Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[DeepShadow]

Yes it seems like you have two choices. At best you have nothing. The plates were conveniently returned to the angel, and you have to accept Smith's testimony that he saw them and later "translated" them by putting a rock into his hat and looking into it. (?!?! Does this seem weird as heck to anyone but me???!)

Sure seems wierd to me! I much prefer the translation process that is actually cited by people who were there...

Or, even worse, the "Anton transcript" which modern scholars can tell is just gibberish. It does not represent any actual language from any known country, whther Near Eastern or American.

Apart from Melissa's unnamed friend, I'd be very interested in hearing of any other modern scholars who can prove a negative.:faint:

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, Gordon Hinckley certainly was, as he said in a Young Adult Fireside Broadcast on June 23, 1985:
"I acquired for the Church both of these letters, the first by purchase. The second was given to the Church by its generous owner. I am, of course, familiar with both letters, having held them in my hands and having read them in their original form." (emphasis added)

Context, please. There were several other letters brought to the church at that time. How do we know this refers to the Salamander Letter? According to the book, Salamander, no one in the Twelve or First Presidency were interested in that letter.

 

[DeepShadow]

These details are never explained to people investigating the church which is highly suspicious in my opinion. [snip] I wonder how many people would considered reading the bom if they heard the this non-useful truth about the origins of the bom.

These details are never explained because they are highly suspect. There is very little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages.

But then again, you found it on the internet, so it must be true!

Edit: The abovegoing is meant in jest. Bathsheba has entertained me with facetious comments before, I thought she would appreciate this. Bathsheba, if I've offended you, let me know...or just frubal me, being the contrary person that you are. If anyone else was offended...meh.

 

[DeepShadow]

Sounds like something that's sifted--like wheat.

Since this may not be referring to a BoM flora in this scripture, the point is moot. That being said, it makes sense that a grain ideograph would be used for another grain, if transposed. That could make it anything from maize to hickory nuts, which were sifted in the process of making hickory milk.

Almost a verbatim quote of Mathew 7, where the passage reads:
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Again, this is Christ speaking, so he may not be referring to BoM flora. I wouldn't be surprised if this part was quoted directly from the Bible, just for doctrinal clarity.

So if I understand your argument, it's that Smith quotes a direct Bible passage, using the same words, but with an entirely different meaning?

Okay, I see your point here, I think. No, this part appears to have sacrificed archaeological cues (specific flora and fauna) for doctrinal meaning. Smith probably chose to go with the words that the reader was most familiar with.

That Smith (or the Nephites or whomever) didn't mean "grapes" when they used the word "grapes" in the exact same passage as the Bible uses the word "grapes?" Same for figs? Huuuge stretch.

The intention of the BoM is a spiritual message. It's not intended to be an archeological guidebook. It's very possible that this speech used different words, but Joseph got the gist--it was the same speech doctrinally--and used the old words.

So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that in this passage, silk doesn't mean silk, linen doesn't mean linen, gold doesn't mean gold, silver doesn't mean silver, cattle doesn't mean cattle, oxen doesn't mean oxen, cows doesn't mean cows, sheep doesn't mean sheep, swine doesn't mean swine and goats doesn't mean goats? Is that your position? Just trying to clarify.

Replace "doesn't mean" with "may or may not mean" and you've got it.

 

[Bathsheba]

But then again, you found it on the internet, so it must be true!

Edit: The abovegoing is meant in jest. Bathsheba has entertained me with facetious comments before, I thought she would appreciate this. Bathsheba, if I've offended you, let me know...or just frubal me, being the contrary person that you are. If anyone else was offended...meh.

I would frubal you this second if I could but apparently I went a little crazy with the dispensing of the frubals yesterday and I've been put in 'time out'. lol

Yeah, no offense taken my friend ... and yes, I do appreciate the jest. :yes:

If anyone else was offended then they need to take sensitivity training at my sensitivity insititue (Baths Dread and Hecklfest). heeheee :thud:Ok, ok, that was a dumb joke.

 

[DeepShadow]

Moved those goalposts a bit, didn't you? Now it doesn't count unless it's described?

You said the BoM describes things. I said it doesn't. It says the people had "fine twined linen" but doesn't say what color, what cut, what style. Any of these things could be matched to a specific culture, but all we really know is that they had "nice clothes."

 

[DeepShadow]

When all else fails tell em you know it is true because you feel it.

How about before all else fails? After all else fails is not the best time to get a testimony based on spiritual confirmation. Most people I know who hang their testimonies on archaeology lose them rapidly without making the realization that this is supposed to be about them and God.:angel2:

 

[Bathsheba]

These details are never explained because they are highly suspect. There is very little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages.

Well, it probably isn't something that either of us can 'prove', but my heavily biased opinion is that there are much more compelling reasons for the church not to present the meat before the milk (as they like to say). I am taking a more practical view based on the unbeliever’s perspective. In my not so humble opinion the LDS missionary approach is similar to marketing techniques and from that perspective it just doesn't make sense to provide this kind of detail (seerstones, breastplates and hats - oh my!) because the details are so unusual. It is just plain weird on first blush. And clearly I disagree with your assesment that we "we don't know very much about" it (ah, the old Gordon B. Hinckley approach Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley of the LDS Church). I can just hear Seth and Amy from SNL doing their "oh really" segment in response to this assertion.

Regarding "very little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages", come on, you guys use the stuff from the historical record when it suits you but discard the words of the same authors of the same historical record when it gets a little hot on the tin roof.

"According to most accounts, the seer stone was used during all stages of the translation of the Book of Mormon, both before and after the loss of the first 116 manuscript pages. Edward Stevenson reported that Martin Harris (who served as Joseph's scribe between April and June of 1828) testified to him that "the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he used the seer stone."13
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=10
​

In my opinion it would be a better approach to just own all of it, put it out there for everyone to see, don't shy away from it at all. Otherwise, the whole approach strikes me as just one big marketing campaign. Just my irrelevant opinion of course…

 

[DeepShadow]

All these things cost money, and someone provides it. My understanding, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for example FARMS is part of BYU, which is largely funded by the LDS church, which in turn gets most of its money from the 10% of their income that many Mormon families tithe, right? So basically ordinary Mormons are paying to find and promote evidence that, according to SoyLeche, has nothing to do with their faith. (and is a hopeless enterprise, because it doesn't exist.)

AFAIK, tithing money doesn't go to BYU.

 

[Bathsheba]

How about before all else fails? After all else fails is not the best time to get a testimony based on spiritual confirmation. Most people I know who hang their testimonies on archaeology lose them rapidly without making the realization that this is supposed to be about them and God.:angel2:

Absolutely, you can't rely on reason, you must appeal to emotion for this to work.

What trips me out about a guy like you DeepShadow is how I imagine that you don't imagine the similarity between your spiritual confirmation and that of say a Baptist. You know, I get it, I really do get how you can believe that your spiritual witness is distinct and special and set apart, but even though I can empathize with your mind set, still, it blows me away just the same.

 

[DeepShadow]

Regarding "very little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages", come on, you guys use the stuff from the historical record when it suits you but discard the words of the same authors of the same historical record when it gets a little hot on the tin roof.

Ah, there's the problem: you conflate "seer-stone" with "peep-stone." Two different things. As I said, there is little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages.

I know to you, there's precious little difference, but they really are two different things.

 

[Bathsheba]

Ah, there's the problem: you conflate "seer-stone" with "peep-stone." Two different things. As I said, there is little evidence that Joseph used a peep-stone after the loss of the 116 pages.

I know to you, there's precious little difference, but they really are two different things.

Would you show me how they are different?

 

[DeepShadow]

What trips me out about a guy like you DeepShadow is how I imagine that you don't imagine the similarity between your spiritual confirmation and that of say a Baptist.

...Have I ever said this? I don't think I have...

I imagine a LOT of similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, or Jews, or Hindus.

You know, I get it, I really do get how you can believe that your spiritual witness is distinct and special and set apart, but even though I can empathize with your mind set, still, it blows me away just the same.

Would it blow you away to discover that I think many people, in an out of every religion, have a witness that is distinct and special and set apart? 'Cause I do.

 

[DeepShadow]

Would you show me how they are different?

Peep-stones are used to find treasure. Seer-stones are used for prophecies. If you want to go into more than that, we need another thread, I think.

 

[Bathsheba]

...Have I ever said this? I don't think I have...

I imagine a LOT of similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, or Jews, or Hindus.

Would it blow you away to discover that I think many people, in an out of every religion, have a witness that is distinct and special and set apart? 'Cause I do.

Interesting DS, I stand corrected.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, it probably isn't something that either of us can 'prove', but my heavily biased opinion is that there are much more compelling reasons for the church not to present the meat before the milk (as they like to say).

BTW, this is a false analogy: "milk" and "meat" are doctrinal terms. The exact means by which the translation took place is neither milk nor meat. It's more like gristle, or one of those little bits of hull that gets stuck in your teeth.

 

[Bathsheba]

BTW, this is a false analogy: "milk" and "meat" are doctrinal terms. The exact means by which the translation took place is neither milk nor meat. It's more like gristle, or one of those little bits of hull that gets stuck in your teeth.

Fair enough, it is your milk, meat and gristle, I should think you can define any way you like.

 

[Melissa G]

posted by Deep Shadow: "
I imagine a LOT of similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, or Jews, or Hindus."

Therin lies your problem, you imagine, and imagine things are real which are patently not so. Do you believe in Father Christmas as well ?

I have to say, your replies to Bathshabe were a wonderful exercise in saying absolutely nothing but waffle

Melissa G

 

[Bathsheba]

posted by Deep Shadow: "
I imagine a LOT of similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, or Jews, or Hindus."

Therin lies your problem, you imagine, and imagine things are real which are patently not so. Do you believe in Father Christmas as well ?

I have to say, your replies to Bathshabe were a wonderful exercise in saying absolutely nothing but waffle

Melissa G

I'm confussed, do they also have milk, meat, grissle AND WAFFLES?

:disco: check out my moves

 

[DeepShadow]

posted by Deep Shadow: "
I imagine a LOT of similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, or Jews, or Hindus."

Therin lies your problem, you imagine, and imagine things are real which are patently not so.

Are you saying that there are no similarities between my spiritual confirmation and that of Baptists, Jews or Hindus? Please explain.