How Does the Book of Mormon Clarify the Bible?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I wonder how you know this? I've been part of many legal conspiracies on behalf of clients that have held. As a lawyer, I am not required to disclose past crimes or negligence committed by clients. From time to time I have successfully held client confidences and continue to do so to this day. These are conspiracies to withhold the truth from whomever and they survive. So, how can you say that actual conspiracies seldom hold?

Nearly all criminal conspiracies end in someone ratting out the group.  Those criminal conspiracies can include conspiracies by bent law enforcement officers, or by mafiosi.  I gave you specific instances in which the Sicilian Mafia (La Cosa Nostra) and the Mexican Mafia (La Eme) imploded.  You have the misguided notion that such conspiracies are the same as lawyer-client confidentiality.  They are not.  Criminal conspirators seldom have high values of honor and integrity.

It is true that Judas sold out his Master, but that was not because Jesus was a co-conspirator.  It is true that Matthew Peter denied his Master three times, but that was out of fear, not because he considered Jesus to be a liar.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[strappinglad]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is true that Matthew denied his Master three times

oops

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Of course that is impossible by definition as the successfull secret conspiracy will remain secret. How can one know the entire scheme if it is secret? However the mafia does exist, right? Cartels exist down in Mexico, right?

So, I see conspiracies being alleged every day, almost, in court. Some are proven and the criminals go to prison or civil conspirators are held liable. I don't think you are saying that criminals can't combine together and form a criminal plan. Surely you aren't trying to say that conspiracies do not happen, are you? Weren't the gadianton robbers a thing in the book of mormon?

I wasn't 'saying' anything.  You need to stop thinking everything else someone says is to prove a point or persuade others to their point of view.

I was simply curious about how you thought about this issue of conspiracy claims.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

oops

Oops is right.  St Pete gets the credit.  Thanks for keeping me on the strait and narrow, or is it the straight and narrow?

Edited June 26, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think he, himself, or perhaps with the help of others, composed the thing and with it attempted to settle then current biblical controversies such as infant baptism, etc.

A pretty tall order, IMO. As my uncle used to say, “If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs, but we don’t have any eggs.”

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for keeping me on the strait and narrow, or is it the straight and narrow?

Strait.

[Stargazer]

On 6/19/2019 at 5:04 AM, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting again that we're missing the 116 pages (which Don Bradley suggests might be of significant length in terms of percentage of the whole - perhaps as much as half). We're also missing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. So there's a lot left to be revealed. 

Re: bolded above

Not if Christopher Nemelka were to be believed!  He produced as rather ambitious bit of work once upon a time, called "The Sealed Portion", the beginning of which I read, until it became obvious that it was a complete sham.  It wasn't badly written, mind you, just an obvious deception.  It didn't take much to determine this.  When the book started talking about High Priests quorums in Jerusalem (and noting that Lehi was a High Priest), I nearly rolled on the floor laughing.  The thing was obviously written by a Mormon who understood how the Church is organized in modern times.  And for some reason thought that it was organized that way 600 years before Christ.  Of course, much later Nemelka admitted that his Sealed Portion was a total forgery, and made fun of the people who actually believed him.  His purpose in writing it was to destroy the Book of Mormon and the Bible, too.  See this: https://heavymetalmormon.com/2017/04/24/christopher-nemelkas-purpose-for-writing-the-sealed-portion/

[strappinglad]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Strait.

This is as I understand it , but it is kind of redundant, like saying ' confined and restricted ' whereas ' straight and narrow ' conveys 2 different ideas.. hmmmm. 

[tkv]

Quote

Bradley:

The preface is written when the Book of Mormon is starting to go to the press, and it’s one of the very first things that’s going to be typeset. Joseph doesn’t have a lot of time to come up with this preface to explain things, so again, I think he’s oversimplifying. So again, 116 pages just happens to be the length of the small plates that replaces the lost manuscript in the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

What it looks like is that Joseph probably doesn’t know how many pages were in the lost manuscript. It probably wasn’t paginated. He’s trying to give a rough estimate of the length without knowing how long it was. How is he going to do that? He looks at the replacement for the lost manuscript and says, “It’s probably about as long as its replacement,” and gives it the number of 116 pages, just like that manuscript.

