Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

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.

If you want to address me, please don't address me in the third person, as though addressing me were somehow beneath you. "The Reverend is sure...."

Yes, I exclude The Cat in the Hat because it is not scripture. The Book of Mormon is a much better candidate for scripture in the Judeo-Christian tradition because it contains a lot of elements common to other scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths. We could probably spend a great deal of time getting down to the various specific factors that render the likelihood that the Book of Mormon would be accepted as scripture, while almost no one would mistake the Cat in the Hat for such.

In any case, I am not going to engage you any more on this. It hasn't been an interesting discussion thus far, and things are unlikely to improve at all, especially when I have someone addressing me in the third person.

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.

Sure, whatever, Chap. Your approach to questions marks you out pretty clearly. Your denials notwithstanding.

[_Themis]

Cat in the hat is not scripture due to no one viewing it as such that I know of. The Book of Mormon is to certain groups. If those groups cease to exist in the future then the Book of Mormon will no longer be scripture. How many ancient texts were viewed at one time as scripture but no longer due to no one left viewing it as such. Seems a pretty simple and objective way to determine. As to divinely inspired, it might depend on how you define divine. By my definition I don't know any any divinely inspired religious texts, except for LOTR.

[_Kishkumen]

Cat in the hat is not scripture due to no one viewing it as such that I know of. The Book of Mormon is to certain groups. If those groups cease to exist in the future then the Book of Mormon will no longer be scripture. How many ancient texts were viewed at one time as scripture but no longer due to no one left viewing it as such. Seems a pretty simple and objective way to determine. As to divinely inspired, it might depend on how you define divine. By my definition I don't know any any divinely inspired religious texts, except for LOTR.

What I am saying is that the designation of scripture is generically and historically contingent, not arbitrary.

[_Uncle Ed]

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?

"Liar" is the biggest "buzz word" that gets tossed around. It certainly got tossed both directions between Mormons and anti-Mormons. The KSS was a complete cockup from the moment it opened for business. Nothing was done right. But a fair judgment of the times makes it far less "wild cat" and more private business venture with a clear need in mind. Throw in some embezzlement and self preservation and the general failure of banks across the USA (surely a horrible coincidence of timing) at the KSS's most vulnerable stage, and no private investing business of that nature could have survived under those circumstances. But Joseph Smith's followers did not see it that way: they had heard enough of his positive prognostications to believe that the KSS was "God's bank". I do believe the Warren Parrish elaboration is a lie and he was convicted of embezzlement. But I agree with you that there is truth to it also, and that would be the part where Joseph Smith assured everyone that the KSS would prosper and meet the needs of the Saints if they ran the bank on the principles the Lord had revealed. That part was forgotten by practically everyone during the rest of that fateful year.

But the core issue is: was Joseph Smith knowingly taking advantage, i.e. being a predator in the establishment of the KSS, as some extreme critics assert? I say no. He was just demonstrating hubris and a lack of financial sense. The whole thing was altruistic from the start and looking back was too great a risk. But it was also a needful thing in order to lubricate the flagging Kirtland economy, so what to do? The plans were too big and the means too small. And there were dishonest, crooked people taking advantage. So Joseph Smith's trusting nature (some would say, gullibility) was really his greatest fault in the whole disaster....

[_EAllusion]

Because of various historical contingencies, we can understand why it would be highly implausible for The Cat in the Hat to be revered by a faith community as scripture while a pseudo-Biblical work like the Book of Mormon or a new age self-help work like Dianetics might achieve that status. But that's not what Chap was asking about. He was asking for any definable set of properties that make one work of literature something that has potential to be scripture while another not. I think that's an interesting open question. I suspect that, yes, there are qualities that make works more and less likely to have religions develop around them, but I am less certain about what those qualities might be. It isn't difficult to imagine an alternative set of historical contingencies that might result in something none of us would peg as a candidate for scripture being revered as such.

(And if the Book of Mormon can be divinely inspired fiction, then why not the Cat in the Hat? Mormons in particular are generally friendly to the idea that ideas and beauty found in various works can be the result of divine inspiration.)

[_Kishkumen]

Because of various historical contingencies, we can understand why it would be highly implausible for The Cat in the Hat to be revered by a faith community as scripture while a pseudo-Biblical work like the Book of Mormon or a new age self-help work like Dianetics might achieve that status. But that's not what Chap was asking about. He was asking for any definable set of properties that make one work of literature something that has potential to be scripture while another not. I think that's an interesting open question. I suspect that, yes, there are qualities that make works more and less likely to have religions develop around them, but I am less certain about what those qualities might be. It isn't difficult to imagine an alternative set of historical contingencies that might result in something none of us would peg as a candidate for scripture being revered as such.

(And if the Book of Mormon can be divinely inspired fiction, then why not the Cat in the Hat? Mormons in particular are generally friendly to the idea that ideas and beauty found in various works can be the result of divine inspiration.)

I also referred to certain generic characteristics, not just historical contingencies.

I am well aware of what Chap is asking and I know why he asks it. His choice of the Cat in the Hat is a dead giveaway. At the end of the day, most of these pseudo-inquiries about religion on this board boil down to a mixture of ignorance, apathy, and hostility regarding religion. I understand that this is par of the course, but I am finding it increasingly uninteresting.

[_Themis]

Cat in the hat is not scripture due to no one viewing it as such that I know of. The Book of Mormon is to certain groups. If those groups cease to exist in the future then the Book of Mormon will no longer be scripture. How many ancient texts were viewed at one time as scripture but no longer due to no one left viewing it as such. Seems a pretty simple and objective way to determine. As to divinely inspired, it might depend on how you define divine. By my definition I don't know any any divinely inspired religious texts, except for LOTR.

What I am saying is that the designation of scripture is generically and historically contingent, not arbitrary.

I agree. We can usually see how a text becomes scripture, although I am not aware of any that has not been promoted as such from the start. Cat in the hat never was, while the Book of Mormon was from the start. Even the late war never was, but only tried to sound biblical. Whether a text remains such depends on there being adherents who will view it as such.

[_Kishkumen]

Here is an incredibly brief history of the problematic issue of scripture.

1. Christians have a certain traditional view of their collection of holy books, calling them scriptures or scripture and viewing their version of the collection as representing works of uniquely divine provenance and authority.
2. Westerners begin to apply the term scriptures to other important religious works.
3. Because this was a fundamental distortion, the term scripture becomes incoherent, allowing critics of religion to claim it could be applied to anything under the right circumstances.

[_EAllusion]

The term "scripture" is clearly being used to refer to a work of literature that has religious significance or is viewed as divinely inspired. I don't think it makes sense to reduce the term into the development of Christian orthodoxy. What you are calling a distortion is just the evolution of language. What the discussion is about is works of religious significance. If the word "scripture" is that much of a hang-up for you, then you should adopt a different term to carry on that conversation.

[_Kishkumen]

The term "scripture" is clearly being used to refer to a work of literature that has religious significance or is viewed as divinely inspired. I don't think it makes sense to reduce the term into the development of Christian orthodoxy. What you are calling a distortion is just the evolution of language. What the discussion is about is works of religious significance. If the word "scripture" is that much of a hang-up for you, then you should adopt a different term to carry on that conversation.

I was recounting some history, EAllusion. Scripture is a Western term that got applied more widely in Western scholarship. It is much like the problematic term "religion." I don't have a "hang-up" on the word "scripture" anymore than I have a "hang-up" regarding the word "religion." Scripture, like religion, is a controversial term, and one can come at the issue from a variety of angles. Scholars continue to debate these issues. It is not as though these things are settled.