"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I don't see it at all that way. I see triumphant evidence, that allows for my faith to flourish, while not squashing faith with absolute knowledge.Yes, we've agreed that you're starting from an unverifiable position, which is not a good place to be.
No, I have shown that it is not the process of translation that fortigurn wants to see.Yes, but you've also shown that what they described was not a process of translation.
Your mistake is that you only allow one of the 5 senses to be used. And besides that, plenty of people have seen the plates.Quote:
I have shown that the plates were real.
No, you've shown me a number of people who believe they were real, even though many of those people didn't actually see them.
You misunderstand. What I have shown, is that although there is no process of translation that it evident to us, this does not reject the possibility of a translation process we can't percieve.No, not once have you shown what could conceivably be described as a translation process. Again and again we have seen that what is described is a process of revelation, and even some Mormon apologists have acknowledged this.
And no source has been found.This means that whatever information is in the Book of Mormon, we are not only free to look for a source other than the plates, but it is beholden on us to do so.
Ya, you keep bringing that up. What this story actually represents is that Joseph was so ignorant of biblical history, it would have been impossible for him write what he did on his own.It doesn't help that at least one of the eye witnesses records Smith having a Bible in the same room while he was dictating, and even consulting it to ensure the accuracy of what he was dictating.
Yes, Sargon it's ok... This was why I was offering you to look into this more.. To be perfectly honest with you, this "Spalding Enigma" is new to me also. I've heard about it in the past but never at this level.. I've only had this book about 3 weeks now.Sargon wrote:Gman,
As I have already said, I have not yet had the opportunity to do any in depth study of this issue. I have however artificially read some things pertaining to it, and I find it interesting. I am open to ideas, criticisms, and debate on the issue. However at this time I cannot consider myself a very good authority on this issue.
Sargon, these mounds bring up a number of issues to the BoM that I can see...Sargon wrote:I am aware of the mound-builder hype that existed in the Northeast region at the time of Joseph Smith. Upon reading your post, my first reaction was, "Yes, very well, but the Book of Mormon doesn't provide any theories about those mounds, doesn't even mention them, and so I don't see how it is relevant." Perhaps you can enlighten me on why those mounds are relevant to this discussion from your perspective.
Ok Sargon... Thanks... At least look it over... Then you can at least say I've been there and done that one. Again, this is not to hurt you.. Like I've told you before (I think) I was once part of a cult group called "The Way" back in the 80's. They told me that they had all the truth and that if I were to stay with them in their studies that I would know more about the Bible and God than the 99 percent of the people out there. I was completely enticed because I really didn't study the Bible before.. And I thought I had God all down... Little did I know that I was actually AGAINST HIM... It was a terrible time in my life, but I grew and learned a lot about God after that. I was SO relieved to learn the truth about God in the coming years. Like a breath of fresh air... Like a bee flying to honey, it's been an experience I will never give up... I consider myself fortunate now that God would even look at me after all that junk that I pulled... It was truly evil of me...Sargon wrote:I intend to spend some time studying this issue more thoroughly as soon as time permits. Perhaps during spring break.
Sargon
1. Many people back then were digging up these mounds looking for buried treasure. Also back then many people didn't really know what these mounds were used for as we do today.. Which is why people like Spalding, Rigdon, and Smith jumped on the opportunity to try explain it.[/Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.
I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.Thus they tried to make up stories about them to fulfill people's curiosity in them.. It would make a great sell to find the truth...
2. In the BoM, Smith claims that several hundred thousand Nephites and Jaredite nations perished was on the hill "Cumorah," the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith. Thus, a mound reveals a hidden treasure and a story.. The people will be enticed to hear the truth..
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.
I know of no speculative discussion among the early saints following the publication of the BoM about the origins of the thousands of mounds covering the region. The BoM simply does not address the issue.
While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.3. Joseph was trying to prove that these many Indian mounds were proof of a huge ancient civilization that once lived in northern America (not central America).
Do you have a source for this quote?4. Well before the BoM was published, Sidney Rigdon claims how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country and that soon it would all be revealed... The answer that people have been waiting for.
And do you know of any instance in which Rigdon makes a connection between the BoM and the mounds??
Ok Sargon... Thanks... At least look it over... Then you can at least say I've been there and done that one. Again, this is not to hurt you.. Like I've told you before (I think) I was once part of a cult group called "The Way" back in the 80's. They told me that they had all the truth and that if I were to stay with them in their studies that I would know more about the Bible and God than the 99 percent of the people out there. I was completely enticed because I really didn't study the Bible before.. And I thought I had God all down... Little did I know that I was actually AGAINST HIM... It was a terrible time in my life, but I grew and learned a lot about God after that. I was SO relieved to learn the truth about God in the coming years. Like a breath of fresh air... Like a bee flying to honey, it's been an experience I will never give up... I consider myself fortunate now that God would even look at me after all that junk that I pulled... It was truly evil of me...
