Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Indeed. For people to talk about taking other people seriously as intellectuals.
Oh the irony.
But as I said earlier in this thread…we have always had the educated idiots among us.
We have had discussions in the past, and in depth, about how ‘inteligence’ and ‘Education’ factor into ‘Faith’ or ‘Belief’ Obviously a subject that renders no complete explanation. What is obvious is that we have a lot to yet learn about human psychology.
Indeed. For people to talk about taking other people seriously as intellectuals.
Oh the irony.
But as I said earlier in this thread…we have always had the educated idiots among us.
We have had discussions in the past, and in depth, about how ‘inteligence’ and ‘Education’ factor into ‘Faith’ or ‘Belief’ Obviously a subject that renders no complete explanation. What is obvious is that we have a lot to yet learn about human psychology.
Another weak attempt at marginalization. You clearly can’t offer an intelligent response to my OP.
Here is a link to much discussion about this very subject of DNA and Mormonism., including Southertons work and work from many Mormon apologetics. If You scroll down and read the articles toward the bottom you will see some from mid 09, so no cry of ‘outdated’ can be used here. Much to decipher here so take your time, everyone.
I’m completely puzzled about your concern that an “absurdity icon” is used by the Reason Project every time the phrase “...and it came to pass” occurs. I have not noticed that icon, but obviously it must be occuring somewhere if you have seen it (well, you’ve seen other things that I haven’t so we can take that observation in a tentative mode).
Now, on to your detailed analysis of the BOM and the Bible. All of these percentages and overlapping congruencies can be used to try to show that a variety of different assumptions are true or false, but overall, these are just statistics that serve no real evidentiary purpose to the authenticity of the scripts in either case. You’ve basically done a linguistic evaluation that could be easily replicated using any text, or any religious text if that is your central concern, or even a “religious” text that I made up on my own.
First and foremost, one should consider (heavily) that the BOM was written in English, and it is entirely irrelevant what those authors say that the original text was written in. They could say that it was written entirely in “Mumbo-Jumbo” but finding particular words or marks that vaguely correspond to Mayan or Egyptian does not show (I won’t use ‘prove’) that “Mumbo-Jumbo” is a dialect closely related to any real language.
You write,
Joseph Smith was not at all trying too hard. If anything, this shows that the Book of Mormon is more closely related to Semitic literary conventions than to English. If the Reason Project is indeed concerned about reason and objectivity and not about dogmatism and intellectual dishonesty, it will remove the “Absurdity” icon from the phrase “and it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon. I am happy to provide further examples of faulty logic and misunderstanding in the Scripture Project’s assessment of the Book of Mormon and the Bible if it shows itself willing to abandon erroneous and misleading argumentation when made aware of it.
OK, there are three, of the more obvious, choices aa to what your analysis might show . . . 1) Because the BOM is so similar to the Bible in textual style, then it is plausible that god is the actual author of both of these scriptures; or 2) Because the BOM is so similar to the Bible in textual style, then it shows that Joe Smith was deliberately creating a script to match that of the Bible so that it would be possilbe for others to conclude that it is plausible that god is the actual author of both of these scriptures, or 3) that tbe text of the BOM is more closely related to Semitic writing than to English and add #2.
Have you at all considered that #2 is the most plausible condition, Daniel? It’s interesting that #2 already contains #1 within its parameters. If the case you’re making (#1) rides on the “divine authorship” principle, then you know as well as I that this is an extremely flimsy case, even for plausibility. (I say this because of the bible’s authorship alone.) And obviously #3 just falls into #2 anyway so your analysis simply shows us that Smith was good at being a copycat (OR that Smith was actually reading the Golden Plates in their Hebraic-Egyptian text and translating as best he could into English??).
sheba - 01 January 2010 10:38 PM
That’s because Robert’s finale decision about the church was negative. He said he had finally concluded that the Book of Mormon had to be a fake and that Joesph Smith was also. He felt grieved by that , but said he could no longer in good conscience,pretend to support what he discovered to be a lie. It was shocking, and he was being honest . In a nutshell, he said that The Book of Mormon was a crock of fiction and Joesph Smith was a clever con-artist , crook, charlatan, who captivated thousands of people with his charismatic style and brilliant mind.
It would be interesting to know when this negative review (as claimed by Sheba) by Roberts was published, before or after his death? I mean, if it was posthumously published, it would be plausible that his work was edited by the church elders to appear as Roberts providing critical analysis and then answering those critiques. The basic history of the LDS movement is “answering the critiques” from the time of its inception to the work of Daniel McClellan. If this is the overriding strategy of this church, then Sheba’s suggestions appear to be the most plausible explanation because they fit so nicely within the context of the Mormon experience.
