Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[DeepShadow]

Here's the metallurgy info I was referring to:

New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals!
See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]In November 2000, a team of archaeologists led by Professor Dorothy Hosler from the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began excavation of a pre-Columbian site in the remote mountains of northern Guerrero, Mexico. This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler . . . who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas). [/SIZE][/FONT]

​

We anxiously await further information about this new discovery. The smelting site in Guerrero is in southern Mexico (see the location on a map). Also note the recent discovery in Peru proving use of metals before 1000 B.C. (or see the article at ABCnews.com. This discovery pushes the date of metal use in the Americas as far back as 1400 B.C.

But we all know that recent archeology has done nothing but refute the Book of Mormon.

 

[sojourner]

What does any of this have to do with the status of Smith as a prophet? Even if he did translate some golden plates into the BOM, that doesn't make him a prophet -- it makes him an interpreter, or a translator.

As a matter of fact, the Biblical prophets were raised from within the religion to serve a function of the religion. Smith doesn't fit the mold. Smith was raised up from outside the religion. This doesn't fit either the paradigm of the Tradition, or the paradigm of the scriptures.

 

[SoyLeche]

What does any of this have to do with the status of Smith as a prophet? Even if he did translate some golden plates into the BOM, that doesn't make him a prophet -- it makes him an interpreter, or a translator.

No, but it makes his claim to be a Prophet as well as a translator more credible.

As a matter of fact, the Biblical prophets were raised from within the religion to serve a function of the religion. Smith doesn't fit the mold. Smith was raised up from outside the religion. This doesn't fit either the paradigm of the Tradition, or the paradigm of the scriptures.

Smith was raised as a Christian - you know - and stayed that way his whole life.

Not only that, but different situations... different molds... not really that big of an issue. We know too little about the backgrounds of the Prophets in the Bible to really come to much of a conclusion anyway.

 

[sojourner]

Smith was raised as a Christian - you know - and stayed that way his whole life.

But unlike the Biblical prophets, he did not embrace that faith. He discarded it for something different. What was he before? A Methodist? A Presbyterian? By his assertation that "all denominations are wrong," he turned away from his faith. Biblical prophets didn't do that.

Not only that, but different situations... different molds... not really that big of an issue. We know too little about the backgrounds of the Prophets in the Bible to really come to much of a conclusion anyway.

Except that we do know that the prophets found authenticity in the religion -- just not in the hearts of the people. Smith found only inauthenticity in the religion. That's a major difference in paradigm -- not so trivial an issue as you assume. The prophets hoped to turn people's hearts and minds to God. Smith hoped to change the religion itself.

 

[SoyLeche]

But unlike the Biblical prophets, he did not embrace that faith. He discarded it for something different. What was he before? A Methodist? A Presbyterian? By his assertation that "all denominations are wrong," he turned away from his faith. Biblical prophets didn't do that.

No he didn't. He wasn't a member of any church. His mother and some siblings were Presbyterians - I think a brother was a Methodist (his wife's family were Methodists). He never discarded Christianity though. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Biblical Prophets had a lot of problems with the religious system in their times. They worked to correct the errors, just like Joseph Smith did.

Except that we do know that the prophets found authenticity in the religion -- just not in the hearts of the people. Smith found only inauthenticity in the religion. That's a major difference in paradigm -- not so trivial an issue as you assume. The prophets hoped to turn people's hearts and minds to God. Smith hoped to change the religion itself.

Again - you are confusing the "churches" with the "religion".

 

[sojourner]

They worked to correct the errors, just like Joseph Smith did.

That's my point. They didn't work like Smith did. The Biblical prophets worked to open people's hearts to God. Smith worked to correct a religion.

Again - you are confusing the "churches" with the "religion".

I'm confusing nothing. The Biblical prophets found authenticity in the religion and inauthenticity in the hearts of the faithful. For Smith, it was the other way 'round. He found inauthenticity in the religion and authenticity in the hearts of the faithful. That's a pretty big difference in paradigm.

Additionally, you said that Smith was "nothing,"(as far as religion was concerned -- he didn't buy into any of the existing faith-expressions). But the Prophets bought into the Judaic faith and sought to bring others into compliance. For the Prophets, it was the people who had strayed -- not the religion. For Smith, it was the religion that had strayed, not the people.

