Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[sock puppet]

What do you make of the counter claim from DCP that puts the burden of proof on the critic to explain away the witnesses and the complexity of the Book of Mormon?

I apologize for weighing in, as my gray matter is nowhere near as expansive as Kish's, but for me, the "complexity" thing requires such limited categorization exclusions as to make it meaningless as a defense of the divine nature of the book. It's only impressively complex if you progressively exclude other books as counter-examples. To put it on a pedestal of complexity, you essentially have to reduce any comparative competition to holy writ produced primarily by oral transmission. I apologize for dragging out my favorite example (as I'm an endless fanboy) for complexity, but Tolkien's books are infinitely more complex and impressive. So much so, that it seems silly to even try to compare their complexity. It's like comparing a toddler's babblings to the monologues in Chekhov's "The Seagull."

Just taking something like Lhammas. Tolkien created a fictional book of sociolinguistics for various languages spoken during the First Age (there were multiple ages, each with distinct history, leading to Dagor Dagorath**) of Middle-Earth. The Book of Mormon gives us a passing reference to Reformed Egyptian, and a few unique words. Tolkien created entire languages, merely as backdrop to the world he created. He created new mythologies, as well as borrowing and building upon existing mythologies. New, unique "doctrines," gods, "prophets," etc.. All within a complex framework of an entire world, intricately woven together in a near seamless way. With small factoids given in passing in previous books re-emerging later in a nonchalant way to give deep meaning to a given character's action.

The so-called complexity of the Book of Mormon loses all of its impressiveness the moment you allow it to be what it claims to be (an intricately compiled history, from various written chronicles, with the theological and moral teachings of multiple societies, spanning generations, often directly led by men who purportedly communed with an all-knowing deity). On the footing of what it claims to be, its impressive complexity fades away. Don't get me wrong, I don't share Mark Twain's overall summation; I think it's incredibly impressive, for what it is and how it was produced. When compared to other books though, it's impressiveness starts to wane.

**ETA: Just an added thing. Dagor Dagorath is only in manuscripts that have been published posthumously by his son. That's how incredibly complex it all is. There are myths, histories, maps, characters, etc., that were created to make the whole world come together, but were never published. Like a real world, where other people, myths, etc. are a foundation to other events and things, but you don't necessarily hear about them because they were so commonplace to the participants in the story that it felt unnecessary to convey them to the audience.

Thank you!

[Moksha]

**ETA: Just an added thing. Dagor Dagorath is only in manuscripts that have been published posthumously by his son. That's how incredibly complex it all is. There are myths, histories, maps, characters, etc., that were created to make the whole world come together, but were never published.

Wonder if the Prophecy of Mandos foretelling the return of Morgoth for the final battle to end the world could be similar to Brigham returning to reintroduce polygamy unto the world.

Just think, if Tom Bombadil were still around, he would be older than the Three Nephites. Tom Bombadil would, of course, oppose polygamy since he was devoted to Goldberry, the Riverwoman's Daughter. There would be no threats of destroying Goldberry for not hearkening unto the songs of Tom Bombadil. Joseph's intent was more like that of Sauron, even though the respective myths utilized different loan shifting.

[MG 2.0]

Granted, for believers in the plates, the basic critical stance may not be persuasive. Then again, the Church sure does discourage pursuit of any critical information and for good reason, as it's not too hard to find believers who have been persuaded otherwise. If a believer is strongly committed by faith to plates and learns of these translation layer arguments, then it's possible that such a believer will not be easily convinced by anachronisms. I can offer a reductio ad absurdum in the form of the hypothetical Spaulding Latin manuscript, and point out that no apologist would spend five minutes entertaining any theories about that (likewise they'd never spend 5 minutes on the myriad of alleged sealed portion translations), and so the basic critical stance doesn't need to be seen as unnecessarily dismissive or rude, but something the believer will have sympathy for if it regards a competing theory of the same kind as their own about plates.

In the past we have had a long discussion on the primary importance of the plates. If plates, then...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158043&hilit=gold+plates

I think I had about all I have to say on the topic in that rather LONG thread.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

**ETA: Just an added thing. Dagor Dagorath is only in manuscripts that have been published posthumously by his son. That's how incredibly complex it all is. There are myths, histories, maps, characters, etc., that were created to make the whole world come together, but were never published.

Wonder if the Prophecy of Mandos foretelling the return of Morgoth for the final battle to end the world could be similar to Brigham returning to reintroduce polygamy unto the world.

Just think, if Tom Bombadil were still around, he would be older than the Three Nephites. Tom Bombadil would, of course, oppose polygamy since he was devoted to Goldberry, the Riverwoman's Daughter. There would be no threats of destroying Goldberry for not hearkening unto the songs of Tom Bombadil. Joseph's intent was more like that of Sauron, even though the respective myths utilized different loan shifting.

LOL! Love it!

[Kishkumen]

What do you make of the counter claim from DCP that puts the burden of proof on the critic to explain away the witnesses and the complexity of the Book of Mormon?

Spiritual witnesses bear spiritual witness to spiritual things. If they say they saw an angel, we can at best trust that they believed they saw an angel. If they say they saw and touched plates, we can trust they believed that they did. That in no way validates the existence of civilizations in antiquity. All it means is that these people believed in the experiences they had. We can ask what their expertise was in American antiquities that would make their witness valuable to archeologists and historians. The answer would've course be that they had none. We can trust witnesses in those things they are qualified to speak about.

Complexity does not prove when something was written and by whom it was written.

