Sorry, I cannot resist: another Bokovoy nugget

[_dartagnan]

According to Bokovoy's latest attempt to prove Smith was truly inspired, Moses 1:25 provides strong evidence.

"Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.” (Moses 1: 25)

True to form, Bokovoy wasted a thousand words (literally) to make a no-brainer sound like an amazing "pearl" of great price.

The logic goes thusly:

1) Smith said Moses would move the waters as if he were God
2) In the Ancient Near East, only a God could move the waters.
3) Therefore, Smith must be inspired.

Again, it is a sad sight to see someone so blinded by his own apologetic ambition that he is this determined at connecting dots that do not exist. I mean has he even considered the other alternative that is ten times more likely? That Moses, a man whom the Bible said moved waters, and a man whom the Lord said would "be a God" to his people, would be talked about later on by a 19th century religionist as someone who was acting "as if he were God," is nothing short of expected.

But not for Bokovoy. This is evidence that Joseph Smith was receiving divine revelation that always seems to be corroborating some distant parallel he is digging out of the ANE.

So in the ANE one must have been a God in order to control the waters as Moses did? Well, what Bokovoy doesn't come to grips with is that the same is true for 19th century America, of which Joseph Smith was a part. Any one of them would also say only GOD could do that. The same holds true today.

Hello McFly?

Last year I made a comment over there that his parallels are becoming so ridiculously superficial that pretty soon he will be arguing that the Book of Abraham must be inspired because it refers to a deity, very much like ANE texts do. His latest post shows that he is only a few steps away from that sort of desperate reaching.

[_Dr. Shades]

2) In the Ancient Near East, only a God could move the waters.

As opposed to everywhere but the Ancient Near East, where everybody could move the waters.

If this is what Peterson and Gee have "invested" in, then they should demand all their money back immediately, with interest.

[_The Nehor]

A thousand words does seem excessive in this case. While I agree with the reasoning he uses to show it is right it is hardly a powerful piece of evidence. Maybe a hundred words.

[_harmony]

Again, it is a sad sight to see someone so blinded by his own apologetic ambition that he is this determined at connecting dots that do not exist.

Well, I like David. And if it's his ambition to be in the inner circle of LDS apologists, then I hope he achieves his goal. It's obviously not his ambition to be correct in his apologist's mode, so it sounds for him, like Gee, simply being in the inner circle is enough.

[_Mercury]

This guy has a hardon for impressing the apologists and Mormons in general. The faithful lap up this waste of bandwidth and the child is used to the spotlight. It is entirely obvious what it takes to run in his circles, that being to ramble on and on about vaporous ideals unsupported by his citations.

In the end he will fade into utter obscurity. Even now he is unknown outside his limited social circles, his rofessional network getting smaller and smaller as he continues to be known for laughable analysis of a confidence man as if someone in 2150 were to find meaning in the videos David Koresh and Tom Cruise.

[_Tarski]

According to Bokovoy's latest attempt to prove Smith was truly inspired, Moses 1:25 provides strong evidence.

"Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.” (Moses 1: 25)

True to form, Bokovoy wasted a thousand words (literally) to make a no-brainer sound like an amazing "pearl" of great price.

The logic goes thusly:

1) Smith said Moses would move the waters as if he were God
2) In the Ancient Near East, only a God could move the waters.
3) Therefore, Smith must be inspired.

Heh heh. That was a good coke-all-over-the-keyboard laugh (Sorry David B.)

[_Mercury]

The logic goes thusly:

1) Smith said Moses would move the waters as if he were God
2) In the Ancient Near East, only a God could move the waters.
3) Therefore, Smith must be inspired.

So let me get this straight. He believes circular reasoning is an effective way of proof. Asinine.

[_beastie]

I admit that I am not that interested in Hebraic Book of Mormon parallels, and part of the reason is "evidences" like this one. They tend to be, well, lame.

Yes, ONLY someone inspired would connect God with moving waters. No doubt.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Given all the other things Moses did, it's the choice of this particular one as a descriptor of his power that is interesting. The waters, in the ANE, were extremely terrifying. The were the abode of monsters, demons, and Chaos. Few if any gods were thought to have power over the sea. So for Moses to be stronger than the sea is pretty impressive, from an ANE standpoint. Much moreso, for example, than having power over locusts or frogs and the like. So I can see where David is coming from.

Then again, it's not exactly conclusive. I'd like to see him find an ANE parallel for "original guilt".

-CK

[_Chap]

Please: is it rude if I say this out loud:

ONE OF THE MOST LIKELY THINGS, IF NOT THE MOST LIKELY THING THAT ANY 19TH CENTURY PROTESTANT (LIKE Joseph Smith) WOULD CONNECT MOSES WITH IS THE STORY OF HIM ORDERING THE WATERS OF THE RED SEA TO PART!

Why do we need any other explanation at all of why, in making up an imaginary Book of Moses, Joseph Smith would say of Moses "thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God."

Don't PhD supervisors at BYU (isn't Bokovoy at BYU?) point this kind of thing out to students who come up with pseudo-answers to non-problems? It is usual elsewhere.

Elsewhere one is normally taught to apply the principle of economy in interpreting data - basically, one goes for the explanation of a situation that does not require us to imagine all kinds of auxiliary hypotheses. It seems that the BYU method is the opposite. Take any situation, and build on it the most tottering house of cards possible - so long as it stays up long enough for you to stand on top of it for a brief instant and shout "Joseph Smith was inspired".

If there is anything that drives me to continue thinking and posting about nutty stuff like this, it is my dismay at the corruption of bright young minds by such intellectual abuse.