Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 27, 2006 11:12:23 GMT -4
If the translation was, as Mormonism holds, inspired by God, Joseph Smith's own educational level shouldn't matter. Had you defended the educational level of the original authors, you might have had a leg to stand on, though many of the words used don't exist in ancient Hebrew, but you didn't. You defended Joseph Smith instead, as though he were the author. Your criticism presupposes that God provided Joseph with an exact English text - as far as we know that's not how it worked. Joseph Smith was a translator. If you don't believe that the knowledge and education of a translator can make a difference in the final product then you haven't read many translations. I'm fairly certain the original authors didn't use "revile against", because as you say they weren't writing in English. Joseph Smith would have the meaning of the passage revealed to him as he read and then chose his own words to communicate that meaning. If he chose words that made the meaning of the passage clear, even if they weren't quite standard usage, then there was no reason for God to correct him. Incorrect. If you had read to the end of the link I provided earlier to "No Ma'm That's Not History" you would have seen quite a bit of non-mormon criticism against the awful scholarship Brodie showed in her later biography of Thomas Jefferson. So when she writes on a subject non-mormons might actually care about the faults in her technique were much discussed by her critics. You have not researched all non-Mormon and Mormon criticism of "No Man Knows My History," so that's a pretty broad statement to make. To borrow from Jay - Hogwash. The husband is held to be the head of the household, but the wife is in no way required to be subservient, certainly not against her own beliefs. Husbands are in fact constantly warned against attempting to use the "head of household" clause to dominate their spouses, and wives are made aware that their husbands are the head of the household only so long as they (the husband) acts righteously. Balderdash. Again, a commonly held criticism with no actual supporting evidence. It's entirely subjective to say "little support was provided" - how much support is little? Little support compared to what? Never heard of it. I have read up on the Hoffmann case a bit now. Incorrect. The Church provided all Hoffmann documents to the authorities to be used as evidence against him in the criminal case. The Church made certain that the leaders who had contact with Hoffmann were available for the police during the investigation. I'm not sure what else they should have done. Incorrect. The Church published a full list of what it had acquired from Hoffman, placed the most interesting documents (also the most damaging to the church) on public display, and had them preliminarily authenticated and was still asking experts to examine them when Hoffmann was caught. So you're saying the title is accurate because he was murdering Mormons? I guess you have me there. Incorrect. The most damaging documents were available to the public. The documents had been given a preliminary authentication, and the Church was arranging for further experts to examine them. The Church buys historical documents because it is interested in preserving them, not in keeping them from the public.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 27, 2006 11:26:30 GMT -4
Bill, I'm going to take a crack at the inconsistencies you pointed out when I have a little more time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 27, 2006 13:17:09 GMT -4
First off, let me say that the Book of Mormon makes no claims to being infallible, so this whole debate of internal inconsistency may be academic. Two relevent passages: From the Title Page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Words of Mormon 9:31-33: "31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. 32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." Indeed, since the book claims to be a compilation of different authors who wrote at different times it would be surprising if it were completely consistent. (#1) Were precious things found in great abundance by the Nephites in America?Yes: 2 Nephi 5:15 "And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. "
No: 2 Nephi 5:16 "And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land.... " A possible explanation for the inconsistency is that precious ores were indeed in great abundance but that other precious things used in the construction of the temple of Solomon were not present. Or it may even mean that while precious ores were present no one had the skill to work them to the same level as the temple of Solomon, and so not as many precious things could be included. The temple of Solomon was built with the labor of an entire nation, and with riches imported from far and wide by a powerful king, taking seven years to build. Nephi was from Jerusalem, had seen the temple, and could compare the two. The reference in Alma 1:21 is to a law in the church. That is, a commandment that church members accepted - it has nothing to do with the legal laws of the society they were living in. You haven't quoted enough of Alma 1:15 to put it into context. It refers to Nehor, who was "put to an ignomious death" because he had murdered a man named Gideon, not because of his unbelief. "1:13 And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee his blood would come upon us for vengeance. 1:14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law." The fact that he made a confession before he was executed doesn't mean he was forced to make a confession, or that the reason for his execution was his unbelief. The refrence in Alma 30 is more problematic, and it appears that the local judge abused his authority by binding the man and sending him to Alma. So no there wasn't a law against it, but the local judge took Korihor into custody anyway. Edit: I note that Korihor had a long time to spread his views in Zarahemla, and was first bound in the land of Jershon. Jershon was occupied by the Ammonites, recent converts to the church who had their own king, and may not have been subject to Nephite law. He was released by the Ammonites when he was out of their lands. So the local judge in Gideon may have used the fact that he had already been a prisoner once, outside of Nephite law, as his pretext to hold the man. Still it appears to have been an abuse of power.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2006 16:08:48 GMT -4
Your criticism presupposes that God provided Joseph with an exact English text - as far as we know that's not how it worked. Joseph Smith was a translator. If you don't believe that the knowledge and education of a translator can make a difference in the final product then you haven't read many translations. I'm fairly certain the original authors didn't use "revile against", because as you say they weren't writing in English. Joseph Smith would have the meaning of the passage revealed to him as he read and then chose his own words to communicate that meaning. If he chose words that made the meaning of the passage clear, even if they weren't quite standard usage, then there was no reason for God to correct him. So the magic glasses didn't provide him with divine inspiration? I'll have to tell that to the Mormons who told me they did. It's true that she read far more into certain of Thomas Jefferson's words than was probably there, but she never invented events. What's more, the reviews I've read of her book (which I've never actually read, though I did start No Man Knows My History) say that, while her scholarship on other parts of Jefferson's life was good, she went out of her way to prove the Jefferson-Hemings liaison. And what I read of No Man Knows My History was even-handed to the point of being dull, which is why I never finished it. True, and I'm sorry. I should have said all the Mormon vs. non-Mormon criticism I've read--but how do you know I haven't researched all of it? But being head of the household automatically is in and of itself dominating--and I know, personally, a Mormon couple whose bishop in fact counseled against her having a job because it undermined his authority, despite the fact that they couldn't really afford to raise their kids on just his income. I have also read several books discussing the Mormon double-standard. Of course, their authors are all either non-Mormon or now excommunicated. How about being told that staying in the relationship is more important than being healthy and unbeaten? How about the fact that women have to jump through enormous hoops to get their marriages unsealed so they can remarry in the Church while men can have mutliple sealed marriages? And, unfortunately, I can't remember what it was called. However, I'll never forget it--the main character asked to be allowed to have a little more control over her life, which was reasonable, because she was 17--but she went nuts and started doing whatever she wanted, so she got an infection and a fever. Apparently because her parents hadn't raised her well enough to make her own decisions, but that's a value judgement on my part. But clearly only from Mormon sources, as I will detail below. Not according to the investigators, they didn't. According to interviews conducted for the book Salamander, by Allen Dale Roberts and Linda Sillitoe, investigators were continually given the runaround and were not permitted the kind of access they needed to prosecute the case. Not accorrding to the investigators, they didn't. According to the investigators, the Church didn't want to allow any authentication or even, in many cases, admit that certain of the documents existed. The murders were about Mormonism. If he'd been forging documents about Catholicism . . . well, he'd've been caught a heck of a lot sooner; see the history of "Oath of a Freeman." But the authors would've been totally within their rights to call it The Catholic Murders. Not according to the investigators. The "preliminary investigation" was Mark Hoffman saying, "No, really. Ask this guy who works for me."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 27, 2006 17:47:43 GMT -4
For the benefit of those who may not know what you're talking about, I beleive you're referring to the Urim and Thumim, which Joseph Smith stated he used in translating the Book of Mormon. He retrieved them with the golden plates and described them as two stones set in metal bows on a breastplate. He stated that they were tools for seers in ancient times (the Urim and Thumim are mentioned in the Bible, although they are not very well described there). Exactly how the Urim and Thumim worked is unknown - Joseph would put a screen between himself and his scribe while translating, because he had been commanded to show the plates and urim and thumim to no one. My own idea of how they worked, based on the accounts I have read, is that they helped Joseph to see the meaning of the words he was translating without actually resetting them into English text for him. No doubt all of this sounds very strange to someone encountering the story for the first time.
In other words, where she had a cause to prove she didn't let the facts stand in the way, but non-mormons only noticed when it was about a topic that concerned them.
A guess, but apparently an accurate one.
There's a difference between having nominal final say and forcing subservience, and it's all the difference between a marriage that works and one that doesn't.
Bishops often council couples to be very careful when thinking about having both spouses work because they are concerned with having a parent available at home to raise the children, not with keeping women in their place.
Meaning their motivations in writing about these issues are suspect, as it is likely that they have ill feelings towards the Church.
Any bishop who advised a beaten spouse to stay within an unhealthy relationship was wrong in doing so, and was not following the guidance of his church leaders.
Either sex has to jump through enormous hoops to get a temple sealing cancelled, male or female. While it is true that men can be sealed to multiple women they cannot be married to multiple living women at the same time, so it has no practical effect in this life.
You may be confusing a pamphlet produced by another religion with one produced by the LDS church - without a name there's no way to check, really.
And you have clearly been getting your research from only non-Mormon sources.
Why should I believe these two rather than official statements of the Church and the Salt Lake Police department?
The complete list of documents purchased from Hofmann by the Church was made public 11 April 1986. The most prominent Hofmann documents used to attack the origins of the Church—including Martin Harris’ so-called Salamander letter, Joseph Smith’s treasure-hunting letter to Josiah Stowel, and the Joseph Smith III blessing, were made public months before the bombings after they were examined by an authenticator. President Hinckley at the time stated (concerning the Martin Harris letter) “No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies.” (News Release, 28 Apr. 1985.) Hofmann's forgeries fooled any number of examiners, and it has been difficult to sort them out from authentic documents in the years following. Kenneth Rendell, the man who exposed the Hitler Diaries as forgeries, was fooled.
Hofmann himself later admited to having started rumors that the church had purchased other documents from him that they were suppressing, including the so-called "Oliver Cowdery fragment". This document did not exist.
The total cash price paid to Hofmann for documents by the Church was $57,100, although some documents were also donated or traded.
Yes, but it would also still be perfectly legitimate to ascribe the choice of the title to sensationalism. And no, he would not have been caught more quickly. He was very skilled, and the non-LDS forgeries he sold to non-LDS collectors also escaped detection until he was caught.
So, if we've come to the end of the Hofmann case, let me restate the important points: The Church didn't suppress anything here. Documents that appeared damaging to the Church were publically released before Hofmann was caught and they were revealed as forgeries. The Chuch's interest in purchasing historical documents relating to its history is to preserve them for posterity, not to suppress them. Hofmann himself was a disaffected Mormon that started killing people with home-made bombs when he couldn't forge documents fast enough to meet his promised deadlines. He was an exceptionally skilled forger who fooled many experts (including those employed by the Church to authenticate the documents they purchased) and even a lie detector test. The church suffered a great deal of negative press during the incident, including national papers publishing the "Salamander Letter" and other documents without also noting that they were forgeries, exaggerations of the amounts paid for documents, and rumors of non-existent suppressed documents that were begun by Hofmann himself. Very few retractions or corrections were made after the forgeries were exposed. Obviously some still seek to use the incident as ammunition in criticising the Church today. I can see little to no justification in criticising the Church's role in the event.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2006 18:21:43 GMT -4
There's a difference between having nominal final say and forcing subservience, and it's all the difference between a marriage that works and one that doesn't. My relationship works. We compromise. Neither of us always has final say. But then, you don't think my relationship is valid because we're not married (nor are we likely to be soon, for financial reasons). She was making more than he was. Why couldn't he have stayed home? But the motivations of Mormons clearly aren't, because they're clearly unmotivated by their positive feelings toward the Church. (And in several cases, people have been excommunicated because they wrote negative things about the Church.) Not according to my sources, but since I'm not exclusively quoting current, non-excommunicated Mormons, you don't believe me. No, just in the next. In the next life, according to your beliefs, men can have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands. And since the next life lasts a heck of a lot longer, that's eternal subjugation. What's more, it means that it is far, far easier for men to get remarried in the Church than women, which is unbalanced and highly biased. Further, the women whose experiences I can detail had to endure much more personal, intimate questioning than their husbands during the process of having their marriage unsealed. It was in a Mormon girl's library. It wasn't a pamphlet, it was a book. If it was by another religion, it sure did put an awful lot of emphasis into listening to what your bishop said, and your average member of another religion with bishops just doesn't interact with them much--there are a lot fewer. Ah, see, there's where you're wrong. I put more emphasis on non-Mormon sources, but that's because I trust them to have greater objectivity--I trust the word of the investigators over the word of the Church. And I don't mean the official statements of the department, I mean the actual statements of the actual investigators. I have researched the issue from multiple angles, and the fact is, the Church invariably comes off as self-serving. I'm not asking you to believe them except to believe that they actually conducted the interviews they said and reported them faithfully. If they didn't, the next question is why no libel suit has been filed against them by the Church or the individuals quoted, since they are definitely saying things that are detrimental to all Church officials listed. Um, no. No forensic documents analyst has been fooled, because the documents showed certain tell-tale signs of forgery. In point of fact, the documents analysts were able to tell the Church that certain documents had been created by Hoffman when the Church itself thought they weren't. The technique he used to age the ink showed very clear alligator-skin patterning under a microscope. While it is true that he generally used period paper (not difficult to obtain, really) and a period ink recipe, the glue that held the so-called Salamander letter in place met no known formula of the era and was in and of itself suspicious. D'you want more details on the forensics aspects, or will you distrust them because the documents analysts weren't Mormon? True, he did--but he did not, in fact, invent the Church's interest in suppressing any documents they could get their hands on. In fact, he was paid for documents he never delivered by arrangements including certain higher Church officials. Yes, for hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of real documents, favorable bank loan conditions (on which he defaulted), and other non-cash incentives that garnered him quite a lot more than $57,000. The Catholic Church keeps documents analysts on retainer, and they publicize interesting papers purchased--or found!--pretty much immediately. And, frankly, no, he wasn't very skilled. Again, look into the history of "Oath of a Freeman," which he did not manage to sell because the Library of Congress thought the whole thing was suspicious. No, you can't. That's kind of my point.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 27, 2006 18:43:38 GMT -4
Well, I've presented more internet-available sources for my view of the Hofmann case than you have. You've mentioned two books, but I don't even know if they're still in print at this point. I'll have to see if I can look them up before I can discuss them further.
At this point, my view is that you have a bad opinion of the church and believe the evidence that supports that view, NOT that you are taking an even-handed approach.
Yes I have a bias towards the church - it has been a great force for good in my life - but frankly you have yet to present anything substantive. "My sources tell me" "people I have talked to" "pamphlets I remember encountering in the seventies"- this isn't evidence. In many of the things you presented you have gotten details, some of them quite important, incorrect - such as the relationship between Fawn Broadie and the Church when she wrote her biography of Joseph Smith.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 27, 2006 20:26:19 GMT -4
While it is true that men can be sealed to multiple women they cannot be married to multiple living women at the same time, so it has no practical effect in this life.
Nor the next according to words spoken by Jesus when asked about Marriage continuing byond the resurrection.
Matthew 22:29-32
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
Also Mark 12:24-26 and Luke 20:34-38
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 28, 2006 3:02:22 GMT -4
Both the books I've referenced are in print re: Hoffman. Since I'm not yet 30, I didn't care in the slightest about Mormonism in the 70s; I don't really care now. I find its treatment of women objectionable speaking as a woman and its treatment of history offensive as a historian, but other than that, I don't care. You're welcome to believe whatever you want--a courtesy you don't extend toward me.
I will note that my problems with you have much more to do with your tendency to believe that yours is the only correct moral stance. If a relationship works where the man makes the decisions, that's right for that relationship, but automatically deciding that one or the other party should be the final arbiter isn't healthy for every relationship. If two people love each other, no matter their gender, as long as they're both legal adults, it's their business, not yours, what they do in bed. I give your religion the benefit of a doubt by assuming that's your problem, not your religion's, and I will also note that one of the early advocates of AIDS funding was in fact a senator from Utah and of your faith, who did indeed believe that people's health was more important than their sexuality, and I commend him.
Maybe, just maybe, if you tried reading some of the books I've recommended--that's three in the last few days--you'd learn something. As it is, I have no reason to believe you ever will.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Sept 29, 2006 7:21:17 GMT -4
Like right, the scribe believed this? lol
So for all the scribe knew he was making it up as he went along?
I was going to say you couldn't make stuff like this up but I won't becvause it seems that Mr Smith did make it up.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2006 12:19:11 GMT -4
There's a difference between having nominal final say and forcing subservience, and it's all the difference between a marriage that works and one that doesn't. My relationship works. We compromise. Neither of us always has final say. But then, you don't think my relationship is valid because we're not married (nor are we likely to be soon, for financial reasons). Mormon marriages are cases of compromise as well. One side does not dominate the other, at least not in healthy marriages. If you suggested to any of the women I know that their religion required them to be subservient to their husband they would laugh in your face.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2006 12:29:40 GMT -4
Nor the next according to words spoken by Jesus when asked about Marriage continuing byond the resurrection. Matthew 22:29-32 29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." Also Mark 12:24-26 and Luke 20:34-38 Ugh. I don't know how you feel, but the modern english translations just aren't as lyrical as the King James Version. Anyway, the scripture is correct - marriages do not occur in the spirit world - and neither do baptisms. That is the reason Mormons perform baptisms and marriages for the dead by proxie here on Earth - so that "what is bound on Earth may be bound in heaven."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2006 12:39:17 GMT -4
I find its treatment of women objectionable speaking as a woman and its treatment of history offensive as a historian, but other than that, I don't care. You're welcome to believe whatever you want--a courtesy you don't extend toward me. Well, you can beleive what you want, of course, but it would be wrong for me to not try to correct opinions based on misinformation. Your belief that the Mormon church mistreats women is mistaken - the product of hearsay and anti-mormon propoganda. I have a lifetime of experience (admitedly from the other gender's perspective) and the testimony of every LDS woman I know to that affect. Everybody believes they have the correct moral stance. They wouldn't hold that stance otherwise. The man does not make all the decisions in a Mormon relationship. He has nominal final say, but anyone who tries to force a decision simply because he's the man is going to find himself without a relationship and the Church will not support him in exercising what is known in the scriptures as "unrighteous dominion." True. However, if they then insist that they receive the same legal benefits and social acceptance as other relationships then they are attempting to force their beliefs on others - a right they do not have. I will try to find the books you've mentioned relating to the Hoffmann case. Now that you've brought it up I am interested in finding out more about it. It just might take a little time to find and read them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2006 12:48:43 GMT -4
Like right, the scribe believed this? lol So for all the scribe knew he was making it up as he went along? I was going to say you couldn't make stuff like this up but I won't becvause it seems that Mr Smith did make it up. Yes, several different scribes believed it. Consider - you sit on the other side of a screen and here is a complex and detailed narrative pouring forth with no revision. Joseph never asks you to go back after a break and read where he left off either - he just picks right up again and keeps going, producing the scripture as quickly as you can set it down. If he was making it up then he was an unparalleled literary genius. In fact, the very fact that so preposterous a story is known to and believed by millions of intelligent, educated people is probably a sign that there's something to it. Two of Joseph's scribes - Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery - were also eventually shown the plates, and their testimony to that effect is printed in the front of the Book of Mormon. His wife Emma, who acted as a scribe for a short time, didn't see the plates herself but did see them wrapped up and concealed in various places.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 29, 2006 13:01:20 GMT -4
Shortly after we were married, we met a very nice and kind family in Santa Barbara who were Mormon. It came to pass that we got to be good friends with them. We had some difficulty and they were there to lend support and help to us. It came to pass that time came for us to leave Santa Barbara. They recommended some friends of theirs who lived in Sacramento where we were traveling.
And so it came to pass that we lived in Sacramento. We did not have the money for the first and last months rent for an apartment. So it came to pass that for one month we lived with this Mormon family in their house in Sacramento.
It came to pass that they showed me the book of Mormon. The wife of this family told me that when she read it she had no doubt that it was authentic and correct.
I told her that the exact same arguments toward the validity of Islam were made about the Quran. Because of this, It came to pass that they became silent and less ambitions in their converting us to Mormonism.
Muslims and Mormans share similar notions regarding the absolute certainty that their spiritual founders are messengers from God. The problem is that one cannot logically be both Muslim and Mormon at the same time. So it came to pass that I abandoned my ideas of becoming either Muslim or Mormon.
|
|