Peterson the historical skeptic

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by IHAQ »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:21 pm
You are obviously looking at all this with a predetermined point of view/perspective. And it’s the ‘right’ one, of course. 😉

Short little snippets of expertise and knowledge all wrapped up in a tidy little package. Cool.

Judge, jury and executioner. Jump in, take a crap, and jump out. Nice work.

That’s what happens when you don’t have an original thought of your own.

Regards,
MG
I googled “lacking self awareness” and this post^ was the first hit…
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Marcus »

IHAQ wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:20 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:21 pm
You are obviously looking at all this with a predetermined point of view/perspective. And it’s the ‘right’ one, of course. 😉

Short little snippets of expertise and knowledge all wrapped up in a tidy little package. Cool.

Judge, jury and executioner. Jump in, take a crap, and jump out. Nice work.

That’s what happens when you don’t have an original thought of your own.

Regards,
MG
I googled “lacking self awareness” and this post^ was the first hit…
What a coincidence! I did the same and this was the second hit....
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:19 pm
Back to the discussion?

Marcus’s post was more or less a derail from the discussion. I rather bluntly said as much.

Carry on?

Honestly, I haven’t seen a rebuttal to my arguments/questions that would cause me, and possibly other thinking people, to do a double take on the subject at hand.

There are just too many ‘one liners’ and the like, made with the intent to do a quick ‘take down’. But in my humble opinion many of them are fluff. No depth, no breadth.

But that’s what happens when there may not be a cogent argument to be made. And then we end up going off on a likely derail from the topic being discussed.

So if we’re done…at least with the train of thought I introduced…fine. I’ll wait to see whether or not we stay focused or move towards the usual default of one liners and psychobabble.

As one poster mentioned a few pages ago, “Interesting thread”. I doubt they were referring to posts such as the one Marcus made and I was responding to. Or the silliness of Doc’s rather crude posts.

My guess is we’re heading towards a wrap up.

My arguments/questions stand, at least as far as I’m concerned. No surprise there, right?🙂

There are reasons to think that there is more to the original story of Book of Mormon translation/publication…that points to the traditional story Joseph and others gave as being likely…than alternative narratives given by critics.

Nuff said? You can still go your way and I’ll go mine. No hard feelings.👍

Regards,
MG
It^ also came up under searches for 'derailment', 'trolling', 'projection', and 'pre-determined conclusions.'

What are the odds? : D
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

So, I take it MG hasn’t devoted any time to the study of Guru Nanak’s contribution to the Guru Granth Sahib? What a black and white thinker. :x

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by canpakes »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:39 pm
canpakes wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:16 am
I’m not so sure that the idea, “Joseph loved Emma, therefore, the Book of Mormon is true” has enough going for it.
Well, it’s not quite THAT simple, but it is true that we need to look at this period of Joseph’s life and his relationships at the time in order to then sort out why he did what he did. Or at least try and make some sense out of what the facts at our disposal seem to point to.

At this juncture it might be helpful to refer to Joseph Knight and his family. They were intimately involved during the time of translation of the Book of Mormon even to the point of supplying paper for the scribe to write on.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-Mormon
(bolding mine)

OK. You ask that one should consider, “why he did what he did. Or at least try and make some sense out of what the facts at our disposal seem to point to.

You’ve provided the Joseph Knight situation to help the reader process this question… which, basically, can be distilled down to this:

Smith: I have golden plates that I’m going to translate into a new record of Christ in America!

Knight: Astounding! Here, let me help take care of you while you do some translating. I’ll give you free provisions, room and board, foodstuffs, transportation and other aid so that you can spend time simply doing what you want to do with those plates that you won’t let me see!

Smith: Sweet! :: high fives all around ::

… Did I miss anything?

You’re asking me to consider how hard this was for Joseph - to be taken care of in this manner - as opposed to being, say, a farmer working his fields to provide for his family?

What conclusion do you believe that most folks draw from this?

What an elaborate scheme!

Rather, it’s not elaborate. It’s pretty simple: ‘I have a golden book. I’m going to translate it. You’re not allowed to see it. I’ll tell you when I’m done. Oh, and I need some paper; can you bring me some? And some dinner rolls?’

Joseph and Emma having to move to protect the plates. Joseph leaving a sick wife to check on the status of the manuscript. The Knight family stepping up to help with the necessities requires during the early translation period. We can keep going…
If you wish.

And all of this coming out of the experience of a young farmboy who was seeking truth from his maker in regards to his acceptance/forgiveness of the Lord in regards to his sins. I asked malkie when he thought Joseph turned to the ‘dark side’ and came up with the elaborate scheme of writing a book such as he did. Malkie said, First Vision. But that doesn’t hold water. After the vision one would think that Joseph would want to seek the Lord’s will, then do it.

By all accounts SOMETHING happened in the grove when Joseph went to pray. It changed his life trajectory.
The whole ‘transition to the dark side’ thing is your own invention. Clearly, Smith had been telling stories as a child at the dinner table that he further fleshed out years later into the characters and storyline of the Book. Or was Mom just lying about that?

What if Joseph went into the grove, napped, and dreamt the events of the FV? Does that make him evil? Does it mean that he can’t imagine that he saw something? How would that be any different than some of the witnesses talking about how they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes?

The power of suggestion is pretty strong, and history is filled with folks who are convinced that they’ve had long conversations with their God.

There is just TOO much going on during Joseph’s early life that would give one pause at pointing fingers at him and calling him a fraud.
This statement doesn’t make much sense, considering that he and his family were treasure seers/seekers, and dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult, etc.

Sure, he and his family were treasure seers/seekers. Yes, they dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult. I would suggest that some here go back and read Bushman’s book again, or for the first time, to get a well laid out picture of what was going on at the time rather than relying on short little pieces of poop put out there by folks such as Doc and his oh so cute small letter big letter creations of silliness.
I’m not seeing a good case here for why Joseph couldn’t have an excellent imagination, and a strong desire to concoct a record that he would claim to be genuine, even if he didn’t have grand plans to do much of anything with it after the fact.

Rather, I do see some excellent reasons as to why he ‘went there’, and I sure don’t see that being taken care of by trusting friends while doing so was soooo hard for him, as opposed to daily manual labor in the fields.

You can even extrapolate that out to consider that he might have figured this path would also help him take care of Emma, if you want to keep telling me how much he loved her.

In any event, Smith ‘figured things out’ early. ; )
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Well, why aren’t we giving equal time to Guru Nanak’s early life, which was astonishing?
According to Sikh traditions, the birth and early years of Nanak's life were marked with many events that demonstrated that Nanak had been blessed with divine grace. Commentaries on his life give details of his blossoming awareness from a young age. For instance, at the age of five, Nanak is said to have voiced interest in divine subjects. At age seven, his father enrolled him at the village school, as per custom. Notable lore recounts that, as a child, Nanak astonished his teacher by describing the implicit symbolism of the first letter of the alphabet, resembling the mathematical version of one, as denoting the unity or oneness of God. Other stories of his childhood refer to strange and miraculous events about Nanak, such as the one witnessed by Rai Bular, in which the sleeping child's head was shaded from the harsh sunlight by, in one account, by the stationary shadow of a tree or, in another, by a venomous cobra.
This is absolutely rock solid evidence Guru Nanak was favored by the divine, so I’m perplexed why MG hasn’t devoted any time whatsoever to the study of him and his revelations. The Sikh faith has ~100,000,000 adherents across the world! This is PROOF of its truthfulness, along with its strong religious traditions. Wake up, MG! Start your study of Guru Nanak!

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Dr Exiled »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:19 pm
Back to the discussion?

Marcus’s post was more or less a derail from the discussion. I rather bluntly said as much.

Carry on?

Honestly, I haven’t seen a rebuttal to my arguments/questions that would cause me, and possibly other thinking people, to do a double take on the subject at hand.

There are just too many ‘one liners’ and the like, made with the intent to do a quick ‘take down’. But in my humble opinion many of them are fluff. No depth, no breadth.

But that’s what happens when there may not be a cogent argument to be made. And then we end up going off on a likely derail from the topic being discussed.

So if we’re done…at least with the train of thought I introduced…fine. I’ll wait to see whether or not we stay focused or move towards the usual default of one liners and psychobabble.

As one poster mentioned a few pages ago, “Interesting thread”. I doubt they were referring to posts such as the one Marcus made and I was responding to. Or the silliness of Doc’s rather crude posts.

My guess is we’re heading towards a wrap up.

My arguments/questions stand, at least as far as I’m concerned. No surprise there, right?🙂

There are reasons to think that there is more to the original story of Book of Mormon translation/publication…that points to the traditional story Joseph and others gave as being likely…than alternative narratives given by critics.

Nuff said? You can still go your way and I’ll go mine. No hard feelings.👍

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0:

I think you are highlighting the insignificant to hide the damning details of the story. Joseph Smith refused to show the plates to the world and let experts test his supposed translation. He conveniently claimed that the plates were taken back by the angel (moroni/nephi - uncertain which). He used a freaking rock and a hat to do the supposed translation for heaven's sake! If he truly had a gift, the plates would be around today and reformed egyptian would have been discovered. Experts would have validated his translation. There would have been discovery after discovery tying the Nephites to the old world, etc. Instead, we have appeals to how much Joseph Smith sacrificed and worked at his con. Of course Joseph Smith had to work as circumstances dictated. He had to continue to support his con or noble lie. Otherwise, the evil critics that demanded proof would have won and we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:19 pm

You’ve provided the Joseph Knight situation to help the reader process this question… which, basically, can be distilled down to this:

Smith: I have golden plates that I’m going to translate into a new record of Christ in America!

Knight: Astounding! Here, let me help take care of you while you do some translating. I’ll give you free provisions, room and board, foodstuffs, transportation and other aid so that you can spend time simply doing what you want to do with those plates that you won’t let me see!

