Shulem challenges RFM’s magical powers

[Shulem]

But Mr. Spock, I don't think the word felicitations is in the Bible. I'll cross check my circuits and see if I can find it in the Book of Mormon.

[Shulem]

In my opinion, you and many other people bring a set of assumptions to Joseph’s intentions that may not be accurate.

Ah, Captain Kishkumen! You've come to educate me and grace me with your benevolence. How wonderful!

[Shulem]

My dear captain consiglieri, surely you know the word START is not in the Bible. Now take it back or I shall have to get very angry.

[Kishkumen]

Okay, you still can't answer the question because you're stubborn. (Have you ever been told you're stubborn?) Look, pal, it's simply a matter of yes or no based on what you think.

I posit to say that had Joseph Smith learned that the word START was not a word used in the English Bible he would have scrubbed it and replaced it with began.

So my answer is definitely, YES.

Do you have an answer or do you want to continue to be stubborn?

I am not a big believer in simple binaries. You call it stubbornness. I see it as a realistic recognition of the complexity of life.

[Shulem]

Okay, you still can't answer the question because you're stubborn. (Have you ever been told you're stubborn?) Look, pal, it's simply a matter of yes or no based on what you think.

I posit to say that had Joseph Smith learned that the word START was not a word used in the English Bible he would have scrubbed it and replaced it with began.

So my answer is definitely, YES.

Do you have an answer or do you want to continue to be stubborn?

I am not a big believer in simple binaries. You call it stubbornness. I see it as a realistic recognition of the complexity of life.

It's a very, very, simple answer and there is ONLY one. It's a 1 or a 0 or a yes or a no. Keep the word or replace it with something else. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, complex about the outcome of this choice. I don't doubt at all that Smith would have scrubbed START on the manuscripts and penciled in an alternative had he realized what he had said. His task was to make his work look as genuine as possible and dress it in the official language of the English Bible. The fact that he let adieu into his novel is an anomaly that is hard to explain. But the Bible's main thrust starts at the very beginning of Genesis and Joseph Smith was keen on that. But Smith was not perfect and neither was his Book of Mormon which he wanted to be the most correct book on earth. But the use of START is 5 errors he made while making up stories.

[Kishkumen]

It's a very, very, simple answer and there is ONLY one. It's a 1 or a 0 or a yes or a no. Keep the word or replace it with something else. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, complex about the outcome of this choice. I don't doubt at all that Smith would have scrubbed START on the manuscripts and penciled in an alternative had he realized what he had said. His task was to make his work look as genuine as possible and dress it in the official language of the English Bible. The fact that he let adieu into his novel is an anomaly that is hard to explain. But the Bible's main thrust starts at the very beginning of Genesis and Joseph Smith was keen on that. But Smith was not perfect and neither was his Book of Mormon which he wanted to be the most correct book on earth. But the use of START is 5 errors he made while making up stories.

Are you telling me that Joseph Smith did not realize that "adieu" was not in the Bible? The problem here is your foundational assumption that, because Joseph Smith emulated King-Jamesian language, he must have felt it was important to emulate it precisely. All of that assumes a certain approach to the Book of Mormon project that I just don't know is true, and I am not confident that your assumptions are right. The questions you ask will determine the kind of answers you come up with. In the search, you will look at things that are valuable to people who are not asking your particular question, so, even if they don't agree with your assumptions, they can benefit from what you are doing.

Very few people really understand Joseph Smith's thought process. They just fill in their rough psychological and criminal profiles and call it good. Your whole project begins with the assumption that Joseph Smith is mostly just a lying fraud, and so every research project you undertake looks for evidence to prove that point. Honestly, I think that is a very boring question, but you don't care what I think in that regard. I just find it somewhat funny that you get upset with me for not finding that to be an interesting way to go. Still, you do a lot of interesting and useful work in the service of answering that boring question.

I am thankful you are doing it.

You want to show others that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I want to understand Joseph Smith. Those are very different ways of approaching the same material. Your project will yield a lot of interesting data and observations. And then you will say, "See? Joseph Smith was a fraud!"

I have seen you do it over, and over, and over, and over, and over . . . . . . .

[Shulem]

Are you telling me that Joseph Smith did not realize that "adieu" was not in the Bible? The problem here is your foundational assumption that, because Joseph Smith emulated King-Jamesian language, he must have felt it was important to emulate it precisely.

With regard to adieu, I can't say whether Smith knew it was foreign to the Bible but while telling his story he used it rather than "farewell" and by doing so it demonstrates a bit of arrogance on his part because he surely knew it was a French word. But adieu was actually an expression people of his time used. So in that respect, Smith employed the word to dress up his story but in doing so the original English flavor of the KJV was doused with a French sauce. It was a one time occurrence. It happened only once in the Book of Mormon and I think Smith let it happen because he thought it was rather neat. I tend to think Smith knew it was not a biblical word but in the moment of passion while telling his story and ending the communication of one of his characters he elected to exhibit a bit arrogance and with that assumed the risk of it being a suspect choice for his book written by descendants of Israelites who did not speak French. So, what I am also saying is that Smith probably preplanned to use the word in his book prior to dictation. He was formulating the entire novel in his head long before he actually dictated the story. The word adieu was probably a word he had preselected for the vocabulary to add spice to his story.

[Kishkumen]

With regard to adieu, I can't say whether Smith knew it was foreign to the Bible but while telling his story he used it rather than "farewell" and by doing so it demonstrates a bit of arrogance on his part because he surely knew it was a French word. But adieu was actually an expression people of his time used. So in that respect, Smith employed the word to dress up his story but in doing so the original English flavor of the KJV was doused with a French sauce. It was a one time occurrence. It happened only once in the Book of Mormon and I think Smith let it happen because he thought it was rather neat. I tend to think Smith knew it was not a biblical word but in the moment of passion while telling his story and ending the communication of one of his characters he elected to exhibit a bit arrogance and with that assumed the risk of it being a suspect choice for his book written by descendants of Israelites who did not speak French. So, what I am also saying is that Smith probably preplanned to use the word in his book prior to dictation. He was formulating the entire novel in his head long before he actually dictated the story. The word adieu was probably a word he had preselected for the vocabulary to add spice to his story.

So you admit that he was capable of using non-King-Jamesian language for purposes at odds with your general view of his motivations for using King-Jamesian language. OK. So it looks like your model may have problems.

[Shulem]

So you admit that he was capable of using non-King-Jamesian language for purposes at odds with your general view of his motivations for using King-Jamesian language. OK. So it looks like your model may have problems.

Listen to youuu!

My model doesn't have any problems, Kishy. It's Joe's novel and practices that have the problems! I'm pointing out the problems, inconsistencies, and matters that went over Smith's head. I can do that because I have modern day tools to work with and I think outside the box unlike many of the critics and faithful alike.



And yes, not only do I admit that Joe was capable of using non-King Jamesian language in his book he did in fact use non-King Jamesian language in his book -- hence the problems!

[Shulem]

Very few people really understand Joseph Smith's thought process.

Would you kindly elect me as one of those people? I think about Joe all the time.