Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. Conclusions derived from mathematics are still observations, the knowledge is just derived via inferential means and is therefore a degree removed.
  2. Testing and observation can only demonstrate which potentialities are realized and available for observation, not the whole extent of the field of possibilities. Science does not have the tools to perform the maneuver you request.
  3. This is not substantiated by the data. One of the major elements of Carmack's research is comparison of the Book of Mormon with other works that seek to emulate KJV language. These authors were certainly exposed to the KJV and Shakespeare but the Book of Mormon is far more archaic in nature. Rudimentary understanding is not sufficient to account for the Book's higher archaism. Sophisticated stylometry has been done on the Book of Mormon. Cumulative results are inconclusive, though the most rigorous and recent study, to my knowledge, indicates the Book was written by multiple authors and
  4. This conviction is not shared. This seems to be the whole extent of the disagreement.
  5. That horse has been whipped raw, man.
  6. A number of reasons. A) Joseph Smith never wrote to us 21st-century Mormons who've come out of Primary and youth programs thinking that everything contained in Joseph's revelations must have come sui generis from the hand of God. He wrote and spoke to his contemporaries. On the contrary, the God that Joseph and his contemporaries worship is the same God who says: Bear in mind that these same people who Joseph was talking to were entirely unfazed by the relationship between Masonry and the temple. They just had different ideas about what prophetic authority meant and where truth co
  7. A) There's no such thing as "disinterested science." All science involves interpretation of data which can be and is skewed by a number of factors, including personal investment on the part of the scientist or the person applying the data to any specific interpretation. B) I dispute "moving further away all the time". Some developments are negative, some supportive. But it's not a unified progression in one direction.
  8. The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davi
  9. It's plain to those with the spirit of prophecy and revelation. That doesn't mean it isn't packed with symbolism.
  10. Sin in general. Sin puts us in a state of misery. Most sins lead to consequences all on their own, which tend to misery for anyone. For people who know God/want to know God, sin evokes misery since it distances us from Him. Adam and Eve, being human beings, sinned, just like the rest of us. Being cast out into the lone and dreary world must certainly have evoked feelings of misery in them, as did other sins they committed throughout their lives, I'd imagine. This earth life features a mortal body and the various sensations, temptations, disciplines, neurological experiences, etc. invo
  11. That's what the section introduction says, but Joseph didn't think to include it in any compendiums of revelation in his lifetime. It was only put into the canon in 1876 by Brigham Young, and even by then had been given non-prima facie readings by faithful and authoritative Saints like W.W. Phelps. The history of this revelation is somewhat garbled and as such its authority can be questioned, though I generally think it's authoritative. But I do think that we need to consider than numerical symbolism might be in play (for heaven's sakes, he gets it as a response to the Revelation of St.
  12. In other words, William Lane Craig's distinction of knowing something vs demonstrating something. I'm currently reading an essay from Plantinga in which he promises to take on classical foundationalism, and I admit I'm looking forward to finishing it. Everywhere that I've looked in philosophy promises that foundationalism is dead, positivism is dead, but I can't imagine a world without them. Their funeral invitations seem premature, though I admit I haven't seen the body yet. I need to get back to my James, but in short: that which cannot be experienced is not reality? I suppose th
  13. I meant psychophysical, sorry. A mechanism which might operate on a physical or psychological level. Ok, that seems clear enough. It's hard to break out of the paradigm that true = historical. That being said, I know you are a believer in historicity, but that it isn't a necessary condition for you. It always has been for me, and I do believe in it, but the idea that it could not be essential...that, like classical foundationalism, is a philosophical proposition that seems almost hardwired into me. The cultural training has been such that these ideas have immense staying power, whether t
  14. Are you planning to publish that study at some point? I for one would be delighted to read it and it sounds like it could be enlightening.
  15. They could have but I see that as unlikely. Too many people over too many different circumstances, literally ALL of which were rebuffed by the Church and fell away at some given point or other. That holds pretty strong for me. I'm pretty loathe to just dismiss historical records as "lying" or handwaving reported experiences as though they just didn't happen; it feels like stepping beyond my authority and cheapens the whole thing.
  16. I think I'm getting it. Let me list it out and see if I get it right. 1. All "reality" is in fact experienced and perceived by human beings 2. Human perceptions can be communicated through language, but only imperfectly. 3. The reality communicated by language is therefore 2 degrees removed from "reality", first via human perception and then via the "crooked, broken, narrow prison" of human language. 4. Therefore, truth cannot be grasped in language. Only our interpretations of experience can be represented. 5. Therefore, all language removes the possibility of "object
  17. You're talking about the spiritual manifestations surrounding the anointings, right? I'm not. I'm talking about the time that the Williams and Smith and Rigdon (I think) saw were given a visionary tour of the Kirtland Temple in 1833 before it was constructed. Visions like that, I can't explain them in a naturalistic paradigm. I'm always tempted to, or to just dismiss them as anomalies that should be explained later, but I consider it my right to demand an explanation for those things and so far the divine revelation model is the only one that can really explain it. I can't prove that it
  18. That theory makes shipwreck on the appearance of the Savior to Smith and Cowdery, the appearance of the Kirtland Temple to Smith, Williams, and Rigdon(?), the Three Witnesses, the Vision of D&C 76, and other visions. Joseph Smith's internal hallucinations could not imprint themselves on the minds of those around him. Nor, might I add, did he experience seizures while receiving revelation: Brigham Young, Philo Dibble, Sidney Rigdon, Wilford Woodruff, and a host of other Saints would attest otherwise.
  19. Precisely. That's why I have never been convinced by the claims that Joseph manipulated the witnesses by means of hypnosis or other tricks: vivid hallucinations cannot be produced on demand and to order. Thus, the testimony of the Witnesses and the many other divine witnesses of the early Church remain in force for me. I've often wondered about miracles. Things like John Tanner's leg, the "day of God's power" at Nauvoo, numerous and sundry other reported healings and such. Not to derail the OP, but I've heard such dismissed as merely "events that you have interpreted as miracles." Is tha
  20. Was Phelps quoting explicitly from Joseph Smith? I'm not in the same state as my copy of the Times and Seasons right now, but when I read it a few days ago I thought that it was Phelps spitballing as opposed to explicitly quoting Joseph. Also, it was in December 1844, not January.
  21. Quit using a motte and bailey argument. Asherah being a goddess in the pantheon does not equate with being the True God of Israel as you have previously claimed. Nor does it imply that the Israelite pantheon was correct.
  22. I'm not rich enough to buy the full set of Skousen's work, so the Harold B. Lee Library better have a copy available.
  23. The problem is, Mr. Crockett, the people you are quoting are not saying what you say they are saying. I respect your right to adhere to your interpretation but I must say that it is entirely unconvincing and unsupported, more of a caricature than anything else. Barker, as quoted by Peterson, has said that Asherah idols were found in the temple of Israel and that the Deuteronomists altered the scriptural history to erase them. This is not even close to declaring Asherah to be Israel's God, which is what you are saying. I cannot help but feel that you've been through this on this board bef
  24. Mr. Crockett, with respect, I have never heard these things, and I'm rather familiar with what Barker and Peterson have actually said. Your characterization seems to be the mischaracterization here.
  • Create New...