Moroni quotes a scribal forgery

[_Chap]

I'm not sure what issue you guys think you've discovered. Let me put it this way.

The scriptures are scripture to me, not necessarily because they are verbatim, each word, that God wants me to have, but because they represent teachings, spirit of teachings that will be good for me. I think I've demonstrated many times I do not hang on every word written within the LDS canon. I do not get why it is such a problem for a non-believer. I'm quite cool with the notion that the Book of Mormon contains writings that, while found in the biblical canon, were not original to it. Why? Because I find the Book of Mormon message, the message's spirit, useful to me. NOw, if its from God, as a believer maintains, then its up to God to include biblical passages, from the KJV, in the Book of Mormon.

So While I get why you guys don't want to believe and in your minds can''t believe, I see no reason to be forced to accept the notion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud based on this reason. It makes no sense, if God is involved. I suppose you can conclude God was never involved, or there is no God. Fine by me. Conclude whatever you wish. I see the reason in that. Just don't expect me to accept your guys' position and feel forced to accept something that is not all that reasonable to me.

Would you mind if I tried to reformulate your position in a way that will I hope say what you intend to say, but in a way that will (to many I think) seem a bit less tangled:

"Stemelbow

1. Concedes the force of the objections against the Book of Mormon being a genuine ancient text, based on the fact that it contains some material that could not have been available at the time it is supposed to have been written. He agrees that these objections, taken alone, might be thought to support the position that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century forgery.

2. But on the grounds of his personal and uncommunicable religious experience and conviction, Stemelbow is convinced that the Book of Mormon is in its essentials a text of divine origin containing teachings of inestimable value.

3. Therefore Stemelbow is prepared to discount the objections in (1), and to assume on the basis of faith alone that there is some reasonable way to explain the anomalies complained of by critics, even though at present he cannot say what that reasonable way might be.

4. Stemelbow considers it unreasonable for people who do not share his convictions mentioned in (2) to demand that he discount them and conclude that the Book of Mormon is a merely human production of a 19th century forger."

Can you agree that the above is a fair statement of your position? by the way, I do not have a sucker punch that I intend to throw if you say 'Yes' to that!

[_stemelbow]

Would you mind if I tried to reformulate your position in a way that will I hope say what you intend to say, but in a way that will (to many I think) seem a bit less tangled:

Be my guest, as they say.

"Stemelbow

1. Concedes the force of the objections against the Book of Mormon being a genuine ancient text, based on the fact that it contains some material that could not have been available at the time it is supposed to have been written. He agrees that these objections, taken alone, might be thought to support the position that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century forgery.

True.

2. But on the grounds of his personal and uncommunicable religious experience and conviction, Stemelbow is convinced that the Book of Mormon is in its essentials a text of divine origin containing teachings of inestimable value.

True.

3. Therefore Stemelbow is prepared to discount the objections in (1), and to assume on the basis of faith alone that there is some reasonable way to explain the anomalies complained of by critics, even though at present he cannot say what that reasonable way might be.

Sure, ‘cept I do feel I have offered a possibility.

4. Stemelbow considers it unreasonable for people who do not share his convictions mentioned in (2) to demand that he discount them and conclude that the Book of Mormon is a merely human production of a 19th century forger."

Indeed.

Can you agree that the above is a fair statement of your position? by the way, I do not have a sucker punch that I intend to throw if you say 'Yes' to that!

Even if ya did have a sucker punch I’d be helpless because I can’t deny you got me right. Good show.

[_Chap]

A pleasure to dialog with you!

[_Themis]

So While I get why you guys don't want to believe and in your minds can''t believe, I see no reason to be forced to accept the notion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud based on this reason. It makes no sense, if God is involved. I suppose you can conclude God was never involved, or there is no God. Fine by me. Conclude whatever you wish. I see the reason in that. Just don't expect me to accept your guys' position and feel forced to accept something that is not all that reasonable to me.

I'm not interested in debating you considering the amount of bias and mental gymnastics you are employing to maintain belief. This is common of many of us LDS and I have done my share in the past. I will only state that loose translation and tight are only in regards to the Book of Mormon translation. Tight being God giving word for word translation to Joseph Smith, while a loose translation is God giving things like ideas and such to Joseph, and Joseph putting it in his own words. Now we only have evidence for a tight translation, and a loose translation is an invention of apologists to try and explain away troubling anachronisms and such.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not interested in debating you considering the amount of bias and mental gymnastics you are employing to maintain belief. This is common of many of us LDS and I have done my share in the past. I will only state that loose translation and tight are only in regards to the Book of Mormon translation. Tight being God giving word for word translation to Joseph Smith, while a loose translation is God giving things like ideas and such to Joseph, and Joseph putting it in his own words. Now we only have evidence for a tight translation, and a loose translation is an invention of apologists to try and explain away troubling anachronisms and such.

Of course such distinctions aren't made by honest scholars and thinkers trying to figure out how it all transpired, if taking Smith seriously. It has to do with you not liking apologists, it seems, and then saying they are trying to make things not as they are. They are doing their best with what they have. Criticisms aren't easy to deal with when we have such little knowledge of these things. Of course criticisms are merely possibilities on such grounds too.

[_Themis]

Of course such distinctions aren't made by honest scholars and thinkers trying to figure out how it all transpired, if taking Smith seriously. It has to do with you not liking apologists, it seems, and then saying they are trying to make things not as they are. They are doing their best with what they have. Criticisms aren't easy to deal with when we have such little knowledge of these things. Of course criticisms are merely possibilities on such grounds too.

Which honest scholars are you talking about? The only evidence we have for how it transpired fits the tight definition I gave. Can you provide evidence for a loose translation. If you want to believe in loose translation that is your business, but it would be nice if you could provide evidential reasons for such belief.

[_stemelbow]

Which honest scholars are you talking about? The only evidence we have for how it transpired fits the tight definition I gave. Can you provide evidence for a loose translation. If you want to believe in loose translation that is your business, but it would be nice if you could provide evidential reasons for such belief.

nah...its cool. If you want to assume there are no honest scholars when it comes to Mormonism, I ain't gonna disabuse you of your opinion. I think you're pretty set on it.

[_Equality]

Criticisms aren't easy to deal with when we have such little knowledge of these things.

It's not too little knowledge of things that makes criticisms hard to deal with; it's too much knowledge. Where there is little knowledge, criticisms are easily enough dispensed with by a wave of the hand an an invocation of faith. It's when confronted with volumes of information that directly and forcefully contradict faith claims that the believer encounters great difficulty in addressing the criticisms (e.g., the Book of Abraham translation, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy, DNA and the Lamanites, and so forth).

[_Themis]

Which honest scholars are you talking about? The only evidence we have for how it transpired fits the tight definition I gave. Can you provide evidence for a loose translation. If you want to believe in loose translation that is your business, but it would be nice if you could provide evidential reasons for such belief.

nah...its cool. If you want to assume there are no honest scholars when it comes to Mormonism, I ain't gonna disabuse you of your opinion. I think you're pretty set on it.

You misunderstand. I never meant there is no honest scholars among LDS. I think there are many. Bias can effect honest scholars as well as they can everyone else. Now can you provide evidence or not for a loose translation. That would be nice. I have yet to see any from anyone.

[_stemelbow]

It's not too little knowledge of things that makes criticisms hard to deal with; it's too much knowledge.

Only to those who find the criticisms convincing. But what happens when we learn more and we realize we currently know very little? Well, the we know too much will begin to look silly.

Where there is little knowledge, criticisms are easily enough dispensed with by a wave of the hand an an invocation of faith. It's when confronted with volumes of information that directly and forcefully contradict faith claims that the believer encounters great difficulty in addressing the criticisms (e.g., the Book of Abraham translation, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy, DNA and the Lamanites, and so forth).

i don't know if that's true per se. We really don't' know much about the Book of Abraham, or Book of Mormon historicity. We like to think we do, because we have some ideas, but that doesn't comport well with the