Complex?

[Dr. Shades]

This Wikipedia page specifically about the book containing a comprehensive summary of its contents and main themes. It also contains links to other resources about the book and its contents.

Ahh yes, good point.

I ask again, is a link to a product advertisement now to be considered a valid link?

Not by itself, no.

[I Have Questions]

This Wikipedia page specifically about the book containing a comprehensive summary of its contents and main themes. It also contains links to other resources about the book and its contents.

Ahh yes, good point.

I ask again, is a link to a product advertisement now to be considered a valid link?

Not by itself, no.

If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?

[Dr. Shades]

If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?

I'd have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.

[I Have Questions]

If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?

I'd have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, ambiguity will solve the problem.

[I Have Questions]

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

Let’s get back to the topic in question.

One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?

Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?

[malkie]

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

Let’s get back to the topic in question.

One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?

Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?

I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon, but I seem to remember that there may be a faithful explanation: the land was to be reserved for the righteous, so perhaps not solely for Lehi's family.