Youtube Apologetics

[Sunday21]

Love this thread! Have learned a lot.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

" If the Nephites lived here for generations, how would steel be such a common item..."

RESPONSE

FACT CHECK:
This is an antiMormon myth.
1. Mosiah 11:8... of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass
Iron was considered as precious as gold and silver (160BCE)
2. Steel was mentioned only in the early days of the Nephites.  The last reference was in about 420BCE.

It is likely that the Nephites discovered meteoric iron when they first landed around 550BCE, and eventually became scarce a few centuries later.  Scarce enough to be worth its weight in gold.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

 While other LDS persons deny the very existence of the more "unusual" aspects of Joseph Smith's teachings. And then, when presented with incontrovertible teachings of the church itself, proceed to tap-dance around the topic, change the subject and refuse to discuss it any further.

RESPONSE

Yeah, I know your frustration.
As for me, I don't understand why some people focus on the bed bugs under a microscope, and completely  ignore the elephant standing  in the room.

If the Book of Mormon is a fake, what difference does it make what JS the con man said.
I just don't get it.

 

Just an observation.  I've been in apologetics over 35 years (even prior to the internet), and I've just decided not to waste my time on someone who makes broad statements -- JS said blah blah blah.

I am more likely to respond if they give me the exact quote, and an interesting, insightful question with the quote.  I don't mind answering questions, but I have little interest in trying to DEFENDING.
And if I don't know the answer, I'll tell you but I may speculate on the answer to show that I have thought about it.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

JS and the law

RESPONSE

Wiki article is interesting but incomplete, missing many details.

You can read a detailed study here http://www.fairmormon.org/Misc/KSS.pdf You might want to skip ahead to section 3.3 "Joseph Smith".

LDS scholars have done done extensive study on Joseph Smith and the legal system. You will find these videos helpful regarding "Joseph Smith and the Law" They are based on the actual historical documents. http://www.byutv.org/watch/6bf72946-5023-4842-82b9-f5cc52afe839/joseph-smith-papers-living-by-the-law http://www.byutv.org/watch/d4437a3b-a00e-4805-8061-5c1c240db0cf/joseph-smith-papers-joseph-smith-and-the-law-part-1 http://www.byutv.org/watch/2c0a1fbe-7aca-46af-8603-604af9b2f665/joseph-smith-papers-joseph-smith-and-the-law-part-2

Regarding the 1826 trial, see http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/facts.html

[cdowis]

EVIDENCE FOR THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

"The Plain of Olishem"

Recent evidence for the Book of Abraham Recent scholarship suggests that Ur might have been in northern Syria and southern Turkey in a place known anciently as Aram-Naharaim (northwestern Mesopotamia in ancient times). Not coincidentally, ancient Aram-Naharaim was under the influence of Egypt during the days of Abraham. An added layer of support comes from the Book of Abraham’s mention of the Plain of Olishem, which apparently was a part of the land of Chaldea. While the bible never mentions such a place, scholars have recently discovered and inscription of the name Olishem dating to about 2250 BC in Northwestern Syria –just where we would expect to find it according to Joseph Smith. http://blog.fairmormon.org/2016/02/10/faith-and-reason-65-ur-and-olishem/

[Vort]

One objection to the book of Abraham is Abraham's repeated and, apparently, anachronistic usage of the term "Ur of the Chaldees". This was a later identification of the region, applied by later Jews to historical lands, rather like calling ancestral Navajo lands "New Mexico". Current history holds that the Chaldeans settled the region long after Abraham's time, so when the book of Abraham mentions "Ur of the Chaldees", it looks anachronistic. I heard that there was evidence that the Chaldeans' history in the area actually appears to go back much further than formerly realized, and that the area may well have been known as "Ur of the Chaldees" in earlier times. But I have no reference for that, just a "here's what I heard" story.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The critics portray Dr. Gee as "FARMS Egyptologist and simply a "student" under Robert Ritner.

