Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. Access to the historical department only matters if the historical department contains the relevant information. That's why I asked how Reel's source reached his conclusions. Since the pictures of the Hedlock woodcut are available for all the world to see and examine, the only reason why the insider source would be relevant is if there is a historical source (a letter, a journal entry, a record) which clarifies that the snout was chiseled off. I asked Reel if that was the case. He has still declined to answer the question, despite presumably being aware of it due to the board's notificat
  2. Your focus on "the fine implication" obscures the strident moral dilemma at play here. Whether it is done for our own protection or as retribution, locking someone up still constitutes a harm. By what right do we do that? By what right do we hurt other people, even in self-defense? If both of us, the injured and the injurer, are just hurtling down the same temporal slope, what right to I have to enforce my good over theirs? What is a right, anyway, and what does the concept of "right" even mean in a world where all choice is fated? What's good about love or concern when they only imply a prede
  3. It probably wasn't Nephi who was writing this part. 3 Nephi 8:1-2 indicates that this record is being composed long after the fact, probably by Mormon or someone in his time. That opens interpretive possibilities up: mythic inflation of events, exaggerated archival documents from which Mormon was drawing, etc. Ancient historiography as compared to modern. I do think that we need to temper our expectations for the accuracy of the text at this point. After all, there are many cities mentioned in the war chapters and other places which are not mentioned as destroyed. Manti, Noah, Ammonihah, Gideo
  4. You don't sound like you're speculating. You sound like you're advancing a theory, for which there is no evidence. O was a dictation manuscript. It strains credulity to think that Joseph would dictate to Oliver and then redictate the text all the way over again, but that is what your theory requires. Again, this theory is pure unfiltered speculation and no evidence exists to back up the idea that there was a pre-O manuscript.
  5. There were relatively small revisions between the first and second edition of the Book of Mormon, yes, and small revisions have continued since. And yes, Joseph did revise his revelations in the D&C. Revelation to his mind was ongoing and the canon was fluid, as it should be for us. However, to your point, there's no evidence that emendations were ever made between O and P. P matches the 28% of O which we have faithfully, including some of the most significant chapters in the Book of Mormon. So, P and O offer no evidence for changes. Furthermore, Oliver was transcribing P bit-by-bit until
  6. @Robert F. Smith, I was under the impression that compatibilism was still the consensus position. Didn't know that strict determinism had taken over. Either way, call me a Luddite if you will, I'm not ashamed, but that sort of stuff represents to me a dark well of inescapable nihilism. If choice is nonexistent, what right have we to punish the criminal? What right have we to enforce law? What does a right, or the right, even mean anyway? This is verging on the classic quote from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists [or philosophers or theoreticians] were so preoccupied with whether or not they
  7. If I'm not mistaken, you are positing that there was a secret original manuscript prior to the one which we currently call O, the original manuscript. This runs up on several problems. The manuscript which we call O has been identified as the same manuscript Joseph Smith buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. He didn't do it in secret: multiple witnesses (not within Joseph's inner circle either) record Joseph ambling up to the House and chatting with them for a while, being very open about the fact that he was burying the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. A remark from Hy
  8. That was uncalled for. It's not anyone's place on here to diagnose anybody else with a "complex", as if we had any understanding of each other beyond the vague outlines of our Internet avatars. Even if we did, just telling somebody that they've "got a bit of a complex" is pretty rude. @Fair Dinkum, I'm sorry that you've felt unwelcomed and I'm sorry for the contempt you have experienced. It seems we have fallen short of the promises we made as followers of Christ.
  9. On the one hand: mobbings, murders, repeated dispossession and expulsion. On the other hand: pure faith, miracles abundant, and the ministration of angels. "Lord, if those were Dark Ages, give me a little darkness."
  10. You have thus far declined to answer my question from several days ago: how can he confirm the snout?
  11. Regardless of whether or not she was responding to the Spalding Theory, she says that there was "no book or manuscript". That statement stands and is corroborated universally by all eyewitnesses.
  12. @mgy401 lays out a startling case for local government duplicity in this matter. I'm intrigued now.
  13. If Gee has changed his mind on some piece of evidence, that's alright. We value intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, this sets a disturbing precedent for LDS scholars. If RFM is right and Gee did change his mind, shouldn't his credibility be strengthened for his demonstrated willingness to do so? No. In exchange for intellectual honesty "RFM concludes we have to be cautious about taking at face value anything John Gee says about the Book of Abraham." There's no winning with the likes of RFM, so we simply don't care about his take. OGHoosier concludes we have to be cautious about taking at
  14. I think he was just talking about the part where people take the BoA manuscripts to be the original translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, and thus take them to be representative of Joseph's translation methodology. But I admit, I laughed.
  15. I know you weren't asking me these questions, but I'll chime in anyway. I think Barker's analysis is pretty strong. I know it's a minority position, but her analysis is strong enough to introduce reasonable doubt as to the post-exilic nature of the root text of Isaiah 53. My paradigm allows me to believe that not all of Isaiah 53 need be pre-exilic for the Book of Mormon to feature it, since I do believe that God values the end result of scripture and I am not tied to the view that the only acceptable scripture is the original urtext. But Barker has introduced an analysis sufficiently strong f
  16. Brigham's confidence is something I hope to one day obtain. Building a temple will make the "bells of hell ring"? Ring 'em louder! The Church will be destroyed by the incoming railroad? Build it faster! Brigham was just fearless. He didn't care. He just bulldozed. Perhaps some restraint may have been in order on some things, but darned do I admire his absolute conviction that God was with him and the work and hell or high water would just have to get out of the way.
  17. I got Mantua relatively quickly because a relative of mine had a house there for a few years. Still struggling with Duchesne.
  18. Alma 11:7 would seem to indicate that these are standardized measures across a number of commodities. It's quite possible that God, in transmitting the Book to Joseph Smith, emphasized gold and silver as the commodity of exchange because it would be more readily understandable to the target audience of the Book. On the other hand, I think it's possible that the Nephites retained a higher degree of reverence for gold and silver than other nations around them. We know that gold-fever, likely a holdover from the Old World, overtook the Nephites within the lifetime of Jacob (cf. Jacob 2:12).
  19. I find myself agreeing, generally speaking. I would like to hear your view more specifically elaborated, if you don't mind. How did Joseph use the word "translation?"
  20. That was mentioned a little bit earlier, but thank you for making sure! It purports to be an important article and I'm interested in seeing it.
  21. Not a scholarly response, and I wouldn't call Ritner a fool, but he does seem to carry a certain bitterness and my opinion of Dehlin and RFM is in the same ballpark as that of the quoted commentator.
  22. I'm hardly suited for that but I would love to see you do it. Townsend's argument, as he's put if forward, is that Trito-Isaiah's influence extends beyond the traditional Trito-Isaiah chapters, that he also edited and left his mark on Deutero-Isaiah. Of course, if such is the case, and if even Deutero-Isaiah was borrowing from older literature, then I think the whole thing kind of collapses into a "corpus of Isaianic-school texts continually updated and refined over time", and God saw fit to include the finished product in the completed Book of Mormon. It's like Hugh Nibley's old argumen
  23. A 150-acre farm doesn't yield enough to be worth the expenditure of maintaining it to contemporary standards. Better for the land to be used for something else beneficial to the community - though the community disagrees and the Church has held up plans in order to respect that .
×
×
  • Create New...