jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/02/83)
Russ (dadla-a!russ) has presented net.religion readers with a series of articles that explain why he thinks that the Book of Mormon is a legitimate work (and therefore why the Mormon religion itself is not a fraud). However, I think that it can fairly easily be shown that the creation of the Mormon church and all of its "divinely inspired" scripture were part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Joseph Smith and a couple of accomplices. But before presenting this other side of the picture, I would like to say that I hope that none of the Mormons out there take this personally. Just because the origins of their belief system are fraudulent is no reason to believe that present-day Mormons are somehow dishonest (except maybe with themselves). Most of the following information is paraphrased from a book entitled "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter R. Martin, although I have quoted some of his sources. The Mormon church had its beginnings back in 1820 when young Joseph Smith was visited by two "personages" as he was praying in the woods. They told him that he had been chosen to launch a restoration of true Christianity, although it wasn't until seven years later that he was given the gold plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. All historical evidence from this time period indicates that Joe Smith was a reprehensible character from a family of equally reprehensible characters. They were widely regarded as rip-off artists and "money diggers" (treasure hunters) by their neighbors (sixty-two of whom testified to this effect in a sworn affidavit). Also, the proceedings of a court trial dated March 20, 1826 -- New York vs. Joseph Smith -- revealed that Joe "had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were...and had looked for Mr. Stoal several times." On this occasion Joe was found guilty of money digging. There exists absolutely no pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed who knew the Smith family intimately. Joseph Smith later tried to deny that he had ever been a money digger, but his story is inadvertently refuted by his own mother, Lucy Smith, who in a later writing described how Mr. Stoal "came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys [peep stones -JW] by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." In 1827 the location of the golden plates was revealed to Joe, and he set to work digging them up and translating them into English. They were supposedly written in "reformed Egyptian," but he was conveniently provided with two magic stones (sound familiar?) that he used as spectacles for translating. No independent witness ever laid eyes on the gold plates, but Joseph Smith later wrote in his book "Pearl of Great Price" that he sent Martin Harris to see Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of some of the characters which Smith had drawn from the plates. Smith quoting Harris: "Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than he had ever seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters" (Section 2, verses 62, 63, 64). One of several problems with the above story is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and went on record in a letter to E. D. Howe dated Feb. 17, 1834. I will only quote only two parts of this lengthy letter. "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false... Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax". The preceding story raises more than a few problems concerning the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the veracity of Smith and Harris. How could the golden plates contain "Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" characters when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were "reformed Egyptian?" And since reformed Egyptian was known to "none other people," why would Smith think than Anthon could verify the translation? Incidentally, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest hint of this language called "reformed Egyptian." All reputable linguists and Egyptologists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected it as mythical. Probably the most damaging evidence to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is found in the lack of archeological evidence to supports its claims. The book purports to be a history of two great civilizations who built ships, temples, synagogues, sanctuaries, and at least 38 different cities. These civilizations also made extensive use of metal (see Ether 15:15 and Alma 43:18) and domesticated animals such as horses, cattle, sheep, and goats. They even had elephants! (See Ether 9:17-19). You would naturally expect there to be a wealth of archeological finds, but such is not the case. A letter from no less an authority than the Smithsonian Institution (published in "The Book of Mormon Examined" by Arthur Budvarson) contains the following information: "There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations, and as recorded in the Book of Mormon. ...Smithsonian archeologists see no connection between the New World and the subject matter of the book... ...thus far no iron, steel, brass, gold and silver coins, metal, swords, breast-plates, arm shields, armor, horses and chariots, or silk have ever been found in pre-colonial archeological sites. ...Furthermore, cattle, sheep, swine, horses, and asses, such as we know them, were introduced in the Americas by Europeans in post-Columbian times. No actual elephants have ever been found in any archeological site." Another indication of the shaky nature of the Book of Mormon is revealed in the fact that there have been over 2,000 changes to the book over a period of 131 years. Evidently, the inspired word of God wasn't so inspired. Also, the Book of Mormon contains at least 25,000 words plagiarized from the King James Bible. Some of these are verbatim quotes of considerable length. Mormons have suggested that when Christ allegedly appeared in North America after the resurrection he quite naturally used the same language as in the Bible. The only problem with this is that the gold plates were written 1,000 years before the King James version, but Smith's translation came out in perfect King James English (complete with a few KJ errors that have been corrected in later editions, but remain in the Book of Mormon.) So if the Book of Mormon is obviously fake, where did it really come from? Well, that will be the subject of a future article, even though it really makes little difference. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
russ@dadla-a.UUCP (08/02/83)
The Book of Mormon is definitely fake if you assume that all the information you have presented is correct. I can assure you that most of it is not particularily in the absolute pronouncements. It will take a little while but I will respond to all the points you raise with later articles.
