Anyone care to help me debunk this list


Meldrum:

The following are religious beliefs that were not being preached by religions of his day but were unique to Smith:


•That little children had no need for baptism
Universalists, Baptists? JS's papa was a Universalist for a time

•That God and his Son are separate beings having physical bodies

Don't know on this one

•That the Lord would speak again to his children

Quakers?

•That there is a need for modern prophets

Quakers

•That there would be more scripture

Quakers?

•That temple ordinances were necessary for salvation

I might have to give him a point on this one, even though JS ripped of the Masons

•That baptism should be made available for those who had already died

Ephrata Cloister, not that far from Emma's home

•That the original church had ended, because there was an apostasy

Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ

•That there must be a restoration of the original gospel of Jesus Christ

again Disciples of Church of Christ/Church of Christ

•That all the other distinctly Mormon doctrines made it unique within Christianity

Don't understand this one

It would appear that Packham’s argument is flawed because none of these beliefs reflected the “religious ideas of that time.”

Smith and the Indians

Smith also held unique views about the status and origins of the American Indians that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not share.

Smith taught that:

•Indians were of Jewish ancestry.

No, alot of Americans thought this

•Indians were descended from a once a highly advanced civilization.

I don't think this is the way JS taught it.

•Indians were as capable and as “evolved” as Europeans.

JS didn't teach this, Nephites maybe, Indians were lazy and lothsome, cursed with a dark skin.

•Indians were to be respected as equals and were not merely “ignorant savages.”

Not until they converted to Mormonism which very few did. None of them became white and delightsome

•Indians were civilized enough to be allowed to vote in elections and were capable of holding public office.

Need a cite for this one, Rod.

•Indian ancestors came from the Holy Land to the Americas by ship.

Again a lot of people thought they came from Israel, don't know about the ship

•Ancient Indians had large cities

Sorry, the Indian mounds were there, everybody knew about them


with roads, complex trading networks, an understanding of metals,

metals found in Indian mounds, everyone knew this

a written Hebrew language


Gliphs from Central America were known
Well if they were part of Israel would they be speak, Chinese?

and had massive wars of extermination.

Many people thought a white race built the Indian mounds and that the Indians had exterminated them.

How well do Smith’s words and actions reflect these “religious ideas of that time”? The simple fact is that they don’t.


Well no, Rod, they do.

And that is to remind people as well as the moaps at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute what traditional LDS beliefs were regarding Native Americans, Polynesians, and their origins were...

The Limited Geography Crowd (Southerton accurately calls it the Vanishing Geography crowd) would have people believing the Book of Mormon points to a Mesoamerican setting, and it clearly doesn't. Additionally, there's the story of Zelph, which illustrates Joseph Smith's thinking on that subject.

Anyone with any doubts about where the intended setting for the BOM was need only check out Vernal Holley's map...

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

•That God and his Son are separate beings having physical bodies

Surely Meldrum must know that until 1842, Joseph did not teach that God and His Son were seperate beings having physical bodies. Nor does that show up anywhere in scripture until the 1878 Utah D&C (section 130)was printed.

All of the scripture that Joseph brought forth prior to the verifiably false Book of Abe, clearly states that God is a personage of Glory. Only in Jesus Christ is the glory of God made flesh.

* That little children had no need for baptism

In 1830 Alexander Campbell reviewed the Book of Mormon and made a list of currently [then] popular items of discussion that the Book of Mormon weighed in on. One of those was infant baptism.

* That God and his Son are separate beings having physical bodies

Nothing in the Book of Mormon establishes God the father and his son as separate beings having physical bodies. In fact, the Book of Mormon is more trinitarian than the Bible. Soon after the Church was organized the "Lectures on Faith" was published as part of the Church's scriptures. The Lectures clearly distinguised the Son as a being of tabernacle and the Father as a being of spirit.

* That the Lord would speak again to his children
* That there is a need for modern prophets
* That there would be more scripture

These things, which are basically one thing, were a popular undercurrent among many peoples in Joseph Smith's time. Maybe no large, established religion preached them [Meldrum limits things to what main religions of the time preached, rather than what was a popular item of discussion in Joseph Smith's time.]

* That temple ordinances were necessary for salvation

Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say temple ordinances are necessary for salvation.

* That baptism should be made available for those who had already died

Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is the concept of Baptism for the Dead mentioned.

* That the original church had ended, because there was an apostasy

Martin Luther, anyone?

* That there must be a restoration of the original gospel of Jesus Christ

Martin Luther, anyone?

* That all the other distinctly Mormon doctrines made it unique within Christianity

Uh, like God was once a man? The Book of Mormon teaches the opposite. Moroni 8:18 states that God is an "unchangeable being, from all eternity to all eternity." The "distinctive" Mormon doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon. That Joseph Smith went on, after the Church was founded, to take the Church further and further away from Book of Mormon teachings can hardly be an argument in favor of the Book of Mormon.

But in the last analysis, what if the Book of Mormon had a bunch of totally original, made-up stuff. How does THAT make it an actual historical document other than a piece of fiction? Meldrum uses lies to bolster a logically worthless argument. Doesn't get much worse than that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 01:25AM by baura.

Meldrum states:

*******BEGIN QUOTE*********

Smith also held unique views about the status and origins of the American Indians that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not share.

Smith taught that:

* Indians were of Jewish ancestry.
* Indians were descended from a once a highly advanced civilization.
* Indians were as capable and as “evolved” as Europeans.
* Indians were to be respected as equals and were not merely “ignorant savages.”
* Indians were civilized enough to be allowed to vote in elections and were capable of holding public office.
* Indian ancestors came from the Holy Land to the Americas by ship.
* Ancient Indians had large cities with roads, complex trading networks, an understanding of metals, a written Hebrew language and had massive wars of extermination.

******END QUOTE******

This was all published in two editions of "View of the Hebrews." And View of the Hebrews didn't appear in a vacuum. Ethan Smith was using common themes of his day to construct hit theory on the Indians Hebrew ancestry and how it played out. Note that Meldrum says "that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not share." That might be true but a significant number of Americans DID share many of these ideas.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't believe that there are remnants of a civilization on Mars, but that didn't stop Richard Hoagland and his followers.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, but that doesn't stop former BYU prof Stephen Jones and the crowd from publishing their views that it was.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not doubt the Holocaust, but that doesn't stop the "Institute for Historical Review" from cranking out their Holocaust denying silliness.

That the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't believe the Indians were of Hebraic origin and that later ethnological and genetic studies proved them right can hardly be an argument in favor of the Book of Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 01:16AM by baura.