What is your opinion of FARMS?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The level to which you are willing to speculate, parse, and analyze regarding a book you have never read is quite remarkable.

Especially considering that he was the first person to cite content in Bushman's book in this thread:

Originally Posted by seattleute

Bushman is Joseph's Smith's biographer. He did not address whether the Book of Mormon came from an ancient record. He in fact skirted the issue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, you ignore what conclusions might be because you have made up your mind. But if you were a non-LDS scholar, why in the world would you want to wreck your career by taking a stand on the historical legitimacy of a book held my millions to be God's revealed word and held by many other millions as a tool of Satan himself to lead people astray?

And if you became scientifically convinced that the book was an ancient record, then what? Do you think you could publish your paper and receive the praise of your academic institution and professional peers? Would they pat you on the back and say "Well done old chap, you have finally done it! The Evangelicals and Catholics are wrong and the Mormons are right! Well done old boy!"

If you can't see the reasons why scholars don't wade into this religious war SU, you lack imagination.

Actually, there was a better example I could have used than the Iliad or the Odyssey. Exegesis of the Koran, specifically testing Muslim tradition that it's the ineffable word of God itself, a genuine miracle in and off itself, is a booming activity in scholarly circles. Thanks to Waters for this interesting summary:

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

Of course this endeavor is far more controversial than Book of Mormon exegesis ever could be. Your explanation only reinforces my point that if there were anything there this would be an attractive field for an ambitioius scholar (a real one) to pursue.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Actually, there was a better example I could have used than the Iliad or the Odyssey. Exegesis of the Koran, specifically testing Muslim tradition that it's the ineffable word of God itself, a genuine miracle in and off itself, is a booming activity in scholarly circles. Thanks to Waters for this interesting summary:

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

Of course this endeavor is far more controversial than Book of Mormon exegesis ever could be. Your explanation only reinforces my point that if there were anything there this would be an attractive field for an ambitioius scholar (a real one) to pursue.

What a fun argument. I will now claim the Book of Mormon is true, because if it wasn't, you would see articles from reputable scholars from esteemed universities disproving it. If there were anything there, this would be an attractive field for an "ambitioius" scholar to pursue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The level to which you are willing to speculate, parse, and analyze regarding a book you have never read is quite remarkable.

Come on, Lebowski. Show me where Bushman said that it's as amazing that someone wrote it as an angel brought it forth in a gold book.

You don't have to read the book to know that aint true.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Especially considering that he was the first person to cite content in Bushman's book in this thread:

Bushman did skirt the question. He summarized arguments made by others. A dispassionate arbiter.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Bushman did skirt the question. He summarized arguments made by others. A dispassionate arbiter.

And you'd know that . . . how?

Given that you didn't read the book yourself, the only way you'd be able to say that is by SUMMARIZING ARGUMENTS MADE BY OTHERS. Does that mean we get to throw out everything you say, too?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

Parcing the Koran in this way would be like parcing the DC. No one questions whether Muhammad brought forth the Koran, just like no one questions whether the DC is from JS.

Deciding whether the BofM is from JS is an entirely different matter. Shirley, you can see the difference.

Must . . . resist . . . Airplane . . . reference . . . .

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

No one questions whether Muhammad brought forth the Koran.

Not true. In fact, testing this predicate to Muslim belief in the divine origin of the Koran is the explict objective of the exegesis. As the linked article and other sources note, much evidence points to a collaberative effort, and much refining and revising over the years, including possibly by learned Jews and/or Christians in the highly civilized lands conqured by the Bedouin Muslims.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

Bushman pg. 72

"Composition is the naturalistic explanation for the BofM--the way books are always written--but it is as odds with the JS of the historical record. The accounts of the neighbors picture an unambitious, uneducated, treasure-seeking Joseph, who had never written anything and is not known to have read anything but the Bible and perhaps the newspaper. None of the neighbors noted signs of learning or intellectual interests beyond the religious discussions in a juvenile debating club. To account for the disjuncture between the BofM's complexity and Joseph's history as an uneducated rural visionary, the compsition theory calls for a precocious genius of extraordinary powers who was voraciously consuming information without anyone knowing it."

Bushman then goes on the discuss the transcription theory (looking into the U&T and dictating 20 or so words at a time and spelling out names/places) and says:

"By any measure, transcription was a miraculous process, calling for a huge leap of faith to believe, yet, paradoxically, it is more in harmony with the young Joseph of the historical record than is composition. Transcription theory gives us a Joseph with a miraculous gift that evolved naturally out of his earlier treasure-seeking. The boy who gazed into stones and saw treasure grew up to become a translator who looked into stones and saw words."

Bushman then cites Oliver's quote from 1834 after he had left the church: "These days were never to be forgotten. To sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom!"

So, Bushman and I have a much greater respect for the complexity of the BofM then you do.

And You can either believe that Joseph, who had never read anything or written anything, all of a sudden, as his first foray into religion, invented the BofM out of whole cloth, and convinced Martin, Oliver, DavidW., Emma and others to take to their deathbeds the lie of the plates and the dictation theory of origin--which they would never deny even after becoming disaffected with Joseph and/or the Church.

Or you can believe that Joseph dictated the book.

If you have decided to disbelieve anything extra-natural, then you are left with the first option. But tell me, how did you rule out God and angels? And if you admit that God and angels are possible, then isn't the second explanation just more likely then the first--you know, Occam's razer.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complexity." Complexity in and of itself can make for a pretty awful piece of literature. Please give me a list of literature scholars who have published criticisms of the Book of Mormon as literature. You might start by showing me where Harold Bloom (at bottom, a literary critic) has identified and discussed the Book of Mormon's "enigmatic splendors" that he enigmatically references in the dust jacket blurb he gave to the (no doubt) fawning Terryl Givens.

I see that Bushman in a highly stylized and elliptical manner and with a great deal of hedging has arguably, if you wring out all the hot air, restated the age old "how could such a rube have written this amazing book" argument used by Muslims and Mormons alike. I'm not convinced that therefore an angel must have revealed it in a gold book to Joseph. Bushman would not have put the point as diretly and succinctly as you or I did.

No, I don't believe in angels. Nor do I find the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible or B of M at all plausible. But more than that, I can discern where he came from, which I do think is a facinating and worthy subject.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not sure what you mean by "complexity." Complexity in and of itself can make for a pretty awful piece of literature. Please give me a list of literature scholars who have published criticisms of the Book of Mormon as literature. You might start by showing me where Harold Bloom (at bottom, a literary critic) has identified and discussed the Book of Mormon's "enigmatic splendors" that he enigmatically references in the dust jacket blurb he gave to the (no doubt) fawning Terryl Givens.

I see that Bushman in a highly stylized and elliptical manner and with a great deal of hedging has arguably, if you wring out all the hot air, restated the age old "how could such a rube have written this amazing book" argument used by Muslims and Mormons alike. I'm not convinced that therefore an angel must have revealed it in a gold book to Joseph. He would not have put the point as diretly and succinctly as you or I did.

No, I don't believe in angels. Nor do I find the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible or B of M at all plausible. But more than that, I can discern where he came from, which I do think is a facinating and worthy subject.

I do think that Palmer provided an interesting and plausible thesis for how Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, based on the quotations form the book I read.