Chris Smith Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem" Link to comment
soren Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"I'm also impressed by the chiasmus, not because it is particularly Hebraic, but because it is very skillful both in technical execution and in elegance.What is a mopologist anyway? Link to comment
Obiwan Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 That's a real good start.... Especially given that you recognize the significance of all the various Witnesses. We give our own witness that there is a TON more, just as good.Read http://www.nephiproject.com "81 evidences" book, for more on some of those that you like.Though, it's actually "81 Points" from the Book of Mormon they use to discover the hundreds of evidences, related to Lehi's entire journey in the old world. So much matches, that it's beyond human possibility. Link to comment
Sargon Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"Thanks Chris!! I always enjoy your honesty. Sargon Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"That's a pretty good list, and one I would also consider "compelling," though not so much so to counter the evidence to the contrary. But as long as the discovering hasn't all been done, we have something we can discuss.Don't look now, but I've been called to a countermopologist disciplinary council. Link to comment
MAsh Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 What is a mopologist anyway?See http://www.mormonfortress.com/gloss1.html Link to comment
cdowis Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 SheumPahoran, PaanchiBountiful == twelve points of correspondence, including the presence of iron ore Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 SheumPahoran, PaanchiBountiful == twelve points of correspondence, including the presence of iron oreIt would be interesting to ask what "countermo" arguments the mopologists find compelling. Link to comment
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"You said you have answers...we have debated before. What answer do you have for #2...witnesses. "in the mouth of two or more...shall be established"Pa Pa Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"You're a good egg Chris. I'm wondering about this "Mulek" dilly though (I'm pretty sure I've read something one it, but could you refresh my memory)? Two that I find compelling are the Lihyanites and also this. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It would be interesting to ask what "countermo" arguments the mopologists find compelling.Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.Years ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher was Alan Goff, whom many here might know. He spent some time on that issue, and he basically said it was problematic. The Book of Mormon's rather obvious textual dependency on the KJV is I think a big problem, but that would be a different thread. Link to comment
Paul Ray Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 In light of Juliann's latest driveby (this is starting to look the streets of LA, people!), I thought I would point out that "countermopologists" are not completely oblivious to possible evidences for the truth of the Restored gospel. While I see many more evidences that it isn't, here are seven that I don't have good answers for. (With emphasis on "good". I have answers, just not answers that I think are really satisfying.)1) "If...and" conditionals in the BoM2) The three and the 8 witnesses, as well as the great crowd of witnesses to various other miraculous events in early Mormonism3) The rapid dictation of an extraordinarily complex Book of Mormon, apparently without notes4) The Edwards and Edwards argument for the intentionality of Book of Mormon chiasmus5) Mulek, son of Zedekiah6) Nahom7) The "land of Jerusalem"I would understand you better if I understood what your questions are on those issues.Please explain what it would take to really satisfy you. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I would understand you better if I understood what your questions are on those issues.Please explain what it would take to really satisfy you.It's fascinating that even when critics concede evidence, some people still don't think they're satisfied. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I don't share the same list at Chris but I'll add a few.1.) The success and growth of the church.2.) The earnestness of most of the members.3.) LDS Polytheistic beliefs closer in line with Canaanite polytheism than Trinitarian Christianity.Phaedrus Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity. Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Pa Pa,My answer for the witnesses is basically that other religious traditions have similar miraculous support for their beliefs. So as powerful as the Mormon witness accounts are, I'm reluctant to take them as proof of anything.Steuss,You're a good egg Chris. I'm wondering about this "Mulek" dilly though (I'm pretty sure I've read something one it, but could you refresh my memory)? Basically, a seal has been found bearing the name Malachiah, son of Zedekiah. A hypocorism of this name might be "Melek". The BoM reports that Mulek was a son of Zedekiah.-Chris Link to comment
Dale Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 With Chiasmus I doubt Joseph Smith could have done it without a carefully worked out pre-existent manuscript. Since he dictated to scribes he would have had to have a fantastic photo-graphic memory. To remember the elements of a Chiasmus in the correct order is most impressive. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.That would modify your reason #3 on the original list. It clear that the KJV text was used yet the claim is made that the composition was achieved without outside materials. Phaedrus Link to comment
soren Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.Really? Why would there be a problem with Smith using the KJV? I don't think the BOM's use of that source is questionable on any level that could not also be applied to the New Testament's use the LXX. I personally abandoned KJV-based criticism long ago for that reason. Misunderstandings of verses cited, sometimes resulting from the KJV translation, cam make for a valid line of questioning, but certainly not the use of the KJV as such. Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Really? Why would there be a problem with Smith using the KJV? I don't think the BOM's use of that source is questionable on any level that could not also be applied to the New Testament's use the LXX. I personally abandoned KJV-based criticism long ago for that reason. Misunderstandings of verses cited, sometimes resulting from the KJV translation, cam make for a valid line of questioning, but certainly not the use of the KJV as such.It's not Joseph Smith using the KJV that's the problem. It's BofM prophets using the KJV and expounding upon ideas and scriptures that, at least chronologically, they shouldn't have had access to. See, for example, the Second Isaiah stuff mentioned above. Link to comment
soren Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It's not Joseph Smith using the KJV that's the problem. It's BofM prophets using the KJV and expounding upon ideas and scriptures that, at least chronologically, they shouldn't have had access to. See, for example, the Second Isaiah stuff mentioned above.How do you know the BoM prophets used the KJV? How do you know they weren't just inspired with the same words the the Old World prophets were, and were therefore translated into English in a way that matched? Link to comment
John Williams Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 How do you know the BoM prophets used the KJV? How do you know they weren't just inspired with the same words the the Old World prophets were, and were therefore translated into English in a way that matched?It seems unlikely that a New World prophet would take a particular phrase or cue from the KJV and then expound on it in ways that only make sense from an English translation of those phrases or cues. Textual dependency means a lot more than just using the same words. But, no, I don't "know" what happened. I just find it extremely unlikely that what you describe happened. Link to comment
cinepro Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Hey Chris, have you heard about those horse bones they dug up in San Diego? Definitely #8 for your list. Link to comment
soren Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It seems unlikely that a New World prophet would take a particular phrase or cue from the KJV and then expound on it in ways that only make sense from an English translation of those phrases or cues. Textual dependency means a lot more than just using the same words. In that case I agree, strongly in fact. My objection was solely against criticizing the mere use of the KJV. Interpretations based on misunderstanding the KJV are a genuine problem.But, no, I don't "know" what happened. I just find it extremely unlikely that what you describe happened.But unlikelihood isn't a very good argument if you are talking about a faith proposition. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.