Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. I'd give you rep points if I could, but I can't, so this will have to do.
  2. May I offer a friendly critique about the parallels from the second conspiracy? 1. "The second conspiracy was carried out by people associated with the first." This is true. I would say the central character of Helaman 1-2 is neither Gadianton nor Helaman III, who only appear in the second chapter. Nor is it any of the sons of Pahoran or the Lamanites. Rather, I'd say it's Kishkumen the assassin, the bridge between the events. Gadianton only comes on the scene in time for the second conspiracy, as is made clear by Helaman 2:4. It's a bit of a complication to the parallel but not too big.
  3. The charity floweth from your judgement as milk and honey in Eden.
  4. I can't speak about Ritner's case. All I can say is, tough. Clearly it hasn't imperiled his work. As for Baer's observation, I don't think it's particularly incriminating. Correct me if I"m wrong, but that just means that the lacunae were already missing when the papyri were glued to the backing. That's not really incriminating. They could have flaked off in the intervening period between their transfer from Chandler to Smith and their backing on paper. In fact, it makes sense, as the deterioration of the papyri would provide an excellent motivation for putting them on backing paper.
  5. Is that a reconstruction of JSP Facsimile 1 or a separate instance put forward by Ritner?
  6. This is essentially untrue. It is Dehlin who asks the questions and curates the discussion. He decides the table rules and what makes it on air. That's like saying that a debate has zilch to do with the moderator. I also love the appeal to authority inherent in your "actual expert in the room" shtick. Nibley didn't have a degree in Egyptology but to say he was uninformed is laughable. If an accredited degree is the only thing that can confer upon one the dignity of "expert", then you've just turned it into a pay-to-play scheme undeserving of particular respect. Dan Vogel only has a B.A.
  7. Depends on the jury. Isn't the point of having a jury that people look at things in different ways, can see the same things and come to different conclusions? That's why there's 12 of them, not just 1. There's a whole phase of a trial process called jury selection, where the lawyers filter the jurors prior to empanelation to ensure that the jury will be more likely to hear their case fairly/favorably. You, as a juror, might side with the prosecution. Others, like Kevin Christensen, might see things differently. Now, as to what Bro. Christensen said: the fact that you think there's nothin
  8. If so, these are going to be some crazy years coming up. Then again, we're pretty sure they will be anyway.
  9. If you don't care about your credibility, how do you presume to get your views across?
  10. Perhaps so. I don't think EModE proves divine provenance but I think it substantially weakens the case for Smithian authorship. That's the long and the short of it.
  11. Where's the conflict? Linguistic analysis can speak to whether or not EModE is in the BoM but the reasons why have to be left to the theorists. Is there something wrong with this?
  12. Conclusions derived from mathematics are still observations, the knowledge is just derived via inferential means and is therefore a degree removed.
  13. 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.
  14. I was talking about Hilton and the Berkeley Group.
  15. 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
  16. This conviction is not shared. This seems to be the whole extent of the disagreement.
  17. That horse has been whipped raw, man.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. It's plain to those with the spirit of prophecy and revelation. That doesn't mean it isn't packed with symbolism.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
×
×
  • Create New...