130 replies to this topic

[James Clifford Miller]

Dale, on Jan 28 2006, 11:37 PM, said:

Let him do it & lets submit it to FARMs for analysis.  I have not seen it so do not know it comparable. Do you have some large citations from it that co-incide with proving it's complex like the Book of Mormon. Put it another post. Certainly if it's copyrighted use what quotes as are legal.

Let him duplicate Joseph's feat with the Book of Abraham.

How about if we apply the same standard and challenge to Mr. Paolini that you apply to Joseph Smith: why don't you read Paolini's book and pray about it?  If those standards are good enough for the BoM, they're good enough for Paolini's book.  If you don't want to apply them to Paolini's book, why should we apply them to the BoM?

Tell me when you get done reading Paolini's book and have studied it and prayed about it.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Edited by James Clifford Miller, 28 January 2006 - 11:42 PM.

[Dale]

I would if it was scripture. It doesn't purport to be scripture though. Eragons a work of literary fiction. I want to apply the Barean test to what you said. I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon after applying Moroni 10:3-5 I then ran into objections for the book that caused me to doubt my testimony. Only after applying the Barean test & finding answer to my objections was I willing to be confident again in the truthfullness of Moroni's promise.(Acts 17:11)

I bought this book entitled the New Mormon Challenge by Zondervan. It has two essays purporting to rebut Boook of Mormon evidences. I read FARMs reviews of it & felt they survived the criticisms detailed in the essays.

You have said Eragon is as big a literary accomplishment as is the Book of Mormon. Do you have a copy of Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited edited by Noel Reynolds? Can you find Book of Mormon evidences of the same strong type found in the book, or not. If not then the two literary accomplishments arn't even close.

Dig up examples from the book for another thread, or admit you can't do it.

With the Book of Abraham if Kerry Shirts & others evidences are disproveable go after them. And show me the author can duplicate the accomplishment.

Edited by Dale, 29 January 2006 - 12:09 AM.

[TrespassersW]

James Clifford Miller:

Quote

Christopher Paolini is a young man currently living who is demonstrably up to the task and has done more than duplicate Smith�?¢â?¬â?¢s efforts. Paolini had even less formal education than Joseph Smith because he was completely home-schooled [2]. But when he was 15, he took only one year to write a best-selling book which rivals the BoM in complexity, plot, number of characters, linguistics, underlying theme, etc [1].

I'm currently reading Eragon, and so far I've seen absolutely no indication that this assertion is anywhere close to being true. It's not bad for someone so young, but that's about as far as it goes. So far I've seen absolutely nothing to be impressed about as far as complexity, plot, or linguistics. The plot actually seems pretty straightforward to me. Similar to the plots of innumerable other fantasy novels. Definitely not anything that I would call "complex" (something like George R. R. Martin's recent stuff, I could understand being compared to the Book of Mormon in complexity, but certainly not Paolini). Since I haven't finished the book yet, I can't really comment on the number of characters or the underlying theme, but I've seen little evidence so far that either will be anything to marvel at. I'd call his book "above average," but that's about as far as I would take it.

[why me]

James Clifford Miller, on Jan 28 2006, 11:06 PM, said:

Quote

As long as the critics can keep LDS students fighting over the papyri, they can avoid discussing it in the context of an ancient document perfectly at home with other ancient documents.

Dear Why_me,

There are lots of ancient documents which are just made up; parallels between them and the BofA do not prove the BofA in any way.  The Apocolypse of Abraham is an ancient document whose worth, validity, and authenticity neither you nor Nibley have demonstrated.  Indeed, among the few things we know about it is the fact that it was excluded from the Bible and though written in the 1st century BC, it does not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but points to a Messiah yet to come.  

If we critics were to attack the BofA using an abscure noncanonical document like the Apocaplyse of Abraham, you apologists would reject it out of hand.  Why, then, should it be used in defense of the BofA?

You want us to be impressed with a single parallel between this obscure document and the BofA?  Then start providing evidence of authonticity, worth, and validity of the Apocaplyse of Abraham.  Otherwise, what worth is there in the parallel?

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

I can understand where you are coming James; at least I think I can. But you must understand james that there are two sides to this issue. For example, the defenders of the bofa have put up a good agrument...not just for the BofA but also for the rest of the pearl of great price. And their points are rather strong.

