• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A split thread: Joseph Smith

Sapiens

Polymathematician
How do you know? How could you know? This sounds more like a statement of faith, than objective science.
Because there is no evidence, none whatsoever. Mainstream history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE.

Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.

Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness." The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god El, the pottery is in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing Israelite villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones.

It is considered possible that those Canaanites who started regarding themselves as the Israelites were joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt, possibly the Hyksos people, possibly carrying stories that made it into Exodus. As the tribe expanded, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps sparking the tales of conflict in Joshua and Judges.

William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century BCE—of a history that never happened.”

It is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary Egyptian records. That's easily 2 million people (assuming one man, one woman, 1.5 children, which is very conservative). But no Egyptian account mentions them. Or the plagues, which would be similarly unlikely not to have been recorded. There is no evidence of any of this. Given the standard of Egyptian record keeping of the time, this is an absence that would require explanation.

All of the dates put forward by advocates of the historicity of Exodus fail to correspond to any period of national weakness or chaos in Egypt, as would be expected by such a series of disasters.

Ussher's 1491 BCE date corresponds with a time of ambitious Egyptian expansion. The reign of Hatshepsut was stable, peaceful and saw extensive construction projects and trading missions; this is known from actual material remains as well as Egyptian records. Her successor, Thutmose III, took Egypt to its greatest imperial extent, forging an empire from the Euphrates to the 4th and possibly the 5th cataract. These are not the signs of a nation that, just a few years before, had lost its entire harvest, its drinkable water, its army and its sons. There is no archaeological evidence at all of mass death and impoverishment in the early New Kingdom period.

The same holds true for the period of Ramesses II. Although there were a few brief reigns after Merenptah, and what appears to be an attempt to interfere with the line of succession (the Chancellor Bey affair), there is no evidence of national catastrophe. Not long after, during the reign of Ramesses III, the state was still able to construct numerous massive monuments (such as Medinet Habu and the temple of Ramesses III within the Karnak complex) and mount effective military campaigns on both land and sea.

Edom, the place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE. Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet.

(thanks to rationalwiki)

Might I point out: no exodus, no buring bush, no 10 commandments, no lost tribe, no Hebrews in the New World, yet further falsification of the BoM.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
The Romans recorded that a fiery comet marked the assassination of Julius Caesar, and another was blamed for the extreme bloodshed during the battle between Pompey and Caesar.

Not just that. That is also where we get the "son of god" used in the NT

Before Jesus was born, Augustus witnessed the celestial event and proclaimed it was Caesar and that he was resurrected and a deity, so now he was the "son of god"


The star sign on his coins, are probably the origins for the star of Bethlehem the NT authors used.
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
... and how many billions of burgers did McDonald's sell? Does that prove their nutritional value?
The food is quick and easy, and yes, it has nutritional value as well.
Recruits are not exposed to your full beliefs and in most cases do not have the background to understand both sides of the issues, hell ... you did not even know that an ungulate was.
That's true to a certain extent. I doubt there is a Sunday School class on ungulates. I don't know if it is possible for anyone to be exposed to all our beliefs. I have been trying for over 40 years, but there are still some things I do not know.
Remember, I was evangelized by a pair of "elders" and a "bishop" so I know how your church is packaged and sold.
Then you know that we don't wait for a person to know everything. We just teach people how to have a relationship with God, and let them take it from there.
I learned logic in the Tussman Tutorial Program and the Philosophy Department, both at the University of California at Berkeley, ranked at the time as the top university in the world. Where did you learn your logic?
It sounds very impressive. I learned logic on my own, mostly. Oh sure, I took some computer classes once in a while, but as you pointed out, it is hardly the same thing.
Did you know that comets appear in ancient art a distinctly different objects than stars?
Yes, I suppose I did. Comets are rather obvious. I was more focused on the asteroids, which appear as falling stars, some certainly capable of near extinction events. It would be interesting to see if Hebrew had a separate word for comet, or if they would have just used the word for star.
There were no Nephrites.
It is spelled "Nephites", and there is no proof that they didn't exist. There is evidence both for and against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have studied the evidence both for and against the authenticity of the book, and so far, I am not swayed by any of the theories, except the one, that explain it. Your own alma mater tested the Book of Mormon for authorship, and ruled out Joseph Smith and many others. They concluded multiple authors - around 20 if memory serves.