Smith: Sweet! :: high fives all around ::

… Did I miss anything?
Just God.

And yes, that’s the BIG bugaboo in all of it.

God or no God.

Did I miss anything?

By the way, canpakes, your posts have been an interesting and thoughtful read. I do see where you’re coming from as an outsider/critic. From your vantage point you make some good points that need to be acknowledged and thrown into the mix.

If I was looking at it from the outside without the life experience I’ve had and what I know for myself I would possibly jump on board with you. It is interesting, is it not, that there are so many options and choices that make sense for different people depending on how they’re built and the environment they’ve been brought up in?

I think we are ALL subject to that. Comparatively speaking, I think I’ve tried to step out of my own ‘bubble’ of existence and tried to view things ‘as they are’. And my hope is that others make the effort to do the same. But the thing is, we can still (obviously) end up on opposite sides of the track.

I do enjoy reading/observing your point of view. 🙂

And thank you for your basic humanity/civility. 👍

Regards,
MG
Last edited by MG 2.0 on Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:04 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:19 pm
Back to the discussion?

Marcus’s post was more or less a derail from the discussion. I rather bluntly said as much.

Carry on?

Honestly, I haven’t seen a rebuttal to my arguments/questions that would cause me, and possibly other thinking people, to do a double take on the subject at hand.

There are just too many ‘one liners’ and the like, made with the intent to do a quick ‘take down’. But in my humble opinion many of them are fluff. No depth, no breadth.

But that’s what happens when there may not be a cogent argument to be made. And then we end up going off on a likely derail from the topic being discussed.

So if we’re done…at least with the train of thought I introduced…fine. I’ll wait to see whether or not we stay focused or move towards the usual default of one liners and psychobabble.

As one poster mentioned a few pages ago, “Interesting thread”. I doubt they were referring to posts such as the one Marcus made and I was responding to. Or the silliness of Doc’s rather crude posts.

My guess is we’re heading towards a wrap up.

My arguments/questions stand, at least as far as I’m concerned. No surprise there, right?🙂

There are reasons to think that there is more to the original story of Book of Mormon translation/publication…that points to the traditional story Joseph and others gave as being likely…than alternative narratives given by critics.

Nuff said? You can still go your way and I’ll go mine. No hard feelings.👍

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0:

I think you are highlighting the insignificant to hide the damning details of the story. Joseph Smith refused to show the plates to the world and let experts test his supposed translation. He conveniently claimed that the plates were taken back by the angel (moroni/nephi - uncertain which). He used a freaking rock and a hat to do the supposed translation for heaven's sake! If he truly had a gift, the plates would be around today and reformed egyptian would have been discovered. Experts would have validated his translation. There would have been discovery after discovery tying the Nephites to the old world, etc. Instead, we have appeals to how much Joseph Smith sacrificed and worked at his con. Of course Joseph Smith had to work as circumstances dictated. He had to continue to support his con or noble lie. Otherwise, the evil critics that demanded proof would have won and we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
There is always going to be the woulda, coulda, shoulda, isn’t there? And how MUCH of each of those that are necessary will vary from person to person.

Your requirements are fairly demanding.

Almost no room left for faith. 😉

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:31 pm
If I was looking at it from the outside without the life experience I’ve had and what I know for myself I would possibly jump on board with you.
So, if you weren't raised Mormon and consequently didn't feel the need to come here and irrationally defend your Mormon position, you would possibly be inclined to agree with canpakes' comments. That is an extremely telling comment. Thank you for being honest about that.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:55 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:31 pm
If I was looking at it from the outside without the life experience I’ve had and what I know for myself I would possibly jump on board with you.
So, if you weren't raised Mormon and consequently didn't feel the need to come here and irrationally defend your Mormon position, you would possibly be inclined to agree with canpakes' comments. That is an extremely telling comment. Thank you for being honest about that.
I think we all are subject, at least to some extent, to our environmental conditions and upbringing. That shouldn’t come as any great surprise. Some folks, however, tend to be a bit more curious about the world and all things in it. That would be me. I suppose that’s why I chose teaching as a career.

I tend, like canpakes, to be built with a somewhat skeptical mind. I like to have proof. So yes, if I had been born in a community or environmental conditions that were not conducive to belief/faith in the supernatural I NATURALLY wonder how I would have responded to religious belief of any kind.

Why is THAT so telling?

Truth is, Marcus, that’s not the only thing I’ve been truthful about around here as hard as that might be for you to accept.😉

And I still can’t tell to any degree of specificity who YOU are at all. If I were to guess, you’re actually a woman using a male moniker. Aged somewhere between twenty five and thirty. No older than that.

And THAT of course is going to impact what we hear and see from you. I should cut you some more slack. 😉

By the way, a large reason I come here is simply to bounce things around and to keep my mind actively engaged in writing. We often don’t get enough of that nowadays. This gives me a chance to do that.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply