Foretelling in the Book of Mormon

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wow. Never argue with an apologist! A dated letter on the church website transcribed by Joseph’s scribe? Nope! Not evidence. 

If you click on the "Source Notes" in the Joseph Smith Papers link, you'll discover that the version of the letter we have isn't from 1829.  It says "JS, Letter, Harmony Township, Susquehanna Co., PA, to Oliver Cowdery, [Palmyra Township, NY], 22 Oct. 1829. Featured version copied [between ca. 27 Nov. 1832 and ca. Jan. 1833] in JS Letterbook 1, p. 9; handwriting of Frederick G. Williams;Featured version copied [between ca. 27 Nov. 1832 and ca. Jan. 1833] in JS Letterbook 1, p. 9".  So it is a copy that was written sometime in 1832-1833 by Frederick Williams from an original that was written in 1829.

What exactly am I doing wrong?  The letter that we have isn't the original.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How old are you? And how old were Joseph’s eyes. And if you were trying to block all the light you are doing it wrong. I could easy type size font very easily. In a room with no windows and the lights off. 

With my glasses, 20/20, and looking through the lowest edge of the trifocals where the closeup clarity is excellent. 9-10 inches is the average closeup focus limit.  We have no idea what Joseph’s eyesight was like or how deep his hat was. How did he swap out pages of manuscript? What were the dimensions of the papers in the hat? What was your source of light? Too many unknown variables.

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This is going to blow your mind, but Joseph did not write a single word of the Book of Mormon.

This might blow your mind, but Joseph actually did write some words of the Book of Mormon.  He wrote about a sentence worth of Alma 45:22.  You can see his handwriting on page 315 of the original manuscript - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/145.  It is possible he wrote more but that is the only known instance on the extant manuscript.  I've seen some speculation that it is the place where Oliver tried to translate but I find it unlikely.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

I've read that and found it, like most of Lindsay's writings, to be a bit wanting.….during the day.

Of course. Why am I not surprised? 
 

During the day? Daytime is when you work your bum off on a farm.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

What exactly am I doing wrong?  The letter that we have isn't the original.

And therefore it provides “no” evidence on Joseph’s letter dictating skills either way. Absolutely zero either way.  It sounds like you are doing apologetics exactly right! 

Edited June 26, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stormin' Mormon]

Edited to add: Misread a sarcastic quote.  Nevermind and carry on.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And therefore it provides “no” evidence on Joseph’s letter dictating skills either way. Absolutely zero either way.  It sounds like you are doing apologetics exactly right! 

Hmm, I guess I'm just not seeing what you are trying to say.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

Wasn't William Law still a believer of Mormonism?  He felt that Joseph had fallen, not that Joseph was never a prophet.  He even started up the "True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to recover the true practice of Mormonism.  I don't think he is a good example to use for your use case.

I didn't bring up William Law.  Yes apparently Law held a belief in some of Mormonism and did start another restoration church. 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Just now with my Redhead outback hat. Pretty dark in there. I put my iPhone inside with a book page. Even with my glasses I could not read any words. 

 

That is not an accurate description neither of the historical Joseph nor his depiction by “apologists.” He clearly experienced a prodigious learning curve in the time between his teens and his mid-twenties and then onward to his death.

I disagree. I think it is spot on accurate.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Spalding theory is bogus as a Californian in Kentucky trying to speak Kentuckian. For starters, just compare the proper nouns in both works.

I think the Spalding theory is very plausible.  It also has some problems.  Still more plausible than angels and gold plates.  Where are the plates?

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

An Oxford professor…it took him many years to write his complex books.

For sure. I wasn’t saying that as an attack on the BOM. It was an aside. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

Hmm, I guess I'm just not seeing what you are trying to say.

Okay, I was being (particularly) obnoxious yesterday, so sorry. The issue isn't your factual objections. I think it's fine to consider the fact that its possible the people Joseph dictated to polished up his dictation. That's not what you said. You said "that letter isn't evidence that Joseph could "dictate a coherent sentence" or that he couldn't."

Can I flip that for you? The eight witnesses testified that they saw physical plates. But have you considered that they were lying or decieved? Therefore that's not evidence either for or against the physicality of the plates. 

 

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As for the "repetition" you are talking about, I suspect it is very different from what we are talking about when it comes to the Book of Mormon

Well I suspect that it's not that different.

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Re: 3rd paragraph, 1. Take a look at all the books to note the interestingly low level of frequency had this been the case, and especially in light of the role the writer was representing  (abridger/editor, original author, inserting additional documents); 2. Provide a side by side comparison, between the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon and the family Bible.

