Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't come down on the situation where you do, but I can't find any evidence of substantial nature to substantiate Joseph Smith being a knowing fraud.

The only suitable hypotheses to me at least, JS believed he was a prophet but was wrong, or JS was a prophet, even though he made mistakes. I come down to the latter conclusion, but I can understand how reasonable persons could come to the first conclusion. That he was a knowing fraud just doesn't wash with all the evidence.

After being presented with all of the evidence, belief that Joseph Smith was a knowing fraud or to be 95% sure is grasping at the slightest glimmer of hope that one's own intellect is powerful enough to assuage innate human fears of inadequacy and irrelevance.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

After being presented with all of the evidence, belief that Joseph Smith was a knowing fraud or to be 95% sure is grasping at the slightest glimmer of hope that one's own intellect is powerful enough to assuage innate human fears of inadequacy and irrelevance.

Alluding to CHC believing 95% certainty that Joseph was a knowing fraud is an overstatement. CHC has NOT stated whether he concludes JS knew of his fraud or whether he believed he was inspired. Perhaps he does, but he has not stated that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

With this part I agree.

Scripture is the then best expression of God communicating through the device of language through an imperfect being based on then current circumstances. Seen in that light, it is much more human, and to some extent living. It is really just a snapshot in time.

I don't think history is fiction. It happened. History is interpretive.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

After being presented with all of the evidence, belief that Joseph Smith was a knowing fraud or to be 95% sure is grasping at the slightest glimmer of hope that one's own intellect is powerful enough to assuage innate human fears of inadequacy and irrelevance.

You misunderstood me. I said I was 95% sure the BOM is not what JS claimed it to be. Right before that I said I could NOT swallow the idea that Js was a conscious fraud. I merely said that it was possible. As for the rest of your comment..... what? You're getting wordy without really saying anything. You seem to be saying that my beliefs are a result of my own fear of inadequacy and irrelevance. If so you are going too far. You don't know how long and hard I worked at making things work theologically, and if you think I'm being less than honest with myself you are severely mistaken. Please don't go this direction, I don't think this disussion should get personal.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think history is fiction. It happened. History is interpretive.

It is invariably burnished with myth. Interpretive is a fine though probably not wholly encompassing description of history. Herodotus is known as the first historian. No one claims Homer or J. was the first historian. These distictions which have persisted for millenia have meaning. Still, Herodotus' work is more than tinged with myth. But labelling all history as simply "fiction" is a dangerous exercise.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Please don't go this direction, I don't think this disussion should get personal.

I hope it doesn't go in that direction either. Your thought processes are interesting based on your training.

It's unusual for tooblue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I hope it doesn't go in that direction either. Your thought processes are interesting based on your training.

It's unusual for tooblue.

Amen. People should be free here to express their conclusions and faith. But CHC is invaluable for his training in the historical method.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

In my opinion, again based on no numerical data, I see a difference in the style between the small plates and the large plates. That's really the only divide I see. It is interesting to me since the small plates seem to be an ad hoc replacement of lost texts that would have been originally continuous with the large plates.

Well that would make sense given that the large plates are mostly Mormon's words while the small plates are Nephi and a few others.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

You misunderstood me. I said I was 95% sure the BOM is not what JS claimed it to be. Right before that I said I could NOT swallow the idea that Js was a conscious fraud. I merely said that it was possible. As for the rest of your comment..... what? You're getting wordy without really saying anything. You seem to be saying that my beliefs are a result of my own fear of inadequacy and irrelevance. If so you are going too far. You don't know how long and hard I worked at making things work theologically, and if you think I'm being less than honest with myself you are severely mistaken. Please don't go this direction, I don't think this disussion should get personal.

My intent is not to get personal and I will cease and desist in this religion thread unless I have more time to be more careful with my words, for they were reckless and the online personification of Barbara Gordons signature line.

I posted quickly before running off to prepare to teach class and did not fully formulate my thoughts, hence the ‘wordiness without saying anything’.

It's a good excuse for my behavior but doesn’t excuse the broad, aggressive tone of my post. I have no desire to be read as a peevish, impassioned, ignorant fool. Yet trying to force myself back into the discussion that is what I have become.

Carry on and please ignore my outburst.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

My intent is not to get personal and I will cease and desist in this religion thread unless I have more time to be more careful with my words, for they were reckless and the online personification of Barbara Gordons signature line.

I posted quickly before running off to prepare to teach class and did not fully formulate my thoughts, hence the ‘wordiness without saying anything’.

It's a good excuse for my behavior but doesn’t excuse the broad, aggressive tone of my post. I have no desire to be read as a peevish impassioned, ignorant fool, yet trying to force myself back into the discussion that is what I have become.

Carry on and please ignore my outburst.

Never apologize for being a peevish ignorant fool. I don't.