Author of Mormon CES letter excommunicates the LDS chuch

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Cupper, even professional academic translators (which Joseph Smith was definitely not) directly copy from existing documents when they believe the existing documents are reasonably accurate and will convey the intended message. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, have provided religious scholars with some significant new source material for parts of the Old Testament. Of course, there are various translations of these, but in some, as much as 90% appears to have been copied directly from the King James Version of the Bible. Obviously, the translators didn't simply revert by nature to King James English and come up with translations that are almost identical. Could their translations have been more accurate had they spent the time to translate every word individually and render an entirely new translations? Of course, but for whatever reason, it just didn't seem to be worth the time and effort to them. They knew that the general meaning of the verses that were evidently copied directly from the Bible was the same as in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph came to entire chapters that were said to be quoting Isaiah. If the text in the Book of Mormon (in 2 Nephi) closely resembles what we read in Isaiah in the KJV, it would likely have been that Joseph saw what he believed would be a shortcut and simply copied the text. The only other option would be that he had a photographic memory, which nobody has ever said was the case. Incidentally, the Book of Mormon makes it absolutely clear that Isaiah is being quoted, so it's really not all that odd that he would have copied many of the verses, making corrections only as he was inspired to.

There seem to be two apolgetics for 'horse'. One is to argue that horses could have existed. The other is to argue that the word means ''Tapir' or some other animal. Many times the references are to the King's Horses and chariots, coupled together. The reasonable supposition is that the horses pull the chariots, and it hard to avoid the conclusion that the reference to horses and chariots means just what it does in the OT.

Now in view of that, a reference to the opinion of scholars, Mormon or not that horses did exist in pre Colombian America, and horses of the kind used to pull chariots, would be handy, because I haven't been able to find any.

[Katzpur]

For the time being, and to save both my time and everybody else's who may be following this thread, I just ran across a link that provides answers to basically all of the criticisms the CES Letter raises.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

For the time being, and to save both my time and everybody else's who may be following this thread, I just ran across a link that provides answers to basically all of the criticisms the CES Letter raises.

That's the main source I have been referring to. The points I have raised have come out of that, and others.

I noted the response to errors in the King James translation that het into the Book or Mormon. The response is to argue that there is no record of J. Smith having it to hand during translation, but of course he would be quoting from memory. The other is to say that we don't know the mechanism through which his inspired translation was done, which is simply avoiding the question.

The one about DNA in native Americans seems to suggest that the generality of such were present when the Jews arrived and the Jewish DNA has been absorbed. I'll have to look and see what the book says about whether a large body of natives were present when they arrived.

Well, a Mormon source says:

For nearly 200 years after the coming of Christ to the Americas, there were no Lamanites “nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (4 Ne. 1:17.) Soon, however, a part of the people fell away and took upon them the name of Lamanites; “therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.” (4 Ne. 1:20.) ... and it is these people from whom the Lamanites of today descended. That is to say, they are the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram (see D&C 3:17–18); they are the descendants of Mulek and the others of his colony (see Hel. 6:10; Omni 1:14, 15).

So it looks like the claim is that there were none before the Hebrews arrived. Therefore one would expect "Jewish" (Semitic) DNA to be found rather than the Asian we actually find.

[MysticPhD]

All this focus on specifics of beliefs ABOUT God and Jesus are why Christians miss the actual Gospel which is not about specifics beliefs at all. The doctrine of beliefs and creeds was church-created to provide a rationale for membership. It is NOT what Jesus wanted, nor are any of the absurd magical rituals created by the churches to acknowledge membership. Christ's Gospel is all about love of God and each other and repentance when we don't, NOT bickering over which fables or stories or theological mumbo jumbo you are to claim you believe to be Christian. The religious magical thinking has done nothing but create discord and completely bury the actual Gospel of Christ in unnecessary conflict and disagreement over absurdities.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

For the time being, and to save both my time and everybody else's who may be following this thread, I just ran across a link that provides answers to basically all of the criticisms the CES Letter raises.

I had found the fairmormon.org link previously but not the one to the CES letter.

It is a much better done apologetic site than a CARM or AIG for evangelicals. Much is well documented with outside sources.

That being said, it can't help itself and fall into many of the same CARM/AIG methods of explanation on difficult issues, and falls into many of the same traps.

I have not read every response, however, make the following observations. I can go into details for each if you want:

• The discussion on horses was not at all convincing, in fact, it was weak.
• It gets very apologetically when discussing Amerindian DNA, in fact, Ken Ham would have been at home with the explanation.
• The issue of the Bible translations were attempts at convincing probably mostly LDS members, as it certainly did not explain the it to me. I read the words, know what the words are, but the argument is weak.

It almost seems a truism the more words an apologist uses to explain difficulties, the less likely it is that a point can be made. Take a look at the explanations that are short, and the veracity of them, verses the epistles, and view it as an outsider.

[TRANSPONDER]

I read a reply to the Horses objection. Also the cattle. It is easy to simply cast around for something that did exist at the time and say that s what was meant. The problem is that Bison and deer were not domesticated and the references to cattle and horses certainly look like they are domesticated. the argument that it nowhere says that the horses (or tapirs) pulled the chariots is belied by the frequent coupling of 'horses-and-chariots'.

