Book of Mormon...a common thread?

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks, that was a very reasonable post.

[_mentalgymnast]

Please keep in mind that Joseph Smith had at least four years to put together the Book of Mormon.

MG: how do you account for the short translation timeframe and no crib notes? I'm quite interested in your take on this.

First, TD already addressed the point I intended to make (thanks, TD). I am not an expert, which is exactly why the BULK of my essays consist of direct citations from people who ARE experts.

MG: I apologize. I would have to consider you more than an amateur. I have been impressed with both your writing and Brant's. From a lay person's POV I would give you both credit for having your act together.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The Book of Mormon teaches fire, hell, and brimstone. Mormonism doesn’t.

MG: yep. Nowdays it's all in the mind...not a real place. Does scare the hell out of you though, huh? <g>

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

MG: how do you account for the short translation timeframe and no crib notes? I'm quite interested in your take on this.

I can only offer my opinion, formed upon some reading I have done but this has not been my primary interest, so take it with a grain of salt.

No matter who the author of the Book of Mormon was, it was conceived at least four years before Joseph Smith began the dictation process. This is a long enough time not only to put together the book, but to spend time memorizing it, as well. Modern folks tend to underestimate the oral traditions of earlier cultures, in which oral recitation was important and relied on memorization. Human beings are capable of pretty impressive feats of memorization, and, If I recall correctly, sources do claim that Joseph Smith was quite adept at the skill. So not only did he have time prior to the dictation to memorize the text, but he would also have had time to refreshen his mastery of passages slated to be dictated shortly.

MG: I apologize. I would have to consider you more than an amateur. I have been impressed with both your writing and Brant's. From a lay person's POV I would give you both credit for having your act together.

You don't have to apologize for calling me an amateur, I am in that this is obviously not my profession. I just wanted you to note that my amateur status is the very reason I included so many lengthy citations from real experts.

Thanks for the compliment. I am going to put together a recommended reading list on ancient Mesoamerica that perhaps will interest you. They are the most fascinating culture/people I have studied. Totally aside from the Book of Mormon issue, I enjoy talking about them and seeing other people become interested in them. Their worldview was incredibly powerful, pervasive, and long-lived. I think that says something about human beings and what we need.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: how do you account for the short translation timeframe and no crib notes? I'm quite interested in your take on this.

I can only offer my opinion, formed upon some reading I have done but this has not been my primary interest, so take it with a grain of salt.

No matter who the author of the Book of Mormon was, it was conceived at least four years before Joseph Smith began the dictation process. This is a long enough time not only to put together the book, but to spend time memorizing it, as well. Modern folks tend to underestimate the oral traditions of earlier cultures, in which oral recitation was important and relied on memorization. Human beings are capable of pretty impressive feats of memorization, and, If I recall correctly, sources do claim that Joseph Smith was quite adept at the skill. So not only did he have time prior to the dictation to memorize the text, but he would also have had time to refreshen his mastery of passages slated to be dictated shortly.

MG: thanks seven for your thoughts. I've heard others express similar views. This is a real stretch. When one considers the ramifications...well, just go to FARMS or FAIR and read some of their articles/essays dealing with some of the complex textual things going on in the Book of Mormon and well...it's a stretch. Now if it can be shown that Oliver Cowdery/Sidney and others were in cahoots and the whole text was written before hand and handed over to the printer without having been dictated first, then Houston, we have a problem. Or if Joseph Smith had a really awesome photographic mind thing going on.

Of course, your explanation is the only one that works from your point of view...unless...well, we won't go there.

fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's Book of Mormon production model? Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?

Regards,
MG

[_Fortigurn]

fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's Book of Mormon production model?

I've invited you to the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread. That should answer your questions.

Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?

What makes sense to me is Occham's Razor. It's clear that we can't look to the plates as the source of the Book of Mormon, because the eye witnesses rule that out directly. We must perforce look elsewhere. Since the eye witnesses also supply evidence of available alternative sources, evidence that at least one of those sources was used on at least one occasion, and describe a situation in which Smith had all the opportunity in the world to read from crib notes, I suggest to you that they've already done the spadework for the critic's case.

[_mentalgymnast]

fortgurn: I've invited you to the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread. That should answer your questions.

MG: Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?

MG: all you had to do was pick one of three. <g> Ok, I'll take time to go over and read that thread. For now you couldn't you pick from one of the three? If not, oh well...

What makes sense to me is Occham's Razor. It's clear that we can't look to the plates as the source of the Book of Mormon, because the eye witnesses rule that out directly.

MG: well, I'm not convinced of that for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Depends on how you define the word translate. Your definition is somewhat narrow/limiting. by the way, fortigum, there have been a couple of times when I've said something that you have taken as being insulting. That is not my intent. I hope your skin isn't paper thin. <g>

Since the eye witnesses also supply evidence of available alternative sources, evidence that at least one of those sources was used on at least one occasion...

MG: would you review this or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to?

...and describe a situation in which Smith had all the opportunity in the world to read from crib notes, I suggest to you that they've already done the spadework for the critic's case.

MG: would you review this also or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to? It's a long thread.

Thanks,
MG

[_beastie]

MG: thanks seven for your thoughts. I've heard others express similar views. This is a real stretch. When one considers the ramifications...well, just go to FARMS or FAIR and read some of their articles/essays dealing with some of the complex textual things going on in the Book of Mormon and well...it's a stretch. Now if it can be shown that Oliver Cowdery/Sidney and others were in cahoots and the whole text was written before hand and handed over to the printer without having been dictated first, then Houston, we have a problem. Or if Joseph Smith had a really awesome photographic mind thing going on.

Of course, your explanation is the only one that works from your point of view...unless...well, we won't go there.

fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's Book of Mormon production model? Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?

It's only a stretch, according to you, if you insist Joseph Smith was the sole author, which I did not.

The complexity of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, is overstated. The Book of Mormon contains a very simplistic, almost cartoonish, plot and character construction. The Hebraisms that are much touted are often able to be replicated simply by mimicking the language of the KJV.

Moreover, one must remember the culture in which Joseph Smith lived. It was awash in the Bible - children often learned to read by memorizing lengthy passages from it. Joseph Smith' family, by their own admission, were fascinated by religion and attended many meetings about it. Some sermons from the time period dealt with the very topic of the Book of Mormon - the origins of the Indians. People often only look for written influences, but the possible influences far surpass written texts (particularly when believers demand proof of the text in Joseph Smith actual hands).

For these reasons, I think the Hebraic "hits" are irrelevant in regards to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Too much was already known by his period. Instead, it is all about ancient America - is there any conceivable location for Book of Mormon events? Bar a series of dramatic findings that totally, and I mean totally, rewrite ancient America's history, the answer is a clear "no".

[_Fortigurn]

MG: all you had to do was pick one of three. <g> Ok, I'll take time to go over and read that thread. For now you couldn't you pick from one of the three? If not, oh well...

The most credible argument to me is that the Book of Mormon was the product of a number of primary literary sources (such as Spalding and Hawke's works), and a couple of collaborating redactors (Smith included).

MG: well, I'm not convinced of that for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Depends on how you define the word translate. Your definition is somewhat narrow/limiting.

I am using the standard definition of 'translate'. The normal, every day, English definition. That is the problem. As some Mormon apologists have acknowledged, LDS history uses the word 'translate' to describe something which is not in fact translation.

by the way, fortigum, there have been a couple of times when I've said something that you have taken as being insulting. That is not my intent. I hope your skin isn't paper thin. <g>

On the contrary, I haven't been in the least insulted by anything you've written. I don't know why you think that I've taken anything you've written as insulting. I can assure you that as an Australian I have a very thick skin.

MG: would you review this or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to?

Certainly, I give you the occasion on which Smith dictated a passage in which he described Jerusalem as having walls, and then asked for a Bible to check if Jerusalem did in fact have walls.

MG: would you review this also or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to? It's a long thread.

Certainly, I give you the occasion on which Smith dictated to Emma from behind a curtain (giving him ample opportunity to read from crib notes), and the occasions on which he looked into a hat while dictating (giving him ample opportunity to read from crib notes). He could also have read from crib notes prior to dictating, at any time. He could also have read from crib notes in full view of the scribes, who may have chosen not to mention the fact.

[_mentalgymnast]

well, I've made it to page three on the Spalding thread so far. very interesting stuff. It's going to take a while to get through it. I find myself asking some of the same questions that WhyMe is asking on pgs. 1,2...but we'll see where it goes from there. I am really glad that this conversation is taking place. back to it...

Regards,
MG