From what you have said, I imagine that your life is totally devoid of spiritual experiences. I have enjoyed many very rich spiritual experiences, and they have enhanced the value of my life. My world view is vastly different than yours. I am certain that much of what I believe is false. Of course I am certain that much of what you, and everyone else believes is false as well. Our ability to recognize truth is far from perfect. Never-the-less, I hope you will forgive me if I don't hop in the atheist boat, and pretend that half my life didn't happen. I have great respect for your knowledge, but I can't help but believe a different education might have led to a happier life. I prize my knowledge of spiritual things beyond everything else.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
The food is quick and easy, and yes, it has nutritional value as well.
It does not surprise me that you confuse stuff that fills your belly and quality nutrients since you have the same problem with your philosophical hunger, you fill your brain with empty calories derived from the philosophical equivalent of fast food.
That's true to a certain extent. I doubt there is a Sunday School class on ungulates. I don't know if it is possible for anyone to be exposed to all our beliefs. I have been trying for over 40 years, but there are still some things I do not know.
The fact that you weren't driven off by the obvious drivel says it all. On the other hand, I was not fooled. The problem is not just with that which you do not know, more so it is with that that you think you know, but that is factually and demonstrably incorrect.
Then you know that we don't wait for a person to know everything. We just teach people how to have a relationship with God, and let them take it from there.
Hook them in so that they believe the later untruths because they are repeated often enough the the falsehoods have become normalized. That's called the Big Lie and is SOP in totalitarian cultures. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
It sounds very impressive. I learned logic on my own, mostly. Oh sure, I took some computer classes once in a while, but as you pointed out, it is hardly the same thing.
Yup, hardly the same thing, and it shows, as I will demonstrate in a moment.
Yes, I suppose I did. Comets are rather obvious. I was more focused on the asteroids, which appear as falling stars, some certainly capable of near extinction events. It would be interesting to see if Hebrew had a separate word for comet, or if they would have just used the word for star.
Don't know, any ancient Hebrew speakers there that can chime in?
It is spelled "Nephites", and there is no proof that they didn't exist.
Sorry about the typo.

It is usual to expect someone to prove the existence of something, since proving the non-existence of something is logically impossible, but then if you had formal logic training you'd know that.
There is evidence both for and against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have studied the evidence both for and against the authenticity of the book, and so far, I am not swayed by any of the theories, except the one, that explain it.
You are rather gullible then and your store of accurate information against with you measure the claims is woefully inadequate.
Your own alma mater tested the Book of Mormon for authorship, and ruled out Joseph Smith and many others. They concluded multiple authors - around 20 if memory serves.
Reference please.
From what you have said, I imagine that your life is totally devoid of spiritual experiences.
Have you ever stared into the eye of a great whale while in the ocean withing touching distance? I have ... and that is what I would describe as a spiritual experience.
I have enjoyed many very rich spiritual experiences, and they have enhanced the value of my life.
Good for you, but are they real or just delusion?
My world view is vastly different than yours.
Yes, that's true.
I am certain that much of what I believe is false.
We agree. I, on the other hand, believe nothing and explore the universe around me on the basis of probability. When I discover that something is improbable I reject it until either I find supporting data or a replacement hypothesis or theory.
Of course I am certain that much of what you, and everyone else believes is false as well.
Rather less that in your case I suspect. But that is because I work very hard at it.
Our ability to recognize truth is far from perfect. Never-the-less, I hope you will forgive me if I don't hop in the atheist boat, and pretend that half my life didn't happen. I have great respect for your knowledge, but I can't help but believe a different education might have led to a happier life.
I don't imagine that my life could be any happier.
I prize my knowledge of spiritual things beyond everything else.
Fool's gold, fool's gold.
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I have found the reference for the Berkeley study and read the paper and some criticisms of it. I find its basic assumption questionable. Lets say, for example. that Smith plagiarized, or more likely, modified other texts, much of what was later passed off as revealed text. Frankly I think that likely. That is what I always suspected and that is in perfect harmony with the study's findings. That also explains Kevin L. Barney's opinion. He remains unconvinced of the validity of wordprint analysis: "I have always felt that the basis assumptions underlying Book of Mormon wordprint studies are faulty. I concur with the assessment of John Tvedtnes, who points out that (1) an English translation should reflect the language of the translator rather than the original author, and (2) the particles used in wordprint studies (such as 'of') are often non-existent in Hebrew, which tends to use syntax to express the meaning of English particles."

