How he did it is still and probably always will be a black box in some respects. It was a long time ago. However, there isn't any outside evidence to support the story being historical, unless one uses a lot of faith based conclusory reasoning. DNA evidence is a dagger in historicity's heart. One has to then conclude that it being invented is the more plausible conclusion. Then reading it, especially in its original form, shows that Joseph Smith could have easily invented the story using the Bible as a guide combined with the mound builder myth. Just read passages from the Bible while reading the Book of Mormon and one will see the striking similarity in some of the stories Joseph Smith concocted. Paul's journeys in Acts are repeated with Alma/Amulek. Isaiah is quoted extensively as probably our hero got tired of inventing stuff. The sermon on the mount, Pauls charity discussion, etc. find their way into the book. The documentary hypothesis is also a dagger in the hope for historicity. Clearly, it is a 19th century invention. But, it takes humility to reach this given the extensive pressure from family, neighbors, etc. that must weigh on you.
Way back when, President Gordon B. Hinckley said this:
The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God ... to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ" (Book of Mormon title page).
It is here. It must be explained. It can be explained only as the translator himself explained its origin. Hand in hand with the Bible, whose companion volume it is, it stands as another witness to a doubting generation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is an unassailable cornerstone of our faith ("Four Cornerstones of Faith," Ensign, February, 2004).
It's got to be incredibly difficult to maintain a position as an apologist when the one rule, irrespective of actuality, is: cast doubt on sources that you think make your church look bad, and build up sources that you think make your church look good. It is inevitable that following that rule will cause one to directly contradict oneself, occasionally in the same thread, post, or even sentence. It's not the first time we've seen this, but it is (sadly,) instructive. Sort of a "how NOT to do apologetics if you want to be taken seriously" object lesson.
.
You and Doc are making something from nothing. My original post to BeNotDeceived stands. Simple derail on your part. No contradiction on my part.
What is interesting is that critics who say they are wide eyed and look at all the evidence are mum when it comes to evidence which doesn’t support their worldview. It is so transparently obvious to the honest observer. You folks are blind at noonday.
And then you see/observe/create mountains built out of molehills in order to throw things out of kilter.
“Look the other way!”
Nice try, but no cigar.
Regards,
MG
Last edited by MG 2.0 on Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Hoping someone gets the Finian’s Rainbow reference…
I looked it up. There is no more angelic sound on this earth than Julie Andrews singing "How are things in Glocca Mora."
Also, this:
James Stephens' work The Crock of Gold (first published in 1912) refers to "the leprechauns of Gort na Cloca Mora"[1] (an approximation of gort na clocha móra, "field of the big rocks" in Irish).
It's simply not possible for such a coincidence to happen, given the glacier is named Glacmora. (since 'field of big rocks' is exactly the same as 'pile of frozen snow'. Obv.)
Therefore, I am also a believer. The two Glacmora believer, however, is coming dangerously close to apostasy. Not that I would judge, but Peterson has a point.
And I think you have let your arrogance take the better part of your soul/being.
Do you have any ongoing issues with having been rejected at times back in the day when you believed you had answers that…from your perspective…no one wanted to hear? When your writings and publications were at times rejected by those you were seeking approval from? Have you, since those days, had it as a continual goal to prove yourself and ‘one up’ those in authority positions?
“I think we are all dumber for having read that.”
Arrogance personified. Your soul has become cankered with resentment me thinks.
You and I are both old enough to have read/heard that the first indicator that one is on the road to apostasy is when one finds fault with the brethren.
With your RFM status you are now getting that recognition you’ve craved.
And I think you have let your arrogance take the better part of your soul/being.
Do you have any ongoing issues with having been rejected at times back in the day when you believed you had answers that…from your perspective…no one wanted to hear? When your writings and publications were at times rejected by those you were seeking approval from? Have you, since those days, had it as a continual goal to prove yourself and ‘one up’ those in authority positions?
“I think we are all dumber for having read that.”
Arrogance personified. Your soul has become cankered with resentment me thinks.
You and I are both old enough to have read/heard that the first indicator that one is on the road to apostasy is when one finds fault with the brethren.
With your RFM status you are now getting that recognition you’ve craved.
It's got to be incredibly difficult to maintain a position as an apologist when the one rule, irrespective of actuality, is: cast doubt on sources that you think make your church look bad, and build up sources that you think make your church look good. It is inevitable that following that rule will cause one to directly contradict oneself, occasionally in the same thread, post, or even sentence. It's not the first time we've seen this, but it is (sadly,) instructive. Sort of a "how NOT to do apologetics if you want to be taken seriously" object lesson.
.
You and Doc are making something from nothing. My original post to BeNotDeceived stands. Simple derail on your part. No contradiction on my part.
What is interesting is that critics who say they are wide eyed and look at all the evidence are mum when it comes to evidence which doesn’t support their worldview. It is so transparently obvious to the honest observer. You folks are blind at noonday.
And then you see/observe/create mountains built out of molehills in order to throw things out of kilter.
“Look the other way!”
Nice try, but no cigar.
Regards,
MG
What evidence? Feelings? Nahum Nahom? The only answer to DNA is that it is possible that it disappeared. I guess anything is possible in the desire to believe regardless land that you seem to inhabit. I don't know if this allows you to make these outrageous claims that we are blind because we see the apologists' supposed evidence, the shape-shifting as nonsense. But, project away. When the law supports you, argue the law. When the facts support you, argue the facts. When neither support you, project, project away in a confident tone.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Both of us can throw one thing or another out there to provide reason to believe or disbelieve. That’s been going on for years now. Probably no end in sight.
Although consig and others would argue against it, the fact remains that the only sure way to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon is by spending time with it. No one…NO ONE…can hand a testimony of that book to you.
And I think you have let your arrogance take the better part of your soul/being.
Do you have any ongoing issues with having been rejected at times back in the day when you believed you had answers that…from your perspective…no one wanted to hear? When your writings and publications were at times rejected by those you were seeking approval from? Have you, since those days, had it as a continual goal to prove yourself and ‘one up’ those in authority positions?
“I think we are all dumber for having read that.”
Arrogance personified. Your soul has become cankered with resentment me thinks.
You and I are both old enough to have read/heard that the first indicator that one is on the road to apostasy is when one finds fault with the brethren.
With your RFM status you are now getting that recognition you’ve craved.
Regards,
MG
I think we are all dumber for having read that.
I agree. Wow, that went from opinion about a comment to full out personal attack on multiple levels in record time.
We are definitely all dumber for having read that.
