![]() There is just so much more that you didn’t address and in some cases that you seemed to gloss over, I was disappointed by this.īill, one of your strong points and reason’s I’ve been a fan of yours is that you typically try to validate the questioner as having legitimate questions. Good critical analysis around the BoM has been done that dives much deeper on challenging issues about authorship, try “New Approaches to the Book of Mormon”, “American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon”, “Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon”.Īlso on the witnesses Dan Vogel has done good work bringing serious questions to the table. I struggled with this episode because it scratches on the surface of issues that I believe you know are much more complex and controversial. Not a smoking gun, of course, but something worth considering.Īnyway, I don’the mean this as a critique of you, just suggestions of things to take into account. 2 and Alma 42), Moses, Abraham, and parts of the D&C. I see common elements of this in the BOM (such as exegesis of the Adam and Eve story in 2 Ne. In reading 1 Enoch or Jubilees I can see how creative biblical exegesis works. In one sense I agree–his main source was the Bible, but he creatively reinterpreted it much as the writers of the ancient apocryphal books did. You made the comment that Joseph didn’t plagiarize the books of Moses and Abraham. Joseph was clearly a fantastic storyteller and a creative mind (not necessarily a genius in the traditional sense). There is no doubt that the BOM is a remarkable work, and I certainly can’t explain every aspect of the work, nor do I feel the need to do. He doesn’t necessarily need to have read the other books that have been suggested in order to use ideas from them–the question of Native American origins, for example, was a hot topic of conversation and he wouldn’t need to read View of the Hebrews to know that. The one book we do know Joseph knew well was the Bible. Just a possibility that I thought could be explored.Īlso, I felt that the discussion about plagiarism was too black and white. If this is the case then of course none of them would recant their testimony of the BOM. Isn’t it possible that the book could be a 19th century production without being a knowing fraud? I believe that Joseph and the witnesses all truly believed it was what they said it was. From the beginning all three of you assumed that the BOM is either an actual ancient text that Joseph produced by revelation or a complete fraud. However, I must say that I was a little disappointed by what I perceive as a lack of your typical nuance in this episode. Although I am not a believer I enjoy your nuanced perspective because it helps me stay more fair and balanced in my own thinking. I have listened to your podcast for several months now but this is my first time commenting. Is there room for faith?…… the choice was always yours! The witnesses, Emma, Rigdon, Spaulding, View of the Hebrews, Late War, Savant, Genius, Photographic memory, and everything in between is explored in just over an hour……. Yet, as we explore in today’s episode, to create a coherent historical narrative that explains the ins and outs of how such a hoax could be pulled off seems to have just as many issues if not more than simply believing in the divine nature of the book. Is “The Book of Mormon” a fake? Maybe… that conclusion certainly is reasonable. Who could have been involved and how the narrative would have to flow based on who is in on it and who is being duped along with what it should look like if Joseph is truly plagiarizing sources to create a fictional work. We talk about ways in which to corroborate a fraudulent narrative of the Book of Mormon. Today I sit down with two friends, Chris and Clay. ![]() The Book of Mormon is a fraud you say? Joseph Made it up or stole the ideas from someone else? If only it were that simple.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |