Translation Method

[the narrator]

LE:

Bunk! "Secular humanism" as a phrase doesn't even enter the lexicon until the early 20th century. "Secularism" as a word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

Exactly. Precisely why it isn't in the Book of Mormon either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that secular humanism didn't exist in the 19th century because those exact words didn't exist, and yet say that the BofM addresses secular humanism even though those words don't exist in the text.

You would absolutely never have heard an 18th or 19th century humanist (at least in public) suggesting that "whatsoever a man does is no crime."

That is Vogel's point!! You don't have universalist's saying that, but you do have anti-universalists saying those very words of universalists.

Furthermore, there are no pure secular humanists in the BofM, thus you never see 20th century secular humanism in the BofM. The universalists of the Book of Mormon all assume a transcendent being, whether it be God or the devil.

I challenge you to cite any articulation of "secular humanism" from the 18th or 19th centuries that comes even close to saying what Korihor had to say. Not only that, but you'd better find it somewhere that Joseph Smith had ready access to it, because it (in my judgment) is probably the single most clearly elucidated "ism" against which the Book of Mormon speaks, and that over a century before the philosophy would appear and begin to gain any traction in America and the world at large.

Apparently, you still don't get Vogel's main point, which I hope my comments above help illustrate.

[the narrator]

Of course, caricatures are based on the most salient aspects of the things which they are intended to represent.

Except, they are not just based on them. They are exaggerations and misrepresentations. When used caustically, they are usually things that those caricatured would reject. Take conservative (and Beckian) caricatures of Obama as an example. Do you think Obama would find them even close to his own self-description?

To the extent the notions of universalism have always been around (and I submit that Moses 4:1 dates the origins of the discussion even before the advent of man upon the earth)

Oh yeah, there is another place where Joseph Smith possibly brings up a topic from the Book of Mormon which you claim he never brings up after the Book of Mormon. Though, I have a different reading of the text, where Moses portrays satan as the jealous and prideful prince and is not espousing universalism--which most, people, understandably, disagree with.

In other words, I submit that when you and Vogel see caricatures of 19th century anti-universalism in the Book of Mormon, it is a product of your preconceptions and your failure to understand the commonalities of human nature across the spectrum of this mortal existence.

No. You still don't get. You continue to have a failure to understand that anti-universalist caricatures don't share a commonality with universalists across the spectrum of this moral existence.

I think the difference between us is that I am considerably more discriminating when it comes to

[William Schryver]

LE:

You can't say that secular humanism didn't exist in the 19th century because those exact words didn't exist, and yet say that the BofM addresses secular humanism even though those words don't exist in the text.

You don't have universalist's saying that [Korihor

[LifeOnaPlate]

What historical interpretation isn't?

Undoubtedly, but some cases can be made stronger than others, especially in terms of what sort of evidence is needed/accepted/available, IMO.

[the narrator]

What does anti-universalist rhetoric have to do with Korihor

[William Schryver]

narrator:

[the narrator]

I predict it won

[volgadon]

Beautiful. Send this to Lou Midgley. He'd be so proud.

George Orwell would probably see this as another case where life imitates art.

[William Schryver]

"the narrator"

... you still have the problem of secular humanism or even just atheism supposedly existing well over 2,000 years ago.

That you seriously believe this to be a "problem" is, from my perspective, precisely the problem.

Again: there is nothing new under the sun.

Those (like Vogel and apparently many others) who have convinced themselves that somehow 19th century America was truly all that "unique" in respect to its religious questions are, in my opinion, the ones who "ignorantly believe" something.

And considering the nature of your debut on this message board, I don't think you should be complaining too much about what you consider a "personal attack." You gave every indication of being more than well enough equipped to dish it out; funny how you're not nearly as accommodating when it comes to a little mild reciprocation.

But hey, if it serves to deliver you from your small, unpainted corner, be my guest ...

[volgadon]

Again: there is nothing new under the sun.

Psalm 14:1.

[the narrator]

Psalm 14:1.

That Psalm is not about atheism, but rather those who deny the providence of Yahweh in their lives.

[volgadon]

That Psalm is not about atheism, but rather those who deny the providence of Yahweh in their lives.

This psalm is not merely about denying the providence of YHWH, or about those that seek a different god such as Chemosh, Baal, or Molech, but is about those who completely reject God. What is atheism if not that?

[the narrator]

This psalm is not merely about denying the providence of YHWH, or about those that seek a different god such as Chemosh, Baal, or Molech.

