tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8572456894395984391..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "A Strange Piece of Work" Poorly Explained by a Non-LDS Witness of the Book of Mormon TranslationJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50662262483793382822019-03-18T05:57:23.514-05:002019-03-18T05:57:23.514-05:00Jeff said ... "He [Stowell] remained a believ...Jeff said ... "He [Stowell] remained a believer in the Book of Mormon."<br /><br />Stowell never denied his testimony of Joseph Smith, Samuel Lawrence, Seeress Odle, or his faith in scrying. If we are going to tell the story, let's tell the whole story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36158833660531866992019-03-16T14:27:48.803-05:002019-03-16T14:27:48.803-05:00Ramer -
As usual, when caught red-handed you try...Ramer - <br /><br />As usual, when caught red-handed you try to change the subject.<br /><br />Wikipedia is exactly the placed to required a source for controversial claims. Demanding others educate you on basics, in a forum that is not an encyclopedia, solely so you can mentally soothe yourself regarding established academic facts that ceased being controversial years ago, is definitely an emotional demand you clearly struggle to control. I agree that humor may be the best approach to your inability to control yourself.<br /> <br />You made no attempt to explain to anon 3:42 how a hearing is not a court proceeding, because, as you know, you were just being a troll. Your suggestion that Joseph Smith’s narrative of being merely a hired hand to swing a shovel is not even accept by most apologist. He was hired to lead treasure location that was never located, the motivation to court proceedings, something no longer in dispute, expect for the rare person such as yourself struggling to deal with the facts.<br /> <br />Moving on to your change of subject. Both anon 3:42 and you are wrong about conviction or acquittal in the 1826 hearing, after all it was a preliminary hearing and not a trial. Smith confessed to glass looking. Smith wasn’t about to confess that he didn’t have glass looking ability in front of the people that believed in him. Having confessed, the Judge essentially explained to Smith that he would be convicted by a three-judge panel if the case went to trial. Having mercy, the Judge agreed to not proceed to trial (therefore no acquittal or conviction) if Smith turned from his treasure seeking ways and got out of dodge, which Smith did. Had he not, it may have gone to trial.<br /> <br />Seeing as you ignored anon 3:42 when he provided you a source and I do not need to babysit your emotional needs, I am not going to do any more of your homework for you, but you might also try reading http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smith-the-making-of-a-prophet/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56856691491378729142019-03-16T12:08:13.653-05:002019-03-16T12:08:13.653-05:00Oh, and speaking of those Wikipedia articles: they...Oh, and speaking of those Wikipedia articles: they point out that while certain sources do indeed claim Joseph Smith was found guilty and fined in court, other sources throw doubt on this allegation.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77728778791063925722019-03-16T12:02:53.621-05:002019-03-16T12:02:53.621-05:00You know, Mormography, I used to be upset by the c...You know, Mormography, I used to be upset by the comments you made about me and my character, but now I find them hilarious because they are so far away from what I actually say, think, and intend that (like the common insinuation that Latter-Day Saints supposedly worship a "different Jesus") I can only think you're criticizing a different Ramer.<br /><br />This bit, however, takes the cake:<br /><i>Ramer said... “I’m going to need a source”: Professional counseling is the best way to deal with your impulsive needs and emotional demands.</i><br />You heard it here first, everyone: asking for a source for a claim is an emotional demand and an impulsive need that needs to be treated with counseling. Someone had better inform all the Wikipedia editors that remove unsourced material that they're in dire need of counseling.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29154580426292959542019-03-15T06:41:23.148-05:002019-03-15T06:41:23.148-05:00Ramer -
Obviously, you are being a massive troll...Ramer - <br /><br />Obviously, you are being a massive troll, not massively ignorant. That is ok. While in your own mind you present some sort of great challenge, you are not only easily pushed aside as anon 3:42 demonstrates, but you are barely even noticed. <br /><br />Ramer said... “I’m going to need a source”: Professional counseling is the best way to deal with your impulsive needs and emotional demands. I have seen commercials for talkspace trying to use modern technology to make it more accessible. Regarding the sources request, before modern technology we would have said go to the library, but as you know simple Internet searches are all you need. Wikipedia is a forum where contentious academic issues are debated and