dennis@beesvax.UUCP (08/04/83)
I don't wish to argue, but simply present the facts
concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith and his character. Imagine
you are walking thru a park and you come upon a group of people
gathered around a pompus looking man in a plaid suit. As you get
closer you hear what the man is saying. Says he: "These Smiths
while living in Palmyra and Manchester are said to have been
lazy, shiftless, intemperate, and untruthful. They opened a shop
in Palmyra where they sold cakes, pies, root beer, and the like;
and that on public occasions, such as the 4th of July, militia
training days, and election days, the elder Smith would load a
rude hand cart, made by himself, with these wares and SALLY FORTH
(!) to find such patronage as might come to hand. They have been
dishonest and guilty of stealing from their neighbors!" (At this
point, the ladies gasp and the men mumble and nod their heads at
each other.)
This scenario was first espoused by an author named Pomeroy
Tucker in his book "Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism". The
basis for his argument were the affidavits mentioned by Mr. White
that were gathered from some eighty neihbors of the Smith family.
Lets consider the origins if these so-called affidavits.
In June of 1833 a "Dr." Philastus Hurlburt was expelled from
the "Mormon" church for immoral conduct. About a year later, this
same Hurlburt was arrested and jailed because he threatened to
kill Joseph Smith. Before his arrest, he was asked by a group of
anti-"Mormons" to go to Palmyra, N.Y. and Harmony, PA. and gather
all he could about the Smith family. These affidavits where the
result.
A number of authors (non-mormon) have discredited these
affidavits. Riley, author of "Founder of Mormonism" says: "No
reliance is to be placed in the mulitiple affidavits of jealous
neighbors, . . people in those days had the affidavit habit."
Another non-mormon author said: Some portion of this may have
been dictacted by envy, malice or that form of righteousness
which controls men at times when their neighbors have been more
successful than themselves." Even Hurlburt discredits himself
because of his extreme hatred of the church and Joseph Smith. How
objective could he possibly be in gaining these affidavits? But
the ulimate comes from Tucker himself in his book when he says
that the Smith family "secured a scanty but honest living" and on
the very next page accuses them of being thieves and dishonest. I
believe this says something obvious about their credibility.
Concerning the trial of N.Y. vs Joseph Smith there were
actually two. The first trial came about when the Prohpet was
accused by some local ministers of "disorderly conduct and
preaching the Book of Mormon, and setting the country in an
uproar." The charges were totally dismissed by the judge (Joseph
Chamberlain J.P.) but other irrelevent charges sprang forth.
These included using prophetic gifts (magic stones, etc.) for
material gain. A Josiah Stoal was put on the stand concerning the
purchase of a horse. The transcript is as follows:
"Did not he [Joseph Smith] go to you an tell you that an angel
had appeared unto him and authorized him to get the horse from
you?"
"NO, HE TOLD ME NO SUCH STORY."
"Well, how had he the horse of you?"
"HE BOUGHT HIM OF ME AS ANY OTHER MAN WOULD."
"Have you had your pay?"
