Lars Nielsen's "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

[MG 2.0]

I’ve moved posts that discuss the quote from Brooks’ book on constructionism to a pre-existing thread where the same quote is the topic. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158676&start=10

UR 4

I do not agree with the splitting up of what I believed to be an on topic conversation. It’s been taken apart and dismantled so as to disrupt the flow of discussion. I don’t know if this is a recent moderator tactic to derail a discussion or a decision you made with full integrity and fairness.

As it is, I have no control over what you did. The only control I do have is whether or not to continue a discussion that was deliberately chopped up for one reason or another.

Dang. I wish you hadn’t done that.

But it is what it is. I can see things potentially going sideways at this point and the thread devolving into a tit for tat kind of thing. I will leave it to others to carry on the discussion in a manner that they see fit.

Thanks for the civility that existed in the original discussion once I came into the conversation. I am disappointed in this decision.

The split wasn’t necessary. And I’m not going to argue the point.

Crap. Way to blow things up, Res Ipsa. I was hoping to see more fair mindedness coming from you. But I will hold no ill will. You did what you thought was the right thing to do in following board guidelines/rules come hell or high water!

Once you do something like this the train of thought is derailed.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Hi,

I just thought I'd throw in an additional piece of the puzzle that is historical and as factual as we can achieve these days:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

Thanks,

Brian

Aside from tutoring by his brother wouldn’t Joseph Smith have received home schooling? His father was a merchant for some time, so basic arithmetic would’ve most likely been taught to him, along with reading and writing.

Also, one other observation if I may. Joseph Smith was essentially a rube, in the rustic sense, so it’s comes as no surprise his writings and orations were that of a rube trying to punch above his weight. I don’t say that glibly, by the way. I myself am a god-tier rube who’s being trying to ensophiticate the way I communicate for some time now and believe you me I can spot a fellow rube a mile away. Joseph Smith and many of the early church members were rubes.

Whatever the case may be, thank you for the link, but please be advised Dr. Shades absolutely detests ‘link n’ runs’ so you may want to add a thought to the post and explain how it relates to this thread, especially so for us rubes who lurk use the site.

- Doc

Good point. The link-n-run is to an article where this is stated in the intro:

...6. Joseph Smith’s intellect was sufficient to create the Book of Mormon.

...This article examines the last of these theories — that of Joseph Smith’s intellect —

And from the conclusion:

...the primary focus of this paper is to demonstrate the problem with secularist theories that portray Joseph Smith as intellectually capable of producing the Book of Mormon...

Wow. I've been thinking about how my various Mormon relatives would respond if I told them Smith wasn't "intellectually capable." I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go over well. Such is the work of the mopologist, I suppose.

Also, I've looked at various Hales works in the past; his position on how truthful or accurate footnotes should be is loose, at best. Those previous experiences with his work leave me with very little interest in reading this link, or taking his conclusions seriously.

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve moved posts that discuss the quote from Brooks’ book on constructionism to a pre-existing thread where the same quote is the topic. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158676&start=10

UR 4

I do not agree with the splitting up of what I believed to be an on topic conversation. It’s been taken apart and dismantled so as to disrupt the flow of discussion. I don’t know if this is a recent moderator tactic to derail a discussion or a decision you made with full integrity and fairness.

As it is, I have no control over what you did. The only control I do have is whether or not to continue a discussion that was deliberately chopped up for one reason or another.

Dang. I wish you hadn’t done that.

But it is what it is. I can see things potentially going sideways at this point and the thread devolving into a tit for tat kind of thing. I will leave it to others to carry on the discussion in a manner that they see fit.

Thanks for the civility that existed in the original discussion once I came into the conversation. I am disappointed in this decision.

The split wasn’t necessary. And I’m not going to argue the point.

Crap. Way to blow things up, Res Ipsa. I was hoping to see more fair mindedness coming from you. But I will hold no ill will. You did what you thought was the right thing to do in following board guidelines/rules come hell or high water!

Once you do something like this the train of thought is derailed.

Regards,
MG

That’s a lot of arguing, for not arguing.

I decided to split the original thread using the same general criteria I always use. First, I looked at the scope of the thread as originally described in the OP. That scope was quite narrow: a specific book promoting a specific theory on the authorship of the Book of Mormon.

I then looked at how the thread had proceeded, observing subsequent posts and what I think of as the “conversational meander” that naturally occurs in most threads.

When you initially entered the thread, it appeared to me that you had introduced two topics that were potential derails: the annotated Book of Mormon and the quote from David Brooks. I let the thread go for a while to see what developed. Ultimately, I concluded that the annotated Book of Mormon functioned as a brief detour that hadn’t derailed the thread. But the Brooks quote I found to be a significant change of subject that had derailed the thread from the scope as set in the OP and the natural meander of the conversation.

Having decided that the thread should be split, I had to take into account that there was an existing thread discussing the same quote that I had determined had derailed the thread. I thought it was appropriate to move the posts from one thread to the other. However, I’m not wedded to that aspect of the action I took and would be happy to put the posts I moved into a new thread instead of merging them into threads where they are now located.

This is not personal. I’ve derailed threads by posting something that was related in some way to a post in the thread, only on reflection (whether prompted by myself or another) to to realize that, while my post flowed from the post I responded to, what I posted a conversation on a different topic from that being discussed in thread. Most folks do the same thing every once in a while. If I thought that your intent was to derail the conversation, I would have moved your post to outer darkness, as what we call a “malicious derail.” So, my action in no way represents a criticism of you — it’s me playing traffic cop to keep threads on topic.

I looked at the thread pretty closely, and I don’t think that my decision to split was even a close call. The topic of the thread was narrow and clear. The theory that we construct our own reality, which I think is a topic well worth discussing, is a completely different topic than a specific theory about Book of Mormon authorship.

I completely understand your desire not to get spread too thin by several different threads. I acknowledge that splitting the thread frustrated that desire and apologize for doing that. I also acknowledge that splitting the thread, as it does in many cases, interrupts the flow of conversations. It’s especially problematic when people include responses to the original and new topic in the same post. When I split threads, I do my best to keep the flow in both posts as coherent as I can. If you think there is a post or posts that ended up in the wrong thread, let me know and I’ll be happy to take a look.

I can understand why you feel angry and frustrated. I’m sorry for that.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think Brian Hales is advocating that Joseph Smith was an autodidact, a savant, and also God’s Plume. I dunno. His point was muddled given the topic of this thread.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I do not agree with the splitting up of what I believed to be an on topic conversation. It’s been taken apart and dismantled so as to disrupt the flow of discussion. I don’t know if this is a recent moderator tactic to derail a discussion or a decision you made with full integrity and fairness.

As it is, I have no control over what you did. The only control I do have is whether or not to continue a discussion that was deliberately chopped up for one reason or another.

Dang. I wish you hadn’t done that.

But it is what it is. I can see things potentially going sideways at this point and the thread devolving into a tit for tat kind of thing. I will leave it to others to carry on the discussion in a manner that they see fit.

Thanks for the civility that existed in the original discussion once I came into the conversation. I am disappointed in this decision.

The split wasn’t necessary. And I’m not going to argue the point.

Crap. Way to blow things up, Res Ipsa. I was hoping to see more fair mindedness coming from you. But I will hold no ill will. You did what you thought was the right thing to do in following board guidelines/rules come hell or high water!

Once you do something like this the train of thought is derailed.

Regards,
MG

That’s a lot of arguing, for not arguing.

I decided to split the original thread using the same general criteria I always use. First, I looked at the scope of the thread as originally described in the OP. That scope was quite narrow: a specific book promoting a specific theory on the authorship of the Book of Mormon.

I then looked at how the thread had proceeded, observing subsequent posts and what I think of as the “conversational meander” that naturally occurs in most threads.

When you initially entered the thread, it appeared to me that you had introduced two topics that were potential derails: the annotated Book of Mormon and the quote from David Brooks. I let the thread go for a while to see what developed. Ultimately, I concluded that the annotated Book of Mormon functioned as a brief detour that hadn’t derailed the thread. But the Brooks quote I found to be a significant change of subject that had derailed the thread from the scope as set in the OP and the natural meander of the conversation.

Having decided that the thread should be split, I had to take into account that there was an existing thread discussing the same quote that I had determined had derailed the thread. I thought it was appropriate to move the posts from one thread to the other. However, I’m not wedded to that aspect of the action I took and would be happy to put the posts I moved into a new thread instead of merging them into threads where they are now located.

This is not personal. I’ve derailed threads by posting something that was related in some way to a post in the thread, only on reflection (whether prompted by myself or another) to to realize that, while my post flowed from the post I responded to, what I posted a conversation on a different topic from that being discussed in thread. Most folks do the same thing every once in a while. If I thought that your intent was to derail the conversation, I would have moved your post to outer darkness, as what we call a “malicious derail.” So, my action in no way represents a criticism of you — it’s me playing traffic cop to keep threads on topic.

I looked at the thread pretty closely, and I don’t think that my decision to split was even a close call. The topic of the thread was narrow and clear. The theory that we construct our own reality, which I think is a topic well worth discussing, is a completely different topic than a specific theory about Book of Mormon authorship.

I completely understand your desire not to get spread too thin by several different threads. I acknowledge that splitting the thread frustrated that desire and apologize for doing that. I also acknowledge that splitting the thread, as it does in many cases, interrupts the flow of conversations. It’s especially problematic when people include responses to the original and new topic in the same post. When I split threads, I do my best to keep the flow in both posts as coherent as I can. If you think there is a post or posts that ended up in the wrong thread, let me know and I’ll be happy to take a look.

I can understand why you feel angry and frustrated. I’m sorry for that.

Thank you Res Ipsa for taking the time to respond to my grievance. I do appreciate that. I see where you’re coming from. Nonetheless I do feel that the ‘train of thought’, even if meandering, was of interest. At least to me. It’s difficult to take it all up again after a switcheroo.

I can live with it.

The interactions I had with you and others, even if meandering, I found interesting and productive.

It’s all good.

What I do find frustrating on this board, however, is to be misunderstood even after trying my darndest to speak clearly. It happens too often. A caricature is painted that is off. Sometimes way off as Gadianton is prone to do.

Maybe I do the same thing and don’t realize that I’m misappropriating. We talk about sticking to the facts. I think we would do well to ‘practice’ this ‘art’ when describing others rather than making stuff up. I know this distortion ‘practice’ seems to come may way in its application a bit too often. At least in my estimation. Maybe I just have a persecution complex, ha ha.

Anyway, as I said, what’s done is done. I enjoyed the meandering (sorry!) conversation while it lasted.

Back in my teaching days classroom discussions would meander and we would get way off topic at times. Bad habits die hard.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I think Brian Hales is advocating that Joseph Smith was an autodidact, a savant, and also God’s Plume. I dunno. His point was muddled given the topic of this thread.

- Doc

So...Smith was dumb for a smart guy, but also smart for a dumb guy?! Muddled, yes. Apropos to this thread, Hales did list the Spalding idea under discussion here as the first of six main secular theories. (with the footnote supporting that going to one of his own papers. ) But the link-n-run post is not about Spalding specifically, so it doesn't really help here.

[Kishkumen]

In my experience, Hales is a frustrating interlocutor. I am sure he means well, and he is not a bad guy, but his tactics are pretty slippery. He straw mans his opponents, and his own arguments are recycled. His Joseph couldn’t have done this ergo God arguments are his usual go-to approach. I am not sure how many times a person can offer that as a rebuttal and sound at all convincing or even mildly persuasive.

[Dr. Shades]

In my experience, Hales is a frustrating interlocutor. I am sure he means well, and he is not a bad guy, but his tactics are pretty slippery. He straw mans his opponents, and his own arguments are recycled. His Joseph couldn’t have done this ergo God arguments are his usual go-to approach.

My problems with Hales are similar. His conclusions regarding polygamy are especially problematic, because he draws every possible conclusion except the obvious one: Joseph's libido inspired him to make the whole thing up so he could satisfy said libido.

[MG 2.0]

In my experience, Hales is a frustrating interlocutor. I am sure he means well, and he is not a bad guy, but his tactics are pretty slippery. He straw mans his opponents, and his own arguments are recycled. His Joseph couldn’t have done this ergo God arguments are his usual go-to approach.

My problems with Hales are similar. His conclusions regarding polygamy are especially problematic, because he draws every possible conclusion except the obvious one: Joseph's libido inspired him to make the whole thing up so he could satisfy said libido.

Obvious to you. Others in the room may see it differently. Hope you’re doing well, Shades. Thanks for all you do to keep the lights on around here.

Regards.
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s a lot of arguing, for not arguing.

We’ll, he does like circumlocution, no?

- Doc