Kishkumen wrote:...
Well, so long as Reverend Spalding didn't own it, my testimony will
remain intact.
Let's ponder what I just outlined, and see if we can discern the major
problem. I do not suppose the major problem was that the chiasmus
matter was noticed and publicized, in the first place. Nor do I suppose
that the major problem lie in the fact that only a minimalist LDS response
to substantial rebuttals was ever advertised to the Mormon faithful.
What I see as the major problem here, is that the LDS apologist generally
disengages from scholarly (?) dialog at some point -- generally so when
he is losing the defense of his original argument. And thus the Mormon
reader is left unawares of the "big picture."
Another example could be pointed out in the NHM-in-Arabia "discovery."
The writer of the Book of Mormon could not have been a 19th century
person, because NHM-in-Arabia was unknown to 19th century folks.
Until I produced an 18th century map, locating Nahum in Yemen -- and
then other contemporary maps (and even a text description) were
located and brought to the attention of MI's "ancient Arabic expert."
Then the discussion shifts to ----> "But Joe Smith never saw that map."
To -----> "But Hyrum Smith never saw that map when at school at Dartmouth."
To -----> "Prove that the map was at Dartmouth when Hyrum was there."
To -----> "I have a testimony of the divine origin of the book!"
Once again, the topic shifts when the apologist get cornered.
Or another example:
Some on-line FARMs-style "scholar" was telling people that the magical
stone(s) lighting the interior(s) of the Jaredite submersible barges were
thoroughly scientific, practical, and unknown to Joe Smith.
Then it was pointed out that the old rabbis had a legend about Noah's
ark being lit on its interior by the biblical Urim.
So... -----> "But Joe Smith" could not read rabbinical Hebrew in 1828-29.
To -----> "So, what if the same story was told about Merlin's submarine?"
To -----> "But Merlin's submarine crossed the Atlantic, not the Pacific."
To -----> "But Joe Smith had no access to the Merlin shining stone story."
To -----> "OK, it was told in a popular book about preColumbian ocean crossings"
To -----> "Everybody probably thought submarines were lit by shining stones"
So -- like a very slippery eel, the topic gets turned and twisted, until the
apologist (in this case DCP) is forced to admit that it is a very strange thing;
and that it remains a point of controversy; and Mormons need not worry.
The LDS reader is continually shielded from opposing views -- or else those
opposing views are belittled, Hugh Nibley style -- or their proponent is exposed
as being a coffee-drinker, and God knows what else!
The more it changes, the more it stays the same.
UD