Add to this the questions concerning Hebrew names, Mesoamerican names, Egyptian names and Greek names; the word choice in "translation;" the method of "translation;" analysis of word substitution; and especially grammatical errors and I think the case is quite clear.

Let's look at the grammar for a moment: Critics point to grammatical errors in the Early Modern English style of the Book of Mormon and make the argument that because the original as well as the printer's proofs, and the first edition of the BofM contain hundreds of grammatical errors, the book was therefore fabricated by Smith and clearly not divinely inspired.

Examples include:
  • "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (1 Nephi 5:11)
  • "And this he done that he might subject them to him" (Alma 2:10)
  • "that they did not fight against God no more" (Alma 23:7)
  • "thou remembereth the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (1 Nephi 12:9)
  • "and I have not written but a small part of the things I saw" (1 Nephi 14:28)
  • "therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they had ought" (1 Nephi 15:3)
  • "and the words of Amulek which was declared unto the people" (Alma 9 - preface)
  • "Now the object of these lawyers were to get gain" (Alma 10:32)
  • 2 Nephi 1:30-32, Lehi speaks to Zoram: "And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban...if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son." You/ye are plural pronouns and thou/thy are singular pronouns, but the text switches back and forth between them.
  • 2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions..." You is incorrectly used when addressing a single individual.
  • Mosiah 2:19-20, King Benjamin says: "O how you ought to thank your heavenly King! ... if you should render all the thanks and praise". You is the object form of the second person plural pronoun; ye is the subject form, but the object form is incorrectly used in subject position here and also in dozens of other places throughout the text.
(with thanks to wiki)
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
It's not really a constructive addition to the debate, but I'd quite like to see a stained glass window of Jesus wearing 'tennis racket' snow shoes emerging from an igloo in Jackson County, Missouri.

Norman: You are correct Augustus, as you stated "it's not really a constructive addition to the debate." So, why make the comment?
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Stand back for a moment. Consider that no non-LDS person would ever think that the LDS beliefs were reasonable for the reasons we have gone over above. Thus, virtually by definition, as a result of that consensus, the LDSers assume that everybody is prejudiced rather than just and reasonable.
Just guessing, his reputation preceded him?
Again, just guessing, his reputation preceded him?
This was done way? Granted without legal niceties, but once again, just guessing, his reputation preceded him?
Bogus? Mock? Strong words that you need to prove. But even if we stipulate that the Mormons of the day, especially the leadership, were persecuted, that still does not make a case for the belief, just for the rather unchristian behavior of the other Christian sects.

Van Buren went on to say, "If I take up for you I shall lose the vote in Missouri.” Remember, politics is the art of the possible.
Again, that proves nothing about the claims of the Book of Mormon, just that his contemporaries found him strange enough to want to persecute him.
Before you can invoke Moses you need to prove the Hebew Captivity and his existence, neither of which hold up well historically. see, the Mormons are not the only ones who have trouble with their Book of Books.

He was a con man selling his "skills" as a dowser and finder in violation of the law, he was neither a miner nor a prospector.

Norman: I will have to repeat myself. His bogus, false and malicious imprisonments and his spiritual piranha’s in courts of oddity and puffery were exaggerated beyond common logic. Courts of so called law by atrocious, vituperative, haughty, supercilious and corrupt magistrates. All that was used was equivocal stories, ad hominem and straw man arguments with nothing more than exiguous evidence. The Court’s tried Joseph without the slightest epergesis, Joseph’s dichotomy was intact and no corrupt religious leaders of his day could question it. Your crusade against Joseph Smith is nothing more than an attempt to satisfy your own prejudices of the man.

Bien a strange or different person is not a pedestal to invoke wrongful lawsuits upon a person. Joseph was never found in violation of the law of which I have stated above with the facts. He made his living as I have stated and there is much more to how he made his living for you to search and study for yourself. All you have shown me Sapiens is your own bias, your oddity of your statements and your pejorative, disparaging comments of Joseph Smith is nothing more than an ad hominem and straw man argument.

