Jump to content

JarMan

Members
  • Content count

    805
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

211 Excellent

1 Follower

About JarMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

1,467 profile views
  1. The bones have to be younger than about 14,000 years old which is when Lake Bonneville receded low enough. The FoxNews story is inaccurate and I bet the paleontologist who said 16,000 years ago would like a do-over.
  2. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Rigdon obviously got the idea from Matthew 5. That's why it's called the salt sermon. (He may have also misappropriated the Korihor story.) I'm getting tired of pointing out that Korihor was trampled, most likely accidentally, as divine retribution and not as human punishment. And pointing out that Korihor was not an apostate but an atheist. I should also add that the so-called trampling in Joseph's day was obviously a figure of speech taken from Matthew 5 and not a literal intent. You've got nothing here except the word "trample" and some bad guys. I've got pages 350-351 of RSR open in front of me. I'm not going to type everything in here, but I'll quote a few phrases that make it clear that they were calling for mob violence. This was not legitimate, legal action that was being called for. In a previous post I pointed out some commonalities between Korihor and the perception of atheists in the 17th Century. I'll go over these again in case you missed them before. Atheism was associated with the "libertines" of France who were sexually promiscuous. The idea was that atheism was an excuse to engage in sexual immorality. We see that Korihor was involved in leading people into whoredoms (v 18) by using the idea of no god and no afterlife to promote it. So this is a match. The next match addresses your number 2 above. The god-fearing people thought the atheists weren't sincere in their non-belief. It was believed that the expressed non-belief was cover to engage in all sorts of wickedness. We find out this was indeed the case with Korihor. Also, early modern religious writers depicted the atheist as "subject in death to terrible pain as a sign of God's judgment." This fits Korihor's death. As further evidence that Korihor sounded like a 17th Century atheist I'll leave this description of a 17th Century atheistic book called Theophrastus Redivivius: I plan on looking into this book when I have a chance but, for now, I just have the above quote (from, I think, wikipedia). Wherever Korihor was from, it apparently wasn't from Zarahemla (v 6). Perhaps he was from a different Nephite city. He was not a member of the Zarahemlite religion who had fallen away. Apostates are addressed and specifically identified as such in other stories. And there are several stories of missionaries going amongst strangers so I don't follow your logic. When I say the "Nephite-approved" process I am talking about the narrator's (Mormon's) opinion. He apparently believes there should be laws to punish atheists who are leading the people away into wickedness. His explanation at the outset about Zarahemla having no laws against a person's belief seems to be trying to help us understand that, though the law was based on a good principle, that in practice complete freedom of religion didn't work in the most extreme cases. And I think you're right that Zarahemla did change the law. But the other cities already had laws that allowed them to punish people for their beliefs (or they just ignored the laws they had). So the whole story was an object lesson demonstrating that freedom of religion should be allowed except in the most extreme cases that resulted in significant moral degradation of society Grotius was one of the leading proponents of religious freedom in early 17th Century Europe. After all, he had been imprisoned for life for what amounted to having the wrong religious opinion. (As I've mentioned before he escaped in a wooden book chest after a couple of years.) But as radical as Grotius' views were on religious freedom for his time, Europe still hadn't gone into the Enlightenment yet where many people started to consider a separation of church and state and complete religious freedom. Grotius believed in having a state religion and believed that there should be laws against extreme forms of religious belief since he thought it led to societal unrest. But he was against capital punishment for religious ideas. In short, the story of Korihor closely matches Grotius' beliefs in every way in which I am familiar with his beliefs. It also matches the perception of atheists from the perspective of someone from his time. So the story seems very Grotian to me.
  3. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Your last paragraph is a straw man. I never claimed this aspect of the story was anachronistic. And I notice you have insinuated a close church-government association in order to make early Mormonism sound more like the Book of Mormon. But this mistakes the result for the cause. It was the Book of Mormon that influenced the early Mormon view on church and state, not the other way around. I honestly don’t see any notable similarities to the Korihor story and the story of the Danite response to the dissenters. Rigdon was calling for mob violence. I don’t know why you keep saying otherwise. Korihor was an atheist and a stranger, not a dissenter. The Nephite approved process for dealing with Korihor was arrest, interrogate, exile…not a lynch mob. The trampling he received was God’s justice after he had presumably been exiled according to the law.
  4. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Can you provide a link for your Rigdon quote so I can read it in context? I am almost certain he is talking about extra-judicial action. And the quote doesn't mention religious dissenters, it mentions gamblers. I mentioned half a dozen or so specific parallels and provided sources. You haven't identified anything specific of note. Korihor's story is not about mob violence or unrighteous persecution of a religious minority by a government. It's about a government/church taking legitimate action against the power of anti-Christ.
