Book of Mormon: "never again will it be known as a simple hoax."

[Guest]

RE: Message from Ken Madsen on September 29, 2018 at 12:34 am:

This has to be one of the most ridiculous defenses (of what is clearly utter nonsense in the first place) ever to grace the annals of Mormon apologia.

Nice find, Lemmie.

You just can't make this stuff up.

[_Philo Sofee]

What greater good to humanity could have been had Skousen done something like this with mathematics, physics or something else?! ALL those years and for what? So sad actually. It reminds me of the complete annihilating waste of millions of young minds in Islam where from age 3-15 they spend 8 hrs a day reading aloud the Koran in its original language! Nothing else is taught them. They are to appreciate the song of the language, the beauty of the cadence, etc. And for what? How much better for developing young minds to get thim learning other languages or mathematics or something....

[_Dr Exiled]

Such a waste of time.

[_Philo Sofee]

Meadowchik
I actually like the description of our minds as Cartesian, from Descartes until modern times. Cartesian thinking deconstructed everything into parts

Yes, and in some ways Descartes did the absolute greatest good for humanity in math with the Cartesian Coordinate System in Mathematics. It seems to me he gave us a greater emphasis on dual thinking than deconstruction but perhaps I am off a bit. I am becoming a reader of the distinguished American philosopher who just died in 2014, D. G. Leahy, who gives us an in depth interpretation and analysis of "trinary logic," in his 696 page text Foundation: Matter the Body Itself. If you can read through his first chapter I'll give ya a gold star on yer forehead. Quite difficult to say the least. After that it gets a little better, but the heart of his analysis on trinary logic is going to take some getting used to as we are using a dual logic, so the trinary is different. But the results are unbelievably fascinating! His book The Cube Unlike All Others is felicitly exquisite. I have his Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being on order.

I confess, after 18-20 pages in his first chapter I literally just skipped it and went to chapter 2. But it is necessary that he wrote it the way he did. At least I have read that somewhere. I will attempt to re-read his first chapter again soon enough I suppose. Anyway, Trinary Logic has come of age under the guidance of Leahy, or at least it was more seriously used than Pierce used it, and more complete as well. That is the jewel in the philosophy of his book at it's conclusion. The results of taking Trinary Logic all the way out to conclusion. I have never read anything like it, the guy is beyond genius.

[_tapirrider]

I suspect that Skousen and Carmack are fabricating a hoax of their own.

4 years after Joseph Smith died, this book was published:

Dictionary of Americanisms, A Glossary of Words and Phrases, Usually Regarded as Peculiar to the United States, by John Russell Bartlett, 1848

And on page iii I read this:

"On comparing these familiar words with the provincial and colloquial language of the northern counties of England, a most striking resemblance appeared, not only in the words commonly regarded as peculiar to New England, but in the dialectical pronunciation of certain words, and in the general tone and accent. In fact, it may be said, without exaggeration, that nine tenths of the colloquial peculiarities of New England are derived directly from Great Britain; and that they are now provincial in those parts from which the early colonists emigrated, or are to be found in the writings of well accredited authors of the period when that emigration took place.

It may be insisted, therefore, that the idiom of New England is as pure English, taken as a whole, as was spoken in England at the period when these colonies were settled."
https://books.google.com/books?id=9sVUA ... &q&f=false

It was a known fact in the 1800s that spoken, not written, English in the Eastern states was different from the English written and spoken in Great Britain. And its form was closest to the same spoken type of English of the early 1600s when the first colonists arrived.

Skousen and Carmack have proposed that Joseph Smith could not have known the grammar of an earlier English period. Nonsense. Published writings of the 19th century give hints that he very likely could have spoken in such a way in casual conversation. Mormons can't have their cake and eat it too. If Mormons want to insist that Joe was a poor uneducated farm boy then we have to consider the form of his casual vocal speech patterns.

