BookTalk.org

i'm really confounded by martin harris. If it was all a hoax, and he was in on it, why would he take the document to professor Anton? He would have known that the professor would not have vouched for his document.

But if he was not in on it, why would he have said that professor Anton said such great things about the writing on the plates?

The only reason I can think of are: if he was in on it, he wanted to see professor Anton knowing that he would make up a response favorable to his position. But negative feedback from his wife, etc makes me think he was not in on it.

If was not in on it, he must have "brainwashed" himself into believing that professor Anton would say great things about it and selectively listened to the feedback, hearing only things that supported his idea that Smith was telling him the truth.

the idea that professor Anton would have said this is the best translation of Ancient Egyptian, when there was NO way to translate ancient Egyptian is pretty funny!

yeah pretty damning stuff

When Anthon later learned the Mormons were saying he had verified the writings as authentic, he wrote a furious denial. He had never written any such certificate. There was no such thing as “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics,” and at that time no one had yet translated Egyptian, so it was perfectly ridiculous for Joseph to have him say ‘the translation was more correct than any he had ever seen’! In fact, Prof. Anthon had suspected a hoax as soon as he laid eyes on the paper.

as i read more of the story i find myself thinking wow, holy credulity, but i suppose that's it, not everyone will look for the hook.

On May 15, 1829, a month before completing the manuscript, Cowdery and Smith had a visit from John the Baptist, who bestowed upon them the Aaronic priesthood.

When I was living in Salt Lake City, I remember wondering about the 'Golden Plates.' At that time, I vaguely remember reading something about the angelr Gabriel giving Muhammad a set of golden tablets from which he transcribed the Quran (Koran). This of course is the 'official' Muslim position. However, while reading Fitzgerald, I tried to find some reference to this on the Internet, but cannot. Has anyone else ever heard of read ot this Islamic version?

youkrst, see my post concerning Chapter 1, as to credulity.

Cattleman wrote:

I vaguely remember reading something about the angelr Gabriel giving Muhammad a set of golden tablets from which he transcribed the Quran (Koran). This of course is the 'official' Muslim position. However, while reading Fitzgerald, I tried to find some reference to this on the Internet, but cannot. Has anyone else ever heard of read ot this Islamic version?

A quick check online indicates that Mohammed was illiterate and the Quran wasn't transcribed until after his death. It was the same pattern of personal direct revelation from God, though. What really sets Joseph Smith apart from Mohammed and Jesus was how premeditated his scheme was, with the whole pseudo history of Nephi and so forth. At its inception it was intendedas a fraud. How bizarre that even once that became apparent, the LDS church continued to prosper. At least with Mohammed and Jesus their initial intent seems to have been sincere--once taken up by a wider audience, both men's legacies quickly became twisted to political purposes. Hmmm--it's almost like the reverse has happened with the LDS. It started out as a wacked-out fraud, and has been twisted into something positive.

What is it about the Mormon creed that has let this church prosper despite the travesty of its inception? There must be something really attractive about this religion that sustains belief. People must really want to believe in it. Why is that? What is it that LDS provides that is so alluring?

I know just a little more than nothing about Mormonism, but some casual contacts with Mormons have suggested to me that the church organizational structure might be one of its major strengths. It certainly isn't the cogency of the beliefs, as several have observed. Does the LDS have a superior organization at the local level, compared to that of the RCs and Protestants? The faith might even be viewed as innovative in this sense.

I'm very impressed that almost all officials in the church are unpaid. That, of course, frees up a lot of money for investments, of which the church has oodles.

DWill wrote

Does the LDS have a superior organization at the local level, compared to that of the RCs and Protestants?

I don't know anything about how RCs and Protestants organize themselves here in northwest Florida, but I have to say I am really impressed with how the LDS take care of each other. Any members who are elderly, live alone, or need help have assistants assigned to them to make sure they are okay in emergencies--for example, when hurricanes threaten, the assistants will install storm shutters and help evacuate if necessary.

KayR wrote:DWill wrote

but I have to say I am really impressed with how the LDS take care of each other. Any members who are elderly, live alone, or need help have assistants assigned to them to make sure they are okay in emergencies-

Hey: Community! Any organization that gives that well will probably do well. This may explain the success despite the beliefs!