I concur with Gardner that Gilbert missed some of the book summary/intros when formatting the text. Following Gardner, the only books lacking them are Ether, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Word--which makes sense given how those books and their placement different from most of the rest.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It's easy to point to evidence if you preemptively and arbitrarily confine Joseph Smith's miraculously inspired words to his formal revelations, as if the gospel itself somehow warrants such a limiting assumption. I'm guessing you know that isn't how revelation works within the LDS theological system, seeing that several of Joseph's letters have been canonized and much of the New Testament fits the same genre. 

TBH, I have no idea what you are saying here or how this is responding to me. Maybe I was initially being unclear. Please rephrase.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, webbles said:

This might blow your mind, but Joseph actually did write some words of the Book of Mormon.  He wrote about a sentence worth of Alma 45:22.  You can see his handwriting on page 315 of the original manuscript - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/145.  It is possible he wrote more but that is the only known instance on the extant manuscript.  I've seen some speculation that it is the place where Oliver tried to translate but I find it unlikely.

Thanks for reminding me. But, of course, that's entirely inconsequential to the larger points I had made.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

During the day? Daytime is when you work your bum off on a farm.

If you think the teenage Joseph only farmed all day long every day, then you're wrong.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/25/2024 at 10:28 AM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think it is a matter of specifying and quantifying the uniqueness (which is only possible to a certain degree), and then looking for comparable examples to get at least a ball-park estimate of how likely it is for someone like Joseph Smith to accomplish what he did. I don't think it can be proven, categorically, that his accomplishment was or wasn't strictly impossible. I think what can be said with confidence is that what he accomplished seems exceedingly unlikely. For me, it is just one line of evidence, of many, that moves the needle towards faith in the Restoration. I get that people have other reasons for doubting. It is a big issue. I do find it interesting, however, when people view this as basically meaningless evidence, making all sorts of false analogies or flawed comparisons to dismiss it. 

This statement requires an entire metaphysics and epistemology to justify, and I don't find any such reference indicated here, or elsewhere in what you have written to my knowledge.

Please define "uniqueness" and show how it is "only possible, and to what degree" the word "unique" describes something which is both "unique" and "possible to a certain degree".

Please define what "proven categorically" could possibly mean, and what it might mean, to justify that statement.

Please define what a "false analogy" is relative to a "true analogy", and what constitutes a "flawed comparison", and what measure of falseness is required to dismiss it.

Please also show how you justify your statements, or what counts as "evidence" to you.

Is it scientific evidence or spiritual evidence, for example, and on what THEORY or PARADIGM - neither of which incidentally can be "proven" by definition- you find that justifies your statements as "truth" or your own theory of justification?

Your writing seems to discuss "evidence" a lot, without any definition of what theory one should use to discuss these matters with you.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/25/2024 at 10:11 AM, the narrator said:

Perhaps this is the fault of a certain type of critic who despises Joseph so much that they refuse to see the Book of Mormon as anything but a simplistic piece of fiction that anybody during that time could have produces; that's not me though. I find the complexity and construction of the BofM to be quite a feat--just not one beyond any human capability. I see art, literature, music, film, engineering, technology, and other expressions of creative genius all the time being made by unique amazing human beings capable of creating things that few others could ever do. The uniqueness or awe-someness of their creative endeavors are not evidence that those humans were not involved in their creations.

I agree fully here, and what I was looking for from @Ryan Dahle just above.   Well put, imo.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay, I was being (particularly) obnoxious yesterday, so sorry. The issue isn't your factual objections. I think it's fine to consider the fact that its possible the people Joseph dictated to polished up his dictation. That's not what you said. You said "that letter isn't evidence that Joseph could "dictate a coherent sentence" or that he couldn't."

Can I flip that for you? The eight witnesses testified that they saw physical plates. But have you considered that they were lying or decieved? Therefore that's not evidence either for or against the physicality of the plates. 

 

I have always wondered why people base their testimonies on 8 people testifying on the alleged "fact" that they saw a stack of metal of some kind with illegible squiggles on them, therefore Joseph was a prophet.

It has never made sense to me, or how that people see that as "evidence" for nothing more than some people seeing those plates.

Great!  Some people saw some plates with squiggles.   Was the BOM ON those plates?  Were they "translated correctly"- whatever that means??  More importantly if you BELIEVE the PRINCIPLES encased -allegedly- in those squiggles-have they changed your life?

The proof is in the pudding!

What information is alleged to exist on those plates and how can it change lives can only be determined by reading the alleged message and asking "The Universe" or "God" or whatever Being you worship or find to be a "Superior Intelligence" IFF you believe in such a thing.

If you get your answer from THE FORCE or THE BEING, that can change your life, and is "evidence" that it is ok to call it "Heavenly Father", a BEING who loves you.

Edited June 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error, duplicate

Edited June 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

TBH, I have no idea what you are saying here or how this is responding to me. Maybe I was initially being unclear. Please rephrase.

So, in the past, I have seen people assume that Joseph Smith's post-Book of Mormon writings (including his letters, histories, and even canonized revelations) represent what he could naturally produce using his own unaided human intellect. Then, when features such as chiasmus or impressive intertextuality turn up in these writings, they see it as evidence that Joseph was naturally capable of producing those particular features. And, by extension, they assume he could have naturally produced them in the Book of Mormon as well.  Hence there would be no need to turn to miraculous revelation to explain their presence in the Book of Mormon. 

I see this line of reasoning as inherently flawed on multiple levels. First, if one grants the premise that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, then one would have to be open to the possibility of God influencing or enhancing his religious discourse and writings (since that is the nature of what it means to be a prophet). Furthermore, within LDS theology, there is no doctrine or teaching that God only influenced Joseph's formal canonized revelations (such as the Book of Mormon), nor is there really any compelling reason to make that type of limiting assumption. To the contrary, the more standard or default assumption within the LDS religion would be that if Joseph Smith was articulating religious ideas--whether in a formal revelation, or a sermon, or a letter, or some other format--then there would be a decent chance that God was influencing his communication to some extent. And it certainly can't be proven that God wasn't influencing that type of discourse in any setting. 

We also have to consider that Joseph Smith's calling as a dispensation prophet and his unusually plentiful experiences with revelation place him in a unique category among modern prophets. His revelatory gifts, generally speaking, seem to go well beyond what most of his successors experienced, especially when it comes to revealing scripture and teaching doctrine. This means there is even less reason to assume that Joseph's doctrinal teachings in his letters or other correspondences are reliable representations of his strictly natural ability. 

 So, that is the deeper rationale behind the following statement (which I made earlier in this thread):

Quote

The problem is that many of Joseph's writings were at least quasi-revelatory in nature, even his letters. So it is hard to find a sizeable control group of unambiguously "naturalistic" writings to compare to his "revelatory" writings. I just don't put much stock in that line of reasoning. 

Then you responded: 

Quote

Hard to point to evidence if you preemptively exclude it all.

You seem to be implying here that I am preemptively and arbitrarily excluding certain documents (such as Joseph Smith's letters) as reliable representations of his natural ability. As if I'm trying to suppress a certain type of evidence merely because it threatens my paradigm about the Book of Mormon's miraculous complexity. To the contrary, I think just the opposite is happening. I think that those making the argument (which I outlined at the beginning of this post) are preemptively and arbitrarily designating certain examples of Joseph Smith's religious discourse as non-revelatory (and therefore as representing Joseph's natural unaided cognitive and linguistic ability), despite not having good theological grounding for that assumption.

Late Note: I would also just add that there are significant differences in the circumstances surrounding the Book of Mormon's translation and his later revelations and statements. Because the circumstances surrounding the Book of Mormon's translation play such a crucial role in the meaning of the evidence (for complexity and other features), the disparity on this front needs to be accounted for. In addition, the Book of Mormon itself is just a completely different type of document than these other documents. So it is really comparing apples to oranges on a lot of different levels. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by Ryan Dahle

[CV75]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

I concur with Gardner that Gilbert missed some of the book summary/intros when formatting the text. Following Gardner, the only books lacking them are Ether, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Word--which makes sense given how those books and their placement different from most of the rest.

So many excuses!

Plus there are 4 more books lacking them. I suppose he was due for a lunch break when he came up with 4 Nephi... And 3 Nephi, for as central a testimony as it is, ends up with just a short list of writers.*

That makes 8/15 without any, plus 2 that are very nonbibliquese. 

*But given the originally included abridged record of Lehi, ties things up quite nicely.

Edited June 27, 2024 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

If you think the teenage Joseph only farmed all day long every day, then you're wrong.

You’re right. He had plenty of spare time to do other things, too.

Quote

In 1820, when the Smiths purchased their hundred acres of heavily forested “undeveloped” land it was valued at $700. The 1830 tax records assess its value at $1,300. The $600 increase represents considerable development by standards of that time. The Smiths’ 60 acres of cleared land, divided into 30 to 35 acres of cultivated fields, 10 to 15 acres of meadow, an orchard of 200 apple trees, and the woodlot and fencing, represented about $250 to $275 of the $600 increase. The Smith barn, which historical sources suggest was of common design, would have been valued at $150 to $175; the cooper’s shop, with “wood floor and loft” at $50, animal enclosures at $25, and the “unfinished” but inhabited frame home at &75 to $125. The value of the buildings (about $325), when added to the value of the improved land, agrees very closely with the $600 increase in the value during the decade of the 1820s. This data must be viewed as verification of the accuracy of the Smiths’ memory of their improvements.

Consider what those developments represent. Based on horticultural studies, approximately 100 trees per acre grew in that area. To clear the 60 acres, the Smiths cut down about 6,000 trees. A large percentage measured from four to six feet in diameter, and grew to heights of one hundred feet or more. These figures help us to better appreciate William Smith’s statement: “If you will figure up how much work it should take to clear sixty acres of heavy timber land . . . trees you could not conveniently cut down, you can tell whether we were lazy or not.”

The Smith farm had a perimeter of one and 2/3 miles. To fence that distance with a standard stone and singer fence required moving tons of stone from fields to farm perimeter, then cutting and placing about 4,000 ten-foot rails. This does not include the labor and materials involved in fencing the barnyard, garden, pastures, and orchard, which, at a conservative estimate, required an additional 2,000 to 3,000 cut wooden rails. Clearly, this work alone—all of it separate from the actual labor of farming—represents a prodigious amount of concerted planning and labor…

Sources document over two dozen kinds of labor the Smiths performed for hire, including digging and rocking up wells, mowing, coopering, constructing cisterns, hunting and trapping, teaching school, providing domestic service, and making split-wood chairs, brooks and baskets. The Smiths also harvested, did modest carpentry work, dug for salt, constructed stone walls and fireplaces, flailed grain, cut and sold cordwood, carted, made cider, and “witched” for water. They sold garden produce, made bee-gums, washed clothes, painted oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, painted chairs, hauled stone, and made maple syrup and sugar.

Joseph Jr.’s account suggests honest industry in the face of difficult conditions: “Being in indigent circumstances,” he says, “[we] were obliged to labour hard for the support of [our] Large family and . . . it required exertions of all [family members] that were able to render any assistances.” The Smith men had a reputation as skilled and diligent workers. William Smith asserted that “whenever the neighbors wanted a good day’s work done they knew where they could get a good hand.” Eight wells in three townships are attributed to the Smiths. They likely dug and rocked others, including some of the 11 wells dug on the farm of Lemuel Durfee, who lived a little east of Martin Harris. The Smiths did considerable work for this kindly old Quaker; some of their labor served as rent for their farm after it passed into his ownership in December 1825.

Father Joseph, Hyrum, and Joseph Jr. were coopers. Coopering was an exacting trade, particularly if the barrel was designed to hold liquid. Dye tubs, barrels, and water and sap buckets were products of the Smiths’ cooper shop. They also repaired leaky barrels for neighbors at cidering time.

Sugaring was another labor-intensive work. William recalls, “To gather the sap and make sugar and molasses from [1,200–1,500 sugar] trees was no lazy job. Lucy said they produced an average of “one thousand pounds” of sugar a year. One neighbor reportedly said that the Smiths made 7,000 pounds of sugar one season and won a premium for their effort at the county fair. Many people could make maple syrup, but it required considerable skill to make sugar and particularly good skill, dexterity, and commitment to make high quality sugar.

These labors indicate a strong work attitude, and the record of their hiring does not substantiate accusations that they were an “idle” family.

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-man/joseph-smith-sr-family-farmers-genesee

Edited June 27, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So many excuses!

I guess that's one way to respond if you are in capable of seeing the differences.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Plus there are 4 more books lacking them. I suppose he was due for a lunch break when he came up with 4 Nephi... 

Are you referring to these 4?

1. Mosiah. It's pretty well established that we are missing first chapters (and thus original dictated book title and summary). Don Bradley argues that it was originally titled the Book of Benjamin, but I disagree with him and concur with Gardner that the book would have been named after the Mosiah1, with each book being named after the first dynastic leader.

2. The Book of Nephi, the Son of Nephi (3 Ne.). Again, I concur with Gardner that the content between the book title and "Now it came to pass" acts similarly to the summaries. While it might not directly summarize the book, it nevertheless lines up with the point that I was making, that " It's almost as if he was seeing the text of the Book of Mormon as it would appear on a printed page, formatted just as the opening pages of the books of his family Bible.

3. The Book of Nephi, which is the Son of Nephi, One of the Disciples of Christ (4 Ne.) "An account of the people of Nephi, according to his record."

4. Moroni. I can go either way with this. Like Ether, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Words, Moroni is very different than the rest of the books of the Book of Mormon, and it technically was not part of THE Book of Mormon. However, I do also see Moroni 1 playing the role that summaries play elsewhere in the book, and it also shares some similarities to the opening summary of First Nephi.