I see it as an ethical burden that is overlooked by apologists and the church in general. They are humans perpetuating cradle-to-grave impositions on other humans, based on what? Especially when this includes such tightly controlling indoctrination, the assertion that participation is voluntary is invalid imo.

And that goes to my point that Mormon Apologists will go on and on about the different versions of the FV, and attribute it to the secular argument that Joseph was human and just couldn't remember everything. But then, they have all these wild claims of angels and God appearing and that the Holy Ghost is there to specifically HELP YOU REMEMBER THINGS, and yet, they are totally silent on that. The selective application of these wild supernatural claims is disingenuous and hypocritical.

It is one thing to say "I believe" and then follow. It is another to say, "I think you should believe," and then recruit others on the basis of something that you cannot truly verify. If someone wants to believe the tradition that some of Jesus' followers saw him after his death and concluded that he had risen from the dead, well, that's one thing. But you can't say "I know about this ancient civilization that used to be here from an ancient book recovered from a box in the ground and translated by this guy I know," and then fail to verify this.

There never was any credible verification of the Book of Mormon, and that is because the Book of Mormon is not ancient, and there were no gold plates. There were no Nephites and Lamanites. There were no Jaredites. Believing Jesus rose from the dead is a little different from believing in a non-existent ancient civilization. The former is based on what was probably the honest experience of disciples of Jesus who knew him in life. The latter is based on something that is overwhelmingly likely, at some level, to be a lie or a pious fraud. I see no reason to accept the existence of plates. I do not see that the testimony of the witnesses has any value in verifying the existence of an ancient artifact on which Reformed Egyptian was inscribed with a Nephite record.

It was not anyone's job to verify this stuff but Joseph Smith's, and he failed to do so. What he did was round up family and friends to sign statements that were written for them. These family and friends had no expertise for evaluating Joseph's claims regarding the plates. I don't care if they claimed to see/touch the plates, claimed to see an angel, or what have you. Without the requisite expertise to evaluate ancient artifacts, their witness was absolutely worthless. Did any of them have sufficient expertise in archaeology, ancient history, or ancient languages to verify the authenticity of the plates or the accuracy of Joseph's translation? No.

For all we know they saw something Joseph made or paid to have made, and they saw someone dressed up like an angel. How are we to know, based on what has been passed down to us, that this theory is any less valid than Joseph's remarkable claim? The chances of my theory being correct are much higher than the chances of his phony baloney claim about ancient plates, Reformed Egyptian, angels, and ancient Hebrews in America.

Without any means of verifying Joseph Smith's claims, no scholar of Antiquity has any obligation to waste any time on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It is entirely a topic for students of modern Christianity and American history. It is tiresome to read the same hollow, idiotic verbiage about the failure of critics to invalidate made up nonsense. I might as well spend my efforts tracking down Alex Jones's bozo word diarrhea.

Which of us will waste our time investigating Pizzagate?

Heaven help us.

Where was the Holy Ghost when Joseph was trying to remember what age he was when HE SAW GOD???!!!

The first vision is totally worthless. Who gives a crap? Oh, so some guy says he saw God and God told him X. I really don't care. I would rather suffer and die than place myself at the mercy of some wingnut who thinks I should follow him because he believes he talks to God. To hell with such charlatans. The first vision is a total non-starter. It boggles my mind that Mormonism has staked its veracity on Joseph Smith's ever evolving narrative of his personal experience as a teenage boy. The whole thing is risible in the extreme.

Joseph could conjure him up at the drop of a hat when he wanted to give a "revelation", but when he was writing his history and NEEDED to get it right, where was he?

The real genius of Joseph Smith is that he discovered how much freedom there was to reason with ignoramuses about imaginary things. How wonderful he must have felt puffing up his chest and speaking with phony authority as he challenged people who were absent to refute his imagination. Good God. It is nothing but vacuous blustering from a snake-oil salesman.

Once again, there is no there there. If he wants to believe or pretend that he is having conversations with God, I have no obligation to take him at his word, whether he is receiving a revelation in my presence or reporting one that happened years ago. I sure as hell am not going to believe the tall tales he left behind.

Soon to be three podcasts, since I have a part 2 in the works in which I will address Professor Peterson's attempted defense and the firestorm of controversy that has swirled around his initial article.

The working title is, "Eenie Meenie Minie Moe, Catch an Apologist by the Toe."

RFM

There is no really easy and obvious explanation of all the details about how the Book of Mormon appeared. Theories that could cover all the bases inevitably rely on speculations about weird things that could perhaps in principle have happened, but for which there is no evidence extant.

So I guess Peterson must really enjoy magic shows. He won't have faith to disbelieve that David Copperfield truly vanished the Statue of Liberty, because all the other explanations run into walls.

He's got that going for him, which is nice.

Suppose for a moment that the First Vision is true and really happened and that the 1838 account accurately reflects the most information of that experience. If this were the case, Smith would have received his greatest lessons on the true nature of God and his theology would have already been advanced to the point that he could have given the King Follett discourse in 1832 instead of 1844. If the 1838 account were true then Smith would have known about the character of God and what kind of Being is God when he first organized the church in 1830! Section 1 of the Doctrine & Covenants would have revealed that the Father is a separate Person and has a body of flesh and bones just as he saw in the grove and that the Holy Spirit opened his eyes to that marvelous truth as God and Christ stood before him in bodily form in their full majesty.

But, as we know, this was not the case. Smith developed and amended his theology as time went on.

The Holy Ghost is not too good at remembering ages. He's only the 3rd member of the Godhead and doesn't even have a body, yet. Cut him some slack, for God's sake.

Excuse me, Mr. Smith! Why were you not preaching this theology back in 1830 when you first organized the church? You claimed to have seen the Father and Son in the grove of trees but said nothing about the Father being separate and having a tangible body of flesh and bones until years later. Here it is 1844 and now you're finally getting around to telling us this stuff? Sounds like you're making it up.

You're a false prophet, Mr. Smith and I rebuke you!

OK. I don’t see gullibility as a virtue, but maybe fairytales provide some psychological soothing?

In any case, the demand for a detailed description of the process whereby the Book of Mormon was fabricated and foisted on others is unnecessary. As you say, one does not have to explain how the illusion was created to know that it was an illusion. A modern magician is an ethical illusionist. Joseph Smith was a pious fraudster.

Smith was the greatest religious magician of his day. His invisible props (golden plates) were used to tell a tale of a tale. Claims of angelic visitations including the First Vision were simply stories to excite the minds of anyone who would follow him in his quest to establish himself as God's prophet on earth. He saw the opportunity to make a show and he ran with it.

Then came the papyrus and mummies. He used those props to tell more tales.

I can't wait!

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spook.

2 We believe that children of gay parents will be punished for their parent's sins, and not for their own.


The Mormons

Oddly enough, there's a crossover between stage magicians and paranormal people (for want of a better term).... I've known, or known of, stage magicians who have set out to debunk paranormal activities as well as those who have engaged in them with apparent sincerity. THe two worlds touch more than most people realise.