I am a practical guy...and in a way I am a learned guy if having a doctorate makes one learned. But my interest is not religion...it is the human being. My interest is in the social aspects of life: how we humans relate to one another at the socioeconomic level. I try to see an individual biography from the street and not from a book.

When I see Joseph Smith I try to piece the guy's life together as if I were in his footsteps. I want to get into his head and feel that life. I know that this is not scientific; rather, the method is very unscientific. But the method does attempt to give me a human understanding of achievement.

You see James, I have a difficult time in assuming that Joseph made it all up:the bofm, book of moses, book of abraham and his many revelations. And I find Uncle Dale's idea hard to see clear. Joseph the dupe, going with good ol' sidney about the book of mormon for the whole 100 yards, losing his own children through mob violence etc. It just doesn't make sense....common sense.

I am a simple guy. What some of the posters have said about the difference in writing styles makes sense to me. They are different. But yes, I am also a doubting Thomas. I am a poor-butt member who will be in the terrestial for sure, if it is all true. I know that...it is my choice to live the way I do. But I just can't get my mind around the simple things...and the simple things are the most powerful.

[why me]

Cold Steel, on Jan 28 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

Amen. Many don't know that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Moses at about the same time as the Book of Mormon; yet, look at the differences in style. The Book of Moses didn't have that same stilted language that was so characteristic of the BOM translation. If it had, that would have been a big red flag. Even the Book of Abraham has it's own style.

Moses 6:40, for example, talks about a man named Mahijah who asked several questions of Enoch about who he was and where he was from. Nibley found numerous parallels between the Book of Moses and other ancient writings. In one of those writings, in some Aramaic fragments of the Book of Enoch, the giants, fearful of the mighty wonders Enoch is performing, sends a spy with virtually the same name to find out about Enoch (see Hugh W. Nibley, "Churches in the Wilderness," in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978):155-86).

These coincidences keep piling up and that's why we need apologetics to keep our critics on their toes.


Cold Steel

P.S. -- Just as an aside, there's no need to quote an entire message when responding. Just a judicious line or two will do. Cheers.

Thanks for the post. As I just mentioned to James, for me it is the simple things that I am impressed with. But I do not want to be a simpleton!  

[why me]

Scottie, on Jan 28 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

why me, on Jan 28 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

He was a genius that is for sure. Unless the critics divise a plan of authorship, they really have no case. And even if they did devise a plan for authorship, they would need proof to bolster their case. Oh well...the debate continues....

Uhhh..WRONG!!

The burden of proof is not on us to know how JS did what he did.  He was a genius, there is no doubt about that.  But I don't need to know how he was able to write what he did to know it is phony.

This has been mentioned before, but do I need to explain exactly how David Blane does his street magic to know that he doesn't possess supernatural powers??  No.  It's really cool that he can do what he does, but if he wants us to believe that he has powers (I'm not saying that he does want us to believe this), the burden of proof is on him.  Just showing us a neat trick isn't enough to make most people believe that he is actually magic.

How does the old saying go...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I have yet to see anything extraordinary.

In a court of law the burden of guilt is on the prosecution. If the critics are so adament in their conclusions, then I think that it is up to those critics to prove without a shadow of doubt that the BofA is garbage, not worth starting a fire with.

And proof of authorship is important. 'Here is a book, you say the author is Joseph Smith', prove it. This is not a non-issue. The proof of authorship burden is on the critics.  

[Scottie]

Quote

In a court of law the burden of guilt is on the prosecution.

Ummm, except that we're not in a court of law.  We're in the court of common sense.

Quote

If the critics are so adament in their conclusions, then I think that it is up to those critics to prove without a shadow of doubt that the BofA is garbage, not worth starting a fire with.

We did.  Smarter men that I have looked at the papyri coupled with the Rosetta stone and PROVED that it has nothing to do with Abraham.  Apologist response: 'Ohhh...uhhh...well...ummm.....that proves NOTHING!!  The papyri were just a catalyst!!!'

Now, just how are we supposed to prove THAT wrong??

Believe me, if somehow we could, the apologists would change their story to something else even MORE unprovable.

Quote

And proof of authorship is important. 'Here is a book, you say the author is Joseph Smith', prove it. This is not a non-issue. The proof of authorship burden is on the critics.

