130 replies to this topic

[calmoriah]

Quote

The comparison between Joseph Smith and Christopher Paolini has some problems.

How unkind of you to trample on Miller's personal fantasy, Dan.  

[Mighty Curelom]

Quote

Joseph Smith had received a total of 2-2.5 months of scattered formal grade school education by the time the Book of Mormon appeared.

Thomas Edison had 3 months of formal schooling.  What's your point?

Quote

The first draft of Eragon took Paolini a year to write....he Book of Mormon was dictated in just over two months.

Indeed.  Most writers are good at....well....writing.  So what do they do when they have an idea for a novel?  They start writing it pretty soon after they've pinned down the basic plot.  Some writers don't even have a complete picture of what the plot is going to be, and they just let the characters take shape and drive the story as they write it.

But JS was not good at writing.  He was good at storytelling.  And whereas Eragon and other typical writers begin the process of writing relatively soon after the initial idea for a story, JS did--or couldn't--do that.  We know that the story of the plates was in Joseph's head LONG before he began dictating it.  He was telling stories to his family about BoM people's years before he obtained the plates (supposedly).  He was denied access to the plates for years, each year being told to come back to Cumorah (supposedly).  While the actual, physical dictation of the BoM only took a few months, the formulation of the story, the religious rhetoric it contains, the main characters, exotic sounding names, etc. were formulated over several years.

(I know someone will completely misunderstand this post and mistakenly think I'm claiming JS had the entire text for the BoM memorized verbatim.  That is NOT what I'm claiming at all.  Just so we're clear on that.)

[James Clifford Miller]

Quote

Cold Steel: I suppose critics come in all flavors. It's unusual, though, to take the position that regardless of what's proffered, it will not be accepted.

Interesting.  That's along the lines of what I was thinking about people who reject what I present.

However, don't give up heart, my friend.  I'm far more interested in what the actual truth is than in being a critic, though that's more fun than you can believe.  There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts -- the Law of Hammurabi, for example.  I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives.  I give you my pledge that if you use reputable texts with which to parallel the BofA, I won't reject them out of hand even if I may not find the parallels valid.  But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully.

For example, I think the Apocalypse of Abraham might well be an appropriate source in a discussion of Jewish folklore and legends, but I suggest that it's not a defendable source for a discussion of scripture and doctrine.

I understand that what I'm about to write is heresy in this forum and unsolicited, to boot, but I offer this suggestion to you for what it's worth because I think you deserve to know this since I perceive that you actually care about the quality of your arguments.  And remember that free advice is often worth exactly what you pay for it.

You might want to try reading outside of the LDS apologists circles for your sources.

Think about it.  We critics are free to use anti-Mormon stuff and really sturdy, reputable sources in peer-reviewed journals and books by non-LDS professional scholars who really know their stuff and are trained and experienced in critical evalutation of sources and arguments.  In contrast, you apologists seem to be limiting yourselves to just LDs apologist stuff designed (in my humble opinion) for the lay LDS readership and not at all intended to stand up to professional scholars outside the LDS world[1].  That's not fair for you guys.  That's why I suggest that you go for the sturdy non-LDS stuff, too, just like some of us critics do.  

C'mon, level the playing field by improving the quality of your sources by finding them in peer-reviewed jounals and non-LDS academic books.

James Clifford Miller
[email protected]

Footnote
[1] In defense of the apologists, I think it would be wrong for them to write over the heads of the lay LDS membership for whom the articles and books are written.

Edited by James Clifford Miller, 29 January 2006 - 04:41 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

I know someone will completely misunderstand this post and mistakenly think I'm claiming JS had the entire text for the BoM memorized verbatim. That is NOT what I'm claiming at all.

Why don't you be specific about exactly what you are claiming then.  What did he have constructed pre-dictation and was this all memorized or instead written down somewhere?

Edited by calmoriah, 29 January 2006 - 04:46 PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

Quote

Joseph Smith had received a total of 2-2.5 months of scattered formal grade school education by the time the Book of Mormon appeared.

Thomas Edison had 3 months of formal schooling.  What's your point?