  5. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    I've never quite understood the problem with adieu, either. The discussion has gotten me thinking, though. Grotius knew many languages including French. He actually lived much of his adult life in exile in France and many of his writings are in French. So what if he wrote it in French, originally, and not Latin? Adieu could be an example of a Frenchism. The other possible Frenchism off the top of my head is derangement. Carmack has pointed out that derangement didn't come into the English Language until after 1700. Another explanation for these two French words is that the original English translator was probably also fluent in French. (It's not unlikely that an English scholar in the 17th Century who knew Latin would also know French.)
  6. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Rigdon is talking about vigilante mob justice. This, unfortunately, was quite common in early America as we see the saints were subject to it many times (and occasionally practiced it, too). The story of Korihor is a story of law and order and, ultimately, divine justice--not extra-judicial action and mob punishment. (There is no indication there was intent by the Zoramites to kill Korihor, who was simply a deaf/mute beggar from another land.) All you've really shown is that a mob mentality existed in Joseph's environment. You haven't shown any link to atheism, sexual immorality among atheists, divine justice, lawful action against atheists, purposeful deception by atheists, or a state religion administering justice. These are all aspects of Korihor's story with 17th Century links.
  7. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    I'm not sure what you mean by "parallelitic forms" but I've found many ideas that are very similar.
  8. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    I am referencing this information. I stand by what I said about it earlier.
  9. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    You're conflating the concepts of a religious nation and a state government. I've never heard anyone make the argument that the United States should have a state religion, especially not the early Mormons. I've heard lots of people say that we are a Christian nation. These are two very different things. And this is important because the Nephites clearly have a state religion. This is antithetical to American ideals and, therefore, anachronistic to 19th Century America. I've provided references to support my claims. The reason the CFR rules exists it to prevent people from doing what you are currently attempting to do, which is to make unsupportable claims. You claimed that the Korihor story would resonate with a lot of Smith's contemporaries who preferred a bit more theocracy. First of all, the Book of Mormon doesn't present theocratic governments. In a theocracy the religious leaders rule. In the Book of Mormon the secular leaders (either kings or judges) are in charge. These secular rulers have control of the church. So you're conflating two different ideas again. Second of all, your claim remains unsupported. I am keeping the same argument. You are just not understanding it. My argument starts with the assumption that both religious freedom and separation of church and state were taken for granted in Joseph's America. From our modern perspective these two things are inseparable. From a 17th Century perspective these are two different things. Religious freedom in that day meant non-state religions would be tolerated to some degree rather than their adherents being exiled, forced to convert, or killed. In Europe every country had a state religion. But few of them offered religious freedom. The Book of Mormon is describing the Nephites as having a state religion but also as offering religious freedoms. But it doesn't explicitly explain that there is a state religion because the narrator assumes the reader already knows that. However, since religious freedom was rare in Europe the narrator has to explain to the reader that religious freedom exists in the story (and is at the heart of the conflict). A 19th Century narrator would explain things the opposite way. He would assume his reader would understand religious freedom existed but would explicitly explain why a state religion existed. That's part 1 of the argument. Part 2 centers around the idea that the moral of the story is that too much religious freedom is a bad thing and that atheists, in particular, shouldn't be tolerated by the government since their actions cause civil unrest and lead the people into sin. This is clearly not a patriotic American idea. And I've shown previously that the idea that atheists suffer a horrible death according to God's retribution is a 17th Century convention. I don't see any motherhood-and-apple-pie in this story or many ideas 19th Century Americans would sympathize with. You will not be able to understand my argument until you start understanding why the word "theocracy" is totally out of place in this discussion. You want to lump any form of government that mixes church and state or even any idea of a religious nation into the category "theocracy" without realizing that there are several different types of government that join church and state and also ideas regarding religious nations. Your purpose seems to be to show that the mixing of church and state in the Book of Mormon anticipates the mixing of church and state in early Mormonism. The problem is Nephite government and early Mormonism are two completely different systems. You can't just generalize both of them with the word "theocracy" and declare a similarity. If you can't see why the whole Korihor story is anachronistic to 19th Century America I suggest this is because you don't understand the historical interplay between government and religion.
  10. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Well, he wrote in Latin, Dutch, French, and German so that would be tough. But we are able to study his works and compare his ideas to the ideas in the Book of Mormon. So far this has yielded encouraging results.
  11. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Here's my take on the idea of Christ as the gatekeeper in 2 Nephi 9:41. The traditional Christian gatekeeper is, of course, Peter with the keys given him in Matthew 16. (As a side note, this is likely an example of syncretism since the Roman god, Janus, is the gatekeeper of heaven and was often depicted as holding keys.) Catholics use Matthew 16 to assert their line of authority from Christ through the authority given to Peter. Peter as gatekeeper to heaven, then, represents the idea that the way to heaven is through the Catholic church. Saying that the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel (instead of Peter) is a way of saying that it's through Christ, not through the Catholic church, that people get to heaven. This is an argument Protestants have repeated ad infinitum since the beginning of the Reformation. In this way I think the concept of Christ as the gatekeeper to heaven is evidence the Book of Mormon is a post-Reformation production.
  12. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Yes, this is the thread I was referencing. The study confirms that skilled writers can create different voices for different characters. And it shows that the Book of Mormon does a better job of doing this than four different 19th Century authors. I agree with the conclusion that Joseph could not have done this. However, I am not claiming Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon. I am claiming that a skilled writer from the 17th Century did. So the study isn't that helpful because 1) it doesn't test any 17th Century writers, 2) it provides a baseline using a sample size of only 4 writers, 3) it makes an assumption that these 4 writers would have been the best at creating different voices, but doesn't test this assumption, and 4) it doesn't indicate whether or not there is a statistical significance between the 4 writers and the Book of Mormon (I suspect there is not based on the wide range of values and the small sample size).
  13. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    The frustrating thing about this discussion is that you keep mis-characterizing my position and this is at least the fourth time you've done it. I don't know if this is due to a lack of careful reading or if you are purposefully setting up straw men. But it's making me grumpy. My approach is not based on ngrams. Not in the least bit. You really need to get caught up on the latest scholarship. It's like I've time warped to this board about five or ten years in the past. There was a recent thread discussing this issue and I think it's fair to say you are over-playing your hand, here. This is simply not true. The Book of Mormon is clearly based on the 1611 KJB. So anyone with similar ideas before then cannot be a candidate for authorship. It's one thing to speculate that earlier interpretations existed. It's another thing to show that they actually did. So far all you have done is speculate. I've claimed the Book of Mormon is consistent with early modern European ideas. You haven't been able to show where it is not. But it's easy to show plenty of things in the Book of Mormon where there is no known connection to the ancient peoples it is supposed to represent. For instance: anti-slavery, ethical warfare, burning of heretics, republican government, freedom of religion (though not in the modern sense), atheism, pacifism and the vast amount of religious ideas from both the New and Old Testament that weren't available pre-600 BC. Quit saying this. You are making me believe you are not actually reading what I've written. More speculation. You pretend to want to discuss "evidence" but you don't provide any. You simply speculate that it could exist. If you want to have a faith-based discussion about the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon then speculation is fun and worthwhile. But since you insist on talking about evidence let's hear some evidence.
  14. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    You're looking in the wrong place for anachronisms. For me it has nothing to do with archaeology or words like adieu or any other words. The Nephites are an anachronistic people culturally, governmentally and religiously. They simply do not fit the mold of ancient semitic or mesoamerican peoples. This can't be explained away by lost portions of scripture. As a people, the Nephites are consistent with early modern European practices and ideas with some token Law of Moses things thrown in.
  15. JarMan

    Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

    Now, hold on a minute. Patriotic Americans desired religious freedom and a wall of separation between church and state. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the first part of the First Amendment. This is a foundational concept. Many of those who believed otherwise during the revolution and immediately afterwards fled to Canada. But now we're talking 50 years after the revolution. I highly doubt there were "a lot" of people in Joseph's environment that were pro-state religion and anti-freedom of religion. That's the type of claim that requires a reference so I'm asking you to provide references to support your claim. Keep in mind that to be consistent with the story of Korihor there would need to be people who believed that 1) Religious freedom should not be extended to atheists, 2) A state church is desirable, 3) Ecclesiastical leaders should have the authority to exercise civil power, and 4) atheists were such a menace to society God would rather have them dead then allow them to disrupt a peaceful society.
×