Calm

Wiki claims it was more than just dictionaries and glossaries if I understand it correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chatterton Another source has him in possession of documents he could use and others he could borrow: https://www.davidcastleton.net/thomas-chatterton-poet-death-suicide-seventeen-forgery-medieval/#:~:text=This began to change when,the church some years earlier. need to resort to chat again to,summarize, sorry, but too impatient to wait for my brain to catch up with my curiosity… I asked it if there were comparable sources in Joseph’s environment for what Carmack and others had found in terms of archaic language Pulling out the bit on Carmack… Since I don’t view Chat as an authority, I am posting this to show where the search would need to be to,show a true parallel situation between Chatterton and Smith. I also noticed in my reading Chatterton’s description in his early and late childhood is dramatically different than Smith’s. Chatterton was recognized as gifted by his mother, was quite the reader (but not of “small books”) and was published by age 11. Joseph…not so much the reader or writer, though he was said by his mother to be a good storyteller (as in presenting material, whether he made it up himself or was presenting information he learned in his visions is what is debated).

Thank you for the suggestion. I might even pass it on back to my dietitian for her to pass on to her clients (she loved my advice on tofu I had picked up on FB…for those interested in a tasty, low calorie protein source but tofu is seen as blah in flavor and texture, I highly recommend this: freezing tofu—the firmer forms work best—changes its texture, dries it out some making the texture is closer to meat when crumbled, also absorbs marinade much better for stronger flavor; boiling in salted water is easier for better absorption of flavors, but I prefer freezing with the more interesting texture as well).

How do you envision avoiding or at least lessening the likelihood of people going off the rails when not getting feedback on their ideas? As in gospel hobbying or assuming their interpretation must be the correct one? The there are those who are too insecure about their learning skills and fear to even start without some face to face engagement.

How does this match up with similar maps?

We had a family of a professor colleague of my husband’s move in with us for several months due to a delay in their home being available. I believe my husband’s only prior direct contact with the husband was during the hiring process. My default position is that people are good, very good actually if I am being honest. I wouldn’t let them move into our home if I wasn’t. Still there is no way in hell I would have accepted financial advice or health advice and bought supplements or some unusual health device from him or even bought a vacuum after several weeks (in fact that would likely be the period I would be the least likely as it would be in the annoy me in every way stage 😛 ). And change my faith? I would need to see how someone operated over a long time, especially under pressure so I could see just how committed to their faith and what they actually taught they truly were. And while initially I might be a bit too willing to go with the group consensus or rather too unwilling to speak out against it being terminally shy in awkward situations (flashing back to my teen years), it would not endure because resentment would quickly build over the sense of pressure and at the very least if anyone asked me I would share my misgivings and belief of being manipulated. I get our culture is very different than theirs, but I am in a very comfortable financial situation where mistakes and trusting the wrong person isn’t likely to destroy me financially. Life was not as secure with safety nets back then, which makes me think they were likely prone to being less trusting. They might not survive trusting the wrong person (many people died because of their trust in Joseph, he deserves to burn in hell if it was a con….which I don’t believe it was). Certainly the criticisms that came out of that era shows gossip, destruction of reputation, and conspiracy thinking back then was deadly like the internet is now even if its was localized and slower to travel. There were immediately challenges to the families that trusted Joseph, they weren’t in some sort of bubble where no conflicting info was presented to them. There would be many reasons for them to reconsider over the years their commitment. David Whitmer showed he was capable of breaking with Joseph, after all. Others as well. Even if some kept their concerns about the Book of Mormon likely being a con quiet for whatever reason, all of them doing so seems highly unlikely given many distanced themselves from the Church and from any reinforcement of the need to stay ‘faithful’. The majority of the Witnesses were out of the Church by the time Joseph died, been excommunicated even. They were already questioning and making decisions to reject his claims, some of them being public about it. Why would all go so far, but stop before getting to the conclusion of fraud when it came to the Book of Mormon?

