Shulem challenges RFM’s magical powers

[Shulem]

Are you telling me that Joseph Smith did not realize that "adieu" was not in the Bible? The problem here is your foundational assumption that, because Joseph Smith emulated King-Jamesian language, he must have felt it was important to emulate it precisely.

With regard to adieu, I can't say whether Smith knew it was foreign to the Bible but while telling his story he used it rather than "farewell" and by doing so it demonstrates a bit of arrogance on his part because he surely knew it was a French word. But adieu was actually an expression people of his time used. So in that respect, Smith employed the word to dress up his story but in doing so the original English flavor of the KJV was doused with a French sauce. It was a one time occurrence. It happened only once in the Book of Mormon and I think Smith let it happen because he thought it was rather neat. I tend to think Smith knew it was not a biblical word but in the moment of passion while telling his story and ending the communication of one of his characters he elected to exhibit a bit arrogance and with that assumed the risk of it being a suspect choice for his book written by descendants of Israelites who did not speak French. So, what I am also saying is that Smith probably preplanned to use the word in his book prior to dictation. He was formulating the entire novel in his head long before he actually dictated the story. The word adieu was probably a word he had preselected for the vocabulary to add spice to his story.

[Kishkumen]

With regard to adieu, I can't say whether Smith knew it was foreign to the Bible but while telling his story he used it rather than "farewell" and by doing so it demonstrates a bit of arrogance on his part because he surely knew it was a French word. But adieu was actually an expression people of his time used. So in that respect, Smith employed the word to dress up his story but in doing so the original English flavor of the KJV was doused with a French sauce. It was a one time occurrence. It happened only once in the Book of Mormon and I think Smith let it happen because he thought it was rather neat. I tend to think Smith knew it was not a biblical word but in the moment of passion while telling his story and ending the communication of one of his characters he elected to exhibit a bit arrogance and with that assumed the risk of it being a suspect choice for his book written by descendants of Israelites who did not speak French. So, what I am also saying is that Smith probably preplanned to use the word in his book prior to dictation. He was formulating the entire novel in his head long before he actually dictated the story. The word adieu was probably a word he had preselected for the vocabulary to add spice to his story.

So you admit that he was capable of using non-King-Jamesian language for purposes at odds with your general view of his motivations for using King-Jamesian language. OK. So it looks like your model may have problems.

[Shulem]

So you admit that he was capable of using non-King-Jamesian language for purposes at odds with your general view of his motivations for using King-Jamesian language. OK. So it looks like your model may have problems.

Listen to youuu!

My model doesn't have any problems, Kishy. It's Joe's novel and practices that have the problems! I'm pointing out the problems, inconsistencies, and matters that went over Smith's head. I can do that because I have modern day tools to work with and I think outside the box unlike many of the critics and faithful alike.



And yes, not only do I admit that Joe was capable of using non-King Jamesian language in his book he did in fact use non-King Jamesian language in his book -- hence the problems!

Very few people really understand Joseph Smith's thought process.

Would you kindly elect me as one of those people? I think about Joe all the time.

Your whole project begins with the assumption that Joseph Smith is mostly just a lying fraud, and so every research project you undertake looks for evidence to prove that point.

Well, I certainly don't believe he was telling the truth. Of course he knew he was a pious fraud and he was fine with that. Those gold plates under the cloth sitting on the table were not what he claimed them to be. So you see, I automatically START with the assumption that he was lying and I build my case on that.

Honestly, I think that is a very boring question, but you don't care what I think in that regard. I just find it somewhat funny that you get upset with me for not finding that to be an interesting way to go. Still, you do a lot of interesting and useful work in the service of answering that boring question.

I am thankful you are doing it.

I'm suiting up right now in some farmer clothes and getting ready to take a trip in my time machine. I'm going to Palmyra to visit the Grandin press. I'm going to get a hold of Joe and tell him I had a dream and I believe it was from God. I'm going to tell Joe that I dreamed he was printing a holy book and the word START is therein a total of 5 times. I'll say that God has asked me to tell Joe to replace the word with BEGAN because the word start is not a biblical word and it came much later from wicked German barbarians who like to start wars.

[Kishkumen]

Listen to youuu!

My model doesn't have any problems, Kishy. It's Joe's novel and practices that have the problems! I'm pointing out the problems, inconsistencies, and matters that went over Smith's head. I can do that because I have modern day tools to work with and I think outside the box unlike many of the critics and faithful alike.



And yes, not only do I admit that Joe was capable of using non-King Jamesian language in his book he did in fact use non-King Jamesian language in his book -- hence the problems!

Of course your model has problems. Every model does. You can try to deny that Joseph consciously used non-King-Jamesian language for his own purposes when you have already conceded that this is in fact the case, but you just look unconsciously inconsistent in doing so!

