Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_Dan Vogel]

It's irrelevant if the theory plays into any apologists hands that's not a criteria to even contemplate in dismissing it. It also does not suggest J. Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon that also is another criteria which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not J Smith could produce the Book of Mormon...what matter is the BEST FIT of ALL data

But when it's not the best fit, one wants an explanation for its popularity among certain groups.

[_Runtu]

I agree that the Spaulding theory plays into the apologists hands. I also agree that those who advocate it have fallen for Joseph Smith's self-description as the unlearned man as well as the apologists' myth making. The Book of Mormon isn't as good as represented, and Joseph Smith wasn't as ignorant as claimed.

My feelings exactly. Despite the claims, it's not particularly complex, internally consistent, or well-written. And the silly claim that Joseph would have had to have access to an extensive library to get everything right is, well, silly. Having read Joseph Smith's personal writings, it's obvious he could have come up with it. This picture of an illiterate bumpkin is pure myth.

One of my series of threads on the MA&D board is titled "Things that Don't Make Sense in the Book of Mormon," wherein I'm attempting to show that the apologetic claim that the Book of Mormon is internally consistent rests on a question-begging apologetic reading of the text. So, when I show contradictions and incongruities in the text, which might be expected from an impromptu dictation of the text (something you might not expect in prepared text), the apologists respond by adding information to harmonize the texts. So, the claim that the Book of Mormon is contradiction-free can only be maintained if they control the interpretation, which renders the claim quite meaningless.

I've enjoyed those threads mostly because the apologists' responses have been so predictable.

The best parts of the Book of Mormon are the sermons, which would be expected from a charismatic leader of Joseph Smith's caliber.

I agree. I still like a lot of the theology of Mormonism. I can't help it.

[_Dan Vogel]

Of course believability is in the mind of the beholder.

However, while the proportion is rather small of those who believe in the Book of Mormon as compared to those who don't, when it comes to the number of people who accept the authoritative version as compared with other theorized explinations for the Book of Mormon origins, the proportion is rather overwhelming wouldn't you say? (Not that the numbers are necessarily an indication of truth and verity, but rather in terms of believability).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a novel way to make an argumentum ad populum argument.

[_Dan Vogel]

Furthermore, while one may not believe the authoritative version, and may be inclined to dismiss and weight differently certain pieces of evidence, there is no getting around the fact that the authoritative version best accounts for all the historical data.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The story of Santa Clause fits all the facts too, but it's not true. The story has to be tested against reality. That's where the story runs into trouble.

[_marg]

It's irrelevant if the theory plays into any apologists hands that's not a criteria to even contemplate in dismissing it. It also does not suggest J. Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon that also is another criteria which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not J Smith could produce the Book of Mormon...what matter is the BEST FIT of ALL data

But when it's not the best fit, one wants an explanation for its popularity among certain groups.

Agreed. But my point to whoever I was replying to was that one should let the evidence lead the way to the best fit theroy. One shouldn't ignore a theory because it plays into the hands of others with a different view. And that Smith could have written the Book of Mormon is not an argument which negates the Spalding thoery. I will get to your previous post later today..I need a nap first.

The reason I like the theory, is that when I first came across Mormonism on the Net about 6 years ago I started reading about the Spalding theory. I read Vannick's book a few years back. I believe he is one of the evangelists you were referring to. The evidence to me seems extremely strong in favor and any arguments against seem extremely weak. That's it in a nutshell. I have no personal motivation to like any one theory over another except I do dismiss all theories which incorporate the supernatural. I've started to email some people to see if someone will be interested in discussing with you. So I'll get back to you on this eventually.

[_Dan Vogel]

I agree that the Spaulding theory plays into the apologists hands. I also agree that those who advocate it have fallen for Joseph Smith's self-description as the unlearned man as well as the apologists' myth making. The Book of Mormon isn't as good as represented, and Joseph Smith wasn't as ignorant as claimed.

My feelings exactly. Despite the claims, it's not particularly complex, internally consistent, or well-written. And the silly claim that Joseph would have had to have access to an extensive library to get everything right is, well, silly. Having read Joseph Smith's personal writings, it's obvious he could have come up with it. This picture of an illiterate bumpkin is pure myth.

Apologists use the extensive library argument as a red herring. It's also a double standard since they never apply the argument to their own methodology. They can comb ancient literature from various cultures spanning thousands of years and never imagine what Lehi's library was like. Those who use 19th century parallels are generally confined to America within decades or years from 1830. Of course, critics aren't claiming Joseph Smith read any specific source, only that they are reconstructing Joseph Smith's culture to better understand how the Book of Mormon discoursed with it.

One of my series of threads on the MA&D board is titled "Things that Don't Make Sense in the Book of Mormon," wherein I'm attempting to show that the apologetic claim that the Book of Mormon is internally consistent rests on a question-begging apologetic reading of the text. So, when I show contradictions and incongruities in the text, which might be expected from an impromptu dictation of the text (something you might not expect in prepared text), the apologists respond by adding information to harmonize the texts. So, the claim that the Book of Mormon is contradiction-free can only be maintained if they control the interpretation, which renders the claim quite meaningless.

I've enjoyed those threads mostly because the apologists' responses have been so predictable.

Glad you enjoyed it. Perhaps I'll get back to it. There are a lot more examples.

The best parts of the Book of Mormon are the sermons, which would be expected from a charismatic leader of Joseph Smith's caliber.

I agree. I still like a lot of the theology of Mormonism. I can't help it.

Well, then you are experiencing Joseph Smith's persuasiveness. I imagine in person he was irrisistible.

[_rcrocket]

The best parts of the Book of Mormon are the sermons, which would be expected from a charismatic leader of Joseph Smith's caliber.

And, how is Joseph Smith to know the concept of justice and mercy, and explain it better, than Milton?

P

[_rcrocket]

Agreed. But my point to whoever I was replying to was that one should let the evidence lead the way to the best fit theroy.

Your continued emphasis for months now on the "best fit" theory just doesn't apply to religion. Under the best fit theory the disciples stole the Body.

P

[_guy sajer]

Agreed. But my point to whoever I was replying to was that one should let the evidence lead the way to the best fit theroy.

Your continued emphasis for months now on the "best fit" theory just doesn't apply to religion. Under the best fit theory the disciples stole the Body.

P

No, under the "best fit" theory, the resurrection is a myth created after the fact by followers of the Jesus cult.

[_rcrocket]

Agreed. But my point to whoever I was replying to was that one should let the evidence lead the way to the best fit theroy.

Your continued emphasis for months now on the "best fit" theory just doesn't apply to religion. Under the best fit theory the disciples stole the Body.

P

No, under the "best fit" theory, the resurrection is a myth created after the fact by followers of the Jesus cult.

And, so why are you here? Why discuss Mormonism at all when, in fact, your core issue is with Christianity?

You, who complain so vociferously about your freedom of speech issues at BYU on the one hand and, who on the other hand, advocate government power to crush Mormonism. Your positions are all over the board.

P