Hey grindael, some help?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8784
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Fence Sitter »

Nevo wrote:Thanks, Chap. I notice that Beadle doesn't say who his informant was for the "bottle of smoke" comment (if indeed there was one). Earlier in the article he mentions interviewing William McLellin but closes that part of his account with the statement: "Dr. McLellin is still a firm believer in the Book of Mormon. He thinks it was 'truly given by divine inspiration'"—which is consistent with other statements of McLellin from the same period. So the story is unlikely to have come from McLellin.


I bet that had Hoffman ever been able to procure the McLellin collection it would have included such a statement by McLellin.

:biggrin:
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make priests its say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

spotlight wrote:Maybe so you know where I am coming from I have not arrived at a position of disbelief in the church due to historical problems but rather to problems with facts of science. I find the historical issues interesting and persuasive in their own right but they are just icing on the cake.


The science issues are more of an issue for me also. And there are a wide range of them from a corporal God to evolution/fall...to mental illness and accountability/joy in this life, etc.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

spotlight wrote: I find the historical issues interesting and persuasive in their own right...


I think that with the historical issues, for me, the evidence always seems to go both ways. There's more often than not a 'flip side' to many of the historical issues.

Not so much on the scientific issues. They are indeed the more troublesome. That I am willing to admit.

Some of the stuff I've seen trying to fit the Jackson County/Adam-ondi-Ahman 'Garden of Eden' and 'Great Flood' into some kind of 'real earth/world' scenario from the past is sort of hokey, IMO. And there's other stuff...

The science/religion issues are the hard ones to tackle. No doubt about that.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

cognitiveharmony wrote:Lang had nothing to gain from his statement, while the church had a lot to gain from the narrative that Oliver rejoined for spiritual reasons.


Out of all the stuff I've seen, the Lang statement seems to be the most problematical.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Sethbag
God
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Sethbag »

mentalgymnast wrote:
The science/religion issues are the hard ones to tackle. No doubt about that.

I realize that you were just using a figure of speech, but being literal for a moment, why would you consider these issues things to be tackled? That would imply that you wished to defuse them, rather than examine them honestly and draw the conclusions they imply.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6783
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by grindael »

Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
spotlight
God
Posts: 1702
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:44 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by spotlight »

Nevo wrote:What's your source for this claim? The link doesn't even mention the quote, much less provide a reference for it. I think it's extremely unlikely that McLellin ever said this (or Cowdery, for that matter).


Sorry about that. I went from the page I linked to Mormon Think following the embedded link. Here's the page at Mormon Think:
http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#didoliver
Third item down.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee

Nevo
God
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Nevo »

spotlight wrote:
Nevo wrote:What's your source for this claim? The link doesn't even mention the quote, much less provide a reference for it. I think it's extremely unlikely that McLellin ever said this (or Cowdery, for that matter).


Sorry about that. I went from the page I linked to Mormon Think following the embedded link. Here's the page at Mormon Think:
http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#didoliver
Third item down.

Thanks. I'm a bit surprised (though maybe I shouldn't be) that MormonThink is so irresponsible in its claims. I realize the site is crowd-sourced, but still. Their credibility (such as it is) can only be hurt by such shoddy articles. McLellin, after all, is the guy who wrote:

I have set my seal that the book of Mormon is a true, divine record and it will require more evidence than I have ever seen to ever shake me relative to its purity. I have read many 'Exposes.' I have seen all their arguments. But my evidences are above them all! . . . when a man goes at the Book of M. he touches the apple of my eye. He fights against truth—against purity—against light—against the purist, or one of the truest, purist books on earth. I have more confidence in the Book of Mormon than any book of this wide earth! . . .

When I first joined the church in 1831, soon I became acquainted with all the Smith family and the Whitmer family, and I heard all their testimonies, which agreed in the main points; and I believed them then and I believe them yet. . . . David Whitmer has lost his thumb of his right hand several years ago, and cannot write. And he would not be willing to write much to a man who fights the Book of M. which he knows to be true. I saw him June 1879, and heard him bear his solemn testimony to the truth of the book—as sincerely and solemnly as when he bore it to me in Paris, Ill. in July 1831. I believed him then and I still believe him. You seem to think that he and I ought to come out and tell something—some darkness relative to that book. We should lie if we did, for we know nothing against its credibility or divine truth. . . .

P.S. Like you I want to add a few words. I never had but one letter from you until this one. You seem to think S. Rigdon the bottom of all M.ism. Many people know better. He never heard of the work of Smith & Cowdery, until C. and P. P. Pratt brought the Book to him in Mentor,O. True enough, I have but little confidence in S. Rigdon, but I know he was more a tool of J. Smith than his Teacher and director. He was docile in J. S. hands to my knowledge.

— William E. McLellin to James T. Cobb, 14 August 1880, in The William E. McLellin Papers, 1854–1880, ed. Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2007), 521–523.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Nevo »

mentalgymnast wrote:Out of all the stuff I've seen, the Lang statement seems to be the most problematical.

Yes, it's quite a bombshell. Yet oddly enough no historian ever quotes it—just assorted cranks on the Internet like Steve Benson. Somehow Dan Vogel has managed to overlook it in all of his work over the last 30 years, even in articles directly concerned with the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't think the Tanners ever made any use of it either. Hmm.

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Nevo wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:Out of all the stuff I've seen, the Lang statement seems to be the most problematical.

Yes, it's quite a bombshell. Yet oddly enough no historian ever quotes it—just assorted cranks on the Internet like Steve Benson. Somehow Dan Vogel has managed to overlook it in all of his work over the last 30 years, even in articles directly concerned with the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't think the Tanners ever made any use of it either. Hmm.


That's interesting.

Thanks Nevo.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by honorentheos »

Nevo wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:Out of all the stuff I've seen, the Lang statement seems to be the most problematical.

Yes, it's quite a bombshell. Yet oddly enough no historian ever quotes it—just assorted cranks on the Internet like Steve Benson. Somehow Dan Vogel has managed to overlook it in all of his work over the last 30 years, even in articles directly concerned with the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't think the Tanners ever made any use of it either. Hmm.

I had generally understood Judge Lang's letter was considered a late fabrication or of questionable origin as it didn't appear on the scene until decades later than it was purportedly written. That the historical view is it ought to be treated with the same degree of skepticism with which the late attestations in favor of the first vision should be considered.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Gunnar »

grindael wrote:I found this interesting... http://mormonleaks.com/wp-content/uploa ... nload1.pdf

Yes, the whole Mormon Leaks site is quite interesting and informative. Its author, Craig Criddle is also a scientist heavily heavily involved in environmental technology research at Stanford University that could play a very important role in ameliorating the consequences of global warming and weaning us off of our excessive dependence on fossil fuels. I am in total awe of how he manages to accomplish every thing he does, and still have time for his Mormon Leaks site!
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

honorentheos wrote:I had generally understood Judge Lang's letter was considered a late fabrication or of questionable origin as it didn't appear on the scene until decades later than it was purportedly written.


For someone like me who is not going to have immediate access to sources and then taking the time to check out their provenance/reliability (how's a lay person to do that?) it's interesting how a source such as Judge Lang's letter can instantly be 'problematic'...and yet, when it is pointed out that major players such as the Tanners and Vogel don't want to touch this historical resource with a ten foot pole...things are very much less problematic, in regards to THAT source.

Earlier in the thread I brought up this exact dilemma that we run into as we use historical sources as evidence. Their provenance, unless traced and verified by a qualified/trusted historian, is going to be at risk. So in a forum such as this when someone cuts and pastes LONG extracts from one source or another, I suppose we ought to be very careful about what we accept as 'gospel truth'.

In fact, we may even be led astray.

So we're back to the question of whether or not anything we've seen on this thread is indeed a 'smoking gun'. I haven't seen it. But as some have pointed out, maybe we shouldn't expect to see anything here.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Sethbag wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
The science/religion issues are the hard ones to tackle. No doubt about that.

I realize that you were just using a figure of speech, but being literal for a moment, why would you consider these issues things to be tackled? That would imply that you wished to defuse them, rather than examine them honestly and draw the conclusions they imply.


By hard to tackle, I mean that they are literally hard to wrap my mind around and come to a firm conclusion either way. Especially when I/we are limited by a number of things. Limited sensory input, historical fuzziness, philosophical approaches, scientific disagreement over theory vs. fact, etc.

This being the case, of course there are going to be apparent conflicts between science and historical religion and current views that have been and are based upon those historical views.

I'm a bit befuddled, however, as to why you would basically be saying that one person vs. another is "examin[ing these issues] honestly and draw[ing] the conclusions they imply...[correctly and conclusively]."

There are a number of different ways of approaching the science vs. religion debates that I find interesting and having merit. For this reason I have not drawn any firm conclusions...as you have.

Regards,
MG

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by sock puppet »

Sethbag wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
The science/religion issues are the hard ones to tackle. No doubt about that.

I realize that you were just using a figure of speech, but being literal for a moment, why would you consider these issues things to be tackled? That would imply that you wished to defuse them, rather than examine them honestly and draw the conclusions they imply.


mentalgymnast wrote:By hard to tackle, I mean that they are literally hard to wrap my mind around and come to a firm conclusion either way. Especially when I/we are limited by a number of things. Limited sensory input, historical fuzziness, philosophical approaches, scientific disagreement over theory vs. fact, etc.

This being the case, of course there are going to be apparent conflicts between science and historical religion and current views that have been and are based upon those historical views.

I'm a bit befuddled, however, as to why you would basically be saying that one person vs. another is "examin[ing these issues] honestly and draw[ing] the conclusions they imply...[correctly and conclusively]."

There are a number of different ways of approaching the science vs. religion debates that I find interesting and having merit. For this reason I have not drawn any firm conclusions...as you have.

Regards,
MG

Hey, MG, I am curious as to where you come out on the global warming issue. This may help some of us non-religion types understand you a bit better.

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
honorentheos wrote:I had generally understood Judge Lang's letter was considered a late fabrication or of questionable origin as it didn't appear on the scene until decades later than it was purportedly written.


For someone like me who is not going to have immediate access to sources and then taking the time to check out their provenance/reliability (how's a lay person to do that?) it's interesting how a source such as Judge Lang's letter can instantly be 'problematic'...and yet, when it is pointed out that major players such as the Tanners and Vogel don't want to touch this historical resource with a ten foot pole...things are very much less problematic, in regards to THAT source.



Yet some major apologists reject chiasmus, but that doesn't seem to bother you. :rolleyes:

So we're back to the question of whether or not anything we've seen on this thread is indeed a 'smoking gun'. I haven't seen it. But as some have pointed out, maybe we shouldn't expect to see anything here.


There is lots of evidence against the Book of Mormon and little to support. Maybe you don't want to consider that a smoking gun, but if you really want a smoking gun against Joseph, just go to the Book of Abraham.
42

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

sock puppet wrote:Hey, MG, I am curious as to where you come out on the global warming issue.


I haven't "come out" one way or the other yet. A few years ago one of my brothers and I went on a road trip down to California. While there we went out on a whale watch boat excursion. We talked to a fellow who, if I remember correctly, is one of the computer guys associated with an/the outfit/company that sends up and monitors satellites that track/follow global warming 'patterns' and such for the government and/or universities. From talking to this guy it was readily apparent that he's 'up on his game' when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of global warming research. We asked him what he thought about global warming and he basically said, "Who knows?"

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8291
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:...some major apologists reject chiasmus, but that doesn't seem to bother you.


Are you aware of the names of some "major apologists" that absolutely reject chiasmus as having any bearing on evidentiary material found in regards to ancient origins of the BofM? Some of them have said that we can't use chiasmus as the smoking gun that proves the BofM true. That's not a "reject[ion]" of chiasmus.

If I was left to choose between a purported ancient document with complex chiasmus vs. a document that doesn't, I'd go with the one that does. At least when it comes down to some possible internal evidences that demonstrate antiquity. Absolute proof?

No.

Really interesting? Yes. :smile:

Regards,
MG

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Themis wrote:...some major apologists reject chiasmus, but that doesn't seem to bother you.


Are you aware of the names of some "major apologists" that absolutely reject chiasmus as having any bearing on evidentiary material found in regards to ancient origins of the BofM? Some of them have said that we can't use chiasmus as the smoking gun that proves the BofM true. That's not a "reject[ion]" of chiasmus.


I believe Brant Gardner if I remember correctly. One of his major criticism is that it would not translate well from one langue to another.

If I was left to choose between a purported ancient document with complex chiasmus vs. a document that doesn't, I'd go with the one that does. At least when it comes down to some possible internal evidences that demonstrate antiquity. Absolute proof?


Never saw any complex ones in the Book of Mormon, but lots of books contain them as well as many more chiasmus then the Book of Mormon.
42

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9766
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by Lemmie »

mentalgym wrote:So in a forum such as this when someone cuts and pastes LONG extracts from one source or another, I suppose we ought to be very careful about what we accept as 'gospel truth'.

Well yes, reading LONG pieces of information is necessary when evaluating historical issues, what is confusing is that you interpret length as an automatic reason to be skeptical.

mentalg wrote:While there we went out on a whale watch boat excursion. We talked to a fellow who, if I remember correctly, is one of the computer guys associated with an/the outfit/company that sends up and monitors satellites that track/follow global warming 'patterns' and such for the government and/or universities. From talking to this guy it was readily apparent that he's 'up on his game' when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of global warming research.


Ah, now I understand. You need to randomly meet a person on vacation, who presents himself 'if you remember correctly,' as being 'associated' with the 'outfit/company' that 'track/follow' 'such.'

Then based on talking during a whale watch, it becomes 'readily apparent' he's 'up on his game' about the 'ins and outs' of 'global warming research.'

Okay. So you're that gullible. But let's add your insistence that on a forum like this, long pieces of fully documented information give you pause, and you simply confirm your irrational biases.

Thanks sock puppet, your question led to a significant illustration of mentalgymnast's credibility issues.

User avatar
spotlight
God
Posts: 1702
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:44 pm

Re: Hey grindael, some help?

Post by spotlight »

Nevo wrote:— William E. McLellin to James T. Cobb, 14 August 1880


So does this quote take precedence over yours because it is later in time?

Forty three years later, his (William Law's) views on Joseph Smith and Mormonism had not softened. He wrote, "The great mistake of my [life was my] having anything to do with Mormonism. I feel [it to] be a deep disgrace and never speak of it when I can avoid it; for over forty years I have been almost entirely silent on the subject."43

43 Letter by William Law, 7 January 1887, brackets retained.
http://mormonthink.com/grant7.htm

ETA: OMG That's what I get for attempting to take the devil's side against Mormonism. Talk about brain farts. W McLellin not Law ouch. In my defense for some reason that page was returned first in a search on "William McLellin Mormon Think."
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests