LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Peter1000]

You can believe whatever falsehoods you want as you wait for your "discoveries". Just don't expect the Holy Spirit to confirm that large civilizations consisting of millions of people existed during that time who conveniently killed themselves off entirely and any traces of their existance vanished, nor expect the Holy Spirit to confirm that "another testament" is true or that Jesus appeared to such a civilization.

One who lives in a glass house, ought not to throw too many stones. The bible that we so preciously hold to is a book that needs to have a lot of faith to believe. There are many, many aspects of the bible that do not line up with science and common sense. But we don't worry that there is never a mention of Moses and no evidence to any degree that there was 2,000,000 people that left Egypt and traveled 40 years in the wilderness, only to settle in Israel. No evidence worth writing home to mother about.

Yet, because of our faith, we believe the bible to be true. So you and I are on the same level when it comes to the bible. Faith based belief.

It is the same for the BOM for me. So I have witnessed just in my lifetime, that discoveries have been made by science that corroborate the BOM scripture.

So I will continue to believe and have faith and read with interest about Jesus and what he did in the Americas for his people. If you don't care that Jesus was here in the Americas, then stick your head in the sand and pretend it did not happen. But every year there is little pieces of evidence that leaks out that Jesus was in the Americas. There is no other explanation, and if Jesus was here in the Americas, you better start reading up on what else JS said, because he is the only religious leader that said this and the Mormon church is the only church that says this today.

 

[Peter1000]

A lot of what you mention (the non-fanciful stuff, like people making stone boxes and the existence of an indigenous writing system in the Americas) was known before Joseph Smith, though. These things may or may not have been laughable to those in Joseph's immediate environment, but that doesn't really mean much, beyond possibly explaining Joseph's success at founding his religion at the time and place in which he founded it.

It may have been known is some remote academic libraries, but was certainly not known by the regular people of the U.S., because when the explorer John Lloyd Stephens left NYC in 1839 (9 years after the BOM was translated) and entered the jungles of the Yucatan penninsula, the history of this land was lost to the world. The reason that Stephens 2 volume book was such a big seller is because there was no idea that this people even existed, let alone were so sophisticated in stone work and writing and construction and empire building, etc.

So if there was something known before JS, it was a well hidden secret, and was only brought to light 12 years after the BOM came out when in 1842 Stephens book was published. JS was telling people for 12 years that there was a might people that existed and that Jesus Christ had come to them and taught them his gospel.
Well, it is true.

 

[Peter1000]

The idea that "savages" couldn't read or write was dispelled after the Spaniards came back with drawings of their writings and of their architecture--I posted a site that has a long list of all those manuscripts which dispelled all those believes. That information had not been of much interest except for some academics--JS didn't know what had been discovered or he wouldn't have said some of the things he did. He did very little research-either on the Americas nor Egyptology. Had he done so, he would have done and said things better. He was counting on the ignorance of people to remain that way. In this day and age, he would never have gotten away with what he claimed. Internet, videos, phones, too much info readily available. And what had appeared at first to corroborate his views, no longer do--time and discoveries have not helped him. What new stuff that may come up---if it should align with what he says--I'll wait for the newer discoveries that will dispel what those say!!! Like, no horses, of any size, Anytime there has ever been any kind of horse, the indigenous peoples have put them to use--no matter what size they were. When the Indians did see them---they took to them like ducks to water and in no time at all---there were gauchos and Latin and Indian cowboys that could put their conquerors to shame! There are still gauchos in South America. Had they had horses, the Spaniards would have had a lot more difficult time conquering them.

In the time of JS there was practically no information about ancient and even current Mexico, and Guatamala. JS wrote that there was a great people who had lived and had created a major empire with massive buildings, writing, metal instruments, astronomy, roads, etc. He writes that Jesus Christ came to them and taught them his gospel. 12 years later, John Lloyd Stephens confirmed to the world that JS was right on target. A sophisticated people that had been totally lost to our knowledge (for the most part).

If Jesus Christ did come to the Americas and preached his gospel, you better be willing to read up on what else JS said, because he is the only religious leader that has made this statement, and the Mormon church is the only church that says this today. Be prepared for more information to come into the light.

I say time has been very good for JS. Time has vindicated many things he said, but not all things yet. Only about 3% of the ruins in Central America have been uncovered, so be patient, wait on the Lord, and JS will eventually be fully vindicated. Then what will you do?

 

[dzheremi]

It is the same for the BOM for me. So I have witnessed just in my lifetime, that discoveries have been made by science that corroborate the BOM scripture.

What discoveries, where were they reported, and how do they corroborate Mormonism? I am unaware of any such thing in any relevant field (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) that even slightly corroborates anything in Mormonism but that Mormon writers and spectators claim that it does, which is a very, very low standard.

The problem with this approach is it is easily leads one to manipulate whatever evidence they find in order to reach certain conclusions that just so happen to be in line with their faith, because they're not really about doing science in the first place; they're about corroborating their faith. It's called confirmation bias and it invalidates basically everything Mormons have to say on any academic topic, since they don't really seem too keen on getting published outside of the LDS world, where people don't take the BOM as a starting point in investigations and have higher and impartial standards by which they postulate their conclusions.

So I will continue to believe and have faith and read with interest about Jesus and what he did in the Americas for his people. If you don't care that Jesus was here in the Americas, then stick your head in the sand and pretend it did not happen.

See, you're doing it right here. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the LDS narrative regarding Jesus coming to the Americas, you assume that it happened because of your belief in the narrative and then conclude that anyone who does not take this claim as the a priori truth is the one pretending. This is not an acceptable way to approach things. I don't talk to non-Christians and say "You can feel free to not believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, in confirmation of the scriptures, but it still happened", because that is just assuming that I'm right because I happen to believe that. A responsible Christian will admit that this is a faith claim that is outside of the realm of falsifiability and argue accordingly by other means (i.e., from various philosophical precepts about God that can be pointed to without having to attempt to scientifically validate the resurrection, since that's literally impossible). There's a reason why the Orthodox Creed has all of these statements that begin "I believe...", and not "I know" or "I am scientifically supported in believing".

And again, all of this would be fine if Mormons, like the rest of us, would admit that this is what they're doing, and stop their futile search to prove the unprovable by scientific or quasi-scientific means. But instead they fund extremely questionable archaeological expeditions, give out dubious Ph.D.s in Linguistics and ancient languages to obviously ideologically-motivated researchers who will never do anything of value (or seek those same degrees from reputable non-LDS institutions, so as to give their non-scientific research an air of legitimacy it wouldn't otherwise have had they gone to BYU, a college that is literally owned by the LDS corporation and staffed with its cadres), and generally continue to perpetuate the lie that there is scientific evidence either presently or forthcoming to support the LDS narrative regarding various things for which there is in fact no evidence in any sense, either presently or realistically forthcoming.

But every year there is little pieces of evidence that leaks out that Jesus was in the Americas.

Where? Please link to the relevant academic journals which discuss this evidence and how it supports the veracity of the BOM/LDS claims.

There is no other explanation, and if Jesus was here in the Americas, you better start reading up on what else JS said, because he is the only religious leader that said this and the Mormon church is the only church that says this today.

This is just a vague and somewhat arrogant-sounding threat. "You'd better do this, because my church says a thing that no other churches say!" Uh...so what that your church says that? Why does anyone who isn't LDS have to do anything based on what the LDS say? The belief that Christ probably spoke Coptic is found in some quarters in my Church (as far as I can tell, only in my particular church; I doubt the Armenians would have any reason to believe this, and certainly the Syriacs wouldn't, since the consensus among actual scholars is that Christ spoke Aramaic, which is the parent of their own Syriac language and the modern Neo-Aramaic languages -- an understandable point of pride for the Syriacs in particular), but there's no evidence for that, it's only by inference from particular local legends put in the context of Egypt's linguistic situation in the early Roman period when Coptic emerged (most scholars working on the linguistic situation in pre-Islamic Egypt don't seem to place the Coptic period that far back anyway, though there is certainly room for debate on that). It's not exactly compelling, but it's also not hurting anything since we're not telling people "You'd better do/believe this, because we (some of us; not me) say this!" That'd be silly in the extreme.

 

[dzheremi]

It may have been known is some remote academic libraries, but was certainly not known by the regular people of the U.S., because when the explorer John Lloyd Stephens left NYC in 1839 (9 years after the BOM was translated) and entered the jungles of the Yucatan penninsula, the history of this land was lost to the world.

No, it very emphatically was not "lost to the world". Lost to monolingual Americans perhaps, but so what? The USA is not the center of the world, either academically or in any other way.

Diego de Landa's history of the Yucatan was written in 1566 and contained information on the alphabet and language of the natives, as well as many other aspects of their culture. I believe it is available in English under the title "Yucatan Before and After the Conquest", though I don't know when it was first published in that language. I'm going to assume it was after Joseph Smith's day, or else he would not have been able to get away with claiming the sort of things he did about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

So if there was something known before JS, it was a well hidden secret

It really wasn't, though. "Joseph Smith or other monolingual Americans didn't know about it" is not the definition of "secret". I guarantee you that the various monuments at, e.g., Palenque, were there during all of Joseph's lifetime and long before, even if he personally never saw them. Also, apparently de Landa's book was popular enough in its day to provide enough copies to work from such that multiple editions now exist in English, French, and other major European languages despite the fact that the original was lost a long time ago.

JS was telling people for 12 years that there was a might people that existed and that Jesus Christ had come to them and taught them his gospel.
Well, it is true.

Things are not true just because you say they are. Please be a little bit more mature in how you approach the world, and posting on this message board. This is quite frankly beneath you, and your religion and its community deserve better. (And I say that despite the fact that I strenuously disagree with Mormonism in several major areas, on both religious and secular grounds.)

 

[mmksparbud]

In the time of JS there was practically no information about ancient and even current Mexico, and Guatamala. JS wrote that there was a great people who had lived and had created a major empire with massive buildings, writing, metal instruments, astronomy, roads, etc. He writes that Jesus Christ came to them and taught them his gospel. 12 years later, John Lloyd Stephens confirmed to the world that JS was right on target. A sophisticated people that had been totally lost to our knowledge (for the most part).

If Jesus Christ did come to the Americas and preached his gospel, you better be willing to read up on what else JS said, because he is the only religious leader that has made this statement, and the Mormon church is the only church that says this today. Be prepared for more information to come into the light.

I say time has been very good for JS. Time has vindicated many things he said, but not all things yet. Only about 3% of the ruins in Central America have been uncovered, so be patient, wait on the Lord, and JS will eventually be fully vindicated. Then what will you do?

You were given a link to the lists of the manuscripts that were written by the explorers after Columbus describing the temples, and art and the people and their animals and food----I already said--it was well known, but mostly amongst academics not the general population. It could easily be looked up in libraries, which they were not as prevalent as they later became. The general population wanted to maintain the illusion that these "savages" (including the American Indian)had no capabilities for such things and were not interested until it became much more popular as the cities that the Spaniards had destroyed were rediscovered along with much more ancient ones. Mexico city itself is located right over an existing destroyed Indian site. It was felt--and until modern times, that the Africans were nothing but ignorant subhumans even though there was evidence that they had also build empires of their own. It is much easier to subjugate and mistreat those that you consider to be less than yourself than to think they could possibly be even more intelligent than you.

 

[Ironhold]

What discoveries, where were they reported, and how do they corroborate Mormonism?

If we gave you links or recommended books, would you read them?

 

[dzheremi]

If they are academic-level, disinterested, non-LDS sources, yes. If they are from BYU/FARMS and related organs of the LDS church, no.

 

[fatboys]

If they are academic-level, disinterested, non-LDS sources, yes. If they are from BYU/FARMS and related organs of the LDS church, no.

So what do you think a non Mormon is going to say about the inscription that says Nephi slept here? Huh?

 

[dzheremi]

So what do you think a non Mormon is going to say about the inscription that says Nephi slept here? Huh?

Yes, they'll probably say "Huh?", because non-Mormons don't care about the characters of the Book of Mormon or validating Mormonism.

 

[fatboys]

Yes, they'll probably say "Huh?", because non-Mormons don't care about the characters of the Book of Mormon or validating Mormonism.

You got it. Now all you want to read is from non Mormon sources. From now on if you are going to try and prove your doctrine is more correct than mine I want you quoting non Christian sources.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, but you don't get to change the topic just because no one takes Mormon pseudo-scholarship seriously. This is not a conversation about religious doctrine. It's a conversation about academic disciplines like linguistics, archaeology, and anthropology which require impartiality, whereas religious doctrine is by its very nature not impartial and does not require nor seek peer review by disinterested parties.

 

[Ironhold]

Sorry, but you don't get to change the topic just because no one takes Mormon pseudo-scholarship seriously.

...and, as an extension of this mindset, they don't give it a chance to be taken seriously, either. Thus, the doors are kept closed so that people don't have to worry about having to deal with possible discoveries that would complicate their world views.

 

[fatboys]

Sorry, but you don't get to change the topic just because no one takes Mormon pseudo-scholarship seriously. This is not a conversation about religious doctrine. It's a conversation about academic disciplines like linguistics, archaeology, and anthropology which require impartiality, whereas religious doctrine is by its very nature not impartial and does not require nor seek peer review by disinterested parties.

So it is a eye for an eye?

 

[BigDaddy4]

...and, as an extension of this mindset, they don't give it a chance to be taken seriously, either. Thus, the doors are kept closed so that people don't have to worry about having to deal with possible discoveries that would complicate their world views.

That's your persecution complex speaking. It's not taken seriously because there is nothing to seriously consider at that level of academia.

 

[fatboys]

That's your persecution complex speaking. It's not taken seriously because there is nothing to seriously consider at that level of academia.

Do you know what bloviate means? I can not see the word daddy without thinking of you and the word bloviate

 

[mmksparbud]

Do you know what bloviate means? I can not see the word daddy without thinking of you and the word bloviate

Perfect word for most of these Mormon posts---esp those really long ones. And not used correctly for the above quote at all

 

[BigDaddy4]

Do you know what bloviate means? I can not see the word daddy without thinking of you and the word bloviate

So your response is a personal insult? That would be flaming.

 

[dzheremi]

...and, as an extension of this mindset, they don't give it a chance to be taken seriously, either. Thus, the doors are kept closed so that people don't have to worry about having to deal with possible discoveries that would complicate their world views.

No, that's not it at all. They get to be taken seriously when they present something that is a plausible theory, submitted before disinterested authorities in relevant fields, that explains real-world evidence in such a way as to move whatever field they're working in forward scientifically. This is the same standard by which everyone else is taken seriously, so it has nothing to do with people not wanting to deal with discoveries that would "complicate their worldviews", as you put it. The issue for Mormons is that they refuse to follow the above procedure, so as far as academia is concerned, they haven't actually discovered anything, nor shown the level of scientific rigor and impartiality needed to be taken seriously.

 

[dzheremi]

So it is a eye for an eye?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, or how this addresses my post at all. My post was about how it is not logical to compare arguments about religious doctrine to scientific inquiry because one is a rule inherently biased and not subject to peer review, while the other is the exact opposite, and you responded with this.