Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

That Bayes article is horse crap. He's pulling random probabilities out of his ass. It's no different than saying I think there's a 60% chance Book of Mormon depends on LW...just because.

I admit that I neither know where he is getting his initial figures nor why the only possibility worth exploring is the deliberate and physical influence on the Book of Mormon, which suggests that Joseph Smith has this book in hand as he is writing the book. It looks to me like he has rhetorically identified the apologists' worst case scenario, made up a number, and then proceeded from there. There are so many factors that are not taken into consideration, so many possibilities, that I don't know where to start.

[_Kishkumen]

Hmm, I see that the Reverend is going into 'disagree with me persistently and I shall go into meltdown and start swearing' mode.

Chap, cut the crap. I am not buying your sudden ascent to the lofty ground of the enlightened sage. If you want to take a piss, take a piss, but don't imagine that the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out, or that somehow we are blinded by our own arrogance to react naïvely to whatever games you are playing.

My point is simply and solely this. We are agreed (aren't we?) that scriptural status is conferred on a text simply by the fact that a given community regards it as having that status. The status describes a relationship between a text and a community, not a property inherent in the text. For members of the community who have been fully socialized into it (usually as children), the text becomes a vehicle for all the most important non-rational elements of their lives. For non-members the text may well seem (at best) mildly ridiculous.

In raising the example of Cat in the Hat, you suggest that the reason for investing in a text to confer scriptural status upon it is utterly arbitrary. I don't accept that, and I await the brilliant argument that shows this is the case. "Look! I made up a cute story about a cat! Now let me go find some stupid people to believe in this!"

Now we are getting the "How dare you disagree with me. I am a COLLEGE PROFESSOR, and you are not" mode, plus the attribution of attitudes and expressions to me that are not mine. In the first place, I don't do in real life, so the Reverend has no way of knowing whether I am a destitute crack whore typing on a computer in a public library with the help of a literate client whom I reward later with extra free tricks, or even (O summit of power, prestige and felicity!) a college professor.

Yeah, and I don't really care. Because I still find your perspective on this to be stupid. And I am not too coy to admit it. You could be a Nobel Prize winning scientist. I don't care for Richard Dawkins' views on religion, and I think yours are generally on par with that level of arrogance and shallowness.

So, you see, I am not pulling rank because I am, contrary to your assumption, smart enough to know that I have no idea whether I really would be pulling rank or not. I am simply being honest, and I am sharing a fact that is generally well known on this board. I genuinely care about the things I claim to care about, and I am honest about the fact that I care about them. And this is why I disagree with you, not because I assume that referring to my profession will elicit hushed tones of reverence, especially from you.

In the second place, I said that the beliefs of TBMs were false. I did not call them stupid. Some TBMs seem to be quite highly educated and intelligent people (even college professors), as are, for instance, some Catholics or Muslims who believe whole-heartedly in a fully dogmatic form of their religion. I just think they are wrong.

I also do not see any obvious reason why the Reverend's system of belief, whatever it may be, has to be regarded as in some way superior to theirs or more interesting. That seems to annoy the Reverend a lot. But I can live with that.

Now we see what pulling rank is all about. The serene heights of Chap's wisdom.

Ave!

("I never said they were stupid, but I consistently imply that they are. Let no one think they can pin it on me, though."~Chap)

I am glad you have had some fun in the thread, Chap. I know when I am being trolled, and I still think you are a dick for doing it.

"Whatever it may be." Ha!

Or, in your case, whatever it may not be, because that is the way you really get the rhetorical upper hand these days.

[_honorentheos]

That Bayes article is horse****. He's pulling random probabilities out of his ass. It's no different than saying I think there's a 60% chance Book of Mormon depends on LW...just because.

I admit that I neither know where he is getting his initial figures nor why the only possibility worth exploring is the deliberate and physical influence on the Book of Mormon, which suggests that Joseph Smith has this book in hand as he is writing the book. It looks to me like he has rhetorically identified the apologists' worst case scenario, made up a number, and then proceeded from there. There are so many factors that are not taken into consideration, so many possibilities, that I don't know where to start.

Hi Kish,

Along the lines of what you say above, I'm not sure why it makes that much difference whether or not the Late War directly influenced the Book of Mormon author or not. What seems clear is that the Late War was influenced by the KJV of the Bible. And that it includes turns of phrase that had previously been cited by apologists as evidence for Hebrew influence in the Book of Mormon that would not have been accessible to Joseph Smith.

