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

[dzheremi]

When there is a disagreement as to the truth of some historical claim, then the viewpoints of the people about whom that history is written (as presented in primary sources or compendiums of the same) ought to take precedence over any individual's later assessment, no? I don't know enough about Mormon historical sources to know whether the sources cited by Daniel Marsh in post #1512 are reliable, but it seems to me that if we can establish at least the principle of 'treat historical sources as paramount when historical claims', then there's no need to get into irrelevant arguments regarding whose opinion ought to matter more and why. For historical sources, that is already answered: because they were there, and are writing about themselves/what they did/felt/believed at the time." Granted, people can and do lie, of course, but I would think in this context a quote from Joseph Smith or some other LDS leader about their own community and its history would not be presumed to be inaccurate by Mormons themselves, only perhaps inaccurately presented by the poster (in which case, the Mormons would have to show how that is, since they're the ones claiming it to be so -- e.g., is it taken out of context, a misquotation, a fabrication, etc.).

 

[Peter1000]

JS's original "translated" handwritten manuscript has never been revealed to the world to examine either. How utterly convenient for them to have "lost" that, too. LOST IT??? The "most important, most pure book in the world", and they.... LOSE it??? JS didn't think much of his "treasure", did he? Sounds more like he hid the damning evidence--against him.

JS placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Years later, Lewis Bidoman, who was a non-Mormon, and the 2nd husband of Emma Smith, took the manuscript from the cornerstone and sold it by pieces.

28% is still in existence today and there is a project to try to find the other 72%.

 

[Peter1000]

When there is a disagreement as to the truth of some historical claim, then the viewpoints of the people about whom that history is written (as presented in primary sources or compendiums of the same) ought to take precedence over any individual's later assessment, no? I don't know enough about Mormon historical sources to know whether the sources cited by Daniel Marsh in post #1512 are reliable, but it seems to me that if we can establish at least the principle of 'treat historical sources as paramount when historical claims', then there's no need to get into irrelevant arguments regarding whose opinion ought to matter more and why. For historical sources, that is already answered: because they were there, and are writing about themselves/what they did/felt/believed at the time." Granted, people can and do lie, of course, but I would think in this context a quote from Joseph Smith or some other LDS leader about their own community and its history would not be presumed to be inaccurate by Mormons themselves, only perhaps inaccurately presented by the poster (in which case, the Mormons would have to show how that is, since they're the ones claiming it to be so -- e.g., is it taken out of context, a misquotation, a fabrication, etc.).

What you also have to remember is that a Mormon in that day was considered lower than an Indian, and an Indian was considered lower than a dog. In Missouri you could kill a Mormon outright and walk away from the event.

So if you could kill a Mormon and no harm, and they were so low in the minds of the people, it would not be anything to lie or distort the truth to make a Mormon look bad, especially JS or any of the leaders of the church.

 

[dzheremi]

That may be true, but the point is that first hand accounts of Mormon goings on can't reasonably dismissed according to the later analyses of others. If there exists some book on LDS history written by LDS leaders of the time, then secondary analysis cannot stand in place of whatever it actually says. There's an inherent limit to the weight given to secondary sources on any subject precisely due to their removal from the times/events that they describe.

To use your example, while the standing of the Mormons in a certain historical period could be exaggerated in either direction with the accumulation of time, if we have primary source documents proving that people could kill Mormons with impunity in Missouri at one time (say, by court documents showing just that), and we are looking for such evidence, then that ought to stand as a verification of the claim about the history of Missouri concerning the Mormons at that time, without taking into account any latter-day explanations or analysis from anyone. To a certain extent, history must be interpreted in order to make sense to the modern person (because context changes; you certainly can't kill a Mormon with impunity anywhere in the USA today, thank goodness), but on a more basic level when you find something that says "XYZ happened", it means XYZ happened (unless of course there is reason to doubt the veracity of the first-hand report, as I already mentioned).

 

[tickingclocker]

You guys make me laugh. You think the way you interpret scriptures is the only way. You think that the only way you look at our history is right. Everything you post about our church is what you think is right about the church. You present some facts and then I interject you own opinion with no facts. It's a bunch of garbage her you think you have it right and it just makes me laugh as to how deluded you have become since you have been on this forum. How bitter you sound. Again present your truth. That is what Jesus did

And what does "interpreting scripture" got to do with the post? Huh?

Oh, I now I get it. When Mormons cannot come up with a logical defense response to verifiable facts which sounds even remotely plausible even to them, they think its much safer to redirect the post's contents into murkier off-road minutiae. It's so much easier than personally and honestly confronting the actual facts. Isn't it. Then, when it dawns on them that I probably won't bite that one (correctly), they resort to attacking my character with weak, unprovable, denigrating, but vastly misguided "personal opinion" and call it fact--right on cue. I always know when I'm dealing with actual Mormons by the page lifted straight out of LDS 101. Word for word. Nobody else obediently follows "Quick--Redirect!" instructions so precisely. The reach is just too far today? Well, even Mormons have off days when they just don't care to hear that cracking sound of the very thin twig they step out on one more time. I understand.

I don't feel like playing either of those silly, typical games today. Until you can come up with any sort of verifiable defense, at least. Maybe next time I won't offer one that hits a nerve so soundly? Would that help?

 

[tickingclocker]

JS placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Years later, Lewis Bidoman, who was a non-Mormon, and the 2nd husband of Emma Smith, took the manuscript from the cornerstone and sold it by pieces.

28% is still in existence today and there is a project to try to find the other 72%.

Really? I've been told by countless Mormons over the years that it was lost. My own Mormon father claimed it was lost.

How can you prove the information you present is factual? Because even I wouldn't want to believe that all those Mormons are basically liars about it being lost. Or did you discover this storyline on the Pinterest board "1000 stories about the BoM"? That's the only place its remotely semi-mentioned in a one sentence blurb. Otherwise its nowhere on the internet when googled. Regardless, doesn't sound like your church really valued it, even if this information is true.

Lewis Bidoman was a "jack Mormon", otherwise known as one sympathetic to mormonism, even helping out the Mormon militia. So why he would sell such a "valuable" find piecemeal is logically unfathomable. He was a businessman, after all, and successful enough to support Emma and her five children, and his bastard child, in style in the Nauvoo, IL mansion JS built with LDS money. He could have literally named his price selling it to the LDS! Especially knowing what happened with his wife, Emma Smith, who went though years of litigation over the ownership of the JS translation of the bible. Brigham Young would have jumped at the suggestion!

So, what are your sources?

 

[tickingclocker]

JS placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Years later, Lewis Bidoman, who was a non-Mormon, and the 2nd husband of Emma Smith, took the manuscript from the cornerstone and sold it by pieces.

28% is still in existence today and there is a project to try to find the other 72%.

In the cornerstone?? Where anyone with half a brain could find it and abscond with it? And no one thought to look there before Lewis "discovered it"? Not even Emma?? Come on. Try again.

How come there's nothing on the internet about this "project"? Or is the LDS keeping mum about it, telling only you?

 

[mmksparbud]

You guys make me laugh. You think the way you interpret scriptures is the only way. You think that the only way you look at our history is right. Everything you post about our church is what you think is right about the church. You present some facts and then I interject you own opinion with no facts. It's a bunch of garbage her you think you have it right and it just makes me laugh as to how deluded you have become since you have been on this forum. How bitter you sound. Again present your truth. That is what Jesus did

The truth has been presented--from your own writings, not from anyone's' imagination. It may not be what you want to see, but the truth is the truth--you still have presented no facts that dispute it. We are not laughing. It is sad when truth is denied but not proven to not be true.

 

[mmksparbud]

According to Mormons, this is a most priced book. The actual words of God and the only copy of it in existence and you loose it? And you now say you have may 28% of it and you talk about our faith in a book that has been proven accurate and intact through 1000's of years as faith in a book that has been "corrupted'!!!---Everything that is found is proven it to be accurate to what we have---All of it has been found, you have maybe 28% of nothing.

 

[fatboys]

When there is a disagreement as to the truth of some historical claim, then the viewpoints of the people about whom that history is written (as presented in primary sources or compendiums of the same) ought to take precedence over any individual's later assessment, no? I don't know enough about Mormon historical sources to know whether the sources cited by Daniel Marsh in post #1512 are reliable, but it seems to me that if we can establish at least the principle of 'treat historical sources as paramount when historical claims', then there's no need to get into irrelevant arguments regarding whose opinion ought to matter more and why. For historical sources, that is already answered: because they were there, and are writing about themselves/what they did/felt/believed at the time." Granted, people can and do lie, of course, but I would think in this context a quote from Joseph Smith or some other LDS leader about their own community and its history would not be presumed to be inaccurate by Mormons themselves, only perhaps inaccurately presented by the poster (in which case, the Mormons would have to show how that is, since they're the ones claiming it to be so -- e.g., is it taken out of context, a misquotation, a fabrication, etc.).

Okay but many times quotes are taken out of context or misinterpreted as to what was meant or to the audience they are delivering the message. Many times things were said in the heat of the moment because of mobs driving them from their homes and it is hard to look defenseless when you have God on your side. Doesn't make what they said right or wrong but can sure be taken in the worse way. That's the way we humans are.

 

[fatboys]

According to Mormons, this is a most priced book. The actual words of God and the only copy of it in existence and you loose it? And you now say you have may 28% of it and you talk about our faith in a book that has been proven accurate and intact through 1000's of years as faith in a book that has been "corrupted'!!!---Everything that is found is proven it to be accurate to what we have---All of it has been found, you have maybe 28% of nothing.

Lol. You have no idea what your talking about. There are many books of scripture that existed that we don't have today. Jesus quoted from them.

 

[fatboys]

What could Dan possibly be kidding about? Have you assumed all Mormon history is/should be written by (read sanitized) and for Mormons? Would that really be such a good idea? Do you believe there should only be one perspective on mormonism in this world, where the vast majority of humanity has never even heard of mormonism? Unlike Christianity, where most people have heard of it and know what it stands for?

The Message of the Cross is indeed mere folly to those who are in the path to Ruin, but to us who are in the path of Salvation it is the very power of God. (1 Cor 1:18)

Yup I feel your love oozing all over me.

 

[mmksparbud]

Okay but many times quotes are taken out of context or misinterpreted as to what was meant or to the audience they are delivering the message. Many times things were said in the heat of the moment because of mobs driving them from their homes and it is hard to look defenseless when you have God on your side. Doesn't make what they said right or wrong but can sure be taken in the worse way. That's the way we humans are.

Provide the quotation and context and that will take care of that-that is the usual thing to do. When a bible verse is taken out of context, we go back and look at it and try to get the actual context of the thing. So, you do the same, present your history that refutes these statements in context.

 

[fatboys]

Provide the quotation and context and that will take care of that-that is the usual thing to do. When a bible verse is taken out of context, we go back and look at it and try to get the actual context of the thing. So, you do the same, present your history that refutes these statements in context.

And will you BELIEVE? NO

 

[fatboys]

I mean really Mormons have proven to you guys hundreds of times the errors you present with sources. It goes right over your heads. Zaroom

 

[mmksparbud]

Lol. You have no idea what your talking about. There are many books of scripture that existed that we don't have today. Jesus quoted from them.

What we have has been proven to be accurate. What you have, can not be proven by finding it anywhere else. If you find a manuscript written in Greek somewhere in Turkey and compare what it says to a manuscript found in Greece written in Aramaic, they will say the same thing. There is no corroboration of anything that JS has written. And what he did write, has been found to have been taken right out of the bible. I quoted the post about JS writing the "red sea" instead of the "sea"---because he coped the version of the bible that contained that mistake. The red sea being over 200 miles away from where the narrative was taking place--JS claims to have written the actual words of God but he writes a mistake done in the 1700's!!??? You think God is going to make the mistake of saying that something took place in a sea that was over 200 miles away from where it actually took place??!! Read the post again.

 

[mmksparbud]

And will you BELIEVE? NO

The point is to present the truth---believe is up to the individual. We present the truth to you, what you believe is your problem. Present your truth--the problem of believe will be our problem.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay but many times quotes are taken out of context or misinterpreted as to what was meant or to the audience they are delivering the message. Many times things were said in the heat of the moment because of mobs driving them from their homes and it is hard to look defenseless when you have God on your side. Doesn't make what they said right or wrong but can sure be taken in the worse way. That's the way we humans are.

I'm talking about historical claims, not theological ones such as who has "God on their side". What does the historical record actually attest to, not what LDS apologists say about why it happened.

 

[tickingclocker]

Yup I feel your love oozing all over me.

About time. I still can't feel a thing from you except defensive resentment.

 

[fatboys]

About time. I still can't feel a thing from you except defensive resentment.

One of my weaknesses is loving my enemies. Sue me