Another Faith Crisis Letter

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  But these folks are not in my immediate community.  Holding them to a higher standard would seem to be outside my province.

....................................................

I was thinking more in terms of a theoretical standard with which to measure our own concerns and provide perspective.  However, when members of holy orders do fail to keep their covenants, it can sometimes have an impact on the entire community -- as when priestly and monastic pedophiles are allowed to run amuck.  Then (if you live in such a community) it is no longer merely theoretical.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Come on, stemelbow:  You come off here sounding like the worst possible Mormon apologist, hemming & hawwing, making excuses, etc., while defending your guy.  They call it "tribalism" these days -- an effort to defend your side, no matter what.  You might want to step back and take a broader look.

I dont' know what you're saying.  Whose my guy?  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was thinking more in terms of a theoretical standard with which to measure our own concerns and provide perspective.  However, when members of holy orders do fail to keep their covenants, it can sometimes have an impact on the entire community -- as when priestly and monastic pedophiles are allowed to run amuck.  Then (if you live in such a community) it is no longer merely theoretical.

Ah.  I see your point.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' know what you're saying.  Whose my guy?  

The generic "your guy," your side, etc., which is being defended in tribal fashion by those horrible Mormon apologists.

[champatsch]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

You need to read up on that topic.  There's more there than just what you write about above.  From what I know, it's been conceded that there are errors.

I disagree.  I think he got most of his questions or complaints in his letter accurate.  Once again, it's his conclusions that one can have serious disagreements over.

In general, R has overstated the matter of KJV errors.  Specifically, the archaic KJV semantics can be complicated, as well as the manuscript history.  Biblical textual critics will check for variant MS readings and look at other Early Modern English Bibles.

But yes, let's stipulate to perpetuated KJV errors.  R's unstated point is that if Joseph had received the Book of Mormon from the Lord, KJV errors wouldn't be found in its KJV passages.  But as mentioned, there are arguably 1611 KJV readings in the Book of Mormon.  Three possible examples are 2 Nephi 8:16; 15:24; 20:34.  Since Joseph didn't have a 1611 King James Bible, why are these readings in the text?  If the response is that it's just coincidence, then I might counter that many of the KJV errors aren't clear errors, and that the Lord deemed the actual, persistent KJV errors to be immaterial (based on an alternative view that the Lord caused words to be transmitted to Joseph).

On KJV italics, R's #2 in the Book of Mormon section. To my knowledge, no one has published a thorough comparison of the critical text with the biblical passages, noting the number of differences.  R probably hasn't made these counts.  I have examined one careful, unpublished study by Skousen.  There are slightly more than 800 phrase or word differences between KJV passages and Book of Mormon KJV passages, and only about 1/5 of these involve italics.  Thus italics is only part of an overall complex story.  800+ differences are many more than would have occurred by simply copying KJV chapters.  (Error rates of copying are known for the printer's manuscript.  The same rate can be assumed for copying KJV passages in the original MS.  But the KJV differences rate is much higher than that.)  This is evidence against a straight copying view.  It must be copying with a considerable amount of intrusive editing.  The alternative, of course, is that the Lord transmitted an edited KJV text to Joseph.

We might also ask why there are at least three non-3sg verbs with -th endings in Book of Mormon KJV passages, examples that match known Early Modern English usage.  If the response is that these are biblical hypercorrections by Joseph, then why are there so many other matches with extra-biblical Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon that are not potential biblical hypercorrections?  Again, if these things found in Book of Mormon KJV passages are asserted to be coincidental textual artifacts, then why should one privilege such an explanation over a data-rich alternative?  (Besides morphosyntax, there is the lexical to take into account.  For example, why are there more than 30 potential candidates of extra-biblical obsolete lexis in the Book of Mormon?)

Some further details:  I did indicate that I read up on the topic and that readers are given an exaggerated view of KJV errors.  The list I've recently seen has 14 items.  Half of these are questionable to highly questionable errors.  I've already mentioned four.  Take the prudent "error" for soothsayer or diviner in Isaiah 3:2.  Coverdale and the Great Bible had "wise . . . man" with an appropriate archaic meaning (see OED, wise man, def. 3),. The Geneva, Bishops', and King James Bibles have prudent, with an associated archaic meaning of wise or discerning (see OED, prudent, def. 2), somewhat different from how we think of prudent today. One commentary has the following: "The former word [prudent] has the more definite meaning of “diviners,” those who had a real gift of wisdom, but who by their abuse of that gift had become as degenerate prophets."  Some commentators will say this questionable KJV reading fits, under the proper perspective; others will say it doesn't.  Basically, the same thing with "fenced it" and "dug about".  Some will say fencing implies digging and trenching, others will say it's wrongly translated.  Such KJV "errors" qualify as ones that the Lord might have deemed to be immaterial.

Edited December 12, 2017 by champatsch

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which is not what I stated or claimed.

You said "I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts at responding or debunking," and now you're going to try to squirm out of that statement?

Quote

"Naive belief-systems" is pretty insulting to say, IMO.  Many with strong testimonies and deep knowledge of the gospel have been shaken when reading details regarding church history that they were not formerly exposed to.  If we're honest, we all can admit there are some very difficult issues and that does not mean a member was "naive" if they hadn't been exposed to them yet.  I also don't think it's productive to play the blame game.  It's simply the truth that many members are not familiar with much of church history or past teachings (such as Adam/God for example) and some of them are now learning more about them which is causing some of those to doubt and question.  

You can guess as to why Richard Bushman has not apostatized (which you actually did above), but you don't know that it's because Runnells letter was not "accurate".  That's a pretty big leap.  I found much in the CES letter (most actually) to be accurate.  I'll reiterate again, that it's his conclusions that I disagreed with regarding some of his claims or questions.

Once again, you're being insulting to many members who do have strong testimonies but were not familiar with much of what was in the CES letter (or elsewhere).  There's nothing wrong with being upset or shaken when one learns the details regarding Joseph's polygamy for the first time when they formerly believed he only married older widows whose husbands were killed by the mobs for example (a common belief by many still from what my experience has been with our ward members).  This does not mean these members are the "low-hanging fruit" or "already weak in the faith".  Those are the type of generalizations or insults that need to stop, IMO.

Scholarship has shown repeatedly that it is typically those who are already weak in the faith and who are naive who apostatize.  Well-educated members typically weather these false claims rather well (https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/ .), and Emma Green has found that "kids of certain faiths, such as young Mormons, evangelicals, and Jews, are more likely to stay in the fold than are those of other denominations " (“Keeping the Faith: How childhood influences churchgoing,” Atlantic, Nov 2014, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/keeping-the-faith/380799/  ).   Mike Ash has shown what actually goes on in his Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (2013).  Instead of feeling insulted, those concerned with this matter should read up on the subject.

Bahr & Albrecht found that "Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences. Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the 'push' of unmet needs or exclusionary practices."  -- Bahr & Albrecht, “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .   Just so, Armand Mauss, "in his observations of Mormons, linked deconversion to disintegrated social bonds, such as the loss or absence of close friends in the church," and he went on to say that "some people leave the church because they believe that 'regular church goers are hypocrites' and that 'churches are interested only in money'," clearly exhibiting a paranoia not justified by the recent research of Mike Quinn    -- Mauss, “Dimensions of Religious Defection.” Review of Religious Research 10 (1969): 128-135, cited by Wright, et al., “Explaining deconversion from Christianity: a study of online narratives,” Journal of Religion & Society, 13 (2011):1-17, online at https://dspace2.creighton.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10504/64291/2011-21.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  .

Zelph on the Shelf correctly observes that “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” online at http://zelphontheshelf.com/conversion-and-deconversion-are-emotional-not-logical/ .  Who exploits emotion?  As scholar Lewis Rambo explains, "No religious group should seek to exploit the vulnerable, whoever they are. ..... But, I know groups that very consciously—I’m talking about Evangelical Christian groups—target vulnerable people." -- Rambo, “The Psychology of Religious Conversion,” delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millennium" Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998, online at http://www.religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=356&Itemid=18 .  Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith (such as non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has presented), and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive.  That's the way a used car salesman sells a "lemon."

Edited December 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

What do all these statements have in common?

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholarship has shown repeatedly that it is typically those who are already weak in the faith and who are naive who apostatize.

Well-educated members typically weather these false claims rather well...

Instead of feeling insulted, those concerned with this matter should read up on the subject.

Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences.

Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the 'push' of unmet needs or exclusionary practices." 

Just so, Armand Mauss, "in his observations of Mormons, linked deconversion to disintegrated social bonds, such as the loss or absence of close friends in the church," and he went on to say that "some people leave the church because they believe that 'regular church goers are hypocrites' and that 'churches are interested only in money'," clearly exhibiting a paranoia not justified by the recent research of Mike Quinn.

Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith (such as non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has presented), and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive.  That's the way a used car salesman sells a "lemon."

The blame rests solely on the disaffected member.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, I'm very curious as to how it develops because it's an issue where the Church doesn't exactly have a lot of options. I'm glad I'm not having to deal with it.

There is indication this is already happening. While people point to the higher retention numbers in the 70's and 80's the fact is the data for then is quite bad (so don't believe those 80-95% retention figures) but also members believed the doctrine far less in those days. It appears that while there is worse retention now than say the 90's that the commitment of those who stay is much higher. (I'd add that even 65-70% retention is extremely high)

What do you think is happening when support for gay marriage in the Mormon church has gone from 26% in 2015 to 37% in 2016,  That is a huge jump.  Where do you think all that surge of support coming from?  Do you think the support for gay marriage has now peaked amongst members?  Do you think that increased support among members is an indication of more committed members than ever before as you indicated was happening?  

[Exiled]

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What do all these statements have in common?

The blame rests solely on the disaffected member.

Well blame should rest with those slacker members because who in their right mind would ever question the book of abraham even though the papyrus says nothing about abraham or seer stones to "translate" from plates that were never in the same room? Clearly these questioners, slackers, lack something, unless of course they come to the right answers, as given by Mr. Ash.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

What do all these statements have in common?

The blame rests solely on the disaffected member.

I don't agree.  Just because someone sells you and "lemon" and you feel embarrassed about that, doesn't take the blame away from the used car salesman.  Getting conned doesn't take away the primary responsibility from the con-man.  Moreover, since the weak and vulnerable are frequently the product of poor parenting, the parents should also shoulder some of the blame.  Blaming the victim may be popular in some political circles, but I don't think that the predators should be exonerated -- as some defenders of Runnells seem to be trying to do.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well blame should rest with those slacker members because who in their right mind would ever question the book of abraham even though the papyrus says nothing about abraham or seer stones to "translate" from plates that were never in the same room? Clearly these questioners, slackers, lack something, unless of course they come to the right answers, as given by Mr. Ash.

This is an incoherent and sarcastic statement, Exiled, attempting to fobb off more misinformation on the unwary and vulnerable.  Why not try having an intelligent discussion about what is really at issue?  Why not tell us specifically which items in Mike Ash's book that you find inaccurate?  And perhaps cite your sources.

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

What do you think is happening when support for gay marriage in the Mormon church has gone from 26% in 2015 to 37% in 2016,  That is a huge jump.  Where do you think all that surge of support coming from?  Do you think the support for gay marriage has now peaked amongst members?  Do you think that increased support among members is an indication of more committed members than ever before as you indicated was happening?  

I would be very surprised if support for the right of people to engage in non-traditional marriage does not increase in coming years.  We already know that this is a matter of demographics -- the younger generation being far more tolerant of divergent lifestyles.  As the older generation dies off, the tolerance for Same Sex Marriage will increase.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You said "I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts at responding or debunking," and now you're going to try to squirm out of that statement?

Not at all.  It's the truth.   But you claimed that I'd  suggested this: 

"To suggest that no one buys their apologetic responses is silly in the extreme."

And there's a difference.  I didn't say that "no one buys their apologetic responses".  I stated that "I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts".   And I haven't.  I know my Bishop and I have both recommended that members read the debunking of the CES letter written by FAIR, but so far no one I am personally acquainted with has been helped by what FAIR has written.  

Edited December 13, 2017 by ALarson

[Physics Guy]

I read a bit of Ash's "Bamboozled" document, and I see a problem in its style and tone. The problem might be called "Indignant Faith Syndrome", because I think this essay is more calculated to appeal to firmly convinced Mormons who are indignant that their faith has been disparaged, than to people whose faith has really been shaken.

Ash doesn't seem to be focused entirely on showing that the CES Letter is wrong. He seems more concerned with showing that it shouldn't even be taken seriously. The main reason I get this impression is that he uses several rhetorical devices that belittle his target.

• He starts each little section with a cute little quotation from some extraneous source. In the right kind of book, I love witty chapter heading quotations like that, the more offbeat the better. They're a playful touch. What they imply in this document, however, is that the CES Letter is nothing serious. Mormons may not want it to be serious, and perhaps it shouldn't be serious, but for people with shaken faith, it is serious.
• He begins with a page-long anecdote from World War II, in which British intelligence bamboozled the Germans with real evidence that had been artificially arranged to invite false conclusions. That would be a good, attention-grabbing beginning for a sermon, and it is a good metaphor for Ash's main theme, which is that the CES Letter twists facts. The idea that one can use facts to mislead is not such a subtle concept, however, that it needs to be introduced with a page-long metaphor, no matter how apt or charming. The meta-message that Ash's leisurely introduction conveys is that rebutting the CES Letter is no urgent task. He expects his readers to indulge him while he yarns about history.
• Especially towards the end of the document, a lot of Ash's brief rebuttals exclaim, "Poppycock!", "Balderdash!", and the like. He even goes out of his way at one point to say that he is using these quaint old words because he likes them. Not only is Ash not taking his target seriously here: he is deliberately proclaiming to the reader that he is not taking his target seriously.

I have not read enough of "Bamboozled" to know how typical these examples are of its style throughout, but they are prominent enough that they are problems even if they are isolated. As I've said, they do a good job of implying that the CES Letter is insignificant. So people who wish it were insignificant may think that Ash has done a fine job rebutting it. If FAIR is serious about providing an antidote to the CES Letter for people that actually need one, though, I think they should try to see how Ash's style is going to come across to someone who, rightly or wrongly, is indeed taking the CES Letter seriously.

I suggest that to someone like that, Ash's style is likely to come across as bluster. Belittling where belittling is due may be one thing, but belittling is used so often as a desperate resort when reason is lacking, that belittling itself has become a dangerous tactic. People feel instinctively that it is a sign of weakness, not strength. 

I may have no idea how faith-shaken Mormons really feel, if there even is any common core to all their feelings; my own faith has never really been shaken, and it has never been Mormon. For what it's worth, though, my guess is that faith-shaken Mormons reading "Bamboozled" might feel like saying, "I'm not in the mood for academic wit right now. Just show me why Runnells is wrong, and do it quickly. If you can do that, I can decide for myself how foolish or wicked or insignificant he may be."

Ash's content as such might be great, but I think someone should condense his document into something much shorter and more businesslike that simply gets to the point without any rhetorical flourishes. That would be less entertaining as apologetics theater but it would be more effective as apologetics. 

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is an incoherent and sarcastic statement, Exiled, attempting to fobb off more misinformation on the unwary and vulnerable.  Why not try having an intelligent discussion about what is really at issue?  Why not tell us specifically which items in Mike Ash's book that you find inaccurate?  And perhaps cite your sources.

I think most of Mr. Ash's interpretation's suffer from a failure to admit to the difference between what is possible and what is probable. But I guess one has to deal with the facts as they are. Nevertheless, there were too many "so what" answers. 1769 biblical errors in the book of mormon is pretty solid evidence against historicity. So what doesn't cut it for me. Combine that with the lack of new world evidence for nephites and lamanites and the anachronisms, shows that it was a 19th century production.

His book of abraham treatment also solidified my views that Joseph Smith invented that account too. Each issue brought up in the book of abraham chapter and the absence of a plausible responses thereto showed to me again that the book is a 19th century invention and not the real words of abraham, if the guy ever existed.