Actually it is just about that.

, but is about those who completely reject God.

If you mean denying the existence of God, then you are just wrong. Pick up a scholarly commentary on the Psalm.

Atheism just did not exist back then. While some may have believed that Yahweh was not the God to be worshiped, or believed that God played no role in their moral life (as discussed in Psalm 14), the denial of the existence of a divine creator just didn't exist back then. While certain eastern traditions denied the existence of a personal deity, they nonetheless still held to a transcendent system and metaphysics, and would not have played in the world of the Psalmist. Atheism proper did not begin until the 6th or so century BC with the pre-Socratic philosophers, but this largely died later with Plato and Aristotle.

The idea of a material world without a creator just did not exist in there world view. It would make no sense.

What is atheism if not that?

a

[volgadon]

Actually it is just about that.

Ein elohim- there is no divinity. We don't find ein YHWH

If you mean denying the existence of God, then you are just wrong.

But that is exactly what they are doing.

Pick up a scholarly commentary on the Psalm.

I've done so.

Atheism just did not exist back then. While some may have believed that Yahweh was not the God to be worshiped, or believed that God played no role in their moral life (as discussed in Psalm 14), the denial of the existence of a divine creator just didn't exist back then. While certain eastern traditions denied the existence of a personal deity, they nonetheless still held to a transcendent system and metaphysics, and would not have played in the world of the Psalmist. Atheism proper did not begin until the 6th or so century BC with the pre-Socratic philosophers, but this largely died later with Plato and Aristotle.

And for the common, good-for-nothing nevalim which the psalmist is attacking, would such fine, hair-splitting distinctions on metaphysics have entered into it?

The idea of a material world without a creator just did not exist in there world view. It would make no sense.

This psalm is not dealing with people who make sense.

a

[the narrator]

Ein elohim- there is no divinity. We don't find ein YHWH.

Furthermore, Elohim is specifically used here to point out that it is the governance/sovereignty of God that is being rejected and not some denial of existence.

[volgadon]

That the God in question is Yahweh is made clear in the second verse.

It is structured in such a way to indicate a rejection of divinity.

But it isn't. You've said that you've check with a scholarly commentary. Thus, you should know as much.

What a ridiculous, empty argument.

There is no hair-splitting going on. The text just isn't referring to people who deny the existence of God. Nobody was doing it back then.

And all you can provide are references to Greek philosophies?

Actually it is. It's referring to those who reject the sovereignty of God's command and act immorally. Everyone does it all the time.

Actually, it is more than that (two can play at the assertion game). This is a certain, extreme, group of people.

First, the Psalm isn't even talking about a complete rejection. Second, even if it was, it still wouldn't be saying what you are trying to force it to say. I could completely reject George Bush as my president, but that wouldn't be denying his existence. Nobody was denying the existence of God/s. Thus, there just wasn't any atheism a this time.

By a complete rejection, I mean a complete rejection. Not a complete rejection of someone as something, but a complete rejection of something.

You said you have looked at scholarly commentaries on this, so I don't know why you are even arguing with me.

Because you are wrong. Simple, really.

[volgadon]

Furthermore, Elohim is specifically used here to point out that it is the governance/sovereignty of God that is being rejected and not some denial of existence.

Care to explan how you reached that conclusion?

[the narrator]

Care to explan how you reached that conclusion?

By reading books.

[volgadon]

By reading books.

Nice start, but try processing the information next time.

[the narrator]

Nice start, but try processing the information next time.

I guess we should just wish each other the same and be done with discussion.

[volgadon]

I guess we should just wish each other the same and be done with discussion.

Your lofty pronouncements don't exactly seem to be encouraging discussion.

[the narrator]

Your lofty pronouncements don't exactly seem to be encouraging discussion.

I guess it goes two ways.

[volgadon]

Really, when I asked you a question on how you reached a certain conclusion, all I got was 'by reading books'. Discusssion, eh?

You make a pronouncement, 'commentaries say' or some such, and that is supposed to silence the uppity peons like myself?

[the narrator]

Really, when I asked you a question on how you reached a certain conclusion, all I got was 'by reading books'. Discusssion, eh?

You make a pronouncement, 'commentaries say' or some such, and that is supposed to silence the uppity peons like myself?

No. It just means that you need to actually check out a scholarly commentary on it instead of pretending that you did.

[Lamanite]

No. It just means that you need to actually check out a scholarly commentary on it instead of pretending that you did.

Give me a break...