Well, my principal point was that James Clifford Miller's suggestion that Christopher Paolini and Joseph Smith were roughly equally uneducated is patently false.

Edison isn't exactly a good parallel either, though that's a separate point.  With Edison, we're not talking about sudden and unexpected literary education or ability, but a kind of practical craftsman's gift that was manifested over a lifetime -- which, particularly in his era, was never, ever, taught at universities or in schools but was far more likely to be developed while working with farm equipment, in a blacksmith's shop, or maintaining carriages.  Philo Farnsworth, the inventor of television, came up with his basic idea while plowing a field; the plowing itself gave him the idea.

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

But JS was not good at writing.  He was good at storytelling.

Evidence, please?  (And, please, don't give me the passage from his mother's biography of him where she portrays him describing the Nephites to his family.  That comes nowhere near demonstrating that he had any unusual gift for spinning narrative tales.)

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

We know that the story of the plates was in Joseph's head LONG before he began dictating it.

Evidence, please?

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

He was telling stories to his family about BoM people's years before he obtained the plates.

Dang.  I just knew that you were going to press that one into service.  Too bad that it doesn't actually say anything of the sort.  It says that he told his family about the way the Nephites dressed and their modes of transportation -- neither of which is described in the Book of Mormon.  It says nothing whatever about the complex plot of the Book of Mormon, even though you want us to believe that Joseph was an exceptionally talented teller of tales.  

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

While the actual, physical dictation of the BoM only took a few months, the formulation of the story, the religious rhetoric it contains, the main characters, exotic sounding names, etc. were formulated over several years.

Evidence, please?

Incidentally, have you ever dictated or written approximately 5000 words of new prose for publication in a single work every day for a period of somewhat more than two months?  I haven't.  I haven't even come close.  (And I've kept meticulous records of my writing output for the past several years.)

[Cold Steel]

JCM: "There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts -- the Law of Hammurabi, for example. I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives. I give you my pledge that if you use reputable texts with which to parallel the BofA, I won't reject them out of hand even if I may not find the parallels valid. But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully."


I would be much more impressed were you actually to review the evidences proffered. For example, your comparing the BOM to a fantasy novel shows me that you are failing to see what Latter-day Saints the world over see -- and that is what's being conveyed. The same thing is true with your glossing over the Arabian Lehi trail. It was evident to me that you've never carefully examined the work of the Nephi Project and other explorative groups.

Regarding the BoA and the Apocalypse of Abraham, you see no merit in similarities because the latter isn't canonical. The fact that a farmer in the early 1800s can pop off a piece that fits comfortably with any ancient source is significant. How could Joseph Smith do it?

Your methods of argument are like Korihor's. They can be leveled against all religions and philosophies because they're only meant to counter -- not to arrive at the truth. Most of the critics here realize that much. Until you can sit down and read King Benjamin's discourse and come away aknowledging the wisdom, sincerity and integrity of the writer, I'm afraid you'll be little more than a naysayer.

It's one thing to breeze over a few chapters looking for errors. It's quite another to actually read the text and absorb what's being conveyed.


Cold Steel

Edited by Cold Steel, 29 January 2006 - 05:03 PM.

[juliann]

James Clifford Miller, on Jan 29 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives.

Then perhaps you could actually quote them.

Quote

But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully.

Where are yours?

Quote

For example, I think the Apocalypse of Abraham might well be an appropriate source in a discussion of Jewish folklore and legends, but I suggest that it's not a defendable source for a discussion of scripture and doctrine.

Source?

Quote

You might want to try reading outside of the LDS apologists circles for your sources.

You mean like using actual, honest to goodness quotes from texts and scholars?  You know...the kind that are in books and juried journals?  The only one not going outside of apologetic circles is you.

Quote

C'mon, level the playing field by improving the quality of your sources by finding them in peer-reviewed jounals and non-LDS academic books.

If only that meant you would provide us with some.  

Meanwhile,  we can all debate James' apologetic version of real life.

[juliann]

James Clifford Miller, on Jan 29 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

Calmoriah:  How nice of you to join in.  And yes, these are pretty much my unlearned and humble criticisms of the Apocalypse.  You summarized them so well, I'm mystified that Juliann missed them completely.

