Jersey Girl wrote:charity, you act as though Joseph Smith was illiterate. Do you think he was? If so, why?
That seems to be part of the "there's no way he could have come up with it himself" story. I'm as baffled as you are as to why people think that.
Not that I have a dog in this fight but, I don't believe for a second that he came up with it himself. However, the evidence related to him having been illiterate is against that assumption. Unless someone has information that I haven't got. That's why I'm asking charity.
Sorry I missed the question earlier.
No, Joseph was not illiterate. He could read. He did read, although his mother stated he wasn't as given to reading and studying as some of his siblings, although he was given to deep thought.
He was uneducated and did not write well in his teens and early twenties. I don't know if he was brilliant to begin with, but with the tutelaage he received, he certainly improved upon what he was given.
My statement "there is no way he could have come up with the Book of Mormon (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the JST, too) by himself" is not the ability or inability to write. It is in the content of those productions. The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time. I know statistics. There is always a one in some outrageous number possibility. And you can put 100 monkeys in a room with word processors, and one of them may type the entire collected works of Shakespeare. Yeah. Right.
charity wrote:Sorry I missed the It is in the content of those productions. The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time. I know statistics. There is always a one in some outrageous number possibility. And you can put 100 monkeys in a room with word processors, and one of them may type the entire collected works of Shakespeare. Yeah. Right.
I disagree wholeheartedly, but then you knew that. The Book of Mormon looks exactly like something a frontier-educated, Bible-reading young man would write. It dovetails quite nicely with contemporary folklore, politics, and religious ideas. In fact, the likelihood that the book could have been written between 600 bc and 421 AD is exponentially more remote than the simplest explanation: it was a product of that particular time and place, plain and simple.
The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time.
I don't have any confidence in your capacity to correctly determine what was "known at that time". You are just trusting what other people are telling you, just like you have done with mesoamerican warfare.
Could you provide a specific list of information in the Book of Mormon that can be demonstrated to have not been "known at that time"?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time.
I don't have any confidence in your capacity to correctly determine what was "known at that time". You are just trusting what other people are telling you, just like you have done with mesoamerican warfare.
Could you provide a specific list of information in the Book of Mormon that can be demonstrated to have not been "known at that time"?
charity wrote:Sorry I missed the It is in the content of those productions. The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time. I know statistics. There is always a one in some outrageous number possibility. And you can put 100 monkeys in a room with word processors, and one of them may type the entire collected works of Shakespeare. Yeah. Right.
I disagree wholeheartedly, but then you knew that. The Book of Mormon looks exactly like something a frontier-educated, Bible-reading young man would write. It dovetails quite nicely with contemporary folklore, politics, and religious ideas. In fact, the likelihood that the book could have been written between 600 bc and 421 AD is exponentially more remote than the simplest explanation: it was a product of that particular time and place, plain and simple.
The politics that you mention are not frontier American politics of the ealry 1800's. One man began to prepare a July 4th speech (for some kind of Church fireside) and thought he could make parallels with the Book of Mormon. And then when he began to study it he found that political systems in the Book of Mormon are not the American political system.
So you can take that arrow out ofyour quiver, runtu.
Jersey Girl wrote:charity, you act as though Joseph Smith was illiterate. Do you think he was? If so, why?
That seems to be part of the "there's no way he could have come up with it himself" story. I'm as baffled as you are as to why people think that.
Not that I have a dog in this fight but, I don't believe for a second that he came up with it himself. However, the evidence related to him having been illiterate is against that assumption. Unless someone has information that I haven't got. That's why I'm asking charity.
Sorry I missed the question earlier.
No, Joseph was not illiterate. He could read. He did read, although his mother stated he wasn't as given to reading and studying as some of his siblings, although he was given to deep thought.
He was uneducated and did not write well in his teens and early twenties. I don't know if he was brilliant to begin with, but with the tutelaage he received, he certainly improved upon what he was given.
My statement "there is no way he could have come up with the Book of Mormon (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the JST, too) by himself" is not the ability or inability to write. It is in the content of those productions. The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time. I know statistics. There is always a one in some outrageous number possibility. And you can put 100 monkeys in a room with word processors, and one of them may type the entire collected works of Shakespeare. Yeah. Right.
read my post on Joseph Smith and automatic writing . the Book of Mormon was nothing compared with what she did. Maybe she lived on holy ground when she was in missouri. She also could not have known the things that she dictated so does that make her a prophet. But she didn't say that she was a prophet and didn't claim to be a seer either. what he did has been done by others.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time.
I don't have any confidence in your capacity to correctly determine what was "known at that time". You are just trusting what other people are telling you, just like you have done with mesoamerican warfare.
Could you provide a specific list of information in the Book of Mormon that can be demonstrated to have not been "known at that time"?
Chiasmus. Nahom. "Land of Jerusalem." Mulek/Malchiyah. The Hebraisms in the original /printer's copies. The differences in the Isaiah texts. Stained swords. There are more.
In the Book of Moses there are all the Enochian discoveries.
In the Book of Abraham the stunning correspondences with the ancient Abrahamic literatures that is being discovered.
The content could not have been written in the 182-40 year period with information known at that time.
I don't have any confidence in your capacity to correctly determine what was "known at that time". You are just trusting what other people are telling you, just like you have done with mesoamerican warfare.
Could you provide a specific list of information in the Book of Mormon that can be demonstrated to have not been "known at that time"?
Chiasmus. Nahom. "Land of Jerusalem." Mulek/Malchiyah. The Hebraisms in the original /printer's copies. The differences in the Isaiah texts. Stained swords. There are more.
In the Book of Moses there are all the Enochian discoveries.
In the Book of Abraham the stunning correspondences with the ancient Abrahamic literatures that is being discovered.
Enough for a start?
what is the date of creation for the "ancient Abrahamic literatures" being discovered - were they created in 1200 AD in palestine or what ever the country was called at that time. what is that old saying that a clock is right two times a day.
Chiasmus. Nahom. "Land of Jerusalem." Mulek/Malchiyah. The Hebraisms in the original /printer's copies. The differences in the Isaiah texts. Stained swords. There are more.
You haven't demonstrated that these could not have been known. You're just making blanket assertions.
In fact, I already know some of these items on your list were possible to know during Joseph Smith' time period.