Scan of original newspaper. Notice that about 1/3 of it is a testimony of the Book of Mormon, 1/3 is tactfully addressing polygamy, and 1/3 hints at Joseph trying to become president via a secret quorum of 50.
William and Jane Law‘s story, I think, is very relevant to understanding why someone would publish such a newspaper.
“…the priority of the Church was evidenced in their quick settlement of the matter rather than the releasing of that financial information.”
Legal case against the church and the outcome: official legal brief.
Jacob 5:3, “For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.”
The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources–the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul’s discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11. The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors–Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul that of an olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.
Jacob 5:41, “And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?”
Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:
Isaiah 5:4, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?”
From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the, “fruit of the vineyard,” apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
Holy Hanna… thanks.
I had picked up on this at some point on my mission, and even made a note; never thinking that it would clearly indicate copying out of the Bible from two separate sources.
Some random thoughts. Some I’ve posted before, but others are new. I imagine I could do a George Carlin style stand up routine for exmormons using these:
I’m drunk, I’m naked, I’m lying down… it’s all your fault…
I might as well paint you black and promise that my other sons will kill and subjugate your kids for the rest of time for that one.
No, I can see God’s logic. Sometimes your kids need to be whopped hard and beaten down until they’re all dead, and you have to start with grandkids. It’s easier that way. No, what I see is that Moses wasn’t really a bright guy. He relies on God to send curses that are very general. God shows him that he can hit specific targets by showing him leprosy that would hit a specific individual and then sends plagues of flies and frogs.
That’s the reverse of the U.S. military policy. It’s not hitting a specific target with a predator drone, it’s hitting as much of the civilian population as possible.
Don’t you think that if fire came from heaven and scorched Ramses where he stood, the next in line to Pharaoh would have noticed? Maybe he would have a hard heart too, whatever that means, but I bet after three or four strikes, one of them would have gotten the picture, and no civilians needed to deal with lice, frogs, or whatever else.
And can I just take a second and say that if you are going on a road trip on foot for 40 years, the last thing you need is gold and jewels. Totally despoiling Egypt, yeah, that’s fun. I get that, but, wow, that would get heavy. So they build a cow with the gold they were told to take with them. Not a bright idea, but at least it puts the heavy stuff in one place.
And then moses makes them drink it… somewhere in the Egyptian desert there should be a mass of human turds that have gold inside… because our bodies don’t process gold. It’s out there for some archaeologist, and any day now you’ll read about the gold turd farm, I’m sure of it.
No, I want to point out that Isaac was a low-watt bulb. No, I’m serious. He’s willing, at the age of 20, to be sacrificed. He can’t pick his own wife and the servant goes to find a wife. He bribes the girl and seems very, very happy she’ll go along with it. A little too happy. Like he knows something she doesn’t when she hasn’t seen the guy.
And later in life, Isaac can’t tell that goat hair isn’t the hair on his son’s arm. No, there’s something wrong with this one.
He was born to a woman in her 90’s and if ever there was a candidate for a prophet who had Down syndrome, it’s Isaac.
I just picture God looking at this whole bunch. I mean, these are the good guys. These are the ones the Earth was saved for. And I say, we’re lucky we only got one flood. Ya know?
That’s why he kills Moses and then translates him without him tasting death… because when you’re all powerful, things like that are easy.
In this corner, famed historian, sporting a ‘stash that could clean a chimney, sent by the church leaders, responsible for finding the liberty jail, and obtaining many rare letters and connections in conjunction with the forming of the church –his historical task was set out by apostolic decree: B. H. ROBERTS!
And his opponent, Utah State Representative, church historian under George Albert Smith AND later prophet to the one and only LDS faith, Joseph F. Smith!
Who of these two heavy weights will win in an all out-and-out fight to declare the final word of the malevolent motives of “printer of Mormon”? Did Gilbert gravely grift the graven plates? or was Joseph Smith’s grammer the real culprit?