I am very sorry that you found yourself caught up in a cult, but I am happy you found your way out. I have been blessed so far in my life as to not have been involved in any cults.
I appreciate the sudden improvement in politeness between each other.
Sargon
Did you get the book? There was a quote already given by Samuel F. Whitney (I shared a couple of posts up) he said that he heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed.Sargon wrote:Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.
Part of the point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph thought these Indian mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization that once lived in northern America.Sargon wrote:I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.
I have other sources that would say otherwise.. I can share them with you later if you wish...Sargon wrote:While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.
Yes from Samuel F. Whitney (above). There was something else about it in the book too, but I don't remember where... If I find it again I will tell you..Sargon wrote:Do you have a source for this quote?
And do you know of any instance in which Rigdon makes a connection between the BoM and the mounds??
Very well Sargon..Sargon wrote:I am very sorry that you found yourself caught up in a cult, but I am happy you found your way out. I have been blessed so far in my life as to not have been involved in any cults.
Likewise... Again I don't have harsh feelings towards you.. But as you know I'm not too content with Mormonism.Sargon wrote:I appreciate the sudden improvement in politeness between each other.
Again, I have not studied this topic very much, so it is entirely possible that I am mistaken on some of these things.Gman wrote:Did you get the book? There was a quote already given by Samuel F. Whitney (I shared a couple of posts up) he said that he heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed.Sargon wrote:Thats just it though, I know of no instance where Joseph or Sidney ever made any correlation between the mounds and the BoM peoples. Perhaps we might dig up some quote somewhere on the internet to refute my current knowledge. I am currently reading Spaulding's story for the first time, Ill let you know if he ever mentions anything of the nature.
You are mistaken. I did not buy or read the book you are reading. The book you are reading attempts to link the BoM with the Spalding Manuscript. What I am reading is the Spalding Manuscript. I have already read the Book of Mormon many times, but never the Spalding Manuscript. I suggest you read both of them for yourself before you decide that they have anything in common.
The quote from Samual F. Whitney(I would still like to know where it comes from) is interesting, but simply doesn't prove anything. If Sidney said that soon we would know the history of the mound builders, and if he secretly was referring to the future production of the BoM, his "prediction" was clearly a failure. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of mounds, no mention of mound builders, or anything of the like.
Part of the point I'm trying to make here is that Joseph thought these Indian mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization that once lived in northern America.Sargon wrote:I don't see any real argument in this. There is a hill mentioned in the book. So what? The book never speaks of how the hill got there, what it was for, or if there were any others. Your point is that people wondered about where the hills came from is it not? The BoM does not answer that question.
And besides, despite Joseph's evolving understanding of what the book actually says, the book represents the hill that the battle was fought on as a different hill in which the gold plate were buried. We have already been covered this before.
I understand. But it doesn't add up. If Joseph thought that the mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization in N. America, he did not use that idea at all in the BoM. Like I said, the BoM doesn't further that theory at all.
Let me try to put the other part in another way.. Let's say I lived back then and didn't know anything about Mormonism. Every day I would walk to work or something and see these mounds but not know really what they were for. It would be a mystery.. And people actually did find treasures in these mounds back then.. But then someone (like Joseph) digs up a treasure trove of gold plates and a history of an ancient civilization... Do you think I would be at least curious? In other words, the grounds for belief were already dug.. A seed was planted..
I have other sources that would say otherwise.. I can share them with you later if you wish...Sargon wrote:While it is certainly probable that Joseph profited from the pre-existant hype about the origins of the mounds, there is no evidence that he used that hype to sell more books. He certianly didn't exploit that excitement if that is what you are contending.
Please do share. I would be interested in any evidence that suggests that Joseph linked the mound builders to the BoM people. If any evidence comes forth, I would then argue that it was Joseph's mere opinion, and was not founded in what the BoM actually says.
Sargon, I have read the Spalding Manuscript before.. I just never read the "Spalding Enigma" before.. Also I have read most of the BoM before, but not the whole thing...Sargon wrote:You are mistaken. I did not buy or read the book you are reading. The book you are reading attempts to link the BoM with the Spalding Manuscript. What I am reading is the Spalding Manuscript. I have already read the Book of Mormon many times, but never the Spalding Manuscript. I suggest you read both of them for yourself before you decide that they have anything in common.
It came from a book by Arthur Deming in 1888. It was an eye witness account...Sargon wrote:The quote from Samual F. Whitney(I would still like to know where it comes from) is interesting, but simply doesn't prove anything.
Again, the evidence I've shown previously says otherwise..Sargon wrote:If Sidney said that soon we would know the history of the mound builders, and if he secretly was referring to the future production of the BoM, his "prediction" was clearly a failure. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of mounds, no mention of mound builders, or anything of the like.
Again this is only part of the equation. But he did state that where he found the plates was the exact same place where these great wars between the two tribes took place..Sargon wrote:I understand. But it doesn't add up. If Joseph thought that the mounds were proof of a large ancient civilization in N. America, he did not use that idea at all in the BoM. Like I said, the BoM doesn't further that theory at all.
I'll let you know... But I'm also battling some evolutionists in another panel so this may take a bit..Sargon wrote:Please do share. I would be interested in any evidence that suggests that Joseph linked the mound builders to the BoM people. If any evidence comes forth, I would then argue that it was Joseph's mere opinion, and was not founded in what the BoM actually says.
Here is the complete text:Gman wrote:
The first of these is found in a statement given by Samuel F. Whitney about Sidney Rigdon and his answer for these mounds (well before the BoM's publication).
"I came to Kirtland, Ohio in 1826. ... heard Sidney Rigdon preach in Squire Sawyers' orchard in 1827. He said how desirable it would be to know who built the forts and mounds about the country. Soon it would all be revealed."
Here is where you can find the complete text:Gman wrote: A somewhat similar statement was provided to Amos S. Hayden by Darwin Atwater:
"That [Rigdon] knew before [i.e., "had prior knowledge"] of the coming of The Book of Mormon is to me certain, from what he said on the first of his visits at my father's, some years before. He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said they must have been made by the Aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those things. He spoke of these . . . as being a thing most extraordinary.
That statement may have been recorded in 1885, but we don't have an actual date as to when it was really made by Whitney. Whitney said that that it was around 1827 or 28 when it happened and I believe him. By the way if you want to go that route did you realize that the gospels were written between A.D. 50 and 75 after Christ? Also the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. Well after the facts....Sargon wrote:Here is the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-3b2
Do you realize that Whitney made this statement 59 years later? He made this statement in 1885. I read the letter he wrote, and it sounds like the words of a man who is trying his best to discredit the LDS movement.
Besides that, this alleged statement by Rigdon simply doesn't square with the facts.
The evidence shows otherwise.. Now we will see the Spalding and the BoM's claims together in action...Sargon wrote:It is entirely possible, and probable, that Rigdon was curious about the who the mound-builders were, and it is probabe that he believed God would reveal the matter to the world at some future date. But that date never came. Rigdon never linked the mound-builders with the Book of Mormon. Thus, the quote is irrelevant.
Not directly mound building but ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in North America and buried treasure found by Joseph in the state of NY...Sargon wrote:Here is where you can find the complete text:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1875Hay3.htm
It appears this was written in 1873(though I am not sure), 43 years after the events took place. Again, you have the choice of believing Atwater's memory, or believing the facts. As I said before, If Rigdon was planning on using the mound-builder excitement to sell the Book of Mormon, he didn't follow through with that plan. The Book of Mormon does not explain the moundbuilding at all.
Sargon, the more evidence that comes in about this.. The more heads will turn... I guarantee it..Sargon wrote:And in case you start to think that this desperate theory is considered legitimate universally by major critics of the church, stop now. It is not at all. Some of the most respected critics of the church, including Dan Vogel, thinks it is "a waste of time".
Sargon
The BoM was associating these Indian mounds to buried treasures and wars.. EXACTLY like in Spalding's manuscripts...Sargon wrote:Rigdon didn't even know Joseph Smith until December 1830. And furthermore, as I have already said, if his designs were to exploit the popular curiosity about the mound-builders, he did not carry out those designs. The Book of Mormon makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to mound-building. It makes no effort to identify the who they were, and makes no reference at all to N. America.
You can believe whatever you want Gman. Unfortunately it is not based on fact. It is based on your intense desire to prove mormonism wrong. The first recorded evidence for this statement is 59 years after happened. You can either argue that it was recorded long after he originally said it, or that it doesn't matter how long after the fact it was that he said it because the gospels were similarly recorded. But you can't argue both ways. Are you going to canonize Whitney's statments now?That statement may have been recorded in 1885, but we don't have an actual date as to when it was really made by Whitney. Whitney said that that it was around 1827 or 28 when it happened and I believe him.By the way if you want to go that route did you realize that the gospels were written between A.D. 50 and 75 after Christ? Also the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. Well after the facts....