solid references are required. One way those with an agenda attempted to manipulate Wikipedia is by forming a cabal to harass other editors. The Mormons had success with the technique at first, but after years of solid references they were defeated. <br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith#Treasure_hunting <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system <br /><br />Wikipedia can save you a lot, lot of time reading lengthy books and putting the pieces together. For example, you appear to be confusing the 1830 and 1826 Bainbridge trials. But you are correct, the narrative that Joseph Smith created in 1838 and included in LDS canonized scripture doesn’t match what is now considered academic fact, even by the vast majority of modern apologists and Jeff. <br /><br />With regards to the “Abraham” facsimiles, while we only have one original, we have <i>all</i> the facsimiles, which academics, who know little about Mormonism and have no agenda regarding Mormon narratives, say Joseph Smith’s translation is far off and no better than random chance. But the fact you suggest these academics are involved some sort of massive conspiracy pretty much says it all.<br /><br />We all see that your definition of “simply” and “straightforward” are way different than the rest of humanity’s, but we can patiently help you work through any of the above…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46775587365787161142019-03-14T15:42:03.273-05:002019-03-14T15:42:03.273-05:00For a source about Joseph's treasure digging d...For a source about Joseph's treasure digging days, read Richard Bushman's <i>Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling</i>. It's a great resource and the preeminent biography of Joseph.<br /><br />What's the difference between court proceedings and a hearing? His trial in 1826 had everything to do with treasure digging: "Justice Neely's bill of costs. . .refers to Joseph Smith as 'The Glass Looker.'" He was not acquitted, he was convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter," which were the charges against him.<br /><br />A bolder claim is to say that the remaining 90% of the documents were "translated" any better than the extant 10% were. The ancient texts we have do not have anything to do with the texts that were produced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36916232879070537082019-03-14T15:10:11.980-05:002019-03-14T15:10:11.980-05:00...he told people he could find treasure with his ...<i>...he told people he could find treasure with his seer stone and people paid him to dig for it.</i><br />I'm going to need a source for this, because I can't find anything that supports this claim.<br /><br /><i>This resulted in court proceedings against him.</i><br />No, it didn't. There was a hearing, but it didn't have anything to do with treasure-digging and he was acquitted.<br /><br /><i>...the text he claimed to have translated didn’t have anything to do with the source document from which it came.</i><br />This is a pretty bold claim, considering that we only have about ten percent of the source documents that he used.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80149883388242361502019-03-14T14:37:47.563-05:002019-03-14T14:37:47.563-05:00When?
When he told people he could find treasure ...When?<br /><br />When he told people he could find treasure with his seer stone and people paid him to dig for it. This resulted in court proceedings against him. <br /><br />As for Abraham, he lied in that the text he claimed to have translated didn’t have anything to do with the source document from which it came. In this he may have been lying to himself instead, believing in his own ability to actually translate. On some level though, you would think he knew that what he was doing wasn’t what he claimed to be doing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70446410523754107942019-03-14T10:47:47.328-05:002019-03-14T10:47:47.328-05:00Why wouldn't someone in posession of such a tr...<i>Why wouldn't someone in posession of such a treasure simply let people see them in an ordinary, straightforward way?</i><br />You mean like the Eight Witnesses' experience?<br /><br /><i>Jeff, we already know that Joseph lied to people about his ability to find hidden treasure.</i><br />When?<br /><br /><i>We already know he lied about the "translation" of the Book of Abraham.</i><br />No, critics want to think he lied because it fits their narrative better.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8691492649810583632019-03-12T11:47:33.123-05:002019-03-12T11:47:33.123-05:00If the Book of Mormon were a fraud and Joseph were...<i>If the Book of Mormon were a fraud and Joseph were afraid of being exposed as a fraud, explain to me why he would invite many people to see and touch the plates?</i><br /><br />Can you explain to me why every instance of Joseph letting people see/touch the plates involved some kind of highly suspicious catch, such as covering them up with a cloth, requiring that would-be witnesses pray earnestly about their existence before being allowed to see them, and so on? Why wouldn't someone in posession of such a treasure simply let people see them in an ordinary, straightforward way?