Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Trevor]

I have said here or on another thread, I do not claim to represent the Church, BYU, FAIR, or anyone else but myself. I can read and evaluate information.

That's super, charity, and if I had actually made such a claim, I would be relieved to hear it. What I said was that you claim to represent the LDS position! If you believe you are actually representing the evangelical, Community of Christ, skeptic, or atheist position, we need to have a chat.

What I read of the Cowdry/Davis/Vannick book, they are sloppy researchers and under the best of interpretations, gullible historians. They don't look at inconsistencies, and they don't even try to reconsile conflicting accounts. Some of the conflicting accounts aren't mentioned. Which doesn't say much for their research. From what I have read of their work, it looks as though they are as rabid as Hurlburt. He wanted so badly to discredit the Book of Mormon he was driven even to fabricating evidence. I don't say that they fabricate anything. But it looks like they parked their discriminating abilities in the garage when they went to work.

Well, charity, pardon me if I am completely unimpressed with the results of your skimming. You admit that you were skimming, and then accuse them of being sloppy. Did you really come to this conclusion yourself, by skimming the book, or should I go look at Roper's review to see whether or not you are parroting his conclusions?

As for your contention that they are as rabid as Hurlbut-- this is utterly laughable. Obviously you didn't read very closely, or you have a very difficult time judging the tone of the authors' prose. Are they very committed to their position? Are they criticial of the traditional LDS defenses against the Spalding theory? Are they even obsessive? I would say yes to all of the above, but I don't see their book as libelous or dripping with hatred.

Finally, sloppy is different from being biased, selective, etc. They may be guilty of the latter, but they are trying to build their case, not yours, and theirs involved painstaking research to locate new evidence, which succeeded in providing a real basis for arguing Rigdon's early presence in Pittsburgh and the existence of a second Spalding manuscript. These are real achievements. So, even if they have stretched too far in their conclusions, and even if they are wrong about Spalding and the Book of Mormon, they have done some valuable research, which all Mormon historians should be grateful for.

Uncle Dale has reasons behind his position. He has word print studies, which I think are overdrawn, but they are real. And he isn't just trying to grasp at straws to bolster his position. I respect Uncle Dale.

Guess who wrote the introduction to the C/D/V book? Uncle Dale doesn't agree with all of their conclusions, but he respects what these guys achieved. I would say that even a Mormon apologist ought to be able to muster that. You guys seem often to be incapable of respecting what is of value in a book that draws conclusions unfavorable to your faith position. This is, of course, because you are not interested in real inquiry so much as protecting what you believe.

I don't have a problem with this, except when you start in on other researchers for being "sloppy," even though your methdological blind spots are so huge you could drive a truck through them.

I think many of us LDS apologists draw a line between "critics" and "anti-Mormons." A person can question doctrine, history, people, and not be trying to tear them down and destroy them. That is the difference. There can be dialogue between people on different sides of an issue. There really can't be dialogue between yourself and someone trying to kill you, literally or figuratively.

And there is yet another category that is consistently elided by you and other apologists--the non-believing scholar. Uncle Dale, I believe, has earned that description in spades. I have watched him on FAIR and MA&D for years. He is a non-believer who is pursuing a hypothesis through careful research. He deserves neither the name anti-Mormon nor even critic. He wishes you well in your belief. He simply disagrees with your historical vision of the birth of Mormonism. You and others are so locked in your persecution mode that any scholar who disagrees with the Mormon party line must at the very least be a 'critic,' which is, in Mormon-speak, a loaded and denigrating term. One can be a non-believing scholar who simply reaches different conclusions with the evidence.

[_Trevor]

There is a letter written by Oliver Cowdery which described the text as containing the red and black markings. The red ones are called rubrics.

OK, but my question was about a missing papyrus of great length. It seems to me that Gee went looking for a long papyrus because of Nibley's reference to the memory of Joseph F. Smith. A reference to red rubrics may refer to another text (although I think it refers to one of the existing texts), but that says nothing about the length of it.

You don't know what I know about the Spaulding theory, so you can't really afford to be that condescending..

Really? I mean, since you haven't familiarized yourself with one of the most important pieces of recent research, and one that brings forth new evidence, how can you say that you are current with the issue? Your arguments would not adequately address the current state of the research. I think Shades has also pointed to another lapse on your part in this very thread. I have seen nothing about your characterization of the Spalding issue that would engender respect for your expertise on the subject. And yet you say I can't afford to be condescending? Perhaps not, but I can safely say, as I was, that you are not very well versed in the Spalding issue.

[_charity]

I am curious what Charity thinks of these quotes.

I think angels are real. I would have to know, by a witness of the spirit, what these angels really did. I haven't been interested enough to go to the work of getting a spiritual witness about these events. I don't know about other LDS, but I am not on a good enough footing with God to expect He will just throw me answers to idle questions. I have to study, ponder, pray, figure it out in my mind and then ask for confirmation from the Spirit. That takes a while. I generally save such a process for something that makes a difference in my life or the lives of my children.

[_Mercury]

I find your arrogance pertaining to what constitutes evidence to be pathetic. You have a lack of skepticism to something that is an obvious fraud and no skepticism towards someone who was a convicted confidence gamer.

I know everything about what you percieve as "spiritual matters". You know nothing of me but let me drop you a little hint. I am an RM, I was a member for 25 years until I finally decided to stop lying to myself and I posess more skepticism in my thumb than you do in your whole body.

True. We are message board entities. My entity implements skepticism and study in employing rational thought to discern truth. Your entity is a carbon copy of every other mountebank, a brainwashed tool who's purpose in life is to deny the more rational path and follow foolishly chasing after invisible dragons. Step outside your comfort zone and realize that your opinion is not supported by the evidence we both have.

Shall we try to Trump each other? I have served a mission. I have been an adult member for 47 years. I have a master's degree in psychology. I wrote a master's thesis using a scientific study and statistical analyis. Maybe this statement will help you a little. Although he may not have said it first, Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants." I just see further than you do. But you can climb on the shoulders of giants and enjoy the view, too. It really is a good view from up here.

Isaac Newton also believed that by reading the Bible he could discern alchemical secrets. But that's irrelevant to the discussion and your pissing contest extolling your irrelevant academic history is equally irrelevant. So lets get back on track, shall we douche?

Let me break it down for you: EVERY academic opinion outside of those who have a religious "duty" to support Mormonism categorically finds Mormon assertions to be baseless. There is no archaeological evidence. There is as much Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as there is in a Dr Seuss book. I guess Dr Seuss was practicing Hebrew writing forms in an attempt to...aww f*ck who cares.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that is furthered by apologists that can't be explained as straining at gnats, reaching and pethetic conclusions and wannabe intellectuals mixing religious truthiness with laughable "scholarship".

So far you have given us nothing but whiny useless statements along the lines of "Oh YAH?!?! IS TOO!!".

Use that education you state you have and apply objectivity to the evidence. And don't run home to your "spiritual validation" mommy when you can't back your sh*t up.

(Moderator Note---Merc...babe...I beg of you..please...keep the language "Terrestral". Thanks, my friend! Liz)

Mr. Merc, I'm sure that your fluent use of profanity is used for a reason/purpose? To give the impression of rational thought? If your frequent use of potty mouth language is any indication of the potential fruits of apostasy...I'll pass. Also, if your use of profanity is any indication of the health status of the human mind...you're a sicko.

I'm assuming Charity is a woman. How can you use such ugly forms of profanity to her face?

Shame on you.

Regards,
MG

Hey assclown, the dump on merc bandwagon for language left town about 60 posts ago. Sorry you are late to the party.

[_charity]

My responses in bold.

What I read of the Cowdry/Davis/Vannick book, they are sloppy researchers and under the best of interpretations, gullible historians. They don't look at inconsistencies, and they don't even try to reconsile conflicting accounts. Some of the conflicting accounts aren't mentioned. Which doesn't say much for their research. From what I have read of their work, it looks as though they are as rabid as Hurlburt. He wanted so badly to discredit the Book of Mormon he was driven even to fabricating evidence. I don't say that they fabricate anything. But it looks like they parked their discriminating abilities in the garage when they went to work.

Well, charity, pardon me if I am completely unimpressed with the results of your skimming. You admit that you were skimming, and then accuse them of being sloppy. Did you really come to this conclusion yourself, by skimming the book, or should I go look at Roper's review to see whether or not you are parroting his conclusions?

Trevor, I don't know about you, but I don't expect when I open the covers of a book that every word there is accurate, truthful or valuable. I don't have a lot of time for idle reading, and when I am reading along, and suddenly there is some kind of major flaw, inaccuracy, whatever, I don't take a long time to decide I can better spend my time elsewhere. I suppose the biggest problem I had approaching this book with an objective eye, is that I have actually read "Manuscript Story."

It is pretty hard to get past that. Did you like the part about how if you cleaned up the Indian women they might make decent wives?

As for your contention that they are as rabid as Hurlbut-- this is utterly laughable. Obviously you didn't read very closely, or you have a very difficult time judging the tone of the authors' prose. Are they very committed to their position? Are they criticial of the traditional LDS defenses against the Spalding theory? Are they even obsessive? I would say yes to all of the above, but I don't see their book as libelous or dripping with hatred.

Finally, sloppy is different from being biased, selective, etc. They may be guilty of the latter, but they are trying to build their case, not yours, and theirs involved painstaking research to locate new evidence, which succeeded in providing a real basis for arguing Rigdon's early presence in Pittsburgh and the existence of a second Spalding manuscript. These are real achievements. So, even if they have stretched too far in their conclusions, and even if they are wrong about Spalding and the Book of Mormon, they have done some valuable research, which all Mormon historians should be grateful for.

You can call it selective and biased, if you want. I suppose it depends on your projection of their motives. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Sloppy is one thing, deliberately leaving out information that doesn't agree with your position, or would even negate your position, is heading toward the dishonest side of the coin. I didn't want to make that charge against them.

Uncle Dale has reasons behind his position. He has word print studies, which I think are overdrawn, but they are real. And he isn't just trying to grasp at straws to bolster his position. I respect Uncle Dale.

Guess who wrote the introduction to the C/D/V book? Uncle Dale doesn't agree with all of their conclusions, but he respects what these guys achieved. I would say that even a Mormon apologist ought to be able to muster that. You guys seem often to be incapable of respecting what is of value in a book that draws conclusions unfavorable to your faith position. This is, of course, because you are not interested in real inquiry so much as protecting what you believe.

If there are tidbits here and there of value regarding history, I will leave that to the historians. I am not one of them. But as to trying to prize out a little good here and there, from what I am doing, it is like picking out the pieces of ground glass out of your mashed potatoes. It isn't worth the effort. Toss them, and get a new bowl of mashed potatoes that isn't so contaminated.

I don't have a problem with this, except when you start in on other researchers for being "sloppy," even though your methdological blind spots are so huge you could drive a truck through them.

Where have I even described my methodologies to you?

I think many of us LDS apologists draw a line between "critics" and "anti-Mormons." A person can question doctrine, history, people, and not be trying to tear them down and destroy them. That is the difference. There can be dialogue between people on different sides of an issue. There really can't be dialogue between yourself and someone trying to kill you, literally or figuratively.

And there is yet another category that is consistently elided by you and other apologists--the non-believing scholar. Uncle Dale, I believe, has earned that description in spades. I have watched him on FAIR and MA&D for years. He is a non-believer who is pursuing a hypothesis through careful research. He deserves neither the name anti-Mormon nor even critic. He wishes you well in your belief. He simply disagrees with your historical vision of the birth of Mormonism. You and others are so locked in your persecution mode that any scholar who disagrees with the Mormon party line must at the very least be a 'critic,' which is, in Mormon-speak, a loaded and denigrating term. One can be a non-believing scholar who simply reaches different conclusions with the evidence.

I am thinking about this. I don't agree that critic is a loaded and denigrating term. I can understand non-believing scholars. Thanks for that.

[Guest]

Trevor, I don't know about you, but I don't expect when I open the covers of a book that every word there is accurate, truthful or valuable. I don't have a lot of time for idle reading, and when I am reading along, and suddenly there is some kind of major flaw, inaccuracy, whatever, I don't take a long time to decide I can better spend my time elsewhere. I suppose the biggest problem I had approaching this book with an objective eye, is that I have actually read "Manuscript Story."

OK, charity, fair enough, but you are defending Mormonism. If you go into an argument with outdated weapons, you are doing a poor job. Scholars read arguments thoroughly for what is valuable, sifting out those things that are not. An author may have a completely awful thesis and still have valuable ideas and evidence. The apologetic practice seems to be to reject something entirely, even when there is good stuff to be found therein. You are consistent with that practice, but I would submit that you and others do an incomplete and in adequate job, when you act as you did here. "Oh, gee, I don't agree with that. I will put this book down because it is worthless."

It is pretty hard to get past that. Did you like the part about how if you cleaned up the Indian women they might make decent wives?

Well, charity, I have read the Manuscript, but it has been a while. I'll admit that it sounds about as offensive and silly as Native Americans being turned brown because of a "curse," and turning white again when they repent. And the idea that you should achieve this by whitening process by marrying them, or at least adopting them out to white families where they can learn to be white.

You can call it selective and biased, if you want. I suppose it depends on your projection of their motives. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Sloppy is one thing, deliberately leaving out information that doesn't agree with your position, or would even negate your position, is heading toward the dishonest side of the coin. I didn't want to make that charge against them.

We are all prone to some selectivity and bias. To say that we are not is disingenuous or ignorant. As for motives, so what? Should we discount everything you say simply because we know you are a partisan supporter of the LDS cause? I think it is better to see what kinds of arguments you make, how you use evidence, etc.

If you want to show me examples of these egregious errors that you found when you read the text, I would be happy to discuss them with you.

Uncle Dale has reasons behind his position. He has word print studies, which I think are overdrawn, but they are real. And he isn't just trying to grasp at straws to bolster his position. I respect Uncle Dale.