Here is a link to much discussion about this very subject of DNA and Mormonism., including Southertons work and work from many Mormon apologetics. If You scroll down and read the articles toward the bottom you will see some from mid 09, so no cry of ‘outdated’ can be used here. Much to decipher here so take your time, everyone.
I already addressed Southerton’s claims point by point on the relevant thread. The only posts in there that directly address the articles I cited simply criticize Perego for what they see as ad hominem against Southerton. They don’t engage the connection to Book of Mormon ethnogenesis.
Do you have anything relevant to this thread to contribute?
I’m completely puzzled about your concern that an “absurdity icon” is used by the Reason Project every time the phrase “...and it came to pass” occurs. I have not noticed that icon, but obviously it must be occuring somewhere if you have seen it (well, you’ve seen other things that I haven’t so we can take that observation in a tentative mode).
Just look at the “Highlight Key” on the page to which I linked.
can zen - 02 January 2010 11:09 AM
Now, on to your detailed analysis of the BOM and the Bible. All of these percentages and overlapping congruencies can be used to try to show that a variety of different assumptions are true or false, but overall, these are just statistics that serve no real evidentiary purpose to the authenticity of the scripts in either case. You’ve basically done a linguistic evaluation that could be easily replicated using any text, or any religious text if that is your central concern, or even a “religious” text that I made up on my own.
First and foremost, one should consider (heavily) that the BOM was written in English, and it is entirely irrelevant what those authors say that the original text was written in. They could say that it was written entirely in “Mumbo-Jumbo” but finding particular words or marks that vaguely correspond to Mayan or Egyptian does not show (I won’t use ‘prove’) that “Mumbo-Jumbo” is a dialect closely related to any real language.
Actually it’s completely relevant. Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was written in a certain language. The website criticizes the claim on the grounds that it does not resemble English translations of that language, but seems to over employ a stock phrase to intentionally mimic that language. I defend the claim on the grounds that the frequency of that phrase actually does very closely resemble the language when the translation equivalents and literary genres are taken into consideration.
can zen - 02 January 2010 11:09 AM
You write,
Joseph Smith was not at all trying too hard. If anything, this shows that the Book of Mormon is more closely related to Semitic literary conventions than to English. If the Reason Project is indeed concerned about reason and objectivity and not about dogmatism and intellectual dishonesty, it will remove the “Absurdity” icon from the phrase “and it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon. I am happy to provide further examples of faulty logic and misunderstanding in the Scripture Project’s assessment of the Book of Mormon and the Bible if it shows itself willing to abandon erroneous and misleading argumentation when made aware of it.
OK, there are three, of the more obvious, choices aa to what your analysis might show . . . 1) Because the BOM is so similar to the Bible in textual style, then it is plausible that god is the actual author of both of these scriptures; or 2) Because the BOM is so similar to the Bible in textual style, then it shows that Joe Smith was deliberately creating a script to match that of the Bible so that it would be possilbe for others to conclude that it is plausible that god is the actual author of both of these scriptures, or 3) that tbe text of the BOM is more closely related to Semitic writing than to English and add #2.
And/or add number to. To just say “and” begs the question. However, my intention is not to prove anything about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but just to show that it does not make pleonastic use of a phrase to the point of being an “Absurdity.”
can zen - 02 January 2010 11:09 AM
Have you at all considered that #2 is the most plausible condition, Daniel?
Of course, and I’m not rejecting that. My point was that the frequency of the phrase is not an “Absurdity.”
can zen - 02 January 2010 11:09 AM
It’s interesting that #2 already contains #1 within its parameters. If the case you’re making (#1) rides on the “divine authorship” principle, then you know as well as I that this is an extremely flimsy case, even for plausibility. (I say this because of the bible’s authorship alone.) And obviously #3 just falls into #2 anyway so your analysis simply shows us that Smith was good at being a copycat (OR that Smith was actually reading the Golden Plates in their Hebraic-Egyptian text and translating as best he could into English??).
Either of the two, although there’s no way Smith could have intentionally multiplied the use of the phrase to more closely resemble Biblical Hebrew syntax.
can zen - 02 January 2010 11:09 AM
It would be interesting to know when this negative review (as claimed by Sheba) by Roberts was published, before or after his death? I mean, if it was posthumously published, it would be plausible that his work was edited by the church elders to appear as Roberts providing critical analysis and then answering those critiques. The basic history of the LDS movement is “answering the critiques” from the time of its inception to the work of Daniel McClellan. If this is the overriding strategy of this church, then Sheba’s suggestions appear to be the most plausible explanation because they fit so nicely within the context of the Mormon experience.
No, Roberts published several articles before his death testifying of his belief in the Book of Mormon, spoke frequently with associates who confirmed his faith and spoke at several public meetings about his faith in the text (the last one only three weeks before his death). Additionally, there was no statement ever made by him about losing faith in the Book of Mormon. Assertions to the contrary are pure and utter fiction.
I hardly need to address something not addressed to me.
GAD - 02 January 2010 09:34 AM
Whats it going to be. Are you a Mormon because you believe “it is true/proved” or are you a Mormon “despite it being untrue/unproved”?
Do you accidentally conflate believing something is true and believing something has been proven, or are you intentionally trying to manipulate?
You still didn’t answer the question…....... But I understand, to answer would destroy your facade of scholarly neutrality. It will be our dirty little secret.
You still didn’t answer the question…....... But I understand, to answer would destroy your facade of scholarly neutrality. It will be our dirty little secret.
Daniel McClellan : sorry I haven’t picked up on this yet, but ARE you a member of the LDS church ? If so, have you been with it for long ? Or are you just thinking about joining ?
If any of those things is a “Yes” , then please hear what I have to say : The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, are a lot of reading so I don’t want to challenge it word by word or sentence by sentence, but instead I want to ask you a few questions . One : have you ever heard of a church member named Bringham Roberts ? You probably have because he has been an outstanding figure in Mormon history .
Brigham H. Roberts had been held forth by many as the greatest defender of Mormonism ever. He was a highly regarded spokesman and lecturer for the church. He was a talented and dedicated writer and historian. He wrote eight books on theology and nine on history , including a big 6- volume one called “The Comprehensive History of The Church ” He also wrote two books of biolgraphies and three on sermons and commentaries. He was an intellegtual dynamo for the Mormon church, and someone everyone looked up to and regarded as a great source of reliable knowledge . He was so dedicated and committed that nobody would think of doubting him. He was raised by Mormon parents and they named him after the other Mormon great Brigham Young . He was an all-around high church authority and a missionary also . He spent his adult life preaching to everyone that the Book of Mormon and Joeseph Smith were genuine and should be accepted as truth .
He did, that is, untill he reached his later years, and before he died he composed a manuscript that the Church has tried to keep in concealment ever since. They don’t want Roberts last manuscript to be examined by the public or anyone else for that matter. That’s because Robert’s finale decision about the church was negative. He said he had finally concluded that the Book of Mormon had to be a fake and that Joesph Smith was also. He felt grieved by that , but said he could no longer in good conscience,pretend to support what he discovered to be a lie. It was shocking, and he was being honest . In a nutshell, he said that The Book of Mormon was a crock of fiction and Joesph Smith was a clever con-artist , crook, charlatan, who captivated thousands of people with his charismatic style and brilliant mind. That Brigham Roberts should have spent all his life’s years expounding on the virtue and truth of the Book of Mormon and ended up believing it was all a big hoax is worth knowing; it’s a glaring testament to the failability of the Mormon “Truth”. It is really all you should need to understand what to think of that church. Brigham Roberts was a brilliant man and a dedicated scholor of LDS. What he decided should count a lot !
No, none of that’s true. First of all, his first name was Brigham, not Bringham. B. H. Roberts died as faithful as ever. Knowledge of his manuscript had been made public well before his death. What it was was a tract that would critically examine the Book of Mormon to anticipate any arguments that would come up and provide responses for them. In order to anticipate the arguments, Roberts formulated a number of criticisms of the Book of Mormon to which he then responded. He maintained all the way up to his death that none of the arguments he formulated concerned him in the least regarding his testimony. He was actually working on another book at the same time, which he considered his masterpiece. It was only published 17 years ago. See B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology (ed., John W. Welch; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994). The following publications also document B. H. Robert’s faithfulness: Davis Bitton, “B. H. Roberts and Book of Mormon Scholarship,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999): 60–69; Truman G. Madsen, “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon,” Brigham Young University Studies 19:4 (Summer 1979): 427–445; Madsen, “B. H. Roberts after Fifty Years: Still Witnessing for the Book of Mormon,” Ensign (December 1983): 11; Daniel C. Peterson, “Yet More Abuse of B. H. Roberts (Review of The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon),” FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 69–86; John W. Welch, “B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth,” Ensign (March 1986): 56.