Going into detail about one potential problem with using AI as well as just throwing out a caution to those using AI for help with exploring and researching health issues like I currently am. The dietitian I went to yesterday for help with fine tuning diet and hydration informed me when I asked her how helpful Chat was cautioned Chat is great up to a point (she had recommended it for finding FODMAP recipes and altering them to match my preferences as well as calculating macros since I am mentally resisting using a food tracking app for some reason) as it tends to focus on one solution and match everything to that rather than reevaluate each time new info comes in. I have noticed a fixation on certain foods I have already told it I don’t eat. I also have noticed that with hydration questions. Almost all my symptoms are now being explained as “that makes sense given your sensitivity to…”. Apparently how likely Chat is going to do this varies with disorders. She says her heart drops when someone says they have been using Chat to deal with their kidney disease because its tendency to stay focused on the wrong things is actually dangerous. With my variety of issues it’s a mixed bag, but potentially dangerous because there is so little actually known about fibromyalgia. I have been surprised that fibromyalgia is now hardly ever included in its appraisal of how something is going to affect me. Normally I ask it for academic sources for anything it claims and then actually read them. I have found that a lot of its “academic” sources are not and that many articles do not support claims, so I was already cautious. Even so, we had to spend sometime correcting some mistaken ideas I had picked up from assuming Chat was at least in the ballpark….which was the purpose of the visit so very glad I gritted my teeth and went, especially because I haven’t been able to double check with deep dives lately because of ridiculously low energy levels…and the dietitian is pretty sure that’s on my fibromyalgia and not hydration levels unlike Chat, lol Bottom line…if you have kidney disease go to your doctor and dietitian to manage the disease, not Chat Not quite bottom line….relying on AI to evaluate when lacking expertise enough oneself to accurately judge that evaluation isn’t the best idea when bias and tendency to focus when it shouldn’t appears to be built in. AI is great for saving time. Using it to control for bias….that is problematic in my view. I get that better models are more effective, but if I understand correctly from discussions with my programmer son, it’s pretty baked in at this point. I would love to be corrected (correctly of course) on this, but the experts I do know that I have talked to about this are always preaching major caution over bias.

Jacob Bryant was from the 1700s, correct? If so, he lacked many of the tools they now used to examine texts. I am more interested in a modern appraisal of consistency, etc. The “its” applies to the archaic language, not the Book of Mormon, meaning was the EModE used as a person who spoke and wrote EModE as their own language would most likely use it. Chatterton’s work is very impressive, but is it a close enough parallel to be used to show if Joseph was equally precious, Chatterton’s method could explain what Joseph did? Did Joseph have access to such texts as he would need to find authentic examples? Was his works much the same patchwork that I have read Chatterton’s work was or is there more consistency in its structure and use of the archaic language? I am sure there are other aspects of the works that should be compared that champatsch and Ryan likely can come up with and hopefully can provide evaluations on.

Have you looked at Brant Gardner’s view of what was going on? I actually haven’t been able to read it, but he talked about his ideas on this board some iirc. His book was published in 2012, I think. Was wondering how much info at the time was available onEModE, etc in the text and if Brant interacted with it, what your response is. https://gregkofford.com/products/the-gift-and-power I haven’t kept up on his work since he hasn’t posted much on the board.

An interesting case. Chat said he had access to authentic records through his local church as well as the charity school he went to. But do the parallels survive the closest examination? Was his pseudo archaic language used consistently correctly? As I understand the claims for the Book of Mormon, the archaic language that is present is used correctly for its alleged time period. Were there these types of archaic documents available to Joseph? (Sincerely don’t know, makes sense for an old church in England to have documents from centuries before, less likely in the area Joseph was in, but still possible I am guessing).

I was thinking about changing teachers as a possibility (wasn’t sure how it could work), but how much interaction happens between YM and YW at church in other ways? Serious question as haven’t been involved in these activities for 20 years.

I don’t understand why you believe revealed thoughts can’t involve words. At least that is what I think you are saying here since names are words.