How many times do you want to continue begging the question of Joseph Smith? Your assumed proclivities of Joseph Smith holds no water. All your comments are nothing more than your interpolation of your own ideas and prejudices of Joseph. You pretend to act (which is only self-evident to you) that you are a pedagogue of Joseph Smith and my Church. Your equivocal statements about Joseph Smith is un-founded. You seem to want to ignore facts because they threaten your own disposition. You evidently know nothing about the fifty illegal lawsuits against Joseph. Your exiguous of these bogus trials of Joseph simply does nothing for your cause. You really need to excogitate more about Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints more before you comment any further. Your expatiation of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints just leaves you wondering. Your epexegesis and your epergesis of Jospeh Smith is found un-warranted at best. Again, all this over nothing more than Christian eschatology. The Saints including Joseph Smith Was nothing more than a violation of civil rights and the right to practice Religious Freedom.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Well ... that was a lot of words that were totally unresponsive to what I had posted. Kind of a GIsh Gallop on Smith. I'm sorry it upsets you and I know that it is hard for you to understand that your church has thrown you a knuckle ball, I only discovered that because Smiths zoo-geography and paleontology were so bad. That tipped me off that what I was being told was false and made me a skeptic concerning all other BoM claims. The when I saw the backfilling, the hemming and hawing, when confronted with the clear lies concerning the animals present in North America I realized that the whole ball of wax was likely a fraud, you've done nothing but further support that conclusion, you provided nothing but unsupported contradictions to the supported accusations that I advanced and you've skated right over the most damning ones, concentrating on minutia like Smith's criminal record, that is really rather trivial when you take in the entire set of fibs.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Joseph was never found in violation of the law of which I have stated above with the facts. He made his living as I have stated and there is much more to how he made his living for you to search and study for yourself.
That maybe true, he may be innocent as the driven snow, he maybe guilty as sin. But that is really quite irrelevant. What is relevent, to me, is that the historical claims he makes I know to be false, there is no question or prevarication about it. These are areas that I posses some expertise in and I guarantee you that, on my honor, the BofM speaks with forked tongue. Sorry about that, there is no other possibility. Now, for the same reason that you are having trouble with what I am telling you, that is to say a lifetime of training, I tell you that the animals, technologies and peoples that the BofM places in North American, were not there. All the evidence demonstrates this, not in a halfhearted or confused way, but with total clarity, and that is the case whether you accept it or not.
All you have shown me Sapiens is your own bias, your oddity of your statements and your pejorative, disparaging comments of Joseph Smith is nothing more than an ad hominem and straw man argument.

How many times do you want to continue begging the question of Joseph Smith? Your assumed proclivities of Joseph Smith holds no water. All your comments are nothing more than your interpolation of your own ideas and prejudices of Joseph. You pretend to act (which is only self-evident to you) that you are a pedagogue of Joseph Smith and my Church. Your equivocal statements about Joseph Smith is un-founded. You seem to want to ignore facts because they threaten your own disposition. You evidently know nothing about the fifty illegal lawsuits against Joseph. Your exiguous of these bogus trials of Joseph simply does nothing for your cause. You really need to excogitate more about Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints more before you comment any further. Your expatiation of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints just leaves you wondering. Your epexegesis and your epergesis of Jospeh Smith is found un-warranted at best. Again, all this over nothing more than Christian eschatology. The Saints including Joseph Smith Was nothing more than a violation of civil rights and the right to practice Religious Freedom.
No, I don't have to do a damned thing. Until there is a sufficient explanation concerning the species, technologies and people that Smith claimed were revealed to him as having been in North America, which all of science knows, for a fact, were not there, then there is no reason to believe anything that he said ... he is, if just for those items, tainted with the sobriquet "liar" for all eternity.

As you can see, my issue has little or nothing to do with people's opinions on Mormons' status as Christians, or any views on the end times, or actually on any doctrinal differences. It rests solely on the fact that the claims in the founding Mormon documents concerning animals, technologies and people are false.

So don't confuse me with some pantywaist Christian theologian whom you can argue Bible quotes with. Show me the horse fossils, show me the cattle fossils, show me the pig fossils, show me the grain remnants, show me the chariots, show me the Jewish DNA markers, show me the iron swords and such. Show me, show us, those things or be damned as liars, not to be taken seriously on any topic. Where's the beef?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Well ... I've spent a few hours this morning looking for the beef. You know what? I'm fully amazed, not only is there no beef, but what I find is that it is literally, a stack of filler, no beef whatsoever, anywhere.

My first question, and the starting point of my discover of this pack of lies, was rather simple came from the fact that Mormon sources tell me that horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon episodes that involve an ancient New World setting (Nephi 18:5, Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9-12, Alma 20:6, 3 Nephi 3:22, 3 Nephi 4:4, 3 Nephi 6:1, Ether 9:19).

Now, I have a degree in Zoology with a minor in Paleontology and I know that there have not been horses in the New World since the species Equus scotti died out more than 10,000 years ago.

So here we have a clearly defined issue, that should be rather easy to resolve.

On one hand we have a claim, by the Mormons, that Joseph Smith, in his translation of the BofM, was without error. Smith, himself, claimed: Our minds being enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never before had thought of. (JS-H 1:74) and more recently, Robert L. Millet Assistant Professor of ancient scripture at BYU stated: Through the opening of the heavens in modern times, Joseph Smith, Junior, was called as a prophet, a seer, a revelator, and a modern lawgiver. In addition, he was commissioned as a translator, the means whereby the mind and word of God were made known to a generation in the midst of spiritual calamity (see D&C 1:17). To the young prophet-leader the Lord explained: “This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10) and Joseph Smith had learned early in his translation of the Book of Mormon that theological darkness and spiritual stumblings in the Judeo-Christian world were due in large measure to a willful tampering with some of the earliest Bible texts. Approximately six hundred years before Christ’s coming, Nephi prophesied of a time when the Bible—identified as a record which proceeded out of the mouth of a Jew (1 Nephi 13:23)—would fall into the hands of designing individuals who would “take away” or “keep back” plain and precious truths, and many covenants of the Lord. As a result of such corruption, “an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them” (1 Nephi 13:26–34.) Joseph Smith further became aware of the fact (through Nephi’s prophetic vision) that through the restoration things would be made known once again to those willing to receive them. (1 Nephi 13:35–40.) The Prophet was to observe many years later: ‘I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

On the other hand we have the weight of modern zoology and paleontology indicating that there are errors in the BofM. Not just relating to horses, but to any number of ungulates (but for the moment, for simplicity, lets stick to horses).

So I went looking for some resolution to this conundrum.

I called a Mormon friend (yes ... I do have Mormon friends) and asked for an authoritative source, he pointed me to http://www.fairmormon.org/http://www.fairmormon.org/ where I did find a writeup on the question of horses (here's the link: Horses in the Book of Mormon - FairMormon ). To summarize: Michael J. Ash goes over the facts: horses evolved in the New World, spread world wide, he admits, sort of, that t hey died out in the New World: Scientists typically argue that these animals died off due to climate changes and possible over-hunting. In other parts of the world, however, horses continued to thrive and eventually evolved into modern-day horses. When the Spaniards came to the New World in the early sixteenth century, they brought horses with them. Some horses eventually escaped and multiplied in the wild.

His statement of the issue is: According to the most scientists, the mention of “horses” in the Americas during Book of Mormon times presents an anachronism–something that doesn’t fit the time frame for which it is claimed. How do we, as believers, reconcile this dilemma?

Well, he doesn't resolve the issue, but rather starts on a smoke and mirror show. First he stresses that the BofM is not an ancient document, but rather a 19th Century translation of such a document. Basically he blames the claims of horses on the bad translation that was done by Smith & Co. suggesting that Smith's problems were just that same as other translators who'd come before, In the Bible the Hebrew word for “horse” is sus and means “leaping,” but it can also refer to the rapid flight of swallows and cranes. Typically our English Bibles translate the word “sus” as “horse,” but twice it is translated as “crane,” and twice as “horseback”–referring to a rider.

Well .. that's not unreasonable, except that Smith was supposed to in t he process of "revealing" a process that should be error free as it is guided by supernatural processes. But, let's let that go too.

The Ash goes on, The Book of Mormon authors tell us that their written language, reformed Egyptian, was different than their spoken language. The Nephites would have liked to have written in Hebrew but they used reformed Egyptian instead because it took up less space on the plates (Mormon 9:32-33). Reformed Egyptian was probably a more compact script than Hebrew and it’s possible that it also consisted of a more limited vocabulary. Moroni tells us that if they could have written in Hebrew instead of reformed Egyptian there would have been fewer mistakes. Maybe he understood that at least some reformed Egyptian characters only approximated a concept. As we investigate the Book of Mormon text, we discover that, indeed, reformed Egyptian appears to have had a very limited vocabulary.

But ... there is a fly in the ointment. What is this "Reformed Egyptian" language? Nobody knows. Nobody ever heard of it before, or since. Onl There are no records of it. There are no other documents written in it, Smith is the only on who ever comes up with it.

In 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian. And, for Jews to write in the language of Egyptians, by whom they were detested, would be like an American writing American History during the Cold War in Russian (let's save the issues of the historicity of the Captivity and Exodus for another time).

The bottom line of this departure from any evidence of horses in the New World (remember what I am actually asking for, bones, fossils or other actual evidence) is to admit that there were no horses in the New World, but that the fault of the incorrect claim lay with Smith and with the over simplicity of a seemingly non-existent language.

There are similar long drawn out explanations (prevarications?) for the absence of all the other critters, the grains, the technologies, etc. More on those things later.

When Joseph first gave his translation, the distribution of horses in prehistoric times were unknown. That is not the case today. Smith thought himself safe in saying anything he wanted to, since there would be no way of proving him wrong and he never would have expect such common animals as horses to be absent from the continent. But with the advance of knowledge he was then proven wrong, it was shown that Joseph Smith lied about his abilities from God. He was been shown to be a false prophet. Rather than admit this the LDS Church has ginned up a defense of obfuscation ... but what else could they do?

In any case. I'm not stupid, I know when a shaggy dog story is being told, and there's hair all over this one.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I have no problem differentiating between good people who have bought into foolishness and the people who sold it to them.
See that's the kind of thing I would never say about one of my friends or hope they would say about me. I guess we all see friendship differently, though.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I guess that's because I am a realist and you live in fantasyland.
No, I think it's because I am respectful of differences and you're not. It's because you appear to have a need to mock beliefs that differ from your own and I find no pleasure in doing so. That's what it really gets down to.

Carry on.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Well ... I've spent a few hours this morning looking for the beef. You know what? I'm fully amazed, not only is there no beef, but what I find is that it is literally, a stack of filler, no beef whatsoever, anywhere.

My first question, and the starting point of my discover of this pack of lies, was rather simple came from the fact that Mormon sources tell me that horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon episodes that involve an ancient New World setting (Nephi 18:5, Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9-12, Alma 20:6, 3 Nephi 3:22, 3 Nephi 4:4, 3 Nephi 6:1, Ether 9:19).

Now, I have a degree in Zoology with a minor in Paleontology and I know that there have not been horses in the New World since the species Equus scotti died out more than 10,000 years ago.

So here we have a clearly defined issue, that should be rather easy to resolve.

On one hand we have a claim, by the Mormons, that Joseph Smith, in his translation of the BofM, was without error. Smith, himself, claimed: Our minds being enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never before had thought of. (JS-H 1:74) and more recently, Robert L. Millet Assistant Professor of ancient scripture at BYU stated: Through the opening of the heavens in modern times, Joseph Smith, Junior, was called as a prophet, a seer, a revelator, and a modern lawgiver. In addition, he was commissioned as a translator, the means whereby the mind and word of God were made known to a generation in the midst of spiritual calamity (see D&C 1:17). To the young prophet-leader the Lord explained: “This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10) and Joseph Smith had learned early in his translation of the Book of Mormon that theological darkness and spiritual stumblings in the Judeo-Christian world were due in large measure to a willful tampering with some of the earliest Bible texts. Approximately six hundred years before Christ’s coming, Nephi prophesied of a time when the Bible—identified as a record which proceeded out of the mouth of a Jew (1 Nephi 13:23)—would fall into the hands of designing individuals who would “take away” or “keep back” plain and precious truths, and many covenants of the Lord. As a result of such corruption, “an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them” (1 Nephi 13:26–34.) Joseph Smith further became aware of the fact (through Nephi’s prophetic vision) that through the restoration things would be made known once again to those willing to receive them. (1 Nephi 13:35–40.) The Prophet was to observe many years later: ‘I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

On the other hand we have the weight of modern zoology and paleontology indicating that there are errors in the BofM. Not just relating to horses, but to any number of ungulates (but for the moment, for simplicity, lets stick to horses).

So I went looking for some resolution to this conundrum.

I called a Mormon friend (yes ... I do have Mormon friends) and asked for an authoritative source, he pointed me to http://www.fairmormon.org/http://www.fairmormon.org/ where I did find a writeup on the question of horses (here's the link: Horses in the Book of Mormon - FairMormon ). To summarize: Michael J. Ash goes over the facts: horses evolved in the New World, spread world wide, he admits, sort of, that t hey died out in the New World: Scientists typically argue that these animals died off due to climate changes and possible over-hunting. In other parts of the world, however, horses continued to thrive and eventually evolved into modern-day horses. When the Spaniards came to the New World in the early sixteenth century, they brought horses with them. Some horses eventually escaped and multiplied in the wild.

His statement of the issue is: According to the most scientists, the mention of “horses” in the Americas during Book of Mormon times presents an anachronism–something that doesn’t fit the time frame for which it is claimed. How do we, as believers, reconcile this dilemma?

Well, he doesn't resolve the issue, but rather starts on a smoke and mirror show. First he stresses that the BofM is not an ancient document, but rather a 19th Century translation of such a document. Basically he blames the claims of horses on the bad translation that was done by Smith & Co. suggesting that Smith's problems were just that same as other translators who'd come before, In the Bible the Hebrew word for “horse” is sus and means “leaping,” but it can also refer to the rapid flight of swallows and cranes. Typically our English Bibles translate the word “sus” as “horse,” but twice it is translated as “crane,” and twice as “horseback”–referring to a rider.

Well .. that's not unreasonable, except that Smith was supposed to in t he process of "revealing" a process that should be error free as it is guided by supernatural processes. But, let's let that go too.

The Ash goes on, The Book of Mormon authors tell us that their written language, reformed Egyptian, was different than their spoken language. The Nephites would have liked to have written in Hebrew but they used reformed Egyptian instead because it took up less space on the plates (Mormon 9:32-33). Reformed Egyptian was probably a more compact script than Hebrew and it’s possible that it also consisted of a more limited vocabulary. Moroni tells us that if they could have written in Hebrew instead of reformed Egyptian there would have been fewer mistakes. Maybe he understood that at least some reformed Egyptian characters only approximated a concept. As we investigate the Book of Mormon text, we discover that, indeed, reformed Egyptian appears to have had a very limited vocabulary.

But ... there is a fly in the ointment. What is this "Reformed Egyptian" language? Nobody knows. Nobody ever heard of it before, or since. Onl There are no records of it. There are no other documents written in it, Smith is the only on who ever comes up with it.

In 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian. And, for Jews to write in the language of Egyptians, by whom they were detested, would be like an American writing American History during the Cold War in Russian (let's save the issues of the historicity of the Captivity and Exodus for another time).

The bottom line of this departure from any evidence of horses in the New World (remember what I am actually asking for, bones, fossils or other actual evidence) is to admit that there were no horses in the New World, but that the fault of the incorrect claim lay with Smith and with the over simplicity of a seemingly non-existent language.

There are similar long drawn out explanations (prevarications?) for the absence of all the other critters, the grains, the technologies, etc. More on those things later.

When Joseph first gave his translation, the distribution of horses in prehistoric times were unknown. That is not the case today. Smith thought himself safe in saying anything he wanted to, since there would be no way of proving him wrong and he never would have expect such common animals as horses to be absent from the continent. But with the advance of knowledge he was then proven wrong, it was shown that Joseph Smith lied about his abilities from God. He was been shown to be a false prophet. Rather than admit this the LDS Church has ginned up a defense of obfuscation ... but what else could they do?

In any case. I'm not stupid, I know when a shaggy dog story is being told, and there's hair all over this one.


Norman: In post #105, I see that you cherry picked your way through this website Linguistics and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You go all over the internet and cherry pick and post bits and pieces of information. Step back and see what you are doing? Your diatribe, philippic and jeremiatic posts of Joseph and the Book of Mormon will get you no disciples after yourself. Post after post you continue a long harangue about every topic you can dig up about Joseph and the Book of Mormon.

You seem to have such a great desire to be a pedagogue on everything. You have a hard time it seems to really expatiate on what you are saying. You have used nothing but equivocal language in your many comments. You claim credentials in Zoology and Paleontology, kudos to you, maybe you should find a DIR that wants to share your excitement in these areas.

In Post #104 rrosskopf said: “I have enjoyed many very rich spiritual experiences, and they have enhanced the value of my life.” Sapiens said “Good for you, but are they real or just delusion? Sapiens said “Have you ever stared into the eye of a great whale while in the ocean withing touching distance? I have ... and that is what I would describe as a spiritual experience.”

Well, in my opinion that is odd for someone who has only a spiritual path with animals. You have personally attacked rrosskopf over and over, does that make you feel better? Joseph is not a charlatan, he is and was a true prophet of God. You have never stated any panegyric comments about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon and I suspect that you never will. I doubt that you have any Mormon friends at all. There are many LDS scholars and non-LDS including myself that can refute Sapiens said “Show me the horse fossils, show me the cattle fossils, show me the pig fossils, show me the grain remnants, show me the chariots, show me the Jewish DNA markers, show me the iron swords and such. Show me, show us, those things or be damned as liars, not to be taken seriously on any topic. Where's the beef?” This will never happen because you do not want to debate you just want to attack and be heard. I am done with your insults of which I do not think a MOD would be accepting of. Go your own way. God Bless You.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I keep an open mind, just not so far open that my brains fall out, have you checked your own brains lately?

I am respectful of differences in opinion, you are not you are singularly intolerant.

I am hard on willful stupidity (which is not a matter of a difference in opinion), you are accepting of it.
Feel better now?
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
(2)

(1) The results were disputed, because the original court records were found in 1971, which showed it to be only a hearing and not a trial.
(2) Not Guilty means that the charges were unsubstantiated
(3) His only real conviction, he was found guilty for breaking an outdated law, regarding the process for starting a bank. No fraud, no con, just a legal detail which few would understand.


This sounds suspiciously like double jeopardy.

"Not guilty" is a far cry from "innocent" and (unless you're The Dukes of Hazzard) fleeing the scene is never a great way to prove your innocence.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Joseph Smith's laundry list of legal troubles paints the picture of a known con man, not a messiah. It's a shame that he was denied his day in court on multiple occasions. Perhaps the world would be different if he'd ended up rotting in prison instead of getting (((ahem))) "martyred?"
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Might I recommend to you:

Viva la Repartee: Clever Comebacks and Witty Retorts from History's Great Wits and Wordsmiths by Mardy Grothe?

This is a book you rather badly need.
Is that where you got this one from?

I just don't understand you, Sapiens; that's all. In my nearly 10 years on RF, you are among the very few people I've run into who just seem to thrive on putting other people down. Out of your 1986 posts (as I write this) I could count on one hand the number of positive comments I've seen from you. What you do is not debate; it's gratuitous insult. I don't need your book. I have no use for clever comebacks and witty retorts. That's not why I'm here.
 
Last edited:

Norman

Defender of Truth
No, I think it's because I am respectful of differences and you're not. It's because you appear to have a need to mock beliefs that differ from your own and I find no pleasure in doing so. That's what it really gets down to.

Carry on.

Norman
Might I recommend to you:

Viva la Repartee: Clever Comebacks and Witty Retorts from History's Great Wits and Wordsmiths by Mardy Grothe?

This is a book you rather badly need.

Norman: Hi Sapiens, Now you are attacking Katzpur? When are you going to stop attacking people? You just cannot hold a descent
conversation. What is wrong with you? I highly suggest you study how to debate? I learned in College how to debate, there is actually
rules to debating and you surely do not know them according to your post's. Try to be a human being and act like an adult. There is no
reason to act like this.
 
Top