RESPONSE

In reality, Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University and has made, and continues to make, substantial contributions to the field of Egyptology that have nothing to do with FARMS or Latter-day Saint interests.
Here is a list of accomplishments and peer-reviewed publications
http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The_Book_of_Abraham#Response_to_claim:_.22John_Gee...He_has_written_many_articles_for_FARMS._He_was_a_student_of_Egyptology_under_Robert_Ritner.22

[cdowis]

CRITIC
Athiest says == Why did Joseph Smith need the plates since they completely unnecessary during the translation using only the seer stone.

RESPONSE
It's interesting that someone who rejects God knows so much about how He works things.

Now I am reading your words on my computer, so I don't understand why I need a network.  The network is unnecessary to connect to the server where your words are stored because.... well, because I am ignorant on how the internet works and your words "magically" appear on my computer.

When the 116 pages were lost, the plates were taken away and we know that JS could no longer translate.  So, for reasons we do not understand (our ignorance), he had to have physical possession of the plates in order to translate, even though it was through the seer stone.

PS My words "magically" show up on your computer, so why do you need to be connected to the internet?

 

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The story of Joseph Smith's death doesn't have the ring of martyrdom -- the gun, jumping out of a window,etc.

RESPONSE

Yeah, it does not sound like a Hollywood version of a martyrdom.  I noticed that the perfect martyrdom scene when Christ was arrested was spoiled when Peter took out a sword, and almost killed one of the guards.

Life is not always as depicted by Hollywood.

CRITIC

The story doesn't have the ring of truth to it... which is.... that he leaped out of a window to save his own life and escape a hail of bullets.  Not to save everyone's life.

RESPONSE

This is a well known skill of the antiMormons -- the ability to read minds.

Just curious, did you have to practice, or does it come naturally?  You are reading the mind of someone who has been dead for over 100 years -- very impressive.  

Now Smith did something very clever, to make sure no one noticed his trying to escape.  HE SHOUTED OUT WHILE STANDING IN THE WINDOW, ensuring that he was getting the full attention of the mob.  Now that was a clever way of escaping the mob.
They immediately shot him, and the mob inside the room immediately left, thus saving the lives of his associates.
But an antiMormon is unable to wrap his mind around that possibility.

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

CRITIC

The story of Joseph Smith's death doesn't have the ring of martyrdom -- the gun, jumping out of a window,etc.

RESPONSE

Yeah, it does not sound like a Hollywood version of a martyrdom.  I noticed that the perfect martyrdom scene when Christ was arrested was spoiled when Peter took out a sword, and almost killed one of the guards.

Life is not always as depicted by Hollywood.

CRITIC

The story doesn't have the ring of truth to it... which is.... that he leaped out of a window to save his own life and escape a hail of bullets.  Not to save everyone's life.

RESPONSE

This is a well known skill of the antiMormons -- the ability to read minds.

Just curious, did you have to practice, or does it come naturally?  You are reading the mind of someone who has been dead for over 100 years -- very impressive.

 

From what I understand wasn't he shot out of the window? Or at least ,forced out from all the commotion? 

[cdowis]

No, there were only three bullets in the "pepper gun" (which is a small gun), and he had already discharged them at the men trying to get into the room.

[Guest MormonGator]

32 minutes ago, cdowis said:

No, there were only three bullets in the "pepper gun" (which is a small gun), and he had already discharged them at the men trying to get into the room.

I know what a pepper gun is :-) 

[cdowis]

TEMPLE RITES AND THE MASONS

Melvin J. Ballard, of the Twelve Apostles, wrote back in 1913: "When the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that Elijah delivered to him the keys of the salvation of the living and the dead, he asserted a wonderful truth. Was Elijah possessed of the same knowledge and intelligence he had while he dwelt upon the earth?" (Note: The ancient prophet Elijah appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith for the purpose of restoring the temple sealing power that can be performed only in the Lord's temples. Please see Malchi 3:5,6 in the Bible.

The appearance of Elijah to Joseph Smith is literally a biblical prophecy fulfilled in these, the latter days. That is one of the purposes of temples. You'll have to do your own research on this one, due to lack of time and space on my part.) Elder Ballard continued, "It has been asserted by some that the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained from masonry some or most all of the ceremonies had by us in our temples. Recently I have had an opportunity to investigate most thoroughly the history and connection of the membership of the Church with masonry, when certain lodges were organize in the city of Nauvoo and other places; and I satisfied myself, and without giving you the detailed evidences, I assert to you that the evidence given by masons themselves proves conclusively that Joseph Smith never knew the first thing of masonry until years after he had received the visit of Elijah, and had delivered to men the keys of the holy priesthood, and the ceremonies and ordinances had by us in the sacred temples, and had given the endowments to men long before he knew the first thing pertaining to the ordinances and ceremonies of masonry.

What is masonry? Why, a fragment of the old truth coming down perhaps from Solomon's temple of ancient days, and but a fragment, as Christianity is but a fragment of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was only to be had and enjoyed by those who hold the holy priesthood. The prophet Elijah revealed these truths; he possessed them anciently and he gave them in their perfectness, and simplicity and purity to the Prophet Joseph Smith."  (copied post on youtube)

Edited September 22, 2017 by cdowis

[Vort]

Not really sure about Elder Ballard's statements. I am no expert, but I have read and heard a lot of expert opinion, and most of that opinion seems to suggest that there are real, substantive (if not terribly important) similarities, and that Joseph undoubtedly adopted some of the trappings of the Masons as a way to teach eternal truths in the temple endowment. If this is so, it is much better to acknowledge it and try to find reasons why it is so than to, in effect, close our eyes, plug our ears, and chant "Nya nya nya nya I can't heeeeeear yooooooou!"

[NeedleinA]

Funny enough, if you visit LDS Nauvoo today and go into the historical Scovil Bakery, there is an article about the Masons right next to the door. The article explains that the Cultural Hall next door (where missionaries put on performances) was the old Mason building. 

[NeedleinA]

Funny enough, if you visit LDS Nauvoo today and go into the historical Scovil Bakery, there is an article about the Masons right next to the door. The article explains that the Cultural Hall next door (where missionaries put on performances) was the old Mason building. 

[cdowis]

On 2/26/2016 at 2:16 PM, Vort said:

Not really sure about Elder Ballard's statements. I am no expert, but I have read and heard a lot of expert opinion, and most of that opinion seems to suggest that there are real, substantive (if not terribly important) similarities

It is very important to separate the masonic RITE from the SYMBOLS.  The "substantive similarities" are directly related to the symbols, not to the rite itself.  The LDS temple and masons share a common heritage -- the symbols which have been passed down from Solomon's temple.

If you read Ballard's statement, he is specifically addressing the rite or ceremony. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by cdowis

[Vort]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

It is very important to separate the masonic RITE from the SYMBOLS.  The "substantive similarities" are directly related to the symbols, not to the rite itself.  The LDS temple and masons share a common heritage -- the symbols which have been passed down from Solomon's temple.

If you read Ballard's statement, he is specifically addressing the rite or ceremony. 

I believe the whole "descended from Solomon's Temple" idea has been discredited.

[Guest]

On 2/26/2016 at 1:16 PM, Vort said:

... I have read and heard a lot of expert opinion, and most of that opinion seems to suggest that there are real, substantive (if not terribly important) similarities, and that Joseph undoubtedly adopted some of the trappings of the Masons as a way to teach eternal truths in the temple endowment...

Can you give a reference?

You, of course, know that I'm closer to Elder Ballard's position.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

The "Joseph stole from Masons" quote is from Elder Franklin D. Richards on 4 April 1899:

            "Joseph the Prophet was aware that there were some things about Masonry which had come down
              from the beginning and he desired to know what they were, hence the lodge.  The Masons admitted
              some keys of knowledge appertaining to Masonry were lost.  Joseph enquired of the Lord concerning
              the matter and He revealed to the Prophet true Masonry, as we have it in our temples."

                             --A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, p.42

My comments:

   1) It is unclear from this quote whether the inquiry was before of after becoming a Mason.  The words "hence the lodge" indicates he knew of the "supposed Masonic heritage" prior to becoming a Mason.  And later I will point out that he had already received most of the endowment ceremony prior to that time.  Thus the inquiry most likely was also prior to becoming a Mason.