It seems to be so obvious that it's not stated that both books were influenced overwhelmingly by the Bible. As I understand it, this influence was so great the Johnsons excluded it from their study. So the Book of Mormon may not be influenced by the Late War directly? Big deal. It still points to 19th century influence on the Book of Mormon and explains in a parsimonious way the supposed tight translation easter eggs that faithful apologists saw as evidence Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon himself without God's or an angel's direct involvement in the process.

[_Kishkumen]

Along the lines of what you say above, I'm not sure why it makes that much difference whether or not the Late War directly influenced the Book of Mormon author or not. What seems clear is that the Late War was influenced by the KJV of the Bible. And that it includes turns of phrase that had previously been cited by apologists as evidence for Hebrew influence in the Book of Mormon that would not have been accessible to Joseph Smith.

It seems to be so obvious that it's not stated that both books were influenced overwhelmingly by the Bible. As I understand it, this influence was so great the Johnsons excluded it from their study. So the Book of Mormon may not be influenced by the Late War directly? Big deal. It still points to 19th century influence on the Book of Mormon and explains in a parsimonious way the supposed tight translation easter eggs that faithful apologists saw as evidence Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon himself without God's or an angel's direct involvement in the process.

The apologetic response is more of a tactical and rhetorical one, is it not? As I said before, this is catastrophe management, or triage. Whatever looks most threatening in the short term, rhetorically speaking, is the thing that gets the attention. I say something about math; some guy is brought out to do a math article. Of course, the math I was hoping for was something that would account for all kinds of variables that were not even considered, but now they can say, "Bruce ran the math on that; it's all taken care of."

If I can brush aside Chap's perpetual desire to throw the New Atheist wrench into every conversation, I would say that, for those who have an interest in cultivating belief (not Chap, granted), some broader view has to be adopted because what you say is exactly correct. But don't the apologists know this already? Am I mistaken, or is this not about creating the impression that the question was answered, even though any kind of real understanding of the issue has been set aside as a goal?

Thank for bringing this back to earth. The proposed Hebraisms of the Book of Mormon seem dead in the water. Now we await the apologetic response to this brush fire.

[_Chap]

My point is simply and solely this. We are agreed (aren't we?) that scriptural status is conferred on a text simply by the fact that a given community regards it as having that status. The status describes a relationship between a text and a community, not a property inherent in the text. For members of the community who have been fully socialized into it (usually as children), the text becomes a vehicle for all the most important non-rational elements of their lives. For non-members the text may well seem (at best) mildly ridiculous.

The Reverend was evidently socialized into Mormon society through upbringing. Even though he does not (I suspect) believe the Book of Mormon to describe actual events in the lives of real people who existed on the American continent, it still has powerful and positive associations for him. I was socialized into a version of mainstream Christianity in which the King James translation of the Bible was central to belief and practice. I now disbelieve in that religion, and when I look at its scriptures I find large parts to be pernicious and morally repellent. Yet, in spite of myself the old associations of uncritical reverence can still kick in unexpectedly. I was not, however, socialized to regard the Book of Mormon with reverence, and when I read it, it strikes me as a clear pastiche of the KJV with defective grammar and all kinds of 19th century religious, philosophical and political ideas stuck all over it in a fashion that I find quite irritating. But however obvious a fraud it seems to me, I accept that its relation to the Mormon community is that of a scriptural text.

As for my 'Cat in the Hat' example: it was meant as a challenge. The Reverend and myself are agreed that scriptural status is conferred in the context of the relation of a text to a community. Neither of us can apparently think of any objective quality that has to be possessed by the text in itself in order to make such a relation possible. If the Reverend can think of one, he could use it to show why no community could ever regard 'The Cat in the Hat' as scripture.

In raising the example of Cat in the Hat, you suggest that the reason for investing in a text to confer scriptural status upon it is utterly arbitrary. I don't accept that, and I await the brilliant argument that shows this is the case. "Look! I made up a cute story about a cat! Now let me go find some stupid people to believe in this!"

Nope. I am saying that if there is an objective criterion to decide whether or not a text is capable of having scriptural authority conferred on it by some faith community or other, I don't know what it is. The Reverend is sure that 'The Cat in the Hat' is excluded, and the Book of Mormon is not. So he has a criterion of potential scripturality, or at least the beginning of one. I'd like to know what it is.

