Interpreter Radio: Richard Bushman is a Hack

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the links, professor, boy, my memory isn't what it used to be. I have to say that looking at my younger, naïve self, I certainly missed the obvious. The apologists refused to quote any portion whatsoever of Skousen's flat-laying translation, and I just couldn't understand that at the time. But I think in hindsight, it's clear that given all the funding from FARMS, that the apologists were literally looking at it like, let's say that they were to quote one sentence from the intro, then they've just let out 500$ into the public domain that they can never recoup. Several apologists went out and bought the book just to see what a few verses said here and there because nobody would give up the goods for free. The worry over copyright violation from one apologist who wouldn't quote anything was interesting.

And then there were the denouncements from everyone from Blake Oslter to Will Schryver. Yes, now I recall, the new Book of Mormon translation was to be more correct than any other, implicitly making the Brethren look like fools.

What else was fascinating, was the notes from Shades and others that Skousen's work was being used by critics to show that the Book of Mormon is a tight translation, and one that came directly from another work, such as the Spaulding manuscript. I have to wonder -- prior to those critical suggestions, was there any hint that the English came from the 15th century?

[_Runtu]

So, yeah: it makes a certain degree of sense that the apologists would hop on board Skousen's project, since it was a direct finger in the eye to the Brethren, who tried to stop it. And I think it's fairly clear that at least some of the Mopologists view themselves as being in direct competition with the Church's propaganda arm. (Yet another reason for the sensitivity to the label of "Stalinist," I would imagine?) The constant plugging of substance-free material; this production of a million-dollar+ "film" on the Witnesses; cruises to Israel; the commitment to quantity over quality; etc. This feels like a full-court-press marketing campaign: a hardcore, free-market capitalist response to some of the more collectivist impulses governing the Church's authority structure. ("We must all face the same way.")

Skousen's "Ghost Committee" theory has all the earmarks of this insubordination: it lays claim to being the most authoritative interpretation of the crucial Restoration scripture (as DCP admitted, they don't even bother with the Bible). It stands as a semi-public rebuke to the Brethren's authority. And it also shows the apologists crafting doctrine and theology on the spot. It almost seems as if they're treating this as a trial run: if a lot of the rubes and dopes who follow their blogs are on board, it will mean that they are every bit as persuasive as the Brethren, and the vast PR machine that they control. Simply put: this is an attempt to re-craft central aspects of the LDS master narrative.

I didn't know the brethren were (are?) opposed to Skousen's project. Could you provide some details? I know Stan Carmack thinks I was mocking his efforts, but I've never done so intentionally. Like you, I'm totally fine accepting their linguist findings in the text, but I don't know what I'm meant to conclude from those findings.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, yeah: it makes a certain degree of sense that the apologists would hop on board Skousen's project, since it was a direct finger in the eye to the Brethren, who tried to stop it. And I think it's fairly clear that at least some of the Mopologists view themselves as being in direct competition with the Church's propaganda arm. (Yet another reason for the sensitivity to the label of "Stalinist," I would imagine?) The constant plugging of substance-free material; this production of a million-dollar+ "film" on the Witnesses; cruises to Israel; the commitment to quantity over quality; etc. This feels like a full-court-press marketing campaign: a hardcore, free-market capitalist response to some of the more collectivist impulses governing the Church's authority structure. ("We must all face the same way.")

Skousen's "Ghost Committee" theory has all the earmarks of this insubordination: it lays claim to being the most authoritative interpretation of the crucial Restoration scripture (as DCP admitted, they don't even bother with the Bible). It stands as a semi-public rebuke to the Brethren's authority. And it also shows the apologists crafting doctrine and theology on the spot. It almost seems as if they're treating this as a trial run: if a lot of the rubes and dopes who follow their blogs are on board, it will mean that they are every bit as persuasive as the Brethren, and the vast PR machine that they control. Simply put: this is an attempt to re-craft central aspects of the LDS master narrative.

I didn't know the brethren were (are?) opposed to Skousen's project. Could you provide some details? I know Stan Carmack thinks I was mocking his efforts, but I've never done so intentionally. Like you, I'm totally fine accepting their linguist findings in the text, but I don't know what I'm meant to conclude from those findings.

Runtu:

I provided a couple of links that help to give context. I definitely heard from multiple sources that the Brethren weren’t happy with Skousen’s project, and I’m almost positive that Dr. Peterson confirmed this at one point on the old MAD board.

[_Philo Sofee]

The brethren don't like Skousen's work since it is so vastly superior than anything they even could produce. It's also vastly different than their invented interpretations by cherry picking history to present a mere image, more like a mirage, of what is supposedly real. This is perfect. I love this. No wonder they want people stupid and obedient. If they use their brains and actually research, they very seldom come up with the same information the official church always presents. That is something that seriously makes ya go hmmmmm...

[_Runtu]

Runtu:

I provided a couple of links that help to give context. I definitely heard from multiple sources that the Brethren weren’t happy with Skousen’s project, and I’m almost positive that Dr. Peterson confirmed this at one point on the old MAD board.

Thanks. I had to reread the thread to find the links. It's fascinating to me that some people believe only the Brethren have the right to publish a version of the Book of Mormon, especially that some think Skousen's work is an affront to the prophets and apostles. I would have thought the Brethren recognized that they have the right to publish the officially sanctioned and correlated Book of Mormon. Going beyond that seems to be overstepping their authority, in my opinion.

[_Dr Exiled]

What's not to hate about the Early Modern English theory from the brethren's perspective? It can easily be cast as Joseph Smith trying to channel what he thought an ancient Israelite native american christian would sound like and that's why he consulted the earliest Bible he had - the 1611 version. The other Joseph Smithisms, as Campbell called them, can be cast as variations on this theme. It really opens the inquiry into how Joseph Smith made it up.

[_Doctor Steuss]

It seems to me that since they can't place the Book of Mormon in the 4th Century or earlier, they are desperate to put it anywhere but in Smith's time, so they are going off on Smith's mimicry and plagiarism of 15th Century English. It's all rather silly and pointless, but they are absolutely desperate.

It's almost as if there was a prominent book that was published somewhere around that time, that the author of the Book of Mormon attempted to mimic.

Almost...

[_moksha]

I would have thought the Brethren recognized that they have the right to publish the officially sanctioned and correlated Book of Mormon. Going beyond that seems to be overstepping their authority, in my opinion.

Since Joseph Smith was granted the copyright as the author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon, it should naturally follow that the Church became the inheritor of that copyright since the author and proprietor had no living heirs... wait, it seems he did have heirs. Doesn't matter, those rights should have passed on to the public domain unless a Faustian bargain was struck... wait, it seems that (unintelligible thud as young elders burst through the computer room door)...

[_moksha]

It's almost as if there was a prominent book that was published somewhere around that time, that the author of the Book of Mormon attempted to mimic.

The KJV of 1611 used the 25-letter English alphabet with no letter J, thus it was the King Iames Bible with "Iesus Chriſt". Only a clever ghost committee from that time could have kept young Joseph on the translating straight and narrow by using the 26 letter alphabet instead.