apolgetic strawman - the Book of Mormon as copy

[_Runtu]

So tell me, charity, exactly how is it that you imagine you were not caught using the exact strawman argument that Sethbag referred to?

Trevor,

Don't you see the differences in the way charity phrased it? It's quite obvious that, given the differences, there's no similarity between the straw man Seth described and charity's posts.

Come on. Get with the program!

[_Runtu]

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. What I was talking about is causation. Your argument is that exposure to ideas in the View of the Hebrews, Campbellite theology, etc. CAUSED the doctrines, etc. to appear in the Book of Mormon. When I was in graduate school they worked hard to drum into us that correlation does not equal causation. That two things occur at the same time does not mean that one caused the other.

You have conflated the two. Some of what is contained in the Book of Mormon may have been in the culture at the time. This does not mean that their presence caused them to appear in the Book of Mormon.

I was not saying there were not ideas, or that some of these may have appeared in the Book of Mormon, or that if there was not a perfect correspondence that "proved" anything. My argument is that you cannot say that Joseph "borrowed" anything.

Are you trying to say that to be valid, a doctrinal exposition must be unique?

Charity,

I beg to differ. You originally said there was no correlation, not that correlation does not equal causation. Your point, as it was made and repeated, was that the differences made any similarities moot.

"Some of what is contained in the Book of Mormon may have been in the culture at the time" is the biggest understatement I've heard in many years.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

Do your eyebrows also raise at the inaccuracies of Mormon defenders? For that matter, do your eyebrows raise at the inaccuracies of Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of the first vision? Do they raise at the inaccuracies in the Book of Abraham? Do they raise at the inaccuracies and lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon? Or do you reserve your eyebrow raising only for critics?

KA

[_charity]

Excellent point. I believe the church at some point in the future will move to this strategy. So far they are clinging to the "Joseph was a either a prophet or a con-man" doctrine, but in order to survive they are going to have to develop an acceptable middle ground. Members in 1880 probably thought there was no way the church could drop polygamy, but they did, and it turned out to be a great decision. I'm not sure what the middle ground on the Book of Mormon will be, but the church has successfully reinvented itself for self-preservation in the past, and it can do it again.

This is really funny. We have survived for years without abandoning Joseph as a prophet. We will survive into the future as far as we need to before the Millenium comes without running away from the Book of Mormon.

Talk about a false argument. We did not "drop" polygamy. It is still practiced today. Living men may be sealed to more than one wife. I know a number who are. And I am not talking about Fundamentalists. Since we must bow to the demands of an unconstitutional law, the only qualifier is that the man may only be sealed to one living woman at a time. I don't see how anyone could say that the Church would be in trouble today if the federal government had left them alone. The modern culture accepts multiple sexual partners and even really admires those men and women who engage in those practices. Heck, by modern standards, even the most polygamous of the leaders of the church were pikers. None of the could come anywhere close to Bill Russell's claim of 10,000 sexual partners. And he is a celebrity icon.

[_Bond...James Bond]

None of the could come anywhere close to Bill Russell's claim of 10,000 sexual partners. And he is a celebrity icon.

I think you mean Wilt Chamberlain....and he claimed 20,000 partners!

(Dang...when did he have time for basketball?)

[_charity]

I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

Do your eyebrows also raise at the inaccuracies of Mormon defenders? For that matter, do your eyebrows raise at the inaccuracies of Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of the first vision? Do they raise at the inaccuracies in the Book of Abraham? Do they raise at the inaccuracies and lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon? Or do you reserve your eyebrow raising only for critics?

KA

Sure. It really makes me cringe when some person with his/her heart in the right place, but their facts out of order makes some claim to defend the Church which cannot be maintained.

But I also go beyond the superficial, which most of the least sophisticated critics do not do. Do you know there is still a critic or two around (check out the MA&D board) who is holding to the old argument about the word "adieu" in the Book of Jacob. And the phrase "in the land of Jerusalem" as the birthplace of Jesus.

I would like to see the "inaccuracies" of the Book of Abraham. My study has gone deeper into this area than most critics.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. You sophiticated critics should really take that one to heart and not bring it up.

[_Runtu]

Sure. It really makes me cringe when some person with his/her heart in the right place, but their facts out of order makes some claim to defend the Church which cannot be maintained.

But I also go beyond the superficial, which most of the least sophisticated critics do not do.

You mean like actually reading books before you dismiss them?

Do you know there is still a critic or two around (check out the MA&D board) who is holding to the old argument about the word "adieu" in the Book of Jacob. And the phrase "in the land of Jerusalem" as the birthplace of Jesus.

Why do you keep trotting these two hoary examples out?

I would like to see the "inaccuracies" of the Book of Abraham. My study has gone deeper into this area than most critics.

I would like to believe that.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. You sophiticated critics should really take that one to heart and not bring it up.

It's "absence." We'll stop bringing it up when you stop bringing up "adieu." Deal?

[_Trevor]

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. What I was talking about is causation. Your argument is that exposure to ideas in the View of the Hebrews, Campbellite theology, etc. CAUSED the doctrines, etc. to appear in the Book of Mormon. When I was in graduate school they worked hard to drum into us that correlation does not equal causation. That two things occur at the same time does not mean that one caused the other.

You have conflated the two. Some of what is contained in the Book of Mormon may have been in the culture at the time. This does not mean that their presence caused them to appear in the Book of Mormon.

I was not saying there were not ideas, or that some of these may have appeared in the Book of Mormon, or that if there was not a perfect correspondence that "proved" anything. My argument is that you cannot say that Joseph "borrowed" anything.

Are you trying to say that to be valid, a doctrinal exposition must be unique?

No, charity, you have simply changed your tune, as Runtu noticed, when you saw that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar. So, you see, I am not guilty of confusing correlation and causation. You are guilty of trying to dodge what you actually said, and then placing the blame on me as though I was the one with the problem. Nice try. I don't think anyone is biting.

[_charity]

You mean like actually reading books before you dismiss them?

I read enough to evaluate it. Do you have time to read every book that comes along?

Do you know there is still a critic or two around (check out the MA&D board) who is holding to the old argument about the word "adieu" in the Book of Jacob. And the phrase "in the land of Jerusalem" as the birthplace of Jesus.

Why do you keep trotting these two hoary examples out?

Because just recently on the MA&D board there was a critic who was still trying to make the claim that these were legitimate problems for the Book of Mormon. As soon as all the critics get on the same page, we will really appreciate not having to address such silly issues.

I would like to see the "inaccuracies" of the Book of Abraham. My study has gone deeper into this area than most critics.

I would like to believe that.
[b]
Show me some then. You can start another thread and I will participate, if I can find it. Don't make the topic descriptions at all cryptic or I will run right past it. You know me. I don't like to waste time.[/b]

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. You sophiticated critics should really take that one to heart and not bring it up.

It's "absence." We'll stop bringing it up when you stop bringing up "adieu." Deal?

Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't bring up adieu. There is some lamebrain critic who has done that. And I hope you do drop the absence argument. That would be pleasant. However, I think you are stuck with it. Do you really think you critic guys are never ever going to say again, "There isn't any archeological evidence, so the Book of Mormon is false?"

[_Sethbag]

There is a very common apologetic strawman that needs to be discussed. Charity has drug it out and set it up in the recent Book of Mormon thread, and it came up recently in the Thomas Dick discussions around the Book of Abraham.

The strawman goes something like this: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a direct copy, or is not obviously just a plain old plagiarized ripoff of a given proposed book, therefore the theory of a connection between the Book of Mormon and the ideas in that book is comprehensively disproven.

Sethbag, you set up a nice little piece here, except that you tried to spice it up a little by putting my name and words I didn't say in your first paragraph. Didn't you think you could get people to read such a long piece unless they were looking to see if I am shot down in flames?

I didn't say what you said I did. But other than that, I suppose your piece is pretty accurate. I don't k now, one inaccurracy right at the begining makes the eyebrows go up.

Your name was not in there for the "star power", sorry to disappoint you. You have in fact advocated the ideas that I talked about. You argued that there's no way the Spaulding works serve as a basis for the Book of Mormon, because you've read them, and they're way different. The point is, are there things Spaulding wrote which Joseph and/or his helpers in writing the Book of Mormon might have adopted into his/their theology, or inspiration for the fictional story of the Book of Mormon? Does the Spaulding writing contribute to either the theological or the historical belief milieu (ie: ancient Americans as Israelites, as a theme) that Joseph and/or his helpers drew upon in creating the Book of Mormon?

Also, there are differences between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews, but does that negate the likelihood that Joseph and/or his helpers were influenced by it, either in terms of possible theological elements, or else in helping to design the fictional story elements of the Book of Mormon?

You guys act as if all you have to do is demonstrate some differences between these works and the Book of Mormon, and the whole topic can safely be completely dismissed. You've missed the point. It may have been argued somewhere, by someone, in the past that the Book of Mormon is just a direct ripoff of one particular work, and there may still be a theory that perhaps Sidney Rigdon helped write the Book of Mormon based on a Spaulding manuscript that he stole, or whatever. Be that as it may, the common critical argument today is that the Book of Mormon is a work firmly based on 19th Century American theological and historical currents of thought, and that can be demonstrated by pointing out various contributions to that milieu which also happen to be things Joseph Smith taught, or wrote, either in the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the Book of Abraham, or whatever.