All you ever give is unlearned criticism.   How in the world could anyone miss it?   Still waiting for some evidence beyond the confines of your mind.

[juliann]

Cold Steel, on Jan 29 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

I would be much more impressed were you actually to review the evidences proffered.

He would have to read them to do that.  

[Dale]

Did Joseph Smith make it up on the spot in his head? To my knowledge nobody saw him with a pre-existent manuscript other than metalic plates which was obscurred from sight via a covering. So to me if he had no manuscript he must have had a manuscript committed to memory. This was my idea I raised for the sake of discussion of how complecated being a fraud would have been for Joseph Smith & not an idea I attributed to James.

With the Book of Mormon it has carefully worked out names, poetical forms, geographic features, place names, religious teachings, wars & battles,ect To me it's to carefully worked out to have been done in his head only during the time while purportedly translating.

And if their was a pre-existent manuscript you have to be sneaky while dictating it to scribes, or you would get caught.

With the Book of Abraham I would have to see that the case for modern sources is better than the case for ancient sources.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Jim,

Quote

There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts

First of all, your view of authentic sources vs. forgeries is very problematic.  Again, simply because a source does not present the past does not mean that it fails to present a past.  The standard you suggest would disqualify virtually every Near Eastern text, including all biblical books, for comparative purpose.

However, since you were wondering about parallels with Mesopotamian texts, the Book of Abraham features a number of incredible links.

Enuma Elish, for example, presents a story of a divine council of deities.  Like every other divine council myth from the ancient Near East that I can think of, Enuma Elish follows the same pattern witnessed in the council story featured in the BofA:

First a crisis would occur.  Second, the head God of the Council would ask for solutions.  Third the head God would call for volunteers to resolve the crisis.  Finally, the head God would commission a Savior.

In Enuma Elish, this pattern explained for the Babylonians how Marduk rose to a position of prominence in the Council, since Marduk retained his Father�?¢â?¬â?¢s glory for his role as Savior.

Clearly by presenting this same pattern in a Council story, the BofA scores a direct hit.

Also, the attestation of the messenger formula, �?¢â?¬�??Whom shall I send?�?¢â?¬�? that appears repeatedly in Akkadian texts like the anti-witchcraft compilation, Maqlu as mannum lus(h)pur is another significant correspondence between the Book of Abraham and ancient Near Eastern texts.

[Chaucer]

Scottie, on Jan 28 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

Dale said:

You can test the Book of Abraham by logic & reason. But after you are certiain as I am it's has intellectual support you should ask God.

I have yet to see this vast repository of intellectual support you claim.  I see a few small plausabilities.

Quote

Let's look at the Book of Mormon. Nobody can tell me Joseph Smith was able to make up such a complex book without citing from a pre-existent manuscript or plates.

Uhh, yes we can.  I don't know how he made it up, but he did.

Quote

An example is Chiasmus whether ancient, or modern unless you see such poetry in your head you would get confused if you tried to do it on the spot. The book is filled with things like that. The Book of Abraham is no different.

Riiiight.  And, as I've seen demonstrated, you can pull nearly any book off the shelf, randomly turn to a page and find a chiasm.  Not the best of evidence.

Quote

One thing I was thinking about the other day. Joseph Smith was supposed to have possibly borrowed from a number of sources in producing the Book of Mormon, or Book of Abraham. Don't the critics have the ability to find a genius like Joseph Smith. Let's put a stack of these sources in front of them & let them become familiar with the content. Then let's find some scribes give him a hat & a stone & let them duplicate what Joseph Smith did on either book without getting confused. I have no doubt the person would quit out of unfinished embarrassment. Although somebody of Mark Hoffman's talent could produce a Book of Abraham. But using paper notes & mental notes are two different things.

We don't really know how JS wrote the BoM.  We don't really need to know how he did it to know it is still a fraud.  See my David Blane example above, please.

