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

[_Buffalo]

Oh well, it seems that I'll have to fly out tomorrow morning for six weeks on the road without knowing whether Marg has read the Book of Mormon or not.

Sigh. I didn't think it was that difficult a question.

Have you noticed that Will Schryver has picked up your habit of constantly typing "sigh" in that weary, "why do I even bother to hope to dream to imagine that these people could keep up with my amazing intellect" kind of way?

[_marg]

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.

Lately you are misrepresenting my posts and the impression I'm getting is it's deliberate. I don't think you are such a poor reader generally given you are a writer. I did not say the Book of Mormon was monty pythonesque. I referred to one scene in the Book of Mormon which would have been a bloody scene in real life and it wasn't represented as such in the Book of Mormon. If I recall correctly..in the Book of Mormon ..Nephi believes God is helping him to get some genealogy records. Nephi finds Laban in a a semi conscious drunken state on the ground, and feels the spirit is guiding him to kill Laban. He chops off his head, puts on his clothes and armor (why is Laban wearing armor?) and then proceeds to a guard guiding a room, disguises his voice and the guard is fooled to think it's Laban. All this to get genealogy records.

That scene pokes fun at God belief. It has some monty pythonesque qualities in it, in my view.

As far as the rest of the Book of Mormon is you wish to criticize my perspective of it I said I found it cartoonish.

[_marg]

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.

There really isn't much humor in MSCC. At the beginning it's light hearted..but after the beginning there's no humor. Possibly at the beginning or in parts Spalding's MF was light hearted as well. For whatever reason Miller found humor in some of Spalding's work..and he stated he perused frequently all of his manuscripts though he liked and focused on one in particular MF. No one is arguing the Book of Mormon is a duplicate of Spalding's MF. If MSCC was an obvious comedy you might have a point, but it's not. Even the part you cited is not particularly funny.

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.

I don't know. Laban is not all that bad a guy compared to the others. God & Nephi for that matter look pretty bad in that story. Why didn't God simply make sure Lehi made his own records rather than having to steal from Laban? They were Laban's records and he shouldn't have to give them to someone just because they want them. Or why didn't God knowing the purpose of the records was for the Book of Mormon simply tell Nephi or Lehi who their ancestors were. Surely an all powerful God doesn't need to resort to making sure a man gets drunk so that another can easily chop off his head in order to steal something from that man. Surely an all powerful God can do better than that. So poor Laban is killed when he's lying down in a semi unconscious state all for some genealogy records that were his.

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.

I don't buy that in this case because he says"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."

And we also have his daughter's statement:

"I well remember D.P. Hurlbut coming to our house about fifty years ago and his telling father that he was taking evidence to expose Mormonism, and hearing him read from the "Book of Mormon." Frequently father would request Hurlbut to stop reading and he would state what followed and Hurlbut would say that it was so in the "Book of Mormon."

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

See above re Henry Lake. Similar storylines may be confusing however when witnesses say they well remember something...as opposed to they are simply recalling or think they know...and they explain the reason they well remember is because of the Book of Mormon bringing back a memory..what they describe is what occurs, that something can trigger memory recall.

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.

[/quote]

If Nephi and Lehi occurred frequently in the Bible and were main character names you'd have a point. You lose credibility when you argue something unrealistic.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Lately you are misrepresenting my posts and the impression I'm getting is it's deliberate. I don't think you are such a poor reader generally given you are a writer. I did not say the Book of Mormon was monty pythonesque.

I could say you are deliberately misrepresenting the Book of Mormon, but I know you are doing it out of ignorance. I know you were speaking of just one story in the book, which you think is funny because it lacks realism. Monty Python is an obvious Burlesque—the Book of Mormon is not. I pointed out the same discrepancy in the Nephi-Laban encounter in my biography only because there is a tendency to read the Book of Mormon as real history, not to mock it. Realism isn’t the objective of such stories—they are didactic and moralistic. Like Bible stories, the Book of Mormon’s stories are used to convey messages not too subtly. What we consider good literature today tends to be realistic (or what could be real) and doesn’t hit you over the head with a message. You’ve got the wrong genre for the Book of Mormon.

I referred to one scene in the Book of Mormon which would have been a bloody scene in real life and it wasn't represented as such in the Book of Mormon. If I recall correctly..in the Book of Mormon ..Nephi believes God is helping him to get some genealogy records. Nephi finds Laban in a a semi conscious drunken state on the ground, and feels the spirit is guiding him to kill Laban. He chops off his head, puts on his clothes and armor (why is Laban wearing armor?) and then proceeds to a guard guiding a room, disguises his voice and the guard is fooled to think it's Laban. All this to get genealogy records.

Nephi was getting the family Bible so to speak. In Joseph Smith’s day family genealogy was written in the blank pages in the fronts and backs of Bibles. It is better than Laban die than the Nephite not have the Bible. This is in contrast with the Mulekites, Jews who come to America after Jerusalem’s destruction without a Bible and consequently lose knowledge of a Creator.

That scene pokes fun at God belief. It has some monty pythonesque qualities in it, in my view.

You definitely are reading the story wrong. Nephi’s brothers had failed to get the record as God had commanded them. They had tried the direct approach asking Laban for the record and offering him money, but Laban took the money and tried to kill them. Nephi tells his brothers, who are resigned to return to Lehi’s tent in failure, that he will go and do as the Lord commanded—“For the Lord doesn’t commanded to do anything without preparing the way for its accomplishment” (paraphrase). So God delivers the drunken Laban into Nephi’s hands, and through stratagem Nephi gets the record. On my biography of Joseph Smith, I discuss how I believe Nephi is an alter ego for Joseph Smith. Like Nephi, Joseph Smith will use deception and cross moral lines to save a nation from unbelief by taking the Bible out of the hands of the wicked.

As far as the rest of the Book of Mormon is you wish to criticize my perspective of it I said I found it cartoonish.

The same can be said of the Bible or any religious narrative for that matter. You should read medieval miracle tales. But even today they are read by believers as serious history. Stories like Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, David and Goliath make the moderns smile; yet they were not intended as humor and many still believe them literally.

[_MCB]

Here is something similar, from my religious tradition

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/go ... ancis.html

[Guest]

If Nephi and Lehi occurred frequently in the Bible and were main character names you'd have a point. You lose credibility when you argue something unrealistic.

You are taking as a fact something that has not been established by evidence, i.e. that there was a second manuscript with the names Nephi and Lehi in it. All I am doing it pointing out there are other possibilities where those names might have been seen by those witnesses and remembered them when they sawthem in the Book of Mormon. The Bible we have. The alleged second manuscript we do not have and so far seesm to have existed only in the imgainations of a very few.

Here are the relevant quotes:

34. Then the king, inclosing the place, made it holy, after he had tried the matter.
35. And the king took many gifts, and bestowed thereof on those whom he would gratify.
36. And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi.

Judges 15:9 Then the Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi.

Judges 15:14 And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.

Judges 15:17 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand, and called that place Ramath-lehi.

Judges 15:19 But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore he called the name thereof En-hakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.

Nephi is in the apocryphal 2 Maccabees, but those books were paert of most bibles back then.

The Book of Judges is in the Old Testament and those quotes are from the story of Samson the strongman Israelite. The story of Samson and Delilah is one of the most popular stories from the Bible and has been read and recounted countless times. This is something that those witnesses would have been exposed to over and over.

Without the a second manuscript as evidence, you are totally relying on twenty year old memories. I have pointed out that except for the Book of Mormon names, the descriptions of the contents of the manuscript that those witnesses read or heard read have echoes more akin to the Oberlin manuscript than the Book of Mormon. I provided specific examples.
The best that you could do wastry to contort a beheading into a humorous affair.


Glenn

[_marg]

[quote="GlennThigpen"]

marge, where did Solomon come up with the names Lehi and Nephi?

/quote]

It would help if I could ask him. But I seem to remember reading perhaps on Dale's website..that there is a Hebrew word I believe "nephilim" which means extremely large and that Nephi represents himself as large.

Solomon may have known what nephilim meant.

Lehi I believe though I'm not certain is a place name in the Bible...he may or may not have been inspired by it.

But those names in the Bible Glenn aren't likely to be a factor for confusing the witnesses who say they well remember the names Nephi and Lehi and and that they were leading characters. In the Book of Mormon Nephi is occurs over 3,000 times.

If you think you can make a convincing argument why the names in the Bible would confuse the witnesses in their recall, go ahead.

I'm heading out now for the day...

[_GlennThigpen]

marge, where did Solomon come up with the names Lehi and Nephi?

/quote]

It would help if I could ask him. But I seem to remember reading perhaps on Dale's website..that there is a Hebrew word I believe "nephilim" which means extremely large and that Nephi represents himself as large.

Solomon may have known what nephilim meant.

Lehi I believe though I'm not certain is a place name in the Bible...he may or may not have been inspired by it.

But those names in the Bible Glenn aren't likely to be a factor for confusing the witnesses who say they well remember the names Nephi and Lehi and and that they were leading characters. In the Book of Mormon Nephi is occurs over 3,000 times.

If you think you can make a convincing argument why the names in the Bible would confuse the witnesses in their recall, go ahead.

I'm heading out now for the day...

I was editing my post when you replied. Check back with it please when you log in again.

The fact that the name Nephi being in the Book of Mormon over three thousand times is irrelevant to where the source memory for that name came from.

Glenn

[_marg]

Dan

But even today they are read by believers as serious history. Stories like Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, David and Goliath make the moderns smile; yet they were not intended as humor and many still believe them literally.

I understand your point that writers of the Bible and Book of Mormon did not intend stories to be humorous. I never said they did.

However, at the end of MSCC, it appears Spalding wrote a note which includes the following:

"It is enough for me to know that propositions which are in contradiction to each other cannot both be true, & that doctrines & facts which represent the supreme Being as a barbarous & cruel tyrant can never be dictated by infinite wisdom. Whatever the clergy say on the contrary can have no effect in altering my sentiments. I know as well as they that two & two make four, & that three angles of a triangle of a triangle are equal to two right angles. But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible, & consider it as a mere human production designed to inrich & agrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude. "

So if he wrote the Laban story, then perhaps he was poking fun at Christian God belief.

in my opinion the writer of the story should have made Laban out as more of a tyrant and shouldn't have had him killed while he was lying helpless semi unconscious on the ground..at least if he wished God & Nephi's behavior to appear a little more ethical.

I've seen discussions on the Net regarding interpretations of the Bible. I remember a Jewish individual talking about many stories in the O.T. are meant to be interpreted metaphorically. That Jews don't interpret Adam and Eve literally and never did. And I think it's possible Dan, that people in the past interpreted the Bible metaphorically more so than moderns who tend to interpret it literally and particularly Mormons whose Book of Mormon is meant to be taken literally..and hence view the Bible literally.

I'm rushing my post. I appreciate I haven’t addressed all your post.

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan

But even today they are read by believers as serious history. Stories like Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, David and Goliath make the moderns smile; yet they were not intended as humor and many still believe them literally.

I understand your point that writers of the Bible and Book of Mormon did not intend stories to be humorous. I never said they did.

However, at the end of MSCC, it appears Spalding wrote a note which includes the following:

"It is enough for me to know that propositions which are in contradiction to each other cannot both be true, & that doctrines & facts which represent the supreme Being as a barbarous & cruel tyrant can never be dictated by infinite wisdom. Whatever the clergy say on the contrary can have no effect in altering my sentiments. I know as well as they that two & two make four, & that three angles of a triangle of a triangle are equal to two right angles. But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible, & consider it as a mere human production designed to inrich & agrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude. "

So if he wrote the Laban story, then perhaps he was poking fun at Christian God belief.

in my opinion the writer of the story should have made Laban out as more of a tyrant and shouldn't have had him killed while he was lying helpless semi unconscious on the ground..at least if he wished God & Nephi's behavior to appear a little more ethical.

I've seen discussions on the Net regarding interpretations of the Bible. I remember a Jewish individual talking about many stories in the O.T. are meant to be interpreted metaphorically. That Jews don't interpret Adam and Eve literally and never did. And I think it's possible Dan, that people in the past interpreted the Bible metaphorically more so than moderns who tend to interpret it literally and particularly Mormons whose Book of Mormon is meant to be taken literally..and hence view the Bible literally.

I'm rushing my post. I appreciate I haven’t addressed all your post.

marge, if you will recall, the witnesses all said that Solomon's story did not contain any religious material. It was all historical. Therefore, there would have been no God directing Nephi to kill Laban in order that a nation not perish in unbelief. A Laban story in Solomon's story, without the religious aspect would be what? nothing but the killing of a drunken thief and attempted murderer. In Solomon's story, the one story that we do have, Laban(ko) was a tragic figure, killed by the villain Sambel.

It still sounds more like the content of the Oberlin manuscript than the Book of Mormon.

Also, as to the literal vs. figurative interpretation of the Bible, that is an ongoing debate today. It would help if you would read maybe a little Alexander Campbell to try and understand just how literally people of that time read the Bible. Adam made from dust, the parting of the Red Sea during the Exodus, the sun standing still, the walls of Jericho falling down, the flood, all were believed to be literal events by most Christians during that period of time and anyone preaching anything else was a heretic.

Glenn