Hestia Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 No preaching per rules. TMESSENGER is out of the thread and needs to read the rules before posting again.
Uncle Dale Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Of Criddle, for those who don't remember:See the essay here:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/23/1/S00007-51769fad6dedc7Fields.pdfFWIWKevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA .Yes, I've read through the counter-arguments. In fact, I'veconversed with the primary responder on-line (which shouldstill be available for reading, somewhere or another). The method employed for matching up the writing style and knownvocabulary used by certain early Mormons with the contents ofthe 1830 Book of Mormon is a controversial topic. I understand that. However, Criddle has at least addressed one of the profferedcriticisms, and in his most recent studies and reporting hasinclude Joseph Smith as a candidate author. Sooner or later, somebody else will produce a computerizedanalysis of the BoM, identifying which parts (if any) most resemblethe "word-prints" of Smith, Cowdery, Rigdon and Pratt. Until othersuch studies are reported, I only have Criddle's research to consult.He has extended the computerized analysis to the BoC (D&C) andto the PGP's books of Moses and Abraham -- also has analyzedthe 1824 "Third Epistle of Peter," which he attributes to Rigdon. Happily, Criddle does not find anything approaching a Spaldingword-print pattern exhibited in the BoC/D&C sections. When generatinga chart of the portions of those texts where the style and vocabularymost resemble that of Solomon Spalding, the pattern discerned bythe computer is "flat" and very, very low level intensity -- in fact,nothing more than would be expected from random coincidence. Criddle has also stepped outside of the constraints of narrow focuscomputerized analysis and has begun to re-construct a chronologyof "what-happened-when" and "who-was-where," in relation to knownand generally accepted early Mormon history. It is that part of hison-line presentation which will probably interest investigators (whomay get quickly bored with dry statistical reporting). At any rate, the point I was trying to make, is that the two witnesses toSmith epiphanies or Christophanies, were his high-ranking supportersin the Mormon cause, and not the sort of people that TMessenger, orother hostile critics are likely to place much confidence in. Rigdon himself was known for professing visions and revelations, someof which he shared with the early Saints and most of which (I think) wererejected by Joseph Smith and his successors as fabrications and liesintended to secretly manipulate gullible people at Nauvoo, and elsewhere,into following him. Cowdery may be accepted among the Saints, at a higher level of confidencethan Rigdon -- at least Cowdery is not known to have produced and spreadrevelations and purported visions of his own (other than the one similar tothe early articles of the church, and viewed by Mormons as authentic). That's all I meant to say -- hard to do that in a couple of sentences. UD
Uncle Dale Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) No preaching per rules. TMESSENGER is out of the thread and needs to read the rules before posting again.Just as well, I suppose.It seems that he exhausted his main talking points and wasfalling into the "I'm right and you're wrong" habit -- which addsno new information to a discussion.What I find to be strange, is that nobody seems inclined toquote and discuss the more recent LDS publications onthis interesting topic. TMessenger can be excused fromsuch in-depth considerations -- but others (including me)cannot so easily be taken off the hook.The seminal 1969 BYU Studies articles on the topic haveundergone at least some cosmetic development, andmaybe a little substantial change in their 2012 reprint. Perhaps I should talk a little about such things. But ourpointless arguing here pretty much crowds out thechances for meaningful discussion.UD Edited March 9, 2015 by Uncle Dale
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 ............................................................ Here's a book from him to read, review, and share commentswith us, via Amazon Books:Quote Being As Communion: A Metaphysics of Informationby William A. Dembski (2014)For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so,then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be -- is to be incommunion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwriteall other sciences, is a theory of communication.Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolatedparticles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communionphilosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview ofhis work on information.Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, andothers that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. Withprofound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops arelational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature.All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science shouldread this book. UDSo much for being. Now how about becoming? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I do believe the Bible, and my faith (my trust, faith is trust) is based on objective facts it can be demonstrated that the Bible is divine supernatural from the God of the Universe, ...it is beyond the scope of my answer here, but briefly, I have used the acronym M*A*P*SM--Stands for manuscripts thousands of them..some of them but just a few years from the described eventA--Stands for Archeology, thousands of artifacts that prove the historicity of the Bible eventP--Stands for probability (The quality or fact of being probable)S--Stands for statistics, (interpretetion of numerical data and manipulated by mathematical probability All these facts attest a scientific method that it is impossible that any prophecy, was man made because not only one prophecy was fulfilled 100% but many were fulfilled by the Christ of the Bible many of these prophecies are in the range of 10 raised to a factor of fifty and it is regarde as inposible...therefore it requires that God or a supernatural action outside of time and space dimensions is the author of the Bible ................................................................. ......................................... My faith , my trust is very reliable in the Bible J Smith comes on the seen, and tries to tell us that the God of the Bible is a mere man, that became a god see King Follet Discourse...(Documentary History of the Church V ol 6 p-302-17) I dared you to find this teaching (that the mormon god was a man, gets married and becomes a god) in any of your LDS scriptures)....and let us go on record that you yourself have NOT given me a third party document that corroborates J Smith told this story. So I do have a foundation, based on facts...Most biblical scholars have no problem setting the secular scene or context in which the supernatural events of the Bible are depicted. However, they can find no secular evidence for those supernatural events, in the same way that Homeric Epic (Iliad & Odyssey) is placed in an actual time and place, but one cannot prove any of the supernatural events in it to have taken place. Homeric Epic also has thousands of manuscripts which contain similar variant readings (which ones are correct?). Setting the scene does help us understand the supernatural events depicted in any source, but do not in any way confirm those events. For that we need faith, or revelatory knowledge courtesy of the Holy Spirit. Too bad that evangelicals so often deny the power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing plausible about the story of the Israelite Exodus, and nothing at all plausible about the Resurrection. No physical evidence which could prove either contention in a court of law, or in a forensic laboratory. The statistical likelihood is also against either claim. Yet you speak confidently of "a foundation, based on facts." What facts? You have none. 1
Gervin Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Most biblical scholars have no problem setting the secular scene or context in which the supernatural events of the Bible are depicted. Most secular scholars have no problem setting the secular scene or context in which the non-supernatural events of the Bible are depicted. In contrast, no secular scholars can set the secular scene or context of the non-supernatural events of the Book of Mormon. Too bad that evangelicals so often deny the power of the Holy Spirit. I doubt I would be allowed to make such sweeping judgements of the spiritual condition of the LDS. Should I admire your insight or just your privilege?
Recommended Posts