Gadianton wrote:So a little more on Everybody Wang Chung's freemen. I'm anticipating the "textual layer" problem as I understand the apologist mindset very well. So, the "Late War" clearly is not only mimicking the style of the Bible, but wresting it into tropes that tell the story of the revolution in terms of transparent heroes and villains. Hunt finds the obvious parallels but makes them more than they are in his exploitation. In the Bible, recall in 1 Samuel that the people desired a king. The obvious counter to the "Late War" theory is that the Bible is a common source for both books. As Paxton said, why do we need the "Late War" when we have the Bible? This works for both skeptics like Paxton and apologists who believe that the Lord operates in "types" and that we'd expect the Book of Mormon to recast familiar themes from the Bible just as the New Testament recasts material from the Old Testament.
In the Bible story of Israel desiring a king, the people in general wanted a king to be like other nations. Samuel prays to the Lord, the Lord explains why it's a bad idea, but the people are persistent, and so the Lord eventually gives them what they want. For Hunt, the Old Testament is recast into a story of political factions where evil men use flattery to deceive good people opportunistically, in a plot to take away liberty and many are deceived. What's striking is that the Book of Mormon borrows this recasting to the letter.
I mean, this is unreal. No wonder Skousen gained such a following. The Book of Mormon is the story of the revolution told with exaggerated piety.
This is not the only possible source of revolutionary/war themes. Tom Donofrio covers this issue at some length:
Shulem wrote: You base your belief first and the evidence that challenges it second. That is very unscientific and illogical.
Yup. Funny everyone from the outside can see how obvious it is Joseph was making it up as well as many on the inside. That should tell one something about there level of bias.
Equality wrote:"Polished steel" does not appear in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was smart enough to know that ancient Americans did not have the ability to smelt steel, so he never would have made the mistake of putting steel into the Book of Mormon. :-)
But "polished shaft" appears in 1 Nephi 21:2.
Ah...I stand corrected!
2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
Well I'll be jiggered, it really does say polished shaft!
This is one Joseph (or Sidney) nicked from Isaiah!
I thought it was interesting that we have a description "Upon the borders of the great sea called the Mediterranean (p. 225). The ideas of borders of the sea is Book of Mormon. Is it biblical though? On p. 206 we read of a "sore battle" of five "barges." So we have sea going vessels called "barges" here. This is how sea worthy vessels are described in Ether. We also have "freemen" mentioned on p. 209.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
sock puppet wrote:How many Google hits from the period of 600 BC to 424 AD (other than in-the-tank Mormon sites)?
Wasn't "curious workmanship" used to describe Caesar's siege works at Alesia in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico?
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Conceptually speaking, on p. 130 we see the one side who was losing a battle very badly telling the winning side that they wanted to make peace, so they offer to make a covenant with them and give them "an inheritance", which was a great part of their land, which they had inherited from their fathers. Was it Nibley who made a rather big deal about the idea of ancient covenants during war that gave us authenticity in the Book of Mormon because that was how anciently they settled scores?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
I just saw a discussion of this on a Facebook friend's wall. It looks like the immediate Mormontologist response to it is to argue that the source book is most likely a Mark Hofmann forgery because it was first microfiched in 1985, the same year many Hofmann forgeries were microfiched buy libraries. I am not making this up. That's the "faithful" argument: Mark Hofmann created forgeries that people thought had uncanny resemblances to the Book of Mormon, so this book with uncanny references is most likely a forgery.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:I just saw a discussion of this on a Facebook friend's wall. It looks like the immediate Mormontologist response to it is to argue that the source book is most likely a Mark Hofmann forgery because it was first microfiched in 1985, the same year many Hofmann forgeries were microfiched buy libraries. I am not making this up. That's the "faithful" argument: Mark Hofmann created forgeries that people thought had uncanny resemblances to the Book of Mormon, so this book with uncanny references is most likely a forgery.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Again, I am speaking conceptually, many ideas, and how they are written in this book just sound so Book of Mormonish to me. "Now there was much hard fighting on the borders, for the nations were wroth against one another, and many were slain by the sword." (p. 92)
Another Book of Mormon theme conceptually is found on pg. 93 - "But when they came nigh unto the place early in the morning of the next day, lo! they were encompassed round about by the savages and soldiers of the king. Nevertheless they fought bravely for a time..."
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Equality wrote:I just saw a discussion of this on a Facebook friend's wall. It looks like the immediate Mormontologist response to it is to argue that the source book is most likely a Mark Hofmann forgery because it was first microfiched in 1985, the same year many Hofmann forgeries were microfiched buy libraries. I am not making this up. That's the "faithful" argument: Mark Hofmann created forgeries that people thought had uncanny resemblances to the Book of Mormon, so this book with uncanny references is most likely a forgery.
