I really thought I'd be able to get on this board once a week. Really I did. :sorry1:
No worries. Your reply was worth the wait.
We don't actually know how the translations occurred. The only accounts that mention seer stones are secondhand accounts from people who already knew about his prior activities. That such people would conflate or confound these practices is perfectly believable, is it not?
If you know of firsthand accounts of the translation process, please present them.
I can tell you that Smith used magic stones from the church's mouth:
From Doctrine and Covenants 10:1
"Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate
by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them."
From the LDS.org guide to the scriptures:
"The Urim and Thummim consist of
two stones set in silver bows and sometimes used with a breastplate (
D&C 17:1;
JSH 1:35, 42, 52)."
You may not particularly agree with my equating the urim and thummim to fake seer stones, but the church clearly states that Smith did his translation with the aid of mystical stones.
The Expositor accused him of sleeping with other men's wives, did it not?Adultery was a crime then, if not now. Even if it's not technically a crime, you go on Wikipedia and edit a living person's account to say they cheated on their spouse with someone else's spouse. You'll get charged with defamation, if not libel
It's not libel if it is true or said in good faith - I think even a number of LDS apologists accept that Smith was almost definitely involved in polyandrous relationships.
Polygamy book/Polyandry - FairMormon
claims that the Urim and Thumim were hollow crystals with spindles in them--a description that deviates from every previous account, and that I find little explanation for other than fabrication. Fawn Brodie regurgitates the Ethan Smith explanation for the Book of Mormon despite the superficial nature of any resemblance between their texts. Yet you say you recommend Brodie's account of Joseph's polygamy? Why should that be better than her other fabrications or confabulations? Are you aware that her predictions about children Joseph sired through polygamy have been tested using DNA evidence, and none of them have turned out to be true?
I can't say I recall that assessment of the Urim and Thummim in the book, nor can I find reference to it online so I can't comment. But someone getting some details wrong doesn't make it intellectually sound to disregard all they have to say.
You are quite right none of the predicted children that have been tested have shown to be Smith's. However, we know Smith had trouble having children - a brief examination shows half of his biological children died in/shortly after childbirth. There were also many untested predictions. In addition, a lack of offspring isn't evidence of an absence of a relationship.
Not that it has any sway in a discussion about Smith, but Brodie was right about Jefferson. I don't think anyone who has read her book would describe her as a hack.
I will do that, BUT...first I want to explain why that is an unfair expectation.
If an honest scientist discovered evidence of a thing he did not believe, honestly demands that his belief must change to follow the evidence. Bill Nye, in his recent debate with YEC proponent Ken Ham, admitted that a single piece of evidence against evolution might be enough to change his belief. That's as it should be.
But when it comes to LDS studies, belief in the BOM narrative would almost certainly lead to conversion to the LDS church. Therefore, asking for a non-LDS scholar's support for the BoM narrative is essentially asking for support from someone who doesn't believe what they are saying...which would make them dishonest. Do we insist that all evidence of evolution come from creationists? Do we insist that all evidence that the earth revolves around the sun come from geocentrists? Of course not, because we would never expect an honest person to present evidence for something they don't believe--and we'd not judge them honest if they did.
I see your point, but I think the notion that any evidence of the Book of Mormon narrative would necessarily cause one to become a member is not a sound one. There are many "grades" of evidence that could support the book of mormon narrative without being so compelling that one feels obliged to convert.
And yet there are two ways your unfair burden of proof can be met. For starters, there are those who convert, after the manner of any honest scholar. Off the top of my head, I'd point to
Avraham Gileadi, an Orthodox Jew who studied ancient languages and culture before converting to Mormonism after reading the Book of Mormon. Would you accept any of his writings on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?
Apparently not even the church did - he was excommunicated because they didn't like what he wrote. And I don't take the word of a scholar as weighty, but the consensus of a field. Individual scholars can become persuaded of a number of silly things. In fact, by extension of your initial argument that anyone who reads compelling evidence ought to be "insta-mormoned", it surely seems strange to you that you are giving me one name?
The second way is when scholars don't know that they are writing in support of the Book of Mormon. This often happens because they are only familiar with a vague outline of the book and very few of the details. So when a book on Ancient Americans states that the pre-Columbian people in South America lived in a city-state arrangement, the author has no idea that he is actually confirming something from the Book of Mormon.
I don't think that's the honest way to put it. It's not necessarily confirmation of the Book of Mormon. You'd have to assess things. Firstly, How likely was it that this was common knowledge or common perception at the time of writing? Secondly we have a sort of probabilistic question: given the number of "things" described in the book of mormon, how many things would turn out true because of luck? With these in mind, we have to assess whether retrofitted "hits" are anything to write home about.
I can present several examples of this, but here's a good one to start on: a study of King Benjamin's farewell address in the light of a study by William Kurtz. Kurtz, a non-Mormon scholar, identified twenty points that were present in most Hebrew farewell speeches.
*snip*
Now, let's set this against my questions. Were these kinds of speeches accessible to Smith at the time (yes, and one would argue he would base it on biblical literature) and is it meaningful or impressive - no, because we would expect to see it from someone sourcing from the Bible to manufacture a narrative. I don't see what is remarkable about this.
Again, no first-hand account of the translation process exists, so we don't know it was word-for-word from an infallible deity. That's a common straw-man for critics of the Book of Mormon, but LDS scholars long ago realized that Joseph Smith was limited by his own vocabulary when translating the book. That's why he went back and re-translated it after getting a better education, so he could replace words like "a-going" (a common colloqualism in his part of New England).
Granted, there is a lot of controversy over the exact mechanisms of translation. But that is a very strange interpretation of events and goes to my central criticism of your kind of thinking. The early Book of Mormon is exactly how it would have been if cobbled together by Smith (and, perhaps, others). Instead of being suspicious about this, you remark how wonderful it is that he went back to polish it up from that state. Why didn't God just help him get things right the first time around?
First, while steel was mentioned, we have no clue how common it was, especially as time moved on. It is likely that the knowledge of how to make it died out, possibly very early on in the thousand year period we're talking about.
Jarom 1:8
8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of waryea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.
Doesn't sound like it was that niche to me
Second, steel rusts away very quickly in archaeological terms. We have only a single patch of ruddy earth to confirm its use in some civilizations, and those were arid or temperate environments, not moist jungle like much of the area in question for BoM studies. After 3000 years, what would be left of a steel sword left to rust in such an environment, where whole cars are reduced to dust in a single human lifetime?
Granted, the absence of steel artifacts doesn't exclude the possibility that they all rusted away. But you would have to admit that is not positive evidence, but an apology for the lack thereof?