   2) There is no source material to back up Elder Richard's statement.  So, how did he know that?  Was it revealed to him?  It may be that he simply believed Mormon Lore on the topic and repeated it.  The date (4 Apr 1899) was NOT during a general conference, but appears to be during a private meeting several days prior to the conference).  So no evidence exists that this quote was meant to be either historical or doctrinal.  Notice that this was noted in a private diary, not official Church records.

LDS Author, apologist, and historian Matthew B. Brown says:

             "There are no statements (firsthand, secondhand, or otherwise) by the Prophet Joseph Smith indicating that the Nauvoo-era temple ordinances were a form of "purified Masonry".

                       --Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons p 129

   3) If it is a true statement (from whatever source) the likely take-away is that when Joseph had received the endowment ceremony and was told to employ it and offer it in the new temple, he simply asked "if all the rumors about the Freemasons' link to Solomon's Temple were true."  Then he was told that there were some things that survived over the millennia, but that the fulness was being revealed to him right there by the Lord Himself.  If he wanted to see the differences, he should become a Mason.  So he did.

And referring to Elder Richard's quote, as well as others related to Masonry, Matthew Brown states:

                "None of these statements is meant to imply that the LDS temple ordinances are a species of... Freemasonry. (They express) that there is a divine or heavenly prototype, and the LDS version... is derived from the heavenly source -- and thus constitutes the true version."

                                 IBID p 155

Consider Heber C. Kimball's comment on the matter:

            "The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy... They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing."
                          -- BYUS, vol 15, no 4, Summer 1975, 458

Statements about "Celestial Masonry" were made many years after the Prophet's death by other individuals.  But none quoted Brother Joseph directly.  They refer to implications and feelings more than direct quotes.  Then as many more years passed, some quotes started coming to light of Joseph's supposed knowledge of the link between Masonry and the Endowment.  But none of it can be traced by documented history to primary quote to the Prophet himself.

The fact remains that most of the endowment ceremony was already revealed to Joseph prior to his ever becoming a Mason.  D&C 124 refers to several rites that were not had in the Kirtland Temple.  And the Lord specifically states in 1841 that the purpose of the Nauvoo Temple would be...

             "a place...that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath
              taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood."
                                (D&C 124: 28) 

The fulness of the Priesthood by all indications must include temple ordinances.  Truly, prior to his death the Prophet was in earnest to get the Nauvoo Temple completed so that:

             "...he had conferred upon others all the keys given to him by the manifestations of the power of God."
                         (I need some help figuring out the reference...)
                         (The previous reference was BYUS, vol 21, No. 3, Summer 1981, p 306-307)
                         (This reference is IBID., 25:183  -- so the 183 is the page, but the 25 is the number or the volume?)

So it is apparent that he had all or most of the keys at least by the time the construction of the temple was begun.  The cornerstone was laid 6 April 1841.

And finally, we have the testimony of the Prophet himself.  Joseph bore testimony on 15 June 1844 (as Chronicled by Mormon Pioneer William Clayton) that some ceremonial knowledge of the endowment was received through the Urim and Thummim.  His testimony then would refute the notion that the endowment was a "modification" of the extant Masonic rites.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I believe the whole "descended from Solomon's Temple" idea has been discredited.

Thank you for confirmation.  The masonic riteis indeed only be a few hundred years old, but the SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION and the ENDOWMENT is ancient.   You might check out Nibley's book on the temples here online  http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/temple-and-cosmos/

See also this very informative video on the historical development of the temple endowment and its relationship to masonry.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Advising an apologist

I don't think we should build up our case for the Book of Mormon by casting doubt on the Bible.  Let the antiMormons play that game

Let me suggest instead this approach -->>
Question: when Christ said, seek and ye shall find, was He talking about looking at history books and doing archaeology?  He said to Peter,  Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  

Christ gave us HIS way of finding the truth, that God Himself reveals it to us through study and prayer.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Joseph Smith boasted that he did more than Jesus to keep a church together.

RESPONSE

Christ's mission was not church building and maintenance. He left that task to his apostles such as Paul. So would it not be a correct statement to say that Paul and the apostles did more to build up the church than Jesus.