"I HOLD HIS NOTE FOR THE PRICE OF THE HORSE, WHICH I CONSIDER AS
GOOD AS THE PAY; FOR I KNOW HIM TO BE AN HONEST MAN."
The judge dimissed the fabricated charges and the Prophet
was set free. No sooner did this happen when he was arrested
again by an officer from Coleville about 15 miles away. The
charges were "being possesed of an evil spirit" (witch trials?)
and "money digging". He was again brought to trial (#2) where he
was found "NOT GUILTY" (!!). Walter R. Martin in his book "The
Kingdom of the Cults" was in total error.
Demosthenes, in his oration on "The Duties of the State",
said: "It can never be that your spirit is generous and noble
while you are engaged in petty, mean employments; no more than
you can be abject and meanspirited while your actions are
honorable and glorious. Whatever be the pursuits of men, their
sentiments must necessarily be similar." If you were "lazy,
shifless, and untruthful" could you endure more that 30 years of
torment, trials on trumpted up charges, tar and featherings,
beatings, and every other inhumanity man can inflict on another
man including death?
Because of time constraints (gotta go to work) I won't get
into the incredibly ridiculous charges on Book of Mormon
falsehoods. Besides, Russ (dadla-a!russ) can better do that since
he has obviously studied it in great depth. I will simply say, to
close, that before you accept a lot of half-baked falsehoods
about the Prophet or his family, get the whole story and keep an
open mind. Don't get into it with a lot of pre-conceived notions
that it is going to be true or false before you begin. You won't
get anywhere.
>From the worked-over keyboard of Dennis McCurdy
===============================================
(..beesvax!dennis)jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/08/83)
Dennis McCurdy has attempted to defend the good name of Joseph Smith, Jr. by
attacking the truthfulness of the many affidavits that have been collected
from Smith's former neighbors. Granted that the motive for obtaining these
affidavits was not advance the cause of Mormonism, but the fact remains that
a total of "some eighty neighbors" testified as to the poor moral character
of the Smith family, whereas "THERE EXISTS NO CONTEMPORARY PRO-MORMON
STATEMENTS FROM RELIABLE AND INFORMED SOURCES WHO KNEW THE SMITH FAMILY AND
JOSEPH INTIMATELY." ("Kingdom of the Cults", by Walter R. Martin.)
These affidavits (some of which contain descriptions of detailed personal
encounters with the Smiths), along with other contemporary records (such as
personal correspondence and court records), plus statements from the Smith
family themselves, present a clear and consistent pattern.
Speaking of court records, there seems to be an inconsistency in the
information that Dennis presented. (I have made no attempt to flag errors
in grammar or spelling.)
Concerning the trial of N.Y. vs Joseph Smith there were
actually two. The first trial came about when the Prohpet was
accused by some local ministers of "disorderly conduct and
preaching the Book of Mormon, and setting the country in an
uproar." The charges were totally dismissed by the judge (Joseph
Chamberlain J.P.) but other irrelevent charges sprang forth.
These included using prophetic gifts (magic stones, etc.) for
material gain.
The judge dimissed the fabricated charges and the Prophet
was set free. No sooner did this happen when he was arrested
again by an officer from Coleville about 15 miles away. The
charges were "being possesed of an evil spirit" (witch trials?)
and "money digging". He was again brought to trial (#2) where he
was found "NOT GUILTY" (!!). Walter R. Martin in his book "The
Kingdom of the Cults" was in total error.
How could Joseph be charged with "preaching the Book of Mormon" in trial #1
(which presumably occurred before trial #2 on March 20, 1826), months before
Joseph even had the Golden Plates? They weren't even fully translated until
1829!
As far as Dennis' assertion that Joseph was acquitted in trial #2, I am curious
as to where Dennis got his information. William Wise, in his book "Massacre at
Mountain Meadow", also mentions the same incident, and his account agrees with
Martin. (By the way, "Massacre at Mountain Meadow" is a charming little story
about how the Mormons, under the direction of Brigham Young, murdered the
members of an entire wagon train -- 150 men, women, and children.)
Jon White
Tektronix
Aloha, Orejdj55611@ihuxk.UUCP (08/09/83)
I hope I am not stealing Russ's thunder but I thought I would add a few words about Jon Whites article on the Book of Mormon. I quote from his article: >>All historical evidence from this time period >>indicates that Joe Smith was a reprehensible character from a family of >>equally reprehensible characters. They were widely regarded as rip-off >>artists and "money diggers" (treasure hunters) by their neighbors >>(sixty-two of whom testified to this effect in a sworn affidavit). The question I propose deals with the validity of these `documented' writings. I find it interesting that NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS OF ANY CRIMES. These documents were obtained by man named Hurlburt who, after leaving the church, sent a number of anti-Mormons to the Palmyra area to seek such information. What would you expect them to find? It is interesting to note the parallel between the methods described above and those used by Celsus who gathered similar testimony about another young lad, Jesus of Nazareth. Celsus reported that `the neighbors all remembered the clever ambitious boy who was ashamed of his low parentage and overawed the yokels with the magic tricks he had picked up in Egypt, and how he gave out those wild reports about being the Son of God and the rest.' Celsus also had a few kind words to say about the Apostles: `He gathered some ten or eleven notorious men about him, publicans and sailors of the most vicious type, and with these he tramped up and down the country, eking out a miserable existence by questionable means.' (Origen, C. Cels. I, 27, Sab XII, iv [Talmud]). How were these reports gathered? The Jewish leaders sent people out to the village to find the information. >>There exists absolutely no pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed >>who knew the Smith family intimately. "My father owned a farm near the Smith family in New York. My parents were friends of the Smith family which was one of the best in that locality- honest, religious, and industrious but poor." -Mrs. Palmer "Were you acquainted with the Smiths, Mr. Sanders?" "Yes sir; I knew all the Smith family well. They have all worked for me many a day. They were very good people... They were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died. I always thought them honest. They were owing me some money when they left here. One of them came back in about a year and paid me." -Orlando Saunders These are but two of over two hundred eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith and his family contained in a book entitled `They Knew the Prophet' by Hyrum Andrus. Each account contains the references you would need to verify the source. Jon, you talk about honesty. Do you feel that Martin was giving an honest portrayal of the character of Joseph Smith? Do you accept without question what critics say about the church? If so, I would like to talk to you about a fantastic deal I can get for you on the Brooklyn Bridge. :-) >>In 1827 the location of the golden plates was revealed to Joe, and he >>set to work digging them up and translating them into English. They >>were supposedly written in "reformed Egyptian," but he was conveniently >>provided with two magic stones (sound familiar?) that he used as spectacles >>for translating. No independent witness ever laid eyes on the gold plates... Let's see what is available. In the front of The Book of Mormon is a statement called `The Testimony of Three Witnesses' signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris. A portion of this statement follows: "...we,through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record... And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God; for his voice hath declared it unto is; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true..." Here is the testimony of three men who were given a chance to see and handle the plates. You are probably saying `Here's the rest of the troop that pulled the hoax with Joseph Smith. What do you expect them to say?' What is interesting is that all three of these men left the church and the association of Joseph Smith, yet they NEVER recanted their testimony of The Book of Mormon. Here was the perfect opportunity to blow the whole charade, all they would have to do is say `Yes, it was a hoax' and the entire work would be tarnished. But they didn't. Perhaps they couldn't deny what they saw... >>Another indication of the shaky nature of the Book of Mormon is >>revealed in the fact that there have been over 2,000 changes to >>the book over a period of 131 years. There were a number of grammmatical errors in the first edition of The Book of Mormon. There were also a number of changes which may be interpreted by some to be doctrinal. These changes were entered by Joseph Smith himself between the 1830 and 1840 editions of the book. If this were an attempt by Smith to rewrite history I would be worried; examination of the changes indicates that this is not the case. There are quite a number of `those who' becoming `they which' and the like. One on the more interesting is shown: "1 Ne 11:18 and he said unto "And he said unto me: Behold, me, Behold, the virgin which the virgin whom thou seest is thou seest, is the mother of the mother of the Son of God, God, after the manner of the after the manner of the flesh." flesh." Orson Whitney relates an experience wherein he was approached by a stranger. The stranger asked Whitney in effect this question. "Mr. Whitney, why did the Lord permit a grammatical error to be in the Book of Mormon?" "Oh, is there a grammatical error in the Book of Mormon?" asked Whitney. The stranger thereupon showed him a grammatical error. Whitney observed the `error' and gazing upon the man, replied: "So it is. I suppose the Lord permitted that to be in the Book of Mormon to keep men like you out of the Church." As far as archeology is concerned, it is of note that the Book of Mormon was published 80 years before the discovery of Maccu Piccu. To say that there is no archeological support for the Book is totally off-base. A recent Nova on the latest finds in Central America indicated that the major colonizations occurred around 2000 B. C. and 600 B. C. which is in agreement with the Book of Mormon. How about the more than 200 metal plate inscriptions which have been found by non-Mormons, and other recent findings such as the Chiapas stone which "offers the first sound evidence of the near-eastern origin of its carvers - an origin set in the Book of Mormon. The study and evaluation of this stone followed the quidelines set down by Dr. Alfred L Kroeber, a non-Mormon authority on the Anthropological Theory and formerly of the University of California. It may be of interest to note that the name glyphs on the carving have been translated as `Lehi, Sariah, and Nephi'" (El Paso Times, July 5, 1965) The names are of prominent figures on the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith Jr. and hundreds of others died for what they believed in. The tribulations that the Church went through in the 1830's and 40's would have shaken the foundation of any man-made plans. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the result of a `hoax' then it will come to nought and you need not worry about it; but if the story is true, I would caution you about relying on the likes of Martin and Budvarson to gain your information. J. D. Jensen ihuxk!jdj55611 BTL Naperville IL
tim@unc.UUCP (08/09/83)
Although I am no fan of Mormonism, I feel compelled to point out that the testimony of one's neighbors concerning one's morals is no true gauge of anything except popularity. In case you've forgotten, Jesus was crucified by popular consensus. The number of cases of popular persecution of the enlightened is quite large. The fact that people disapprove only shows that the moral standards involved are different, not that they are better or worse. ___________ Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
bch@unc.UUCP (08/09/83)
This kind of character assassination against Joseph Smith et. al. is largely irrelevant to discussing the merits (if any) of Mormon beliefs. Divine revelation is not necessarily given only to those without sin, but seems possible to anyone, anywhere, anywhen. (Remember Paul aka Saul?) The Mormon church exists today with its own theology and tra- dition, largely apart from the character of its fathers or even verifiable authenticity of the Book of Mormon. While there are many things about the Mormon faith that are worthy of critique on a theological or historical basis, little is to be accomplished by personal attack. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill
dennis@beesvax.UUCP (08/10/83)
Jon White was correct in his statement that Joseph Smith could not be charged with "preaching the Book of Mormon" as I stated in my response to his original article when the book wasn't fully translated until 1829. My apologies. I have been sufficiently humbled and realize now that in my zeal to submit my reply I overlooked the date. (Yes, Virginia, even Mormons make mistakes.) The trials that I was referring to took place in those locations as I said, but in June of 1830. This is the only trial that I could find in which Joseph was accused of being a "money digger". I can find, as yet, no evidence of any trial that took place on the date Jon specified. I would be interested in what your source is, Jon. One of mine is a series of books written by B. H. Roberts entiled "Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It covers the goings on from before the birth of Joseph Smith Jr. to modern times (relitively speaking). Other sources include "History of the Church", vol 1, by Joseph Smith and articles written by LDS and non-LDS authors alike as I can find them. He quotes authors who are well known in their anti-Mormon sentiment. I have read some of the books he has referred to and found them to be full of half truths and raise more questions than they attempt to answer.
