Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_charity]

I think I have about exhausted my interest in this thread. I am sure there are still things to say and my leaving it is not reflection on what the future posts may be. Thanks for the discussion.

Did anything we said make an impression on you, and perhaps leave you a bit less inclined to present the case for the Book of Mormon as strongly as you did?

I'm curious because I've seen many past conversations like this, and as they evolved, the evidence that believers presented as so strong and persuasive turned out to be much weaker. Yet, later I would see those same believers present the same evidence all over again as if the former conversation had never taken place. This leaves me wondering if anything we say really is digested.

I took it all in. I have investigated the issues raised in much greater detail than was had on this board, and I heard nothing new. If there is anything new that you feel was not said that needs to be said, I will check back on this thread a little longer, but I don't expect that wil be so.

[_beastie]

I took it all in. I have investigated the issues raised in much greater detail than was had on this board, and I heard nothing new. If there is anything new that you feel was not said that needs to be said, I will check back on this thread a little longer, but I don't expect that wil be so.

You didn't answer my primary question - did any of this make you inclined to present your case a bit less strongly? I'm not asking if it makes you lose faith, but rather if it will make you more cautious in the future.

But, at any rate, in a way you did answer my question. You assert nothing was new here, so apparently all this information has been presented to you before, and yet you still presented your case as if it were powerful and strong.

In other words, I'm not sure what "taking it all in" means to you, but, from what I can see, it doesn't mean allowing the information to alter your positions at all - even when the information is good and reliable.

Just one example is your use of the FAIR article that relied on Sorenson's use of fallacious sources. This cannot be refuted. When I presented the case of Sorenson's fallacious sources on both Z and FAIR, no apologist refuted my information. Yet you still rely on a source that uses it.

[_Trevor]

The book won't get more correct with a more painstaking reading. That is what I don't understand about your request. If I read a statement "Dogs are really just larger, uglier cats," I am bound for form the conclusion the person knows enough about the subject to be persuasive. If they later give a really correct description of collie dogs, based on years of research on collie dogs, I really couldn't care less, because I am not interested in collie dogs. Another person, though, might find that section of the book valuable. Did I make my point?

I am sure it won't get more correct, but it could be that your understanding of it would. That is what careful reading is all about. Still, you have made your point. I guess I remain puzzled as to why we should take your word for the book being riddled with big problems, but I take your point that you are generally not interested in it or any possible merit it may have. It makes me wonder whether you were actually guided by your predisposition to disagree with the Spalding theory, and not your actual reading.

What it seems to me that you are saying is that because you do not believe the Spalding theory, it must be a bad book.

Thanks for the apology. I think your objections here are based on a difference of opinion on the subject, not on whether or not I poured over every word.

Actually, no. You approached the whole topic of this book as though it were just a bad book. You have provided no real reasons why other than your disagreement with the Spalding hypothesis. The funny thing is, I actually, like you, do not buy the Spalding hypothesis. And while it is true that I disagree with your facile dismissal of the book, I would actually quite respect that dismissal if you could give me some solid reasons, aside from your rejection of Spalding, for dismissing it.

So, in fact, you are exactly wrong about the basis of my objection. Still, I don't mean to offend. I am just pointing out where you have misread me.

[_charity]

I am sure it won't get more correct, but it could be that your understanding of it would. That is what careful reading is all about. Still, you have made your point. I guess I remain puzzled as to why we should take your word for the book being riddled with big problems, but I take your point that you are generally not interested in it or any possible merit it may have. It makes me wonder whether you were actually guided by your predisposition to disagree with the Spalding theory, and not your actual reading.

What it seems to me that you are saying is that because you do not believe the Spalding theory, it must be a bad book.

I didn't want to come back here, but must answer this. What I have been trying to say is that no amount of reading or rereading will make up for the basic fault of the work. These authors handled the very difficult field of human memory with almost no understanding of the way memory works. My field is psychology. Memory is one of the areas studied extensively in psychology, of course.

Pyschologists know quite a bit about memory. Memory is not perfect and unchangeable as is supposed. Memory is altered by subsequent experience. Memory is altered by discussion with others of the remembered event. The way in which C/D/V discuss the different statements about what people remembered about the Spaulding Manuscript(s) shows they do not know enough about memory to adequately evaluate those accounts. As such, their conclusions, based on their faulty interpretaitons are not credible.

If you care to discuss this in detail, you could start a new thread about this topic and I will be glad to participate. I will even provide references to the different scientific details we discuss, if you would like.

[_Trevor]

I didn't want to come back here, but must answer this. What I have been trying to say is that no amount of reading or rereading will make up for the basic fault of the work. These authors handled the very difficult field of human memory with almost no understanding of the way memory works. My field is psychology. Memory is one of the areas studied extensively in psychology, of course.

Pyschologists know quite a bit about memory. Memory is not perfect and unchangeable as is supposed. Memory is altered by subsequent experience. Memory is altered by discussion with others of the remembered event. The way in which C/D/V discuss the different statements about what people remembered about the Spaulding Manuscript(s) shows they do not know enough about memory to adequately evaluate those accounts. As such, their conclusions, based on their faulty interpretaitons are not credible.

If you care to discuss this in detail, you could start a new thread about this topic and I will be glad to participate. I will even provide references to the different scientific details we discuss, if you would like.

Holy cow! Eureka! I have struck gold!

Yes, that is a fundamental weakness of the work as a whole. Thanks, charity. I have to say I was beginning to wonder, but now I am satisfied. Your expertise in psychology comes in very handy here.

I respect your position on this. I am sure we could go into more detail on it, but, frankly, I am weary of this particular thread too. Maybe another time, and I look forward to learning more from you about it. I understand the basic gist, but I am pretty sure you have much to teach me.

[_beastie]

Am I misunderstanding this? Charity wouldn't even read the updated Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon due to its flaws, but is willing to rely on research that has demonstrably shown to be fallacious in her support of the Book of Mormon????

[_charity]

Am I misunderstanding this? Charity wouldn't even read the updated Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon due to its flaws, but is willing to rely on research that has demonstrably shown to be fallacious in her support of the Book of Mormon????

No you aren't to undestand anything of the sort. I gave my objections to the C/D/V effort. My support of the Book of Mormon isn't based on one little statement about metal in mesoAmerica.

This is why I got tired of this thread. People who don't read what I post, attribute things to me that I didn't say, and then try to read my mind. What a talented bunch you all think you are.

Goodbye on this topic.

[_mentalgymnast]

A. Joseph Smith, like most other literate people of his culture, grew up immersed in the Bible in a way modern Americans don’t grasp. The Bible was their primary form of literature and hence, entertainment. Children were often taught to read by memorizing sections of the Bible. Families read portions of the Bible to each other in the evening. Anyone so immersed in the Bible, when writing a text he means to sound scriptural, is going to naturally mimic the Biblical language and it won’t be difficult for him to do. in my opinion, this is a completely adequate explanation for something like chiasmus – even if no one had ever pointed out this Biblical style, it would be natural for someone immerse in the Bible to mimic it.
B. Joseph Smith, by his own admission, was in a religiously obsessed family who also participated in discussions and sermons about the Bible. Ancient Israel had been studied for hundreds of years by this point, and there were many educated traveling preachers who could have included elements in their preaching, which Joseph Smith could have been exposed to as well.

And, of course, there is no way to know for certain if Joseph Smith were the sole author of the Book of Mormon, anyway.

Chiasmus is only found sporadically throughout the Book of Mormon. This points towards intentionality of the writer. If little snippet chiasms were scattered throughout the whole book (JFK and Dr. Suess kinds of stuff as far as simplicity), I'd agree with you. Mimicry of Bible language would seem be the answer. But for it to show up intermittently and in some cases in such complexity seems to point towards intentionality and purposefulness of a writer. Ancient or modern. I choose ancient because of the other Hebraisms that are also contained within the text.

Simple mimicry. I think that's a stretch.

Chiasmus is one of the more powerful evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it. I've read arguments pro and con and I haven't been convinced by the skeptics that chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon is of the same nature/complexity as the rather random simple occurrences of simple chiasms that show up in some of Joseph Smith's other writings and in the D&C. Those I could chalk up to familiarity and experience with biblical phraseology and such.

Translation issues dealing with tight vs. loose translation and how transmission of ancient text and meaning would be impacted through those processes doesn't negate the fact that these chiasms are there.

The million dollar question is how did they get there.

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

Chiasmus is one of the more powerful evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it. I've read arguments pro and con and I haven't been convinced by the skeptics that chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon is of the same nature/complexity as the rather random simple occurrences of simple chiasms that show up in some of Joseph Smith's other writings and in the D&C. Those I could chalk up to familiarity and experience with biblical phraseology and such.

Translation issues dealing with tight vs. loose translation and how transmission of ancient text and meaning would be impacted through those processes doesn't negate the fact that these chiasms are there.

The million dollar question is how did they get there.

Regards,
MG

The problem with chiasmus is that it's not a specifically Hebraic or ancient literary device. It occurs in many languages at different points in history, including in the 19th century. It's not really a powerful evidence of anything except that the Book of Mormon unsurprisingly uses common literary devices, intentional or not.

[_beastie]

MG,

If chiasmus is one of the "more powerful" pieces of evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it, the Book of Mormon, in terms of ancient historicity, is in serious trouble. But you already knew that.

It is powerful to you because you powerfully need it to be.

Runtu is correct, the intentionality is irrelevant.

Book of Mormon apologetics is often based on wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. The loose translation theory eliminates the possibility of literary devices being used as evidence of the Book of Mormon' historicity. God telling Joseph Smith where to place words in sentences, phrases, or paragraphs, is a tight translation.