 

[SoyLeche]

Additionally, you said that Smith was "nothing,"(as far as religion was concerned -- he didn't buy into any of the existing faith-expressions). But the Prophets bought into the Judaic faith and sought to bring others into compliance. For the Prophets, it was the people who had strayed -- not the religion. For Smith, it was the religion that had strayed, not the people.

I didn't say that. Smith was a Christian - he just wasn't a member of an organized church.

For Smith it was the churches that had strayed because the churches had, in fact, strayed - to such an extent that the whole system needed a reboot. Just because we don't have any evidence of this happening before doesn't negate the possibility that it happened this time around. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Enoch or Noah would have been viewed more like Smith than like Isaiah to the people of their day.

Smith did "buy into" the Christian faith and "sought to bring others into compliance". He just had learned that the faith taught by the "professors of religion" was in error. When something is in error, you do what you can to fix it - or, at least that's what I do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's my point. They didn't work like Smith did. The Biblical prophets worked to open people's hearts to God. Smith worked to correct a religion.

I'd say that Elijah is portrayed as "correcting a religion".

New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals!

See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

I find it more compelling that no traces of the coinage or weaponry portrayed in the Book of Mormon have ever been found.

For the story to work as written, you'd need several things:

1. The development of smelting and metalworking technology in the Americas.2. Metalworking becoming so prevalent that coins and weapons become commonplace.
3. Loss of the knowledge of this technology before European arrival in the Americas.
4. Loss of the evidence of this technology (which, IMO, would require a deliberate and monumental act to do - imagine the sheer effort of just going over Hill Cumorah, for example, with a fine-tooth comb to remove all swords, metal arrowheads, shields, armor, and shattered weapon pieces) before European arrival in the Americas.

They've found part of 1 - good for them and good for you. You've still got a long way to go before you reach "plausible", though.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'd say that Elijah is portrayed as "correcting a religion".



I find it more compelling that no traces of the coinage or weaponry portrayed in the Book of Mormon have ever been found.

For the story to work as written, you'd need several things:

1. The development of smelting and metalworking technology in the Americas.2. Metalworking becoming so prevalent that coins and weapons become commonplace.
3. Loss of the knowledge of this technology before European arrival in the Americas.
4. Loss of the evidence of this technology (which, IMO, would require a deliberate and monumental act to do - imagine the sheer effort of just going over Hill Cumorah, for example, with a fine-tooth comb to remove all swords, metal arrowheads, shields, armor, and shattered weapon pieces) before European arrival in the Americas.

They've found part of 1 - good for them and good for you. You've still got a long way to go before you reach "plausible", though.

Except that the BoM never mentions coins - that's an unfortunate addition by whoever wrote the chapter headings - and most of the weapons mentioned didn't necessarily have to have been made of metal.

Most people that read the BoM assume that they were made of metal, but the book itself doesn't necessarily support that assumption.

 

[cardero]

Soyleche writes:I didn't say that. Smith was a Christian - he just wasn't a member of an organized church.

For some reason I get the feeling that Smith wanted his own church and his own followers but wasn’t prepared for the pressure and the responsibility that ensued.

Sojourner writes: The Biblical prophets worked to open people's hearts to God. Smith worked to correct a religion.

The Biblical prophets worked to ensnare people’s hearts to a particular doctrine or organization, Smith seems to have just opened another franchise.

 

[Autodidact]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! A dozen words which have nothing to do with doctrine may or may not mean what they say! The ENTIRE BOOK is now worthless.

THE ENTIRE BOOK?!

A dozen? Really? Would that list include:
horse, chariot, elephant, cattle, bull, calf, cow, swine, asses, ox, cows, goats, sheep, barley, wheat, flax, grapes, olives, figs, wine, milk, flocks, herds, gold, iron, steel, brass, copper, sword, shield, rust, silver, bellows, chains, ore, plows, bow, arrow, ax, temple, city, buildings, two millions, ten thousand, pieces of gold, wages, money...

Well, I suppose if I ever read the Book of Mormon I could list more, these come from just a few minutes on Google. That's a few dozen right there. Are they all substitutions for other words? How do you know? And if you don't, how the heck do you know what the book is trying to say? These are all terms that are used repeatedly throughout the book. And this is a book of which a huge percentage consists of the either the words, "And it came to pass...", or "Behold" or made up words that we have no idea what they mean, like this typical passage, regarding money and measures:

Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold. 6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.

8 Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.

9 And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.

10 And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.

11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.

12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.

13 And an onti was as great as them all.

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

18 Now this is their number, according to their reckoning.

19 Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.

If you take out all the made up words, all the barley, gold, silver, and put an x, from the first threee lines, this is what you get:

Now the reckoning is thus—a x of x, a x of x, a x of x, and a x of x. 6 A xof x, an x of x, an x of x, and an x of x,
A x of x was equal to a x of x, and either for a measure of x, and also for a measure of every kind of grain....

You don't have any text left! So yeah, the whole book is pretty much trashed if you don't know what the words mean. After all, books are made of words.

And remember, this is supposed to be inspired by God, both text and "translation." So if it's gibberish, it's pretty hard to accept as God-breathed, inspired, reliable, gospel, isn't it?

 

[Smoke]

Except that the BoM never mentions coins - that's an unfortunate addition by whoever wrote the chapter headings - and most of the weapons mentioned didn't necessarily have to have been made of metal.

Most people that read the BoM assume that they were made of metal, but the book itself doesn't necessarily support that assumption.

Metallurgy was well-developed in the Middle East for many centuries before the purported events of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't seem likely that a group of people would abandon iron and even bronze, and take up wooden swords, only to re-develop metallurgy many centuries later.

 

[SoyLeche]

Metallurgy was well-developed in the Middle East for many centuries before the purported events of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't seem likely that a group of people would abandon iron and even bronze, and take up wooden swords, only to re-develop metallurgy many centuries later.

Unless they got to the new location, found a civilization already there using a very effective sward-type weapon made from wood edged with obsidion, and adopted it - as one possibility. From what I've seen coins weren't in use in Israel when they left - so I wouldn't expect them to take those with them.

Also, while we know that Nephi had some knowlege of working with metals, it isn't a foregone conclusion that he passed this knowledge on to later generations.

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently you've run out of data now, as you are just making fun of me as the messenger.

Yes, because your message is funny. I find a little humor is sometimes an effective attention getter. However, my underlying message is correct: you are asserting that the BoM may be correct because we don't know what the words in it mean. That's a horrible position from which to defend a purported inspired, holy text.

I'm sorry you are bothered by my dressy words. I'm a science teacher, I try to be specific. In actual linguistics, they are called "transposed ideographs."

I don't believe so. Do you have a (non-Mormon apologist) cite for that usage?

 

[Autodidact]

No, regarding old world.

Listen, I'm just a poor Jewish atheist gentile. Take pity on me. I don't know what the heck the BoM even says about the ANE, and don't want to have to learn Biblical exegesis on top of it. Let's just say that literary analysis by Mormon apologists is horribly weak evidence. If you want to do the old world stuff, please take it up with someone else or another therad; I don't know if he got it right, wrong or sideways. Now, are you asserting that there is something, anything, that Smith got right about the place the book is about, and where almost all of it is set, America?

Because remember, not only do the things he describe NOT exist here, but the things that do exist here, he DOESN'T mention: squash, lima beans,chocolate, jaguars, tapirs, base 5 number systems, turquoise...hundreds, maybe thousands of plants, crops, animals, artifacts, that are NOT mentioned.

Not until you've taken on the things he got right: names, traditions, and other linguistic data.

Please cite any objective, mainstream, published cite from anyone other than a Mormon apologist that Smith got any of this right re: America.

Are you telling us that, for example, Joseph gathered all the disparate texts that Kurtz assembled for his farewell speech analyses, found the twenty key elements himself, and put all of them into his master forgery a over hundred years before Kurtz did his research?!

I'm telling you that I can't rack my brain to think of any weaker analysis than literary criticism from Mormon apologists citing a single article from a single NT scholar, can you? And that I don't know anything about Benjamin's speech, and I'm busy enough learning about how completely wrong Smith was about the new world, and don't have time to learn about the old.

 

[Autodidact]

Anyone can read Benjamin's speech and see that it contains all twenty points. Now you're the one who's getting desperate.

Have you read Kurz's article? Do you have the cite?

 

[Autodidact]

None of these people were present at the translation. There was a screen in place. Hence my point.

