Abstract: The Book of Mormon peoples repeatedly indicated that they were descendants of Joseph, the son of Jacob who was sold into Egypt by his brothers. The plates of brass that they took with them from Jerusalem c. 600 bce provided them with a version of many Old Testament books and others not included in our Hebrew Bible. Sometime after publishing his translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith undertook an inspired revision of the Bible. The opening chapters of his version of Genesis contain a lot of material not included in the Hebrew Bible. But intriguingly, distinctive phraseology in those chapters, as now published in Joseph Smith’s Book of Moses, also show up in the Book of Mormon text. This paper presents a systematic examination of those repeated phrases and finds strong evidence for the conclusion that the version of Genesis used by the Nephite prophets must have been closely similar to Joseph Smith’s Book of Moses.
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-brass-plates-version-of-genesis/
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
What Joseph Smith's Neighbors Thought of Him, Even When They Disagreed with His Religion
(by Daniel Peterson ldsliving.com 11-9-19)
A slightly younger contemporary of Joseph Smith known to us only as “Mrs. Palmer” grew up on property not far from his family’s farm near Palmyra, New York. She never accepted his prophetic claims but has nonetheless left us valuable eyewitness testimony concerning his character. “My parents,” she would later recall, “were friends of the Smith family, which was one of the best in that locality — honest, religious and industrious, but poor.” She herself first became really aware of Joseph when she was 6 years old:
“I remember going into the field on an afternoon to play in the corn rows while my brothers worked. When evening came, I was too tired to walk home and cried because my brothers refused to carry me. Joseph lifted me to his shoulder, and with his arm thrown across my feet to steady me, and my arm about his neck, he carried me to our home.” She remembered the “excitement” that followed upon Joseph’s First Vision. Even when a leader from their church visited their home to complain about her father’s friendship with the Smith family, he dismissed the vision as “only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy.” Why? “My father loved young Joseph Smith,” she explained, “and often hired him to work with his boys.” He told the man that “Joseph was the best help he had ever found.” Mrs. Palmer’s reminiscences appear in the notebook of Martha Cox that are in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ archives and are quoted here from “They Knew the Prophet: Personal Accounts From Over 100 People Who Knew Joseph Smith” by Helen Mae Andrus and Hyrum L. Andrus, published by Covenant Communications in 2002.
This high valuation of Joseph as a laborer was shared by others who knew him. For instance, the slightly younger Joseph Knight Jr. knew Joseph Smith from an early age and reported in his autobiographical sketch that Joseph was “the best hand (my father) ever hired.” The Knights were among the earliest converts to the message of the Restoration. Not so for Mrs. Palmer’s family. The Book of Mormon, with its tangible plates and multiple witnesses and insistent claims, could no longer be indulgently brushed aside as “only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy.”
“Not until Joseph had had a second vision,” she recalled, “and begun to write a book which drew many of the best and brightest people of the churches away did my parents come to a realization of the fact that their friend, the churchman, had told them the truth. Then, my family cut off their friendship for all the Smiths, for all the family followed Joseph. Even the father, intelligent man that he was, could not discern the evil he was helping to promote. My parents then lent all the aid they could in helping to crush Joseph Smith; but it was too late. He had run his course too long. He could not be put down. There was never a truer, purer, nobler boy than Joseph Smith, before he was led away by superstition.” Theologically, it’s clear that Mrs. Palmer is not a friendly witness. Still, she’s likely an honest one, since her positive judgment of Joseph’s character goes against her evaluation of his religious doctrine. Some others weren’t so fair, though, and it seems plain that much of the later criticism of the Smiths in general and of Joseph in particular was generated by his prophetic claims and their challenge to conventional, accepted religious opinion. Joseph’s brother William, for instance, seems to echo the idea that young Joseph Smith was regarded as an honest, reliable, hard worker. More to the point, though, he also comments rather wryly on the criticism that came the family’s way, pointing out that negative comments about Joseph’s character arose only after reports of his visions began to circulate:
“We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then, by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good day’s work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either. ... Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys. We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision” (see “Joseph Smith,” by Robert V. Remini, published by Viking Books in 2002). It’s difficult, in this case, not to recall the words of Jesus as they are recorded at Mark 6:4: “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country.” Their neighbors seem to have considered the Smiths as poor but respectable — until Joseph began to claim revelation. Then it all changed.