I love usage discussions, so will happily go down this rabbit hole with you. You are correct “someone else” is singular. I was thinking both of individuals, including God and a group of individuals…singular in purpose, multiple individuals involved. I often view God in the same way, as in the God I am referring to might be the Father or might be the Godhead, or might be the Council, or might be the Father and Mother, the Father and Son, or another divine community formed around the Father and Mother. I should have been clearer and stated “someone else or multiple someones “ This is actually what I think of ever since I first heard about EModE in the text. Dan Peterson as a FAIR conference iirc, it was yearsssss ago so may have been someone else (singular for sure here ). Given the range of time the various words were in use, it seems logical to me it was a collective effort of individuals from different centuries, whether together or building on each other; otherwise why bother with the variety? I get the idea of trying to make it sound like scripture by using archaic wording, but it seems awkward and all over the place. That’s committee work. 😛

The very name—converting a person from one thing to another—is wrong, imo.

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives. I have been acquainted (mostly online) with a couple of his patients, some very positive and grateful for his work with them even decades later, one who thinks the therapy was highly damaging. There are so many ways this kind of therapy can go wrong and with parents who view homosexuality as a sin, their kid has an uphill battle to come out without a lot of damage. Just think of what it would be like for a kid constantly accused by their parents of being a liar even though they were very truthful, the parents just didn’t like some of what they said, so to protect their own feelings labeled their child a liar. And then they got a therapist to help the child to learn how to be honest…and the therapist accepted the parents were right and when the kid protested, assumed that was just proof they were a liar. Parents are likely to seek out a therapist that agrees with their views. There is way too much negative baggage attached to homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in our culture. Combining those two things means it is way too easy for therapy to help a child decrease homosexual behaviour to go wrong. I am not saying it should never be done, I think when it becomes truly dysfunctional therapy should be an option just as it should be when heterosexual behaviour is damaging. I do believe therapists who do such work should be overseen to ensure their methods are actually helpful (backed by evidence and not just feel good ideas) and not inducing shame, etc. But then I think the counseling field should be more regulated with stronger oversight, including “life coaches” and anyone who puts out themselves as qualified to counsel others for pay. In case anyone thinks I give bishops/clergy a complete free pass here, I do not. I think much more training should take place if we expect our bishops to be counselors given the amount of authority individuals give them. Once a talk moves past a supportive friend helping you talk things through, once authority enters the picture, we should be careful. This is probably the biggest reason I wish we had paid clergy, though it doesn’t weight more for me than the many reasons I appreciate we have unpaid clergy (big ones are more likely avoiding those who are not sincere in their desire to help others, less likely to get those looking for a great career to use for grooming purposes).

My problem is growing up funeral potatoes always had canned green beans in them. Yech!!! The potatoes, soup, and cheese version still ain’t great as generally too much cheese or too much soup (I dislike strongly most cream of canned soups, didn’t have them at home, Mom made almost everything from scratch). Like the potato chip topping.

I agree, but other nonChurch schools were also doing the same sort of research as noted in the Mormonr timeline. One study at BYU that lasted less than a year iirc does not show a pattern of behaviour imo. Now there may have been other studies on changing homosexual attraction not involving aversion therapy, I likely know of one but I can’t remember the exact details, what the dissertation involved. But I also know that particular dissertation referenced studies that were being down at mainstream universities. So while such work aligned with the Church’s goals and that likely helped drive interest, not sure one should conclude the Church was the primary reason those studies (aversion and others) were going on at BYU since it was happening other universities, including aversion therapy studies at the universities of Pittsburgh, Harvard, and Wisconsin-Milwaukee and others iirc.

Yes, I was using aversion therapy in the last paragraph as a broader term used for treatment in a variety of situations while I hope also acknowledging it was used specifically in attempts to decrease homosexual attraction which aspect I include under the larger umbrella of conversion therapy….though now you made me wonder if the sole purpose was to decrease or eliminate and not change to heterosexual attraction if that falls under conversion. It is still change involved or hoped for, so seems likely. Aversion (broad application) therapy has questionable results in almost all areas (short term gains perhaps, lacking in long term and not worth the nontrivial distress). I think the only one there might be some success with is alcohol, but haven’t looked at the research for awhile and don’t remember. Its lack of enduring success and significant harm for some would be a good reason for therapists not to advertised they once used it in their practice even if it was mainstream and quite popular for a time (it was everywhere for weight loss when I was in high school and college).