If there are tidbits here and there of value regarding history, I will leave that to the historians. I am not one of them. But as to trying to prize out a little good here and there, from what I am doing, it is like picking out the pieces of ground glass out of your mashed potatoes. It isn't worth the effort. Toss them, and get a new bowl of mashed potatoes that isn't so contaminated.

Well, charity, you may not be a great scholar, but you are an amateur historian inasmuch as you engage in historical discussions with other historians all the time. Just because you don't get payment for it does not relieve you of the responsibility of backing up your arguments with evidence, or taking note when the evidence has grown or changed in some way. Scholars do pick out ground glass from mashed potatoes because often those are the only potatoes they have. Better than starving. And we are, after all, dealing with some real old potatoes here. I would hardly expect them to be fresh and hot from mom's kitchen.

Where have I even described my methodologies to you?

Just because you do not describe them in detail does not mean you do not inadvertently drop hints about your methods all of the time. You have shown, without denial, that you put a lot of stock in FARMS reviews of books you have not read thoroughly yourself. You have explained how you are not interested in learning all of the evidence when it takes a lot of effort to do so. You privilege your spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon over the facts...

Do I need to continue?

I am thinking about this. I don't agree that critic is a loaded and denigrating term. I can understand non-believing scholars. Thanks for that.[/b]

Well, when your ecclesiastical leaders use it, they are not intending it to be a compliment. Hence the use of "so-called" with critic more than once. Every term has its own history of use in a particular community. If you do a search with the word "critic" in the Gospel Library at LDS.org, I think you will see how the term is generally treated by your leaders. I further think that you are implicitly using it in a loaded and denigrating way as part of a community that habitually treats it like this.

edited to fix quote

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The Book of Mormon stands as a witness of a person who lived in history, but is considered by many to be something less than what he purportedly claimed himself to be. Many members of the church today act as witnesses of this person because of a spiritual witness/impressions received while reading this book.

Are you talking about Joseph Smith?

[_charity]

Reply to Trevor:

Maybe we ought to define what we are doing here. This is not a scholarly setting. I am not researching anything on my own. I rely on reading what others have done in their research in fields not my own. If you want to talk about learned helplessness, I can tell you a lot about that from my own research. But that isn't what we are discussing here. I doubt you have done any original research on you own about most, or even any, of the topics you discuss here.

When I said I didn't make any effort to learn about some thing, I was talking about obtaining a spiritual witness. If you read that part, you are ignoring it to prove your own point.

[_Trevor]

Maybe we ought to define what we are doing here. This is not a scholarly setting. I am not researching anything on my own. I rely on reading what others have done in their research in fields not my own. If you want to talk about learned helplessness, I can tell you a lot about that from my own research. But that isn't what we are discussing here. I doubt you have done any original research on you own about most, or even any, of the topics you discuss here.

I think it applies to your apologetics as well as scholarship. Knowing the evidence is simply important. If you do not know the evidence, then you will be caught in possession of only some of the facts. You refer to my own original research? Actually, I have done much of my own research, but no I have not written up and published any of it... yet. But, what I am talking about is knowing the evidence, and actually reading a book from cover to cover before you trash it.

When I said I didn't make any effort to learn about some thing, I was talking about obtaining a spiritual witness. If you read that part, you are ignoring it to prove your own point.

No, charity, I am talking about how you admitted that you left reading an entire book to the "historians."

[_charity]

I think it applies to your apologetics as well as scholarship. Knowing the evidence is simply important. If you do not know the evidence, then you will be caught in possession of only some of the facts. You refer to my own original research? Actually, I have done much of my own research, but no I have not written up and published any of it... yet. But, what I am talking about is knowing the evidence, and actually reading a book from cover to cover before you trash it.

Knowing the facts is pretty important. Knowing what falsehoods are out there that masquerade as facts is useful only to know what other people are saying. If you were to start reading a history of George Washington, say, and one of the first sentences you read was that he was born in England and learned the carpenter's trade, what would your opinion be of the rest of the volume? I would think if I were trying to learn something about George Washington, I would put that book down and pick up a more accurate work. I wouldn't want to waste my time on something that had inaccuracies of that magnitude. Even if now and again, there was some nicely accurate fact. I really can't believe you would just plow on through a book you knew from the start was not accurate.

When I said I didn't make any effort to learn about some thing, I was talking about obtaining a spiritual witness. If you read that part, you are ignoring it to prove your own point.

No, charity, I am talking about how you admitted that you left reading an entire book to the "historians."

Why wouldn't I? I am not a historian. Let the experts deal with the little bits and pieces from their expertise and experience. You make a virute sound like a vice. I didn't read an entire book. Shock. Horror. I often skim novels, too. I guess that puts me in literary purgatory.