Page 17 of 17
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:36 pm
by Doctor CamNC4Me
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 5:05 pm
Dr Moore wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:53 am
Which illustrates rather perfectly the reason why one board contributor is not taken seriously by anyone.
I could just as well have copied and pasted the complete paragraph highlighting the section that is in question and the meaning of that statement would remain the same. Rick Grunder as much as said that he might have been more clear.
Another poster asked for clarification.
Anyway, I appreciate his attempt to try and integrate the statement in question with the rest of the paragraph.
I don’t think the song analogy fits.
As a point of interest, over the last few years since I became aware of Grunder’s work I’ve appreciated the fact that he has put so MUCH stuff out there. His work literally speaks volumes to early Mormon history. So Rick, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions, I am appreciative of the even handed work you’ve done in early Mormon history.
I’m one of those guys that does see faith in every footstep of the restoration. It is so evident in the lives of the early saints. Their sacrifice and testimonies speak volumes and the hand of God is evident.
At least from this viewers perspective.
Regards,
MG
What are some highlights of Rick’s works that have stayed with you?
- Doc
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:05 pm
by Symmachus
I look forward to reading the entry on Lachoneus, particularly the supporting evidence for the hypothesis of an unknown Spartan emporium in the Levant that the Book of Mormon Onomasticon etymology of the name leaves out. Just what the hell were the Spartans exporting the early sixth century BCE? And what were they getting in return? They didn't use money, and so I assume it would have been eastern goods, though I can't imagine which would have been desired or even allowed, so something must have turned up in a museum somewhere or other.
Also, does anyone know how to access material from the old board? John Gee made a "discovery" of a name found in Akkadian records that was redolent of the Book of Mormon's Gidgiddoni. I wrote a brief take-down (it didn't need to be very long), but I can't seem to find it. I just wonder if it will be useful for the editors of this volume.
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:13 pm
by Dr Moore
Symmachus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:05 pm
Also, does anyone know how to access material from the old board? John Gee made a "discovery" of a name found in Akkadian records that was redolent of the Book of Mormon's Gidgiddoni. I wrote a brief take-down (it didn't need to be very long), but I can't seem to find it. I just wonder if it will be useful for the editors of this volume.
Here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=4&p=2396460
It might be a good idea for us to re-index the board search function. I think many, possibly most, old board messages are not showing up in searches.
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:29 am
by Kishkumen
Yeah, lots of stuff does not show up in searches. I tend to search the site with Google to find what I need.
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:33 am
by Dr Moore
Kishkumen wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:29 am
Yeah, lots of stuff does not show up in searches. I tend to search the site with Google to find what I need.
If you know which old user posted the content you're looking for, then please see the following link on how to search any user's old posts.
viewtopic.php?p=2796973#p2796973
Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:15 am
by malkie
Rick Grunder wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:13 am
Thanks for your question, Malkie.
Hopefully, my previous post clarifies what I was trying to say in that paragraph from the Macpherson entry: 1) I don’t think it is possible to wrestle issues of
faith very effectively using history. But 2), the claims and approaches of religious
apologetics are quite vulnerable to an ever-growing database of historical information to which I have tried to add some contributions during the past forty years.
I will just add that if I were caught lifting a single sentence like the obviously dependent one you mention - from someone’s tightly-integrated paragraph - then I don’t know how I could expect to be taken seriously by honest readers. It would be like playing a song without resolving the indispensable final chord.
Thanks, Rick.