They Can Leave the Church But They Can't Leave It Alone

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't personally feel that a complex theory is needed. Joseph as rough religious genius (aka prophet) is a sufficient explanation for me. Although I have to say that although there is richness in the BOM, it waxes and wanes. 

To me, the book makes the most sense as the product of a specific place and time. Joseph Smith was a gifted syncretist, IMO, and there is the spark of religious genius in the Book of Mormon, but I am with you that it waxes and wanes.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

If someone is going to say the Book Of Mormon is a fraud, then they'd better come up with a better theory to account for its existence than that Sidney and Oliver wrote it.

Why? I don't have to know whether it was a collaborative effort between Joseph and some accomplices or if Joseph really believed what he created and deceived his helpers or whatever.

Not being able to explain how the alleged fraud was created does not somehow affect the probability that it is or isn't a fraud.

[Gray]

Just now, bdouglas said:

A challenge to the most educated, smartest ex-Mormon or NeverMo on this site . . . .

You have, not 90 days, but a whole year. Write something comparable, not to entire BOM, but to just one chapter,  1 Nephi 1. Or even the first four verses of the first chapter of 1 Nephi. Or take the smallest least significant of any of the revelations in the D & C, and write one like it. You must not only get the language right but you have to get the "voice" right. (That voice! Who is it? Read what Bushman says about this voice is RSR.) Or write me a Book Of Abraham, or even a few verses of the B of A.

Ok, you say you can't do it. You are not smart enough. Is there anyone alive today who is smart enough? Or is there anyone in the past, at the time of JS, who was not only smart enough, he would also have had to be the greatest fiction writer of all time.

The problem with this is it's totally subjective (in the workaday commonly understood meaning of that term, which I say just to head off any philosophical objections with my use of the word subjective).

How can we verify if someone has succeeding in imitating the style and "the voice"? How do we verify if someone came close but didn't quite get there? There are a thousand creative geniuses whose work is very hard to imitate. With the BOM, the interest in it is so narrow, that I don't think there has been much talented effort put forth in attempting to do so, while many talented artists have attempted to replicate the style of the great masters. 

I believe the "voice" was simply Joseph Smith's prophetic style. 

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Have you ever read Tolkien?  Not only did he make up a consistent geography and setting, he also made up history, mythology, lore, and multiple languages.  And he did it across multiple books...

(and he was also a very dedicated Catholic!)

Hmmm...Tolkien?
You mean the guy with a first-class degree at Exeter College, specializing in Anglo-Saxon and Germanic languages and classic literature was able to write a book with consistent geography, history and languages?

And this is comparable to the 25 year old farmer who while more literate than the Church sometimes portrays still had limited education?
Silly comparison.

Anyone who thinks the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph and either Sidney or Oliver or even could have been in just 3 years (when Tolkien took 12 year to get his right) is not paying attention.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Gray said:

The problem with this is it's totally subjective (in the workaday commonly understood meaning of that term, which I say just to head off any philosophical objections with my use of the word subjective).

How can we verify if someone has succeeding in imitating the style and "the voice"? How do we verify if someone came close but didn't quite get there? There are a thousand creative geniuses whose work is very hard to imitate. With the BOM, the interest in it is so narrow, that I don't think there has been much talented effort put forth in attempting to do so, while many talented artists have attempted to replicate the style of the great masters. 

I believe the "voice" was simply Joseph Smith's prophetic style. 

From James J. Strang until today, there are a number of people who have created what can only be described as Book of Mormon fan fiction or pseudo-sequels. Some people consider these works to be comparable to the Book of Mormon, but they leave me cold (and itching for my red editor's pen). Yet there are people who have given up family and fortune for these knock-off scriptures, so obviously you are right that how "good" it is depends on the reader's subjective response.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Why? I don't have to know whether it was a collaborative effort between Joseph and some accomplices or if Joseph really believed what he created and deceived his helpers or whatever.

Not being able to explain how the alleged fraud was created does not somehow affect the probability that it is or isn't a fraud.

I've never understood that argument, either. It's like saying that, unless we know exactly how it was done, we must accept that GOB Bluth really did make that boat disappear.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Have you ever read Tolkien?  Not only did he make up a consistent geography and setting, he also made up history, mythology, lore, and multiple languages.  And he did it across multiple books...

