Joseph Smith Fraud

[silvermoon383]

And that's another reason why I tend to stay out of these. Long experience has taught me that it won't matter what I say, or what sources I use. They'll always be labeled as "biased" or "propagandistic".

I provided the reading because it's obvious that the people who wish to badmouth the church have not done their reading. It's sad really, that despite the 12 years since Mosser and Owen published this paper it still holds true.

 

[Smoke]

And that's another reason why I tend to stay out of these. Long experience has taught me that it won't matter what I say, or what sources I use. They'll always be labeled as "biased" or "propagandistic".

In this case the label is quite accurate, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I provided the reading because it's obvious that the people who wish to badmouth the church have not done their reading. It's sad really, that despite the 12 years since Mosser and Owen published this paper it still holds true.

I am not inclined to accept reading assignments from someone who has absolutely nothing to say, and is not even willing to suggest why someone should read his assignments. If you have nothing to say on the subject, you're just taking up space on the thread.

 

[xkatz]

And that's another reason why I tend to stay out of these. Long experience has taught me that it won't matter what I say, or what sources I use. They'll always be labeled as "biased" or "propagandistic".

Well, when your source is basically a Mormon/LDS wiki, you should expect that people will suspect a bias in your given source.

 

[Autodidact]

Here, I felt nice and pulled some research together for you: Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence/Summary - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon/Warfare/Swords - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Plants - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian - FAIRMormon

Don't like reading links? Too bad, as I said earlier I'm an engineer, not an archeologist, so I have to rely on the work of those who are.

Been there, read the Mormon propaganda, thanks. As I said, if you want to make an argument, make it. Jeff Lindsay, Hugh Nibley et al. are not here for me to argue with.

To put it mildly, it's interesting that no one except Mormon apologists ever finds a shred of evidence that supports the historicity of the BoM, isn't it?

Nevertheless, when I have time I'll take issue with some of the propaganda and apologism you have posted.

 

[Autodidact]

And that's another reason why I tend to stay out of these. Long experience has taught me that it won't matter what I say, or what sources I use. They'll always be labeled as "biased" or "propagandistic".

On the contrary. If you cite actual publications from Archeological journals, they will be recognized as such. What you have linked is in fact nothing but pro-Mormon propaganda from people who believe their eternal salvation and earthly power is based on belief in the BoM.

I provided the reading because it's obvious that the people who wish to badmouth the church have not done their reading. It's sad really, that despite the 12 years since Mosser and Owen published this paper it still holds true.

You're mistaken. I've read all this stuff before. Frankly, it's hilarious. More later.

 

[stillsearching]

Well, when your source is basically a Mormon/LDS wiki, you should expect that people will suspect a bias in your given source.

I think that Silvermoon is right in giving the sources that he is. The sources that you would look at to dis-prove mormons are written by anti-mormons so why wouldn't he go to mormons to help prove his point?

The story is the same either way, you either will read it with and open mind and think about it or you will read it with skepticism and find fault with what you read. If you are going to do the latter then it isn't worth Silvermoons time to detail everything out because if you are interested in what his argument is (as I am) then you will read the sources he has provided and then ask questions to back up what was being stated.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that Silvermoon is right in giving the sources that he is. The sources that you would look at to dis-prove mormons are written by anti-mormons so why wouldn't he go to mormons to help prove his point?

No, they're not. They written by archeologists, geneticists, biologists, historians and so forth who have no particular animus toward Mormons or LDS theology, they just want to find out what really happened.

The story is the same either way, you either will read it with and open mind and think about it or you will read it with skepticism and find fault with what you read. If you are going to do the latter then it isn't worth Silvermoons time to detail everything out because if you are interested in what his argument is (as I am) then you will read the sources he has provided and then ask questions to back up what was being stated.

You don't see the difference between a professional archeologist, including Mormon archeologists, and someone whose entire goal is to bolster the faith of the believers with any shred of argument they can muster?

 

[Autodidact]

btw, as if this weren't enough, has anyone mentioned the Kinderhook plates con the conner hoax?

The "Kinderhook Plates," a group of six metal plates with strange engraved characters, unearthed in 1843 near Kinderhook, Illinois, and examined by Smith, who began a "translation" of them. He never completed the translation, but he identified the plates as an "ancient record," and translated enough to identify the author as a descendant of Pharaoh. Local farmers later confessed that they had manufactured, engraved and buried the plates themselves as a hoax. They had apparently copied the characters from a Chinese tea box.

from here.
One of the plates has since been founded, tested, and even the LDS hierarchy now agrees they were a fake.

When you put Kinderhook together with "Book of Abraham," it's clear that Smith was an utter charlatan.

 

[Smoke]

I think that Silvermoon is right in giving the sources that he is. The sources that you would look at to dis-prove mormons are written by anti-mormons so why wouldn't he go to mormons to help prove his point?

Silvermoon doesn't have a point. Silvermoon has a reading list.

 

[Autodidact]

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots - FAIRMormon

O.K., let's start with this one. It employs one of the common Mormon arguments. Basically it argues that when the BoM says horses and chariots, it really means men and litters. No, I'm not kidding, that is the actual argument. "If we are dealing with a conveyance, there is a Mesoamerican possibility. A king might be conveyed in a litter, but the litters were carried by men, not pulled by animals."

Do I really need to lay out for you the utter vacuousness and futility of this "argument?" The entire religion is based on the premise that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired to translate this putative set of golden plates. If Smith can't translate properly, the whole religion is down the drain. So their argument is based on the premise that the entire basis of their religion is flawed. Good job, apologists.

Why, do we not have English words for litters and men? Why would you say chariot and horses when you meant litter and men?

Here's a typical BoM passage:

1. Alma 20: 6
   6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.
   

He caused that his servants should make ready his men and litters? Does that make any sense to you? In brief, if he meant men and litters, why not say so? It doesn't even work:

3 Ne. 3: 22

they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

Obviously, if people are doing the gathering up of all their stuff, then other people are not in the list of what they're gathering, they're doing the gathering.

Mind you, this is the best they can do, and this is only a single item.

I haven't even gotten into the "tens of thousands." Basically, the BoM describes hundreds of thousands of people who were descended from settlers from the Middle East, who lived, farmed, raised livestock, smelted metal, and fought huge battles, then disappeared from the face of the earth without leaving a single trace of their existence.

Right.

 

[xkatz]

I think that Silvermoon is right in giving the sources that he is. The sources that you would look at to dis-prove mormons are written by anti-mormons so why wouldn't he go to mormons to help prove his point?

I am not saying that Silvermoon is right or wrong to use the sources that he did. What I am saying is that he should expect people to give him flak for using an LDS/Mormon wiki as his primary source.

 

[stillsearching]

No, they're not. They written by archeologists, geneticists, biologists, historians and so forth who have no particular animus toward Mormons or LDS theology, they just want to find out what really happened.

You don't see the difference between a professional archeologist, including Mormon archeologists, and someone whose entire goal is to bolster the faith of the believers with any shred of argument they can muster?

I am open to reading those too. Please provide your source as you post that show the professional archeologists viewpoint.

 

[Autodidact]

I am open to reading those too. Please provide your source as you post that show the professional archeologists viewpoint.

On what? Whether there were chariots or horses in Pre-Columbian America? I believe that silvermoon and the LDS "scholars" agree that there were not. Their defense is that when Smith says "chariot," he means "litter," and when he says "horse," he means person. Does that do anything for you?

 

[stillsearching]

I guess that the wording of horses and chariots doesn't mean too much to me, personally, since different cultures and can call things different things.

I haven't even gotten into the "tens of thousands." Basically, the BoM describes hundreds of thousands of people who were descended from settlers from the Middle East, who lived, farmed, raised livestock, smelted metal, and fought huge battles, then disappeared from the face of the earth without leaving a single trace of their existence.

Right.

What about this? I thought the BoM was thought to be about the Mayan's and Inca's so doesn't that show that they did exist? What do professional archeologists say about this?

 

[Autodidact]

I guess that the wording of horses and chariots doesn't mean too much to me, personally, since different cultures and can call things different things.

But it's not a different culture. The book was translated for our culture.

What about this? I thought the BoM was thought to be about the Mayan's and Inca's so doesn't that show that they did exist? What do professional archeologists say about this?

No, the BoM is not about Mayans or Incas. LDS does not even assert this. Neither Mayans nor Incas (1) are descended from Middle-Eastern immigrants (2) resemble the BoM people. LDS "scholars" do not dispute this.

Nowhere in America do we find millions of descendants of Middle Eastern immigrants who smelt metal, grow wheat, herd cattle, ride horses, make wine, etc. etc.

The main LDS defense is usually this word transposition idea, that pig means tapir, cow means deer, and so forth. Since the religion is based on divinely inspired translation, this fails.

The other main defense is that just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean we won't. Obviously, when you're talking about, according to the BoM, hundreds of thousands of people, it's reasonable to conclude we would have dug up a single artifact by now.

LDS does sometimes change its beliefs to match the data. For example, instead of saying that Middle Eastern Immigrants are "the principal ancestors" of American Indians, I believe the BoM intro (not looking it up, from memory) now says they are "among the ancestors." Basically, if you had a single ancestor, that would satisfy that. When you combine that with the idea that even if we haven't found it yet, we may someday find it, that covers their bases.

At this point, I don't think the actual archeological finds are in dispute. LDS has even sent archeologists to various sites who have come back empty handed and published articles saying so. Their position is that if they keep looking, eventually they'll find something.

Again, it's the totality. When you add up the fact that the book has yet to be supported by any evidence, and that Smith was twice caught proffering bogus translations, etc., it all adds up to one thing: fraud.

And after all, fraud is common. Angels and golden plates are not. More likely horses than zebras.

 

[stillsearching]

And after all, fraud is common. Angels and golden plates are not. More likely horses than zebras.

Good point.

 

[AxisMundi]

Here, I felt nice and pulled some research together for you: Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals - FAIRMormon

Purely bad entimology and rather bad archaeology as well.

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Chariots - FAIRMormon

Again, bad science all around. Europeans brought draft animals and horses to the Americas. Before then, everyone walked.

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence/Summary - FAIRMormon

There is simply nothing, and I mean nothing, suggesting that the BoM is correct in claiming some Middle East and Americas connection.

Book of Mormon/Warfare/Swords - FAIRMormon

Critics have never stated that steel swords were not present in the ancient Middle East. And there were no metal swords in teh pre-Columbian Americas either. Even knives were made of obsidian or stone as well. Their metalurgy just simply wasn't there. The swords mentioned in the BoM are indeed all metal, and the only swords in the Americas were made of wood with stone inserts along the edge.

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Plants - FAIRMormon

Critics are again correct.

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian - FAIRMormon

Once again the critics are correct. What is passed off as "Reformed Egyptian" does not match the caligraphy nor the structure of any Egyptian written language.

Don't like reading links? Too bad, as I said earlier I'm an engineer, not an archeologist, so I have to rely on the work of those who are.

Might I suggest you do some basic research of your links before posting them?

As an engineer, surely you were trained in critical thinking.

 

[Autodidact]

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence/Summary - FAIRMormon

The problem here is that DNA evidence shows that all the people who were in America when the Europeans arrived were descended from immigrants from Asia thousands of years ago, not from the Middle East a few centuries before.

The Mormon defense as usual gets lost in a muddle of assuming there is such a thing as a Lamanite. Another tactic they use is, "Some Mormons believe..." Yes, some Mormons believe that because that's what their church told them.

The core seems to be that although there is no genetic evidence whatsoever to support their claim, it could still be true, because those hundreds of thousands of Lamanites evaporated into thin air not only without leaving any archeological evidence, but also any genetic descendants.

They say, O.K., maybe the Lamanites are not Indians, but...well, I don't exactly what they think happened to these hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people and their descendants. They seem to evaporate whenever you look for them outside the BoM.

Their other approach is to say that the BoM people may actually have been Asian. Of course, that contradicts the entire basis of their religion again, which is all about how these Middle Eastern people migrated to America, but that gets lost in the mumbo-jumbo.

Again, it's the totality. It's the DNA plus the archeology plus...as I've been saying. What happens is that no matter where you look, you never find any evidence that supports the historicity of the BoM.

A few Mormons are starting to retreat into "the BoM is allegorical," or saying it doesn't matter if it's factual, as long as it brings people to Jesus Christ.

Apparently they really don't care about facts.

 

[linwood]

If people on the internet took as much time as they do arguing with Mormons, Muslims, Christians, etc. and turned that to good, the world might actually be a better place.

Some people on the internet believe that opposing fraudulent harmful dogma does make the world a better place.

Some other people on the internet prefer to allow inequitable fairy tales to be the standard for human policy and understanding thinking such folly makes the world a better place.

I don`t understand those people..never will.

 

[NeoSeeker]

No, because I don't see that debating that is going to bring any knowledge or anything that would impact my life in anyone way or another. If people believe in it and it doesn't affect the way the treat others, who really cares?

Mormons use their religion based network for business dealings. From an acquaintance who lives in Salt Lake City, you are either in the club or you're out. Make of it what you will. My guess there are exceptions and I'm sure they are not unique in this aspect, but it does effect how they treat others.