Joseph F. Smith:
“During the past week or two I have received a number of letters from different parts of the United States written by people, some of whom at least are a little concerned because they have been approached by enemies of the Church and enemies of the Book of Mormon, who have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.
“It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical — conditions that arise in most any book that is being published — but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine.
“Now, these Sons of Belial who circulate these reports evidently know better. I will not use the word that is in my mind” (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pp. 924-925).
B. H. Roberts:
“That errors of grammar and faults in dictation do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the Book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the ‘typos’ or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is SINGULARLY FREE FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS” (Defense of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts, pp. 280-281; reprinted in A New Witness For Christ in America, by Francis W. Kirkham, Vol. 1, pp. 200-201).
A footnote on the same page: “But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published.”
Photos of the printer’s manuscript can be seen at the University of Utah Library Special Collections, in case anyone actually believes Joseph F. Smith. Verification of B.H. Roberts is simple, direct and easy.
Here is a copy of the ceremony.
I think you’ll find that it has similarities to masonry (Lord Byron was a mason) that also match the temple (three knocks with a mallet, for example).
Not that they were trying. My phone blipped my picture, but at the exhibit there is a “Wooden Submarine” designed by Leonardo. The man was a mad genius as he also had diving suits, hang gliders, wooden tanks, etc.
Now, this was an idea so revolutionary 500 years ago, that the council he designed it for rejected it (they were going to be besieged by a foreign power by sea, and da Vinci thought they could sneak up and cut holes in the other side’s boats).
So let’s go to the brother of Jared. Remember the subs there? The point is that the submarines are not contemporary technology, but are off by about 3700 years.
I’m going to repeat that for emphasis. God, in the Book of Mormon, handed man technology from 3700 years in the future.
So just for comparison, let’s list some other technologies that were 3700 years (or so) in the future that God didn’t give man:
Whenever you hear a member saying that, “God works by natural means,” remind them of the fucking submarine sitting in the beginning of Ether that pretty much disproves that.
TL;DR: da Vinci’s one-man submarine plans were amazingly advanced for his day, illustrating exactly how far out of time the brother of Jared’s submarine in the BOM is, and that honestly God’s choice about what He reveals just kinda shows He’s a dick.
Ether 6:11 – And thus they were driven forth, three hundred and forty and four days upon the water.
My father served in the Navy. He took a string, followed the currents, and determined it would take three hundred and forty six days to follow the currents from the place FARMS said that the brother of Jared left from to reach America.
Of course, the trick, after having lived for a while, was that FARMS did the same thing to determine the possible places for the brother of Jared to leave from… and so it matched.
But yes, one could do so, if one had a way to store food.
Of course, Even da Vinci’s sub would have sunk without modifications… that’s what happens when you design something you’ve never built.
Could a craft be built that matches the description of the text that could be launched from the Old World and arrive in the New World without being steered?
Yes, but it couldn’t take a person. The simple amount of water, food, and waste disposal would be difficult to get right on the first try.
Let alone 8 boats, with elephants and bees on board, for a trial run.
Imagine Mythbusters doing it, and sinking the first thirty times. It’s something on that scale.
http://www.hebervalleycamp.org/
So I was recently allowed to spend some time at this camp, and thought people would appreciate the rundown.
The camp itself
It is very nice and reasonably priced, probably because the labor is free. The cabins have power. There are 16 beds to a cabin. Bring your own padding.
The missionaries
The entire thing is staffed by senior missionaires (unpaid labor) that ride around on ATVs. Nothing says, “Service to the Lord,” like hooking old men up to bungee cords and swinging them for 6 hours a day (one of the central activities, costs $10 extra per person). The cleaning is handled by the individuals who stay there MTC style, where you get checked on your cleaning before you leave.
The camp is huge and is intended to be used as a refugee camp
The senior missionaries were quite eager to share the details on how many people this camp could hold in an emergency, and that they are adding new areas constantly to hold more. Yes, in case of apocalypse, tens of thousands of members will be comfortable in tightly-pressed cabins hours away from civilization or food sources beyond squirrel.
