MsJack and the future of FARMS

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Aristotle Smith
_Emeritus
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _Aristotle Smith »

Sethbag wrote:Aristotle, would you mind giving a short synopsis of Maklelan's ideas, which you say the church won't be too happy with? I haven't paid enough attention to him to realize that he's got unorthodox ideas.


Sorry I never saw this one Sethbag.

The funny thing about maklelan's ideas are that they are pretty much mainstream for critical biblical scholarship. For example:

Documentary Hypothesis: mak supports at least some version of the Documentary Hypothesis. There are lots of versions of this, but they all are going to have two things in common. 1) The five books of Moses are the product of weaving together at least three (the standard theory has four) different texts that told the story of the early history of Israel and 2) The final weaving together of this stuff into five separate books took place no earlier than the Babylonian exile. Since Nephi and company left before this, it's odd that they steal scriptures from Laban containing "the five books of Moses" (1 Nephi 5:11) before they were five books.

3 Isaiahs: mak also supports multiple Isaiah authorship. This is a standard argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Nephi and others quote from 2 Isaiah, which is also written during the Babylonian captivity.

Textual Criticism: mak's specialty is text criticism. However I have noticed a tendency for Mormon apologists to avoid text critical analysis of the Mormon scripture, it just doesn't work out for them. The end result is always the same, text critical analysis shows that Mormon scripture was copied or draws heavily from texts that are later than the purported dates for Mormon scripture. If you want a highly technical, but well written, example of this:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10171

The problem for someone with a specialty in text criticism is that text criticism is as close as you can get to an exact science in biblical scholarship, there just isn't much room for BS and throwing sand in people's eyes. In short, if you want to go to war for LDS scripture, don't choose text criticism as your main weapon, but that's the weapon mak brings to the battle.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _Kishkumen »

Aristotle Smith wrote:Sorry I never saw this one Sethbag.

The funny thing about maklelan's ideas are that they are pretty much mainstream for critical biblical scholarship. For example:

Documentary Hypothesis: mak supports at least some version of the Documentary Hypothesis. There are lots of versions of this, but they all are going to have two things in common. 1) The five books of Moses are the product of weaving together at least three (the standard theory has four) different texts that told the story of the early history of Israel and 2) The final weaving together of this stuff into five separate books took place no earlier than the Babylonian exile. Since Nephi and company left before this, it's odd that they steal scriptures from Laban containing "the five books of Moses" (1 Nephi 5:11) before they were five books.

3 Isaiahs: mak also supports multiple Isaiah authorship. This is a standard argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Nephi and others quote from 2 Isaiah, which is also written during the Babylonian captivity.

Textual Criticism: mak's specialty is text criticism. However I have noticed a tendency for Mormon apologists to avoid text critical analysis of the Mormon scripture, it just doesn't work out for them. The end result is always the same, text critical analysis shows that Mormon scripture was copied or draws heavily from texts that are later than the purported dates for Mormon scripture. If you want a highly technical, but well written, example of this:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10171

The problem for someone with a specialty in text criticism is that text criticism is as close as you can get to an exact science in biblical scholarship, there just isn't much room for BS and throwing sand in people's eyes. In short, if you want to go to war for LDS scripture, don't choose text criticism as your main weapon, but that's the weapon mak brings to the battle.


Thanks for laying out this stuff for us, AS. We're lucky to have you around.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _DrW »

Kishkumen wrote:
Aristotle Smith wrote:Sorry I never saw this one Sethbag.

The funny thing about maklelan's ideas are that they are pretty much mainstream for critical biblical scholarship. For example:

Documentary Hypothesis: mak supports at least some version of the Documentary Hypothesis. There are lots of versions of this, but they all are going to have two things in common. 1) The five books of Moses are the product of weaving together at least three (the standard theory has four) different texts that told the story of the early history of Israel and 2) The final weaving together of this stuff into five separate books took place no earlier than the Babylonian exile. Since Nephi and company left before this, it's odd that they steal scriptures from Laban containing "the five books of Moses" (1 Nephi 5:11) before they were five books.

3 Isaiahs: mak also supports multiple Isaiah authorship. This is a standard argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Nephi and others quote from 2 Isaiah, which is also written during the Babylonian captivity.

Textual Criticism: mak's specialty is text criticism. However I have noticed a tendency for Mormon apologists to avoid text critical analysis of the Mormon scripture, it just doesn't work out for them. The end result is always the same, text critical analysis shows that Mormon scripture was copied or draws heavily from texts that are later than the purported dates for Mormon scripture. If you want a highly technical, but well written, example of this:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10171

The problem for someone with a specialty in text criticism is that text criticism is as close as you can get to an exact science in biblical scholarship, there just isn't much room for BS and throwing sand in people's eyes. In short, if you want to go to war for LDS scripture, don't choose text criticism as your main weapon, but that's the weapon mak brings to the battle.


Thanks for laying out this stuff for us, AS. We're lucky to have you around.


+1

Best short explanation I've seen. Want to lay this on a couple of TBM relatives who know the scriptures, and just needed the elevator pitch. This is it. Thanks.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _Sethbag »

Yes, thanks Aristotle for laying that out for us. Now I know what you mean. It's not that Mak has his own whacked-out version of Mormonism, like BCSpace for example, but rather that Mak's scholarly beliefs are too "mainstream" in ways where the mainstream scholarly approach isn't kind to Mormonism.

Reminds me of David Wright, and look where that got him.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

for what it's worth, one of my main informants told me that it is precisely this Documentary Hypothesis / Deutero-Isaiah stuff that the Mopologists are most worried about. They were apparently trying to formulate some apologetic in response to it prior to getting booted out of the Maxwell Institute. I have to admit: I'd be really impressed if this new Interpreter were to publish articles dealing in an honest way with the problems that are posed by this sort of scholarship.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Valentinus
_Emeritus
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:44 am

Re: MsJack and the future of FARMS

Post by _Valentinus »

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:And they suck at it!


Parker and Stone are having a much bigger impact on Mormonism's image these days.


I like what Sandra had to say:

Matt Stone and Trey Parker

I have never met these people and I have no idea why I was asked to write a piece on them. Yes, I watch South Park, and am offended each and every time. Yes, I watch their movies, and am offended each and every time. And yes, I went and saw The Book of Mormon on Broadway, and was so offended I peed my pants twice...maybe three times. I lost count I was so offended. And yes, I find myself saying, ''HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS?'' each and every time another innocent sect, ­person, pop icon, religion, actor, or social movement is offended.

And let me be clear, I am in no way ­writing this piece to suck up to them in order to prevent any future episodes of South Park from ripping me a new one. Because I know that it's coming...and it's going to be brutal!


Maybe that is why so many of us, myself included, find ourselves going back for more each and every time Matt and Trey create something new. Because no matter how much we cover our faces in horror, we always leave just a few fingers parted so we can be entertained by Matt and Trey's brilliantly offensive style. And all that ''offensiveness'' is pointing a finger at us. Because none of us are innocent, and we all could use a little humble pie from these clowns. —Sandra Bullock
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt
Post Reply