Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Cohesive Narrative of the fabricated Book of Mormon?


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You have based your theory on the assumptions that he allowed light in through the side of the hat or that the hat was translucent. Do you have evidence the hat was translucent? If so, did enough light penetrate it to allow Joseph to read from cards? How did he flip the cards? Did they sit close to a window? Have you been inside the Whitmer home? We’re the conditions there the same as your experimental reading? Do you have evidence they only translated in daylight hours? Just exploring the possibilities.

I picture a straw top hat on someone that works on a farm. And all Joseph would need is key words, since he would tell those stories to his family, according to his mother.

Steampunk Mens Ivory Straw Top Hat | Gothic | Pirate | LARP | Cosplay | Retro | Vampire || Straw Top Hat

img_0620.jpg

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You have based your theory on the assumptions that he allowed light in through the side of the hat or that the hat was translucent. Do you have evidence the hat was translucent? If so, did enough light penetrate it to allow Joseph to read from cards? How did he flip the cards? Did they sit close to a window? Have you been inside the Whitmer home? We’re the conditions there the same as your experimental reading? Do you have evidence they only translated in daylight hours? Just exploring the possibilities.

I don’t have a theory. I only said that reading from the bottom of a grey / white top hat is not a problem if there is ambient light (which would be required for the scribe to write). I’ve also said this whole conversation is backwards and your comment shows it. 
 

Go watch Derren Brown’s miracle episode on Netflix. In it Brown (an atheist) calls on the power of God to heal people in the audience. In one dramatic moment he heals someone who is close to blind and then she can read. Shortly thereafter he finds a skeptic in the audience and curses them so they can’t read large font print. This is all on camera in front of hundreds of witnesses. Brown also says he never uses stooges. 
 

Now here is the question. I don’t believe Derren Brown can do any of that. I think it was all tricks plus the power of the emotional response he was able to produce. In controlled conditions his deception would be revealed. That said I don’t know how he did it. Is the onus on me to show how the deception was performed? Or on Brown to prove he actually has the power?

Edit: the miracles start at 36 minutes into the show. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment

The only LDS claims that have ever bothered me, or that I find particularly interesting are those of "binaryism" and "onlyism" and neither of them are in the Book of Mormon. Binaryism is, for example declaring that if Joseph Smith's 1838 accounting of the First Vision is true then he was indeed the prophet of the true restorational church. If it was not true he was a fraud. I am not comfortable with that kind of binary thinking or either of the conclusions proffered.

The onlyism is exampled by "only" priesthood, "only true and living," "only baptism," "only men," etc. I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong that both of these propositions are post-Book of Mormon in the LDS cupboard of propositions. I would enjoy reading something that traces the development of "onlyism" in LDS thought. I think in general that both binaryism and onlyism are very hard on human society wherever and however presented. FWIW!

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t have a theory. I only said that reading from the bottom of a grey / white top hat is not a problem if there is ambient light (which would be required for the scribe to write). I’ve also said this whole conversation is backwards and your comment shows it. 

Go watch Derren Brown’s miracle episode on Netflix. In it Brown (an atheist) calls on the power of God to heal people in the audience. In one dramatic moment he heals someone who is close to blind and then she can read. Shortly thereafter he finds a skeptic in the audience and curses them so they can’t read large font print. This is all on camera in front of hundreds of witnesses. Brown also says he never uses stooges. 
 

Now here is the question. I don’t believe Derren Brown can do any of that. I think it was all tricks plus the power of the emotional response he was able to produce. In controlled conditions his deception would be revealed. That said I don’t know how he did it. Is the onus on me to show how the deception was performed? Or on Brown to prove he actually has the power?

Well, you are the one who brought it up and successfully tried it out, but I agree that your theory is not worth much when properly examined. 

Mr Brown says what he wants and folks are free to scoff or subscribe.

Joseph is not available at the moment to prove how he did it. There aren’t any videos in front of live audiences that have survived, so we go with the words of those who were there for our best evidence. ThereHowever, there are other ways to know. My proof has come in unmistakable forms, but I can’t transfer that to someone else. In the right setting I would love to talk about it.

There’s plenty of onus to spread around. 

Link to comment

Regarding Joseph's story telling skills and the quote from his mother, I wrote about this in my response to Taves's book. 

Quote

.When comparing a student in a hypnosis experiment with Joseph Smith, she cites the famous quotation from Lucy Mack Smith’s history regarding Joseph’s early “recitals,” and juxtaposes that with selected comments from neighbors to emphasize his ability as a storyteller.

"Both the student and Smith recounted narratives of great vividness in two modes: the student in an ordinary and a hypnotized mode and Smith in an ordinary and a translating mode. Lucy Smith similarly attests to the vividness of Joseph’s “recitals” in which he described the “ancient inhabitants of this continent” to his family after his initial discovery of the plates in 1823. According to Lucy (EMD 1: 295– 96), he described “their dress[,] their maner [sic] of traveling[,] the animals which they rode[,] The cities that were built by them[,] the structure of their later buildings[,] with every particular of their mode of warfare[,] their religious worship — as particularly as though he had spent his life with them[.]” Accounts of neighbors from the early thirties refer to his “marvellous stories” (EMD 2: 27, 60– 61) and later accounts describe his “fertile imagination” (EMD 3: 211) and ability to “utter the most palpable exaggeration or marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity” (EMD 3: 93). Writing in 1834, Eber Howe concluded that “a natural genius, strong inventive powers of mind, a deep study, and an unusually correct estimate of the human passions and feelings” more than made up for any deficiencies in Smith’s formal education ([1834] 2015, 20; EMD 3: 303–4)." (252)

There are some unexamined oddities about the Lucy Smith quote. Before I would take it as an interpretive foundation, I must consider that, even though a first-hand account, it is not an autograph account, and it is late, dating to an 1844 dictation in Nauvoo to the 24-year old Martha Jane Coray regarding events in Palmyra 1823 and then not published until 1853. That is, the quote is six years older than Joseph Smith’s official history from 1838, which Taves takes notable interest in dissecting and comparing with earlier sources. In her discussion of method and sources for Mormonism, she observes:

"Apart from the 1825 agreement with Josiah Stowell and the 1826 court record, both of which are preserved in later versions, we have no real-time access to events until July 1828, when D&C 3 — the first real-time recorded revelation — opens a window in the wake of the loss of the first 116 pages of the manuscript. Chapter 1 thus opens with an in-depth analysis of D&C 3, read as a window on that moment rather than as it was interpreted and reinterpreted in later accounts. (21)"

The Lucy Smith quote, aside from being a late account, rather than early and contemporary (not “real time access,” not a direct “window on the moment”), turns out to be notably odd and unique with respect to Joseph Smith, rather than well supported from a range of sources. Certainly much in Lucy’s biography is well supported, but let us recognize the anomaly here. Odd accounts do occur in history, yes, but the account raises questions that should be faced and mentioned before building one’s structure there. First of all, the Book of Mormon we have has no descriptions of people riding animals in over 500 pages that include several major migrations and 100 distinct wars. It provides no notably detailed descriptions of clothing (other than armor) and no detailed descriptions of the structure of later buildings. The most detail we get involves descriptions of fortifications with palisaded walls and ditches.

Then there is the unasked question as to why — if Joseph Smith as a youth was capable of this kind of detailed, immersive, evening-filling recital on the everyday particulars of Book of Mormon peoples and culture — do we have no further record anywhere of his performing the same service as an adult? Perhaps the closest circumstance on this topic involves the Zelph story on Zion’s Camp, but in that case the notable differences in the details recorded by the different people who reported it, even those writing close to the event, should give pause to a person trying to build an interpretive foundation on an isolated, late, anomalous account related to far longer and complex narrative than the Zelph gossip.13 It bears mentioning that if Joseph Smith had been telling stories about the Book of Mormon peoples, animals, clothing, and culture, such stories should have had an obvious influence on Abner Cole’s 1830 parody version, the Book of Pukei, which “tells in mocking fashion about the sorts of things that Joseph’s neighbors expected to find in the Book of Mormon.”14 Yet the most notable thing about the Book of Pukei is how utterly different it is from the actual Book of Mormon.15 The book Joseph Smith produced was emphatically not what his neighbors expected.

It is true the Book of Mormon does contain abundant details about “their religious worship” and their “modes of warfare,” but we have no other accounts of Joseph Smith’s filling anyone’s evening or afternoon with amusing or serious recitals on those topics either. Again, why not? This is not a frivolous question but one addressed to a foundation stone upon which Taves chooses to build.

My footnote for the background of the famous Lucy Smith quote is this:

Quote

 Lucy Mack Smith’s A History of Joseph Smith by His Mother was dictated to a Nauvoo school teacher, Martha Jane Coray in 1845. Coray and her husband compiled the notes and other sources into a manuscript that was later published in 1853. Sharalynn D. Howcroft (an editor of Oxford University Press’ forthcoming Foundational Texts of Mormonism) stated “For example, Lucy Mack Smith reportedly dictated her history to Martha Jane Coray; however, the extant manuscript doesn’t show evidence of dictation and there are other clues in the manuscript that suggest what we have is a few generations removed from a dictated text. Additionally, scholars have presumed the fair copy was a contiguous history, but physical clues indicate it was two separate copies of the history that were combined. This kind of analysis and discovery extends our understanding beyond what the content of a historical source divulges.” See https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/10/qa-with-foundational-texts-of-mormonism-editors/.

So the best evidence we have for the Lucy Smith quote about Joseph entertaining the family with amusing stories is not early, first hand,  and well supported by other evidence, but late, "a few generations removed form a dictated text", and has no parallel to any other account from Joseph Smith.  Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about Joseph Smith's relationship to the Book of Mormon is how little he quoted from it in later years.  He studied and quoted from the Bible extensively, but not the Book of Mormon.

Also from my essay on Taves's book, the difference between what the family thought of Joseph and what the neighbors thought:

Quote

Taves also avoids dealing with the contrast between the skeptical neighbors who wanted an appropriately dismissive explanation for the unwieldy book, the associated angel stories, and the growing religious community Joseph had somehow attracted and the family, who, according to William Smith’s account, viewed Joseph quite differently from the picture she paints from selected comments of neighbors (from many contradictory possibilities21) of Joseph as a storyteller. William reports that:

"Knowing that he was very young, that he had not enjoyed the advantages of a common education; and knowing too, his whole character and disposition, they were convinced that he was totally incapable of arising before his aged parents, his brothers and sisters, and so solemnly giving utterance of anything but the truth."22

William also noted that after Joseph’s vision became known, “We never knew we were bad folks, until Joseph told his vision. We were considered respectable till then, but at once people began to circulate falsehoods and stories in a wonderful way.”23 Notice that the reports from neighbors that Taves selects to characterize Joseph Smith as a wildly imaginative storyteller all happen to be ideologically saturated, reflexively skeptical judgements, rather than cool, objective reporting, providing specific accounts and details of what Joseph Smith said and did on specific occasions.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/#sdfootnote12sym

Conveniently, Brian Hales has a lengthy and detailed article in the most recent Interpreter on the notion of Joseph as Storyteller.