<br /><br />If anyone ever doubts the existence of my edition of <i>Silent Spring</i>, I can put those doubts completely to rest by letting people see it in exactly the same way they can see their hands in front of their face. I can let people hold it without any kind of covering that might obscure its true nature. I can let people flip through its pages as one would do with any other book, and so on. I would be happy to do this for anyone and everyone, not just my close associates and immediate family. And if people wanted to see the book years later, the last thing I would do is tell people that <i>Hey, trust me, I did have a copy of that book, but you can't see it now because an angel took it up to heaven</i>.<br /><br />None of this can be said for the gold plates. Their existence was an <i>obvious</i> con.<br /><br /><i>No need for the painful, tedious, error-prone process of dictating the text hour after hour....</i><br /><br />Maybe I'm missing something, but who claimed to have witnessed Joseph dictating the text "hour after hour"?<br /><br />Jeff, we already know that Joseph lied to people about his ability to find hidden treasure. We already know he lied about the "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Why is it so hard to believe he wouldn't have lied earlier about the Book of Mormon? The man is obviously untrustworthy.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4153282079529350922019-03-12T11:25:36.428-05:002019-03-12T11:25:36.428-05:00"but because that's what you want the exp..."but because that's what you want the explanation to be." Look who is talking.<br /><br />Not sure who the quote is talking too, I for one have no need for the explanation to go either way. Just because you have made up your mind and do not want to be confused by facts and have a confessed emotional bias on the subject, does mean those that see things objectively have a "need" to see things the opposite your confessed emotional way.<br /><br />Smith had explicit permission from God, that is not messing up, unless of course he didn't have permission.<br /><br />Jeff, you also seem to confess that the plates presence only served as a form of confidence trick, which should answer the questions you pose. You have now admitted they were not actually used in the "translation". You have already stated the Voree plates are a fraud. Is Juan Diego's tilma also a fraud? If these things are frauds as you propose, then please answer your same questions regarding them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45116200462638540932019-03-12T08:56:05.945-05:002019-03-12T08:56:05.945-05:00If the Book of Mormon were a fraud and Joseph were...If the Book of Mormon were a fraud and Joseph were afraid of being exposed as a fraud, explain to me why he would invite many people to see and touch the plates? <br /><br />If it were a fraud, all he needed to do was to present the worked-out final draft when it was ready and have it be published. No need for the painful, tedious, error-prone process of dictating the text hour after hour -- without notes or manuscripts, by the way. Why involve scribes and witnesses? Why dictate from a hat without notes? Why spend months on this if a manuscript already existed? Publish ASAP and let the profits roll in. The greatest fear of frauds is being exposed -- which is why they tend to eliminate witnesses rather than build large groups of them. And why they try to keep any co-conspirators happy (or dead) rather than excommunicating them and sending them away, angry and bitter. <br /><br />For a believer seeking to do God's will, messing up and letting something sacred be lost into the hands of enemies should be a horrific setback. You ascribe the worst possible motives to his pain not because that's the best explanation for the pain, but because that's what you want the explanation to be. But try to imagine the response if Joseph were sincerely trying to do God's will but messed up and lost what took so much work to produce. <br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55191921606440658892019-03-08T20:33:05.900-06:002019-03-08T20:33:05.900-06:00That's "Beuntoyou" for those more fa...That's "Beuntoyou" for those more familiar.<br /><br />In my mind, the reason for Joseph's great consternation at losing the 116 pages was not because he feared being labeled a fraud, but because he was told numerous times not to let such things fall into the wrong hands. He knew what the consequences were, including the loss of his ability to translate. Thus, he rightly declared "All is lost!" He likely felt the spirit leave him alone as surely as did Christ on the cross when He uttered, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" That would have sent him into much greater despair than the fear of anything man could do.