If plates then God

[tagriffy]

Hales picks out some elements of Smith's storytelling [in one sentence] and argues they are not in the B of M, while ignoring the fact that the next four elements he 'storytells' [still from that one sentence] absolutely are in the book.

That's cherry picking-- and Hales has the audacity to do it from within a single sentence! That type of analysis shouldn't have gotten past peer review.

I agree with that. Suppressing the fact Joseph did in fact write coherent letters in the relevant time period, contra Emma's recollection is another instance. I'm sure more instances could be found if someone combs through Hales' essay.

[MG 2.0]

Since we’ve been discussing the likelihood of whether or not Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon on his own and the correlation this has with angels, plates, and God, I thought I might post this graphic that illustrates some of the things Brian Hales points out in the link I provided upthread.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp- ... FINAL2.pdf

This was from a FAIR Conference in 2021.

Brian Hales was the presenter. All in a nutshell.

Regards,
MG

The link returns a 404 error.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blo ... nd-the-gap

Click on the handout link.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG purporting to give out "reading assignments" is the most hilarious thing I've seen in a while.

It did become a bit humorous I must admit.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That would be an incorrect assessment of Hales' position (whom you have recommended in this thread but not quoted) regarding the Lucy Mack memories, based on his most recent article in the Interpreter:
[bolding added to illustrate the contradiction.]

It's difficult to know what point you are actually trying to make, when you contradict your own references within the same conversation.

Paul Harvey, the rest of the story:

Although Lucy mentioned that Joseph spoke only occasionally, these family recitations could represent the tip of his expanding imagination iceberg and his attempts to hone oratorical skills. If so, other family members or acquaintances might have remembered, but only Lucy left a record. Joseph’s younger brother William later claimed that Joseph was incapable of authoring a “historey of a once enlightned people, their rise their progress, their origin, and [Page 16]their final over throw that once inhabited this american Continent.”63 William’s statement seems to contradict Lucy’s recollection or suggests that Joseph’s recitals did not include such details or did not impress all family members.
If imaginative tales commonly rolled from Joseph’s lips, or creative storytelling became a pastime as he prepared his mind and oratory skills for the 1829 Book of Mormon dictation, no one outside the family recalled him actively rehearsing.64 In 1834, Eber D. Howe published statements from twenty-two local residents and two “group statements” from the inhabitants of Palmyra and Manchester.65 In July 1880, newspaperman Frederick G. Mather compiled written recollections from twelve citizens of Susquehanna, Broome, and Chenango Counties, Pennsylvania.66 In 1888, Arthur Deming printed accounts from fourteen individuals in two volumes of Naked Truths about Mormonism.67 Many of these persons [Page 17]knew Joseph Smith Jr. personally, but none describe him engaging in the activities of a village bard or entertaining spectators with his recitals. Journalist James Gordon Bennett visited the Palmyra area in August of 1831 and recorded that Joseph Smith’s father was a “great story teller,” but wrote nothing similar concerning the younger Joseph.68

—Same Interpreter source

I’m not sure where you guys are trying to go with things at this point except to try and set up road blocks to that which is fairly obvious to the honest observer. Joseph Smith was not in a position to have written the Book of Mormon on his own. You to jump through something very large hoops and perform some gigantic acts of mental gymnastics to propose that he did.

Hey, that’s supposed to be my modus operandi.

Regards,
MG

Your extra quoting misses the point. Hales cherry picks one sentence, leaving half of the items out. He makes a conclusion that is insupportable if the other half of the items are accounted for. Also, you actively disagreed with Hales' cherry picked comment, even though you recommended his article.


Bottom line for me, you really have to check the footnotes in mopologetic articles given the likelihood of misquotations, and assume peer review is minimal at best, given the number of logical errors that are allowed.

[MG 2.0]

So, IHAQ, on a scale of 1to10 what do you think the likelihood is that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own? Why?

1 being very likely and 10 being very unlikely.

And on a scale of 1to10 how important do you think the answer to the previous question is?

1 being very important and 10 being not important at all.

Do you believe that the title of this thread, “If Plates Then God” has a high correlation/connection to the answer of these two questions?

Regards,
MG

BUMP

Others?

IHAQ doesn’t want to play.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That's cherry picking-- and Hales has the audacity to do it from within a single sentence! That type of analysis shouldn't have gotten past peer review.

I agree with that. Suppressing the fact Joseph did in fact write coherent letters in the relevant time period, contra Emma's recollection is another instance. I'm sure more instances could be found if someone combs through Hales' essay.

Yes. Just a cursory examination of it brought up two big points, based on what you and I were discussing. I'm sure there are other issues, unfortunately.

It brings up my usual complaint, peer review is necessary! Even just a decent copy editor would catch most of the contradictions and footnote errors.

[MG 2.0]

Stop being a vacuous troll and start backing up your assertions. Or don’t.

Ad hominem? Should it be called out as such?

I think IHAQ may have been a bit hot under the collar because he was given a couple of reading assignments.

The word ‘troll’ when used indiscriminately loses its meaning/power. It’s just an expletive to vent off steam.

I think we all can do better.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

You’re right. In principle ancient scripture doesn’t need extant media. Yet the Book of Mormon was translated from plates. So in these two instances you’re comparing, one did not require extant media and the other did.

That's like saying cash isn't required in principle to buy a happy meal. When I bought a happy meal on Monday, I used cash. When I bought a happy meal on Wednesday, I used a credit card. So in these two instances we're comparing, one required cash and the other didn't.

If there is a God and if he is totally incompetent and an absolute fool, then I'm sure you're in fantastic graces with him.

To compare the two and say that the mode of operation in regards to how the revelatory component worked and must be the same is an interesting point of view.

What’s not to say that the Lord has more than one way to get his word in printt?

You're making up your own discussion that has nothing to do with the thread. Nobody is denying that God could have 1027 different ways of communicating to people.

The plates imply a world where God is an active agent in human affairs

That's Richard Bushman's claim. You're arguing against him, not me. Why don't you just say, "No Richard Bushman, we don't need plates to imply a world where God is an active agent, because he can also reveal scripture directly like with the Book of Moses, which just as strongly implies God is an active agent (for other reasons) as the Book of Mormon."

[MG 2.0]

You’re right. In principle ancient scripture doesn’t need extant media. Yet the Book of Mormon was translated from plates. So in these two instances you’re comparing, one did not require extant media and the other did.

That's like saying cash isn't required in principle to buy a happy meal. When I bought a happy meal on Monday, I used cash. When I bought a happy meal on Wednesday, I used a credit card. So in these two instances we're comparing, one required cash and the other didn't.

We’re not talking about happy meals.

As much as you like to determine relative truths through the use of real world analogies I would suggest that they probably are more meaningful to you than they are to actual reality.

Happy meals, modes of payment and revelatory methods/transactions from God are not transactional.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If there is a God and if he is totally incompetent and an absolute fool, then I'm sure you're in fantastic graces with him.

Nice ad hominem. Hitting on God and me. Twofer.

Regards,
MG