Also, there is a failure to explain the volume of questionable occurrences that lead to doubt and distrust. However, doing so would lead to the wrong conclusion that Mr. Ash wants people to reach. At a certain point adding everything up has to tip the scales over to non-belief.

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

1769 biblical errors in the book of mormon is pretty solid evidence against historicity. . . . Combine that with the lack of new world evidence for nephites and lamanites and the anachronisms, shows that it was a 19th century production.

Huh?  See my posts above.  We may add to the items mentioned there the suspect assertion that "of quick understanding" is a definite error for "delight" (2n1103).  What we have in the CES Letter and spin-offs is assertion by question.  I can play that game with tons of stuff from the Book of Mormon, based on solid scholarship.  And perhaps I should.  I've already given one: "If Joseph was responsible for the text, then why are there 1611 King James readings in biblical passages when he didn't have an older Bible?"

How about, "How is it that there are King James readings from 8 different OT and NT verses seamlessly integrated into Moroni 10:30-31?"

Why is there so much complex, archaic, non-biblical syntax in the earliest text?

Why is there so much "bad grammar" in the text that was not Joseph's bad grammar, and is textually attested?

Specifically, why did Joseph dictate "he will cause it that it shall soon overtake you" at 3n2904, syntax that is verifiably 17c and not biblical?

Why did Joseph dictate "had been spake" at Alma 6:8, verb morphology that is verifiably 17c and not biblical?

Etc.

Why is there so much obsolete lexis in the text?

Specifically, why did Joseph dictate counsel twice to mean 'consult'?

Why did Joseph dictate reserve to mean 'preserve'?

Why did Joseph dictate whereby to mean 'why?'

Why did he dictate idleness to mean 'meaningless words or actions'?

Why did he dictate mar to mean 'hinder or stop'?

Etc.

[champatsch]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

At a certain point adding everything up has to tip the scales over to non-belief.

No.  See my post directly above.  There is so much archaic and obsolete syntax and lexis in the Book of Mormon that one cannot find a 19th-century writer who was sufficiently grounded in philology, theology, and many other things so as to be able to produce the text.

Edited December 13, 2017 by champatsch

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Zelph on the Shelf correctly observes that “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” online at http://zelphontheshelf.com/conversion-and-deconversion-are-emotional-not-logical/ .  Who exploits emotion? 

This is a very important point.

Quote

Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith (such as non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has presented), and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive. 

I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series.  A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey.  Here's a character summary:

Quote

Shift's greed served as his primary motivation. His actions to satisfy his greed increased his vileness over time. From lying to his "friend" Puzzle, he moved to manipulating the other talking animals of Narnia. In the end he had no problem murdering them and selling them into slavery to increase his own wealth and power.

As Shift's actions became increasingly evil, he also became increasingly human in his appearance and in the way he presented himself. He donned human clothing and explained that he was not an ape, and that if he appeared as one, it was only because he was "so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old."

Shift gained the power to pursue these actions by tricking Puzzle into impersonating Aslan, the true ruler of Narnia, using his claimed humanity as 'evidence' of his great wisdom to justify how he was the only one who could speak to Aslan.

Shift's scheme is summed up this way:

Quote

Shift, a Narnian ape, had been conspiring with the Tisroc, planning the overthrow of Narnia, for a long time. One day, as he was walking by Cauldron Pool with his friend Puzzle, they found the skin of a dumb lion who had been killed by a hunter in the Western Wild. Shift, ignoring Puzzle's protests, sewed the skin into a "fine new winter coat" for Puzzle, as he said. Gradually, he persuaded the donkey that Aslan wanted him to dress up in the lion skin so that Shift could use the Lion's authority to "put everything right" in Narnia. Although Puzzle was hesitant, he knew that Shift was far cleverer than himself and thought that the ape must know what Aslan would want, so he agreed.

...

Shift used the animals' firm faith in and longing for Aslan's return to facilitate his rise to power. He allowed Puzzle in the lion's skin to be sighted by several animals to start rumors, and then presented him openly to all the beasts...

The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme.  They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further:

Quote

Rishda Tarkaan dragged the Ape up close to the fire. The pair of them turned to face the crowd, and this of course meant that their backs were towards Tirian and his friends.

"Now, Monkey," said Rishda Tarkaan in a low voice. "Say the words that wiser heads have put into thy mouth. And hold up thy head." As he spoke he gave the Ape a little prod or kick from behind with the point of his toe.

"Do leave me alone," muttered Shift. But he sat up straighter and began, in a louder voice——

"Now listen, all of you. A terrible thing has happened. A wicked thing. The wickedest thing that ever was done in Narnia. And Aslan ... is very angry about it."

There was a terrible silence while the Beasts waited to hear what new trouble was in store for them. The little party by the end-wall of the stable also held their breath. What on earth was coming now?

"Yes," said the Ape. "At this very moment, when the Terrible One himself is among us—there in the stable just behind me—one wicked Beast has chosen to do what you'd think no one would dare to do even if He were a thousand miles away. It has dressed itself up in a lionskin and is wandering about in these very woods pretending to be Aslan."

Jill wondered for a moment if the Ape had gone mad. Was he going to tell the whole truth? A roar of horror and rage went up from the Beasts. "Grrr!" came the growls, "Who is he? Where is he? Just let me get my teeth into him!"

"It was seen last night," screamed the Ape, "but it got away. It's a donkey! A common, miserable a$s! If any of you see that a$s——"

"Grrr!" growled the Beasts. "We will, we will. He'd better keep out of our way."

The heroes of the story respond this way:

Quote

Jill looked at the King: his mouth was open and his face was full of horror. And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger. What was the good, now, of telling the Beasts that an a$s had been dressed up as a lion to deceive them? The Ape would only say, "That's just what I've said." What was the good of showing them Puzzle in his lionskin? They would only tear him in pieces. "That's taken the wind out of our sails," whispered Eustace. "The ground is taken from under our feet," said Tirian.

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells and Zachary.  As you put it: "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by smac97

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Huh?  See my posts above.  We may add to the items mentioned there the suspect assertion that "of quick understanding" is a definite error for "delight" (2n1103).  What we have in the CES Letter and spin-offs is assertion by question.  I can play that game with tons of stuff from the Book of Mormon, based on solid scholarship.  And perhaps I should.  I've already given one: "If Joseph was responsible for the text, then why are there 1611 King James readings in biblical passages when he didn't have an older Bible?"

How about, "How is it that there are King James readings from 8 different OT and NT verses seamlessly integrated into Moroni 10:30-31?"

Why is there so much complex, archaic, non-biblical syntax in the earliest text?

Why is there so much "bad grammar" in the text that was not Joseph's bad grammar, and is textually attested?

Specifically, why did Joseph dictate "he will cause it that it shall soon overtake you" at 3n2904, syntax that is verifiably 17c and not biblical?

Why did Joseph dictate "had been spake" at Alma 6:8, verb morphology that is verifiably 17c and not biblical?

Etc.

Why is there so much obsolete lexis in the text?

Specifically, why did Joseph dictate counsel twice to mean 'consult'?

Why did Joseph dictate reserve to mean 'preserve'?

Why did Joseph dictate whereby to mean 'why?'

Why did he dictate idleness to mean 'meaningless words or actions'?

Why did he dictate mar to mean 'hinder or stop'?

Etc.

I don't know if finding EmodE in the book of mormon helps. Do you claim the book of mormon was first translated into EmodE and then hidden without anyone knowing? Why would God go through multiple translations to bring us His word? Why not just directly give us His words like He supposedly did in the book of moses?  Also, why not give us His words without the need for the many corrections that have been done since Joseph Smith gave us the book?

Further, translation problems are just one. What of the many other issues? 

[Exiled]

35 minutes ago, champatsch said:

No.  See my post directly above.  There is so much archaic and obsolete syntax and lexis in the Book of Mormon that one cannot find a 19th-century writer who knew enough philology, theology, and many other things so as to be able to produce the text.

Do we have any examples of how appalachian english speakers spoke back then? Any recordings? It was dictated and not written, right? So, there is a difference between the dictated word and the spoken word. How about someone who was trying to sound biblical occasionally inserting something he had heard spoken in order to make his work sound ancient?

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, champatsch said:

No.  See my post directly above.  There is so much archaic and obsolete syntax and lexis in the Book of Mormon that one cannot find a 19th-century writer who was sufficiently grounded in philology, theology, and many other things so as to be able to produce the text.

I'm curious how we can possibly know this?  This is exactly the same argument of saying "well we know Joseph couldn't have written the BoM because, well, we know it".  I'm with Exiled, though, in wondering what this EModE business does to help the case of the BoM?  It sounds to me like ti makes the story of the coming forth of it all the less miraculous, all the less inspired, all the less scripture producing.  

[champatsch]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I don't know if finding EmodE in the book of mormon helps. Do you claim the book of mormon was first translated into EmodE and then hidden without anyone knowing? Why would God go through multiple translations to bring us His word? Why not just directly give us His words like He supposedly did in the book of moses?  Also, why not give us His words without the need for the many corrections that have been done since Joseph Smith gave us the book?

I don't really find these why questions that interesting.  They can be answered either way by creative people.  The Early Modern English is there and must be acknowledged by honest researchers.  I don't really know the assumptions behind your question about an Early Modern English translation and the hiding of it.  I imagine you can make a good-faith effort to propose a process whereby the Lord carried out such a project.

[champatsch]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious how we can possibly know this?  This is exactly the same argument of saying "well we know Joseph couldn't have written the BoM because, well, we know it".  I'm with Exiled, though, in wondering what this EModE business does to help the case of the BoM?  It sounds to me like ti makes the story of the coming forth of it all the less miraculous, all the less inspired, all the less scripture producing.  

There is of course textual attestation of English usage going back centuries--billions of ordered words.  That's how we know about language change.  We know prior patterns of usage that became obsolete, and we know that meanings evolved, some persisted and some became obsolete.

I could list here more than 100 markers of archaic, extra-biblical English usage found in the Book of Mormon, and you don't find that extraordinary?  To those who aren't ideologically dug in, such a quantity of data means that it is extremely unlikely that Joseph worded the text.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, champatsch said:

There is of course textual attestation of English usage going back centuries--billions of ordered words.  That's how we know about language change.  We know prior patterns of usage that became obsolete, and we know that meanings evolved, some persisted and some became obsolete.

I could list here more than 100 markers of archaic, extra-biblical English usage found in the Book of Mormon, and you don't find that extraordinary?  To those who aren't ideologically dug in, such a quantity of data means that it is extremely unlikely that Joseph worded the text.

Are we comfortably saying anything that's been accomplished that was extremely unlikely must mean God did it?  To me what does it matter if Joseph worded the text or if another human or used to be human did?  It's the same thing.  We don't know if what is in the BoM was ever even on the plates at all.  According to this, though, Joseph didn't translate anything, which most seem to say by now anyway.  But it hardly means God was involved either.  This lends more support for an argument that this was not translated by the gift and power of God.  It doesn't seem to support that at all...and thus doesn't support the text being scripture.  I'm fine with that.  But, you know, the Church isn't.  The ramifications of your work fascinates me, not because I agree with it (it doesn't matter if I did or did not because I'm obviously not getting it completely), but because it's showing us there is less divine, less magic in what is revered as words straight from God by so many.  There's less concern that Moroni, Alma, or Nehpi made a mistake in getting us truths from God and more concern that whatever they were trying to say is lost to us all.

Edited December 13, 2017 by stemelbow

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I don't really find these why questions that interesting.  They can be answered either way by creative people.  The Early Modern English is there and must be acknowledged by honest researchers.  I don't really know the assumptions behind your question about an Early Modern English translation and the hiding of it.  I imagine you can make a good-faith effort to propose a process whereby the Lord carried out such a project.

Let's assume that EmodE is there like you claim.  Then why?  Don't you have an hypothesis as to why it would be there in the first place?  Also, why bother inserting EmodE in the first place if the idea is to communicate God's word to the world?