Quote

Through extensive fieldwork and research, the secrets of the Serbo-Croatian storytellers’ abilities to dictate polished stories in real time have been identified. Their technique, also found with modification among bards throughout the world, involves the memorization of formulaic language organized into formula systems in order to minimize the number of mental choices the tale-teller must make while wordsmithing each phrase. These formulas are evident in the meter, syntax, or lexical combinations employed in the storyteller’s sentences. Professional bards train for many years to learn the patterns and commit them to memory. When compared to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, the historical record fails to support that he had trained in the use of formula systems prior to 1829 or that his dictation employed a rhythmic delivery of the phrases. Neither are formula patterns detected in the printed 1830 Book of Mormon. Apparently, Smith did not adopt this traditional storyteller’s methodology to dictate the Book of Mormon.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-as-a-book-of-mormon-storyteller/

A table in Hale's essay shows the word count for the Book of Mormon as 269,320 as compared to the Iliad, at 148,045.   Those who dismiss the dictation of the Book of Mormon as nothing special remind me a scene in one of the Naked Gun movies, with Leslie Neilson as Frank Drebin in front of an exploding gas station saying, "Nothing to see here folks."

Earlier, Robert Rees looked as Joseph Smith in comparison to other American writers, such as Emerson and Melville.

Quote

My purpose in writing that article was to consider Joseph Smith in relation to his more illustrious contemporary American authors — Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman. In that article I tried to demonstrate that in comparison with these writers, Joseph Smith did not possess the literary imagination, talent, authorial maturity, education, cultural milieu, knowledge base, or sophistication necessary to produce the Book of Mormon; nor, I argued, had he possessed all of these characteristics, nor was the time in which the book was produced sufficient to compose such a lengthy, complex, and elaborate narrative. This addendum takes the comparison one step further by examining each writer’s magnum opus and the background, previous writings, and preliminary drafts that preceded its publication — then comparing them with Joseph Smith’s publication of the Book of Mormon. That is, each of the major works of these writers of prose, fiction, and poetry as well as the scriptural text produced by Joseph Smith has a history — one that allows us to trace its evolution from inception to completion.

 https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and-the-american-renaissance/

And an update here:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/joseph-smith-book-mormon-and-american-renaissance-update

If there the Book of Mormon was nothing but a commonplace manifestion of local themes that just about anyone could do, given the time, why the scandal of Mormonism?  Nibley's "Just Another Book" looks at the reception across a hundred years.  And if the Book of Mormon is easy to explain if we just postulate notecards in the hat, where is a comprehensive accounting of the details?  Stuff like Mormon and Moroni as survivor witnessess comparable in detail to survivors of Nazi and Soviet death camps?  Stuff like First Temple Judiasm.  The details of the journey across the Arabian desert?  The kinds of details of the rituals and the poetic forms in Benjamin's discourse?  The insights and the detail of the War accounts compared to Clauswitz on War (Nibley), and the theory and practice of guerilla warfare as articulated by Mao, Che Guevarra and others (Daniel Peterson).  What about the monetary system compared to the ancient world (Robert S. Smith)?  What about the geographic details of the Sidon and details that account for the report of Limhi's explorers in a real Grijalva setting, including an abandoned city that could have been mistaken for Zarehemla by the lost explorers?  (See Larry Porter).  What about comparisons to the Forty Day literature, and volanic erruptions in real locations at the right time, Matt Bowen's research on the indications of hidden word play based on the Hebrew meanings of the names?   What about Mosiah 1-6 as ancient coronation, as well as Feast of the Tabernacles, Day of Atonement, Sabbath year, and Jubilee, all woven in a chiastic framework?  And literally hundreds more complex details uncovered by well trained specialists in a wide variety of intellectual fields?  

In Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, Bushman had this observation:

Quote

Perhaps the most serious failing of the critiques of the Book of Mormon was an inability to deal with the text in any detail. … The outsiders’ yearning to find some rational explanation for the Book of Mormon caused them to hurry their work. Their aim was always to explain away the Book of Mormon rather than understand it. Failing to ground their views in the actual contents of the books, the critiques did not do justice to the work’s actual complexity, and their conclusions were unstable, even ephemeral.

That remains true of every critique of the Book of Mormon I have encountered.  And I have taken some very close looks at several of them over the years.  I spent five months, 12 hours a day doing my review of one of the most ambitious, Metcalfe's New Approaches, when I wrote Paradigms Crossed.  It's much easier to dismiss the Book of Mormon with the wave of some high level, superficial detail, and airy speculation, that to account for it's actual contents in meaningful detail.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, you are the one who brought it up and successfully tried it out,

I merely mentioned it would be dumb to put notecards in your lap (as another poster suggested) when a hat was available. 

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

but I agree that your theory is not worth much when properly examined. 
 

Um, right…

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mr Brown says what he wants and folks are free to scoff or subscribe.

Joseph is not available at the moment to prove how he did it. There aren’t any videos in front of live audiences that have survived, so we go with the words of those who were there for our best evidence.

Nor did Joseph even try. There were divine curses associated with getting too close to the “translation” process. The plates were shown under controlled conditions to people who already believed Joseph to be a prophet. Not exactly great evidence to a skeptic. In the words of Mark Twain: “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:


ThereHowever, there are other ways to know. My proof has come in unmistakable forms, but I can’t transfer that to someone else. In the right setting I would love to talk about it

And my 40 years of lived experience has me as unmistakably convinced of the opposite. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There is no racism in the Book of Mormon. 

Why would there be the scripture about being white and delightsome in the BoM? And this talk by Pres. Kimball and him saying the Lamanites's skin were turning white? https://archive.org/details/ConferenceReports1960s/page/n171/mode/1up?view=theater&q=scattered

Did Pres. Kimball misunderstand the scripture? Why do I feel gaslit right now? C/P'd from the link below:

 

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing de- lightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngZos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
First Day
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl — sixteen — sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents — on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delight- someness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donat- ing blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
The missionaries are having great experiences in proselyting, in teaching, in organizing, in carrying on Primaries, Relief Societies. They direct women in making quilts and towels and pot holders, which they say they can sell faster than they can make them; but always a Relief Society bazaar is in their future plans. They pound up broken pottery and clay to make new pottery. They do beadwork, learn cooking; they are taught first aid, bleeding-stoppage, use of splints, resuscitation, moving the injured; they are taught to speak and to sing. Three lovely Lamanite sisters sang a trio in one of our meetings. Two elders in one area were actually teach- ing the women how to make diapers.
We find the Indians are learning to be adaptable and resourceful, and from tradition they are coming to truth, from legend to fact, from sand paintings and sings to administration and ordinances. The Indians are beginning to pay their tithes. They are living the Word of Wisdom. They are attending their meetings. They are having family prayers, and for a period of this year the tithes in that mission are said to have been more than the budget for the

ETA: This one in the same talk about kills me! Trying to strip their heritage is criminal...not blaming Pres Kimball he can't help what he was taught. :

The Indians have legends which might be reminiscent of the three Nephites, of the creation, of the flood, of the coming of the Christ to them. They are be- ginning to recognize the similarity be- tween their distorted tradition stories and the truth which has been recorded

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I merely mentioned it would be dumb to put notecards in your lap (as another poster suggested) when a hat was available. 

Um, right…

Nor did Joseph even try. There were divine curses associated with getting too close to the “translation” process. The plates were shown under controlled conditions to people who already believed Joseph to be a prophet. Not exactly great evidence to a skeptic. In the words of Mark Twain: “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”

And my 40 years of lived experience has me as unmistakably convinced of the opposite. 

Right.

The witnesses’ lives are pretty well documented. From my experience there is nothing in the way of evidence that a skeptic would accept. A skeptic cannot cede one millimeter to Joseph.

I’ve got you by 34. 😉

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why would there be the scripture about being white and delightsome in the BoM? And this talk by Pres. Kimball and him saying the Lamanites's skin were turning white? https://archive.org/details/ConferenceReports1960s/page/n171/mode/1up?view=theater&q=scattered

Did Pres. Kimball misunderstand the scripture? Why do I feel gaslit right now? C/P'd from the link below:

 

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing de- lightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngZos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
First Day
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl — sixteen — sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents — on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delight- someness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donat- ing blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
The missionaries are having great experiences in proselyting, in teaching, in organizing, in carrying on Primaries, Relief Societies. They direct women in making quilts and towels and pot holders, which they say they can sell faster than they can make them; but always a Relief Society bazaar is in their future plans. They pound up broken pottery and clay to make new pottery. They do beadwork, learn cooking; they are taught first aid, bleeding-stoppage, use of splints, resuscitation, moving the injured; they are taught to speak and to sing. Three lovely Lamanite sisters sang a trio in one of our meetings. Two elders in one area were actually teach- ing the women how to make diapers.
We find the Indians are learning to be adaptable and resourceful, and from tradition they are coming to truth, from legend to fact, from sand paintings and sings to administration and ordinances. The Indians are beginning to pay their tithes. They are living the Word of Wisdom. They are attending their meetings. They are having family prayers, and for a period of this year the tithes in that mission are said to have been more than the budget for the

ETA: This one in the same talk about kills me! Trying to strip their heritage is criminal...not blaming Pres Kimball he can't help what he was taught. :

The Indians have legends which might be reminiscent of the three Nephites, of the creation, of the flood, of the coming of the Christ to them. They are be- ginning to recognize the similarity be- tween their distorted tradition stories and the truth which has been recorded

President Kimball will speak for himself when the time comes. He reported what he saw and heard. I’m sure he would be open to correction if he was wrong. Having grown up with the Pueblo Indians in northern New Mexico, I was familiar with their living conditions at about the time President Kimball describes. It is possible the reports could have been mostly a result of folks spending less of their lives in the harsh desert conditions of their homelands. In any case, the Book of Mormon prophets, Pres Kimball and others see a glorious future for the children of Lehi. 

The Book of Mormon is not racist because the groups were from the same families. The Nephite prophets called the Lamanites their “brethren.” They constantly sought reconciliation when possible. At times the Lamanites were morally and spiritually superior.  They had great capacity for righteousness when given the opportunity. The were unified after the Lord’s visit. There were no “skin color” issues after that because the divisions were political and religious. In the end, both became irretrievably wicked, and the “righteous” group was destroyed. 
 

Taos Pueblo about 1953 and today.2324645B-7E17-4646-BDAA-251F6BA5C6C7.jpeg.5789d58c40f603f864d0c813fe606272.jpeg

F5DA72D5-0936-41C8-BB9C-4CE4E33DEEF2.thumb.jpeg.4f6d0d6a180b704571799ed6262ac362.jpeg

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why would there be the scripture about being white and delightsome in the BoM? And this talk by Pres. Kimball and him saying the Lamanites's skin were turning

How the book is interpreted is different than what is in the book. Those two things are very different and from two different time periods. One is ancient behaviour (assuming the BoM is an ancient text) and one is modern behaviour 50 years ago or so.  Modern racist beliefs can certainly influence how one reads scripture, but unless you know of ways to time travel, ancient scripture won’t have descriptions of modern racism anymore than it will have descriptions of modern clothing like jeans and tshirts. 
 

Big point that mustn’t be forgotten in this discussion….Remember the two groups being discussed are not two different races, but essentially extended family. Laman and Lemuel and the kids of Ishmael…these are the siblings of Nephi, Jacob and their spouses and the children are their nieces and nephews. 
 

Calling it tribalism where one tribe splits into competing factions is more accurate. 
 

Remembering how light and dark and their variations are used to describe spiritual purity in the Bible as well as other ancient cultures is a much better approach Imo rather than assuming racist attitudes given the social construct of race is a modern one and wouldn’t have existed in the time period the Book of Mormon claims to be from.  In order to claim the Book of Mormon itself is racist and not just that many readers have read it with modern filters of racial concepts requires the assumption at the very least that those parts of the BoM are a modern creation….not unreasonable, but not the only option when the text is very consistent with ancient texts use of light and dark for spiritual purity.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

How the book is interpreted is different than what is in the book. Those two things are very different and from two different time periods.

My eldest sons (who are 1/4 Asian and darker than all of their friends) read the relevant passage in the Book of Mormon when they were about 10. They were very disturbed and close to tears. Can we squint and twist it so that it doesn’t come across as racist - talking about the mark vs the curse? Sure. That doesn’t stop a straight forward reading (one held as official by the church for the first 150 years of its existence) from finding racism there. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My eldest sons (who are 1/4 Asian and darker than all of their friends) read the relevant passage in the Book of Mormon when they were about 10. They were very disturbed and close to tears. Can we squint and twist it so that it doesn’t come across as racist - talking about the mark vs the curse? Sure. That doesn’t stop a straight forward reading (one held as official by the church for the first 150 years of its existence) from finding racism there. 

It is very easy to read racist beliefs into the Book of Mormon and I think it was standard to do so for most members from the early days of the modern church. We need to work hard to teach what is going on in the book, including prejudice…but most likely imo a form of classist colorism used by Nephi (got to check it is him) when describing what are most likely his nephews and their friends (I am assuming inter marriage with locals occurred with both groups) as savages…dark in skin because of less ‘civilized’ practices that have left them exposed to the elements more, leaving them darker in skin and dirtier. The disdain of the upper class for the lower or the rooted for the nomadic or even the urban vs the rural (even when there is an idealization and the nobility have country estates to repair to for living the ‘purer’ life) is pretty consistent across cultures as far as I can tell (this could be an artifact of modern researchers’ own filters like imposing racism I suppose) and the Nephites were definitely not immune…and one prejudice too often easily slips into the skin of another from what I have seen (colorism in East Asia has added big time to racist attitudes towards blacks, not sure you could even untangle them in the personal experiences of biracial and blacks in parts of East Asia these days…there is a new show I just saw that has a character wanting to be cool by emulating a Jamaican lifestyle with dread locks and all and his hair is filthy with bugs…comic relief that is acceptable because he is seen as the nice guy, supportive friend).

But reading racism into the book is different than it being there and one way to fight racism is by making that distinction and showing the actual focus on spiritual purity (as well as the inappropriate classism that shows up in the text, many times condemned, but sometimes bought into imo).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 8/17/2021 at 4:21 AM, Navidad said:

Claiming something as astonishing as the only priesthood authority of God on earth would have to carry with it some kind of quiet special manifestation, would it not?

Sure.

I have had a ton of them.

What?  Are you seeking signs?

And yet you specify a "quiet special manifestation?  Seems contradictory to me ;).

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My eldest sons (who are 1/4 Asian and darker than all of their friends) read the relevant passage in the Book of Mormon when they were about 10. They were very disturbed and close to tears. Can we squint and twist it so that it doesn’t come across as racist - talking about the mark vs the curse? Sure. That doesn’t stop a straight forward reading (one held as official by the church for the first 150 years of its existence) from finding racism there. 

A very enjoyable and relevant blog about how cultural traditions can interfere with seeing what scripture is actually saying (remember that unfeeling innkeeper of the Nativity story? Doesn’t exist):

https://benspackman.com/2020/05/the-philosophies-of-men-mingled-with-monopoly/

Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure.

I have had a ton of them.

What?  Are you seeking signs?

And yet you specify a "quiet special manifestation?  Seems contradictory to me ;).

 

Sorry, that is not what I am saying. I am not seeking anything. I am not talking about you having signs, visions,  or manifestations.

