Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_GlennThigpen]

Who is claiming the Book of Mormon author was trying to be humorous? I brought up the Laban story because a conneaut witness had, so I assume if the witness is correct then Spalding had that story in his manuscript. And I could perceive someone thinking that story is unrealistic and finding it humorous..especially if spalding read it with humorous tones and/or facial expressions.

marge, only a sociopath or worse would view the decapitation of a drunken man humorous. Normal people look askance at that passage. It has been the subject of much criticism over the years because of the perceived immorality of that act by Nephi.

However, the name Laban finds a very likely echo in the Oberlin manuscript.

Henry Lake was the only individual among the eight former neighbors who said that he remembered the name Laban." One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then."[100] Lake never specified what the inconsistency was, nor did he describe the details of a Laban story in either the Book of Mormon or Spalding's manuscript. There is, though, nothing particularly tragic about the death of Laban in the Book of Mormon; he was a wicked and greedy individual who tried several times to murder Nephi and Nephi's brothers (see 1 Nephi 3—4). The description fits quite well, however, with Spalding's narrative of honorable Labanko, whose death at the hands of the villain Sambal led to further hostilities and bloodshed among the opposing groups in Spalding's story. One might argue that Lake is remembering another manuscript, but a more plausible interpretation is that he had a vague recollection of the Labanko episode and, in 1833, after hearing of the Book of Mormon, confused the two somewhat similar names.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

I believe one witness mentioned spalding reading some humorous passages to those present. That witness, Miller mentioned Spalding had a number of manuscripts which he said he perused often. Possibly he was thinking of MSCC when he mentioned humorous but MSCC is not particularly humorous. So I think this is an example of scrutinizing a witness's statement without appreciating there is no opportunity for him to clarify what he meant and what he found humorous. But to say that Spalding couldn't have been used for the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon isn't humorous based on one witness mentioning Spalding reading some humorous passages, doesn't take into account what others find humorous. Just the way Spalding read, may have seemed humorous. Perhaps the biblical language when they knew he had written in imitation of the Bible may have made his work seem humorous..at least to Miller.

marge, there are decidedly humorous passages in the manuscript now at Oberlin College. This is noted in Matthew Roper's article The Mythical Manuscript Found. I have a link to it above. I will quote from footnote (97) of the article.

For example, one of the Roman sailors in the Spalding story mused on the possibility of choosing a native wife: "I could pick out a healthy plum Lass from the copper coloured tribe that washing & scrubbing her fore & aft & upon the labbord & stabbord sides she would become a wholesome bedfellow." MS, 20, in Spaulding, Manuscript Found (Jackson ed.), 12. This is, to put it mildly, a rather different style of writing than that found in the Book of Mormon.

I imagine that might have elicited a guffaw from Solomon's mostly male audience.

It might help your perspective to read that article. Roper also notes a few other names from the Oberlin manuscript that are similar to names in the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, only a sociopath or worse would view the decapitation of a drunken man humorous. Normal people look askance at that passage. It has been the subject of much criticism over the years because of the perceived immorality of that act by Nephi.

So are viewers who find this scene in Monty Python's movie, sociopaths?

Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight


And if some people find it funny, why might that be?

[_GlennThigpen]

marge, only a sociopath or worse would view the decapitation of a drunken man humorous. Normal people look askance at that passage. It has been the subject of much criticism over the years because of the perceived immorality of that act by Nephi.

So are viewers who find this scene in Monty Python's movie, sociopaths?

Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight


And if some people find it funny, why might that be?

Although that is not in the same category as the event depicted in the Book of Mormon, I view such as tasteles, vulgar, and disturbing and view those who think it funny as desensitized to gratuitous violence. Those scenes are horrific to me. I have been exposed to violent death and dismemberment and there is nothing funny about it.

Now, do you honestly think that those stalwart men of yore would have viewed the decaptitation of a drunken Laban as humorous?

Also, is that the best repartee that you have to my post?

Glenn

[Guest]

Although that is not in the same category as the event depicted in the Book of Mormon, I view such as tasteles, vulgar, and disturbing and view those who think it funny as desensitized to gratuitous violence. Those scenes are horrific to me. I have been exposed to violent death and dismemberment and there is nothing funny about it.

Well then you must have had a very disturbing morning witnessing the brutal dismemberment of a man. Other people tend to view it in a different light. They view it within the context of the movie and/or within the context of the type of humor Monty Python is known for. You may not be not aware of either.

When someone views that scene and finds it funny they are not viewing it in a literal realistic way. Clues that's it's not realistic besides the rest of the movie being a comedy, are that the Knight is exhibiting no pain. Blood and pain are not major issues other than a few squirts. And the Knight's remarks are ludicrous. He refers to losing an arm as nothing, just a minor scratch and he wants to keep fighting. The focus on the scene is the ridiculous stubbornness of the Knight to the extreme that he's denying losing body parts.

And in actual fact Cleese who played the Knight said the scene was a comment on a class lecture he had in school with a moral given by the teacher of "If you never give up, you can't possibly lose".

So Glenn there are aspects of that story in the Book of Mormon that is monty pythonesque. No blood, no gory details, Nephi cuts off Laban's head and puts on his clothes & armor. And then he talks like Laban and the servant doesn't notice it's not Laban. So there is little realism involved..it's just so matter of fact..chopping of a head and then putting on that man's clothes ..and no blood is anywhere. Not to mention a supreme all powerful, intelligentbeing would even get involved with such an enterprise.

And the story is to present a moral..'.that it is better for one man to die than a nation to exist in unbelief'. Really?

Monty Python's moral was 'sometimes it's wise to quit, you don't always win if you keep going' .

So depending on perspective and context each of those mini stories can be looked upon as being humorous.

From my perspective Glenn and I'm not saying the conneaut witnesses had my perspective because they were listening to spalding and his story so I don't know what was in the story besides some of it being the same historical storyline and character names, nor how it was presented, but from my perspective...the Book of Mormon is very cartoonish. The constant focus on belief being such an all important moral of the story comes across to me as humorous..I guess for one because it never does justify why belief is so important morally . According to the story it just is, because God says so.

Now, do you honestly think that those stalwart men of yore would have viewed the decaptitation of a drunken Laban as humorous?

I don't know, I'm saying it's possible depending on how it's presented and depending on a person's perspective. When you look at the MSCC, the so called humorous parts are at the beginning, I don't remember there being potentially humorous parts later. So perhaps Spalding had some humorous parts in some sections of MF. Or maybe Miller the witness who mentioned humor in Spalding's stories who also spent time perusing all the manuscripts, confused what he viewed as humorous of MSCC with MF.

Also, is that the best repartee that you have to my post?

I think you thought Glenn that when I said that the MSCC was "not particularly humorous", that I was saying there were no parts which could be considered humorous. By "particularly humorous" I meant that it wasn't humorous throughout. Miller remembered some humor, but even in MSCC the potential humor is limited. I don't think one would view the story as overall humorous. And it's quite possible for any of those witnesses to confuse a small section sub-story between MF & MSCC. What I don't accept Glenn is that they are confusing items in which a retrieval cue had been used such as the Book of Mormon and in which they say they clearly remember such items because of it...ie. "and it came to pass", biblical style, Nephi & Lehi.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Who is claiming the Book of Mormon author was trying to be humorous?

You in the balance of your statement below and Spalding witness Miller.

I brought up the Laban story because a conneaut witness had, so I assume if the witness is correct then Spalding had that story in his manuscript. And I could perceive someone thinking that story is unrealistic and finding it humorous..especially if spalding read it with humorous tones and/or facial expressions.

You can’t be serious. I can’t believe your willingness to defend your thesis has disintegrated to this level.

[_marg]

Marg,

Who is claiming the Book of Mormon author was trying to be humorous?

You in the balance of your statement below and Spalding witness Miller.

No Dan, I am not claiming the Book of Mormon writers meant it to be humorous..at least they thought there would be some people who would take it seriously.

However, I think Spalding may possibly have had some parts seem humorous depending on perspective and/or how he presented it.

[_GlennThigpen]

Well then you must have had a very disturbing morning witnessing the brutal dismemberment of a man. Other people tend to view it in a different light. They view it within the context of the movie and/or within the context of the type of humor Monty Python is known for. You may not be not aware of either.

I have not actually witnessed the dismemberment of anyone, only the aftermath. I have not actually witnessed the murder of a person, only the aftermath. But it definitely is not funny. I am not going to get into the Monty Python thing. There is too much psychology on desensitation that I am not qualified to discuss. I am a bit surprised that you can speak of these type of acts so casually.

So Glenn there are aspects of that story in the Book of Mormon that is monty pythonesque. No blood, no gory details, Nephi cuts off Laban's head and puts on his clothes & armor. And then he talks like Laban and the servant doesn't notice it's not Laban. So there is little realism involved..it's just so matter of fact..chopping of a head and then putting on that man's clothes ..and no blood is anywhere. Not to mention a supreme all powerful, intelligentbeing would even get involved with such an enterprise.

Now you are on ground that you are not familiar with. There is precedent in the Bible for the situation in which Nephi found himself. Take the prophet Samuel who slew a captive king with a sword.

1 Samuel 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

No blood mentioned, although it must have spattered everywhere.

You really have no idea what would have been realism to those people and what would have been unrealistic. You do not understand and possibly cannot understand the perspective of people who have read the Bible and professed to live by it. Religion was a big part of the lives of a majority of the people during that period of time. That is a probable reason that Solomon did not present the views he held of Christianity in that letter found with the Oberlin manuscript. People were killed back in that day for mocking the Bible and anothe's religion. I would not be surprised to find that the people who were in the mob that killed Joseph, Hyrum, et al, felt that they were doing God a favor by taking him out.

So depending on perspective and context each of those mini stories can be looked upon as being humorous.

From my perspective Glenn and I'm not saying the conneaut witnesses had my perspective because they were listening to spalding and his story so I don't know what was in the story besides some of it being the same historical storyline and character names, nor how it was presented, but from my perspective...the Book of Mormon is very cartoonish. The constant focus on belief being such an all important moral of the story comes across to me as humorous..I guess for one because it never does justify why belief is so important morally . According to the story it just is, because God says so.

And that is the problem that you bring with you to this discussion. You are attempting to understand what was going on from your perspective and not the perspective of the people who were living at the time.

If you read the Bible, you would also probably feel it is very cartoonish. But the people of that era, by and large, believed in those "cartoons".

Glenn

[_marg]

I have not actually witnessed the dismemberment of anyone, only the aftermath. I have not actually witnessed the murder of a person, only the aftermath. But it definitely is not funny. I am not going to get into the Monty Python thing. There is too much psychology on desensitation that I am not qualified to discuss. I am a bit surprised that you can speak of these type of acts so casually.

There are lots of people who'd disagree with you Glenn, over 3 million have watched that clip on that youtube channel, on another over 2 million. Read the comments..people are not crying out in disgust, nor saying it's not funny. On that channel of the people who rated it over 14,000 gave it a thumbs up and only 648 gave it a thumbs down.

It's not a matter of desensitization Glenn it's a matter of appreciating context, absurdity and not viewing it literally.

Now you are on ground that you are not familiar with. There is precedent in the Bible for the situation in which Nephi found himself. Take the prophet Samuel who slew a captive king with a sword.
"1 Samuel 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."

No blood mentioned, although it must have spattered everywhere.

Ya no blood but a bit more descriptive...he cut her up in pieces. Humor is a matter of context Glenn. Excessively unrealistic stories or parodies of serious stories which appear ridiculous can be made humorous, or appear humorous to someone with a perspective of not taking it seriously. Just as you did not find Monty Python in that sketch funny, many people do, just as you see no humor in the Book of Mormon other people such as myself who takes none off it seriously can. It's not a comedy to me, it just has aspects that appear so ludicrous that it comes across as humorous.

What you fail to be appreciate Glenn is that Spalding was reading his fictional account. He wasn't reading the Bible..he was reading a story they knew he created. So if one person found some humor in his story..it doesn't mean the entire story was presented as humorous. And in addition Glenn I've already pointed out Miller is one person, who also said he perused frequently all of Spalding's manuscripts. Maybe he is confusing the similar story of MSCC with what he may have perceived in some spots as humorous with MF. Washing copper toned "buxom lasses" is not particularly funny , but as you point out to a man perhaps that came across as humorous.

But that's a far cry Glenn from accusing Miller of being confused on all his recollect based on your not finding anything funny in the Book of Mormon. Let's see he said: "Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names, are brought fresh to my recollection by the Golden Bible."

You don't know what he found humorous or why. You don't know if Spalding had a few parts in MF which might have appeared humorous to him. It is not as if MSCC is a comedy throughout. But he says he clearly recall names Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, due to the Book of Mormon refreshing his memory. And that you want to take away from him and accuse him of being confused completely with MSCC and its contents. And you want to do this despite the fact that other witnesses support his recall. So the thing is Glenn they are not all confused with faulty memory. They either are remembering a MF or they are lying.

You really have no idea what would have been realism to those people and what would have been unrealistic. You do not understand and possibly cannot understand the perspective of people who have read the Bible and professed to live by it.

They were listening to spalding's fictional tale, not the Bible.

Religion was a big part of the lives of a majority of the people during that period of time. That is a probable reason that Solomon did not present the views he held of Christianity in that letter found with the Oberlin manuscript. People were killed back in that day for mocking the Bible and anothe's religion. I would not be surprised to find that the people who were in the mob that killed Joseph, Hyrum, et al, felt that they were doing God a favor by taking him out.

It wasn't religion he was presenting.

And that is the problem that you bring with you to this discussion. You are attempting to understand what was going on from your perspective and not the perspective of the people who were living at the time.

If you read the Bible, you would also probably feel it is very cartoonish. But the people of that era, by and large, believed in those "cartoons".

And I think it's the opposite, that you think because the Book of Mormon is literal history that you are unable to see how others might perceive it and possibly find humor. You think because Spalding's MF is accused of being used to write the Book of Mormon , that Spalding's work must have been viewed as serious and literally true by his listeners as you do the Book of Mormon. You are the one in my opinion having a hard time appreciating how a Spalding's MF while being used to write the Book of Mormon does have to be exactly like the Book of Mormon nor interpreted by Spalding's listeners as literally true.

There can be different perspective's to your own.

[_GlennThigpen]

And I think it's the opposite, that you think because the Book of Mormon is literal history that you are unable to see how others might perceive it and possibly find humor. You think because Spalding's MF is accused of being used to write the Book of Mormon , that Spalding's work must have been viewed as serious and literally true by his listeners as you do the Book of Mormon. You are the one in my opinion having a hard time appreciating how a Spalding's MF while being used to write the Book of Mormon does have to be exactly like the Book of Mormon nor interpreted by Spalding's listeners as literally true.

There can be different perspective's to your own.

marge, I am only talking about the Laban incident. I know of no one who has ever viewed it as humorous. You are stretching on this one and still using your modern perspective rather than trying to understand the perspective of those witnesses. That is why you have trouble with the lost tribes saga, because you have not tried to understand how they would look at it.
They may have viewed certain parts as ludicrous, but none of them are on record as saying that any part of it came off as humorous to them.

As far as Laban goes, Henry Lake has this to say:

One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban

Laban is hardly a tragic figure in the Book of Mormon. He is a murderous thief who stole the treasures that Nephi et al had brought to him in an attempt to purchase the brass plates, and in addition, tried to have them killed.

However, there is the figure of Laban(ko) in the Oberlin manuscript, which is decidely tragic. To quote Matt Roper:

The description fits quite well, however, with Spalding's narrative of honorable Labanko, whose death at the hands of the villain Sambal led to further hostilities and bloodshed among the opposing groups in Spalding's story. One might argue that Lake is remembering another manuscript, but a more plausible interpretation is that he had a vague recollection of the Labanko episode and, in 1833, after hearing of the Book of Mormon, confused the two somewhat similar names.

And in another Roper article, Myth, Memory, and "Manuscript Found" ,he has this to say

"Laman, Lamanite, or Lamoni. Moonrod might have suggested the name Moroni, a name John N. Miller claimed to remember. Hamelick might have been confused with Amlici, Amalek, or Amalickiah. Henry Lake may have confused Labanco with Laban

Now did you know that the names Lehi and Nephi also appear in the Bible?

There are so many plausible source confusion possibilities for those witnesses. And they are so confused as to their timelines and story lines.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

The Book of Mormon isn’t anything like Monty Python, and for you to go on and on defending your false and weak analogy would be comical if it weren't so sad to watch.