tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4559078260870705133..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "Artifact or Artifice?" Orson Scott Card's Brilliant 1993 Essay Still Rings TrueJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52213441274410486622018-08-03T10:37:23.724-05:002018-08-03T10:37:23.724-05:00Anon 10:33:
Oh, that's a great article. Shows...Anon 10:33:<br /><br />Oh, that's a great article. Shows clearly that Smith was a <i>bricoleur</i>, building his "revelations" out of the cultural materials he had at hand. And from BYU, no less.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73968657379973911792018-08-02T22:33:17.471-05:002018-08-02T22:33:17.471-05:00Has anyone here read the BYU study that confirms J...Has anyone here read the BYU study that confirms Joseph's translation of the bible is plagiarized from contemporary sources? Look it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39039352412032568162018-07-30T11:33:16.911-05:002018-07-30T11:33:16.911-05:00Didn't Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormo...Didn't Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon lands were basically what is now the continental United States? If anyone were to know, wouldn't it have been him?<br /><br />Don't all the other geographical models amount to throwing the Prophet under the bus?<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24863150492759745692018-07-29T21:56:09.729-05:002018-07-29T21:56:09.729-05:00In response to johnathan3d and Mesoamerican versus...In response to johnathan3d and Mesoamerican versus "heartland America" setting for the book of Mormon, I would inquire, where in the north American continent do you find a "narrow neck of land" that people on foot (or even perhaps mounted on some sort of animal transport, would have been able to traverse in a day or two? And, as even the "anti" in the room pointed out, where in north America do you see evidence of massive destruction such as cities swallowed up, cities sunk in the sea, and things such as that? I don't know what kind of cool aid you're drinking to imagine that the north American continent matches up with the discriptions given in the book of Mormon text. Conversely, the Mesoamerican area does match up well. wa1den_b@yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86242631835691189252018-07-28T10:22:18.748-05:002018-07-28T10:22:18.748-05:00Now all we need to do is check the geographic reco...Now all we need to do is check the geographic record for a cataclysmic event that happened in North America at the time of Christ's death and we have some good physical proof. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57093284072954760332018-07-27T12:37:21.193-05:002018-07-27T12:37:21.193-05:00As a faithful, believing LDS, I find a lot to like...As a faithful, believing LDS, I find a lot to like in this post, but also a lot that comes off as pure confirmation bias. For example, the idea that Joseph wouldn't have associated ancient records with kings ignores the fact that he read the King James Bible and that kings in the Old Testament maintained records. Joseph sent Harris to scholars because Moroni had told him about the Isaiah prophecy regarding the learned, as President Cowdery explained in Letter IV (an oft-overlooked detail). <br /><br />The worst confirmation bias, of course, is the Mesoamerican theory. Jeff writes, "He didn’t have the body of evidence from John Sorenson’s Mormon’s Codex or the insights about the Mesoamerican perspectives in the Book of Mormon uncovered by Brant Gardner in his Traditions of the Fathers."<br /><br />The "evidence" presented in those books is illusory because it consists of ordinary attributes of most human cultures, combined with the authors' proprietary interpretation of the text. The Nephites were Hebrews; they followed the model of the keepers of the brass plates according to the Biblical model, not some Mayan practice. E.g., the Nephites never mention recording their history on stone walls or stella, and they certainly didn't write in the Mayan language. Gardner finds parallels or correspondences between carefully selected details of Mayan history/culture and his contorted interpretation of the text, but this type of confirmation bias is completely unpersuasive to anyone who doesn't already share his bias--or to anyone who considers the text as written and the entire body of Mesoamerican history/culture.<br /><br />Language problems were well known in colonial America. Few Europeans could communicate with the Indian tribes, who, like the Lamanites and Mulekites but unlike the Mayans, did not have a written language. The tribes themselves had different languages. Teaching Indians to read and write was a major effort toward "civilizing" them, just as Mosiah taught the people of Zarahemla how to read and write. The parallels between the Book of Mormon and the history/culture of the North American Indians are much closer than any illusory correspondences to Mayan culture, a reality that critics have always used to support their claim that Joseph wrote the book. The Mesoamerican theory developed partly to thwart this criticism, but the more we learn about Mesoamerica and ancient North America, the more we see the Book of Mormon fits the latter, not the former. <br /><br />In my view, these elements serve to corroborate what Joseph and Oliver said about the Book of Mormon; i.e., that the hill Cumorah was in New York, that the plains of the Nephites were in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, and that the Hopewell ruins were evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The fact that all the modern prophets who have ever addressed the issue have affirmed the New York Cumorah is yet another reason to jettison the Mesoamerican theory.<br /><br /><br /><br />jonathan3dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12177424724575394502018-07-26T09:49:32.567-05:002018-07-26T09:49:32.567-05:00... George Lucas did this for years with the Star ...<i>... George Lucas did this for years with the Star Wars franchise.</i><br /><br />Great observation, ending with just the right word, <i>franchise</i>. Instead of thinking of the LDS canon as revelation, we should think of it as an early, religious precursor to what we now recognize as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_franchise" rel="nofollow">media franchise.</a><br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23578484004158447292018-07-26T09:03:50.656-05:002018-07-26T09:03:50.656-05:00I remembered also that Joseph dangled the carrot o...I remembered also that Joseph dangled the carrot of the sealed portion of the plates in front of his followers for years as well (Mormons are still told that the sealed portion will someday be translated when they are righteous enough). I suspect he was planning to revisit the Book of Mormon at some point when the well for his other continued revelations ran dry. Just like any other "voluble raconteur" worth his salt, he chose not to reveal the contents of that story before their time--George Lucas did this for years with the Star Wars franchise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40107537311734954522018-07-26T08:40:24.732-05:002018-07-26T08:40:24.732-05:00Or Mohonri Moriancumr. . .
Joseph indeed guilded ...Or Mohonri Moriancumr. . .<br /><br />Joseph indeed guilded the Book of Mormon lily later in his life. I think however, that he saw the real draw of his religion was his claim of continuing revelation, so he chose to look forward rather than backward. As evidence, we have the books of the Pearl of Great Price, the JST of the bible, and the never completed translation of the Kinderhook plates. Joseph continued to find sources to draw him into delving into the Hebrew historical milieu--a fascination that was first evidenced in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Of course his grammar got better in his latter attempts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5451291345308113882018-07-24T20:27:07.067-05:002018-07-24T20:27:07.067-05:00"It is also used to trivialize the obvious mi..."It is also used to trivialize the obvious miracle of dictating the complex text of the Book of Mormon without notes, without a manuscript, hour after hour in his extremely rapid and consistent translation work."<br /><br />Says the man who just stated Joseph had nearly a decade to memorize the stories told to him by Moroni. Ah, the power of indoctrination.<br /><br />"Lucy's account that Joseph told such stories later in life." Say the man who apparently never heard of Zelph.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76808450038115163972018-07-23T15:24:26.884-05:002018-07-23T15:24:26.884-05:00Is there any particular reason why "voluble r...Is there any particular reason why "voluble raconteur" is better than just saying "capable storyteller" or something like that? Why do so many academics insist on using obscure words when well-known, easily understood words will do?<br /><br />I like how Bill Watterson put it (sarcastically) in Calvin and Hobbes: "the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57830052937355483092018-07-23T09:50:30.252-05:002018-07-23T09:50:30.252-05:00OK, what is your basis for Joseph being well-known...OK, what is your basis for Joseph being well-known as a voluble raconteur? I suspect your only source is the one endlessly expanded upon by anti-Mormons, Lucy Mack Smith's late recollection of Joseph discussing Book of Mormon peoples with the family. Perhaps you missed my recent post on that highly-abused account, "<a href="https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2018/04/joseph-amusing-teller-of-tall-tales.html" rel="nofollow">Joseph the Amusing Teller of Tall Tales: Lucy Mack Smith's Puzzling Statement in Perspective</a>" (April 2018). Her account indicates that such discussions occurred after Joseph was introduced to the Book of Mormon, not before. There is no track record to show that he was a great story teller before then. And just as importantly, there is no evidence apart from Lucy's account that Joseph told such stories later in life. His voluble stories about Book of Mormon people's just don't show up in his sermons, his articles, his interviews, or the recollections of others about what he said. <br /><br />Lucy is quoted as saying, "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship." Curiously, this kind of information is not only absent from anyone else's accounts of Joseph's statements and stories, it is also largely absent from the Book of Mormon. There are no animals being ridden there. No details on dress or building design. Warfare is described in detail, when Mormon is writing, but otherwise Lucy's statement doesn't fit the Book of Mormon as we have it. <br /><br />But Lucy's puzzling and perhaps not highly dependable statement about what Joseph discussed after he learned of the Book of Mormon has been magically transformed by our critics into evidence that Joseph was well known as a great story teller before his encounter with Moroni and the gold plates. Such is the power of religious indoctrination, as you said. It is also used to trivialize the obvious miracle of dictating the complex text of the Book of Mormon without notes, without a manuscript, hour after hour in his extremely rapid and consistent translation work. Ah, the power of indoctrination. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6883163476721706862018-07-22T19:45:35.189-05:002018-07-22T19:45:35.189-05:00Anonymous, you said: "Joseph Smith was a volu...Anonymous, you said: "Joseph Smith was a voluble raconteur." Orsamus Turner of the same juvenile debating club as Joseph said that he was a "passable orator." However, that says nothing as to his education level nor authorship abilities. The critics of his day were quick to look elsewhere for a possible author, judging very quickly and forcefully that Joseph was too ignorant to produce the Book of Mormon. Subsequent research has only deepened that conviction.<br /><br />Please provide your reference for the idea that some Americans in the eighteenth century believed that the American Indians were descended from stray Israelites that split into two groups, one civilized and one savage. It was a fairly common belief among American clergy that the American Indians were the lost tribes, etc. but I do not recall the split into two groups theme.<br /><br />The masonic elements are not from the Book of Mormon.<br /><br />And you said: "There's absolutely nothing in the book that could not have come out of Smith's cultural milieu or his imagination." I am afraid that you have not read much of the research that has been done on the Book of Mormon> There are so many elements that could not have come from a fertile mind, no matter what the (now supposed) genius level. The Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is one such.<br /><br />And you said: "Amazing is the power of religious indoctrination." There are many converts to the church that have not gone through an LDS religious indoctrination but are converted through the ministering of the Holy Ghost.<br /><br />You may believe what you wish also. It has been shown by neuroscience that people do not make decisions and come to conclusions based primarily on facts and logic but emotion. So, you may claim that LDS are basing their views on emotion, but the reverse position is just as valid, i.e. that critics are too emotionally invested in their positions to look at the facts of the matter rationally. Just saying.<br /><br />Glenn<br />Glenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25856345108330327702018-07-22T12:15:14.516-05:002018-07-22T12:15:14.516-05:00Among the known facts: Joseph Smith was a voluble ...Among the known facts: Joseph Smith was a voluble raconteur. He was a money digger who defrauded people by claiming he could locate buried riches by staring into the very same "peep-stone" he later used to "translate" the Book of Mormon. He was well enough versed in the Bible to have absorbed its characteristic literary forms. The idea that Native Americans were stray Israelites was very much in the air in his time and place. So was the idea that these stray Israelites split into two groups, one civilized and the other savage, with the latter ultimately exterminating the former. Smith developed the strangely Masonic temple rituals shortly after becoming a Mason himself. Etc. All these facts fit very well with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century production built out of the cultural bric-a-brac of 1820s upstate New York. There's absolutely nothing in the book that could not have come out of Smith's cultural mileu or his imagination.<br /><br />Believe what you want, Raymond. Just be aware that everyone outside the Church (and many, many people within it) finds any of your apologetic arguments the least bit persuasive. You might as well try to convince people of the prophetic status of L. Ron Hubbard and the reality of Xenu, or the deification of Sun Myung Moon, or the existence of that spaceship lurking behind the comet Hale–Bopp.<br /><br />Amazing is the power of religious indoctrination.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39864358636441329562018-07-22T10:59:20.472-05:002018-07-22T10:59:20.472-05:00Card's essay is an example of Latter-day Saint...Card's essay is an example of Latter-day Saints bringing their own skills and experience to tbe study of the scriptures. Card's own academic study of literature and experience as an author and teacher of creative writing gives him a valuable perspective. He explains why the Book of Mormon does not fit into the literature of 1829 America, because it does not contain the assumptions and viewpoints that were assumed by authors to be in the minds of their readers. No educated author of that day would write this. And yet only a supremely educated author in 1829 could produce so many authentic details about Arabian geography and Hebrew literary forms. Once again, the secular theories about how the narrative was created fail to explain the known facts. Raymond Swensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41705521279425858322018-07-22T10:57:51.181-05:002018-07-22T10:57:51.181-05:00Committed Mormons might find Card's essay &quo...Committed Mormons might find Card's essay "brilliant," but to everyone else the Book of Mormon is obviously not an ancient text. It's probably best understood as a kind of extended 19th-century midrash on the Bible.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com