And there is no "loop counter with an escape to the least objectionable" belief for the hard core.
Not even a "fallthrough" escape? Just in case?
The only one I've ever heard--and I didn't hear it until I was in my 30s from one of my brothers, is: "Just lie." It took me a long time to wrap my mind around that.
I think that's the urban dictionary version of "a testimony grows in the bearing of it."
The only one I've ever heard--and I didn't hear it until I was in my 30s from one of my brothers, is: "Just lie." It took me a long time to wrap my mind around that.
I think that's the urban dictionary version of "a testimony grows in the bearing of it."
loop, case, fallthrough
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Limnor wrote:The situation occurs, and then Joseph “translates” it into the book with an ancient setting.
I think it was physics guy who called it a Roman a clef—that’s probably the literary term for my theory.
How consciously manipulative do you consider this to be? The alt hypothesis or "pious fraud" interpretation to me would be the tendency for writers to write about themselves. I would think a person lacking self-awareness in a big enough way to become a prophet would be especially vulnerable. He was a discovery author -- his ideas flowed based on what was happening with himself day-to-day in a action-packed life.
The plates explanation does seem to fit very well. I had never considered had he written it, what was he basing it on? I was never invested in Spaulding or view of the Hebrews. Not that I thought about it very often. People are influenced by things, sure. Your idea is sort of like its own tight translation theory.
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
Limnor wrote:The situation occurs, and then Joseph “translates” it into the book with an ancient setting.
I think it was physics guy who called it a Roman a clef—that’s probably the literary term for my theory.
How consciously manipulative do you consider this to be? The alt hypothesis or "pious fraud" interpretation to me would be the tendency for writers to write about themselves. I would think a person lacking self-awareness in a big enough way to become a prophet would be especially vulnerable. He was a discovery author -- his ideas flowed based on what was happening with himself day-to-day in a action-packed life.
The plates explanation does seem to fit very well. I had never considered had he written it, what was he basing it on? I was never invested in Spaulding or view of the Hebrews. Not that I thought about it very often. People are influenced by things, sure. Your idea is sort of like its own tight translation theory.
I don’t see it as pious fraud so much as alternate interpretation of events as they happen. If you’re steeped in biblical language and want to be a prophet, and see your life as part of a an unfolding revelation, it wouldn’t be strange to narrate events that way as they unfold. So the text becomes less invention and more “translation” into what you want your life to be. Toward the end his teachings about becoming gods, combined with his growing authority, start to look like a kind of self-deification. Self-delusion, maybe? And so, manipulative in a way that preserves his self view. I haven’t thought a great deal about his motives, though there are probably insights from the book that help shape them—the idea of Nephi preserving his family comes to mind.
I mean it takes a lot of hubris to insert yourself into the Bible, backwards prophesying about yourself:
JST Genesis 50:33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.
What I’m uncertain about is if it was Rigdon manipulating Joseph here or Joseph manipulating Rigdon…
It’s interesting that both 2 Nephi 3 and the JST insertion introduce a “choice seer” named Joseph, son of Joseph, who brings forth God’s word. In the timeline, 2 Nephi came first, and then the JST seems to insert that same idea back into Genesis.
So the question is, did Rigdon convince Joseph he was the seer that would bring forth the word, or did Joseph convince Rigdon? Maybe it was mutual?
I think "pious fraud" is redundant because frauds are typically narcissists, at the least, and always optimists. It collapses "lunatic" and "liar" into one category. I'm kind of going off of maybe three people I've been acquainted with who were "pathological liars" (though I don't think it is an official profile). The kind of person who could pass a lie detector test while telling you the moon is made of cheese and deeply personally invested in the idea, really trying to sell you on it.
If Nephi is the most faultless character in the book, then a good chance it resonates with him personally the most. What do you think the 116 pages were about?
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
I think "pious fraud" is redundant because frauds are typically narcissists, at the least, and always optimists. It collapses "lunatic" and "liar" into one category. I'm kind of going off of maybe three people I've been acquainted with who were "pathological liars" (though I don't think it is an official profile). The kind of person who could pass a lie detector test while telling you the moon is made of cheese and deeply personally invested in the idea, really trying to sell you on it.
If Nephi is the most faultless character in the book, then a good chance it resonates with him personally the most. What do you think the 116 pages were about?
I think the original 116 pages were actually written by Rigdon and “lost” on purpose. I think within the 116 pages it was Rigdon who was identified as the “choice seer” to come, but Joseph usurped him.
I mean it takes a lot of hubris to insert yourself into the Bible, backwards prophesying about yourself:
Yes: but, at the same time, you showed us those letters of people (slipping my mind who) some letters were being exchanged where these guys were speaking in biblical language or even from the Lord's perspective? It was pretty extreme. I was aware of the Late war and "Bible writing" in general, but refresh my memory on these letters you brought up.
anyway -- if people were doing that then it's not as extreme to put yourself into the Bible. To con people is significant ways at the same time may be another story.
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
I mean it takes a lot of hubris to insert yourself into the Bible, backwards prophesying about yourself:
Yes: but, at the same time, you showed us those letters of people (slipping my mind who) some letters were being exchanged where these guys were speaking in biblical language or even from the Lord's perspective? It was pretty extreme. I was aware of the Late war and "Bible writing" in general, but refresh my memory on these letters you brought up.
anyway -- if people were doing that then it's not as extreme to put yourself into the Bible. To con people is significant ways at the same time may be another story.