---------------
http://www.ldsliving.com/What-Joseph-Smith-s-Neighbors-Thought-of-Him-Even-When-They-Disagreed-with-His-Religion/s/91887
A slightly younger contemporary of Joseph Smith known to us only as “Mrs. Palmer” grew up on property not far from his family’s farm near Palmyra, New York. She never accepted his prophetic claims but has nonetheless left us valuable eyewitness testimony concerning his character. “My parents,” she would later recall, “were friends of the Smith family, which was one of the best in that locality — honest, religious and industrious, but poor.” She herself first became really aware of Joseph when she was 6 years old:
“I remember going into the field on an afternoon to play in the corn rows while my brothers worked. When evening came, I was too tired to walk home and cried because my brothers refused to carry me. Joseph lifted me to his shoulder, and with his arm thrown across my feet to steady me, and my arm about his neck, he carried me to our home.” She remembered the “excitement” that followed upon Joseph’s First Vision. Even when a leader from their church visited their home to complain about her father’s friendship with the Smith family, he dismissed the vision as “only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy.” Why? “My father loved young Joseph Smith,” she explained, “and often hired him to work with his boys.” He told the man that “Joseph was the best help he had ever found.” Mrs. Palmer’s reminiscences appear in the notebook of Martha Cox that are in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ archives and are quoted here from “They Knew the Prophet: Personal Accounts From Over 100 People Who Knew Joseph Smith” by Helen Mae Andrus and Hyrum L. Andrus, published by Covenant Communications in 2002.
This high valuation of Joseph as a laborer was shared by others who knew him. For instance, the slightly younger Joseph Knight Jr. knew Joseph Smith from an early age and reported in his autobiographical sketch that Joseph was “the best hand (my father) ever hired.” The Knights were among the earliest converts to the message of the Restoration. Not so for Mrs. Palmer’s family. The Book of Mormon, with its tangible plates and multiple witnesses and insistent claims, could no longer be indulgently brushed aside as “only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy.”
“Not until Joseph had had a second vision,” she recalled, “and begun to write a book which drew many of the best and brightest people of the churches away did my parents come to a realization of the fact that their friend, the churchman, had told them the truth. Then, my family cut off their friendship for all the Smiths, for all the family followed Joseph. Even the father, intelligent man that he was, could not discern the evil he was helping to promote. My parents then lent all the aid they could in helping to crush Joseph Smith; but it was too late. He had run his course too long. He could not be put down. There was never a truer, purer, nobler boy than Joseph Smith, before he was led away by superstition.” Theologically, it’s clear that Mrs. Palmer is not a friendly witness. Still, she’s likely an honest one, since her positive judgment of Joseph’s character goes against her evaluation of his religious doctrine. Some others weren’t so fair, though, and it seems plain that much of the later criticism of the Smiths in general and of Joseph in particular was generated by his prophetic claims and their challenge to conventional, accepted religious opinion. Joseph’s brother William, for instance, seems to echo the idea that young Joseph Smith was regarded as an honest, reliable, hard worker. More to the point, though, he also comments rather wryly on the criticism that came the family’s way, pointing out that negative comments about Joseph’s character arose only after reports of his visions began to circulate:
“We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then, by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good day’s work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either. ... Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys. We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision” (see “Joseph Smith,” by Robert V. Remini, published by Viking Books in 2002). It’s difficult, in this case, not to recall the words of Jesus as they are recorded at Mark 6:4: “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country.” Their neighbors seem to have considered the Smiths as poor but respectable — until Joseph began to claim revelation. Then it all changed.
---------------
http://www.ldsliving.com/What-Joseph-Smith-s-Neighbors-Thought-of-Him-Even-When-They-Disagreed-with-His-Religion/s/91887
Is Islam really a religion?