I am reflecting in the sense that I would think the only priesthood authority in the world would manifest itself in the person holding it in some way. There would be something - some level of spirituality, giftedness, commitment, wisdom, peace, discernment that rises above other Christians who are absent such a wonderful attribute, gift, authority, etc. That is what I don't see in any measure above that I have seen in any other Christians. How do you Mark, manifest this amazing one of a kind gift and authority in and by your life? How does this authority manifest itself in the life of the male LDS priesthood holder? It is a claim, is it not? That was the context of my comments.

I don't debate the BOM, the D&C, the three levels of heaven, etc. That isn't my thing. I have spent years looking for an evidence a difference in the LDS member/priesthood holder that there is something "only" about him based on this amazing claim of gifts and authority that no other Christian on earth can claim. I am looking for some kind of evidence to back up the extraordinary claims of uniqueness not in your documents or beliefs, but in your life. Every Sunday I look for something different in the LDS folks with their amazing claims of "unigenito" - uniqueness, one of a kind complete Christianness, one of a kind gift of the Holy Spirit, one of a kind authority. The manifestation of all that in your lived lives is that which I think should come with such a claim. Many of my LDS friends are wonderful Godly Christians; just not more so than any other Godly Christian friends I have had in any other group.

None of that is a judgment on my part. It is simply an observation. You claim to have something that I don't have and can't have absent membership in the LDS church. The evidence of that is what I am looking for, not the evidence of the historicity of the BOM. I hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

and it is late, dating to an 1844 dictation in Nauvoo to the 24-year old Martha Jane Coray regarding events in Palmyra 1823 and then not published until 1853.

So we need to discount Lucy's account because its from 1844. Okay.

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

who, according to William Smith’s account, viewed Joseph quite differently

Isn't the William Smith account from 1883? Why do you spend so much time trying to minimize Lucy's account from 4 decades earlier, but accept William's account at face value? Especially since the context of the William quote shows that he is either contradicting Joseph's first vision account or combining the first vision with Moroni's visits. Interesting how that part got left out.

 

It's also interesting to me that you quote William Smith from New Witness for Christ in America, vol. 2 (Published 70 years ago). Was that done to obscure the original source which is available for free online here:http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1883Wilm.htm? If so well done. I spent $15 for the kindle version of Volume 2 to track it down (because I was bored).  

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
On 8/19/2021 at 9:23 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So we need to discount Lucy's account because its from 1844. Okay.

Isn't the William Smith account from 1883? Why do you spend so much time trying to minimize Lucy's account from 4 decades earlier, but accept William's account at face value? Especially since the context of the William quote shows that he is either contradicting Joseph's first vision account or combining the first vision with Moroni's visits. Interesting how that part got left out.

 

It's also interesting to me that you quote William Smith from New Witness for Christ in America, vol. 2. Was that done to obscure the source which is available for free online here:http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1883Wilm.htm? If so well done. I spent $15 for the kindle version of Volume 2 to track it down (because I was bored).  

I do not discount Lucy's account because it was from 1844, but because specific claims it makes about how Joseph lectured the family,“their dress[,] their maner [sic] of traveling[,] the animals which they rode[,]" do not appear in the Book of Mormon, nor in any reported account by Joseph Smith for rest of his life.  Is that not a legitimate question to raise?  If Joseph could inform the family on such issues before the publication of the Book of Mormon, why did not not do the same for his followers ever again?    When a writer like Taves (or anyone else) takes the view that Joseph could report all sorts of domestic details of the lives of Book of Mormon people "as particularly as though he had spent his life with them", it seems reasonable to ask why do those details not appear in the Book of Mormon, and why did Joseph never demonstrate that same intimate knowledge for any followers ever again?  Even the detaiIs of war and worship, that do appear in the Book of Mormon, we have no accounts of Joseph lecturing on them "as particularly as though he has spent his life with them."  I don't think those questions should be ignored by those who place so much paradigmatic emphasis on the Lucy account.  If Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, that meant that he was learning as he read, and would not necessarily be an expert on its contents.  He might, for instance, be surprised that Jerusalem has walls.  If he composed it, that is another matter.  Hales has this:

Quote

BYU Professor Casey Paul Griffiths observed: “An examination of the Nauvoo discourses of Joseph Smith revealed allusions to 451 different biblical passages given by the Prophet, compared to just 22 references to the Book of Mormon, or a 21:1 ratio.”127

In my response to Taves, I emphasized that Lucy's account as we have it is late,  that, Sharalynn D. Howcroft (an editor of Oxford University Press’ forthcoming Foundational Texts of Mormonism) stated “For example, Lucy Mack Smith reportedly dictated her history to Martha Jane Coray; however, the extant manuscript doesn’t show evidence of dictation and there are other clues in the manuscript that suggest what we have is a few generations removed from a dictated text."  That is important alongside the dissonance between the details that the Lucy account reports and the actual contents of the Book of Mormon (for example, no animal riding is described) because Taves wants to use Lucy's account as a window into Joseph Smith's capacity to create the Book of Mormon.  It was Taves who raised the issue of the 1838 account being late, and preferring early first hand accounts as more likely to offer a window into the past.  She makes this point about real-time access:

Quote

Apart from the 1825 agreement with Josiah Stowell and the 1826 court record, both of which are preserved in later versions, we have no real-time access to events until July 1828, when D&C 3 — the first real-time recorded revelation — opens a window in the wake of the loss of the first 116 pages of the manuscript. Chapter 1 thus opens with an in-depth analysis of D&C 3, read as a window on that moment rather than as it was interpreted and reinterpreted in later accounts. (21)

My point is that that particular window may not be clear enough view on the past to be relied to support the paradigm she wants.  It may be a glass darkly, a bit distorted and misleading. Taves raised the issue of real time access as significant, and then ignores those "real time access" issues in the way she uncritically builds on the Lucy account.

And William's account, though late, is first hand.  Sure, it is late, but he does raise serious points.  He was not a first hand witness of Joseph's visions, and he himself turns his readers to Joseph's accounts for more reliable reports.  The family, who knew Joseph best, believed him.  Those who knew him best, who had actually listened to Joseph Smith's reports as they happened, who had been in the room during Joseph's actual recitals, and did not see evidence of a storyteller spinning yarns out of his imagination.  And they, like Joseph himself, put their lives on the line.  The only source Taves quotes on Joseph's storytelling is Lucy and that account raises important issues that she simply does not notice.  She never quotes the rest of the family.  Instead she goes to the reflexively skeptical neighbors from the times when Joseph's stories of visions and angels and books were a scandal to explain away.

I quoted William's account from Kirkham because it I own his two useful books with many early sources.  I got them at Sam Weller's in Salt Lake many years ago.  For me, access is easy.  I just turn around and grab it from the bookshelf.

If access is a problem, there is this:

https://lib.byu.edu/collections/19th-century-publications-about-the-book-of-mormon/about/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If Joseph could inform the family on such issues before the publication of the Book of Mormon, why did not not do the same for his followers ever again? 

Can anyone point me to examples or references of Joseph speaking publicly to his followers about the characters, geography or events found in the Book of Mormon?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Can anyone point me to examples or references of Joseph speaking publicly to his followers about the characters, geography or events found in the Book of Mormon?

Much of what Joseph Smith taught about New Jerusalem and its location came straight from the Book of Mormon.   This is found on the Joseph Smith Papers site in History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], under a 2 October 1835 entry quoting a "Letter to the Saints from Joseph Smith", for publication in the Messenger and Advocate.  The quote below is the same text as it reads in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 85-86:

Quote

It has been said by many of the learned and wise men, or historians, that the Indians or aborigines of this continent, are of the scattered tribes of Israel. It has been conjectured by many others, that the aborigines of this continent are not of the tribes of Israel, but the ten tribes have been led away into some unknown regions of the north. Let this be as it may, the prophecy I have just quoted “will fetch them,” in the last days, and place them in the land which their fathers possessed. And you will find in the 7th verse of the 30th chapter, quoted, “And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.”

Many may say that this scripture is fulfilled, but let them mark carefully what the prophet says: “If any are driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven,” (Which must mean the breadth of the earth). Now this promise is good to any, if there should be such, that are driven out, even in the last days, therefore, the children of the fathers have claim unto this day. And if these curses are to be laid over on the heads of their enemies, wo be unto the Gentiles. (See Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, Chap. 16, current edition). “Wo unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles, saith the Father.” And again (see Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 20:22, current edition, which says), “Behold this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob, and it shall be a New Jerusalem.” Now we learn from the Book of Mormon the very identical continent and spot of land upon which the New Jerusalem is to stand, and it must be caught up according to the vision of John upon the isle of Patmos.

Now many will feel disposed to say, that this New Jerusalem spoken of, is the Jerusalem that was built by the Jews on the eastern continent. But you will see, from Revelation 21:2, there was a New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband; that after this, the Revelator was caught away in the Spirit, to a great and high mountain, and saw the great and holy city descending out of heaven from God. Now there are two cites spoken of here. As everything cannot be had in so narrow a compass as a letter, I shall say with brevity, that there is a New Jerusalem to be established on this continent, and also Jerusalem shall be rebuilt on the eastern continent (see Book of Mormon, Ether 13:1–12). “Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come; after it should be destroyed, it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord, wherefore it could not be a New Jerusalem, for it had been in a time of old.” This may suffice, upon the subject of gathering, until my next.
(TPJS, 2, New Jerusalem ¶1–3 • TPJS p. 85 ¶2–86 ¶1)
 

 Also related to Book of Mormon geography, no doubt you are familiar with the Times and Seasons article (basically a book review) on Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens.  Joseph Smith was the editor of the paper at this time, but it's not known for certain that he wrote the article.  But the fact that Joseph had personally received the book as a gift from John M. Bernhisel just a few months earlier is documented by a letter from Joseph Smith dated 16 November 1841, where he thanks Mrs. Bernhisel for the book (see Joseph Smith Papers: Letter to John M. Bernhisel, 16 November 1841.)   The first paragraph of the letter is relevant to your question, since he confirms that the book supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon: 

Quote

Dear Sir
I received your kind present by the hand of Er. [Wilford] Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumnes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.

The review article of Stephen's book found in Times and Seasons, Vol. III. No. 23 (Oct. 1, 1842) was printed eleven months later, and carries with it the same sentiment as that expressed by Joseph Smith in his correspondence to John M. Bernhisel.  Here are some relevant paragraphs from that article:

Quote

ZARAHEMLA.

Since our 'Extract' was published from Mr. Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel,' &c., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon.  Central America, or Guatamala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.  The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma: -- 'And now it was only the distance of a day and half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water:  there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.'  [See Book of Mormon 3d edition, page 280-81.]

It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them:  and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a 'large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,' as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown.  We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.

