CES Letter 15 17

[TheSkepticChristian]

Brian Hales just created a video about the CES Letter. He says the CES letter has a lot of parallelomania. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAr-JnmPWoM

 

 

Edited December 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

y no comment

[Tacenda]

Good question, why no comments.  I went to it and Brian didn't convince me very much, but that's just me.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Tacenda

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good question, why no comments.  I went to it and Brian didn't convince me very much, but that's just me.

i think he did a good job. Bytheway, did the Napoleon book plagiarize the late war? 

Both apologists and critics should be careful about paralellomania. 

[Johnnie Cake]

I think Hales brought up some excellent points that every reader of the CES Letter should take into consideration...while I tend to think that each of the claims made in the CES letter should expect to stand or fall based on the same scrutiny critics level at the churches truth claims...from my limited understanding...it seems to have withstood much of the examination leveled against it so far.  I can't remember anything that has had such an impact in influencing so many members of the church one way or another...in causing them to question church truth claims.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Johnnie Cake

[Raingirl]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

  I can't remember anything that has had such an impact in influencing so many members of the church one way or another...in causing them to question church truth claims.

You can't be serious.

[PeterPear]

Ever read "Gullivers Travels?"

And what was Gulliver's first name? It was Lemuel.

OH NO! A parrallelism! LOL!

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Raingirl said:

You can't be serious.

It has made an impact on a lot of people,  Just in my circle of friends and acquaintences/family..it has brought up a lot of questions.  I think Mr. Runnels was very thorough but I am willing to learn more,

[Tacenda]

I'll have to listen with a more open mind I guess, what I heard seemed not to touch the problem.  Especially when he brings up Chris Johnson's analysis through searching all the books and phrases.  

Edited December 25, 2015 by Tacenda

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'll have to listen with a more open mind I guess, what I heard seemed not to touch the problem.  Especially when he brings up Chris Johnson's analysis through searching all the books and phrases.  

why would someone plagiarize style and some phrases? Not only that, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used a Book during the translation. According to the witnesses, he used no book. 

Late war " Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;"

Ezekiel 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month" 

1 Kings 6:1 "after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt," 

Late War "And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia" 

Judges 18:29 "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father"

1 Kings 6:1 "after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt," 

I am no Mormon apologist, but I simply don't like bad evidence. 

Ces letter Runnells, notice that he doesn't compare that to any specific passage of the Book of Mormon. 

Quote

The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain: This was an 1819 textbook written in King James Version style language for New York state school children, one of them very likely being Joseph Smith. The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon:

1. Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation; 2. That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia; 3. Even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sannhedrim of the people, who were assembled together. 4. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers…

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

why would someone plagiarize style and "some phrases"? Not only that, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used a Book during the translation. According to the witnesses, he used no book. 

 

 

The witnesses are only one kind of "evidence" about how the translation was done.  The actual words and phrases in the Book of Mormon are also a kind of evidence as to whether or not there were other sources used.   The strength of that evidence (and its implications) can be argued and discussed.  But to say that it doesn't exist is a bit of a stretch.

[TheSkepticChristian]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The witnesses are only one kind of "evidence" about how the translation was done.  The actual words and phrases in the Book of Mormon are also a kind of evidence as to whether or not there were other sources used.   

One can only rationally conclude that Joseph Smith used the Bible. Do you have any evidence that he used another book too?

Edited December 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

One can only rationally conclude that Joseph Smith used the Bible. Do you have any evidence that he used another book?

It probably depends on how you judge the evidence.  I don't know how much analysis has been done, but frankly it's hard for me to read much of this book and not think there's some sort of connection.

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It probably depends on how you judge the evidence.  I don't know how much analysis has been done, but frankly it's hard for me to read much of this book and not think there's some sort of connection.

Please show me useful evidence, the human brain is good in finding connections. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/?page=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please show me useful evidence, the human brain is good in finding connections. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/?page=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

The human brain is also good at ignoring connections if they don't confirm an existing belief:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

That's fine if you don't see it.  But I strongly suspect that if such similarities were found between the Book of Mormon and a translation of an ancient Hebrew source, apologists would not say "Please show me useful evidence, the human brain is good in finding connections."  Because they never have in the past.

Edited December 26, 2015 by cinepro

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Raingirl said:

You can't be serious.

Let me add to that: you've got to be kidding me, Johnnie Cake!

Quite frankly I've haven't heard one single peep about this letter TSC is on about, in my ward, stake or anywhere else but here, which is remarkedly NOT any kind of mainstream.

[Stargazer]

On 12/24/2015 at 11:32 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

I think Hales brought up some excellent points that every reader of the CES Letter should take into consideration...while I tend to think that each of the claims made in the CES letter should expect to stand or fall based on the same scrutiny critics level at the churches truth claims...from my limited understanding...it seems to have withstood much of the examination leveled against it so far.  I can't remember anything that has had such an impact in influencing so many members of the church one way or another...in causing them to question church truth claims.

So, is all Australia in an uproar over this or something?

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

why would someone plagiarize style and some phrases? Not only that, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used a Book during the translation. According to the witnesses, he used no book. 

Late war " Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;"

Ezekiel 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month" 

1 Kings 6:1 "after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt," 

Late War "And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia" 

Judges 18:29 "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father"

1 Kings 6:1 "after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt," 

I am no Mormon apologist, but I simply don't like bad evidence. 

Ces letter Runnells, notice that he doesn't compare that to any specific passage of the Book of Mormon. 

 

Quote

The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain: This was an 1819 textbook written in King James Version style language for New York state school children, one of them very likely being Joseph Smith. The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon:

Well, let's add to that bad evidence.  Can you say "presentism" and "anachronism"?

Examine the boldface sentence above, specifically: "New York state school children"?

This nitwit seems not to be aware that in the early 19th Century USA, there were no state school systems.  Virtually all non-college-level schools were operated either independently or by churches.  And virtually all of the colleges were operated by churches.  The only support that exists that this book might have found its way into any school for children of any kind, let alone specifically for New York's, is in the author's preface where he, himself, recommends his book for schools.  This followed up by two endorsements, one by a guy named Mitchell of uncertain status, and another by another guy named J. W. Pickett, also of uncertain status who thinks the book is peachy keen and recommends it for all schools in the United States.  The chance that a copy of this book might have come within a hundred miles of where Joseph Smith received his very limited formal schooling is very close to nil.  The first generally used books for primary school use were Noah Webster's "Speller", which included civic history as well as grammar and suchlike.  It was, so far as I have ever heard, aside from the Bible itself, one of the only books ever widely used in primary schools in the United States until 1836, when the McGuffey Reader was introduced.  This "Late War" book is not extraordinary by any means in terms of whether it was actually used by any school anywhere in the country, let alone any in rural New York.

The anti-Mormons are grasping at straws trying to make this a real issue against the Book of Mormon.  A very slim reed to hold onto.

Well, actually, it represents their whole problem very neatly.  Unable to come up with any convincing explanation for the Book of Mormon, they resort to the improbable instead.

It almost makes me want to laugh.

You know what REALLY makes me want to laugh?  This "The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon..."  Gee, maybe that's because it was written to look and sound like the King James Version?  Just like the Book of Mormon does?  This is like concluding that submarines were invented by fish, since as anyone can tell, they look and act like fish is so many ways.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Just now, Stargazer said:

The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain: This was an 1819 textbook written in King James Version style language for New York state school children, one of them very likely being Joseph Smith. The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon:

Another thing this reminds me of is Chris Nemelka's "The Sealed Portion" in which he has his Book of Lehi talking about Lehi being a High Priest, and how there were many High Priest Quorums in Jerusalem.

Go ahead, try to imagine anyone with a brain taking that seriously.  "High Priest Quorums" in ancient Jerusalem?  The only thing made certain by this is that Nemelka was raised as or became a Latter-day Saint at some point in his life.  Does anyone need to have this anachronism explained to them?  I hope to heck not, but I will supply the explanation upon request.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Quite frankly I've haven't heard one single peep about this letter TSC is on about, in my ward, stake or anywhere else but here, which is remarkedly NOT any kind of mainstream.

Same.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, let's add to that bad evidence.  Can you say "presentism" and "anachronism"?

Examine the boldface sentence above, specifically: "New York state school children"?

This nitwit seems not to be aware that in the early 19th Century USA, there were no state school systems.  Virtually all non-college-level schools were operated either independently or by churches.  And virtually all of the colleges were operated by churches.  The only support that exists that this book might have found its way into any school for children of any kind, let alone specifically for New York's, is in the author's preface where he, himself, recommends his book for schools.  This followed up by two endorsements, one by a guy named Mitchell of uncertain status, and another by another guy named J. W. Pickett, also of uncertain status who thinks the book is peachy keen and recommends it for all schools in the United States.  The chance that a copy of this book might have come within a hundred miles of where Joseph Smith received his very limited formal schooling is very close to nil.  The first generally used books for primary school use were Noah Webster's "Speller", which included civic history as well as grammar and suchlike.  It was, so far as I have ever heard, aside from the Bible itself, one of the only books ever widely used in primary schools in the United States until 1836, when the McGuffey Reader was introduced.  This "Late War" book is not extraordinary by any means in terms of whether it was actually used by any school anywhere in the country, let alone any in rural New York.

The anti-Mormons are grasping at straws trying to make this a real issue against the Book of Mormon.  A very slim reed to hold onto.

Well, actually, it represents their whole problem very neatly.  Unable to come up with any convincing explanation for the Book of Mormon, they resort to the improbable instead.

It almost makes me want to laugh.

You know what REALLY makes me want to laugh?  This "The first chapter alone is stunning as it reads incredibly like the Book of Mormon..."  Gee, maybe that's because it was written to look and sound like the King James Version?  Just like the Book of Mormon does?  This is like concluding that submarines were invented by fish, since as anyone can tell, they look and act like fish is so many ways.

Surely you're aware that Joseph Smith Sr. was a teacher, and very well could have had an edition of the Late War somewhere.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The human brain is also good at ignoring connections if they don't confirm an existing belief:

True, but I have no interest in defending the Book of Mormon like an apologist, I am more interested in following the evidence. If you show me good evidence of plagiarism, I will not deny it. There is no reason for me to deny good evidence. 

 

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's fine if you don't see it.  But I strongly suspect that if such similarities were found between the Book of Mormon and a translation of an ancient Hebrew source, apologists would not say "Please show me useful evidence, the human brain is good in finding connections."  Because they never have in the past.

I will take a second look, but I demand good evidence because a computer program found that book. We need confirmation before making conclusions. 

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

One can only rationally conclude that Joseph Smith used the Bible. Do you have any evidence that he used another book too?

A number of faithful Mormon scholars concluded long ago that Joseph used a Bible when he came to lengthy quotations.  Makes good, practical sense to me, and I agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Surely you're aware that Joseph Smith Sr. was a teacher, and very well could have had an edition of the Late War somewhere.  

Coulda, woulda, shoulda?  We have no evidence at all that he possessed the Late War, but we do know that it was not widely adopted or disseminated. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Quote

near Moravian Town ... And it came to pass ... the army ... were under ... a chief warrior, whom they called Tecumseh [...] smote their chief warrior [Tecumseh], and slew him ... he fell to the earth.

people of Morianton ... And it came to pass ... the army ... was led by a man whose name was Teancum [...] they did pursue Teancum, and slew him ... he was dead, and had gone the way of all the earth.

Chapters 27-28 and Alma 50:33,35, Alma 62:36-37? [Tecumseh]? Give me a break

Cinepro,

I think you need to check your own confirmation bias. It is ridiculous, why would someone plagiarize like that? 

Edited December 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian