mentalgymnast wrote:OK. I didn't address this earlier because I didn't think it was reply worthy. Nothing against you, Themis.I just don't think that your short reply does justice to the arguments of the critics which Callister reviews with us in his talk. To say "1, 2, a little bit of 3, and maybe a little bit of 5" doesn't really say much. You then go on to portray Joseph as a simple con man...as though this proves your 'belief' that 1,2...with a dash of 3 and 5 are at the root of the production of the Book of Mormon.
That's not going to fly. Where's the beef?
You then say the talk was "horrible and simple minded". Sure, you are entitled to your opinion...but anyone can say something like that in regards to anything they have a predisposition to have a bias towards.
It should tell you what everyone else has said about the 5 categories being straw-men. Joseph was not educated man, but he also was not ignorant. He could read and write, and by his owns words did so. Number 2 doesn't need Old Testament be all someone else, but maybe a collaboration, Oliver Cowdrey having good evidence to suggest he was in on the Book of Mormon production then. He was the principle person writing it down, with Joseph behind closed doors, etc. 3 is part of how they created the book. There is really good evidence the material came from the 1800's environment. They may not have copied a book like VOTH, it has has some of the same sources. A bit of 5 is recognizing that Joseph had some talents to be able to make up a religion.
Themis, I'm assuming you've read books/articles dealing with the rich milieu that was available at the time of Joseph Smith. No one is arguing otherwise. Yes, the twelve tribes, masons, Catholics, etc., were in the 'air of conversation'. But as you know(?), the Book of Mormon doesn't follow that "backbone" of conversation (not sure which part of that backbone you might be pointing to specifically) in the way you might expect it to. I think you're statement above really doesn't do justice to all of the apologetic research that has been done. There seems to be a tendency around here to 'brush off' the immense amount of research that apologists...and Mormon writers that wouldn't necessarily call themselves apologists...have done in some of these areas of discussion/debate, by using one liners or short little quips like "horrible and simple minded" and/or "the backbone of the Book of Mormon story is from a popular idea then" as though these little 'blurbs' fully flesh out and explain/conclude all there is to be said.
They don't. But I think you know that.
The backbone of the story is about Israelite's migrating to the America's to explain why people were here. How people got here was a popular question, and Israelite's was a popular answer, and the backbone of the Book of Mormon story. It is also wrong.
And that idea is (?)...and how does that connect with the Book of Mormon and what it actually says? Not saying that you might not be onto something, but I'd like to know exactly what you're saying here in a bit more detail.
Israelite's being the ancestors of American Indians was popular back then, but has been debunked. We have mountains of evidence about who they are and when they arrived.