It may seem hard for unbelievers in the mighty works of God, to give credit to such a miraculous preservation of the remains, ruins, records and reminiscences of a branch of the house of Israel:  but the elements are eternal, and intelligence is eternal, and God is eternal, so that the very hairs of our heads are all numbered.  It may be said of man he was and is, and is not; and of his works the same, but the Lord was and is, and is to come and his works never end; and he will bring every thing into judgment whether it be good, or whether it be evil; yea, every secret thing, and they shall be revealed upon the house tops.  It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon:  light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.  The truth injures no one, and so we make another.

Also, there is a book that appears to be on the topic of your question that I have not read, but I have seen it reviewed in BYU Studies.  It is Gerald E. Smith. Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, 2016).  I'd like to hear from anyone who has or has read this book.  The review of the book, by Mark Layman Staker, can be found in BYU Studies Quarterly, 55:3 here or here in PDF.  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Also, there is a book that appears to be on the topic of your question that I have not read, but I have seen it reviewed in BYU Studies.  It is Gerald E. Smith. Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, 2016).  I'd like to hear from anyone who has or has read this book.  The review of the book, by Mark Layman Staker, can be found in BYU Studies Quarterly, 55:3 here or here in PDF.  

Thanks for these references. I'll have to pick up Schooling the Prophet.

I'm looking for any references of Joseph discussing any of the stories or characters in the Book of Mormon. Were there any times he, for example, spoke of Nephi breaking his bow, or the Lehites building their ship to cross the waters, or retelling King Benjamin's speech to his followers?

I don't find anything, and it seems unusual.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Thanks for these references. I'll have to pick up Schooling the Prophet.

I'm looking for any references of Joseph discussing any of the stories or characters in the Book of Mormon. Were there any times he, for example, spoke of Nephi breaking his bow, or the Lehites building their ship to cross the waters, or retelling King Benjamin's speech to his followers?

I don't find anything, and it seems unusual.

Well there was the very creative Zelph (the white Lamanite) story. I would imagine that telling too many stories about the characters would become problematic without significant notes since you wouldn’t want to contradict the revealed text. 

Link to comment
On 8/17/2021 at 3:21 AM, Navidad said:

My dear LDS friends are remarkably normal in their degree of spirituality, spiritual power and authority, and day to day lived manifestation of the same. I appreciate them for that normality, but that is why I can't GIVE them/you authority over and above that of any other normal faithful Christian. It seems to me that this priesthood authority is the normal administrative authority granted to perform ordinances in and by any Christian group.

Twice in your life, you get pulled over by a man in a pickup truck, dressed in jeans and a plain colored shirt claiming to be a plain clothes cop. In both cases you were driving at 100 mph in a 60 mph zone.  Odd coincidence- just to make a point.

Assume that this actually happened.  In both cases, you refused to believe the person!

The first time this happened, you refused to believe him, and argued with him, and eventually he admitted he was just kidding, and took off leaving you alone

In the second instance, the same thing happened!  But this time he handcuffed you and took you to jail!

What kind of glow or spiritual evidence would have convinced you that one had authority and one did not?

Why do you expect that a plain human being claiming authority would stand out in some visible way to show "authority"?

Does one get the glow when he is first ordained?

Does it take years ?  Does it appear the moment one is granted the authority?   Does it take a month or a year for one to recognize it?   by what mechanism?

Or another idea- in the notion of the "priesthood of all believers" what mark of authority does one when receive when one becomes a "believer"

Does every Evangelical ordained minister/reverend have a certain glow around them?   If you meet them on the street in street clothes does their authority pop out at you?

Or on the other hand, why have orained ministers anyway if no one can tell them from ordained ministers anyway?   What happens when someone is "ordained" when everyone who is a member already has the priesthood?   What is the purpose of being ordained?

My point of course is that there are no outward signs of authority.

Link to comment
On 8/21/2021 at 2:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well there was the very creative Zelph (the white Lamanite) story. I would imagine that telling too many stories about the characters would become problematic without significant notes since you wouldn’t want to contradict the revealed text. 

I went to a class at education week from Joseph Spencer who demonstrated in his 5 day class that doctrine from Isaiah is not only found in Second Nephi , but throughout the BOM peppered conceptually throughout the BOM in such a complex way- that it would be impossible for anyone to put this together on the fly without notes in the few weeks in which it was dictated.

I think that the "face in the hat"  INCREASES the probability of the BOM being revelation simply because there is no way one can slip hundreds of pages of a manuscript- or even a smaller amount assuming a day by day switch of notes- AND get all the Isaiah correct, not to mention how one could read it with a hat over your face.

I will try to start a thread on the doctrinal complexity Spencer revealed- when I get to it.

The lecture seriens actually helped me tremendously in "proving" historically the prophethood of Joseph.

I am totally sold on the fact now, not only on the idea that he was a tremendous interpreter of scripture but that he was totally a prophet in every sense of the word.

There is no way anyone could write a book like that with all that internal complexity under the conditions in which it was written.  Simply impossible.

This becomes for me a Cohesive Narrative for the NON FABRICATED BOM.  It is such a complex inter-weaving with Isaiah that it would take a genius a lifetime to work out all the details.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

that it would be impossible for anyone to put this together on the fly without notes in the few weeks in which it was dictated.

Easy to say. Easy to convince those that want to believe. Harder to actually demonstrate. Especially since much of the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon post dates Lehi’s exodus. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...