Ownership
Although the website declares itself, “owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” it is actually owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric (which is in charge of land holdings, so that makes sense).
This pretty much refutes the apologist argument that, “the church doesn’t own the mall, because the church is just one arm of the Corporation.” Here we see a for-profit section of the corporation being declared loudly and proudly as, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
You may now use this as good evidence that other for-profit ventures supported by the church (Such as gay-reformation camps) are actually part of the church in the same way the girls camp is.
Please feel free to add, but here are some of the central things I’ve learned on this journey that have made being surrounded by ultra TBMs livable. Please note, this list is the flip of my “communication to the exmormon” post on /r/lds, and thus everything here is designed to smooth communication with loved ones. Feel free to ignore if you want to troll, but if you want a good conversation, these pointers have, at least, helped me.
Realize that anything you say is already threatening
Why it hurts – The member has been taught a number of things, and paid attention to many of them, about exmormons. This can range from you being misled, to that you being actively possessed by a demon. Just saying, “hi,” can be a threatening experience. Finding out what they expect of you can be very helpful in disarming the situation.
Reverse – If you walk into a conversation assuming the member is brainwashed, you’re going to feel similarly threatened, and probably respond in a similar manner. Give everyone you meet the benefit of the doubt.
What is better to say – Phrases like, “No matter what we both believe, I still respect you.” and, “I can tell you care about me, I care about you too.” “Thank you for sharing your testimony, I can appreciate how much it means to you.” “I am always interested in other people’s perspectives,” and, “I value your opinion,” can do tons to remove the fight or flight response that is caused by feeling threatened. You are less likely to be accused, attacked, and ignored if you can disarm the situation.
Ask what they consider to be doctrine
Why this helps – Knowing what is doctrine will prevent accidental toe-stepping. For example, if they reject the Journal of Discourses, then quoting it is going to get you labelled anti-mormon or hateful. If they only believe that doctrine is over-the-pulpit at conference from the prophet himself, that’s fine; and then you know not to quote things that will make them uncomfortable.
Reverse – Imagine if a member asked you what you considered good evidence, and then allowed you to explain logical fallacy, the peer review process and how one shouldn’t trust authorities paid by an organization without interrupting. It would be a lot like that.
Ask what the member considers to be anti-mormon
Why it helps – Mostly because members completely become tongue tied when they have to define doctrine, I’ll happily move to this side of the equation. Again, I state that I don’t want to offend, so please, let me know what is allowed in conversation and I’ll stick to it. Most members relax when presented with this option compared to the first, which they may feel is a trap.
Reverse – Again, imagine the member saying, “Please, let me know if anything I say makes you uncomfortable or I commit one of those logical fallacies you mentioned a few minutes ago. I want you to enjoy this conversation.” It’s like that.
Ask the member “If the church was false, would you want to know it?”
Why it helps – First of all, anyone who says “no” to this question is probably not going to listen to anything else you have to say. Their minds are made up, and no evidence is going to persuade. Second, most members haven’t ever even considered this question. Simply considering it greatly increases the chance that they consider other information. Third, if they answer yes, then odds are the conversation will not simply be an attack on you.
Reverse – “If I could prove to you there really was an afterlife with an all loving God, would you give up all your sins to know?” I honestly think every one of us would answer yes to this question. That if there was proof-positive that things were going to be okay, we’d want to know about it. That claim would require extraordinary evidence, sure, but we’d want to try and prove or disprove it. Maybe not everyone, but many.
The better way to say it – “I would like to share with you some facts I’ve learned. These are meaningful to me and my life. Would you consider them, even if they were contrary to the teachings of the church leadership?”
“You seem like an interesting person who is open to trying new things”
Why it helps– This is a magical line. It disarms a person almost completely, and makes them want to learn what you know. They instantly want to fulfill this badge of respect. Here’s the catch. It MUST be thrown in during a conversation that has nothing to do with the church. Some may see this as a trick to fool a TBM into listening, but that isn’t my purpose here. My purpose is to disarm a possibly damaging conversation, and this does that by helping the person want to open up to new ideas.
Reverse – It is the reverse. For members to use this on non-members and ex-members is totally legit. A more open minded society is not a bad thing.
“I value your opinion”
Why it helps – Even if you aren’t going to follow their opinion, or trust their sources, letting them know that what they say is valuable to you as a person helps a situation. DO NOT SAY WITH SNARK or SARCASM, it will backfire heavily.
Reverse – Again, this is a good tool for both sides. Nothing wrong with letting someone know they are a valuable person.
I know how busy your life is right now, thank you for taking time with me
Why it helps – Again, just a good phrase to let the person know you appreciate them. You may hate that they showed up with 10 volumes of church history and a dictionary, but acknowledging that they put effort into you never hurts a relationship.
Reverse – both sides can use this phrase, too.
“Your church is a cult,” “You’re all brainwashed,” “Mormons are stupid”
Why it hurts – It simplifies a very complex belief system into something harmful and damaging.
Reverse – This is similar to “Exmormons leave because they want to sin.”
A better statement– “I’m afraid that some of the practices of the church could harm you and your family. I care about you deeply. Can we discuss some of the harmful behaviors I see?”
Joseph Smith is a con-man/adulterer/treasure seeker
Why it hurts – This is a man that many members revere quite deeply and look upon almost as deity. It would be like someone saying the same thing about your best friend that you’re sure isn’t any of those things. You have evidence that your friend is honest, other people tell you he’s honest, and you feel that you need to defend that position. It places you as an attacker, and draws the line of “us” vs. “them” with you on the wrong side.
Reverse – “I know, with every fiber of my being, that Joseph Smith is a prophet.” Yes, you may have evidence, but members consider their feelings just as valid evidence as any D. Michael Quinn book. The feeling of “evidence” is just as strong, and it’s just about as aggressive a statement on either side.
A better way to say this – Ask to read history with the member. Read what Joseph said and did. Ask their opinion on what he said and did. Let them tell you why or why not that would be harmful, good, bad, permitted by god, etc. Look up further details on anything that they claim they are unsure of. This takes a lot more time, but that time put into it will be appreciated.
The apostles are all liars, the correlation committee is hiding the truth, Boyd K. Packer twists history, Gordon B. Hinckley hides history, etc.
Why it hurts – When Bernie Madoff was arrested, everyone who invested in him was shocked. Friends called and told each other. The initial reaction was almost always aggressive against the dear friend who was presenting the news, even if the person receiving the news had never actually met Madoff. Even with good evidence, it typically took a long time for friends to reconcile that they had lost everything and the person on the phone telling them this was doing it to help them.
Accusing the beloved general authorities of fraud is a lot like informing your friend of Bernie Madoff’s scam. Bernie just had fewer apologists excusing why he went to prison. They are not going to accept your points, they’ll defend their leaders, and they will grasp at any straw of evidence that their future is still there.
This is a very difficult point to get across.
Reverse – This is hard, because typically exmormons don’t have a leadership base quite the same way. Imagine though that a news report came out that actually proved that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens not only signed a pact with the devil, but the Pope had been in on the same deal the whole time. And there is evidence that everyone who had ever listened to them was going to hell, forever. That’s how this feels.
How to say it better – Again, sit down with them. Express you have some concerns because of evidence. Present the evidence. Ask their emotions after each piece of evidence and take time to talk through it. Learn their concerns. Probably most will not want to hear it to the point that they stop talking to you. Possibly for a long time. This is painful and difficult, but realize that it is this way with anyone who is caught in any kind of con. People will spend $250,000, their entire life savings, after spending $3,000 with a con, rather than admit they were had by a con for that first $3k.
Notes: Be gentle. Realize that discussing these things is very threatening and people react badly when threatened. Disarm the situation, share, listen, love.