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/10/83)
I must admit that I am disappointed in Russ' long-awaited reply to my original
"The case against the Book of Mormon". He ignored most of my concrete
evidence, instead choosing to dwell on picky historical points, and then move
on to his own evidence (which I am then expected to disprove). I hope for the
benefit of all net.religion readers that Russ will attempt to address all of
the questions raised in my original article.
When you say there are "no pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed
[sources] who knew the Smith family intimately", it is a contradiction of
terms. Those who actually knew the Smith family intimately joined with
them and you will reject them if I present them as a source.
As you hint at elsewhere in your reply, many of the original members left
the church. None of these people have anything complimentary to say about the
moral character of Joseph Smith. It is my opinion that only a couple of
people outside the Smith family were actually part of the Mormon hoax, and the
rest of the original members were dupes.
Those who testify against them only will say that they knew about the Smith
activities since they never implicate themselves as participating with
them.
This statement is absolutely false. I happen to know that Russ has read "The
True Origin of the Book of Mormon" by Charles A. Shook, which contains many
sworn affidavits from Smith's former neighbors. Several of these people tell
how they were suckered into participating in treasure hunting schemes, and
swindled out of property by the Smiths.
I don't know why you say that Joseph and his mother disagree. In Joseph's
most widely published history he tells of the same event that you mention
from his mother.
The point was, Joseph was trying to deny that he had ever been a money digger.
This is nothing short of a bald-faced lie in view of the historical record.
When Joseph's mother states that Mr. Stoal "came for Joseph on account of
having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things
invisible to the natural eye," she is only confirming all the other historical
evidence. If Mr. Stoal heard that Joseph was a user of peep stones, and he
hired Joseph to help him dig for treasure, then Joseph must have been a money
digger before meeting Mr. Stoal. Clear?
You quote from Professor Anthon's letter. He actually wrote two letters
that discussed this visit. He was not consistent in both letters. But
the question is what are the motives. Regardless of what actually
transpired with Charles Anthon, Martin Harris was apparently satisfied
enough after the visit to mortgage his farm to supply the money needed to
publish the Book of Mormon.
I believe that Harris was probably let in on the hoax after seeing Professor
Anthon, or else he was an incredible patsy. Note that Russ has neatly
sidestepped my two main points: 1) Smith states that Anthon describes the
transcription as containing "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic"
characters, when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were
"reformed Egyptian." 2) Smith apparently thought that Anthon could verify the
translation even though reformed Egyptian was known to "none other people."
Why?
You are correct that no Book of Mormon site has been positively identified.
But only a very small portion of the KNOWN sites in Central and South
America have even been ex[c]avated.
I don't know how accurate the second statement is, but there should be plenty
of sites in North America as well. Remember, we're not talking about a few
isolated bands of people here -- we're talking BIG! A single quote from
Helaman 3:8 should suffice:
"...they did multiply and spread...they began to cover the face of the whole
earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east"
There is information that is showing that the Book of Mormon
people are consistent with that area and no evidence has been found that
would eliminate the possibility or discredit what the Book of Mormon says.
If the Smithsonian Institution states publicly that they see no connection
between the civilizations in the Book of Mormon and ANY known archeological
site, then that is good enough for me. If I say there are pink elephants on
the moon, and you can't prove me wrong, does it follow that I am likely to
be correct?
1. What was the motive for the hoax that you claim? You claim that Joseph
was helped by others. Who? And why didn't they expose the hoax after they
left the church?
2. How do you explain the Book of Mormon itself? Why would 11 other
witnesses testify to its truthfulness and never deny that testimony even
though some of them left the church?
Historically, the motive for creating any religion has been to accumulate
power. The subject of exactly how the Mormon hoax was perpetrated is
sufficiently complex to deserve a separate article. (I'll be working on it.)
For now, I will just mention that none of these witnesses was generally
regarded as honest by outsiders, and the witnesses who later left the church
were described in such unflattering terms by the Mormons ("thieves and
counterfeiters") as to render their testimony worthless.
3. How could Joseph have correctly described a journey south from Jerusalem
with information that was not known to him at the time? How could he tell
about the travels along an ancient trade route that was unknown in 1830?
4. Admittedly Joseph could dream up some name to put in the Book of Mormon,
but why should they match Old World name patterns? Names like Lehi and
Alma have only recently been found to be valid names.
I'm not adequately competent in these areas to go to the original sources and
evaluate the evidence for myself, but I don't trust Mormon "scholarship" enough
to accept any of it at face value. (These are the same scholars that have been
ferreting out various blunders and contradictions from the Book of Mormon since
it first came out. As previously mentioned, there have been over 2,000 changes
to the book between 1830 and 1961.)
5. Why should he include a style of writing that is not standard English
but fits very well as Hebrew idioms as the origin of the Book of Mormon
would require?
Since the Book of Mormon contains over 25,000 words plagiarized from the King
James Bible, I don't find this too surprising.
6. And I haven't even come to the strongest proofs of the Book of Mormon
yet. Things like Chiasmus (a unique writing style), Stylemetry ( a computer
author analysis technique), and many others; like yearly king festivals,
patterns of battle, cave of Lehi, and other recent discoveries.
By all means, give us the details -- but first address the evidence in my
previous article that you dodged.
Jon White
Tektronix
Aloha, Orejonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/17/83)
I would like to respond to some statements from J. D. Jensen. Concerning the anti-Mormon affidavits: The question I propose deals with the validity of these `documented' writings. I find it interesting that NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS OF ANY CRIMES. Perhaps you might interested in actually reading some of the sworn statements contained in "The True Origin of the Book of Mormon" by Charles A. Shook. The affidavit of William Stafford (p. 30) contains a story of how the Smiths convinced Stafford to go money digging with them, and how they defrauded him of a sheep. The affidavit of Isaac Hale (Joseph's father-in-law, at whose house the Book of Mormon was actually translated) (p. 32) contains many incriminating details as to how the Mormon fraud was perpetrated. And, after all, fraud is a crime. The Hon. Judge Daniel Woodard of the County Court of Windsor, Vermont, (a former neighbor of the Smiths) went on record in the Historical Magazine in 1870 with a statement to the effect that the elder Smith definitely was a treasure hunter and "that he also became implicated with one Jack Downing, in counterfeiting money, but turned State's evidence and escaped the penalty." J. D. quoted from a book entitled "They Knew the Prophet" in order to refute my contention that no contemporary pro-Mormon statements existed. In order to clarify my previous statement, I will quote Walter Martin, whose views I may have misrepresented in the interest of brevity: "Some persons reading this may feel that it unfair to quote only one side of the story; what about those who are favorable to the Mormons, they will ask. In answer to this, the amazing fact is that there exists no contemporary pro- Mormon statements from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately. It has only been the over-wise Mormon historians, utilizing hindsight over a hundred year period, who have able to even seriously challenge the evidence of the neighbors, Joseph's father-in-law, and many ex-Mormons who knew what was going on and went on record with the evidence not even Mormon historians have bothered seriously to dispute." In response to my statement that "No independent witness ever laid eyes on the gold plates...," Jensen came up with: Let's see what is available. In the front of The Book of Mormon is a statement called `The Testimony of Three Witnesses' signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris... ...What is interesting is that all three of these men left the church and the association of Joseph Smith, yet they NEVER recanted their testimony of The Book of Mormon. First of all, these are hardly what could be called "independent witnesses." Secondly, as I previously mentioned, after leaving the church these three men were described in such unflattering terms by the Mormons as to render their testimony worthless. (Smith denounced Harris in the Elders' Journal of August, 1838 "as so far beneath contempt that a notice of him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. ...he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, with all kinds of debauchery.") Thirdly, Oliver Cowdery did deny his testimony, though not publicly. A letter from Judge W. Lang (Cowdery's closest friend and business partner of 40 years) to Thomas Gregg, dated Nov. 5, 1881, contains the following: "Once [and] for all I desire to be strictly understood when I say to you that I cannot violate any confidence of a friend though he be dead. This I will say that Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anyone except me. We were intimate friends. The plates were never translated and could not be, were never intended to be. What is claimed to be a translation is the "Manuscript Found" worked over by C. He was the best scholar amongst them. Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburgh as I have stated. I often expressed my objection to the frequent repetition of 'And it came to pass' to Mr. Cowdery and said that a true scholar ought to have avoided that, which only provoked a gentle smile from C." Jensen also took issue with my statement: "Another indication of the shaky nature of the Book of Mormon is revealed in the fact that there have been over 2,000 changes to the book over a period of 131 years." There were a number of grammmatical [sic] errors in the first edition of The Book of Mormon. There were also a number of changes which may be interpreted by some to be doctrinal... If this were an attempt by Smith to rewrite history I would be worried; examination of the changes indicates that this is not the case... One on the more interesting is shown: "1 Ne 11:18 and he said unto "And he said unto me: Behold, me, Behold, the virgin which the virgin whom thou seest is thou seest, is the mother of the mother of the Son of God, God, after the manner of the after the manner of the flesh." flesh." [A] [B] This is a very interesting alteration to the inspired word of God. Perhaps you could explain exactly why it was necessary to change it. Here is what Walter Martin has to say about this very correction: "The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original edition of the Book of Mormon which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God. [A]. Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, considerate Mormon editors have changed 1 Nephi 11:18 so that it now reads [B]." The archeological evidence that Jensen cites also sounds interesting. I wonder why the Smithsonian Institution and virtually all reputable archeologists reject Mormon archeological evidence. I guess the anti-Mormon conspiracy must be more pervasive than anyone can imagine. Jon, you talk about honesty. Do you feel that Martin was giving an honest portrayal of the character of Joseph Smith? Do you accept without question what critics say about the church? If so, I would like to talk to you about a fantastic deal I can get for you on the Brooklyn Bridge. :-) It appears that you have already bought it. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
joe@beesvax.UUCP (09/03/83)
You know, it's amazing to me to see how Jon White tries to discredit The Book of Mormon and Mormonism in general. He tries to give some arguement and when it is rebutted by some mormon, he passes off the rebuttal as a "picky histroical detail" or that because the source of information was from a mormon author it is invalid. If he can't do either of those, he will ignore the rebuttal or bring up some other incident in which he implies mormons are murderers and liars. Despite all this, he has done something for us mormons, given us attention. In trying to discredit mormonism, he chose to discredit The Book of Mormon. I'm glad he tried; because if the Book of Mormon is false, so is our religion. If the Book of Mormon is true, then: 1. Joseph Smith did receive the Golden Plates from an Angel of God and translated them by the gift and power of God. 2. Joesph Smith was a prophet of God. 3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christ's restored church here on the earth. We as Latter-Day Saints (mormons) allow everyone to find out these truths for themselves, if they want to. To do this, all you have to do is read the Book of Mormon for yourself, think it over in your head and decide if it is really a fake book as Jon White claims or whether it is a truely inspired book of God. THEN, ask God in prayer if it is true. If you do this with the sincere desire to know if it is true or not, God will make you feel of its truthfullness. I have done this and I know it to be true. That is why I am a Latter-Day Saint (mormon) today. If you really want to know for yourself if the Book of Mormon is true, then contact a mormon and he'll be glad to send over two missionaries. They don't bite and all they do is teach you about the beginings of the church, the Book of Mormon and how you can know for yourself if it is all true. They don't force you do anything. Choose for yourself, do you want to believe people like Jon White or do you want to study it out for yourself and ask God if it is true. Joe Ballif (Beehive International) Salt Lake City, Utah