No it's not.  I don't care who wrote the book or how they did it.  I only care that it is a fraud, and it only requires a small amount of common sense to know that it is.

[e=mc2]

Scottie:
and it only requires a small amount of common sense to know that it is.

Kerry:
Common sense, in our modern sense? Since when is that a criteria for the ancients understandings? The Book of Abraham makes very good sense in light of all the extra-canonical materials on Abraham, as John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee demonstrated in their magnum opus "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham." Common sense, using the ancient textual sources shows the Book of Abraham's authenticity.

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

Dale: I would if it was scripture. It doesn't purport to be scripture though.

It can't be scripture in the standard LDS Challenge, Dale.  That it cannot be scripture is one of the requirements YOU apologists set in the standard LDS Challenge.  The standard LDS challenge goes like this: "Okay, you critic guys say Joseph Smith just made up the BoM and it's just a work of pious fiction, right?  Well, we apologists say no one with Smith's lack of education could have made up such a complex work of fiction.  And because we don't think anyone could have made up a piece of fiction like this, it proves that the BoM can't be fiction -- it must be True.  To demonstrate that we're right, we challenge any critic to show us just one guy with Smith's lack of education who could make up something like this.  I'll betcha can't do it and that'll prove the BoM true."

Okay, I as a critic, DID show you a guy with Smith's lack of education and he not only made up one work of fiction which is easily the equal of the BoM, but he made up TWO works of fiction which are easily the equal of the BoM.  Following the logic of the Apologist Challenge outlined above, I presented of precisely the situation you apologists said was impossible.  The existence of Eragon suggests that it IS possible for someone with Smith's lack of education to come up with a complex work of fiction.  And that suggests that it *IS* possible for Smith to have made up the BoM.  After all, Christopher Paolini did it, so I think Smith could have also.

I would answer the rest of your post, but it seems to me to be just a combination of a repeat of the same challenge which I've already met and a moving of the goal posts because I DID meet the LDS Challenge.  Incidentally, wouldn't the latter be admitting that you were wrong?  And, by the way, until you actually read Eragon and study it and pray about it, you haven't held up your part of the bargain.

I've completed the part of the challenge you assigned to me, now how about you completing it, too?  I took your challenge seriously and in good faith, researched it, and presented you with what the Challenge asked for.  Are you going to reneg on your part of the bargain?

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

[David Bokovoy]

Hello James,

Quote

There are lots of ancient documents, which are just made up; parallels between them and the BofA do not prove the BofA in any way.

This is an extremely problematic assertion.  Just because ancient documents might not possess historicity does not mean that they are not historical.  Clearly, if the BofA contains significant parallels with texts from the ancient Near East those connections provide evidence for the historicity of the BofA.

Quote

The Apocalypse of Abraham is an ancient document whose worth, validity, and authenticity neither you nor Nibley have demonstrated.

And who determines worth?  The Apocalypse of Abraham clearly had worth to the original author.

Quote

Indeed, among the few things we know about it is the fact that it was excluded from the Bible and though written in the 1st century BC, it does not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but points to a Messiah yet to come.

Simply because a text does not appear in the Bible does not mean that it fails to reveal important information pertaining to the biblical world.   How else would we know about the composition of the Covenant Code in Exodus without the Code of Hammurabi?  How else would we know about the composition of Genesis 1 without Enuma Elish?   Both of these Mesopotamian texts have had a direct impact upon the Old Testament even though neither the Laws of Hammurabi nor Enuma Elish appear in the Bible.

Quote

If we critics were to attack the BofA using an abscure noncanonical document like the Apocaplyse of Abraham, you apologists would reject it out of hand. Why, then, should it be used in defense of the BofA?

How else would you suggest that we intellectually evaluate the claim that the BofA has connections with the ancient Near East than to compare the BoA with ancient Near Eastern texts?

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

I'm currently reading Eragon, and so far I've seen absolutely no indication that this assertion is anywhere close to being true. It's not bad for someone so young, but that's about as far as it goes. So far I've seen absolutely nothing to be impressed about as far as complexity, plot, or linguistics.

