able to “read” them) did so whilst staring into his hat, why were the “golden plates” necessary at all?
Furthermore, one of Smith’s friends copied the writing (on the plates) and brought this copy to a Columbia University professor -a Dr. Charles Anthon, who dismissed the markings as not representative of any ancient languge (that he knew of).
Later, Mormon writers described these characters as “Reformed Egyptian”-yet no such script has ever been discovered in Egypt, Palestine, or (indeed) North America.
These stories suggest that Smith and his friends had given several versions of what happened, and later decided to tie them all together.
I’ll stay sceptical, until these "golden plates’ emerge, at some point.
Deep sigh. Put aside the condescension and read the whole article and put it in context.
I have gone down this road before. I respond with a reasoned answer and follow up question. Generally, the exception being just that, the person I am trying to converse with either doesn’t answer my question, or gives a ‘yeah, but what about this than’, ignoring my question. This makes for an impossible discussion, rather is an ass beating I have long ago stopped participating in. If this is a discussion, so be it, respond to my question. If it is jump on Zedd’s every response with inflammatory rhetoric with no option to listen to my response, well then forget about it.
I can pretty much predict what your response will be…
Oh, yeah, and I have stopped looking into the Church History long ago. I did it then to see what all the bigoted anti-Mormon literature was about, answered the questions to my satisfaction, and focus on the saving points of the gospel, i.e., Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and Savior of All Mankind.
VOW,
Have you read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica? No more beautiful words have been penned by the hand of man.
I apologize if I have been condescending to you, but I find it very frustrating trying to have a debate when one party is willfully ignorant of basic facts. The stuff you’re asserting is NOT believed by well-informed, believing Mormons. You can be a believer and have an understanding of the historical record, though I admit it can be tricky.
I can have a respectful, rousing debate with a believing Mormon about whether Joseph translating out of his hat is important, whether it has been hidden from the membership by accident or by design. I cannot have a respectful, rousing debate about settled facts.
I believe the plates have been returned to Heaven and out of the grasp of dirty, evidence-based human hands.
ETA: Also, you called me a bigot in your first post, based on your misreading of my post! That didn’t really start us off on the respectful right foot.
Fair enough, apologies extended. I don’t have a problem responding to questions regarding the LDS History or Doctrine, until it becomes clear points will not be intelligently responded to. Surely you can see my point? Regarding the peep-stones in a hat thing. There are a number of directions and ways to answer this particular issue. First, what is your particular belief system? I ask so I can know what way would at least strike some cord of, if not belief, at least understanding. For example, if you are an atheist, appeals to biblical precedence would probably fall on deaf ears.
Hey, no problems.
I, like many of the posters in these Mormon threads (e.g. Rhodes, Bartman, Tokyo Player), was raised Mormon and served a mission. It was only years later when I was an adult that I started learning more and more things about the church that disturbed me and ultimately upset my faith-based world view. Now I consider myself an atheist.
If you really want to have a discussion, that’s fine. I usually only respond in these threads to help non-Mormons who frequently have questions about the church. As someone who has been on both sides, I think I have a broad, balanced perspective.
I’m not really interested in de-converting anybody or trying to knock down their faith.
Just in stopping the process ehh? Just kidding!
Where’d you serve a mission? Interesting statement, ‘years later, when I was an adult’ after your mission. I was 24-26 on my mission, a veritable old man, in fact that’s what the little buggers called me. Just curious. I have met a few RMs who renounced their faith to embrace another, usually becoming a BAg. I met one who became an atheist with an intense bitterness towards the Church. I am sure you have heard all the tired ol’ arguments about trial of faith being ‘enhanced’ by the difficult road, etc., so I won’t go there. From my point of view, were I to embrace atheism with the same zeal as the LDS faith, I would use [even] more of my time more productively by, say, fly fishing a lot more. Ok, perhaps that says more about my priorities.
Well, most of the people asking questions here are just curious, not interested in joining the Mormon church. And I do think that the missionary discussions are woefully inadequate. As an introduction? Sure. But to join a church you know almost nothing about after two weeks is a recipe for disaster. As the retention rate of converts attests to.
I went to Argentina. And I will say that since becoming an atheist, Sundays are amazing. So much free time and zero guilt. It’s glorious.
After I read The Book of Mormon I prayed to see if it was true. The answer I got was, “No.”
Anyone who is thinking about becoming a Mormon should read this:
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
-
The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
-
The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World–probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age–in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
-
Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
-
None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
-
Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
-
There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
-
No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
-
Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
-
There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.
Smithsonian Letter
[QUOTE=purportedly the Smithsonian Institution]
(Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
[/QUOTE]
Strange that a public statement from the Smithsonian Institution would contain such an elementary error as claiming that bison went extinct twelve thousand years ago. (The “but”/“bat” typo I am assuming was a typographical error on the part of whoever transcribed the letter.) Is there any evidence that this letter is genuine?