I was thinking the Church isn’t BYU and somethings that happen at BYU have nothing to do with the Church (you wouldn’t say the Church runs business competitions for students because they occur at BYU….or at least I wouldn’t), but I believe there were bishops that recommended or possibly even required students to undertake whatever happened (heard conflicting stories from those directly involved) as well as references from the BYU Counseling Center, so while I wouldn’t say “the Church practiced conversion therapy” because I don’t believe the individual doing it was hired for that purpose to the best of my knowledge, but maybe “allowed” or “condoned” or at the very least there was no active attempt to stop it from happening. The caveat that what was done according to him was not a fringe treatment at the time, but standard practice can be added for context, but should not be used as an excuse. Though I am only aware of the claims and the defense for aversion therapy at BYU and assume that is what you are talking about. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu https://mormonr.org/qnas/parwO/gay_conversion_therapy_and_byu (Includes a timeline for context, some events I was not aware of) I would be shocked to find out there were not more than 2 LDS psychologists who used aversion therapy in their private practice as well as the semi subset conversion therapy (which involves more than just aversion therapy depending on how it’s defined) and some bishops, maybe many, who advised gay ward members to undergo it, but good to see it’s documented in these.

Which evidences are not necessarily the ones needed for evidence of fraud…such as manuscripts of drafts, for example. These could be easily destroyed. As could any physical evidence of fraud, which is one reason critics often mention Joseph removes the plates completely. The destruction of the plates could easily be achieved by cutting them up enough so they were unrecognizable and dumping them in a lake. For us, any evidence from over 2000 years, 2 hemispheres, etc can be useful. All this “same evidences” available to the critics is useless to them for the most part for a positive narrative. They only have short time period that would be relevant to find positive evidence if the book was a fraud. There is also the problem of documentation of activity. If someone was engaged in fraud would they be likely to intentionally leave records of clandestine meetings, etc as someone not engaged in fraud? The co-conspirators keeping mum is one reason I listed as to why evidence opportunities to prove fraud would likely be limited to very few individuals as opposed to the thousands (millions?) available for defenders to choose from as well as being able to simply depend on made up characters for the narrative. Even if they lacked CCTV in 1830, it would be harder to make a plausible nonexistent player for that time period than for 1500 years before that if only because of expectations (who expects to find birth, marriage, or death records of someone from 400 CE)? Zelph is easier to claim than a scholar who supports the Book of Mormon as true (Anthon didn’t cooperate with it being an authentic text after all, doesn’t prove the text was a fraud, but he’s not the positive proof for Joseph you are requiring from the critics), so it would make sense for Joseph to try to limit engagement with others as much as possible, relying on verbal testimony, providing fewer opportunities for physical evidence to be examined and challenged. Again, none of this should be seen as suggesting the critics are right. I am merely addressing opportunities to create a positive, coherent narrative of a short-term, local fraud involving a few people vs creating a positive narrative being able to shift through thousands of years, practically limitless locations and people looking for plausible connections.

I agree with this, but couldn’t it still occur if an age limit were put on serving. I do think we would miss out on some benefits in some cases, but the losses might be more than compensated for by the gains. I may be wrong here because I am using personal experiences of 80 and older individuals and in all likelihood, the 15 are not typical seniors. There are at the very least significant cognitive benefits to remaining engaged in substantial and meaningful work, both for cognitive and social health and therefore physical health. I do wish for their sake there was a basic health standard though. It must be difficult for these sincere, committed men to struggle with health and on top of that know it’s interfering in your ability to serve. I believe it would be more beneficial to be able to think of it as ‘I have done my best, now it’s time for someone else to have this opportunity’, which needs to happen eventually anyway. Just make it a few years earlier. Inability to serve and support others is the primary regret I have about my health, not the lost opportunities I have had to develop myself and fulfill my dreams—though these hurt deeply—but the sense of loss (and failing when my mind is undisciplined) because I haven’t been able to be in my family and friends’ lives as much as I wanted and expected, especially to give them support and love through their difficulties. These weigh on me and these were optional choices for the most part (by the time it was affecting my family, my kids were adults), not something I see as a full time commitment. I think of Bruce R. McConkie, who even when terminally ill would get dressed in his suit and then lay on his bed too exhausted to do anything else. The drive to serve can be so strong, so much a part of one’s identity permission to rest needs to be something more than just ‘you have done enough, go home and take care of yourself’. Something concrete like a release may be hard on the ego, but if it becomes common the benefit of being able to focus on self care and those immediately around one would be high, imo. https://fontanacomeuntochrist.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie/

I agree with this to a certain extent (not familiar enough with all the critics’ efforts to be draw a definite conclusion), but see it as expected whether or not the text is what it claims to be or a fraud. Therefore, while interesting, it’s not particularly meaningful. While I believe Saints have a good case for plausibility for the text with the evidence gathered so far***, I also think what the critics have to work with is a much more limited set of data even if much closer in time (which helps in ease of collection, but not in margins of error so to speak). That makes their work harder, imo. If one assumes (incorrectly imo) the text is a fraud, they do not have two hemispheres in which they can go looking for potential matches, they have a couple of northeastern states to work with. They don’t have millennia of possibilities to shift through to find parallels, but maybe a decade at most and they have one man and his small entourage as the focus as opposed to the population of the mentioned hemispheres during those millennia. If one assumes the text is a fraud (again I think it an unnecessary and ultimately incorrect assumption, but then I believe in the divine), they have to deal with the intentional hiding or destruction of the very evidence they need by those involved. Just because there is inequality in opportunities to find evidence doesn’t mean we shouldn’t require it of critics for arguments against the text. We shouldn’t give them freebies to balance out the lesser number of opportunities to find plausible evidence and concede they have supplied a solid, plausible, and supported case for the claim of fraud when they haven’t. This search for history is not a game. I am just suggesting acting like the critics have had equal opportunity and therefore it’s highly meaningful and weighs on the scale in favor of the text and the narrative surrounding it being truth because they have failed in collecting substantial and coherent plausible, positive evidence where Saints have been more successful is being unrealistic, imo. The efforts are not that comparable. Smac, while I noticed you added “without heavy speculation” to your criticism (a good call), I haven’t seen you address the issues of the likely comparative difficulty critics would have in finding evidence if the text was a fraud and why they are left to speculate (that would be on Joseph and others trying to hide the alleged fraud to a great extent if they were halfway intelligent, which they were by most credible accounts). Perhaps I missed your rebuttal. ***I, of course, believe the text is revelation though the historicity of the text matters to me in the same way the Bible does, otoh Joseph’s story of finding the plates, etc…I see that as necessary history with the usual caveats of how history is never what actually happened, but perception of events that get altered over time as memories get visited and unintentionally rewritten. I also think examining the text itself and connecting external evidence to it (geographical and other factors) has created a good case for plausibility. When critics resort to relying on traditional interpretations and “plain readings” that require assumptions based on these as their strongest arguments, I find their arguments weak. I also think a conspiracy involving more than a couple of people too likely to be leaked.

Why not found its way on its own later attracted by the plant offerings? Were the beetles carbon dated (I can’t remember if you mentioned this before or not and need to not get too deep into the thread again for now for various reasons).

If so, there is one very large point of historicity that must still stand…there must be a Christ who lived, shed blood, died, and was resurrected for us. I assume you agree with this. If not, can you explain please how our Lord’s shed blood matters if he never actually shed blood?

They need some teacher training on how to choose what to focus on and how to keep it focused.

I do. Is it accurate? Seems like it is to me, especially if one believes God is human. If you want to say that “someone else” is likely confusing to people because most don’t think of God in that terms, I can see that, but to make a blanket statement that use of “someone else” can’t include God as an option…I see that as going too far.