True Philosophical Defenses of Mormonism

[_Robert F Smith]

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It is a book about faith and miracles. I believe the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to inspire Christians with faith to experience visions, angels, and miracles. Moroni chapter 10 summarizes the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

oneprfct
You may be onto something about the purpose of the Book of Mormon, or at least one purpose. But whose idea was it to buttress the Bible? A well-meaning Joseph Smith, or God Himself? The answer hinges on the correct answer to your other claim, i.e., that the Book of Mormon lacks authenticity or historicity.

As I pointed out above, the very lack of probability of the Book of Mormon being authentic history is its ace in the hole. Unlike the Bible, we are not left with only faith to justify belief in an anthology of miracles. As with any document, the Book of Mormon may be examined closely to determine its authenticity or lack of it. This is, after all, a thread about "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism," which requires that we employ logic and reality in addressing such an issue. A blithe wave of the hand just won't do. You may want to read John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (FARMS & Deseret, 1992), to gain perspective. It is available online at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71.

Moreover, unlike normative Judeo-Christian belief, Mormon theology is monistic and excludes "miracles" -- which are actually natural phenomena under divine control, even though the mechanisms may escape our understanding due to our lack of sophistication. In the Mormon universe (or multiverse) even God is subject to natural law, and all of us are coeternal with God, worlds without end.
Bob

[_Robert F Smith]

. . .
In fact, although it claims to be a record of Gods dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas, there is not one scintilla of historical fact or truth in it.

Since what the book claims as to its origins is clearly not true, the book itself cannot be true. The Book of Mormon is a monumental fraud first perpetrated on unsuspecting frontier folks, that has become an embarrassment to millions.

As oneprfct has done, the LDS Church will eventually drop its claim of historicity for the Book of Mormon and it will be recognized as another make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of bogus scripture akin to the Book of Abraham, and the Scientology Space Opera.

DrW
Since your signature line rightly speaks with praise of NOVA, you may want to again take a gander & listen to Brian Greene's four-hour series, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space. Or read his book on which the series is based. Then ask yourself whether the Book of Abraham (and by extension the Book of Mormon) is really as odd as you assume. There are a host of secular reasons why both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are authentic accounts. Have you come to grips with such claims, and are you willing to address "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism"? That is what this thread is about.
Bob

[_Philo Sofee]

Bob:

But whose idea was it to buttress the Bible? A well-meaning Joseph Smith, or God Himself? The answer hinges on the correct answer to your other claim, i.e., that the Book of Mormon lacks authenticity or historicity.

I truly don't care whose idea it was, it was stupid to do it. The Bible is so old and irrelevant that it has nothing to address to us in our day. Anyone who understands how it was put together and by whom can see its obvious lack of relevance to our computer, internet age. If the Book of Mormon is meant to bolster the Bible's authenticity it fails miserably to do so. The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it is precisely too biblical. There is no way we can even begin to know about the happenings, let alone anything at all that was ever said in antiquity. What we have in the Bible are later authors suppositions about the happenings, words, and issues that supposedly arose. There is precious little except guessing involved. And the archaeologists are no longer on William F. Albright's side of archaeology lending authenticity to the Ancient Near East. Archaeology has destroyed any house of cards about what Israel was, where Israel was, etc. as the Bible postulates. It's all make believe and construction from centuries later than the events are said to have happened. Even Margaret Barker has shown that much of it has literally been rewritten and precious little we have is how it went down. If the Book of Mormon merely reflects what was understood of the Bible in Joseph Smith's day, that is one of the most powerful refutations of its own authenticity in print. If I don't accept the Bible or believe in its authenticity, how on earth can the Book of Mormon supporting its pseudo reality possibly help?! It's a black eye to the Book of Mormon to pretend it is real and pretend the Bible is too. Neither book has much support these days of archaeological scrutiny and historical discoveries occurring.

[_Philo Sofee]

Bob to DrW

Since your signature line rightly speaks with praise of NOVA, you may want to again take a gander & listen to Brian Greene's four-hour series, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fa ... bric-space. Or read his book on which the series is based. Then ask yourself whether the Book of Abraham (and by extension the Book of Mormon) is really as odd as you assume. There are a host of secular reasons why both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are authentic accounts. Have you come to grips with such claims, and are you willing to address "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism"? That is what this thread is about.

It's not about oddness that gives authenticity, its about matching reality as we now understand the cosmos. The Mormon scriptures don't hold up. There is no hierarchy out in the cosmos as the Book of Abraham assumes. The Book of Abraham has nothing to contribute to the reality of the cosmos as understood because of relativity and quantum physics understands today. But it certainly does have the unsophisticated and early man thinking about things, such as a hierarchy supposedly reflecting truth as hierarchies on earth are supposed to do. We now know that is just wrong, and is from an adaption of the Biblical Ancient Near Eastern thinking.

[_Robert F Smith]

Bob:

But whose idea was it to buttress the Bible? A well-meaning Joseph Smith, or God Himself? The answer hinges on the correct answer to your other claim, i.e., that the Book of Mormon lacks authenticity or historicity.

I truly don't care whose idea it was, it was stupid to do it. The Bible is so old and irrelevant that it has nothing to address to us in our day. Anyone who understands how it was put together and by whom can see its obvious lack of relevance to our computer, internet age. If the Book of Mormon is meant to bolster the Bible's authenticity it fails miserably to do so.

I only commented on that issue because of what oneprfct said. However, you might want to look at it from God's or Joseph's POV in the midst of the Enlightenment. One Lutheran minister even wrote a book with that as Joseph's raison d'etre for writing the Book of Mormon (Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism [St. Louis, 1980]).

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it is precisely too biblical. There is no way we can even begin to know about the happenings, let alone anything at all that was ever said in antiquity. What we have in the Bible are later authors suppositions about the happenings, words, and issues that supposedly arose. There is precious little except guessing involved. And the archaeologists are no longer on William F. Albright's side of archaeology lending authenticity to the Ancient Near East. Archaeology has destroyed any house of cards about what Israel was, where Israel was, etc. as the Bible postulates. It's all make believe and construction from centuries later than the events are said to have happened.

Albright was always a dynamic figure in biblical archeology, and constantly hewed a middle path between the minimalists and maximalists, as have his students (Wright, Glueck, Bright, Freedman, Cross, Dever, et al.), and the modern debate has not abated on what happened and when. Just look at the constant differences among various biblical scholars at present, with Eilat Mazar (I studied under her grandfather), Yosef Garfinkel, Lawrence Stager, and others on one side, and Israel Finkelstein, Tommy Thompson, and Philip Davies on the other -- but with many others going right down the middle. The problem is that these scholars are addressing secular events, not miracles. We mustn't confuse the very separate nature of miraculous claims. And it is precisely there that the Book of Mormon enters in, since it must by its very nature authenticate miracles, if (and only if) it can be shown to be authentic. This thread is about philosophical defenses of Mormonism, and this would be a credible defense, if (and only if) it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a fair-minded inquirer. All the moreso since the Book of Mormon seems very unlikely to be authentic from the git-go, and any credible demonstration of its accuracy constitutes a lion in the path of those calling it into question.

Even Margaret Barker has shown that much of it has literally been rewritten and precious little we have is how it went down.

Barker has been dealing with that aspect of the multifaceted biblical tradition which probes the nature of the Deuteronomistic History. We actually know a great deal about secular biblical history from various contemporary inscriptions, settlement patterns and architecture, and other facts disclosed by archeology -- much of it contemporary with and even mentioned by other ancient Near Eastern powers of the day. Of course documents get edited and redacted over time. That doesn't automatically mean that they lack credibility or that they tell us nothing.

Margaret Barker (a Methodist preacher) herself has said of the Book of Mormon: “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE” (“Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” May 2005 paper delivered at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, available in J. W. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress [2006], 69-82 = BYU Studies 44/4).

If the Book of Mormon merely reflects what was understood of the Bible in Joseph Smith's day, that is one of the most powerful refutations of its own authenticity in print. If I don't accept the Bible or believe in its authenticity, how on earth can the Book of Mormon supporting its pseudo reality possibly help?! It's a black eye to the Book of Mormon to pretend it is real and pretend the Bible is too. Neither book has much support these days of archaeological scrutiny and historical discoveries occurring.

Actually, closer archeological scrutiny and historical discoveries provide excellent secular support for the Book of Mormon, which therefore buttresses the Bible -- which must depend solely on faith for evidence of the mighty acts of God described therein. My philosophical point is that an improbable Book of Mormon cannot have such evidence in its favor. But if there is such improbable evidence, then it does back up the Bible.

[_Robert F Smith]

Bob to DrW

Since your signature line rightly speaks with praise of NOVA, you may want to again take a gander & listen to Brian Greene's four-hour series, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fa ... bric-space. Or read his book on which the series is based. Then ask yourself whether the Book of Abraham (and by extension the Book of Mormon) is really as odd as you assume. There are a host of secular reasons why both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are authentic accounts. Have you come to grips with such claims, and are you willing to address "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism"? That is what this thread is about.

It's not about oddness that gives authenticity, its about matching reality as we now understand the cosmos.

Correct, Philo. Oddness is relative, and our understanding of the cosmos is now seen to be rather infantile and preliminary -- even though astronomers had thought that they were making great strides. That was why I recommended a second look at Brian Greene's fine series.

The Mormon scriptures don't hold up. There is no hierarchy out in the cosmos as the Book of Abraham assumes. The Book of Abraham has nothing to contribute to the reality of the cosmos as understood because of relativity and quantum physics understands today. But it certainly does have the unsophisticated and early man thinking about things, such as a hierarchy supposedly reflecting truth as hierarchies on earth are supposed to do. We now know that is just wrong, and is from an adaption of the Biblical Ancient Near Eastern thinking.

Celestial mechanics Book of Abraham style certainly has no parallel in the Bible:

Abraham 3:3-10,16, Facsimile 2:1,5
Where would one celestial day pass while a thousand years passed here on Earth? What principle would allow time to be so relatively slow in one place and so fast at another? Does astrophysics know of such a phenomenon? What of the time-dilation principle of Einsteinian mechanics at very high speeds?

How might planets & stars exist in a hierarchy, some controlled by others? Listen to Brian Greene describe the nature of the fabric of the cosmos in the first hour. Then hear what he has to say about black holes and dark energy and the far reaching influence each has. Standard astrophysics is meaningless by this measure. As Greene explains, we have only come to understand the nature of the problem (with no solution) within the past 20 years.

Abraham Fac 2:1 “which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit”
Where is celestial time measured by the cubit? Marvin A. Powell has noted how the Sumero-Akkadian cubit was used “in the calculation of celestial distances” as late as the Seleucid period.[1] And he presents some interesting tables of such measures.[2]

Abraham 3:7,10, “set time”
This matches the Old Babylonian concept of adannu "set time," which is applied to seasons, cycles, and astronomical periods (ATRA-HASĪS W, 5; DT 42).[3]

1. Powell, Reallexikon der Assyriologie, VII:458, citing Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 21 (1969), 201:17-20; see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary "A" I:74 (j).
2. Powell, RLA, VII:458,461,467-468 (Tables V & VIII), continuing the discussion of celestial distance measures on 462-463; CAD, "A" I:75.
3. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary "A" I:97-101, citing Bab. 6, 99:9.

[_lance peters]

Bob to DrW

Since your signature line rightly speaks with praise of NOVA, you may want to again take a gander & listen to Brian Greene's four-hour series, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fa ... bric-space. Or read his book on which the series is based. Then ask yourself whether the Book of Abraham (and by extension the Book of Mormon) is really as odd as you assume. There are a host of secular reasons why both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are authentic accounts. Have you come to grips with such claims, and are you willing to address "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism"? That is what this thread is about.

It's not about oddness that gives authenticity, its about matching reality as we now understand the cosmos.

Correct, Philo. Oddness is relative, and our understanding of the cosmos is now seen to be rather infantile and preliminary -- even though astronomers had thought that they were making great strides. That was why I recommended a second look at Brian Greene's fine series.

The Mormon scriptures don't hold up. There is no hierarchy out in the cosmos as the Book of Abraham assumes. The Book of Abraham has nothing to contribute to the reality of the cosmos as understood because of relativity and quantum physics understands today. But it certainly does have the unsophisticated and early man thinking about things, such as a hierarchy supposedly reflecting truth as hierarchies on earth are supposed to do. We now know that is just wrong, and is from an adaption of the Biblical Ancient Near Eastern thinking.

Celestial mechanics Book of Abraham style certainly has no parallel in the Bible:

Abraham 3:3-10,16, Facsimile 2:1,5
Where would one celestial day pass while a thousand years passed here on Earth? What principle would allow time to be so relatively slow in one place and so fast at another? Does astrophysics know of such a phenomenon? What of the time-dilation principle of Einsteinian mechanics at very high speeds?

How might planets & stars exist in a hierarchy, some controlled by others? Listen to Brian Greene describe the nature of the fabric of the cosmos in the first hour. Then hear what he has to say about black holes and dark energy and the far reaching influence each has. Standard astrophysics is meaningless by this measure. As Greene explains, we have only come to understand the nature of the problem (with no solution) within the past 20 years.

Abraham Fac 2:1 “which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit”
Where is celestial time measured by the cubit? Marvin A. Powell has noted how the Sumero-Akkadian cubit was used “in the calculation of celestial distances” as late as the Seleucid period.[1] And he presents some interesting tables of such measures.[2]

Abraham 3:7,10, “set time”
This matches the Old Babylonian concept of adannu "set time," which is applied to seasons, cycles, and astronomical periods (ATRA-HASĪS W, 5; DT 42).[3]

1. Powell, Reallexikon der Assyriologie, VII:458, citing Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 21 (1969), 201:17-20; see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary "A" I:74 (j).
2. Powell, RLA, VII:458,461,467-468 (Tables V & VIII), continuing the discussion of celestial distance measures on 462-463; CAD, "A" I:75.
3. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary "A" I:97-101, citing Bab. 6, 99:9.

Why is it that you apologetic types always default to "ancient times" when you make an argument? I'll never understand this concept especially when it comes to arguments concerning the Book of Abraham.

Every single concept taught/preached/written by Joseph Smith are concepts that were readily available in Free Masonry texts of both the 1700s and 1800s. You don't need a PhD in Egyptology/Religion/Archeology to understand from where Joseph Smith received his so-called "revelations".

For example: "Where is celestial time measured by the cubit? Marvin A. Powell has noted how the Sumero-Akkadian cubit was used “in the calculation of celestial distances” as late as the Seleucid period.[1] And he presents some interesting tables of such measures.[2]"

Sumero-Akkadian? How about just good old Free Masonry; now this isn't to say that your "Sumero-Akkadian" statement is invalid, but it is to say that perhaps Joseph Smith's so-called "revelations" are easily explained by texts available to him rather than needing a God to explain this information to him.

You apologetic folks have totally missed the mark. It's really a very sad thing to witness that you've wasted so much time chasing an "Ancient Egyptian Dream" that is easily explained through Free Masonry texts written in the 1700s and 1800s.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time write a complete expose wherein I explain, and provide links, to source documents from Free Masonry, however, with a quick Google search, I've found this little beauty.

http://www.masonicworld.com/education/a ... LE3333.htm

This isn't source material, but it does describe the theory of a "perfect cubit" ... a story that was "supposedly" passed down from the times of King Solomon.

[_Robert F Smith]

Why is it that you apologetic types always default to "ancient times" when you make an argument? I'll never understand this concept especially when it comes to arguments concerning the Book of Abraham.

Every single concept taught/preached/written by Joseph Smith are concepts that were readily available in Free Masonry texts of both the 1700s and 1800s. You don't need a PhD in Egyptology/Religion/Archeology to understand from where Joseph Smith received his so-called "revelations".