I am certainly an atheist; no problem with that. But that just tells you what I don't believe; it commits me to no other positions. I decline to be counted as an adherent of any self-conscious group or movement, new or old, merely because I decline giving my assent to any propositions involving the assumption that any deity can be said to exist. But I do recognize that labels are always a convenient rhetorical resource for some people.

[_Uncle Ed]

...but Joseph was soon running the show and prophesied that it would swallow up all other banks.
...
...Jared Carter ... fell out of favor in 1838 when he questioned Sidney Rigdon in Joseph's presence, eliciting from the prophet quick demotion and an outraged threat to cut Carter's throat. (Absolute obedience to the First Presidency on pain of death was the main principle of the Danite order.)

Are these equal assertions of what Joseph Smith said? Because the first one is debunked easily as Parrish's lie....

[_CaliforniaKid]

If by "easily debunked as Parrish's lie" you mean "it's possible to speculate that Parrish was lying," then sure. Wilford Woodruff confirmed that Joseph had received revelation about the bank (though not the specifics), and the prophecy reported by Parrish is certainly proportional to the reaction when the bank failed. Half the apostles apostatized, Heber C. Kimball said there were not twenty people left who thought Joseph was a prophet, and Brigham Young staved off a crisis of faith only by rejecting all doubt on principle. The prophecy is also perfectly consistent with Joseph's grandiose notions of himself and the kingdom he was building. But sure, it's possible that Parrish was lying. The stuff about Jared Carter comes from Reed Peck. So much of his history can be corroborated from other sources that in my historical work I treat him as generally credible. But it's always possible that he was lying too. I can see why a believer who, like Brigham Young, rejects all doubt on principle might assume that these men (and William Law, and Sampson Avard, and John C. Bennett, and Joseph Jackson, and countless other apostate members of Joseph's inner circle) were all liars.

But then one has to ask: why were so many of the bosom friends of the Lord's anointed such liars?

[_Equality]

If by "easily debunked as Parrish's lie" you mean "it's possible to speculate that Parrish was lying," then sure. Wilford Woodruff confirmed that Joseph had received revelation about the bank (though not the specifics), and the prophecy reported by Parrish is certainly proportional to the reaction when the bank failed. Half the apostles apostatized, Heber C. Kimball said there were not twenty people left who thought Joseph was a prophet, and Brigham Young staved off a crisis of faith only by rejecting all doubt on principle. The prophecy is also perfectly consistent with Joseph's grandiose notions of himself and the kingdom he was building. But sure, it's possible that Parrish was lying. The stuff about Jared Carter comes from Reed Peck. So much of his history can be corroborated from other sources that in my historical work I treat him as generally credible. But it's always possible that he was lying too. I can see why a believer who, like Brigham Young, rejects all doubt on principle might assume that these men (and William Law, and Sampson Avard, and John C. Bennett, and Joseph Jackson, and countless other apostate members of Joseph's inner circle) were all liars.

But then one has to ask: why were so many of the bosom friends of the Lord's anointed such liars?

This, plus the fact that Joseph Smith and others in his inner circle conspired to make Parrish one of the scapegoats for the bank. They followed the same pattern they followed for Martha Brotherton and Sarah Pratt and anyone else who dared to question Joseph Smith's absolute authority: they smeared them and started rumors about them and worked in concert to call into question their credibility. And Mormon dupes to this day still fall for it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Some goes for the Nauvoo dissenters, like Foster, Higbee, Jackson, and the Laws. They came out against Joseph, and almost immediately he was denouncing them as counterfeiters, liars, and blackguards and giving specific examples of all their crimes. Well, they may really have been guilty of some of those crimes, but he didn't find those things out overnight. He already knew those things while these men were in his inner circle. As long as he was confident of their personal loyalty, he didn't care. In fact, some of those crimes were probably performed in his service. Joseph seems to have sought out a certain kind of criminal personality (like John C. Bennett and Joseph Jackson) because he found such people useful.

[_Kishkumen]

Some goes for the Nauvoo dissenters, like Foster, Higbee, Jackson, and the Laws. They came out against Joseph, and almost immediately he was denouncing them as counterfeiters, liars, and blackguards and giving specific examples of all their crimes. Well, they may really have been guilty of some of those crimes, but he didn't find those things out overnight. He already knew those things while these men were in his inner circle. As long as he was confident of their personal loyalty, he didn't care. In fact, some of those crimes were probably performed in his service. Joseph seems to have sought out a certain kind of criminal personality (like John C. Bennett and Joseph Jackson) because he found such people useful.

Yup!

I really don't like Joseph Smith very much.