[_Meadowchik]

Meadowchik
I actually like the description of our minds as Cartesian, from Descartes until modern times. Cartesian thinking deconstructed everything into parts

Yes, and in some ways Descartes did the absolute greatest good for humanity in math with the Cartesian Coordinate System in Mathematics. It seems to me he gave us a greater emphasis on dual thinking than deconstruction but perhaps I am off a bit. I am becoming a reader of the distinguished American philosopher who just died in 2014, D. G. Leahy, who gives us an in depth interpretation and analysis of "trinary logic," in his 696 page text Foundation: Matter the Body Itself. If you can read through his first chapter I'll give ya a gold star on yer forehead. Quite difficult to say the least. After that it gets a little better, but the heart of his analysis on trinary logic is going to take some getting used to as we are using a dual logic, so the trinary is different. But the results are unbelievably fascinating! His book The Cube Unlike All Others is felicitly exquisite. I have his Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being on order.

I confess, after 18-20 pages in his first chapter I literally just skipped it and went to chapter 2. But it is necessary that he wrote it the way he did. At least I have read that somewhere. I will attempt to re-read his first chapter again soon enough I suppose. Anyway, Trinary Logic has come of age under the guidance of Leahy, or at least it was more seriously used than Pierce used it, and more complete as well. That is the jewel in the philosophy of his book at it's conclusion. The results of taking Trinary Logic all the way out to conclusion. I have never read anything like it, the guy is beyond genius.

Of course, binary logic allowed humans to monumentally transcend individual limitations.

So now we're on to the time when our challenges have become about the management of the unconscious artificial systems in which we live.

[_Kishkumen]

I never thought the Book of Mormon was a simple hoax.

[_DrW]

I never thought the Book of Mormon was a simple hoax.

Of course it wasn't. You are correct.

It was an elaborate hoax. It involved plagiarism, spiritualism, lies, conspiracy and substantial post facto editing extending out over years and continuing until very recently. Primarily though, the Book of Mormon phenomenon involves a great deal of intellectual dishonesty and self delusion on the part of both its creators and those very few who actually believe it.

[_Gadianton]

I suspect that Skousen and Carmack are fabricating a hoax of their own.

4 years after Joseph Smith died, this book was published:

Dictionary of Americanisms, A Glossary of Words and Phrases, Usually Regarded as Peculiar to the United States, by John Russell Bartlett, 1848

And on page iii I read this:

"On comparing these familiar words with the provincial and colloquial language of the northern counties of England, a most striking resemblance appeared, not only in the words commonly regarded as peculiar to New England, but in the dialectical pronunciation of certain words, and in the general tone and accent. In fact, it may be said, without exaggeration, that nine tenths of the colloquial peculiarities of New England are derived directly from Great Britain; and that they are now provincial in those parts from which the early colonists emigrated, or are to be found in the writings of well accredited authors of the period when that emigration took place.

It may be insisted, therefore, that the idiom of New England is as pure English, taken as a whole, as was spoken in England at the period when these colonies were settled."
https://books.google.com/books?id=9sVUA ... &q&f=false

It was a known fact in the 1800s that spoken, not written, English in the Eastern states was different from the English written and spoken in Great Britain. And its form was closest to the same spoken type of English of the early 1600s when the first colonists arrived.

Skousen and Carmack have proposed that Joseph Smith could not have known the grammar of an earlier English period. Nonsense. Published writings of the 19th century give hints that he very likely could have spoken in such a way in casual conversation. Mormons can't have their cake and eat it too. If Mormons want to insist that Joe was a poor uneducated farm boy then we have to consider the form of his casual vocal speech patterns.

thanks for that tappir.

[_Dr. Shades]

So what does that mean for Book of Mormon historicity and/or translation? If the language of issues of the Book of Mormon are primarily from the 1500’s, is this implying that Joseph Smith based it on some text he had found from the 1500’s? Or that the person delivering this revelation to him was from the 1500’s? (Which seems to make no sense at all.) I don’t understand the implications.

Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and/or Solomon Spaulding was/were consciously aping the language of the King James version of the Bible. The King James version was published in 1611, not too terribly far removed from the 1500s.

Problem solved; controversy over.