Metis_LDS Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: In what way? It's hard to lose credibility when you have so very little to begin with, and that's pretty much the story of the Bible from when it was first published until now. The state of its credibility is pretty close to what one would expect of a book held as scripture by the people who value it, but it is not considered to be historically valuable for those non-Christian historians.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 8 hours ago, InCognitus said: Credibility in standing up against the claims made against it. This doesn't mean that it changes the minds of the critics, but the the Book of Mormon hasn't been shaken by new findings about the ancient world in the Americas and in the old world. On the contrary, it has been strengthened by such findings. Right. That’s why all members agree with this amazing evidence and there are no competing geographic theories. Certainly church leadership has endorsed the findings as legitimate right? There are faithful Non-critical members on this board (say churchistrue) that don’t believe in a historical Book of Mormon. Other faithful members here propose the Malay peninsula as the setting. A significant portion of the church are Meldrum followers. If you can’t convince the faithful, in what way can you say it’s historicity is strengthened?
Meadowchik Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 16 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said: It's hard to lose credibility when you have so very little to begin with, and that's pretty much the story of the Bible from when it was first published until now. The state of its credibility is pretty close to what one would expect of a book held as scripture by the people who value it, but it is not considered to be historically valuable for those non-Christian historians. That comparison fails on several levels. But even if the comparison is granted, it doesn't make the BOM a credible historical source. So... what's the relevance??
Metis_LDS Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: That comparison fails on several levels. But even if the comparison is granted, it doesn't make the BOM a credible historical source. So... what's the relevance?? I never said that the Book of Mormon was a credible historical source. The relevance is that both are considered scriptures by those who believe. It does not matter nor ever will what unbelievers say about the Bible or the Book of Mormon. They were not written for those who do not wish to believe. Edited December 8, 2019 by Metis_LDS spelling
Meadowchik Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said: I never said that the Book of Mormon was a credible historical source. The relevance is that both are considered scriptures by those who believe. It does not matter nor every will what unbelievers say about the Bible or the Book of Mormon. They were not written for the those who do not wish to believe. Although the Bible and Book of Mormon are not comparable in terms of provenance and historicity, you do have a point: those who wish to believe will be more likely to believe. Yet there are those who wish to believe and, as a result of their commitment to certain values, are unable to, in good conscience, believe in the Bible, or in the Book of Mormon. Edited December 8, 2019 by Meadowchik 1
alter idem Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 On 12/6/2019 at 1:20 PM, Tacenda said: I believe Joseph had help from Oliver Cowdery, because of the below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery See also: View of the Hebrews For several years, Cowdery and his family attended the Congregational Church in Poultney, Vermont, when its minister was the Rev. Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, an 1823 book suggesting that Native Americans were of Hebrew origin, a not uncommon speculation during the colonial and early national periods.[45][46] In 2000, David Persuitte argued that Cowdery's knowledge of View of the Hebrews significantly contributed to the final version of the Book of Mormon,[47] a connection first suggested as early as 1902.[48] Fawn Brodie wrote that it "may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon, but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence."[49] Richard Bushman and John W. Welch reject the connection and argue that there is little relationship between the contents of the two books.[50] Footnotes They were grasping at straws, always trying to come up with some explanation for how Joseph Smith could've produced the Book of Mormon, other than the most obvious. He really did translate it from ancient plates. It's a book of scripture, it's not a novel. And Ethan Smith's book claiming that Native Americans were of Hebrew Origin, did not originate with him, as it was an explanation others had come up with also, AIR. This suggestion for 'View of the Hebrews' was put forward later when the suggestion of 'Manuscript Lost' was debunked, AIR. And Fawn Brodie's opinion isn't one I'd consider--I suspect she made that claim about 'striking parallels' when the book was out of print and hard to find, but I recall that it was later republished and her claims unfounded and confusing as to she would say that. I wonder if she'd even read the Book when she made that claim, but obviously Richard Bushman and John W. Welch read it and that's why they refuted her claim. 1
mrmarklin Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/7/2019 at 4:47 PM, Meadowchik said: I'd be careful about saying the BOM is consistent with the future revelations. Also, it's a bit silly to generalise your skillset as relevant to Joseph Smith. We know he was a skilled storyteller and he, unlike in our modern times, grew up in much more oratorical tradition. He, being attuned to the Second Great Awakening, was also immersed in the subject matter of the Book of Mormon, both the doctrinal themes and the historical speculations about native Americans. And of course, if we are going to consider the possibility that he did not translate as he claims, then we need not assume he produced it on his own. So essentially, the argument that the BOM had to be divine because it seems incredible that Joseph Smith could write it himself is not a valid argument. Seriously? At 24 I was much more capable, educated, with many more resources than JS had to work with. I’m not a bad story teller either. I had read most of the Harvard Classics by the time I was through high school. The reason I give my education and credentials is that I doubt I could write such a book even now. Despite the errors and anachronisms in the book (funny that with each passing years the anachronisms diminish) it has stood the test of time. With each passing year, more discovery makes historical references in the BOM more relevant and likely. Do you honestly think you could write such a book? Neither do I.
Meadowchik Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 3 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Seriously? Yes, seriously. 3 hours ago, mrmarklin said: At 24 I was much more capable, educated, with many more resources than JS had to work with. I’m not a bad story teller either. At 24 or even 48 it is very doubtful that you (or most people) have had as extensive an (albeit informal) education and training in oral histories and storytelling. This was the medium of Smith's day and socioeconomic level. 3 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Despite the errors and anachronisms in the book (funny that with each passing years the anachronisms diminish) it has stood the test of time. With each passing year, more discovery makes historical references in the BOM more relevant and likely. Which historical references exactly have become more relevant and likely with the passage of time? 4 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Do you honestly think you could write such a book? Neither do I. If I'd had a similar informal education and background, sure. There are more than a handful of writers, creators, and scientists with little to no formal education who have done very good work. And the BOM is not a book of above-average literary or historical merit. Chiasmus and other linguistic tendencies can come naturally and especially second nature for a person who has become practiced at speaking to an audience. I notice such patterns in very talkative children, even. It sounds to me like you are restrictively applying your personal present-day notions of education and ability to Joseph Smith.
Tacenda Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Seriously? At 24 I was much more capable, educated, with many more resources than JS had to work with. I’m not a bad story teller either. I had read most of the Harvard Classics by the time I was through high school. The reason I give my education and credentials is that I doubt I could write such a book even now. Despite the errors and anachronisms in the book (funny that with each passing years the anachronisms diminish) it has stood the test of time. With each passing year, more discovery makes historical references in the BOM more relevant and likely. Do you honestly think you could write such a book? Neither do I. With a lot of help from people like Cowdery, yes. Remember they lived in a time where they didn't have the kinds of distractions we do now. Here's a few: Charles ****ens. Hulton Archive/Getty Images. ... Walt Whitman. ... Washington Irving. ... Edgar Allan Poe. ... Herman Melville. ... Ralph Waldo Emerson. ... Henry David Thoreau. ... Ida B. I now want to read the book by Cowdery: The Prophet and the Plates ETA: I can't fathom all of the BoM's words put on those gold plates, I don't think it's possible. Edited December 9, 2019 by Tacenda
Metis_LDS Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Charles ****ens Is your keyboard broken?
Tacenda Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, Metis_LDS said: Is your keyboard broken? The board mechanism does that, if you look closely you'll see why.
Metis_LDS Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, Tacenda said: The board mechanism does that, if you look closely you'll see why. Please enlighten me as I have no idea what you are talking about.
Metis_LDS Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ETA: I can't fathom all of the BoM's words put on those gold plates, I don't think it's possible. There are known languages today that can greatly condense English. One I know for sure is Navaho. They can shorten English sentenances without losing meaning. Plus the following explains perhaps they were not writing words on the plates. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian The Book of Mormon uses the term "reformed Egyptian" in only one verse, Mormon 9:32, which says that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" and that "none other people knoweth our language."[4] The book also says that its first author, Nephi, used the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2) to write his record which constitutes the first two books of the Book of Mormon. The abridgment that the Book of Mormon says was prepared by Mormon and Moroni nearly a thousand years later in approximately 380 AD, containing most of the balance of the book, was written in "reformed Egyptian" because it took less space than Hebrew, which Hebrew had also been altered after the people left Jerusalem.[5] Mormon scholars note that other scripts were developed to write Egyptian through the centuries and have hypothesized that the term "reformed Egyptian" refers to a form of Egyptian writing similar to other modified Egyptian scripts such as hieratic, a handwritten form of hieroglyphics thousands of years old by the first millennium BC, or early Demotic, a simplified derivative of hieratic, which was used in northern Egypt fifty years before the time that the Book of Mormon states that prophet-patriarch Lehi left Jerusalem for the Americas.[6] A form of Egyptian hieratic, called Palestinian hieratic, was used in Palestine during the time frame of the Lehi departure.[7] Edited December 9, 2019 by Metis_LDS addition 1
mrmarklin Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 55 minutes ago, Tacenda said: With a lot of help from people like Cowdery, yes. Remember they lived in a time where they didn't have the kinds of distractions we do now. Here's a few: Charles ****ens. Hulton Archive/Getty Images. ... Walt Whitman. ... Washington Irving. ... Edgar Allan Poe. ... Herman Melville. ... Ralph Waldo Emerson. ... Henry David Thoreau. ... Ida B. I now want to read the book by Cowdery: The Prophet and the Plates ETA: I can't fathom all of the BoM's words put on those gold plates, I don't think it's possible. All these were much better educated than Cowdery or Smith. I don’t get your point.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 51 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said: Please enlighten me as I have no idea what you are talking about. The four letters omitted from Charles D*ckens name are are D I C K
Metis_LDS Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The four letters omitted from Charles D*ckens name are are D I C K Thank you for the reply. You are most kind. Yes I did understand what you say. I could not understand blocking a proper name such as the author Charles D*ckens. This is silly. Like the rule about no Sexually themed threads when we discuss sexuality often on the board. Edited December 9, 2019 by Metis_LDS addition for clarity 1
Ryan Dahle Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: If I'd had a similar informal education and background, sure. There are more than a handful of writers, creators, and scientists with little to no formal education who have done very good work. And the BOM is not a book of above-average literary or historical merit. Chiasmus and other linguistic tendencies can come naturally and especially second nature for a person who has become practiced at speaking to an audience. I notice such patterns in very talkative children, even. It sounds to me like you are restrictively applying your personal present-day notions of education and ability to Joseph Smith. In my view, the question isn't whether it is a "very good work" but rather what type of work it specifically is and what is typically entailed in creating such a work. The Book of Mormon is a lengthy text produced in a short amount of time and is amazingly consistent, considering its complexity and the diversity of the data it juggles. To my knowledge, it isn't at all the type of folktale that one might expect to have been rapidly and orally dictated by an inexperienced author with limited education. Such stories tend to be description heavy and to have simplistic, linear plots with small casts of characters and limited amounts of extraneous data, especially if that data has to be kept track of or accounted for in some way so that the story is consistent on multiple levels. Do you have any actual evidence to support your assumption? For instance, can you cite an orally dictated story that is even close to the Book of Mormon in regard to the following combination of details: (1) its length, (2) the rapid pace of its production, (3) the inexperience of its author, (4) the lack of resources available to the author, and (5) the consistency in its various data sets (chronology, geography, characters, underlying texts, varying authorship styles, diversity of genres, pervasive and diverse parallel structures, distinct editorial approaches, consistency in doctrinal concepts, intricacy of its narratives, consistencies in plot details, intertextual relationships, etc.)? The only texts that I know of which even come close are those written by pen (or typewriter or computer) by well-educated, experienced authors over longer periods of time, with multiple drafts, extensive editing, and in some cases an entire team of people who help the author keep track of the multitudes of diverse details. I've never seen anything comparable to the Book of Mormon, even among those otherwise impressive texts that have allegedly been produced by so-called "automatic writing." Edited December 9, 2019 by Ryan Dahle 3
Calm Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: Remember they lived in a time where they didn't have the kinds of distractions we do now. And they had quite a few that we don’t, like needing to work to survive. Who do you think has more leisure time, Joseph Smith and Friends or those of us posting? 4 hours ago, Metis_LDS said: Thank you for the reply. You are most kind. Yes I did understand what you say. I could not understand blocking a proper name such as the author Charles D*ckens. This is silly. Like the rule about no Sexually themed threads when we discuss sexuality often on the board. This seems to be a property of the template for the board, not the moderaters’ Choice. When I was a admin of another board, it was run by ezboards. The standard template had two choices which was no censorship or a set of typical swear words censored (including “d i c k” even when part of another word). For a small fee you could among other things add your own words to the list. I suspect they choose to edit it even when parts of words due to people’s creativity in getting around simple censorship programs. Edited December 9, 2019 by Calm 2
Meadowchik Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: In my view, the question isn't whether it is a "very good work" but rather what type of work it specifically is and what is typically entailed in creating such a work. The Book of Mormon is a lengthy text produced in a short amount of time and is amazingly consistent, considering its complexity and the diversity of the data it juggles. To my knowledge, it isn't at all the type of folktale that one might expect to have been rapidly and orally dictated by an inexperienced author with limited education. Such stories tend to be description heavy and to have simplistic, linear plots with small casts of characters and limited amounts of extraneous data, especially if that data has to be kept track of or accounted for in some way so that the story is consistent on multiple levels. Do you have any actual evidence to support your assumption? For instance, can you cite an orally dictated story that is even close to the Book of Mormon in regard to the following combination of details: (1) its length, (2) the rapid pace of its production, (3) the inexperience of its author, (4) the lack of resources available to the author, and (5) the consistency in its various data sets (chronology, geography, characters, underlying texts, varying authorship styles, diversity of genres, distinct editorial approaches, consistency in doctrinal concepts, intricacy of its narratives, consistencies in plot details, intertextual relationships, etc.)? The only texts that I know of which even come close are those written by pen (or typewriter or computer) by well-educated, experienced authors over longer periods of time, with multiple drafts, extensive editing, and in some cases an entire team of people who help the author keep track of the multitudes of diverse details. I've never seen anything comparable to the Book of Mormon, even among those otherwise impressive texts that have allegedly been produced by so-called "automatic writing." I can easily find, through a quick internet search, at least 10 best selling books which were written in less than 2 months. Extrapolate from there and it is not implausible that many more manuscripts were written in 65 days or less in the last two hundred years.