The Standard LDS Challenge doesn't say you have to be impressed by its literary qualities, just that the author be as unschooled as Smith.  But if you're going to take that up, let me point out that the plot in the BoM is "follow God and prosper, don't follow God and don't prosper, ad nauseum"  That's pretty simplistic, and cannot hold a candle to the actual, engaging plot in  Eragon.  The BoM is pretty much limited to humans, while Eragon has humans and all kinds of fantasy entities including dragons.  The BoM has no love subplots (Smith's sterile treatment of females in the BoM is the topic for another day) while Eragon has thrilling accounts of Romance and True Love.  The BoM's forrays into other languages is limited to a poorly executed imitation of Elizabethan English while Eragon makes extensive use of Old Norse for peoples' names, place names, and invented languages.  Paolini made up languages; Smith didn't even try.

As a comment on the literary qualities of the BoM, I freely acknowledge that a small minority of LDS may well have read it all the way through, but I wonder if the majority haven't.  Some people find the BoM so poorly written that it is hard to read it.[1]  Mark Twain, who might well be considered an expert on novel form fiction had these words in his novel Roughing It about the BoM:

"Chapter 16.  All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the 'elect' have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it.  I brought away a copy from Salt Lake.  The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy, such an insipid mess of inspiration.  it is chloroform in print.  If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle -- keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.  If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the old Testament for a model, followed by a tedious plagarism of the New Testament.  The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashined sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures, and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity.  The latter is awkward and constrained, the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast.  Whenever he found his speech growing too modern -- which was about every sentence or two -- he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again.  'And it came to pass' was his pet.  If he left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

But I think my point is still valid:  The standard LDS position is that Smith was too unschooled to have made up the BoM as a work of fiction and to prove this, critics are invited to try to point out someone equally as unschooled as Smith who has written an equivalent work of fiction.  "If you can't find such a person," the LDS Challenge goes, "then that proves that the BoM has to be true."   Well, I contend that Paolini was as unschooled as Smith and he DID write an equivalent work of fiction.  So the BoM doesn't have to be true.  It could have been made up as fiction.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Footnote
[1] This reminds me of a recent contemporary joke.  In Iraq, a platoon of American GIs is caught in a crossfire ambush and the only LDS guy is seen taking a shot to the chest and falling down.  In the ensuing dust and smoke, the platoon makes it behind a wall and to their surprise the LDS guy staggers there with them.  He reaches inside his battle fatigues and pulls out a BoM with the slug still sticking in it.  He holds it up and says, "See?  It's just like they say back in Utah, absolutely nobody and nothin' makes it through Second Nephi."

Edited by James Clifford Miller, 29 January 2006 - 12:38 PM.

[Dale]

James I challenged you to get a copy of Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited edited by Noel Reynolds. Can you make the same literary case for Eragon being ancient, or not? The Book of Mormon is not a simple work of literary fiction. A lots in it that puts Joseph Smith above William Shakespeare. I read a lot of writers. I had one guy in his book suggest the Book of Mormon was similar in inspiration to Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan, but when I got a copy I could tell the guy was not as schooled as Joeph Smith.

Lets get off of Eragon if you have admitted it's not possible to get Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, and show it & the Book of Mormon are the same type of literary accomplishment.  

I enjoy my reading of the Book of Mormon. Mark Twain was clearly not giving the book a fair reading. I find the book exciting reading myself. A book that inspired many millions of believers is hardly an ordinary book.

Edited by Dale, 29 January 2006 - 12:05 PM.

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

I can understand where you are coming James; at least I think I can. But you must understand james that there are two sides to this issue. For example, the defenders of the bofa have put up a good agrument...not just for the BofA but also for the rest of the pearl of great price. And their points are rather strong.

They're not proving strong or persuasive to the number of people who read them and then use them specifically as the reason why they leave the Church.  You need to google the exit stories of people who leave the LDS Church.  Among the most frequently mentioned reasons why they leave are the failure of FARMS and the other apologists in their eyes to defend the BoM and the BofA.  In fact, these exiting LDS say FARMS' arguments convinced them of just the opposite.  Many say they were active, TBMs who went to FARMS for amunition with which to shoot down critics, only to find, to their horror, that the FARMS arguments are a bunch of, in their words, "Whooey."

Quote

You see James, I have a difficult time in assuming that Joseph made it all up:the bofm, book of moses, book of abraham and his many revelations. And I find Uncle Dale's idea hard to see clear. Joseph the dupe, going with good ol' sidney about the book of mormon for the whole 100 yards, losing his own children through mob violence etc. It just doesn't make sense....common sense.