Ummm... Dale, I think I'll do the favor of letting you know how you're making yourself look here.  You're telling us that you're not sure how he did it or how it happened, but it's still a fraud.  I would like to point out that your example is based on false logic.  Your point of view (as it seems) is coming from a proof oriented perspective as an almost secular type of argument, yet at the same time you cannot provide anything proving the contrary to the BOA or BOM.  Essentially, you're bearing us your testimony that the Book of Mormon is not true.  It's a religious stance, based on faith, somewhat like our stance.  But at the same time you contradict yourself by saying we do not need proof to know it's a fraud.  I think ANY critic needs proof and examples, or else he/she has no business being a critic.

[Gohan]

Uhh..guys, even though I disagree with him, James is only stating his honest opinion on the matter, and we shouldn't insult him because of what he thinks. If we do so, we become just as bad as those in the great and spacious building that mocked the beilevers

[Chaucer]

Gohan, on Jan 29 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

Uhh..guys, even though I disagree with him, James is only stating his honest opinion on the matter, and we shouldn't insult him because of what he thinks. If we do so, we become just as bad as those in the great and spacious building that mocked the beilevers

The problem with James' arguments or "honest opinions" is that he presents them in an academic manner, but at the same time his content and point of view is very UNacademic.  This also includes the misrepresentations of quotes from other board members, which I've seen repeatedly.  In any case, I believe many of the people responding to his criticism are simply stating "their" honest opinions.   http://www.mormonapo...tyle_emoticons/default/cool.gif

[Gohan]

Chaucer, on Jan 29 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

The problem with James' arguments or "honest opinions" is that he presents them in an academic manner, but at the same time his content and point of view is very UNacademic. This also includes the misrepresentations of quotes from other board members, which I've seen repeatedly. In any case, I believe many of the people responding to his criticism are simply stating "their" honest opinions. cool.gif

Be that as it may, I stated a while ago that if I ever felt a poster was being unfairly treated, I would defend them, no matter what their opinion.

[calmoriah]

What are the specifics you are having problems with?

The demand for actual sources and quotes?

The description (taken from his own comment) of being "unlearned"?

Something else?

Edited by calmoriah, 29 January 2006 - 05:54 PM.

[Dale]

Chaucer, on Jan 29 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

Scottie, on Jan 28 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

Dale said:

You can test the Book of Abraham by logic & reason. But after you are certiain as I am it's has intellectual support you should ask God.

I have yet to see this vast repository of intellectual support you claim.  I see a few small plausabilities.

Quote

Let's look at the Book of Mormon. Nobody can tell me Joseph Smith was able to make up such a complex book without citing from a pre-existent manuscript or plates.

Uhh, yes we can.  I don't know how he made it up, but he did.

Quote

An example is Chiasmus whether ancient, or modern unless you see such poetry in your head you would get confused if you tried to do it on the spot. The book is filled with things like that. The Book of Abraham is no different.

Riiiight.  And, as I've seen demonstrated, you can pull nearly any book off the shelf, randomly turn to a page and find a chiasm.  Not the best of evidence.

Quote

One thing I was thinking about the other day. Joseph Smith was supposed to have possibly borrowed from a number of sources in producing the Book of Mormon, or Book of Abraham. Don't the critics have the ability to find a genius like Joseph Smith. Let's put a stack of these sources in front of them & let them become familiar with the content. Then let's find some scribes give him a hat & a stone & let them duplicate what Joseph Smith did on either book without getting confused. I have no doubt the person would quit out of unfinished embarrassment. Although somebody of Mark Hoffman's talent could produce a Book of Abraham. But using paper notes & mental notes are two different things.

We don't really know how JS wrote the BoM.  We don't really need to know how he did it to know it is still a fraud.  See my David Blane example above, please.

Ummm... Dale, I think I'll do the favor of letting you know how you're making yourself look here.  You're telling us that you're not sure how he did it or how it happened, but it's still a fraud.  I would like to point out that your example is based on false logic.  Your point of view (as it seems) is coming from a proof oriented perspective as an almost secular type of argument, yet at the same time you cannot provide anything proving the contrary to the BOA or BOM.  Essentially, you're bearing us your testimony that the Book of Mormon is not true.  It's a religious stance, based on faith, somewhat like our stance.  But at the same time you contradict yourself by saying we do not need proof to know it's a fraud.  I think ANY critic needs proof and examples, or else he/she has no business being a critic.