sheba - 01 January 2010 10:38 PM
Another thing that should interest you and make you start wanting to try to connect more dots : If you have been to the church etc. you know that they have a lot of symbols they are very proud of and consider important to the teachings of the church. What would you say if I told you that most all those symbols and the ideas that came with them were copied from the Freemasons ? Well, it’s true ! And you can’t say that the Masons took it from the church because the Freemasons are far far far older than the Mormon church. They had those symbols etc. before Joe Smith ever came into the world. Smith , like so many men in those days aspired to be a member of the Freemason’s Lodge . It was a status thing and Masonry was associated with so much integrity and power befitting an American patriot and citizen. If you were anything worth while as a male citizen you were in the Masons. So Smith wanted very much to be a part of it all, and he indeed, did become a member. He was very agressive as a member also and tried to put himself in an authoritive posistion so he could have some say about how things were run . The trouble is, the Freemasons questioned his character and decided he was too shady a person to be accepted into the exclusive circle. They told him to leave and he was furious . It troubled him deeply and soon he -surprise—came up with a church of his own ! Strange how the Mormon church has all those neat tokens, names, and ideas….!! Trouble is the church STOLE the whole caboodle from the Freemasons !! Yup, everything from the beehive to parts of special rituals, to ideas, to names etc. etc. !! Sorry to shock you, but that is imformation every Mormon or Mormon-to-be should know.
I’m well aware of the sources of the symbols used by the Latter-day Saints, and the above is another gross misrepresentation. Please stay on topic in the future.
Hey—WAIT A MINUTE—!! You are not going to get away with that Mr. McClellan ! You say “From now on stay on topic ” ? Sorry, dear, but what I was talking about IS on topic ! And it’s IS a big deal- nothing to just sneeze at ! I’m talking here about the church’s stealing it’s precious symbol etc. from another organization and calling it their own inspiration from heaven . What is the significance of this ? Open up the eyes and SEE ! If the church can be so dishonest as to copy someone else’s stuff and call it their’s something is even more than fishy . If that happened , and it did, then it’s a good indication that the whole holy extravaganza is just as dishonest. Think about it—-has the church ever tried to explain to you just how all that Freemason stuff got into your church ? Stuff that the church upholds to be it’s own and bear a special significance to it ?? Or did your church members always try to shy away from that topic ?
Smith was a very extraordinary man- there’s no doubt about it . But after being with the church for two years I have come to the conclusion that dishonesty is the very heart and soul of Joesph Smith . That’s an awful thing to say about anyone, but that is my true feeling about him.
Besides siphoning goodies from other people Smith was a wizard at fabricating stories, and fascinated by secret or buried treasures. Strange how a guy who has a hobby of digging for interesting valuables in the soil ends up finding a great find in shape of golden plates with an important message just after he decides God has told him about his “true” church !! Think about that—-how obvious can it be that his whole story was a fantasy ?
To me, the story of the Mormon church is so laughably obvious as a crazy lie that it is hard to believe even people with a high I-Q take it for real I think the Mormon church is really one of the biggest lies in the world. Why can’t you realize that too ? The book of Mormon ityself is a clever siphoning job. It’s one word after the other straight from the bible. “I go like a lamb to the slaughter ” said Joe . Oh please, please -give us a break !
I really don’t mean to be mean Daniel, but after getting involved in the church myself and doing some research I can’t help but believe that Mormonism is phony as fool’s gold . Two outstanding things about it : 1—it is one man’s fun fantasy, and 2- it is one hell of a dynasty . It’s one of the most wealthy institutions in the world. Or maybe it is better called a business.
It would be interesting to know when this negative review (as claimed by Sheba) by Roberts was published, before or after his death? I mean, if it was posthumously published, it would be plausible that his work was edited by the church elders to appear as Roberts providing critical analysis and then answering those critiques. The basic history of the LDS movement is “answering the critiques” from the time of its inception to the work of Daniel McClellan. If this is the overriding strategy of this church, then Sheba’s suggestions appear to be the most plausible explanation because they fit so nicely within the context of the Mormon experience.
No, Roberts published several articles before his death testifying of his belief in the Book of Mormon, spoke frequently with associates who confirmed his faith and spoke at several public meetings about his faith in the text (the last one only three weeks before his death). Additionally, there was no statement ever made by him about losing faith in the Book of Mormon. Assertions to the contrary are pure and utter fiction.
We’ve seen a lot of bullshitters pass through this forum making claims of some sort of intellectual high ground and unquestionable authority. But usually within a couple of posts it isn’t difficult to recognize your brand of dishonesty and statements from credulity. One indication is the more you’re pressed the louder your hubris shows. You might take a lesson from your own Brigham Roberts. Roberts’ problem was that he thought he could best approach criticism by not relying on detractors to prove the Book wrong, but through devotion to proving it right. Needless to say, he had great difficulty and caused himself great consternation, especially trying to find answers to the few questions presented to him by a Mr. Couch of Washington, D.C. in 1921 through much effort and resources which he was never able to do (among other issues presented by skeptics). While he never gave up his faith, his own doubts culminated with Ethan Smith’s publication of View of the Hebrews. But it appeared that he was quite devoted to Smith, the man, and to his religious faith in general to his death.
Before leaving for his mission, Roberts had decided to continue with the presentation of some additional Book of Mormon problems to the First Presidency and had written a letter dated March 15, 1923 [1922], indicating that “the truth of the Book of Mormon is absolutely essential to the integrity of the whole Mormon movement” and that his further studies had seemed only to increase the problems. But, as a letter of October 24, 1927, to Apostle Lyman shows, he had reconsidered and had sent neither the letter nor the additional material. Now, back from the Eastern States Mission, he indicated to Lyman that he had come upon an “embarrassing” theory about the Book of Mormon based on quite remarkable similarities between the Nephite record and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, published in 1823 and 1825 and probably available to Smith before the production of the Book of Mormon. He indicated that his latest examination was “not one fourth part” of what could be written about such a comparison but suggested that if Lyman thought it wise, he might submit it to other members of the Council of Twelve Apostles.65
During the last six years of his life is there any evidence that Roberts still retained his faith in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, despite his critical examination of the origin of the book? The record is mixed. In his public statements he was still the defender of the faith. For example, at the semi-annual conference of the Church in April 1928 he was reported to have “defended the Book of Mormon as the word of God…[and] closed his address by bearing an impressive testimony to the divinity of the Church.”70 And a year before his death in 1933 he penned an article for the Atlantic Monthly on “What College Did to My Religion,” in which he declared that God would complete His work of the “New Dispensation of the fulness of times. It will never be destroyed, nor its work be given to another people.”71 But in a sermon in April 1929 he sounded rather enigmatic as he said, “I rejoice at the prominence given the Book of Mormon in this Conference. It is, however, only one of many means in letting God’s work be known to the world.” He then “told of an experience where the Doctrine and Covenants was instrumental in converting a friend, after the Book of Mormon had failed.”72 In one of his seven last discourses he counseled the youth of the Church to “carefully and thoroughly examine every principle advanced to them and not only intellectually assent to it as a grand system of truth, but also become imbued with its spirit and feel and enjoy its powers.”73 Finally, in a 1932 article, “Joseph Smith: An Appreciation,” the fire and conviction of his youth came through as Roberts confessed his love and respect for Joseph Smith, as an admirer “who believes in him without reservation…I was influenced by the boldness of his claims, for the tremendous intellectual daring…for the very sway and swagger of him, and for his unschooled eloquence.…To me and for me, he is the Prophet of the Most High, enskied and sainted!”74
Whether or not Roberts retained his belief in the Book of Mormon may never be determined. In his last conference address of April 1933 he referred to the Book of Mormon as “one of the most valuable books that has ever been preserved, even as holy scripture.”75 But in his “A Book of Mormon Study,” Roberts presents an intense and probing evaluation of the possibility that Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnished a partial framework for Joseph Smith’s written composition, that the Mormon prophet had the intellectual capacity and imagination necessary to conceive and write the Book of Mormon, and that internal contradictions and other defects added further evidence that it might not be of divine origin.
As for Roberts himself, one can appreciate his fierce independence, his forthright honesty, his deeply imbedded integrity, and, above all, his fearless willingness to follow wherever his reason led him. He could be abrasive in his defense of stubbornly held beliefs, but he had the capacity to change his views when confronted with new and persuasive evidence. It is easy to admire Brigham H. Roberts, and, to apply his description of Joseph Smith to himself, to enjoy Roberts’s “unschooled eloquence,” his “tremendous intellectual daring,” and “the very sway and swagger of him.”
I need to apologize for getting my last post on here twice. For some reason nothing happened when I clicked “Submit Post ” . I waited and waited and still it would’nt move, so after about 10-12 minutes I clicked it again and nothing happened. I ended up waiting 10 min. again and finally it registered , but ended up 2 posts. Sorry .