I'm not sure you have common sense on your side.  Let's say that this afternoon, a guy down the street from you knocks at your door and says, "Neighbor, I've got the greatest news.  God came to me and told me none of the existing churches are true and that I'm to restore God's Only True Church.  And he gave me some golden plates I've translated and it's a story about some Hebrews who left Jerusalem 600 years before Christ and they came to America."  You ask, "Could I see these golden plates?"  He says, "No because an angel took them back.  You're just supposed to believe me.  Anyway, because I've restored God's Only True Church, you're supposed to give me 10% of your annual income and God told me to marry your wife while you're still married to her.  Oh, and by the way, God also told me to take your 14 year-old daughter as a wife, too."

"Wait, a minute," you say.  "You're copying my religion, I'm LDS.  Joseph Smith did all the stuff you're claiming."

"Even your church," responds your neighbor, "says a living prophet's word trumps dead prophets' words.  Smith is dead.  I'm alive.  Fork over your tithing, your wife, and your daughter.  God says you're supposed to give them to me."

So you say, "Well, you must be right.  It's only common sense that you'd make these claims.  It's only common sense that god would give you golden plates to translate and then take them back so no one can verify your story.  It's only common sense that God would command you to take money from me.  It's only common sense that God would command you to ask for my wife and daughter and it's only common sense that I would hand them over."

Well, it may be common sense to you, but to me such blind obedience in the face of common sense is how people get defrauded.

Besides, Joseph Smith's not the only guy to claim all this.  If you believe his claims on the basis of common sense, how about the claims of the others?  Please point your browser to

http://www.strangite.org/

Let's see:
Claim to be the head of God's Only True Church, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have translated metallic plates, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have God-authorized polygamy, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have sacred temple ceremonies, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to the name, The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, just like Joseph Smith except for the hyphen.  Check
Claim that Strang was persecuted to his death, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.

And the website even plays the hymn "The Spirit of God like a Fire is Burning."

As far as I can see, these are identical claims.  Based on your discussion of common sense, my guess is that common sense is going to leave you with no choice but to accept Strang's claims with equal validity to the identical claims from Smith.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

James I challenged you to get a copy of Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited edited by Noel Reynolds. Can you make the same literary case for Eragon being ancient, or not?

No, you're just moving the goal post, Dale because I *DID* answer your original challenge about finding someone with Smith's limited schooling who could make up a novel to rival the BoM.  I found someone with the same (or even less schooling) and provided the name of the book.  And you didn't like it.

The only reason you want us to get off of Eragon is that it proves -- to your discomfort -- that a boy with even less schooling than Smith could provide an equally complex and involved work of fiction.   And this demonstrates that if Paolini could do it, so could Smith.

Incidentally, it's going to backfire for you to try to compare Smith and Shakespeare.  Shakespeare never claimed his stuff was ancient, that it was scripture, or that it was anything other than made up out of whole cloth.  Smith claimed his stuff WAS ancient, that it WAS scripture, and that he didn't just make it up as fiction.  If you ARE comparing them, aren't you implicitly admitting that Smith's stuff WASN'T ancient, WASN'T scripture, and WAS made up as fiction?

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

[Dale]

You cannot prove that William Shakespeare is ancient by making comparison with ancient literary techniques. I once again challenge you to get a hold of Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited and find any book & make a case for it being ancient based on the same stuff. Then I might be impressed with your disbelief in the book. I might be convinced that FARMS claims are bogus if you can start showing me their case is spurious.

[why me]

James Clifford Miller, on Jan 29 2006, 12:21 PM, said:

Quote

I can understand where you are coming James; at least I think I can. But you must understand james that there are two sides to this issue. For example, the defenders of the bofa have put up a good agrument...not just for the BofA but also for the rest of the pearl of great price. And their points are rather strong.

They're not proving strong or persuasive to the number of people who read them and then use them specifically as the reason why they leave the Church.  You need to google the exit stories of people who leave the LDS Church.  Among the most frequently mentioned reasons why they leave are the failure of FARMS and the other apologists in their eyes to defend the BoM and the BofA.  In fact, these exiting LDS say FARMS' arguments convinced them of just the opposite.  Many say they were active, TBMs who went to FARMS for amunition with which to shoot down critics, only to find, to their horror, that the FARMS arguments are a bunch of, in their words, "Whooey."

Quote

You see James, I have a difficult time in assuming that Joseph made it all up:the bofm, book of moses, book of abraham and his many revelations. And I find Uncle Dale's idea hard to see clear. Joseph the dupe, going with good ol' sidney about the book of mormon for the whole 100 yards, losing his own children through mob violence etc. It just doesn't make sense....common sense.

I'm not sure you have common sense on your side.  Let's say that this afternoon, a guy down the street from you knocks at your door and says, "Neighbor, I've got the greatest news.  God came to me and told me none of the existing churches are true and that I'm to restore God's Only True Church.  And he gave me some golden plates I've translated and it's a story about some Hebrews who left Jerusalem 600 years before Christ and they came to America."  You ask, "Could I see these golden plates?"  He says, "No because an angel took them back.  You're just supposed to believe me.  Anyway, because I've restored God's Only True Church, you're supposed to give me 10% of your annual income and God told me to marry your wife while you're still married to her.  Oh, and by the way, God also told me to take your 14 year-old daughter as a wife, too."

"Wait, a minute," you say.  "You're copying my religion, I'm LDS.  Joseph Smith did all the stuff you're claiming."

"Even your church," responds your neighbor, "says a living prophet's word trumps dead prophets' words.  Smith is dead.  I'm alive.  Fork over your tithing, your wife, and your daughter.  God says you're supposed to give them to me."

So you say, "Well, you must be right.  It's only common sense that you'd make these claims.  It's only common sense that god would give you golden plates to translate and then take them back so no one can verify your story.  It's only common sense that God would command you to take money from me.  It's only common sense that God would command you to ask for my wife and daughter and it's only common sense that I would hand them over."

Well, it may be common sense to you, but to me such blind obedience in the face of common sense is how people get defrauded.

Besides, Joseph Smith's not the only guy to claim all this.  If you believe his claims on the basis of common sense, how about the claims of the others?  Please point your browser to

http://www.strangite.org/

Let's see:
Claim to be the head of God's Only True Church, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have translated metallic plates, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have God-authorized polygamy, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to have sacred temple ceremonies, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.
Claim to the name, The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, just like Joseph Smith except for the hyphen.  Check
Claim that Strang was persecuted to his death, just like Joseph Smith.  Check.

And the website even plays the hymn "The Spirit of God like a Fire is Burning."

As far as I can see, these are identical claims.  Based on your discussion of common sense, my guess is that common sense is going to leave you with no choice but to accept Strang's claims with equal validity to the identical claims from Smith.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Yes I have heard those arguments also. I know that people have went to farms for answers and claimed betrayal. We must have been on the same exmo boards.

But I have to ask these people what exactly are they looking for? Are they looking for definite proof? They will not find it. There is no proof, no definitive evidence. However, there have been people here who have made a case for the bofa. It is definitive? No. Is your case definitive? No. But I have to say that you prepackage it up pretty well and when you post you sound like an authority who certainly buys into his own propositions. And here we have the problem. Your propositions are just that Propositions. Nothing more. As far as people, well, maybe they have lost sight of the bible...and what it says about learned men. Yes, James many will be lead away by learned men. Yes, james, reason will perhaps win over faith. This is a prediction or warning in the scriptures about this and even the pope has warned the catholics about the threat of relativism that is now in the world.

And yes, you will lead people out of the lds church. No question about it. You put your take on it like an expert. But still...they are propositions and nothing more. And I am not saying that this is what you want to do...but it will happen.

The difference with your comparison with the bobm is quite stark. You see, the bofm has survived. It is still here. Many have tried to disprove it but they can't. Of course, again we come to propositions as facts. But critics have very little conclusive facts to give the book of mormon a knock out punch. But they still have propositions galore. Regardless, the bofm still stands tall in the saddle. But yes, the propositions do lead people away...and this will be the case for some time.

In fact as you know the bofm predicts such a happening in 1 nephi. Not so much about propositions but about what will take place when the saints will feel an iron yoke around their necks. "And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into capitivity." Many are being brought down...that is a fact to be sure. And yes, the lds church will be a small church (see 1 nephi 14:12)...the bofm predicts that also. (Strange, isn't? If joseph smith had a huge ego and if JS wrote the bofm, why write that the church of the lamb will be small? Why not huge? My own ego would tell me to write 'huge'.) And such a prediction as in 1 nephi is certainly no incentive to join the lds church or 'Smith's' church. But this neither here nor there.

Your mentioning of the strangites is weak point...they are a spent force...gone with the wind so to speak with small pockets here or there. But the lds church is not weak...there are still many strong and committed members throughout the world.

And to those TBM's searching for answers from learned men and women? Search for answers in prayer...remember the spirit that you felt when you joined or when you attended meetings. Think common sense...but learned men cannot give you answers to that which is founded on faith. Well anyway that is my take on it from a common guy who is himself struggling with his own spirit of relativism.

[TrespassersW]

James Clifford Miller:

Quote

The Standard LDS Challenge doesn't say you have to be impressed by its literary qualities, just that the author be as unschooled as Smith.

No. Whether or not I'm impressed with its literary qualities is entirely beside the point. Whether or not the book is as complex as the Book of Mormon (which is what you claimed) is the point. I've seen no evidence that it is. The book is, in fact, quite simple and straightforward.

Quote

But if you're going to take that up, let me point out that the plot in the BoM is "follow God and prosper, don't follow God and don't prosper, ad nauseum" That's pretty simplistic, and cannot hold a candle to the actual, engaging plot in Eragon.

No, again. The plot of the Book of Mormon is not "follow God and prosper". That is one of the themes in the book, but it is not the plot. You may want to take a few moments and refresh yourself about what the word "plot" means.

Quote

Eragon has humans and all kinds of fantasy entities including dragons.

Yes, and Charlotte's Web also involved non-humans. But that isn't a very good measure of either complexity or sophisitication.

Quote

The BoM's forrays into other languages is limited to a poorly executed imitation of Elizabethan English while Eragon makes extensive use of Old Norse for peoples' names, place names, and invented languages. Paolini made up languages; Smith didn't even try.

This statement does little more than demonstrate that your linguistic understanding of the Book of Mormon is woefully insufficient. Though I do agree with you on one point: I don't believe that Joseph Smith did try to invent any languages.

Quote

As a comment on the literary qualities of the BoM, I freely acknowledge that a small minority of LDS may well have read it all the way through

What a curious comment. Have you read it "all the way through"?

Quote

Well, I contend that Paolini was as unschooled as Smith and he DID write an equivalent work of fiction.

Calling Paolini "unschooled" just because he was homeschooled is misleading (to be charitable). Calling him as unschooled as Joseph Smith is grossly inaccurate. Paolini had graduated high school at age fifteen. He had already been accepted to college when he wrote Eragon. He wasn't "unschooled" by anyone's definition. His education was, if anything, better than average. Joseph Smith wasn't homeschooled by wealthy publishers.

Quote

It could have been made up as fiction.

Ironically, I don't take issue with that at all. Certainly it could. But I think your example is poorly chosen.

[Dale]

James-When Joseph produced the Book of Mormon he dictated it to scribes from no manuscript in front of him. I bet Paolini had a computer & edited his book several times prior to publication. But Joseph Smith dictated a finished complex book to his scribes the first time. One thing suggested is that the plates were not in front of him when he translated. He was looking at a stone in a hat able to repeat what he recieved. This means his memory abilities must be enormous even photo-graphic if he was able to do that. I consider the fraud claim interesting. So I try to figure out how the scam worked if that's what happened.

But I am not convinced that he had some secret manuscript hidden in the woods. His family appears to have accepted his claims as sincere. The idea of Joseph Smith sneaking off to his secret manuscript hiding spot to memorize more text to dupe his scribes seems to make his task difficult. Wouldn't his scribes, or wife known about his secret manuscript? Or did he produce the whole thing in his head without the benifit of pre-existent manuscripts?

My Community of Christ Book of Mormon is 349 pages. I did not count the index pages. That's a big book to remember. I favor the idea of a pre-existing manuscript whether plates, or paper he had it all worked out. Because when he dictated to the scribes he did not have them make changes that would effect the content.

Plus while translating he had a loss of I think a 116 pages. So he had to if a fraud would have to create a new section to cover the loss. Did he have time to do this? Or did text just pop into his head without a pre-existent manuscript being written.

With the Book of Abraham LDS scholars propose ancient sources like apocrypha which support the book. Whereas Brent Metcalf proposes modern sources where Joseph Smith got his ideas for the book. The point is who is making the stronger case. But my perception may be different than yours as you might find him more persuasive than I do. I am awaiting his book & look forward to it. I think it will deal with the missing papyrus idea, the evidence for the found papyrus, and hopefully get into evidences for the Book of Abraham also.

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

Jim: There are lots of ancient documents, which are just made up; parallels between them and the BofA do not prove the BofA in any way.

David: This is an extremely problematic assertion.�??�?  Just because ancient documents might not possess historicity does not mean that they are not historical.�??�?  Clearly, if the BofA contains significant parallels with texts from the ancient Near East those connections provide evidence for the historicity of the BofA.

David, stop and think about this.  I don't think you want people to think that the BofA is a piece of "pious fiction."  I think you want it to be viewed as being real.  I can understand if you want to compare it to some authentic, real ancient document, say part of the OT.  That way you'd have a real document corroborating your real document.

But that's not gonna happen if you try to compare it to a document which is not real and is indeed Pious Fiction.  For example, quoting L. Ron Hubbard in defense of the BofA is probably not going to help your case because L. Ron Hubbard has negative credibility.

That's why you don't want to compare it to The Apocalypse of Abraham.  The Apocalypse is, by definition, Pious Fiction.  It is not part of the OT or the NT.  It's not even part of the Catholic Apocrapha [1] and is technically part of the Pseudegraphia of books that were not only rejected from the Bible, but didn't even make it into the Apocrapha [2].  It was written in the first century BC [3], pretending to have been written two thousand years before about Abraham.  Not surprisingly because it is a Jewish document, it denies that Jesus was the Christ because it talks about the Messiah to come.  And "One of the most intriguing features is the 'Christian' interpolation in chapter 29, which is appreciably different from the Christianity of the New Testament."[4].  It is not even quoted by any other ancient documents and this lends scepticism for its authenticity [5].

If you compare the BofA with this pious fiction, you make the BofA vulnerable to the criticism that it, too, is just pious fiction and I don't think you want that.

If you're going to make the comparison, you need to present evidence about the authenticity of the Apocalypse and you have yet to do that.  Incidentally, Gee and his compatriots do not present such evidence, either, and that's what makes their arguments so unpersuasive to non LDS scholars and exmormon critics alike.  

You must remember that Gee and the other scholars are not LDS General Authorities and have not presented any of their apologist work for scrutiny in peer-reviewed, non LDS scholarly journals.  Indeed, Gee has come under some criticism in at least one peer-reviewed, non-LDS, respected academic journal, for scholarly insufficiencies in Egyptology and failure to follow accepted scholarly procedure [6].  I notice that the only defense of Gee which apologists have mounted was not in the same honored and respected peer-reviewed academic journal as is the custom in academic circles, but instead was only in BYU publications which the vast bulk of real Egyptologists do not read [7].

In other words, you run the risk of being burned by actual scholars if you use Gee and his compatriots as your sources.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Footnotes
[1] The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford  University Press, London 2001.
[2] Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1) (Anchor Bible)1st edition (October 28, 1983)
[3] http://www.earlyjewi...pocabraham.html
[4] Ibid., also see The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 68-69)
[5] http://www.jewishenc...id=361&letter=A
[6] �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬â?¢The Breathing Permit of Hor�?¢â?¬â?¢ Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,�?¢â?¬�? Robert K. Ritner, The Journal of Near Eastern Studies,�?¢â?¬�? The University of Chicago, Vol 62, No. 3, 2003, p. 7.
[7] http://farms.byu.edu...sights/25-2.pdf

Edited by James Clifford Miller, 29 January 2006 - 03:21 PM.

[Dale]

I am not sure John Gee is right about the missing papyrus idea. But honestly Brent Metcalfe must make a strong public case against John Gee's case before he can be expected to agree or disagree with him.

I am persuaded by evidence of Abrahamic lore in support of the Book of Abraham myself. FARMs has a jumbo collection of this material in print. Pious fiction can have truth in it. Plus it co-incides with other Abrahamic material. I do not see them as relying on the Apocalypse of Abraham alone.

Edited by Dale, 29 January 2006 - 02:34 PM.