[Kishkumen]

But please clarify - what do you mean by 'accepting <some body of writing> as scripture'? Does that imply some kind of belief that the content of the writing in question embodies some kind of message from a deity? Or what? I am not trying to catch you out - I really am not sure what you mean.

Whatever your answer, I find the group of collections of texts now known as 'the Bible' much more interesting to read than the Book of Mormon, since the Bible contains the creations of many writers living in different ages and with different aims and assumptions, whereas the Book of Mormon appears to be no more than what came out of one single mind in upstate New York in the early 19th century.

I am saying I have no problem with people believing the Book of Mormon to be scripture, which is not really a statement about your level of interest in it. I don't think YOU are obliged to believe it is scripture.

Scripture is a term that is meaningful in specific cultural contexts. For the people participating in such a context, accepting a book as scripture means that it bears a certain authority and will be used as a source of divine meaning by its believing readers.

[Chap]

Scripture is a term that is meaningful in specific cultural contexts. For the people participating in such a context, accepting a book as scripture means that it bears a certain authority and will be used as a source of divine meaning by its believing readers.

That seems a reasonable enough description from a sociological point of view. For me. as you will have gathered, the concept of 'divine meaning', like 'scripture', is a social construct without any objective reference behind it.

I'd like to add that, so far as I can see, whether or not a person is willing to use the descriptor 'scripture' of a text seems to have a great deal more to do with how they were brought up than with any describable characteristics of the content of the text. Thus, early 19th C. protestant Americans were brought up believing that the language of the King James translation of the Bible was associated with 'divine meaning'. It was therefore a clever move of Joseph Smith to compose his 'The Bible: part 2, Nephi and Co,' text in a style as close as he could manage to that of the KJV. Had he written it in current English it would have been much less attractive to converts, even if the actual content had been identical in meaning.

[sock puppet]

But please clarify - what do you mean by 'accepting <some body of writing> as scripture'? Does that imply some kind of belief that the content of the writing in question embodies some kind of message from a deity? Or what? I am not trying to catch you out - I really am not sure what you mean.

Whatever your answer, I find the group of collections of texts now known as 'the Bible' much more interesting to read than the Book of Mormon, since the Bible contains the creations of many writers living in different ages and with different aims and assumptions, whereas the Book of Mormon appears to be no more than what came out of one single mind in upstate New York in the early 19th century.

I am saying I have no problem with people believing the Book of Mormon to be scripture, which is not really a statement about your level of interest in it. I don't think YOU are obliged to believe it is scripture.

Scripture is a term that is meaningful in specific cultural contexts. For the people participating in such a context, accepting a book as scripture means that it bears a certain authority and will be used as a source of divine meaning by its believing readers.

For me, my problem with "scripture" is that it opens the door to fanaticism. Claims of inerrancy. If one believes that a text is from God, he or she is likely going to believe it literally. That in turn can often lead to problems, such as Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[Chap]

For me, my problem with "scripture" is that it opens the door to fanaticism. Claims of inerrancy. If one believes that a text is from God, he or she is likely going to believe it literally. That in turn can often lead to problems, such as Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Frankly, for me the problem is not so much the notion of 'scripture' but the notion of a deity of the type favoured by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) - you know, the omnipotent, omniscient and eternal old guy ... who just never happens to appear to us in person (is he too busy? worried his voice will deafen us? just a bit shy?), but leaves it to a succession of human beings to speak on his behalf.

Or that's what they have all claimed ... unfortunately there appears to be no reliable way of finding out whether their claims are true. Well, a lot of the time, it isn't so much a question of deciding rationally whether Guy X is telling the truth about his right to speak with the authority of you-know-who, but more a question of what Guy X or his followers will do to you if you don't do what Guy X (sorry, the old guy up there) is telling you to do. Of course, it is very wicked to question the word of <some guy who claims to represent the old guy>, because it's just like disobeying the old guy himself. I mean, isn't it?

There are times when I really dream of a world in which the whole Abrahamic protection racket never got started ...

[MG 2.0]

For me, my problem with "scripture" is that it opens the door to fanaticism. Claims of inerrancy. If one believes that a text is from God, he or she is likely going to believe it literally. That in turn can often lead to problems, such as Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Frankly, for me the problem is not so much the notion of 'scripture' but the notion of a deity of the type favoured by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) - you know, the omnipotent, omniscient and eternal old guy ... who just never happens to appear to us in person (is he too busy? worried his voice will deafen us? just a bit shy?), but leaves it to a succession of human beings to speak on his behalf.

Or that's what they have all claimed ... unfortunately there appears to be no reliable way of finding out whether their claims are true. Well, a lot of the time, it isn't so much a question of deciding rationally whether Guy X is telling the truth about his right to speak with the authority of you-know-who, but more a question of what Guy X or his followers will do to you if you don't do what Guy X (sorry, the old guy up there) is telling you to do. Of course, it is very wicked to question the word of <some guy who claims to represent the old guy>, because it's just like disobeying the old guy himself. I mean, isn't it?

There are times when I really dream of a world in which the whole Abrahamic protection racket never got started ...

Yeah, He's an "old guy up there". Makes it sound like you have something against someone older than you? Someone that exists in time and space beyond your own?

Does that make it a non starter?

By the way, it's an axiom of belief, in LDS thought, that this 'old guy'...God..."appear[ed] to us in person" when He appeared to Joseph Smith. So to say that it didn't happen is your belief. Granted, for those that believe God appeared to Joseph Smith, that is their belief.

To each, his or her own.

Why is this brought up over and over again as though it's the first time?

Rehash upon rehash.

Regards,
MG