Popular Post Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 3, 2012 Thank you teacher. I will bring you an apple tomorrow. Give me points instead...I am closing in on 1000. 6
Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Perhaps those who have the opportunity to read it now will be armed with added strength and armour to press forward, with increased conviction and confidence. You should certainly feel free to share the letter with any and all.I should contact Mr. Dehlin, and invite him to contact my father for a supplemental interview on the subject.I suspect FAIR would love to do a podcast with him as well....if they haven't already, I have lost track on what has been done as I don't watch podcasts myself, I am a reader, not a listener. Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah
cursor Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 He has not been one that well connected with the digital world, as you might imagine. He has done a couple of personal presentations that have been digitally video-recorded within this last decade, however. I'll suggest to him that it might be a positive move to do a podcast, or two, with FAIR.
Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Hopefully someone will be contacting you shortly. If not, tell me and I will go and scold them for dropping the ball that I just handed off to them. I don't know who is currently doing the podcasts, if it is still the same one as before or I would have written him directly, so instead I issued a general invitation to our group.Remember, I called "dibs". Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah
cursor Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I sent him the following, via email:I know that you're retired, but ...Might you consider doing a podcast (strictly [editable] audio) though someone like FAIR as a response to the Coe podcast (or to address any other substantive, current issue)? [ c ]
Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) "Dibs ..." on what? On having the first podcast with your dad. Just teasing, of course. Whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it will be fine with us at FAIR....at least I think so. Can't imagine anyone feeling another way. Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah
Wiki Wonka Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 You're certainly welcome. It was no big deal.My father tells me that it will soon be published in a future version of Mormon Studies Review. Watch for it. Oh, wait ... you already have a copy! Unfortunately, that particular issue of the Mormon Studies Review got sucked into a black hole recently and we are not certain in what part of the universe it or its individual articles may reappear.WW 1
Pahoran Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Unfortunately, that particular issue of the Mormon Studies Review got sucked into a black hole recently and we are not certain in what part of the universe it or its individual articles may reappear.WWActually since the former Maxwell Institute has refused to publish those articles, in normal practice that means it's rejected them. Having rejected them, ownership thereof reverts to the authors, who are free to publish them anywhere else that they please.In a new journal, for example.Regards,Pahoran
Wiki Wonka Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Actually since the former Maxwell Institute has refused to publish those articles, in normal practice that means it's rejected them. Having rejected them, ownership thereof reverts to the authors, who are free to publish them anywhere else that they please.In a new journal, for example.Regards,PahoranThe probability that every essay that was in that issue of the Review will eventually appear for public consumption, including the Smith essay, is very high.WW 1
cursor Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 My father respectfully declines, saying"With oral argument it's too easy to leave misunderstandings. It's bad enough to do it in print—even after multiple edits!" 1
Cobalt-70 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) If Greg's piece was published, you would have been even more amazed. One thing that I have learned from being here and on FAIR is that their are two sides to every story. The book of mormon is unique. And as Coe stated Joseph was an amazing guy for writing the book of mormon with a tremendous memory and one of the greatest religious leaders ever produced in the United States. And yet, when we read Joseph's letter's to Emma, we see a simple guy with poor spelling and grammar.The "Joseph Smith was stupid" theory of apologetics is a pretty weak one. That Smith had the ability to dictate excellent and thoughtful prose is proven by his dictation of such works as the first part of what became DHC, D&C 123, and his 20 August 1830 letter to the Colesville saints, which were not revelations. Smith was not a good penman or speller. That is why he used scribes. And when he wrote informal personal letters, such as to Emma, he often wrote the way he informally talked, as most of us do when we write personal emails and text messages. Looking at everything he produced, Smith had to have had a rare genius, as Coe said, and this genius was expressed not just in his revelations.Moreover, he probably had an eidetic memory. Many apologists acknowledge, now, that Smith used the King James version to at least supplement or guide his translation of the bible-derived parts of the Book of Mormon. He was such a savant that he could quote King James language, and even its quirks and mistakes, while having his head buried in a hat. He told Cowdery that the translation process involves "study[ing] it out in your mind" (D&C 9: 8 ). To produce the Book of Mormon, even if you were just translating it from an ancient record, would require a pretty astute mind--one that was able to come up with the translation of its own accord, and then "ask [God] if it be right." Edited July 4, 2012 by Cobalt-70
why me Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 The "Joseph Smith was stupid" theory of apologetics is a pretty weak one. That Smith had the ability to dictate excellent and thoughtful prose is proven by his dictation of such works as the first part of what became DHC, D&C 123, and his 20 August 1830 letter to the Colesville saints, which were not revelations. Smith was not a good penman or speller. That is why he used scribes. And when he wrote informal personal letters, such as to Emma, he often wrote the way he informally talked, as most of us do when we write personal emails and text messages. Looking at everything he produced, Smith had to have had a rare genius, as Coe said, and this genius was expressed not just in his revelations.i was commenting on Michael Coe's take on Joseph Smith in part three of the podcast. He found him to be a genius with wonderful writing abilities. Coe also claimed that Joseph was America's greatest religious leader. So, he put him a pretty high pedestal. However, when we look at Joseph's letters to emma written from prison etc, we see a guy with limited writing ability. His letters to his wife do not match the wonderful writer Michael spoke of. That was my point. There is a disconnect from Joseph's actual ability.
