What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Katzpur]

What was the gist of it? Or, perhaps I should wait and see what he says here.

I found it. It wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. See my post #117 (pg 12) and his post #121 (pg 13) on the Joseph Smith was a con-artist thread.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'll remind you all this is a debate section, and this thread is entitled 'what is odd about the book of mormon?' not 'how is the one-on-one spin-off thread going?".

Did any of you have anything left to try and defend the piece of fiction we know as the BoM, or are you just going to continue to violate forum rules having a little confab about a seperate thread? That's mostly a retorical question, as I daubt your going to start carrying on properly at this point.

 

[Watchmen]

I found it. It wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. See my post #117 (pg 12) and his post #121 (pg 13) on the Joseph Smith was a con-artist thread.

Typical. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Autodidact]

What Clown failed to mention is we basically have two accounts we can believe: Martin Harris or Anthon's.

No, actually, we have Joseph Smith's account of Harris's account. And we've already established that Joseph Smith is not credible.

It begs the question: If Anthon said the symbols Harris showed him for fake, why would Harris continue following Joseph Smith and continue to pour his own money into the LDS cause? If you found out someone was a fraud do you give them money? Doubtful.

Well, millions of Mormons have no trouble doing it.

Why do scientologists continue to pursue scientology after learning its leaders are liars? Why do FLDS members who have been abused all their lives cling to their prophet?

Smith does seem to have brought Martin Harris under his influence, but that happens every day. It doesn't take divine intervention. People's Temple? Heaven's Gate? Acme Cult of Whatever?

The problem isn't Charles Anthon. The problem is that there is no such language. According to Charles Anthon or anyone else. That's the point. The fact that Smith lied about Anthon is not doing anything to add to his credibility.

 

[Watchmen]

I'll remind you all this is a debate section, and this thread is entitled 'what is odd about the book of mormon?' not 'how is the one-on-one spin-off thread going?".

Did any of you have anything left to try and defend the piece of fiction we know as the BoM, or are you just going to continue to violate forum rules having a little confab about a seperate thread? That's mostly a retorical question, as I daubt your going to start carrying on properly at this point.

Feel free to debate my comments regarding the one-on-one thread. They are relevant to the OP of this thread and open to debate.

Also, it is spelled "doubt," not "daubt." I only point it out because I've noticed it a few times tonight.

 

[Watchmen]

No, actually, we have Joseph Smith's account of Harris's account. And we've already established that Joseph Smith is not credible.

I believe we have Harris's account too. I'll have to look into it further. And, no one has established that Joseph Smith is not credible.

Well, millions of Mormons have no trouble doing it.

Why do scientologists continue to pursue scientology after learning its leaders are liars? Why do FLDS members who have been abused all their lives cling to their prophet?

Smith does seem to have brought Martin Harris under his influence, but that happens every day. It doesn't take divine intervention. People's Temple? Heaven's Gate? Acme Cult of Whatever?

The problem isn't Charles Anthon. The problem is that there is no such language. According to Charles Anthon or anyone else. That's the point. The fact that Smith lied about Anthon is not doing anything to add to his credibility.

Millions of Mormons took copies of the symbols to Anthon, were told the symbols were fake, and continued to give all their money to Joseph Smith? Of course not. Your whole premise is flawed. Also, Harris was an adult when he met Joseph Smith. He wasn't "brain washed" (as you like to claim) from birth or raised in a Texas compound.

 

[Humanistheart]

Feel free to debate my comments regarding the one-on-one thread. They are relevant to the OP of this thread and open to debate.

Also, it is spelled "doubt," not "daubt." I only point it out because I've noticed it a few times tonight.

We'll let the moderators decide as for the top part, the bottom part thank you for pointing it out, I've never got Spell check to work for this site.

As for the whole anthon thing, if he really did give a signed declaration stating his belief of athenticity, that would be a valuable thing to keep around. So why is it no one saw this or that we don't have it today? Virtually everything else smith used has survived to today, why not this crucial bit of evidence? Oh right, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Humanistheart]

No, actually, we have Joseph Smith's account of Harris's account. And we've already established that Joseph Smith is not credible.

Well, millions of Mormons have no trouble doing it.

Why do scientologists continue to pursue scientology after learning its leaders are liars? Why do FLDS members who have been abused all their lives cling to their prophet?

Smith does seem to have brought Martin Harris under his influence, but that happens every day. It doesn't take divine intervention. People's Temple? Heaven's Gate? Acme Cult of Whatever?

The problem isn't Charles Anthon. The problem is that there is no such language. According to Charles Anthon or anyone else. That's the point. The fact that Smith lied about Anthon is not doing anything to add to his credibility.

Good points.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe we have Harris's account too. I'll have to look into it further.

We don't know exactly what Professor Anthon told Martin Harris because the story passed through Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith's scribe before being put on paper many years later.

(Malin Jacobs, SHIELDS) [As I said earlier in the thread, I am very careful with my accuracy and ability to cite sources for my assertions. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. That's why I don't appreciate madhatter slandering me. I invite anyone to find a single erroneous statement in my posts. If you do so, I will be happy to admit and retract. Unlike that lying slanderer, madhatter.] And, no one has established that Joseph Smith is not credible.[/quote] Here's the undisputed, uncontroversial, wiki part:

As a young man in the 1820s, Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting"[3] by using seer stones in attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.[4] Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then "see the required information in reflections given off by the stone".

That's without going into his legal record. I haven't even brought that up. I would say a person who charges money for claiming to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat is either not credible, or completely bonkers, or both, wouldn't you?

Millions of Mormons took copies of the symbols to Anthon, were told the symbols were fake, and continued to give all their money to Joseph Smith? Of course not. Your whole premise is flawed. Also, Harris was an adult when he met Joseph Smith. He wasn't "brain washed" (as you like to claim) from birth or raised in a Texas compound.

No, millions of Mormons believe things that are obviously and demonstrably false.

Did I say Harris was brain-washed or raised on a compound? My point is just that competent adults fall under the influence of charismatic religious leaders every day, and do all sorts of weird things to further their cause, up to and including commit suicide.

 

[Watchmen]

(Malin Jacobs, SHIELDS) [As I said earlier in the thread, I am very careful with my accuracy and ability to cite sources for my assertions. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. That's why I don't appreciate madhatter slandering me. I invite anyone to find a single erroneous statement in my posts. If you do so, I will be happy to admit and retract. Unlike that lying slanderer, madhatter.] And, no one has established that Joseph Smith is not credible.

Here's the undisputed, uncontroversial, wiki part:

As a young man in the 1820s, Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting"[3] by using seer stones in attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.[4] Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then "see the required information in reflections given off by the stone".[/quote]

How does this go to credibility? Some reports are that he was good at it.

That's without going into his legal record. I haven't even brought that up. I would say a person who charges money for claiming to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat is either not credible, or completely bonkers, or both, wouldn't you?

He was never convicted. How does this go to credibility? Some reports are that he was good at it.

No, millions of Mormons believe things that are obviously and demonstrably false.

Did I say Harris was brain-washed or raised on a compound? My point is just that competent adults fall under the influence of charismatic religious leaders every day, and do all sorts of weird things to further their cause, up to and including commit suicide.

You frequently accuse Mormons of being brain washed from birth and you mentioned the FLDS, hence, the compound reference. I don't disagree that competent adults fall under the influence of charismatic leaders (religious or otherwise). However, Harris does not seem to be the type. In fact, he traveled to New York because of his own doubts. If he was already doubting, why would he go into debt to follow Joseph Smith if Anthon said the symbols were fake.

 

[Gemma Cusack]

What I find strange about the BOM is its apparent history. If the founder read the scriptures to someone to write them down, BUT behind a screen, then how can they know it wasn't made up?

 

[madhatter85]

Watchmen, you forget, Harris wanted to have sex with multiple women so he followed Joseph Smith. :bonk:

 

[Humanistheart]

As for the whole anthon thing, if he really did give a signed declaration stating his belief of athenticity, that would be a valuable thing to keep around. So why is it no one saw this or that we don't have it today? Virtually everything else smith used has survived to today, why not this crucial bit of evidence? Oh right, because it doesn't exist.

Again, if it existed, where is it? Where's the proof that this ever existed?

 

[Watchmen]

Again, if it existed, where is it? Where's the proof that this ever existed?

As it goes, Anthon tore up the certificate upon hearing the story of how Smith received and translated the plates. Again, if the story is fake, why does Harris give all his money and then some to follow Smith - especially when he already had doubts going in.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's the undisputed, uncontroversial, wiki part:

As a young man in the 1820s, Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting"[3] by using seer stones in attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.[4] Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then "see the required information in reflections given off by the stone".

How does this go to credibility? Some reports are that he was good at it.

I mean, if this report doesn't give you some qualms about this person's credibility, you may be Mormon.

Well, I'll tell you. If you give me $100, I'll put a rock into my hat and tell you where to dig in your yard to find treasure, O.K.?

You frequently accuse Mormons of being brain washed from birth and you mentioned the FLDS, hence, the compound reference.

Uh, right, reading comprehension problem.

I don't disagree that competent adults fall under the influence of charismatic leaders (religious or otherwise). However, Harris does not seem to be the type. In fact, he traveled to New York because of his own doubts. If he was already doubting, why would he go into debt to follow Joseph Smith if Anthon said the symbols were fake.

First of all, you've never met him, and have no basis on which to say what kind of type he is. Second, there is no type. Anyone can be brainwashed. Anyone. And you don't know why he decided to consult the Egyptologists. It may be he was in on the con. It may be he had so much confidence that he thought they would be sure to help the cause, and that he lied in order to do so. It may be that they thought they could pull one over on the experts, because no one knew how to translate Egyptian. What we do know is that Anthon and the others said it was bogus, and Smith reported differently, consonant with his character and previous actions.

 

[Autodidact]

As it goes, Anthon tore up the certificate upon hearing the story of how Smith received and translated the plates. Again, if the story is fake, why does Harris give all his money and then some to follow Smith - especially when he already had doubts going in.

Because he believed Smith.

 

[Autodidact]

As it goes, Anthon tore up the certificate upon hearing the story of how Smith received and translated the plates. Again, if the story is fake, why does Harris give all his money and then some to follow Smith - especially when he already had doubts going in.

Good money after bad; he wouldn't be the first or the last. Worked out pretty well, though.

 

[Watchmen]

For your reading pleasure: Kimball

 

[Autodidact]

For your reading pleasure: Kimball

I notice that professor Kimball failed to consider the fourth and most likely explanation, which is that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. I'll just take a wild guess, might that be because Professor Kimball is Mormon?

[FONT=Times, Serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Sans Serif]Joseph Smith was only reporting what Martin Harris said happened and was not necessarily vouching for what Dr. Anthon and Dr. Mitchill reputedly had said. [/FONT][/FONT]

I have to question the value of relying on the testimony of the one person in the world with the greatest investment in promoting the BoM.

As I say, the most efficient, sensible and simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a liar. That covers all the facts.

 

[Autodidact]

So Watchmen: find that source for Martin Harris describing the conversation directly, and not via Joseph Smith?