The position that the Book of Mormon is Joseph's fraud is not my position. I am a firm Book of Mormon believer. But I am exploring the critics concern of literary fraud with Joseph Smith's writings. You can't simply cook up in your head a several hundred page book in your head perfectly without a pre-existent manuscript. To me this indicates plates, or a pre-existent manuscript.

But Joseph Smith didn't just just hand a finished book to scribes he dictated it to scribes. If the pre-existent manuscript wan't in front of him then it must have been committed to memory. If in front of him he would have to be sneaky so none of his scribes would see his secret manuscript. And if from memory alone that's a great memory accomplishment.

Once again this is not my own position. I am raising it to explore how the critics might speculate how Joseph Smith could have performed his scam. If I were a critic this would be my theory.

[Mighty Curelom]

Quote

Evidence please?

The evidence is Joseph's own account of the origin of the BoM.  We know that JS was aware of the BoM for at least 4 years prior to his "translation."  We know this because he told us.  Remember the angel Moroni and digging up the plates only to be told to come back next year, and then next year, and so forth?  This means that if Joseph was the author of the BoM, he could  (and in the most coherent explanation of BoM origins, did) formulate the basic outline and characters long before he put pen to paper (so to speak).  

So the production time of the BoM is was not 2 months.  It was 4 years and 2 months.  Not quite as impressive.

Quote

Did Joseph Smith make it up on the spot in his head? To my knowledge nobody saw him with a pre-existent manuscript other than metalic plates which was obscurred from sight via a covering. So to me if he had no manuscript he must have had a manuscript committed to memory. This was my idea I raised for the sake of discussion of how complecated being a fraud would have been for Joseph Smith & not an idea I attributed to James.

Argh....and this, even after my disclaimer.  

Ok, let me see if I can explain this.  I know the plot lines and basic characters of the Star Wars movies (not the new, crappy ones, but the old, less crappy ones.)  If I were an especially gifted story-teller, I could tell the story of Star Wars, and while doing so: include key plot lines; include main characters; insert ancillary characters; embellish scenes; make up dialog, etc.  In other words, I could write a script for Star Wars without having an entire manuscript memorized.  

Joseph didn't see Star Wars.  What he had instead was 4 years (at least) to invent his own drama.

[livy111us]

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 29 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

So the production time of the BoM is was not 2 months.  It was 4 years and 2 months.  Not quite as impressive.

This is, of course, only if you believe that he wrote it. If you do not, then it is not 4 years, but considerably less. It IS impressive when it's looked at the time he actually HAD the plates, and translated them.
Quick question Curelom. Do you believe that since he had 4 years to plan his new novel, that he was actively relating the story about heavenly visitors prior to 1828 [other than his family]? If you accept his version of the 4 year period, do you accept this? I do not know your beliefs, but do know that at least some believe that there was no teaching about heavenly visitors [beyond the first vision] before 1828.

[Chaucer]

Gohan, on Jan 29 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

Chaucer, on Jan 29 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

The problem with James' arguments or "honest opinions" is that he presents them in an academic manner, but at the same time his content and point of view is very UNacademic. This also includes the misrepresentations of quotes from other board members, which I've seen repeatedly. In any case, I believe many of the people responding to his criticism are simply stating "their" honest opinions. cool.gif

Be that as it may, I stated a while ago that if I ever felt a poster was being unfairly treated, I would defend them, no matter what their opinion.

On this point I completely agree with you.  This board is very tolerant of believers and critics alike, so long as their claims or concerns are legitimate.  Good congenial and scholarly discussion is what is "supposed" to take place here.  I admit that some are poking at James a little too much.  But at the same time I think some of this is either started or perpetuated by himself. This is exemplified by a thread that was recently shut down by Dunamis because James was misrepresenting quotes by other board members. Some are probably getting defensive by some of his unfounded attacks on the church.  His ad hom tactics can stir up emotion too.  But on the whole, I agree.  We must be respectful here.  

Cheers

Chaucer