Tacenda Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) And that explains the over 4,000 corrections to the BOM, Why Me. Edited July 4, 2012 by Tacenda
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted July 4, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 4, 2012 The "Joseph Smith was stupid" theory of apologetics is a pretty weak one.It certainly is, if that were the position. The argument, however, is that he was untrained and did not have access to the wealth of material that would have been required to produce those parts of the text that fit into known history.That Smith had the ability to dictate excellent and thoughtful prose is proven by his dictation of such works as the first part of what became DHC, D&C 123, and his 20 August 1830 letter to the Colesville saints, which were not revelations. He certainly improved over time, but what little we have from him early is not at that level. Still, I think you are correct that he had gifts.Moreover, he probably had an eidetic memory. I believe that explains several things about how Joseph translated, but it doesn't explain anything that was creative. Using KJV language itself was no great feat, there are plenty of examples from his family indicating that it was a pretty common idiom for them. It was probably the only example of "proper" English readily available to them. None of that explains the historical content that fits times and contexts that were unknown both during his day, and understood better only in the last 50 years. It is difficult to understand how this natural genius could have absorbed all of the obscure hints available to him and embedded them in the text so that over 150 years later people would discover them and use them to indicate the historicity of the plate text. One would think that if they were that interesting and important, a Joseph who put them there for that reason might have pointed them out. He didn't. There is no indication that he knew that they were there and so we had to wait a century and a half to discover those clever subtle clues.It still doesn't add up for a naturalist explanation. 5
robuchan Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 It certainly is, if that were the position. The argument, however, is that he was untrained and did not have access to the wealth of material that would have been required to produce those parts of the text that fit into known history.He certainly improved over time, but what little we have from him early is not at that level. Still, I think you are correct that he had gifts.I believe that explains several things about how Joseph translated, but it doesn't explain anything that was creative. Using KJV language itself was no great feat, there are plenty of examples from his family indicating that it was a pretty common idiom for them. It was probably the only example of "proper" English readily available to them.None of that explains the historical content that fits times and contexts that were unknown both during his day, and understood better only in the last 50 years. It is difficult to understand how this natural genius could have absorbed all of the obscure hints available to him and embedded them in the text so that over 150 years later people would discover them and use them to indicate the historicity of the plate text. One would think that if they were that interesting and important, a Joseph who put them there for that reason might have pointed them out. He didn't. There is no indication that he knew that they were there and so we had to wait a century and a half to discover those clever subtle clues.It still doesn't add up for a naturalist explanation.Can you give a bullet point list of the parts embedded into the text that fit with history?
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) And that explains the over 4,000 corrections to the BOM, Why Me.If you are interested in the errors you should read the summary of Skousen's fireside pinned to the top of the board.You should also compare printing and other technical errors in books of that comparable size from that are to see how many are commonly found in them in the first edition. Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Can you give a bullet point list of the parts embedded into the text that fit with history?Have you studied Brant's methodology using correspondences. He's discussed them on the board quite a bit in the past, reading a variety of posts on the subject might be helpful: http://tinyurl.com/82ukr52 Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah
Kenngo1969 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 That would be very nice of you, but don't go to alot of trouble!Brother Curtis (cursor),I'm overruling Tacenda's desire to be nice: please ... go to the trouble! (I'll buy you lunch sometime!)
robuchan Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Have you studied Brant's methodology using correspondences. He's discussed them on the board quite a bit in the past, reading a variety of posts on the subject might be helpful: http://tinyurl.com/82ukr52Yes, I am aware of quite a few books and articles on the subject. I'm not asking for anyone to rewrite all the arguments. I'm interested in a concise, bullet point list.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Give me points instead...I am closing in on 1000. When you get a thousand rep points, are you, like, translated or something? Edited July 4, 2012 by Kenngo1969
cursor Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Brother Curtis (cursor),I'm overruling Tacenda's desire to be nice: please ... go to the trouble! (I'll buy you lunch sometime!) If you'll peek at post #16 in this thread/topic, you'll find the OpenLetterCoe.pdf document attached.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 My father respectfully declines, saying"With oral argument it's too easy to leave misunderstandings. It's bad enough to do it in print—even after multiple edits!"Hmmm ... Perhaps we could submit interrogatories?
Kenngo1969 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) If you'll peek at post #16 in this thread/topic, you'll find the OpenLetterCoe.pdf document attached.I posted that before having read the rest of the thread, but my offer of lunch still stands! Edited July 4, 2012 by Kenngo1969
Tacenda Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) It certainly is, if that were the position. The argument, however, is that he was untrained and did not have access to the wealth of material that would have been required to produce those parts of the text that fit into known history.He certainly improved over time, but what little we have from him early is not at that level. Still, I think you are correct that he had gifts.I believe that explains several things about how Joseph translated, but it doesn't explain anything that was creative. Using KJV language itself was no great feat, there are plenty of examples from his family indicating that it was a pretty common idiom for them. It was probably the only example of "proper" English readily available to them.None of that explains the historical content that fits times and contexts that were unknown both during his day, and understood better only in the last 50 years. It is difficult to understand how this natural genius could have absorbed all of the obscure hints available to him and embedded them in the text so that over 150 years later people would discover them and use them to indicate the historicity of the plate text. One would think that if they were that interesting and important, a Joseph who put them there for that reason might have pointed them out. He didn't. There is no indication that he knew that they were there and so we had to wait a century and a half to discover those clever subtle clues.It still doesn't add up for a naturalist explanation. Could JS have been clairvoyant? Also, Mr. Gardner, I highly respect your opinion and want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. Here goes...if JK Rowling can author all the Harry Potter books, why not JS author an inspirational book like the bom? I'm aware that JS regaled his family nightly with made up stories of the American Indians. I'm not a scriptorian by any means and I have copy of original bom, and it's much easier to read it in chapter form. Though mysteriously it's disappeared so that cut short my reading of it. Edited July 4, 2012 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts