Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[MG 2.0]

Sadly for mentalgymnasts of all ages, that's not how this discussion board works. Dr. Seuss can be freely mentioned, and even venerated.

Joseph Smith imitated a style he was familiar with. He wasn't quite as entertaining or as skilled as Dr. Suess, however, and any assertions that he was translating ancient hebraisms into equivalent English structures is laughable.

I’m wondering how the transition from Hebrew to reformed Egyptian would work. Maybe Welch covers this, I don’t know.

It’s also been argued that Joseph interpreted his religious experiences through his knowledge of the Bible and his cultural environment Why couldn't the same thing explain Hebraisms?

I don't know one way or the other whether you have read any of Welch's books/essays. I might suggest that you look at Alma 36...Mosiah 5:10-12...Helaman6:7-13 for examples of intricate structural chiasmus.

The Book of Mormon has many Construct States (nouns followed descriptive nouns) plates of brass, altar of stones, etc.

The Book of Mormon has Cognate Accusatives (verb accompanied by a cognate noun derived from the same root) he dreamed a dream, with great desire I have desired, etc.

The Book of Mormon has Hebraic Conjunctions and Syntax (frequent repetition of the narrative connector) and it came to pass

Yes, Joseph was familiar with the Bible. The question would be whether or not he was able, on the fly, to use Hebraistic structures throughout the narrative as he did.

Sources:
https://www.ldsliving.com/what-is-chias ... al%20focus.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evi ... %20century.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/preserved-translati ... a.%2029.14)%20%E2%80%9CBecause%20the%20Book%20of%20Mormon,stones%2C%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%9Cplates%20of%20brass%2C%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%9Cmist%20of%20darkness.%E2%80%9D

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/why-are-t ... 0seriously.

Laughable? Maybe not.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Laughable? Maybe not.

I don’t know about laughable, but certainly a bit overbaked. I’m not sure you realize it, but you are stringing together a lot of assumptions here: that Joseph had ancient plates, that he could translate them, and that the alternative requires him to have composed everything “on the fly.”

Parsimony favors the much simpler explanation that Joseph was familiar with speech patterns of the KJV.

Have you explored any of the scholarly critiques of Welch’s work?

[MG 2.0]

Laughable? Maybe not.

I don’t know about laughable, but certainly a bit overbaked. I’m not sure you realize it, but you are stringing together a lot of assumptions here: that Joseph had ancient plates, that he could translate them, and that the alternative requires him to have composed everything “on the fly.”

Parsimony favors the much simpler explanation that Joseph was familiar with speech patterns of the KJV.

The Hebraistic structures that were mentioned in my previous post are empirical evidence of an ancient source for the Book of Mormon. These features validated the translation process...plates and all. You might ask whether an uneducated 19th century farm boy could have invented the complex Hebraistic structures that were integrated into the narrative that was literally given on the fly.

In my opinion it seems as though you are simply brushing off the work that John Welch has done. It is easy to do on a board such as this where quick responses are par for the course and in depth discussion and 'proofs' are not the norm. I would expect that you would show how the different examples I have given are simple 'throw aways'.

Are you treating this too lightly? I realize it doesn't go along with your Joseph and Co. in the Book of Mormon story/narrative. Or does it?

Regards,
Mg

[Limnor]

Are you treating this too lightly? I realize it doesn't go along with your Joseph and Co. in the Book of Mormon story/narrative. Or does it?

Actually, Alma 36 would fit rather comfortably into my “Joseph and Co.” hypothesis.

Why do you keep insisting that an uneducated farm boy had to compose all of this spontaneously, “on the fly”?

Oliver Cowdery was an educated schoolteacher, Joseph’s scribe, and a capable writer as seen in his other writings.

You’ll recall I’ve made the assessment that Oliver “is” Alma. Why should I assume ancient Hebrew authorship when there’s a plausible 19th century candidate sitting right across from Joseph?

[MG 2.0]

Are you treating this too lightly? I realize it doesn't go along with your Joseph and Co. in the Book of Mormon story/narrative. Or does it?

Actually, Alma 36 would fit rather comfortably into my “Joseph and Co.” hypothesis.

Why do you keep insisting that an uneducated farm boy had to compose all of this spontaneously, “on the fly”?

Oliver Cowdery was an educated schoolteacher, Joseph’s scribe, and a capable writer as seen in his other writings.

You’ll recall I’ve made the assessment that Oliver “is” Alma. Why should I assume ancient Hebrew authorship when there’s a plausible 19th century candidate sitting right across from Joseph?

Yep. Why should you? You are going where the evidence takes you.

Regards,
MG

[PseudoPaul]

As it is, there are reasons to choose ancient origins and reasons to choose 19th century origins or somewhere in between. Faith in divine involvement or non involvement comes into the mix.
Regards,
MG

There are no historical reasons to think the Book of Mormon has ancient origins, which is really the only thing that matters when discussing historicity.

[Marcus]

...on a board such as this where quick responses are par for the course and in depth discussion and 'proofs' are not the norm...

Wow. That is so utterly incorrect that one has to wonder what threads are being read. Clearly not the dozens upon dozens of threads in Celestial and Terrestrial. If one is here mainly to troll then it stands to reason they may be choosing to skip over those discussions, but that's an unfortunate choice given the backgrounds and interests of most of our Board participants and their willingness to answer questions and fully engage.

[MG 2.0]

...on a board such as this where quick responses are par for the course and in depth discussion and 'proofs' are not the norm...

Wow. That is so utterly incorrect that one has to wonder what threads are being read.

This one for starters.

Dig in. Respond to my postings rather than throwing poison darts!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...on a board such as this where quick responses are par for the course and in depth discussion and 'proofs' are not the norm...

Also mg:

...Respond to my postings rather than throwing poison darts...

The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'

Same old same old. Moving on...

[Limnor]

...on a board such as this where quick responses are par for the course and in depth discussion and 'proofs' are not the norm...

Also mg:

...Respond to my postings rather than throwing poison darts...

The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'

Same old same old. Moving on...

I regret having engaged. It was fun for a minute, but it’s just so absurd and pointless to actually try to engage when the other person treats his assumptions as established facts, dismisses challenges to those assumptions, and then accuses people of not taking the discussion seriously. There’s no meaningful exchange of ideas when the conclusions are never open to examination.