Lars Nielsen's "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hi,

I just thought I'd throw in an additional piece of the puzzle that is historical and as factual as we can achieve these days:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

Thanks,

Brian

Aside from tutoring by his brother wouldn’t Joseph Smith have received home schooling? His father was a merchant for some time, so basic arithmetic would’ve most likely been taught to him, along with reading and writing.

Also, one other observation if I may. Joseph Smith was essentially a rube, in the rustic sense, so it’s comes as no surprise his writings and orations were that of a rube trying to punch above his weight. I don’t say that glibly, by the way. I myself am a god-tier rube who’s being trying to ensophiticate the way I communicate for some time now and believe you me I can spot a fellow rube a mile away. Joseph Smith and many of the early church members were rubes.

Whatever the case may be, thank you for the link, but please be advised Dr. Shades absolutely detests ‘link n’ runs’ so you may want to add a thought to the post and explain how it relates to this thread, especially so for us rubes who lurk use the site.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Because it's interesting to find out where he got his ideas.

If God can just wave his magic wand, why ask how something was done?

We’re human. We’re curious. If God did wave his magic wand, so to speak, He’s done a masterful job of covering up any obvious brushstrokes. Any clues one way or the other can be deciphered in different ways. Some faith promoting and others not.

Depending on where subjectivity and objectivity take you.

Religion is so much more interesting when one no longer believes in divine intervention.

Interesting, but not to be taken seriously in the sense of whether God is speaking.

Just popping in. I read the thread out of interest on a topic that seems to come up periodically with twists and turns on pretty much the same thing.

Kishkumen seems to show that there is nothing much to see here in the latest installment of ‘Joseph did it’.

Same players here mostly, I see. Wishing you all well.

By the way, I don’t know if you all have either seen, read, or discussed Hardy’s “Annotated Book of Mormon”. It’s worth spending time with.

It’s always fun to pop in now and then and see what Physics Guy, Kishkumen, and a few others have to say.

Again, best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Good to see you, MG. I hope all is well with you and yours.

[Physics Guy]

The three great epics of Classical antiquity are all very episodic. So are the Gospels and Acts.

To clarify my previous posts, pointing out ways in which the Book of Mormon is simpler than a long novel was not meant just to dump on the Book of Mormon as a bad book. As Kishkumen points out, there are landmarks in world literature that have similar simple structures.

All I meant to say was that the length of the Book of Mormon actually has no weight at all as evidence that Smith could not have composed it. Today when someone mentions a 270-thousand-word book, we think of a novel or a textbook or something like that, with a lot of intricate structure. The coherent complexity that we expect in these modern forms of writing makes them more and more difficult to produce, in a compounding way, the longer they are. That's why the advice for aspiring writers is to start with short stories and essays before attempting long books. So if a Mormon apologist points to the length of the Book of Mormon and asks how an uneducated farmer like Smith could possibly write something like that, we tend to think of the difficulty in writing a book of that length of the kind of book that we think of as typical nowadays, and the argument seems like a weighty one.

The kind of book that the Book of Mormon is can include books that people keep reading for ages. It's not a kind of book that gets much harder to write by being longer, however. If you can produce a few pages of this kind of book, then there's nothing to stop you from just doing it again and again, until you've got a long book. So the apologetic argument from the Book of Mormon's sheer length is without any merit.

If Mormons want to argue instead from the content of the Book of Mormon, saying that it is so inspiring and profound that only divine revelation could have produced it, then I would be prepared to listen to them. I don't see that kind of profundity in the Book myself, but perhaps I've just missed it.

[Kishkumen]

To clarify my previous posts, pointing out ways in which the Book of Mormon is simpler than a long novel was not meant just to dump on the Book of Mormon as a bad book. As Kishkumen points out, there are landmarks in world literature that have similar simple structures.

When I later returned to the thread, I realized by closer and more careful reading that you were really using the word epic in a modern sense. At the same time, yes, I do think that it is possible to have an episodic work that is also a landmark of world literature.

All I meant to say was that the length of the Book of Mormon actually has no weight at all as evidence that Smith could not have composed it.

I agree. Brian Hales loves to bang this drum, and, honestly, it is past old. If this is what does it for him, what puts the Book of Mormon in the divine category, then fine for him, but I don't think he is convincing anyone outside of the "already sold" folks. I you are already sold, then you just want to pile on the many reasons to justify your rightness as a bulwark against any challenges. Hales has chosen Book of Mormon length as one of these. I find it unconvincing, but he probably knows his target reader better than I do.

The kind of book that the Book of Mormon is can include books that people keep reading for ages. It's not a kind of book that gets much harder to write by being longer, however. If you can produce a few pages of this kind of book, then there's nothing to stop you from just doing it again and again, until you've got a long book. So the apologetic argument from the Book of Mormon's sheer length is without any merit.

I think there are lots of points of structural interest that are somewhat impressive. They still don't require that I believe it is the Word of God, but they are interesting. Indeed, I think there is plenty to dig into in the Book of Mormon, if you are already motivated to do so for other reasons.

If Mormons want to argue instead from the content of the Book of Mormon, saying that it is so inspiring and profound that only divine revelation could have produced it, then I would be prepared to listen to them. I don't see that kind of profundity in the Book myself, but perhaps I've just missed it.

So much of that depends on one's perspective, but, yes, sure. If one is open to the possibility that there is something profound in it, one is more likely to find something more profound in it. I find it to be an inspiring testament of frontier American Christianity. It is thoroughly American.

[Marcus]

It may be true, sadly, that being open to the possibility that there is something profound in a book may cause one to be more likely to find profundity, but it is certainly not a logical way to think.

Suppose you are testing for A versus not-A. Simply acknowledging the possibility of A as a result just means you are considering one option or the other to have a non-zero likelihood. By definition then, you should also be considering that either option could have a zero likelihood.

Arguing you are 'more likely' to find A, i.e. a greater than 50% likelihood that A results,simply because you are considering A might be non-zero, is an unacceptable level of bias to introduce at the beginning of testing. Muhlestein only takes it a step further when he states that he assumes A before 'testing' for A and not-A. Both positions are illogical.

[Kishkumen]

It may be true, sadly, that being open to the possibility that there is something profound in a book may cause one to be more likely to find profundity, but it is certainly not a logical way to think.

Suppose you are testing for A versus not-A. Simply acknowledging the possibility of A as a result just means you are considering one option or the other to have a non-zero likelihood. By definition then, you should also be considering that either option could have a zero likelihood.

Arguing you are 'more likely' to find A, i.e. a greater than 50% likelihood that A results,simply because you are considering A might be non-zero, is an unacceptable level of bias to introduce at the beginning of testing. Muhlestein only takes it a step further when he states that he assumes A before 'testing' for A and not-A. Both positions are illogical.

Good, Marcus! I am glad you bring this perspective to the conversation. I don't think the subjective experience of profundity is susceptible to logic tests of this kind, but I am sure others will get a lot out of this. A lot of human experience consists of what we bring to a situation as humans, and that is loaded with all kinds of bias. I doubt it could be any other way. Whether it should be is another question. I don't think it is always necessary to be completely unbiased about everything, including religion.

[Morley]

By the way, I don’t know if you all have either seen, read, or discussed Hardy’s “Annotated Book of Mormon”. It’s worth spending time with.

Hey, MG. I hope you're well.

I believe that there are more than a few here who will have read the book. Maybe you should start a thread and lead a discussion on it.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, I don’t know if you all have either seen, read, or discussed Hardy’s “Annotated Book of Mormon”. It’s worth spending time with.

Hey, MG. I hope you're well.

I believe that there are more than a few here who will have read the book. Maybe you should start a thread and lead a discussion on it.

If they have, more power to them. I think I’ve had the book for a couple months or so and I’m on 1 Nephi Chapter 17. And I’ve been pretty consistent in trying to read it along with other reading. Hardy packs a LOT of punch on almost every page with reference material and commentary. I think it’s his magnum opus.

There are so many interlocking parts to the Book of Mormon. Hardy seems to have made it his life’s work to pull them all apart and put them out there for all to see.

I’m well. A few of the speed bumps health wise that come along with getting older. This last week my wife and I were in Ventura, Calif. and I did a couple of runs along a coastal trail.

Hope all is well with you too. I’ve enjoyed past discussions. I’ve taken a six month break and will more than likely just pop in now and then from now on. In the past I’ve found myself ‘spread thin’ in various threads. No more.

Here a little and there a little.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve moved posts that discuss the quote from Brooks’ book on constructionism to a pre-existing thread where the same quote is the topic. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158676&start=10

UR 4