Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Shulem]

I have read the Book of Mormon. What I see you doing is word studies, which is fine groundwork but does not evince an understanding of the whole.

Word studies are a serious part of my overall studies. That increases the overall effect and understanding which is something you don't get. But I've done far more than just that; I have Book of Mormon threads on this board that demonstrate a working knowledge of the Book of Mormon and Smith's motives for what he said.

And you really should be honest with yourself.

I am 100% honest with myself. I don't lie to myself or others. All I care about is the honest to goodness truth.

Your hyperpbolically negative and obviously prejudiced language and assumptions give you away as someone who is most definitely coming from a place of hatred, anger, and spite, not accuracy and scholarship.

That is irrelevant. My scholarship is what counts. Adding material up in a reasonable and logical manner is what matters. Assumptions presented are always backed with something to show for it.

Accuracy and scholarship are the words you throw around in reaction to the flaws you see in the apologetic work you despise.

I expect accuracy and scholarship in my own work as well as that of the apologists. From you it seems I only get abstract doubletalk while you avoid the concrete facts. That seems to be the way you do things. Explain things away with dreamy ideas and abstract thoughts that have little bearing on the mechanics of what is actually happening.

[Shulem]

What I see you doing is word studies, which is fine groundwork but does not evince an understanding of the whole.

[Chap]

We should stop dwelling on the fact or fiction question, regardless of what the church or Joseph Smith says or said about it, and go beyond that issue, trying to get at the spirituality of the text? It is obviously fiction and so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater? There is worth in a work of fiction that was sold and is being sold to the public as actually having happened?

Those are not trivial questions.

One reason why I have kept coming back to this board is the (to me) astonishing fact that for generations of Mormons, people have claimed that the central questions of human life could be answered with reference to a text that created by a man who (unless he was in a strange bifurcated mental state) must have known that he was just making up out of his own head, despite the fact that he was presenting it to others as a genuine ancient text translated with the help of the deity in which his potential readers believed.

Oh yes, and the man in question, once he had produced the text, seems hardly ever to have cited it in his subsequent preaching, and even taught doctrine (on polygamy for example) flatly contradicted by the book he had in fact authored.

It seems that people just take whatever religion their parents brought them up in, and pour into it all that is best in themselves, and sometimes what is worst. Whether the religion is refined, subtle and gifted with core texts that are wonders of poetry and power, or just something made up to get money, power and sex in early 19th century upstate New York is neither here nor there. For someone like me who comes from a religious background that has all the good stuff one could wish for by way of cultural and intellectual trappings, that is a humbling experience. My belief was in no way validated by all that stuff. I could just as well have been brought up believing in .... well



and it would have meant just as much to me.

[Shulem]

I think I've made all the points I care to make with this f-ing thread. I've tried to stay on target and stick with the OP the best I can in showing how the apologists don't have a leg to stand on.

IF you want to understand the Book of Mormon which Smith created you have to get into his mindset and approach it from the point of view that he was a liar, cheat, thief, and all those other nasty things we know about him. You CANNOT comprehend and understand the Book of Mormon and the motives behind it by reading it from a faithful point of view.

Approach the Book of Mormon as if you are going to join Joseph in an adventure of stealing and lying. Take that ride with him and suddenly things start to make sense from a whole new perspective. You have to think like a crook and a liar! Only then can you really understand the Book of Mormon and what Smith was doing. And, as I said earlier, it was all about making money for the family.

[Dr Exiled]

We should stop dwelling on the fact or fiction question, regardless of what the church or Joseph Smith says or said about it, and go beyond that issue, trying to get at the spirituality of the text? It is obviously fiction and so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater? There is worth in a work of fiction that was sold and is being sold to the public as actually having happened?

Those are not trivial questions.

One reason why I have kept coming back to this board is the (to me) astonishing fact that for generations of Mormons, people have claimed that the central questions of human life could be answered with reference to a text that created by a man who (unless he was in a strange bifurcated mental state) must have known that he was just making up out of his own head, despite the fact that he was presenting it to others as a genuine ancient text translated with the help of the deity in which his potential readers believed.

Oh yes, and the man in question, once he had produced the text, seems hardly ever to have cited it in his subsequent preaching, and even taught doctrine (on polygamy for example) flatly contradicted by the book he had in fact authored.