 

@clarkgoble, according to Skousen (1994:136-37), P was only 24 pages long in August 1829.

Skousen (2001:33) concludes that Joseph and Martin probably numbered the 1828 dictation pages, because both O and P were numbered.

Most of the 1830 preface is section 10 language, first set down in writing in April 1829.  So Joseph wasn't coming up with brand new language for the preface in July or August 1829.  He just needed to rework that earlier language, or perhaps the preface was a further revelation, an expansion of the earlier revelation.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, tkv said:

@clarkgoble, according to Skousen (1994:136-37), P was only 24 pages long in August 1829.

Skousen (2001:33) concludes that Joseph and Martin probably numbered the 1828 dictation pages, because both O and P were numbered.

Most of the 1830 preface is section 10 language, first set down in writing in April 1829.  So Joseph wasn't coming up with brand new language for the preface in July or August 1829.  He just needed to rework that earlier language, or perhaps the preface was a further revelation, an expansion of the earlier revelation.

Hard to say much until Bradley's book is out. I have to imagine he'll engage with Skousen's theories but why he disagrees I've not seen him state anywhere. At least beyond the argument he gives in that transcript. But that doesn't engage Skousen directly. That link I gave was just a loose interview and so doesn't delve deeply into the actual arguments. His masters thesis, which is online, touches on the 116 pages a bit, but doesn't get into this issue since it's more focused upon social structures affecting the nature of the Book of Mormon content.

(There's a discussion on this from last year here that includes Don)

Edited June 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Gervin]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:27 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly all criminal conspiracies end in someone ratting out the group. 

Perhaps, but would exposure of the Book of Mormon as fraudulent be considered "criminal?"  Criminal conspiracies typically involve personal gain or direct malice.  The motivations are high, but also the motivations of law enforcement to encourage ratting out the group.  Social conspiracies are more vague - think about the industry-wide conspiracy to keep minorities out of established white neighborhoods or apartment  buildings.  While the laws caught up some offenders, the motivations were more nuanced.  Religious conspiracies, as a subset of social conspiracies, contain motivations limited only by imagination: https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/explainer/worlds-most-obscure-religions  

I believe that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was conspiratorial and the  motives of those involved limited only by their imaginations, as stirred on by a myriad of cultural, religious, and personal factors, interests, and motivations.  It's become something quaint.  How could that be a crime? 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Gervin said:

Perhaps, but would exposure of the Book of Mormon as fraudulent be considered "criminal?"  Criminal conspiracies typically involve personal gain or direct malice.  The motivations are high, but also the motivations of law enforcement to encourage ratting out the group.  Social conspiracies are more vague - think about the industry-wide conspiracy to keep minorities out of established white neighborhoods or apartment  buildings.  While the laws caught up some offenders, the motivations were more nuanced.  Religious conspiracies, as a subset of social conspiracies, contain motivations limited only by imagination: https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/explainer/worlds-most-obscure-religions  

I believe that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was conspiratorial and the  motives of those involved limited only by their imaginations, as stirred on by a myriad of cultural, religious, and personal factors, interests, and motivations.  It's become something quaint.  How could that be a crime? 

Conspiracies don't have to be criminal, and I didn't say that they must be.  I was merely pointing out that, even where the stakes are highest and "mum" is the word, those who lack integrity will inevitably rat each other out.

There must at least be some substantial evidence of a conspiracy, otherwise we are merely dealing with paranoia and an inclination to find fault with opponents.  We might just as well find fault with the Wesleys (Methodism) or with Martin Luther, as with the followers of Jesus in Schonfield's Passover Plot.  Normative Jewish scholars, who have no reason to defend Jesus and Christianity, found Schonfield to be way off base and unscholarly in his assertions.  Your assertions about LDS origins are equally misplaced and not supported by hard evidence.  I realize that you desperately want Mormonism to be untrue, and don't really care whether you can make a valid case.  But you should care.  Why?  Because next time it may be your ox who is being gored.  Call it enlightened self-interest.

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Conspiracies don't have to be criminal, and I didn't say that they must be.  I was merely pointing out that, even where the stakes are highest and "mum" is the word, those who lack integrity will inevitably rat each other out.

Anyone consciously involved in a conspiracy could be deemed as lacking integrity.  But, in contrast to your claim, there is no evidence that every single person involved in a conspiracy will "inevitably" rat each other out. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Your assertions about LDS origins are equally misplaced and not supported by hard evidence. 

I don't think we define hard evidence in the same way, so I'll leave you to make your case among fellow believers.  Based on what I read on this board, the adherents have plenty of doubts and a lack of consensus as to what they consider evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

Anyone consciously involved in a conspiracy could be deemed as lacking integrity.  But, in contrast to your claim, there is no evidence that every single person involved in a conspiracy will "inevitably" rat each other out. 

I did not say or imply that every single person would rat each other out, an astonishingly silly assertion.  In conspiracies, it doesn't usually require more than one person to rat the others out -- for whatever reason, torture, revenge, pangs of conscience, money, or a plea bargain.  An attorney should know that.

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

I don't think we define hard evidence in the same way, so I'll leave you to make your case among fellow believers.  Based on what I read on this board, the adherents have plenty of doubts and a lack of consensus as to what they consider evidence.

You are undoubtedly right about the range of opinion held by members of this board.  That does not suggest that many of them know anything about hard evidence.  That is a specialized field in which I have taken some tough courses (always receiving "A"s), as well as applying it directly in the field as well as in the lab, and in courtroom testimony.  Most people make the mistake of trying to fit their testimony to their presuppositions.  They should instead allow the chips to fall where they may.

[Stargazer]

On 6/26/2019 at 5:26 PM, strappinglad said:

This is as I understand it , but it is kind of redundant, like saying ' confined and restricted ' whereas ' straight and narrow ' conveys 2 different ideas.. hmmmm. 

Good ole English!  Homonyms occur because some words come from two or more entirely different sources, and mean different things in those sources but sound similar.  Or the words used to be pronounced differently, but usage has worn down the differences  in how they were pronounced, although the spelling differences may remain.  "To", "two" and "too" are pronounced identically now, but used to be pronounced "toe", "twoe" and "too", with the "w" in "two" actually pronounced.  They gradually wore down to the same sound: "too".  

A strait isn't necessarily straight.  The word strait comes from Latin strictus (tightened, compressed) through Old French estreit, and means narrow, restricted, tight. Another word coming from the same origin is strict.  And among the meanings of strait that used to be current, e.g. when the KJV was translated, was strict, so: strict and narrow.

The word straight (formerly spelled streight) comes from Middle English strechen from the Old English (i.e. pre-Norman Conquest) word  streċċan, meaning to stretch.  The "gh" is silent now, but used to be pronounced with a guttural sound much like the "ch" in modern German "Bach" or Scots "loch".  

Sorry for the etymology lesson!  I find this kind of thing very interesting and must compulsively share.

A strait does not have to be narrow, by the way.  Narrow being a relative term, the Strait of Gibraltar isn't particularly narrow, and neither is the Strait of Dover, but they are kind of straight, whereas the Strait of Magellan isn't straight at all, but it is definitely narrower than either of the other two.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Stargazer

[Exiled]

On 6/25/2019 at 10:36 PM, Calm said:

 

I wasn't 'saying' anything.  You need to stop thinking everything else someone says is to prove a point or persuade others to their point of view.

I was simply curious about how you thought about this issue of conspiracy claims.

It's the lawyer in me that defaults to this position. I'll try and remember this when I engage you and others in the future and respond accordingly.

[Exiled]

On 6/25/2019 at 9:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly all criminal conspiracies end in someone ratting out the group.  Those criminal conspiracies can include conspiracies by bent law enforcement officers, or by mafiosi.  I gave you specific instances in which the Sicilian Mafia (La Cosa Nostra) and the Mexican Mafia (La Eme) imploded.  You have the misguided notion that such conspiracies are the same as lawyer-client confidentiality.  They are not.  Criminal conspirators seldom have high values of honor and integrity.

It is true that Judas sold out his Master, but that was not because Jesus was a co-conspirator.  It is true that Matthew Peter denied his Master three times, but that was out of fear, not because he considered Jesus to be a liar.

Nearly all, but not every single one? Would you agree with this at least?

Just as a matter of logic, and observation, conspiracies can continue if the interests are aligned and some entity aggressively polices the conspirators.  Perhaps a real world example could help show my point. It seems certain criminal elements were running a legitimate business where I live and borrowed heavily to "expand."  Lenders were happy to lend.  However, the criminals and their group had a plan to loot the entity all the while asking for more and more money from the duped lenders. At a certain point the money flows stopped and the entity was forced into bankruptcy.  Fraud was alleged by the government and a big trial was staged where a hard nosed prosecutor was seemingly about to put a noose around the conspirators. Then, all of a sudden, the prosecutor was recalled and another, less experienced prosecutor was put in place and the government's case took a turn for the worse and the criminals were acquitted. It seems the criminal organization intimidated/bribed/influenced someone that had the power over which prosecutor was assigned where.

This conspiracy held.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Nearly all, but not every single one? Would you agree with this at least?

Just as a matter of logic, and observation, conspiracies can continue if the interests are aligned and some entity aggressively polices the conspirators.  Perhaps a real world example could help show my point. It seems certain criminal elements were running a legitimate business where I live and borrowed heavily to "expand."  Lenders were happy to lend.  However, the criminals and their group had a plan to loot the entity all the while asking for more and more money from the duped lenders. At a certain point the money flows stopped and the entity was forced into bankruptcy.  Fraud was alleged by the government and a big trial was staged where a hard nosed prosecutor was seemingly about to put a noose around the conspirators. Then, all of a sudden, the prosecutor was recalled and another, less experienced prosecutor was put in place and the government's case took a turn for the worse and the criminals were acquitted. It seems the criminal organization intimidated/bribed/influenced someone that had the power over which prosecutor was assigned where.

This conspiracy held.

Yes, of course.  Such "arrangements" are made to protect the conspirators, but the existence of that conspiracy is still known and understood by outsiders.  Getting justice is another matter.  The larger the conspiracy (the more people involved and longer it exists) the more likely it is to become a matter of public knowledge.  Keeping it all a secret is just not so easy as it is assumed to be.  This applies as well to the CIA as to large-scale drug cartels.  It applies to human trafficking in America and in Moldova.  Despite our knowledge, however, we can't really get a handle on it.  The same applies to the fact that slavery is more common today than at any time in history:  Yet we cannot control it.  It is not a secret, but we cannot control it.  The notion that conspiracies can be kept secret is nonsense.

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The notion that conspiracies can be kept secret is nonsense.

I don't see how you can say this. I've seen many such small time conspiracies work.  Any agreement to do something illegal qualifies, no matter how small the crime.  Small time drug dealer groups sometimes never get caught.  A lot was made about the 1832 account being out of circulation.  However, what happened to the missing 8 leaves from that same letter book?  We don't know or much less what they contained.  They are still missing.  I think this would qualify as perhaps an unknown conspiracy. We don't know if the pages were taken out for some nefarious reason or not. Perhaps they spoiled? Perhaps they contain some juicy material and were deliberately hidden.  All we know is that they are missing.

However, I think you are right that larger frauds/criminal enterprises continue even though the whole world knows what's going on. Why is this? Is it a question of a lack of will? Perhaps if enough of the right people are involved, police, military, judges, businessmen, media, the conspiracy could last a long time? Speak and risk getting killed. 3rd world dictatorships come to mind.

Further, sometimes people don't want to admit that they have been tricked, thereby allowing the perpetrators to continue. It's embarrassing to come forward. During the last real estate collapse, many of my clients refused to believe that prices would fall. They thought it was different that time and didn't or couldn't come to grips with the truth. It's taken 10 years to come back to where prices were.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I don't see how you can say this. I've seen many such small time conspiracies work.  Any agreement to do something illegal qualifies, no matter how small the crime.  Small time drug dealer groups sometimes never get caught.  A lot was made about the 1832 account being out of circulation.  However, what happened to the missing 8 leaves from that same letter book?  We don't know or much less what they contained.  They are still missing.  I think this would qualify as perhaps an unknown conspiracy. We don't know if the pages were taken out for some nefarious reason or not. Perhaps they spoiled? Perhaps they contain some juicy material and were deliberately hidden.  All we know is that they are missing.

However, I think you are right that larger frauds/criminal enterprises continue even though the whole world knows what's going on. Why is this? Is it a question of a lack of will? Perhaps if enough of the right people are involved, police, military, judges, businessmen, media, the conspiracy could last a long time? Speak and risk getting killed. 3rd world dictatorships come to mind.

Well, I knew some folks that were really into the fact that many people associated with the Clintons were killed under mysterious circumstances or committed suicide.  As an example: Vince Foster.  I finally stopped listening to the conspiracy theorists, mainly because it was unproductive.  

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses, however, it seems that denying one's testimony of that would not have had any repercussion at all -- and would have led to some fame and fortune for the witness who exposed the fraud, especially since none of them were gaining anything from maintaining the fraud, if fraud it were, especially for the ones that left the Church and never returned.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Further, sometimes people don't want to admit that they have been tricked, thereby allowing the perpetrators to continue. It's embarrassing to come forward.

That's a reasonable explanation.  But out of 11 of them, all of them were too embarrassed to admit the trick?  Or the fraud?

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

During the last real estate collapse, many of my clients refused to believe that prices would fall. They thought it was different that time and didn't or couldn't come to grips with the truth. It's taken 10 years to come back to where prices were.

Not sure this has anything to do with what is being discussed.  You can refuse to believe that there would be a price collapse, but once the collapse occurred, where were they then?  Did they continue to believe that their property was worth more than the market said it was, or did they just refuse to admit that they believed there would be no price collapse?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

It's the lawyer in me that defaults to this position. I'll try and remember this when I engage you and others in the future and respond accordingly.

Thank you.  I would really appreciate it as I come to the board to share ideas and it saps a lot of the enjoyment to be misunderstood to that extent so often, especially since I am obsessive about being understood even though I know it often doesn't happen.

[Exiled]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I knew some folks that were really into the fact that many people associated with the Clintons were killed under mysterious circumstances or committed suicide.  As an example: Vince Foster.  I finally stopped listening to the conspiracy theorists, mainly because it was unproductive.  

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses, however, it seems that denying one's testimony of that would not have had any repercussion at all -- and would have led to some fame and fortune for the witness who exposed the fraud, especially since none of them were gaining anything from maintaining the fraud, if fraud it were, especially for the ones that left the Church and never returned.

That's a reasonable explanation.  But out of 11 of them, all of them were too embarrassed to admit the trick?  Or the fraud?

Not sure this has anything to do with what is being discussed.  You can refuse to believe that there would be a price collapse, but once the collapse occurred, where were they then?  Did they continue to believe that their property was worth more than the market said it was, or did they just refuse to admit that they believed there would be no price collapse?

I believe the 3 were very credulous which causes one to question their testimony. Martin Harris claimed that Jesus appeared to him in the form of a deer and walked with him, talking to him. He seemed to believe in almost any spiritual tale. David Whitmer thought Moroni was hiding under the barn in addition to other questionable beliefs. Oliver Cowdery said he dreamed of the plates prior to meeting Joseph Smith and believed that he had powers with a divining rod.

The 8 were Smiths (believers in seer stones and christian magic) and the Whitmers (very credulous as well) plus Hiram Page, a person that believed in seer stones as well. I don't think they are that reliable as a result. 

Also, I don't think they would have been cheered if they admitted to being delusional as you claim.  In some circles their recanting would have been welcomed but they wouldn't have been respected, more likely pittied. People tend to get defensive when questioned about their belief systems and tend to double down instead of admitting they were tricked.  We see this all the time.  I believe it was either the 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses where their leader predicted the actual day when Jesus would return. When he didn't, instead of all leaving, a lot remained, inventing reasons to justify the faulty "prophecy."

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't see how you can say this. I've seen many such small time conspiracies work.  Any agreement to do something illegal qualifies, no matter how small the crime.  Small time drug dealer groups sometimes never get caught.  A lot was made about the 1832 account being out of circulation.  However, what happened to the missing 8 leaves from that same letter book?  We don't know or much less what they contained.  They are still missing.  I think this would qualify as perhaps an unknown conspiracy. We don't know if the pages were taken out for some nefarious reason or not. Perhaps they spoiled? Perhaps they contain some juicy material and were deliberately hidden.  All we know is that they are missing.

However, I think you are right that larger frauds/criminal enterprises continue even though the whole world knows what's going on. Why is this? Is it a question of a lack of will? Perhaps if enough of the right people are involved, police, military, judges, businessmen, media, the conspiracy could last a long time? Speak and risk getting killed. 3rd world dictatorships come to mind.

Perhaps, perhaps, many times over, and perhaps not.  That's the thing about speculation:  It can be unbounded.  We can spin all manner of scenarios, any one of which might be true, or not.  Not a sound basis for the writing of history.

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Further, sometimes people don't want to admit that they have been tricked, thereby allowing the perpetrators to continue. It's embarrassing to come forward. During the last real estate collapse, many of my clients refused to believe that prices would fall. They thought it was different that time and didn't or couldn't come to grips with the truth. It's taken 10 years to come back to where prices were.

Certainly true.  People can be pretty stupid.  I have demonstrated that several times in my own life . . . 

[Exiled]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps, perhaps, many times over, and perhaps not.  That's the thing about speculation:  It can be unbounded.  We can spin all manner of scenarios, any one of which might be true, or not.  Not a sound basis for the writing of history.

I agree that historians have to play the percentages and look for what is probable and not just possible.  However, you took an absolutist position when I was just pointing out a possibility based on my own and I suspect other's experience. I wish it were true that all conspiracies get discovered and cannot last. I wish we could always trust leaders but that isn't the case sadly.

Further, isn't this view potentially harmful in that it tends to give one false confidence? Why be vigilant when one can be rest assured that someone will discover the wrongs in the world. Yet there are ponzi schemes being concocted, probably as we go back and forth right now.  Believing that they will always be discovered lessens vigilance.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I agree that historians have to play the percentages and look for what is probable and not just possible.  However, you took an absolutist position when I was just pointing out a possibility based on my own and I suspect other's experience. I wish it were true that all conspiracies get discovered and cannot last. I wish we could always trust leaders but that isn't the case sadly.

Further, isn't this view potentially harmful in that it tends to give one false confidence? Why be vigilant when one can be rest assured that someone will discover the wrongs in the world. Yet there are ponzi schemes being concocted, probably as we go back and forth right now.  Believing that they will always be discovered lessens vigilance.

False.  I did not take an absolutist position, and I did not say that all conspiracies were outed.  One of the problems with writing accurate history is ignoring fact, and substituting fancy.  We need hard evidence, which seems inconvenient to many apriorists.