For example: "Where is celestial time measured by the cubit? Marvin A. Powell has noted how the Sumero-Akkadian cubit was used “in the calculation of celestial distances” as late as the Seleucid period.[1] And he presents some interesting tables of such measures.[2]"

Sumero-Akkadian? How about just good old Free Masonry; now this isn't to say that your "Sumero-Akkadian" statement is invalid, but it is to say that perhaps Joseph Smith's so-called "revelations" are easily explained by texts available to him rather than needing a God to explain this information to him.

You apologetic folks have totally missed the mark. It's really a very sad thing to witness that you've wasted so much time chasing an "Ancient Egyptian Dream" that is easily explained through Free Masonry texts written in the 1700s and 1800s.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time write a complete expose wherein I explain, and provide links, to source documents from Free Masonry, however, with a quick Google search, I've found this little beauty.

http://www.masonicworld.com/education/a ... LE3333.htm

This isn't source material, but it does describe the theory of a "perfect cubit" ... a story that was "supposedly" passed down from the times of King Solomon.

We're talking scholarship here, lance,
And if there are 19th century parallels with the Book of Abraham, then by all means bring them forth.

What I provided in my reply to someone who challenged my claims was that both credible modern astrophysical concepts as well as appropriately ancient terminology had been used in the Book of Abraham, and in each case they cannot be explained via 19th century literature.

For example, although the cubit is well-known from the Bible, the Bible never uses it as a celestial measure. Nor does 19th century Masonry (the source you cited is late and completely irrelevant), which depends heavily on biblical lore. Only in Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform, which was not translated until long after Joseph Smith was dead, do we find the cubit applied to astronomical measure.

Indeed, the shoe is on the other foot: When have the polemicists ever bothered to examine the ancient world and actual archeology in assaying Mormon Scripture?

[_lance peters]

Wrong, here's the Free Masonic relationship to the Bible:

Another quick example of the "perfect cubit" from Free Masonry:

In a series of 1977 papers, Zuidhof reports on archaeological findings of these units of measurement. He reports the following values:

1 cubit = 51.8 cm = 20.4 inches = 7 handbreadths
1 bath = 3600 cubic fingers = 22.8 liters.
1 temple cubit = 7 handbreadths = 28 fingers.
Talmud states 1 bath = 22.9 l.
Albright, from a broken-off top of a 1 bath jar (so inscribed) gives 1 bath = 22 l.
Reconstruction of two 2-bath jars at Lachish gives 22.7 l for one and 23.3 for the other.

Source: Zuidhof, A., 1977. “King Solomon's molten sea,” Clarion, The Canadian Reformed Magazine. 26(24):500-502; 540-541.
Ibid., 1978. 27(1):7-8; (4):82-83.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is very likely that Joseph Smith said, "Oh 1 cubit = 7 handbreadths ... and there are 7 days in a week, so 1 cubit is one day!!!"

Now combine this theory with the following Free Masonry belief:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ezekiel 40:5 - "And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed."

Ezekiel 43:13 - "And these are the measures of the altar after the cubits: The cubit is a cubit and an hand breadth; even the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and the border thereof by the edge thereof round about shall be a span: and this shall be the higher place of the altar."

"This is one of those verses that if you glance over or miss the key phrase in it, then you will probably read the remainder of this chapter and the next two chapters without much understanding of what we are to learn. The key phrase is the special reminder from chapter 40, verse 5, that the cubit used here is a cubit (6 handbreadths) PLUS a handbreadth (+1), making a 7 HANDBREADTH CUBIT, even a spiritually perfect cubit! Again, this is all about that which is SPIRITUAL not PHYSICAL! Do not forget that all people will be in their spiritual bodies and we will therefore be in the "spiritual dimension", the 7th Dispensation we call the Millennium."

Source: The American Wisdom Series Presents Within The Millennial Temple:Ezekiel Chapters 40-44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See that? And Joseph Smith's Free Masonic stupidity persists.

[_Themis]

There are a host of secular reasons why both the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are authentic accounts.

Could you provide one of the better ones?