Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Chap]

Securing lumber from foreign trade via shipping would have cost an enormous amount of capital and the price tag for such a venture far exceeded anything they could afford.

The marvel of apologetic arguments is they do not have to make sense, they simply need to exist. That way the members can be told that the question has been dealt with. Asked and answered, Brother.

I have to say too that if Nephi was able to procure sufficient high quality timber (and cordage, and sails, and ... etc.) from some hypothesised local commercial source to make an ocean-going ship, whether by gift or by purchase, then

Why did Nephi have to go through all the business of making tools by mining and smelting ore, purifying the slag-rich product, hammering tools to shape, hardening the working edge, and so on - when he could simply have bought or been given the tools like he bought or was given all that timber?

[Shulem]

Securing lumber from foreign trade via shipping would have cost an enormous amount of capital and the price tag for such a venture far exceeded anything they could afford.

The marvel of apologetic arguments is they do not have to make sense, they simply need to exist. That way the members can be told that the question has been dealt with. Asked and answered, Brother.

MG's response to elements within the analysis I've expressed in this thread is that I'm just not seeing the whole picture as if I'm blind or dumb. He's trying to take my eye of the ball by ignoring the very ball in the hands of the ball carrier. It's as if he's saying, "Look over there", as if to determine whether it's a bird or a plane or even superman. But I don't fall for MG's trick. Not a chance. I zero in and micro-focus on each and every SUPER point I want to make and keep hammering away. You'd think that at some point MG feels embarrassed as he sheepishly vanishes rather than dealing with each point of the argument. Now you see him, now you don't!

SHOW ME THE TIMBERS, MG.

PS. MG, I never forget anything about my arguments with you. Dude, you're bankrupt.

[Morley]

Thanks Morley, and to think the witnesses had the same quirk in translation phrasing.

I agree. It's curious that they would.

[Shulem]

I have to say too that if Nephi was able to procure sufficient high quality timber (and cordage, and sails, and ... etc.) from some hypothesised local commercial source to make an ocean-going ship, whether by gift or by purchase, then

Why did he have to strike two stones together to make fire for his bellows AFTER already being in Bountiful for the space of many days? THAT is the question apologists need to grapple with. Smith got lost in his story and the sequence of events is not believable by any means. Smith was portraying Nephi as his macho man hero which he himself wanted to be. The story would have made sense if they had made a fire upon arriving in Bountiful and hitting the beach. Smith blew it while dreaming and yapping out of his hat.

Isn't that right, MG? Tell me I'm right. You know I'm right. You know.

[huckelberry]

On 'curious':

The usage in connection with 'work' is found in the King James translation of the Old Testament, with which Smith would have been at least as familiar as my own upbringing made me. I remembered reading it, but used Bible Gateway to save me turning pages:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=KJV

3 Bible results for “curious work” from
King James Version.
Results 1-3.

Exodus 28:8
And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 35:32
And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 39:5
And the curious girdle of his ephod, that was upon it, was of the same, according to the work thereof; of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen; as the Lord commanded Moses.

The Oxford English dictionary has examples of this usage up into the 18th century. Sense #4 is the relevant one in the present context:

Etymology: < Old French curius ( Ch. de Rol., 11th cent.) = Provençal curios, Spanish curioso, Italian curioso < Latin cūriōsus used only subjectively ‘full of care or pains, careful, assiduous, inquisitive’; French has also the objective sense in 14th cent. (robes curieuses).

When I was at school, my English teacher gave as an example of this early usage an advertisement by an 18th century agent for domestic workers, who told his clients that he had several 'curious women' on his books who were looking for posts as housekeepers. As ignorant 12 year olds we found this delightfully weird.

Unexpectedly, 'care' does not come from the same Latin root as 'curious' as one might have expected, but from Germanic roots.

Chap, good observations keeping things honest, they seriously weaken my proposed observation about the use of curious workmanship as a storytelling device. I am not convinced I was completely wrong. But perhaps I was and the choice was just in keeping with old fashioned and Biblical style.

[huckelberry]

I suppose if one was supporting the story it could be proposed that God miraculously had a group of logs from India blow across the ocean and pile up on the beach in question. It is the sort of miracle which fits the events portrayed in the story.

I checked the story and found nothing about finding timber , how it was put together or how it was put to sea. There is a long sermon instead.

Perhaps the story is told with the concerns of a person without seafaring experience?

[MG 2.0]

Did MG serve a mission? Because I feel like he’s compensating for something like not serving a mission when he was younger. This kind of donkey-tier drudgery he does, over 25 years now, it’s definitely connected to to some regret he’s trying to work out.

- Doc

Washington D.C. 1973-75.

No regrets.

45 plus years since then in the church.

No regrets.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You'd think that at some point MG feels embarrassed as he sheepishly vanishes rather than dealing with each point of the argument. Now you see him, now you don't!

SHOW ME THE TIMBERS, MG.

Shulem, you bring up some particulars in which I have neither the background or knowledge to adequately answer. I am neither a theologian or an expert at anything. Just a regular guy who spent his career in teaching kids in elementary school and who also did, and continues to do, a lot of reading on various subjects when I can discipline myself to set my fiction reading aside.

I don’t just vanish. I just don’t have anything else to add to the discussion at times. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. We all are in that position at various times and on various subjects.

I’m just humble enough to admit it.

When I ‘vanish’ I’m actually moving on to things of greater enjoyment and purpose than living on this board. Summer is here! Yesterday I went and swam laps in our pool and soaked in some rays in the afternoon. I spent time with my wife in the evening.

Now THAT’S living.

Shulem, I don’t take some of this stuff as seriously as you do because I’ve found peace and understanding in the gospel and living according to the commandments of God. I don’t HAVE to know the answer to every question that you have a need to have answered before you will come to Christ and live His gospel.

The gospel is a gift. I accept gifts as given with a thankful heart without having to KNOW EVERYTHING about how the gift was given and/or arrived in my lap.

Although, I do find speculative diggings to be interesting and enjoyable.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Did MG serve a mission? Because I feel like he’s compensating for something like not serving a mission when he was younger. This kind of donkey-tier drudgery he does, over 25 years now, it’s definitely connected to to some regret he’s trying to work out.

- Doc

Washington D.C. 1973-75.

No regrets.

45 plus years since then in the church.

No regrets.

Regards,
MG

Indeed, and you've expressed that before. I am afraid our friend CAM owes you an apology.

…the LDS Church aggressively sends out missionaries to steal convert members of the Catholic Church. Why does the LDS Church do that?

I can only speak from personal experience. I served a mission back in Washington DC back in 1973-75. I met and taught a lot of Catholics. Our discussions were always friendly with absolutely no compulsion or ridicule, etc. If they were interested…most weren’t…we would return. I NEVER had a mindset that I was out to “steal” someone from their faith. I followed the dictum of Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

CAM, what do you say?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sure, I'll cop to an apology. Sorry about wondering if MG served a mission.

- Doc