The other references can be explained as not sheep, goats and elephants but whatever was around at the time. Especially it is was similar like Bison or mammoths. And their uses were simply that they were hunted, no domesticated. But read the passage and it looks like it was a list of animals they "had" rather than hunted.

if J. Smith had followed the Maccabean /Seleucid route and said that the Nephites had war -elephants, the same apologetics could be used to have tame mammoths with the howdahs tied on top to throw spears from. Or who is to say that herds of mammoths were not stampeded to wards the enemy lines? Of course you can explain away anything. It just doesn't read that way, but that these were animals that they had and used just as they had metals and silks (oh yes, either it means some kind of indigenous native silkworm or it doesn't mean silk at all) and in context it looks like a list of stuff and creatures that the Nephites had, used and which made them prosperous.

I was thinking last night of Anthony and Cleopatra, and that point was made on one LDS apologeetics site. The Anachronsm of Shakespeares' play was noted by me when Cleopatra suggests to Anthony that they go in an play a game of billiards. And there is a reference to a clock. I thought (and the site argues) that the reference could explained away as some kind of ancient game or time -telling device and Shakespeare simply used terms that he knew as equivalents. Thus, it is possible to believe that Shakespeare was really translating some ancient history of the time word for word. One would also have to realize that one has been bamboozled into believing nonsense.

It is rather like the Gospel apologetics. You can explain away this or that problem, but the more they pile up, the more one has to doubt, especially when there are one or two tough ones (like horses-and-chariots and the DNA) that really undermine the credibility.

Do I go on with the list in Katspur's Link, or would we prefer to discuss Mystic's post about love?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That's the main source I have been referring to. The points I have raised have come out of that, and others.

I noted the response to errors in the King James translation that het into the Book or Mormon. The response is to argue that there is no record of J. Smith having it to hand during translation, but of course he would be quoting from memory. The other is to say that we don't know the mechanism through which his inspired translation was done, which is simply avoiding the question.

The one about DNA in native Americans seems to suggest that the generality of such were present when the Jews arrived and the Jewish DNA has been absorbed. I'll have to look and see what the book says about whether a large body of natives were present when they arrived.

Well, a Mormon source says:

For nearly 200 years after the coming of Christ to the Americas, there were no Lamanites “nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (4 Ne. 1:17.) Soon, however, a part of the people fell away and took upon them the name of Lamanites; “therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.” (4 Ne. 1:20.) ... and it is these people from whom the Lamanites of today descended. That is to say, they are the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram (see D&C 3:17–18); they are the descendants of Mulek and the others of his colony (see Hel. 6:10; Omni 1:14, 15).

So it looks like the claim is that there were none before the Hebrews arrived. Therefore one would expect "Jewish" (Semitic) DNA to be found rather than the Asian we actually find.

I really don't see a great deal of point in my continuing to participate on this thread. The link I provided should provide anyone who is interested in the LDS response to the CES Letter. (Note: The responses did not come from the Church, per se, but from LDS scholars.) I will, however, provide you with a couple of additional links on the DNA issue. (The first one is the least technical of the two.)

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies

The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I really don't see a great deal of point in my continuing to participate on this thread. The link I provided should provide anyone who is interested in the LDS response to the CES Letter. (Note: The responses did not come from the Church, per se, but from LDS scholars.) I will, however, provide you with a couple of additional links on the DNA issue. (The first one is the least technical of the two.)

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies

A lot of word salad to get to this conclusion:

Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed, “It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”27

Especially since it is claimed that, in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are descendants of two rebellious brothers of a family of Israelites who crossed the ocean in a ship around 600 BC. As was their brother Nephi. It is disingenuous to claim no one knew where the BOM peoples came from, which saying that no one knew about their DNA implies.

The science is quite clear, and that is that there is no DNA evidence of Middle East markers in Amerindians. IMHO, Mormons would be better off ascribing a metaphorical perspective rather than a literal perspective on the story, because as science advances, it becomes more and more clear that this is mythological, and not factual.

The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint.

Basically this long discussion boils down to 'you can't prove a negative', in other words, just because you can't fine Middle East markers, doesn't mean they did not exist.

Your link includes this in its rather long conclusion:

If the DNA of Lehi and his family cannot be confidently detected in the modern Amerindian population, does it mean that they never existed? The principles of this question can be further extrapolated to other religious scenarios. Can we use DNA to unquestionably prove that the great biblical patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – ever existed? What were their and their descendants’ mtDNA haplotypes? What about the other great Old Testament figures, such as Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and Isaiah?

And of course the answer is that these are all mythological figures designed to provide a history for a small breakaway Canaanite tribe. Archaeology has found no evidence of Hebrews in Egypt approaching 2 million people, no camp sites of 2 million people in the Sinai, and all the archaeological evidence indicates the exact opposite, and supports the development of the Hebrews as indigenous. In fact, biblical scholars see that Genesis and Exodus being written well after Deuteronomy, to fill in and establish a history for that break away tribe.

Again, a metaphorical acceptance of the BOM will in the future be necessary, as no science backs up the claims in it, and likely never will. Invoking the FUD factor into the science does not pass muster.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I really don't see a great deal of point in my continuing to participate on this thread. The link I provided should provide anyone who is interested in the LDS response to the CES Letter. (Note: The responses did not come from the Church, per se, but from LDS scholars.) I will, however, provide you with a couple of additional links on the DNA issue. (The first one is the least technical of the two.)

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies

The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint.

Ok.There's probably not much more you can add. Those links give the best case they can and it is up to us (if we want to see whether the chap in the topic has good reason for his doubts) to see whether we buy them. It's not a case of finding a lock -down blunder, but there does seem to be a lack of any one thing that supports the book and a lot of things that need to be explained away. and that tends not to be very persuasive.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXT...ature=youtu.be