It seems that people just take whatever religion their parents brought them up in, and pour into it all that is best in themselves, and sometimes what is worst. Whether the religion is refined, subtle and gifted with core texts that are wonders of poetry and power, or just something made up to get money, power and sex in early 19th century upstate New York is neither here nor there. For someone like me who comes from a religious background that has all the good stuff one could wish for by way of cultural and intellectual trappings, that is a humbling experience. My belief was in no way validated by all that stuff. I could just as well have been brought up believing in .... well



and it would have meant just as much to me.

Yes, I come at this from your point of view, of asking why did I follow this for a time, feel incredibly guilty when I rejected it for a time, then go back to the mire so to speak? I'm glad I started to really dig deep and find out why I was so uncomfortable when I was following the nonsense. The question about Mormonism and other cults and cult-like religions should be discussed as a psychological phenomenon and not just merely a historical one. I keep going back to the psychological experiments of Festinger and Milgram. People will say and do anything in order to avoid dealing with the truth, that they were lied to or that their views are wrong. Also, people will blindly follow authority.

[Dr Exiled]

We should stop dwelling on the fact or fiction question, regardless of what the church or Joseph Smith says or said about it, and go beyond that issue, trying to get at the spirituality of the text? It is obviously fiction and so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater? There is worth in a work of fiction that was sold and is being sold to the public as actually having happened?

I think Kish is gaslighting. He's confusing and evasive. I can't follow him, can you?

Yeah, I'd like to see where he is coming from. My last comment was trying to spit back at him where I think he is going with his push back on the fantasy Book of Mormon text. His response wasn't helpful. He says he had a spiritual experience with the text. I did too. He then says it is obviously a 19th century invention and so does he think it is inspired fiction that should be revered religiously? If so, just say so. I don't agree with that but I guess one can get inspiration from anywhere. I have a magic penny that might just have the secrets of the universe or not. Who knows?

[drumdude]

I understand Kish to be frustrated at the amount of dogpiling on the Book of Mormon here, as well as the fact that we're all repeating the same criticisms of the Book of Mormon that have been made online for almost two decades now.

To that, all I can say is that not everyone has been exposed to criticism of the Book of Mormon for as long as Kish has. It's still worth discussing and guiding new people to the evidence. And there are still new and important discussions to be had about it.

[Shulem]

I understand Kish to be frustrated at the amount of dogpiling on the Book of Mormon here, as well as the fact that we're all repeating the same criticisms of the Book of Mormon that have been made online for almost two decades now.

To that, all I can say is that not everyone has been exposed to criticism of the Book of Mormon for as long as Kish has. It's still worth discussing and guiding new people to the evidence. And there are still new and important discussions to be had about it.

I think it's immoral to defend Joseph Smith (or not condemn his actions) when knowing he was lying in order to make money and usurp power over others. It was a big con game and there is no justification for it. Smith's lying and debauchery cannot be justified for any reason.

[dantana]

With Mormon god being in essence, of an advanced alien race, any magic god uses is actually just sophisticated technology. For purposed known only to god, he doesn't want to use extreme magic and just pick up Lehi and co and put them down in the promised land via one of his starship transporters. He uses instead minor magic and communicates ship plans to Nephi via mental telepathy.

This all seems reasonable. But, how could he transfer to Nephi actual tactile skills? As a builder and a sailor, I once tried to build a 45' sailboat. It's not like building a house. It's not even like building a piano. (I've heard) The technique was to be 'cold mold', epoxy and wood laid over a mold. I got the mold built but ran into great difficulty finding the outside expertise and knowledge to lay down the keel, a most important component.

I gave up and just bought one.

[malkie]

...
Mentioning Nephi's metalworking difficulties does serve the purpose that is called, at least in one school of criticism, "lampshading". That's when an author tries to excuse an obvious plot difficulty by drawing attention to it, in an effort to reassure the reader that the story isn't just stupid. Lampshading doesn't need to do more than point out the issue; merely pointing out the issue rather than actually dealing with it is what lampshading is. I can't think of any other narrative purpose that is served in this passage by merely mentioning these metalworking issues, as Nephi does, as opposed to either skipping over them blithely or giving a more interesting account of how they were handled.

But perhaps I'm just arguing from poverty of imagination. What other purposes could be served by the mentioning that Nephi gives these issues, without the further treatment that he does not give them?

Perhaps that kind of lampshade would fit well on gas lights

I was familiar with the concept, but had never come across the term.

Thanks for another little bit of trivia to steal (pun not intended) mental space from something more important but (to the guardian of my mental storeroom) less interesting.