People write to me from time to time insisting that Islam isn’t actually a religion at all. It’s really, they say, a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. Accordingly, it doesn’t really deserve protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
When I’m told such things, I immediately think of those who deny that my church — my “so-called church,” they would say — is really a religion. Rather, they say, it’s a business — “LD$ Inc.” — run for the financial benefit of its greedy and power-hungry leaders. We who loyally “pay, pray, and obey” are merely “sheeple,” “Mor(m)ons,” and, in many cases, “Utards.” It’s all about malls and farms and land-holdings, not about anything spiritual. Even our temples, they allege, are merely “profit centers,” intended as tools to induce us dupes to fork over our tithes.
But, whenever I’m told such things, I’m also reminded of Parson Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding’s classic 1749 novel The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling:
“When I mention religion,” declares Parson Thwackum, “I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England.”
It’s time to trot out, yet again, one of my three or four all-time favorite religious jokes. It’s by Emo Philips, but I’ve modified it very, very slightly for stylistic reasons:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
When I’m told such things, I immediately think of those who deny that my church — my “so-called church,” they would say — is really a religion. Rather, they say, it’s a business — “LD$ Inc.” — run for the financial benefit of its greedy and power-hungry leaders. We who loyally “pay, pray, and obey” are merely “sheeple,” “Mor(m)ons,” and, in many cases, “Utards.” It’s all about malls and farms and land-holdings, not about anything spiritual. Even our temples, they allege, are merely “profit centers,” intended as tools to induce us dupes to fork over our tithes.
But, whenever I’m told such things, I’m also reminded of Parson Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding’s classic 1749 novel The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling:
“When I mention religion,” declares Parson Thwackum, “I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England.”
It’s time to trot out, yet again, one of my three or four all-time favorite religious jokes. It’s by Emo Philips, but I’ve modified it very, very slightly for stylistic reasons:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Dismissing Witness Testimony
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/dismissing-witness-testimony.html
For some reason, my little post on “Running with the golden plates” has inflamed a certain tiny sector of the web that I like to watch, and they’ve been pulling out the big guns (e.g., even the eminent American philosopher and historian Mark Twain; who ever saw that coming?) to demolish the testimony of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They also don’t like the Interpreter Foundation’s Witnesses film at all, having (of course) never seen it but pronouncing it, among other things, stupid, annoying, and dishonest. I’m absolutely shocked. I had so confidently expected their enthusiastic endorsement!
Anyhow, one of the angles of response particularly amused me, so I offer here a brief repurposing of its fundamental argument, in story form:
Laying out the State’s case against Mr. Robert Jones on charges of capital homicide, prosecutor Richard Anderson called eleven eyewitnesses, of solid reputation, undisputed sanity, and good character, who all testified under oath that they clearly saw the defendant, Mr. Jones, pump six revolver rounds into Mr. Chauncey Gardner while Mr. Gardner lay on the ground pleading for his life. They all also reporting hearing the defendant screaming “Die, Chauncey! Die!”
When the jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” however, jurors explained to those who questioned them, first of all, that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and, secondly, that it was this particular paragraph from the closing statement of criminal defense attorney William Russell that convinced them to acquit Robert Jones:
“Perhaps one should not expect that the prosecutor’s case would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the jury’s faith in the guilt of the defendant. The prosecutor’s argument will be convincing to those already certain that my client killed Mr. Gardner and that the State’s eleven witnesses saw him do it. And even detached observers will probably be convinced by the State’s contention that the witnesses were honest men and women who sincerely believe what they said and who have probably stuck consistently by their story. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the jurors be convinced that, because these witnesses are honest and because they reaffirmed their testimony when asked to do so, they actually saw and heard my client in the supposed act of murdering Chauncey Gardner. I believe that Anderson — like his eleven witnesses — is an honest and sincere man when he declares: ‘Reason dictates that their testimonies, given under oath here before you, must be taken at face value.’ But I don’t believe that his argument by itself requires this conclusion. After all, spiritual truths such as ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ must be spiritually verified.’ Believers — and, for that matter, witnesses — must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than with their ‘natural eyes.'”