[cdowis]

RESPONSE to Book of Mormon and nonLDS scholars

This is from an older paper, and does not include recent information

 

Quote

 

Another Jewish scholar who has dealt with LDS topics is Jacob Neusner, who has been an occasional speaker at BYU. His article, “Conversations in Nauvoo on the Corporeality of God,” appeared in BYU Studies 36/1 (l996-97). David L. Paulsen, a prominent LDS philosopher teaching at BYU, has made a reputation for introducing LDS views of God into the realm of general scholarship. In 1975, he earned a PhD from the University of Michigan, with a dissertation entitled “Comparative Coherency of Mormon (finitistic) and Classical Theism.” A decade and a half later, his article “Must God Be Incorporeal?” was published in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers.²²

In 1990, Paulsen’s article “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” was published in the prestigious Harvard Theological Review.²³ Kim Paffenroth took exception to his views and three years later published, in the same review, “Paulsen on Augustine: An Incorporeal or Nonanthropomorphic God?”, to which Paulsen was allowed to give a “Reply to Kim Paffenroth’s Comment” in the same issue.²⁴

Another scholar whose LDS view of God and godhood influenced his research is Keith E. Norman. His 1980 Duke University PhD dissertation was entitled “Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology.” The dissertation was published in the FARMS Occasional Papers series in 2001.

The concept of an apostasy in the early Christian Church was discussed by BYU professor C. Wilfred Griggs in his book Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 C.E. (Coptic Studies Series No. 2; New York: E. J. Brill, 1990). The book received mixed reviews from the non-LDS scholarly world, but some non-LDS scholars have praised his work.²⁵

In recent years, Book of Mormon topics have been discussed in regional and national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). At the 1997 national meeting, Eric G. Hansen gave a paper on “The Egyptian ‘Opening of the Mouth’ Ritual in the Book of Mormon.”²⁶ Angela Crowell has presented three papers at meetings of the Central States regional meetings of SBL.²⁷ In the Spring of 1988, she presented a paper entitled “Biblical Hebrew Poetry in the Book of Mormon.” A year later, she read a paper based on her MA thesis topic, “A Comparative Study of Biblical Hebrew Sentence Structure in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon.” After the session, she was approached by a professor/rabbi who told her that he had taught a class at the University of Missouri-Kansas City on the Book of Mormon. In April 1992, Crowell presented a paper entitled, “A Comparative Reading of Homiletic and Narrative Midrash in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon.
<snip>

Sometimes, LDS scholars have gained the respect of non-LDS scholars with whom they have worked or studied. I can’t help but think that Stephen E. Robinson and John W. Welch made a good impression on James H. Charlesworth while they were studying at Duke University, since Charlesworth has come to speak several times on the BYU campus, even on Book of Mormon topics. Donald W. Parry and others have clearly had a positive effect on a number of non-LDS scholars working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least two professors I knew while I was a student at the Hebrew University were so impressed with the Book of Mormon that, while they didn’t become members of the Church, they became convinced that the Nephite record was an authentic ancient text.

This brings me back to my recent trip to Israel. It was not the first time the Book of Mormon has been discussed in a prestigious scholarly forum and I sincerely hope that it will not be the last. Some of those who heard my presentation gave me additional suggestions for Hebrew etymologies for Book of Mormon names. One of the speakers drew our attention to another attestation of the Hebrew name Sariah (the name of Lehi’s wife) in a Jewish text of the fourth century B.C. found in the Bosphorus region and mentioned only in a Russian publication.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-scholarship-in-mormonism-and-mormonism-in-scholarship

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Do your homework.  This is a silly, insane cult.

RESPONSE

Done the homework.  Yep, this is crazy to think that Christ would make a visit in our very day and call a prophet, and organize His church with apostles and prophets.

Absolutely insane to believe that God actually would talk to prophets in our day.  I guess that me me a fool, just like the early Christians.

Why don't you read the Book of Mormon and find out what all the fuss is about.  It gives a promise (Moroni 10:4-5) that if you read it with an open mind and heart, and ask God, He will answer your prayer whether it is His word.
Find out for yourself whether this really is so crazy.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cdowis