This is all they have come up with? Because a battle was fought on a hill, you somehow are able to see a correlation with the Spalding story. Nothing is said about building mounds. Nothing is said about burying dead. Nothing at all. I know of absolutely no Mormon who has ever read the Book of Mormon and thought it taught anything close to what you are suggesting. You are trying to stretch the text to meet your needs, and it just is not working.Now the BoM...
Mormon 8:2 And now it came to pass that after the a great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.
Sargon we found it!! This is most likely how Joseph got his idea for a huge war being fought at the hill Cumorah!!
It doesn't even indirectly mention mound building. The presence of ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in N. America isn't very good evidence for Joseph using the Spalding manuscript. Everyone believed that a civilization flourished in N. America, and rightly so. Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.Not directly mound building but ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in North America and buried treasure found by Joseph in the state of NY... ...
The BoM was associating these Indian mounds to buried treasures and wars.. EXACTLY like in Spalding's manuscripts...
I always find it ironic when critics have to tell us what we believe in order to prove us wrong.Again, please read the history on the Hill of Cumorah and Joseph Smith's claims:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm
On the contrary, the Book of Mormon is so clear on it that Mormons have been teaching this for over a century. It's certainly what I was taught by LDS missionaries.Sargon wrote:Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.
So do we. Unfortunately in this case you haven't actually responded to the point.I always find it ironic when critics have to tell us what we believe in order to prove us wrong.
Sargon, you should really take the time to examine the evidence. Not just simply dismiss things and claim that it is only anti-mormon rhetoric..Sargon wrote:You can believe whatever you want Gman. Unfortunately it is not based on fact. It is based on your intense desire to prove mormonism wrong.
Sargon, the evidence and similarities between the two books, the BoM and the Spalding book "Manuscript Found" is over whelming..Sargon wrote:The first recorded evidence for this statement is 59 years after happened. You can either argue that it was recorded long after he originally said it, or that it doesn't matter how long after the fact it was that he said it because the gospels were similarly recorded. But you can't argue both ways. Are you going to canonize Whitney's statments now?
No... Not just one battle but many battles that are described in the BoM. Please read about some of the battles in the BoM in Mormon, chapter 6.Sargon wrote:This is all they have come up with? Because a battle was fought on a hill, you somehow are able to see a correlation with the Spalding story. Nothing is said about building mounds. Nothing is said about burying dead. Nothing at all.
Sargon... Well I'm going to have to shock you then... Elder Charles B. Thompson was one of the first Mormon writers to identify the "mound-builders" with the Nephites whose story is told in the BoM... This statement by him (in 1841) was representative of what Mormon authorities were teaching back then...Sargon wrote:I know of absolutely no Mormon who has ever read the Book of Mormon and thought it taught anything close to what you are suggesting. You are trying to stretch the text to meet your needs, and it just is not working.
But the BoM is very clear about these huge battles being fought.. And nearly all early Mormon elders believed that these "so called" events took place in Northern America.. Also the description of the places in the BoM fit the description of Northern America to a "T".Sargon wrote:It doesn't even indirectly mention mound building. The presence of ancient civilizations that thrived and fought in N. America isn't very good evidence for Joseph using the Spalding manuscript. Everyone believed that a civilization flourished in N. America, and rightly so. Spalding was very clear that the people in his story were in N. America. The Book of Mormon is not clear at all.
Sargon.. Please read chapter 6 of the BoM and also Ether 15:11 as well..Sargon wrote:For a scheming charlatan, as you believe Joseph Smith to be, he did not employ any of the tactics that you have suggested he did. He did attempt to fool anyone into believing that the BoM people's were responsible for the mounds. Clinging to one verse that mentions a battle on a hill reveals how desperate this theory really is.
Sargon... Look at the picture again.. It's a picture of "The Prophet's" (who was Joseph Smith) claim declaring the journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to the continent of America, in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah King of Judeah, previous to the Babylonish captivity and they proposed that the ancient mounds there were actually built by a people who would eventually move on to Mexico and become this first civilization....Sargon wrote:What does this have to do with Joseph Smith?? So some obscure unnamed mormon "archaeologists" in 1845 were looking for evidence for the Book of Mormon, and speculated on some of their findings. What exactly is this evidence for??
Again, I'm sorry to disagree with you Sargon, but the evidence shows otherwise..Sargon wrote:Gman, this very interesting history you are providing. But it is failing to provide any evidence for your theory.
Your theory thus far has been:
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon exploited the local curiosity about the mound-builders and tricked people into thinking the Book of Mormon provided an explanation for them, just as Spalding had done(although his story was an admitted work of fiction).
You still have shown no compelling evidence that they ever taught that the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the mounds.