Have you seen the massive amount of work he put into it?  I lost track of the volumes of notes that were published (though of course much dealt with material that never got published or put into story format).

[Thinking]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And this is comparable to the 25 year old farmer who while more literate than the Church sometimes portrays still had limited education?

The grammatical errors in the first edition are evidence of that limited education.

[James Tunney]

I know this has veered to who wrote the book of mormon from the original post of why one cannot leave it alone.  I for one don't think anyone can definitively say who wrote it.  It sure does seem to be a 19th century invention given the internal and external evidence or lack thereof for historicity. 

Back to the original topic, I think I can't leave it alone because I am going to be dealing with the after effects of mormonism with my family for some time in the future.  They all have given at least part of their retirement to the church over the years in the form of tithing.  My parents are starting to suffer, in part, as a result and I will be taking up the slack financially where necessary.  Also, the church won't leave anyone alone in the whole world.  Vietnam just recognized the church so now the Vietnamese won't be left alone either.  So, sorry mormons if you don't like us posting on this site opposing points of view.  I think it goes both ways.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Have you ever read Tolkien?  Not only did he make up a consistent geography and setting, he also made up history, mythology, lore, and multiple languages.  And he did it across multiple books...

(and he was also a very dedicated Catholic!)

And I personally find his Silmarillion impossible to read. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Mormons and exmormons can't leave each other alone because they are so very much alike. 

True words here.  Actually, I think we are!  We still love and care about people..and so many here have walked in each others shoes.  We are often obstinate and passionate in our belief systems..whether we like it or not..we are part of the life experience fabric that threads through our desires to share and weave some knowledge a long the way.  We let each other vent...nothing wrong with that!

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

As I said before, I would not say I absolutely know the Book Of Mormon is what Joseph Smith said it was. But if you say it is not, if you are going to dismiss it, then be prepared to offer a plausible theory for its existence.

Do any such theories exist? If they do, I don't know about them. Some say "automatic writing" and point to books like the "Urantia Book" or "A Course In Miracles". But these books are nothing like the Book Of Mormon, not even remotely close in complexity and richness. Rather they are tiresome tomes filled with a lot of pop psychology.

Plausible Theory:  Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon to Oliver. Bo-wah!  Here's a shocking statement, books are written by people., human beings.  Why is it that you can believe that a person named Moroni or Mormon wrote the book but not Joseph Smith?  Book are written by people...even the bible was written by human beings.  Keep in mind that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph said it was and yet I'm going to guess that you believe in it right? So why not just accept the facts that Joseph also wrote the BoM

[bdouglas]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a bit like the argument from personal incredulity. All you're really saying is how you personally have reacted to something. You may be impressed by the BOA and wonder how any earthly hand could have composed it (even though the claimed authors are just as human as Joseph Smith). Someone else can read the same thing and walk away unimpressed. How we react to literature is quite subjective. That doesn't work well in formulating an argument for the "truthfulness" of something. 

This is why I take into account the three witnesses and the eight witnesses, also the informal witnesses (like Mother Whitmer and Emma Smith), not only what they said at the time, at publication of BOM, but the entire life history of these witnesses (as detailed in Anderson's "Investigating the BOM Witnesses", which I found to be a very good book). I also take into account people like Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon who, along with JS, witnessed marvelous visions (sec. 76, for example). In short I try to take into account all of this and more, the entire history, the founding narrative of the church, insofar as I am capable evaluating it (not being a trained historian).

And apart from all of this, I have personal spiritual witnesses, received not only as a missionary but since. I also have the simple experience of living life i.e. when I read the scriptures and do what they say I am happy and I prosper; when I don't, the opposite happens.

All of these evaluations and judgements, limited as they may be by my imperfections, have taught me that . . . "Joseph Smith was telling the truth."

Do I know this for a certain incontrovertible fact, just as I know that the stone I stubbed my toe on and am now looking at exists? No. But I know it well it enough that I will shout it from the rooftops: "Joseph Smith was telling the truth!"

Edited June 9, 2016 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

P.S. - I don't normally say so much. Sorry.

[bdouglas]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why is it that you can believe that a person named Moroni or Mormon wrote the book but not Joseph Smith?

I would have thought you'd know better than to say something like this. Mormon wrote The Words Of Mormon and some other bits. He compiled and abridged the rest from existing records (another bit of daunting complexity for someone who was going to make it all up!). Moroni wrote the small book of Moroni.

Edited June 9, 2016 by bdouglas

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Showing that it was not written by one man.
And the idea that it was written by Joseph and Oliver (and sometimes they throw Sidney in too) still doesn't hold much water.

The fact is, the Book of Mormon is too complex and too consistent to be a product of 1830 New York.
Add to that the near perfect integration with later revelation and ordinances (despite what those who misapply trinitarianism to it would say) is nothing short of astounding.

There is simply no way that a farm boy helped only by a school teacher or preacher could have put together the Book of Mormon, let alone expanded it effectively into a complex religion with rites, ordinances, hierarchies and still kept it consistent.
The consistency within the complexity is one of the things I love best about Mormonism.

In your opinion...one not shared by the majority of those who have actually read the book and who reject its claims

[bdouglas]

Somebody, a scholar, could write an entire book on the different sets of records, or plates, in the Book Of Mormon.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

A challenge to the most educated, smartest ex-Mormon or NeverMo on this site . . . .

You have, not 90 days, but a whole year. Write something comparable, not to entire BOM, but to just one chapter,  1 Nephi 1. Or even the first four verses of the first chapter of 1 Nephi. Or take the smallest least significant of any of the revelations in the D & C, and write one like it. You must not only get the language right but you have to get the "voice" right. (That voice! Who is it? Read what Bushman says about this voice is RSR.) Or write me a B of A, or even a few verses of the B of A.

Ok, you say you can't do it. You are not smart enough. Is there anyone alive today who is smart enough? Or is there anyone in the past, at the time of JS, who was not only smart enough, he would also have had to be the greatest literary genius of all time.

P.S. - It is probably evident to anybody reading my posts that I am at loose ends for a few days with not much to do. Sorry.

After Writing my book do I also get to make nearly 4,000 changes from my original manuscript?

[bdouglas]

If the book was a fraud, one sign would be that, for example, Nephi would sound exactly like his brother, Jacob. But their voices are very different. After coming off 2 Nephi and then reading Jacob it is almost jarring because Jacob's voice is very different than Nephi's.

Edited June 9, 2016 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

And would someone, if it were invented, introduce so much complexity? So much messiness? As I've said before, "Truth is stranger than fiction, but not so tidy." The BOM is very messy, with plots and sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, different records . . . and the migrations! Again, somone could write a whole book just on the different migrations.

In short, it is messy because real life i.e. real history is messy. It's odd but true that the book is too messy to be fiction. Yet it all holds up under scrutiny, it is all consistent from beginning to end.

Edited June 9, 2016 by bdouglas

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In your opinion...one not shared by the majority of those who have actually read the book and who reject its claims

An opinion based on observation and common sense.
There is no reasonable way to say Joseph created the Book of Mormon.  He and Oliver (or he and Sidney depending which anti you listen to) simply didn't have the abilities to do so in 3 years.

Show me an alternative that actually makes any sense.

[Jeanne]

I would like to think..that although we are some times labeled "pitas"...that some of us as exmormons have given some help or insight for others here.  Am I wrong?  I know that I learn something new every day here.  I feel that we take eachother for granted.  I have learned things from active LDS here on some things I have had questions about  and I have learned from Daniel2 and CB what it is really like to have the relationships they do. The varied women friends I have here don't always agree and yet I find myself taking their perceptions in trying to understand others..(especially in my family relationships)..Sometimes y'all tick me off..  but open respect and just at least understanding that we have had extreme losses..that ripple affect that makes us anonymous to some friends and family..is real.  In any case...you're so stuck with me.

[Johnnie Cake]

Back to OP Topic Please

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you seen the massive amount of work he put into it?  I lost track of the volumes of notes that were published (though of course much dealt with material that never got published or put into story format).

Yes, the guy wrote up a lot he never used. At one point he wanted to write it as a mythology of Britain as he felt his nation lacked one (he was not big on Arthurian legend). He was also determined to make sure it all made sense.

Even then, he made mistakes and put in things that would make it clear it was fabrication if one were tempted to believe it a true history.

Here are a few:

Both Bombadil and Treebeard are referred to as the oldest beings in Middle Earth. The idea that Bombadil is a Maia like Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron and is a different kind of being and not physically alive in the same way but Tolkien never backed this idea and preferred to leave Bombadil as an enigma.

Aragorn says: "I know all the lands between the Shire and the Misty Mountains, for I have wandered over them for many years." This makes sense. Most of it was part of the fallen kingdom of Arnor which he had the right to rule. Then later he speaks of the Ettendales which is in that area and says: "That is troll country, and little known to me," and that he does not know the way to Rivendell through that area.

When referring to the Nine Rings Gandalf in the Council of Elrond said that the Nazgul wear them. In other references Sauron has them in his tower which makes more sense as without the Master Ring someone with one of the Nine would not be under his direct control. Tolkien appears to have originally wanted the Nazgul to have them and changed his mind and missed editing that line.

Galadriel claims that with her Ring she can discern Sauron's thoughts about the Elves but she missed a lot including the betrayal of Saruman of the White Council (which consisted of Maia and Elves).

Pippin tells Theoden that in his travels the Rohirrim were the first he found that knew tales of hobbits. A silly statement since the people of Bree include hobbits, Elrond clearly knew of hobbits (Bilbo lived there), and Galadriel's people also knew of hobbits. Then again, Pippin is silly.

Gandalf claims the White Council did not know that any of the palantiri survived from the Fall of Gondor but later says he has known the Stewards still had one (Denethor had it) and that there was another at Orthanc (Saruman found it).

When Aragorn wrests the palantir from Sauron's power in his confrontation he says that Sauron did not know Aragorn existed until then. This appears to be guesswork. Wormtongue found out long before and would have communicated that to Saruman. Saruman could have passed it on through the palantir or to the Nazgul who came thinking Saruman had the One Ring. While this might have been false how would Aragorn know for certain?

Aragorn says that the name Sauron (meaning Abomination or Abominable) was a name used by his enemies and Sauron does not permit his servants to use it. Then the emissary of Sauron that came to Erebor and Dale says he comes on behalf of "Lord Sauron the Great" and the Mouth of Sauron also uses his name.

The distance between Rivendell and the Shire is different between Bilbo's journey and Frodo's. Tolkien tried to come up with an explanation and failed. Maybe dwarves are just slower? Also the party with little need to hide (Bilbo) was the slower one and took the easiest road while Frodo and company had to hide the whole way.

It is a stretch that the Orcs/goblins that captured Bilbo knew of Orcrist and Glamdring when they were faced with them. Possible, but they were an obscure part of orc history.

In "The Hobbit" it is said that the Elf-King (father of Legolas) favored white gems but later he was gifted emeralds because those were his favorite. Maybe he is fickle in his love of jewelry?

It is said that Bilbo and company left Bilbo's house in May but other chronologies put it at April 27th.

It is reported in the Appendix that Sauron withdrew before the power of the White Council in a specific year. Unfortunately the White Council was not formed until three years later.

The dating for Gandalf's letter to Frodo does not match the chronology of Gandalf's journey.

The White Tree Aragorn found to represent the line of kings was found on June 25th but it is also reported that the replanted tree was laden with blossoms as June begins.

 

There are more but I have been a big enough Tolkien nerd for one post.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

This is why I take into account the three witnesses and the eight witnesses, also the informal witnesses (like Mother Whitmer and Emma Smith), not only what they said at the time, at publication of BOM, but the entire life history of these witnesses (as detailed in Anderson's "Investigating the BOM Witnesses", which I found to be a very good book). I also take into account people like Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon who, along with JS, witnessed marvelous visions (sec. 76, for example). In short I try to take into account all of this and more, the entire history, the founding narrative of the church, insofar as I am capable evaluating it (not being a trained historian).

And apart from all of this, I have persona spirituall witnesses, received not only as a missionary but since. I also have the simple experience of living life i.e. when I read the scriptures and do what they say I am happy and I prosper; when I don't, the opposite happens.

All of these evaluations and judgements, limited as they may be by my imperfections, have taught me that . . . "Joseph Smith was telling the truth."

Do I know this for a certain incontrovertible fact, just as I know that the stone I stubbed my toe on and am now looking at exists? No. But I know it well it enough that I will shout it from the rooftops: "Joseph Smith was telling the truth!"

Sure, thank you for sharing that.

Personally I think the question has no bearing on the value of the POGP, D&C and BOM as scripture. They stand or fall on their content, not on their historicity or ancientness. We react to these things differently depending on what approach we take to evidence. It's an interesting topic of debate, though.

In the end I say, if your approach works for you, go for it!

Edited June 9, 2016 by Gray