Sethbag wrote:Great answer to my little apologetic argument, Don! I 100% agree with you. I didn't believe that apologetic line, but I did think that some apologist might use it. After reading your response, perhaps they'll think twice.
I totally agree that the Isaiah stuff in the Book of Mormon looks manmade in the sense that a man put it in there, and tinkered with it, and so forth, and not with any Divine help in doing so. It certainly doesn't look like anything Nephi could reasonably have read on Brass Plates which he obtained from Laban before leaving Jerusalem in around 600ish BC and subsequently included in the Book of Mormon.
Well, all will be solved when we die. It will certianily be a nice ride of expectation and conclusions. :=)
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:
Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??
Uhhhhhh, WhyMe? No one said he memorized these quotations while looking in a hat. And it doesn't really matter whether he was looking in a hat or not; what matters is that he was quoting material that was avaiable to him but would not have been available to ancient Nephites....
The white hat is just a red herring.
Don
Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
And what do you think was inside it? An Encyclopedia Brittanica? A talking salamander? A crystal ball?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
why me wrote:To listen to the critics on this thread, it is quite amazing that the book wasn't laughed at from the very beginning and received so many converts. My gosh, just how stupid were people at that time that they didn't see the similiarities? I mean, to read this thread, I suddenly get the impression that the whole Book of Mormon is a plagary. And yet, at the time of Joseph Smith, more and more converts were baptized.
But I still can't figure out why they didn't see the forgery right off the bat during Joseph Smith's time. My gosh, people must have been stupid then!
Or they received a satisfactory answer from Joseph Smith or from Emma and whomever was around at that time. To assume that such questions didn't come up and were answered would be a stretch.
Yes, because scientology, the moonies and other crackpot BS similar in behavior to the Mormons is SO IRRATIONAL that their membership is suffering. It isn't.
Ignoramus.
yes you are absolutely right, the moonies are very similiar to the Mormons. And tom cruise does look like a Mormon. I think that you are barking up the wrong tree with your comparisons. But it was a good try. And it still doesn't explain just how complicated the Mormon story is. There are no simple answers to that time period when the Book of Mormon was coming forth.
We need to remember that Joseph Smith needed a host of co-workers to pull it off, plus more visitations from heaven. Quite remarkable, really and quite a bit of luck in his selection, unless of course, it is true...as the Joseph Smith history states.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:
Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??
Uhhhhhh, WhyMe? No one said he memorized these quotations while looking in a hat. And it doesn't really matter whether he was looking in a hat or not; what matters is that he was quoting material that was avaiable to him but would not have been available to ancient Nephites....
The white hat is just a red herring.
Don
Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
And what do you think was inside it? An Encyclopedia Brittanica? A talking salamander? A crystal ball?
I don't know what was inside it...I suppose seer stones. But as you know, the critics love the hat story when it works for them, such as on south park. And yet, here I am supporting the hat theory and receiving flak. I expected more support from the critic crowd.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:
Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??
Uhhhhhh, WhyMe? No one said he memorized these quotations while looking in a hat. And it doesn't really matter whether he was looking in a hat or not; what matters is that he was quoting material that was avaiable to him but would not have been available to ancient Nephites....
The white hat is just a red herring.
Don
Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
And what do you think was inside it? An Encyclopedia Brittanica? A talking salamander? A crystal ball?
I don't know what was inside it...I suppose a seer stones. But as you know, the critics love the hat story when it works for them, such as on south park. And yet, here I am supporting the hat theory and receiving flak. I expected more support from the critic crowd.
How do you really think Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon?
I'd say most former LDS are aware of the claim that Joseph put his face into a hat; it's not a concept generally well known by the rank and file in the church, well at least not until Russell Nelson mentioned it.
I don't think anyone's giving you flak for believing in the fact that Joseph put his face in a hat, as there are others here who believe that's possible. What happened once he did is what's at issue.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:
Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??
Uhhhhhh, WhyMe? No one said he memorized these quotations while looking in a hat. And it doesn't really matter whether he was looking in a hat or not; what matters is that he was quoting material that was avaiable to him but would not have been available to ancient Nephites....
The white hat is just a red herring.
Don
Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
Hey WhyMe...
??
I'm not questioning that Joseph Smith usually dictated while looking at the seerstone in his hat. I also "like" it--if only because it's what the historical evidence overwhelmingly indicates.
But what I was saying above is that no one claims Joseph Smith memorized New Testament phrases while looking in the hat. That's when he dictated them. He'd have had plenty of chance to learn them before that. But whether he dictated them from the hat or not, they are still anachronistic for ancient Hebrews who left the Old World in 600 BC. The hat is simply irrelevant to that matter.
Also, while I share your rejection of the Spalding theory, playing critical theories off one another to discredit them doesn't work any more than does playing apologetic theories off one another. Apologetic theories on the Book of Abraham are a dime a dozen, and generally mutually exclusive. But it is their individual merits, not their contradiction of one another, that determines their value.
I'm sorry to disllusion you. I don't find the list of "could have been", "maybe it was" etc at all persuasive. This could appear impressive to people not used to scholarly language, but it falls short of the mark.
Oh Charity, I wish you could see how hypocritical this is. How many times have mopologists said "could have been," or "maybe it was" in reference to the lack of scientific archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Consistency please!
Not to the extent that the critics have. The woulda, coulda and shoulda are a critic speciality especially with hypothetical illustrations. On your postmo board, the people seem to be engaged in such terminology all the time, mind you, under disguise as fact.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
The Catholic with the Joseph Smith avatar wrote:Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
There are just as many accounts of the so called witnesses as to the method Joseph used as the critics have to speculate about. I am glad you like the hat trick.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
I'm sorry to disllusion you. I don't find the list of "could have been", "maybe it was" etc at all persuasive. This could appear impressive to people not used to scholarly language, but it falls short of the mark.
Oh Charity, I wish you could see how hypocritical this is. How many times have mopologists said "could have been," or "maybe it was" in reference to the lack of scientific archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Consistency please!
Not to the extent that the critics have. The woulda, coulda and shoulda are a critic speciality especially with hypothetical illustrations. On your postmo board, the people seem to be engaged in such terminology all the time, mind you, under disguise as fact.
why me, do you think Ouija boards have supernatural powers? If so, what do you think is the source of those supernatural powers?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:
Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??
Uhhhhhh, WhyMe? No one said he memorized these quotations while looking in a hat. And it doesn't really matter whether he was looking in a hat or not; what matters is that he was quoting material that was avaiable to him but would not have been available to ancient Nephites....
The white hat is just a red herring.
Don
Oh but some critics do claim the hat translation as does Emma. You see, a critic needs to get his or her story straight because a critic has many different interpretations of the Joseph Smith story. For example, the uncle daleites claim that sidney wrote it. It that were the case then Sidney was copying from the Bible. Now other critics have Joseph Smith writing it and then translating it from a hat through a steady stream of consciousness. And others have Joseph Smith just writing it through the use of many souces, and then hiding behind a curtain and translating the book with manuscript in hand.
Which is it? I am sure that there is even more critics interpretations out there. They all can't be right. Fact: when people begin to speculate, the speculations can get out of control and prey on one another.
I still like the hat.
Hey WhyMe...
??
I'm not questioning that Joseph Smith usually dictated while looking at the seerstone in his hat. I also "like" it--if only because it's what the historical evidence overwhelmingly indicates.
But what I was saying above is that no one claims Joseph Smith memorized New Testament phrases while looking in the hat. That's when he dictated them. He'd have had plenty of chance to learn them before that. But whether he dictated them from the hat or not, they are still anachronistic for ancient Hebrews who left the Old World in 600 BC. The hat is simply irrelevant to that matter.
Also, while I share your rejection of the Spalding theory, playing critical theories off one another to discredit them doesn't work any more than does playing apologetic theories off one another. Apologetic theories on the Book of Abraham are a dime a dozen, and generally mutually exclusive. But it is their individual merits, not their contradiction of one another, that determines their value.
Don
I can see your point. But as you may know, the critic writes all interpretations as facts when actually they are speculations. And as I have pointed out previously on a postmo board, all the theories about the Book of Mormon cannot be right and so, critics need to choose their story and go with it. There is no evidence to support that Joseph Smith dictated the Bible references. I have not seen no scribe say so and his wife does not seem to say so either. And so, what we do have is speculation.
You see, Don, I can not believe that Joseph Smith wrote that book. As emma said, he could not put coherent words together and he was quite ignorant in writing.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith