Hi Cold Steel,
"Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C."
Here is what Wikipedia says about reformed Egyptian: Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.
This ties into my point about the struggle to remove bias we all have in how we evaluate information. The struggle is to apply the same standards to every claim without regard to whether we want to believe it or not. So, if we routinely find ourselves rejecting Wikipedia comments like the above, but have no issue when Wikipedia says something like this:
In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in 587 BC.
we should ask why? Why is the first comment rejected but the second accepted? Could it be that every time Wikipedia makes an encylopedia comment that is opposition to Book of Mormon claims, it is wrong, yet, every time it makes a comment opposed to JW theology it is right? Thus, eventually I really started to ask myself, when I read something like:
Researchers found a haul of thousands of artefacts near the state capital, Austin, some of which were identified as blades and other tools. The material was buried in sediments that are between 13,200 and 15,500 years old. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/24/humans-north-america-stone-tools)
Why was I so ready to be skeptical? My commitment to humans not existing prior to 4026 BCE surely was the issue, not really the science behind that comment. In fact, this US vs The World was getting tiring after so many years. Also tiring was trying to invoke the magical as the ultimate catch-all explanation -- in the form of "Satan is the arch-deceiver" (2 Cor 4:4, Rev 12:9) Finally I realized this can also be a matter of respect for the hard work of reseachers, who sometimes labor without much reward or recognition and ultimately don't ask anything of me (i.e. obedience, dedication, etc) other than give their claims a fair hearing.
You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
What makes you think, I haven't done that ;-).
Let me offer you this: Take up the Moroni invitation as outlined here, but apply reasonable objective standards and see if there is any answer. Consider the drug approval process as a model ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/the-long-road-to-drug-approval-1.876157 ). Since drugs hold within them the power to heal or kill, doing such testing is only reasonable. But, given all that is involved in being an LDS member for yourself and anyone you might convince to join, surely no less of a standard should be applied.
Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.”
Btw - "same today and tomorrow..." is very much like the wording you find at Hebrews 13:8. What I find interesting about such "do not deny the power of God" commands, is that is all they are -- hollow commands. While some might find them fear inspiring, I see such commands as actually an indication of profound weakness. In claims that are backed by testable truth you just don't find such language. Read Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Richard Dawkins' God Delusion and you will not find fear-mongering commands of "do not deny the power of Hero-of-the-Claim"
"Mormons. . .but then there’s Nahom, being right. . .How did Joseph Smith know that?. . .Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable”. . .right where Nephi said it would be. Then. . .region our critics said it could never be. . .is documented, photographed and videoed. . .Book of Mormon in areas where our critics. . ."
Help me out with this paragraph. I currently know nothing of these claims and counter claims, but... I don't have time or desire to investigate them all and respond. Can you isolate the one you think makes the best case for the Book of Mormon and I'll respond? The Book of Mormon is allowed to contain anything that would be known to Joseph Smith in 1830 or other original authors he may have borrowed material from. But, it is granted that production of the Book of Mormon would not have been able to accurately name a future event in specific detail. Nor would it be able to accurately name a past event in specific detail, provided of course the past event only became known after the 1830s. Let me know if you don't think is a fair standard.
"People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom."
Or it is just as possible God has a special fondness for the intellectual honesty of atheists such as myself and will be rewarded ;-)
The key here is the end phrase "in God's Kingdom." Take note -- that is how religion works, sacrifice time and energy now for a reward in the future, so far in the future in fact, you'll be dead.
"In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost."
I've had Mormon missionaries say the same thing and while as Witnesses we probably wouldn't have used those exact words, we would have said something similar. One of our songs contained the phrase "make the truth your own" as in one must prove it to themselves. Or "taste and see that Jehovah is Good" (Psalms 34:8). In the end, it is a cop out. Truth should be obvious to everyone and provable beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll recall I mentioned Simon Southerton's exit story particularly resonated with me when I was a Witness coping with doubts. One of the things he said about feelings touches on this issue of "feeling the Holy Spirit or burning in your bosom.." This idea is not as strong in the Witness faith (at least not for me) but is still there. In any regards here is what Simon said...
My uncertainty with recognizing the Spirit resurfaced during my first year back from my mission. Australia beat America in the America's Cup yacht race. To most Americans this was a non-event but for many Australians it was a huge thrill. Australia came from behind in the series to snatch victory in the face of almost certain defeat. I felt intensely warm feelings in my heart, as though it was going to burst. I had felt similar feelings when I was teaching discussions as a missionary.
"And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth."
But who are the "general authorities" compared to me? Or you? Wait... don't break out in a coy smile just yet. The point is, there really is no evidence to suggest one human brain or a collection of them must intrinsically be endowed with knowledge and authority beyond any other one. This is just a fallacy of argument from authority, that by religious commitment, cannot be questioned. In this, Jehovah's Witnesses would same something very similiar about the Governing Body.
"And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God."
I am not sure if it was on this thread or another but I have allowed for that. As I said, if he really did peer into a hat (as I've been told was one of the methods he used) and saw letters appear one by one, how can we really argue with such claims? But if we allowed for this as our standard for evaluation, on what basis would one reject the claims of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the appearance of an angel to Mohammed? Certain far more people accept those claims than those of Joseph Smith.
Which gets back to my original point -- truth claims should be tested by the same set of standards -- not one we apply to those we wish to believe and a different (often more reasonable) set of standards to claims we don't want to believe.
"And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein."
To a certain extent I don't make a big issue about that, other than that it shows the Book of Mormon is really without a foundation it claims. In other words, if gold plates written in reformed Egyptian existed and could be translated by any scholar who wish to (i.e. like what happens with available Bible manuscripts) things like just deleting the phrase "and it came to pass" hundreds of times, would probably get more attention that it does. Bible translators tend to choose different words or methods, literal word-for-word or dynamic equivelance, for example, but you would not find any (certainly none that I know of) that would delete a 5 word phrase out of the Bible again and again because they felt it made the text sound wordy.
Discussion differences and batting points back and forth can generate a bit of frustration, if your desire to to help me see the wonders of the faith as you see it. Let me suggest though such conversations do benefit the folks involved. Even how you've presented your recent views on "Christ" vs "Messiah" seems to be a refinement from earlier posts. Likewise, I'm sure when I chase down one of the claims in your paragraph I quoted with dots, I'll learn a lot about claims. Personally, I do not believe, folks leave either the Witness or Mormon faith based on what critics of the faith say. Rather in all the exit stories I've read, including Simon's above, something happens that is very personal in the journey and prompts the intial doubts to be followed by investigation. It is also true, what the Book of Mormon might say here or there, may really mean not much during the good times shared with friends in the faith. People love these faiths and sometimes they have good reasons, at least to them, for this to be so.
Cheers,
-Randy