pogi Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I can easily find, through a quick internet search, at least 10 best selling books which were written in less than 2 months. ...a volume this large with their head buried in a hat, dictating a narrative in a voice and style different from his natural speaking style - beginning the next day mid-sentence without reviewing the previous days work? No outline, no notes to reference from researching the plot, with a million different characters and names of cities, he was able to keep it all straight, again without notes or reviewing text (his head was in a hat mostly!). Several different prophecies were made in the beginning of the book, all of them were fulfilled later on. Without notes or anything to reference, how could he possibly keep all that straight? Impossible.
Meadowchik Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 34 minutes ago, pogi said: ...a volume this large with their head buried in a hat, dictating a narrative in a voice and style different from his natural speaking style - beginning the next day mid-sentence without reviewing the previous days work? No outline, no notes to reference from researching the plot, with a million different characters and names of cities, he was able to keep it all straight, again without notes or reviewing text (his head was in a hat mostly!). Several different prophecies were made in the beginning of the book, all of them were fulfilled later on. Without notes or anything to reference, how could he possibly keep all that straight? Impossible. Sounds like you're exaggerating and making some assumptions. Others have written more extraordinary literature in less time. If better-acclaimed works are possible in a few weeks or even less time, so then is the Book of Mormon possible in 65 days.
Ryan Dahle Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I can easily find, through a quick internet search, at least 10 best selling books which were written in less than 2 months. Extrapolate from there and it is not implausible that many more manuscripts were written in 65 days or less in the last two hundred years. Were any of those 10 best-selling books over 250,000 words and orally dictated by an author who didn't use any notes or reference materials? And, if so, do any of these books manifest a degree of complexity and consistency that is comparable to the Book of Mormon? If not, I think you may be comparing apples with orangutans. 2
alter idem Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Yes, seriously. At 24 or even 48 it is very doubtful that you (or most people) have had as extensive an (albeit informal) education and training in oral histories and storytelling. This was the medium of Smith's day and socioeconomic level. Which historical references exactly have become more relevant and likely with the passage of time? If I'd had a similar informal education and background, sure. There are more than a handful of writers, creators, and scientists with little to no formal education who have done very good work. And the BOM is not a book of above-average literary or historical merit. Chiasmus and other linguistic tendencies can come naturally and especially second nature for a person who has become practiced at speaking to an audience. I notice such patterns in very talkative children, even. It sounds to me like you are restrictively applying your personal present-day notions of education and ability to Joseph Smith. Aren't you doing the same thing? It looks to me like your are applying your own personal present day notion of yourself and your abilities to Joseph Smith, and it seems you've got a high opinion of your own abilities. If I'm not misunderstanding, you believe you could write a book just like the Book of Mormon, you don't think it's that hard because as you said it's 'not a book of above-average literary or historical merit'. Personally, I doubt very much you could write a book that prompts investigators to feel the powerful witness of the spirit testify of it's truthfulness when they first read it. I seriously doubt you could write a book that would prompt the spirit to witness, to testify that what the reader is reading is true and from God. I assume that's never happened to you when you read it, but you ought to know, that happens to a lot of other people, when they read it, I can attest to it. I don't think that's something that normal writer can do--even one as talented as you claim to be. I assume that you haven't opened a book of Mormon for a while, but it's more than just a story of a family who sail in a boat to a place they call the promised land--- it's over 500 pages, chock full of doctrine and it's a lot more complex story, spanning hundreds of years.
Ryan Dahle Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 1 hour ago, pogi said: Several different prophecies were made in the beginning of the book, all of them were fulfilled later on. Without notes or anything to reference, how could he possibly keep all that straight? Prophecies are actually made throughout the text (not just at the beginning). See the appendix: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-prophecy-shape-the-book-of-mormons-content-and-structure Editorial promises or commitments are also made throughout the text and then fulfilled. See appendix: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-readers-pay-attention-to-the-book-of-mormons-editorial-promises And of course, the order of translation throws in some more complexity. See appendix: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-the-mosiah-first-translation-sequence-strengthen-faith 3
pogi Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Sounds like you're exaggerating and making some assumptions. Others have written more extraordinary literature in less time. If better-acclaimed works are possible in a few weeks or even less time, so then is the Book of Mormon possible in 65 days. The only hyperbole I used was "a million different characters", to compare it against most popular literature which have relatively few... The rest is documented. Give me an example of a "more extraordinary" work done in less time.
Recommended Posts