Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with any of that apologetic rubbish.
I wouldn't either. Every time I look it's just a runaround of self referential articles with misleading footnotes and very little legitimate input.
I did have a thought about Smith's inclusion of volcano-like destruction-- his family moved from Vermont along with many others, in response to the Year without a Summer, caused by Mount Tambora's eruption. The world wide effects of this event were felt and probably talked about endlessly by everyone in Smith's circle. It would be no surprise to see tales of similar destruction and massive impact show up in his story-telling.
How is anyone supposed to take the story or tale of Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon to a scribe or two or three seriously? It’s his story, like any other story, that was told as a matter of convenience or deception or flim flammery. Joseph Smith bamboozled credulous people with stories all the time, whether it was about slippery treasuries or angels with swords. The highly curated Brighamite sect’s narrative of the Book of Mormon’s production has fallen apart as the Internet has allowed people to research and collaborate with regard to Joseph Smith’s claims, and it turns out Mormons have been lying through their teeth even before they knew they were Mormons. We see this with MG continuing to spout the same old tired lies and distortions that have been addressed dozens of times over. So, we’re left to understand he doesn’t read, or he’s deliberately dishonest. Personally it’s a “porque no los dos?” situation for me.
Whatever the case may be, all Joseph Smith did was take narratives from a few sources, created his cersion of a Risk board in his mind, and then hung the story on it. There’s literally no there, there.
But, really, it’s no different than GoT and Westeros. There are the First Men, and then later the Andals. GoT is a fantastical tale of religion and battles, all hung on a map of the British Isles (and a touch of Spain) that were tweaked, rotated, flipped, and smooshed so GRRM could create a novel. GRRM borrowed heavily from history, Lord of the Rings, and other sources to create his grand narrative.
Joseph Smith literally did the same borrowing from the Bible, the Late War, View of the Hebrews, and some other sources and combined it with a fertile imagination to write a novel, of which the copyright he failed to sell; all hung on the delmarva peninsula, and perhaps moving around a bit as the story demanded, culminating at the Hill Cumorah in NY. So, he monetized it with a new tale, establishing a church, and sold it with the vigor of a proto-televangelist lusting after a Gulf Wing and a 12,000 sq ft mansion. This is on full display as he continued to add complexity to his church with Masonic rites, ‘continuing revelation’, and sexual rituals. He created a new world where men could become Kings, and lowly Americans could create dynasties.
He sold a story, and we’re left with modern-day larpers carrying the water for a hundred-billion dollar corporation doing the same. Telling tales and taking money for it.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
It's funny that you should bring this up, mentalgymnast. None of your "volcanism and/or earthquake" links addresses the three days of darkness in which a fire could not be lit, but folks could still breathe.
For your benefit let me repost one of the links that you may have failed to read all the way through.
Check out the first two narrative extracts. (Santorini, Paupa New Guinea) Go on to read about whirlwinds. Dry wood. Read the Book of Mormon account. Find the matches between the Book of Mormon and the list on page 143. Keep reading.
Don’t stop.
Joseph Smith got a lot of ‘hits’ for not having an expert knowledge of volcanology.
Not bad for having his head in a hat and making stuff up, right?
Regards,
MG
Don't blame Joseph. You're the one making stuff up. If it's there, quote it.
My challenge again: None of your "volcanism and/or earthquake" links addresses the three days of darkness in which a fire could not be lit, but folks could still breathe.
From MG's link to a paper that he, himself, has not read:
...problems with ascribing the destruction described in 3 Nephi to a major tectonic earthquake include (1) the three days of darkness—this phenomenon has never been reported in association with a large earthquake; (2) the winds and tempests—although it may be windy during an earthquake, just as it may be windy at any other time, no correlation between wind and earthquakes has been demonstrated, even though one of the old, now-abandoned theories of earthquake production was the idea that wind was trapped in the earth and released during an earthquake;54 (3) whirlwinds—I know of no report of a whirlwind or tornado caused by an earthquake; and (4) the inability to light a fire—which, again, has never been reported as an effect of a major earthquake. Nephi’s description of the whole face of the land being changed is also not typical of an earthquake. Although the devastation can be enormous during an earthquake, most landmarks survive and are recognizable. On the other hand, a major volcanic eruption often produces scenes so strange and unnatural that it seems as if the landscape has been remade.
The author of MG's paper make this assertion, but has nothing to back it up:
Some accounts even record that fires cannot be lit or can only be started with great difficulty. The following are a representative cross section of the numerous records that describe the darkness associated with explosive volcanic eruptions.
Everything he actually quotes or talks about says a fire was eventually lit, or that the gases preventing a fire also kills people.
Saying it has "no explanatory value" is a polite way of saying this is nonsense from an academic standpoint. There is no possibility and no evidence that Joseph Smith had Delmarva in mind when composing the Book of Mormon. In fact, there's every evidence that he did not, as I've explained concisely above. In all of the blather about this non-scholarly fantasy, nothing has been said that rises to the level of consideration. Is Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe or any other legitimate scholar of the Book of Mormon persuaded by long, irrelevant discourse? Of course not. It's not worth them even commenting. I've commented, which was obviously a mistake.
What do you mean by “explanatory value”? ...
That's the kind of worry you have, and the kind of excuse that you make, when (a) you're pretty sure your travel times aren't going to be off by, like, a factor of ten, and (b) you have a fear, at least in the back of your mind, that somebody in your audience might be able to catch a mistake on your part, because they might actually know the land that you have in mind.
I have no worries in my mind. Saying it has "no explanatory value" is a polite way of saying this is nonsense from an academic standpoint. There is no possibility and no evidence that Joseph Smith had Delmarva in mind when composing the Book of Mormon. In fact, there's every evidence that he did not, as I've explained concisely above. In all of the blather about this non-scholarly fantasy, nothing has been said that rises to the level of consideration. Is Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe persuaded by long, irrelevant discourse? Of course not. It's not worth them even commenting. I've commented, which was obviously a mistake.
I'm fine and at ease that Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, and you, will not be participating in my Delmarva thread. I really don't need that distraction. I have bigger fish to fry.
There is no possibility and no evidence that Joseph Smith had Delmarva in mind when composing the Book of Mormon. In fact, there's every evidence that he did not, as I've explained concisely above.
If the idea is impossible then it hardly matters whether or not there is evidence for it. Do you really mean "no possibility?" I repeat that I'm no expert on this subject, but that sounds an awfully strong claim to me.
I would have thought that the biggest problem with the whole idea that Smith might have had a real geographical model for the Book of Mormon would be that it was too vague a hypothesis to have any definite implications, since once you allow that Smith might have been vague or mistaken or inconsistent in his use of his model, the hypothesis might be consistent with anything. For a hypothesis, that's the opposite problem to the problem of being impossible. I find it hard to see how the Delmarva hypothesis is outright impossible. How the heck?
Unlike Tolkien and Martin, Smith was trying to pass off his story as real ancient history, so he had an obvious motive for making sure it could have had a real geographical model. He made a point of giving a few more specific geographical statements than he would have needed to give just to reel off the story. I quite agree that he lacked both motive and opportunity for producing a detailed fit with anywhere in particular. And I don't imagine that his real-world geographical model would have been all that important for his composition process; he probably focused on coming up with sermons for his characters to recite, and feats for them to perform, and didn't think about the shape of their coastline very much. But the notion that he had in mind some particular region as a rough guide for his setting, some place not too far from his home, seems quite plausible. I certainly don't see how one can rule it out.
From MG's link to a paper that he, himself, has not read:
...problems with ascribing the destruction described in 3 Nephi to a major tectonic earthquake include (1) the three days of darkness—this phenomenon has never been reported in association with a large earthquake; (2) the winds and tempests—although it may be windy during an earthquake, just as it may be windy at any other time, no correlation between wind and earthquakes has been demonstrated, even though one of the old, now-abandoned theories of earthquake production was the idea that wind was trapped in the earth and released during an earthquake;54 (3) whirlwinds—I know of no report of a whirlwind or tornado caused by an earthquake; and (4) the inability to light a fire—which, again, has never been reported as an effect of a major earthquake. Nephi’s description of the whole face of the land being changed is also not typical of an earthquake. Although the devastation can be enormous during an earthquake, most landmarks survive and are recognizable. On the other hand, a major volcanic eruption often produces scenes so strange and unnatural that it seems as if the landscape has been remade.
MG, you are disingenuous at best.
You are correct in saying that I did not read every link that was posted in the list of footnotes that I linked to. But I DID read the paper that I asked you to read in its entirety. Apparently you didn’t. In that paper the points that this author supposedly brings up are mentioned and explained. Apparently one author MAY disagree with another? Although it’s hard to know since you’re ripping your words out of context.
Go back and follow my instructions lazy bones.
Come back when you’ve actually read it. By the way, it wouldn’t hurt to show where your quote/information came from so that one might look at it contextually. Taking things out of context seems to be a problem, at times, around here.
