Future of Mormonism if the Nauvoo Legion Saves Joseph Smith, Jr. from Carthage Jail?

Wow, way to dismiss my entire faith in a few sentences.

The Book of Mormon is not historical. The rest can remains. Heck, many mormons admit it.

The scholars are all more or less united on this - the Book was a forgery. Sorry. There was no 'hebrews in america' except in pseudoarcheology.

It's reality, sorry to blow it.
 

Hnau

Banned
The Ubbergeek said:
The Book of Mormon is not historical. The rest can remains. Heck, many mormons admit it.

The scholars are all more or less united on this - the Book was a forgery. Sorry. There was no 'hebrews in america' except in pseudoarcheology.

It's reality, sorry to blow it.

Taking a complicated and serious issue for some people and simply stating its false is really not going to convince any believers, Ubbergeek. Especially very knowledgeable people like Haakon or mrmandias who are already aware of majority scholarly opinion on the Book of Mormon, have a deep interest in history and yet still remain members of the LDS Church.
 
Last edited:
Taking a complicated and serious issue for some people and simply stating its false is really not going to convince any believers, Ubbergeek. Especially very knowledgeable people like Haakon or mrmandias who are already aware of majority scholarly opinion on the Book of Mormon, have a deep interest in history and yet still remain members of the LDS Church.

It's a pretty much accepted affirmation. At best,. serious issues.

By example, the Skeptics seenm to have annoted itl http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/bom/

Look guys, face the facts; it is not historical in any sense, less than the Bible or Quran. There is serious issues with that book. Feels offended, but it is not historical in any sense.

And many mormons accept it, moving on to work on principles to live good and so on.

Taking a complicated and serious issue for some people and simply stating its false is really not going to convince any believers, Ubbergeek. Especially very knowledgeable people like Haakon or mrmandias who are already aware of majority scholarly opinion on the Book of Mormon, have a deep interest in history and yet still remain members of the LDS Church.
Sorry, but those are facts. The Book of Mormon tales are ASB, and basing an ATL on it is ASB.

Again, I pointed that those mormons like them accept the reality, and so point that their religion is finally less about that book than a way of life.

What is offensive in scientifical facts?
 

Hnau

Banned
The Ubbergeek said:
What is offensive in scientifical facts?

Nothing. I find it somewhat offensive though that you aren't mentioning scientific facts in any of your posts. I'm not angry with you though, I think we've talked enough before that I consider you a friend. :)

EDIT: Trimmed the ranting out of my earlier reply. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
We didn't need to get into all of this. What in mrmandias' post prompted this tangent? It seems almost like a certain internet passtime which is frowned upon on this board...
 
Nothing. I find it somewhat offensive though that you aren't mentioning scientific facts in any of your posts. I'm not angry with you though, I think we've talked enough before that I consider you a friend. :)

EDIT: Trimmed the ranting out of my earlier reply. Sorry about that.

Heck, when Wikipedia make a complex and well detailled outline of it... (Wikipedia can be used as a base for further researches, and it show in this case openess to defenses)

Rush, the problem is that it is clear in OP that it is based on taking this book as historical truth.

When it is also so debated that I shouldn't have to defend my point - a major agreement between scholars.
And ASB then, as it is, are not allowed here, but on the ASB forum.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Rush, the problem is that it is clear in OP that it is based on taking this book as historical truth.

Hmm? Makemakean's second post would indicate he's not a Mormon. Afterall, he said "[Smith] believed was in the Kirtland Papyri." I have to admit I'm quite ignorant on the early history of the Mormon faith, so which part are you objecting to exactly?
 
I think any of you others replying to the OP are definitely better qualified to respond to it; this is just not a part of history that I feel I know at all well.

Perhaps my chief motivation in chiming in was the hope of seeing this ATL Joseph Smith being treated as something more than a subroutine of alt-history implementationalism: if X is a concept, agent Y could make it happen!!! Liek f4evvar!!!

All I sought to suggest is that, given more time (and perhaps even peace) to think about his world, Smith might respond to it -- as someone who was not part of the intellectual, corresponding elite of the day but at the same time someone who was clearly literate, alert, and plugged-in to the times he lived in. What appeals to me about Mormonism -- speaking as an Nth-generation atheist -- is its rootedness in its time and place. Do all ATLs need turn into shock-and-awe spectacles? Perhaps some could simply contain ideas that did not take the particular turn or carry the same weight that our own did? But not be otherwise spectacular!!!(tm)? So, say Joseph Smith developed an interest (in any direction at all) with regard to the nascent labor movements, or spiritualist movements, of his age -- does it really have to change the entire universe? Bahh. Still interesting.