Asked, after his release from jail, what he intended to do now, Mr. Jones, the former defendant, indicated that he was going to Disneyland. It was, he said, Chauncey Gardner’s dying wish for him.
For some reason, my little post on “Running with the golden plates” has inflamed a certain tiny sector of the web that I like to watch, and they’ve been pulling out the big guns (e.g., even the eminent American philosopher and historian Mark Twain; who ever saw that coming?) to demolish the testimony of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They also don’t like the Interpreter Foundation’s Witnesses film at all, having (of course) never seen it but pronouncing it, among other things, stupid, annoying, and dishonest. I’m absolutely shocked. I had so confidently expected their enthusiastic endorsement!
Anyhow, one of the angles of response particularly amused me, so I offer here a brief repurposing of its fundamental argument, in story form:
Laying out the State’s case against Mr. Robert Jones on charges of capital homicide, prosecutor Richard Anderson called eleven eyewitnesses, of solid reputation, undisputed sanity, and good character, who all testified under oath that they clearly saw the defendant, Mr. Jones, pump six revolver rounds into Mr. Chauncey Gardner while Mr. Gardner lay on the ground pleading for his life. They all also reporting hearing the defendant screaming “Die, Chauncey! Die!”
When the jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” however, jurors explained to those who questioned them, first of all, that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and, secondly, that it was this particular paragraph from the closing statement of criminal defense attorney William Russell that convinced them to acquit Robert Jones:
“Perhaps one should not expect that the prosecutor’s case would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the jury’s faith in the guilt of the defendant. The prosecutor’s argument will be convincing to those already certain that my client killed Mr. Gardner and that the State’s eleven witnesses saw him do it. And even detached observers will probably be convinced by the State’s contention that the witnesses were honest men and women who sincerely believe what they said and who have probably stuck consistently by their story. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the jurors be convinced that, because these witnesses are honest and because they reaffirmed their testimony when asked to do so, they actually saw and heard my client in the supposed act of murdering Chauncey Gardner. I believe that Anderson — like his eleven witnesses — is an honest and sincere man when he declares: ‘Reason dictates that their testimonies, given under oath here before you, must be taken at face value.’ But I don’t believe that his argument by itself requires this conclusion. After all, spiritual truths such as ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ must be spiritually verified.’ Believers — and, for that matter, witnesses — must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than with their ‘natural eyes.'”
Asked, after his release from jail, what he intended to do now, Mr. Jones, the former defendant, indicated that he was going to Disneyland. It was, he said, Chauncey Gardner’s dying wish for him.
Some Arabic influence in the American Southwest
(sic et non blog)
Having grown up in southern California; having attended high school across the street from one of the most important of the old Spanish missions; having spent time in places like Santa Fe, New Mexico, I reflect fairly often on how very Arab the American Southwest sometimes feels.
My high school was part of the Alhambra School District, and it sat right on the border of the city of Alhambra — which was obviously named after the famous Arab palace in Granada, Spain. Students at our sister school and rival, Alhambra High, were the Moors. The city of Alhambra is criss-crossed with streets such as Alhambra, Granada, Cordova, and Almansor.
There’s a lot of Arabic influence around the region. Even the name of the city of Albuquerque, the etymology of which is in some dispute, has been argued to come from Arabic. (Many Spanish and English words beginning with the element al-, which is the Arabic definite article, indisputably do — e.g., algorithm, algebra, alcohol, the star-name Aldebaran, the aforementioned palace of the Alhambra and the southern California town called after it, the place-name Alcatraz, alchemy, alkali, albatross, and so forth.) While some claim that Albuquerque comes from the Latin alba querqus, or “white oak,” others insist that it’s from the Arabic abu al-qurq, meaning “land of the cork oak” (literally, “father of the cork oak”), or the Arabic al-barquq (“apricot”)
In either case, the vehicle for such influences is Spanish, and it must be recalled that substantial portions of modern Portugal and Spain were ruled by Arabic speakers from AD 711 to AD 1492. We often refer to this influence as Moorish.
Many of the architectural features of the Southwest, including the enclosed courtyards and tiled fountains that are so familiar in the California missions and beyond, are indisputably distant legacies of Damascus and the Arabs. The Umayyad dynasty, based in Syria, ruled much of the Iberian peninsula (under the name Andalusia) for a long and influential time. That’s why communities even in the Spanish-speaking Southwest were administered by a mayor called an alcalde (Arabic “judge” or القاضي [al-qāḍī]). That’s why Spanish-speakers exclaim ojalá, “I wish!,” reflecting the Arabic وشاء الله (wa-šā’ allāh; “may God will it!”).
Even the designs of the tiles look Middle Eastern. And the basket designs, though undoubtedly American Indian in many cases, would fit strikingly well in the bazaars of Aswan, Egypt. I’ve eaten in several Mexican restaurants where the decor — and most especially the hanging tin lamps — could have come right out of Morocco or even further east.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/some-arabic-influence-in-the-american-southwest.html
Having grown up in southern California; having attended high school across the street from one of the most important of the old Spanish missions; having spent time in places like Santa Fe, New Mexico, I reflect fairly often on how very Arab the American Southwest sometimes feels.
My high school was part of the Alhambra School District, and it sat right on the border of the city of Alhambra — which was obviously named after the famous Arab palace in Granada, Spain. Students at our sister school and rival, Alhambra High, were the Moors. The city of Alhambra is criss-crossed with streets such as Alhambra, Granada, Cordova, and Almansor.
There’s a lot of Arabic influence around the region. Even the name of the city of Albuquerque, the etymology of which is in some dispute, has been argued to come from Arabic. (Many Spanish and English words beginning with the element al-, which is the Arabic definite article, indisputably do — e.g., algorithm, algebra, alcohol, the star-name Aldebaran, the aforementioned palace of the Alhambra and the southern California town called after it, the place-name Alcatraz, alchemy, alkali, albatross, and so forth.) While some claim that Albuquerque comes from the Latin alba querqus, or “white oak,” others insist that it’s from the Arabic abu al-qurq, meaning “land of the cork oak” (literally, “father of the cork oak”), or the Arabic al-barquq (“apricot”)
Many of the architectural features of the Southwest, including the enclosed courtyards and tiled fountains that are so familiar in the California missions and beyond, are indisputably distant legacies of Damascus and the Arabs. The Umayyad dynasty, based in Syria, ruled much of the Iberian peninsula (under the name Andalusia) for a long and influential time. That’s why communities even in the Spanish-speaking Southwest were administered by a mayor called an alcalde (Arabic “judge” or القاضي [al-qāḍī]). That’s why Spanish-speakers exclaim ojalá, “I wish!,” reflecting the Arabic وشاء الله (wa-šā’ allāh; “may God will it!”).
Even the designs of the tiles look Middle Eastern. And the basket designs, though undoubtedly American Indian in many cases, would fit strikingly well in the bazaars of Aswan, Egypt. I’ve eaten in several Mexican restaurants where the decor — and most especially the hanging tin lamps — could have come right out of Morocco or even further east.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/some-arabic-influence-in-the-american-southwest.html
Monday, November 11, 2019
Introducing “an indigent jeweller named Snite”
(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)
Way back in 1952, Hugh Nibley published this little gem . . . umm, this little parable about the Book of Mormon in his book Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites. It still seems to me to fit a great many responses to the Book of Mormon (and, for that matter, to the Book of Abraham):
A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists’ assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.
Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.
The moral of this story is that the testimony brought out by the prosecution, however learned, has been to date entirely irrelevant and immaterial. It is hardly necessary to observe that it is also incompetent, since it is highly argumentative and based entirely on conclusions of the witnesses, who have furthermore already made up their minds, on other grounds, that the accused is guilty.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/introducing-an-indigent-jeweller-named-snite.html
Way back in 1952, Hugh Nibley published this little gem . . . umm, this little parable about the Book of Mormon in his book Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites. It still seems to me to fit a great many responses to the Book of Mormon (and, for that matter, to the Book of Abraham):
A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists’ assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.
Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.
The moral of this story is that the testimony brought out by the prosecution, however learned, has been to date entirely irrelevant and immaterial. It is hardly necessary to observe that it is also incompetent, since it is highly argumentative and based entirely on conclusions of the witnesses, who have furthermore already made up their minds, on other grounds, that the accused is guilty.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/introducing-an-indigent-jeweller-named-snite.html
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon?
(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)
Some of you are probably already famliar with a website, Mormon Scholars Testify, that I launched roughly a decade ago. If you aren’t, I hope that you’ll take a look at it:
I probably need to modify the website’s title in the wake of President Russell M. Nelson’s admonitions regarding the nickname Mormon, but I haven’t gotten around to doing so. Truth be told, I’ve let the project pretty much glide for the past several years, owing to lack of time. (Every single entry on it was solicited and/or accepted by me and edited by me — thankfully, Tanya Spackman generously did the actual posting and the initial creation of the site — and I’ve simply been busy.) But there’s a lot of very good material on it, and I hope to get back to it again. (If anybody wants to help with the effort, I would be very grateful!)
In any event, I want to call particular attention at the moment to the Mormon Scholars Testify entry from John E. Clark, which, having been posted in 2011, is one of the relatively early pieces on the site. Professor Clark is a highly respected Mesoamerican archaeologist and — this is highly relevant to the critical sniping that my mention of him here is likely to provoke — one of the most bluntly honest and frank people I’ve ever encountered. He doesn’t cut corners or fudge the data. So his testimony, which almost inescapably touches upon the Book of Mormon, is significant:
John E. Clark
Also from Professor Clark, this 2005 presentation at the annual FairMormon conference:
“Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology”
And here is a related item from Jeff Lindsay:
“Evaluating Book of Mormon Claims: Where Do We Stand after 187 Years?”
You might also find this piece, which comes by way of the invaluable Irish Latter-day Saint Robert Boylan, to be of interest:
“Robert F. Smith on Moroni’s Appearances and Jewish Festivals”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/archaeology-and-the-book-of-mormon.html
Some of you are probably already famliar with a website, Mormon Scholars Testify, that I launched roughly a decade ago. If you aren’t, I hope that you’ll take a look at it:
I probably need to modify the website’s title in the wake of President Russell M. Nelson’s admonitions regarding the nickname Mormon, but I haven’t gotten around to doing so. Truth be told, I’ve let the project pretty much glide for the past several years, owing to lack of time. (Every single entry on it was solicited and/or accepted by me and edited by me — thankfully, Tanya Spackman generously did the actual posting and the initial creation of the site — and I’ve simply been busy.) But there’s a lot of very good material on it, and I hope to get back to it again. (If anybody wants to help with the effort, I would be very grateful!)
In any event, I want to call particular attention at the moment to the Mormon Scholars Testify entry from John E. Clark, which, having been posted in 2011, is one of the relatively early pieces on the site. Professor Clark is a highly respected Mesoamerican archaeologist and — this is highly relevant to the critical sniping that my mention of him here is likely to provoke — one of the most bluntly honest and frank people I’ve ever encountered. He doesn’t cut corners or fudge the data. So his testimony, which almost inescapably touches upon the Book of Mormon, is significant:
John E. Clark
Also from Professor Clark, this 2005 presentation at the annual FairMormon conference:
“Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology”
And here is a related item from Jeff Lindsay:
“Evaluating Book of Mormon Claims: Where Do We Stand after 187 Years?”
You might also find this piece, which comes by way of the invaluable Irish Latter-day Saint Robert Boylan, to be of interest:
“Robert F. Smith on Moroni’s Appearances and Jewish Festivals”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/11/archaeology-and-the-book-of-mormon.html
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)