Edit: To be more specific, all of these people got their version of the story from Martin Harris...who was telling this story long before he was anywhere near involved. Martin was a man high on enthusiasm and low on discretion in this regard, and this is one of many stories that he probably garbled.

So if I understand your defense exactly, it's that we have no idea what the translation process was, except that it did not involve any "plates," because they were "returned to the 'angel'"? And the only person who saw it was one Martin Harris, who is unreliable? Is that your position? That's what you call a defense?

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks, that confirms that Gordon B. Hinckley didn't buy the Salamander letter.

*sigh* Hinkley said, in his Fireside broadcast, that he had it bought.

 

[Autodidact]

You're dodging the question: what translator would be justified in putting "jaguars" and "pumas" in for these creatures?

1. Any translator who failed to supply an annotation of some kind indicating that they actually were jaguars would be irresponsible.
2. Nephites etc. are not analagous to Spaniards just arriving here. They are analagous to us; in fact, were supposed to have lived here much longer than we have. Just as we have words for armadillos and caribou, so would they.

And yet Columbus says he saw wild boars. Go figure, I guess his account is a forgery.

cite?

City of the Sacred Well records all kinds of traces. It even talks about a prior culture that ruled in the area, which was divided into light and dark skinned people, and the rulers all had beards.

Are you alleging that these people are Nephites or Lamanites or Jaredites? Because earlier you were saying that we had no idea and no way to find out.

But there's nooooo evidence.

If you commit yourself to saying that there is some evidence that some specific location or people have some archeological relationship to BoM people, I will tell you why the archeologists disagree with you. Because the consensus of mainstream archeology is that there is NO EVIDENCE for any BoM people. None. Zip. Bupkus. Zilch. Can you cite any archeologist, not a Mormon apologist, who thinks there is ANY archeological evidence supporting the BoM?

Some records don't provide good matching data for archaeologists. I used the word "intracultural" last time, what would your term be for that? I mean, if we had to use Egyptian documents to study Egypt, we'd have about a tenth of the information we have right now.

Interestingly, no other cultures document the BoM people, either. Explorers and early European settlers don't describe them. No one else tells of them. So your position is doubly bad. You have neither their own original records, nor anyone else's records of them. It's almost as if they didn't exist!

Did you notice that both of these are actual phenomenon in linguistics, and you haven't refuted either one of them?

I don't dispute that there is such a thing, just that it helps your case in any way. Remember, you don't actually have a Reformed Egyptian language. All you have is a con artist who reports that he once saw some plates in the Reformed Egyptian language, and "translated" them without looking at them, using a "seer stone" (according to you.) Either (1) it's all baloney or (2) it's God-inspired prophecy. If (2), then why all the mistakes?

I think they did. Just like we borrowed a word for bison from the old world, and a word for maize from the old world. Those words are "buffalo" and "corn."

Right. And if you were translating from English, you would use the terms for "buffalo" and "corn" as we mean them.

Von Hagen mentions this, how with the roads having disintigrated, they could have had wheeled carts, and we'd never know it.

Right. No archeological evidence at all, from chariots only 1000 years ago. What a coincidence! Also no archeological evidence of smelting, threshing, swords, shields, cattle, cities, temples, wheat, gold and silver used for exchange, horses, swine, wine industry, etc. etc. None at all. At the same time, we do have lots of archeological evidence for other things in the very same place, for stone knives, llamas, beans, chili, chocolate, yams, popcorn, quetzlacoatl feathers used for exchange, turqooise, pottery, ball courts, Goddess worship, obsidian, a calendar system, heiroglyphs (that look nothing like Smith's), underground tombs, pyramids, feathered serpents, well, I could just go on and on. Huh.

Then why would he describe them as something other than horses to his family?

Don't know what you're referring to.

Actually, your own sources say that there was metallurgy before the Europeans got here...but I suppose that wasn't the question...

Are you now trying to say that there is archeological evidence of smelting industry in America before the Europeans?

 

[Autodidact]

Are you saying this is a coincidence?

Dodge questions much? Either the Aztecs are not BoM people, in which case it's an irrelevant coincidence (if true), or they are, in which case they would have to have left archeological evidence to indicate that. Because we have a lot of archeology from the Aztecs. We know a lot about their technology, artifacts, and way of life. And it doesn't match BoM people. So, yes, it's completely irrelevant.