Ok. All that being said, I have entertained a vague ATL for a while. Smith hooks up with William Walker, somehow, however. He goes to Nicaragua with the fillibusteros. Where is soon discovered archeological proof (srsly!!!!) of the Book of Mormon's narrative. OTL unwinds spectactularly from there.

(And yes, I do keep Alex Cox's film Walker close here -- honestly, I think it's one of the most heartbreakingly American movies ever made, despite a British director and all-Nicaraguan-Mexican shooting.)
 

Zioneer

Banned
Heck, when Wikipedia make a complex and well detailled outline of it... (Wikipedia can be used as a base for further researches, and it show in this case openess to defenses)

Rush, the problem is that it is clear in OP that it is based on taking this book as historical truth.

When it is also so debated that I shouldn't have to defend my point - a major agreement between scholars.
And ASB then, as it is, are not allowed here, but on the ASB forum.

Wait, I just checked the OP, and he says nothing about taking the book as historical truth. He specifically mentions that Smith believed, not that he [Makemakean] believed. The entire OP has nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon or not.

And again, whether or not the BoM is historical or not, it is offensive to simply dismiss it. Yes, there's a few Mormons who treat it as instead a simple guide to good morals (to be honest, in some points of it, that's what I do), but to insist that it's a load of crap (which is what you're doing, essentially), is incredibly obnoxious.
 
Wait, I just checked the OP, and he says nothing about taking the book as historical truth. He specifically mentions that Smith believed, not that he [Makemakean] believed. The entire OP has nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon or not.

And again, whether or not the BoM is historical or not, it is offensive to simply dismiss it. Yes, there's a few Mormons who treat it as instead a simple guide to good morals (to be honest, in some points of it, that's what I do), but to insist that it's a load of crap (which is what you're doing, essentially), is incredibly obnoxious.

I accept the Book of Mormon as an inspired but possibly inexpert translation of a genuine ancient compiliation that can profit from the same tools of sceptical historical inquiry that are applied to other historical texts. But I still don't see what this has to to with either the OP or my response to it. Ubbergeek is trolling.
 
I can't begin to imagine what the Mormon Church would evolve into under Smith's continued leadership. I don't think anyone can really know, but someone with intimate familiarity with his writings/translations could make a better attempt.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said such things as steel, horses, chariots, elephants, or swords in the pre-Columbian New World were there or that there is evidence for any transatlantic contact by Hebrews. These things are not historically accurate but could be explained away as mistranslations or translations that bent the words so that the reader would be more able to understand - such as sword for macahuitl, the Aztec obsidian-bladed club. Not my view, but anyone's view on this is irrelevant to this thread.

That said, based on what very little I know, I think that Smith would make a more interesting leader of Deseret (or the Mormons in exile). Perhaps he would attempt to set up racial equality, or perhaps I'm misreading the motives of his abolitionism. I would love to hear a couple options from someone with more knowledge.
 
Ubbergeek, the subject of the this thread is what would be different about the Mormon faith in terms of doctrine and theology, NOT over whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.
 
Heck, when Wikipedia make a complex and well detailled outline of it... (Wikipedia can be used as a base for further researches, and it show in this case openess to defenses)

Rush, the problem is that it is clear in OP that it is based on taking this book as historical truth.

When it is also so debated that I shouldn't have to defend my point - a major agreement between scholars.
And ASB then, as it is, are not allowed here, but on the ASB forum.

You seem to have misunderstood this thread.

The OP asked about a potential change in the development of Mormonism WITH A POD IN THE 1800s. Even if Mormonism is nothing but fabrication, that would have no bearing on this thread whatsoever, as we are talking about certified historical figures and events that occured and lived thousands of years after the events told in the Book of Mormon took place. So congratulations, you've entirely derailed this thread.
 
This forum is not the place to debate the aspects of Mormonism as a faith. Freedom of religion is a fundamental American liberty, so if you do not like what someone else believes then so be it. As for the originalfocus of the forum, do people think it is more likely that Smith will try to stay in Nauvoo for longer or leave for the Rockies sooner? Could the Mormons try to colonize Arizona or Sonora or Montana or Southern Idaho or elsewhere instead of Utah? And if they head for anywhere that would remain Mexican after 1848 what butterflies would that have?
 
Top