DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:00 am

I agree Marcus, Rick is a legend. I haven't been able to follow this entire thread, have you followed it enough to tell me if MG has responded to any of Rick's posts?

It is not necessary to show or even suggest a fledgling prophet contemplating
Macpherson before we can say that once again, we have concrete evidence from
the immediate world of young Joseph Smith displaying additional aspects of the
Restoration - and its subsequent apologetic devices for defense - which were not
so unusual or dependent upon divine inspiration as we once may have believed.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point
of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's
veracity or the actual authenticity of his work. The point, instead, is to
demonstrate that many traditional Mormon techniques of defense (whichever
ones may be suggested by the parallels seen here) may not be so relevant or
applicable as some writers have presumed.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:10 am

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:00 am

I agree Marcus, Rick is a legend. I haven't been able to follow this entire thread, have you followed it enough to tell me if MG has responded to any of Rick's posts?

Nah, just the usual. he cherry-picked the middle sentence out of this, which i thought was a great paragraph by Rick, summing up his approach:

It is not necessary to show or even suggest a fledgling prophet contemplating
Macpherson before we can say that once again, we have concrete evidence from
the immediate world of young Joseph Smith displaying additional aspects of the
Restoration - and its subsequent apologetic devices for defense - which were not
so unusual or dependent upon divine inspiration as we once may have believed.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's veracity or the actual authenticity of his work. The point, instead, is to
demonstrate that many traditional Mormon techniques of defense (whichever
ones may be suggested by the parallels seen here) may not be so relevant or
applicable as some writers have presumed.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:27 pm

Rick Grunder wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:14 am

For a much longer and more detailed version of the data above, with citations, see my Mormon Parallels entry 229, available for free download:

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp229.pdf

I read through this. Interesting stuff. It seems to me that as we gaze back through historical literature, fabricated and/or real, that we’re going to observe types and shadows bumping up against each other with intermixing elements that can be used to show relationships which may or may not show actual correlation/connection.

And again we come back to the issue of just how much would Joseph have bumped up against all this stuff that critics say he did.

Regards,
MG

Rick Grunder wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:04 am

First, thanks to everyone for this unaccustomed attention, and for so many kind words. What I’ve tried to say, maybe awkwardly, is that you can’t fight faith - probably shouldn’t - but on the other hand, a lot of apologetic thought and strategy is built on a foundation of sand that deserves to crumble.

Did Joseph Smith go through life like Tommy of the rock opera, as a “deaf, dumb and blind kid . . .”? Did he hear nothing in conversations, did he read no book or Bible passage? Did he never listen to a single hymn? The weakness of apologetic defenders questioning if Smith ever actually saw any given parallel in his culture is this: They presume the final product before the fact: supposing, in advance of the process, no possible "correct" development except Mormonism as it finally turned out. But Joseph didn't have to follow any map; instead, he devised his own.

To point to Mormonism as unique - at any of its stages of development - is not to demonstrate that it was not worked up naturalistically through elements available in Joseph Smith's world. And those elements were not pre-ordained. It is not a question in my mind whether Joseph Smith saw any particular parallels. Instead, I’d say that we learn - from whatever we find in Mormonism - what it was that Joseph assimilated. We can rarely know the precise venues or exact vehicles of that transmission, but why should we need to? If there were countless varied and contrasting ideas handy in Joseph’s own back yard, does that suggest he shut his eyes to ignore the particular ones that showed up in his ministry?

I think Mormonism could have turned into almost anything. And interestingly, the parallels I signal were frequently not the elements most readily available in Joseph’s personal world. Smith partook of whatever bits and pieces of his culture appealed to him, sometimes in self-contradictory manifestations. Some defenders resist the modern Mormon parallels by seemingly requiring a perfect pre-existing example of every aspect of the modern faith, down to the slightest shade of doctrine or the Book of Mormon's most humbly-crafted phrase. "Find and show it all," they seem to demand, "and prove exactly where he encountered it." But if such a burden of discovery is ours, it was never Joseph Smith's.

It is not necessary to show or even suggest a fledgling prophet contemplating
Macpherson before we can say that once again, we have concrete evidence from
the immediate world of young Joseph Smith displaying additional aspects of the
Restoration - and its subsequent apologetic devices for defense - which were not
so unusual or dependent upon divine inspiration as we once may have believed.
And again also, it is probably necessary here for me to emphasize that the point
of all these parallel observations is not to handle the issue of Joseph Smith's
veracity or the actual authenticity of his work. The point, instead, is to
demonstrate that many traditional Mormon techniques of defense (whichever
ones may be suggested by the parallels seen here) may not be so relevant or
applicable as some writers have presumed.

Rick Grunder wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:13 am

I will just add that if I were caught lifting a single sentence like the obviously dependent one you mention - from someone’s tightly-integrated paragraph - then I don’t know how I could expect to be taken seriously by honest readers. It would be like playing a song without resolving the indispensable final chord.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:53 am

Rick Grunder wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:13 am

I will just add that if I were caught lifting a single sentence like the obviously dependent one you mention - from someone’s tightly-integrated paragraph - then I don’t know how I could expect to be taken seriously by honest readers. It would be like playing a song without resolving the indispensable final chord.

Which illustrates rather perfectly the reason why one board contributor is not taken seriously by anyone.