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85179131123209973092019-03-06T10:45:02.843-06:002019-03-06T10:45:02.843-06:00Not true. Her one brief sentence fits other descri...Not true. Her one brief sentence fits other descriptions. But while you are at it, please tell tapir Dan that the BoM doesn't talk about riding animals. Bytheway, did you Nephi's horse's name was untoyou. He is always telling it wo wo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67244636106605012192019-03-06T07:55:22.373-06:002019-03-06T07:55:22.373-06:00Sorry for being away. Access to this website has b...Sorry for being away. Access to this website has been nearly impossible from China for the past few days due to augmented controls of the Internet during a very sensitive time of major political events in Beijing. <br /><br />Thanks for some excellent comments and great questions. <br /><br />The Lucy Mack Smith account of Joseph as grand story teller is questionable not merely because it is late, but because it doesn't fit with what others witnessed of Joseph during the days before the Book of Mormon was published and in the years afterwards. <br /><br />The bulk of her account is fine, and properly reflects a mother amazed at how her non-bookworm son suddenly and miraculously was bringing forth the great work of the Restoration. But the part about his sharing details about the Book of Mormon peoples and "their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode" is something of an outlier. If Joseph shared such details, why are they not in the Book of Mormon? Nobody in the New World rides animals in the Book of Mormon. Details of dress and mode of travelling aren't there (except for the loin cloths of an enemy army and armor for the Nephites). Joseph as a great story teller doesn't fit what others in his family and social circles reported. It doesn't even fit with what we can read in Joseph's own sermons and discourses. His references to Book of Mormon details are scant. <br /><br />She may have recalling some exciting discussions about the basic revelations he had received about an ancient people and the existence of the Book of Mormon, but the story-telling details she spoke of don't seem reliable. That's not throwing her under the bus, but pointing out an issue with one part of her account. Almost all accounts have gaps and need to be weighed in light of other data points. <br /><br />Michael Morse's statement, though also late, is consistent with what others saw and reported. He knew enough about Joseph to know of his level of education. He saw the translation process take place multiple times. It took place by dictation -- a fact ably demonstrated in many ways. Dictation from Joseph's lips unaided by any visible manuscript. That's significant and supported by many other accounts. <br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43842452339340074692019-03-04T12:19:07.569-06:002019-03-04T12:19:07.569-06:00Okay, so the argument is that the 116 pages were a...Okay, so the argument is that the 116 pages were a pre-write for the first part of the Book of Mormon as it currently stands?<br /><br />There are different kinds of intelligence, and just because I can teach chemistry doesn't necessarily mean that I'm very good at, nor does it mean I have training in or an understanding of psychology. I'm kind of sick of people assuming that just because I have an understanding of chemistry that means anything more than that I have an understanding of chemistry.<br /><br />>> but I am sure you will not hesitate to remind us you do not see it that way.<br /><br />Bingo.<br /><br />>>The fact that the supposed unnamed evil men didn't, proves they never existed, and the fact that "God" commits the fallacy proves God is human like sometimes.<br /><br />See above quoted statement, in that it doesn't prove either of those things to me.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72969415229734393092019-03-04T10:04:13.705-06:002019-03-04T10:04:13.705-06:00Exactly Anon 8:12. Even Jeff admits that when som...Exactly Anon 8:12. Even Jeff admits that when something similar happened to Jeremiahh, the expectation was for Jeremiah to reproduce the scripture word for word and Jeremiah did. Also, if such unnamed evil men actually enjoy, as "God's" alternate senario describes, they would have change the 116 pages to contradict Nephi's retelling just as easily. The fact that the supposed unnamed evil men didn't, proves they never existed, and the fact that "God" commits the fallacy proves God is humank like sometimes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81752283467703416802019-03-04T08:12:10.854-06:002019-03-04T08:12:10.854-06:00I think what people are trying to point out with t...I think what people are trying to point out with the 116 pages is that the reaction and the behavior isn’t what one might expect of someone who is commanded of God to do something. Joseph’s biggest confessed fear is that his enemies would obtain a copy of the manuscript and change some words in an effort to discredit him. Because of this fear he was commanded not to attempt a re-translation. Compare him to Jonah and many other prophets from the Bible. Very few were given an out because they feared what other men might do. <br /><br />Conveniently, the same story from the 116 pages is told in a different way by Nephi on his record. Step back and look at the psychology of that for a moment. Why is his greatest fear that of being found a fraud? Why would he be afraid of not having the exact same words in a new version of the story if the translation were by the power of God and he was being fed what to say? It would be his word against theirs if someone decided to change the text of the manuscript. Combine this with the neurosis of the book itself, constantly excusing itself for possible faults and the insistence within it that its words are true (seriously, do a search of true and truth and see how many and what type of hits you get). The psychology of the situation points to a fraud being perpetrated. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26082209133341231112019-03-04T06:26:27.401-06:002019-03-04T06:26:27.401-06:00You are either dumb or playing dumb. Chemistry te...You are either dumb or playing dumb. Chemistry teacher means you are not dumb, so you are playing dumb. Playing dumb makes you an insincere person, your insincerity makes it difficult to believe your claims of believe.<br /><br />The story we now have via a character named Nephi was first told by Joseph Smith via a character named Lehi. So even the millions of faithful acknowledge the story was told once before, only we do not have the details of that story, inadvertently rehearsed. The hundreds of millions of skeptics see “Oh, my God, my God,” Joseph groaned, clenching his fists. “All is lost!” as classic knew jerk human reaction to a self designed master plan of years of planning being upset. We all get you an never going to confess that you understand that seeing it that way is a valid point of view given the objective evidence, but I am sure you will not hesitate to remind us you do not see it that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79451555188940873882019-03-03T22:03:02.216-06:002019-03-03T22:03:02.216-06:00Is the implication that if Joseph was telling stor...Is the implication that if Joseph was telling stories about the Nephites to his family, then that means he must have rehearsed some of the 116 pages? I don't understand why that must be so.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48588519119017692622019-03-03T15:23:03.249-06:002019-03-03T15:23:03.249-06:00To me, the voice of God is significant evidence, s...To me, the voice of God is significant evidence, so when I use the word 'evidence' I include the voice of God in that umbrella, and I always have.<br />I don't recall ever having agreed that "at least a portion of the he book of Mormon was inadvertently rehearsed via the 116 pages."<br />Further, some of you may have made a mistake in assuming that I am even capable of rational discussion.Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42725271397775511032019-03-03T15:08:22.931-06:002019-03-03T15:08:22.931-06:00One day, evidence be damned, the voice of God told...One day, evidence be damned, the voice of God told me so. The next day, despite all parties agreeing at least a portion of the he book of Mormon was inadvertently rehearsed via the 116 pages, a careful review of unnamed evidence says probability of rehearsal is negligible.<br /><br />Trying to have a rational discussion with Clinton is throwing pearls before swine <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34238132988113205992019-03-03T12:49:50.229-06:002019-03-03T12:49:50.229-06:00A person that openly says they don't care what...A person that openly says they don't care what the evidence says, the voice of God told them so, has zero credibility in their supposed assessment of probabilities with regard to the subject matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60306595452378057822019-03-03T12:23:08.262-06:002019-03-03T12:23:08.262-06:00Clinton - lol. What a giant flip flop you went fr...Clinton - lol. What a giant flip flop you went from you believe what you believe due to God's voice to a supposed evaluation of evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47829012863139305282019-03-03T12:02:16.894-06:002019-03-03T12:02:16.894-06:00re: Anonymous (7:20 AM, March 03, 2019
>> Ti...re: Anonymous (7:20 AM, March 03, 2019<br />>> Time and again it is the faithful, not the critics, that are forced to moderate their position.<br /><br />I dispute that I have moderated my position, since first I took one.<br /><br />>> At least Clinton is honest and openly admits he is choosing the merely plausible over the highly probable.<br /><br />That is certainly <b>not</b> the case. In this instance, probability is a matter of opinion. And in my opinion, the probability for rehearsal is vanishingly small. I believe what I believe based on my personal evaluation of evidence. Others will view the same evidence and come to different conclusions, but please do not tell me that <i>I</i> find the evidence that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient New World document recorded on metal plates to be merely plausible, and not highly probable.<br /><br />-ClintonClintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897081597664456566noreply@blogger.com