[Shulem]

You want to show others that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I want to understand Joseph Smith. Those are very different ways of approaching the same material. Your project will yield a lot of interesting data and observations. And then you will say, "See? Joseph Smith was a fraud!"

Well duh. I'm a missionary critic for Joseph Smith's work and want to set the record straight.

[Kishkumen]

Well, I certainly don't believe he was telling the truth. Of course he knew he was a pious fraud and he was fine with that. Those gold plates under the cloth sitting on the table were not what he claimed them to be. So you see, I automatically START with the assumption that he was lying and I build my case on that.

That just screams of the moral reasoning of childhood. “He lied, mommy!” “Yes, dear, Joseph did not tell the truth! Here’s your cookie!”

Yeah, so, indeed there were no gold plates. And yes, Joseph misrepresented things in various ways quite a bit. Case closed, eh?

Yes! Case closed for YOU!

You can stop there and relish your accomplishments.

Others will thank you for your work and turn it to deeper questions.

[Shulem]

Of course your model has problems. Every model does. You can try to deny that Joseph consciously used non-King-Jamesian language for his own purposes when you have already conceded that this is in fact the case, but you just look unconsciously inconsistent in doing so!

The problems in my model are the problems Smith made for himself. The Book of Mormon is filled with inconsistencies and anachronism galore! That's not my problem, it's Joes. My model is built upon the foundation that Joe was a pious fraud. My model points out that he was willing to be inconsistent when he felt it furthered his cause.

Anyway, I'm on my way to Palmyra right now to tell Joe not to print START in the Book of Mormon or he will look like a fool 200 years from now.

Well, I certainly don't believe he was telling the truth. Of course he knew he was a pious fraud and he was fine with that. Those gold plates under the cloth sitting on the table were not what he claimed them to be. So you see, I automatically START with the assumption that he was lying and I build my case on that.

That just screams of the moral reasoning of childhood. “He lied, mommy!” “Yes, dear, Joseph did not tell the truth! Here’s your cookie!”

Yeah, so, indeed there were no gold plates. And yes, Joseph misrepresented things in various ways quite a bit. Case closed, eh?

Yes! Case closed for YOU!

You can stop there and relish your accomplishments.

Others will thank you for your work and turn it to deeper questions.

Yeah well, how much money do you think you could have gotten by scrapping his gold plates? I think the case is closed that you wouldn't have gotten much. The plates under the cloth were fake just like the novel he dictated was not historical by any means. It was ALL a fraud. All of it!

[Kishkumen]

Well duh. I'm a missionary critic for Joseph Smith's work and want to set the record straight.

Sure! Your case, for your own satisfaction. Keep plugging away, and I will continue to enjoy the data you dig up.

The problems in my model are the problems Smith made for himself. The Book of Mormon is filled with inconsistencies and anachronism galore! That's not my problem, it's Joes. My model is built upon the foundation that Joe was a pious fraud. My model points out that he was willing to be inconsistent when he felt it furthered his cause.

Anyway, I'm on my way to Palmyra right now to tell Joe not to print START in the Book of Mormon or he will look like a fool 200 years from now.

Yeah, well, I think you should just spare yourself the wasted trip. After all, the man had no problem with "adieu," so "start" sure as hell ain't gonna be a problem.

The anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are obvious. Christian Hebrews using the word Christ, a Greek word adopted by Christians, to apply to Jesus of Nazareth centuries BEFORE Jesus lived.

And you can stop right there. But if you insist . . . .

Horses in Pre-Columbian America. Another obvious howler of a mistake.

Now, these things have been known FOR AGES! So, "start"?

LOL. If you think "start" is a shelf-breaker, you're funnier than I thought.

Yeah well, how much money do you think you could have gotten by scrapping his gold plates? I think the case is closed that you wouldn't have gotten much. The plates under the cloth were fake just like the novel he dictated was not historical by any means. It was ALL a fraud. All of it!

Don't spend any money on a degree in literary studies, Shulem, because Joseph Smith's contemporaries knew more about literary genre than you do.

The Book of Mormon is a Bible, not a novel.

They called it. That is what he made it to be. Novel just isn't the right word.

[Shulem]

Yeah, well, I think you should just spare yourself the wasted trip. After all, the man had no problem with "adieu," so "start" sure as hell ain't gonna be a problem.

Thank you for finally answering the question!

QUESTION:
Had Joseph Smith been informed by the editors of the Grandin Press that the word START is improper terminology, not used in ancient Israel, and that it isn't in the English Holy Bible, do you think Smith would have edited his 5 goofs?

Kishkumen
[ ] YES
[X] NO

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen Joseph Smith
[ ] YES
[X] NO

There, fixed it for you.