DiscussMormonism.com

Tom wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:25 pm

I think we need some links to newer classic threads or at least nominations.

Parker type name anomalies at search.php?keywords=PTP

Valiant As ruled.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:23 pm

Thank you for this effort! Lots of good memories here.

Popping in and saw this thread in the list:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=131734

During this discussion you (Kishkumen) took the position that the Late War was a ‘smoking gun’ for the death knell of the Book of Mormon. As the thread continued there seemed to be a generalized backing off from this position as Nevo and others joined in. Anyway, do you still, after some years now having gone by, stick to your guns, so to speak? Shulem, yourself, and others seemed fairly confident that your thread and the ‘spark’ it would set off would end up being the beginning of the end regarding any possibility that the Book of Mormon could from that point on be taken seriously as ‘the word of God’.

Do you still/now ‘approve of this message?’

Time often softens what may have been taken as a hard position before. But sometimes those positions become even more entrenched. Where do you find yourself on the Late War? Has anything happened between the time you began that ‘ancient’ thread and now to soften your position?

As it was/is I felt Nevo, at the time, took a reasonable position juxtaposed next to yours.

Some folks during that thread were honest in saying that they didn’t read the Book of Mormon after they came to know/believe it wasn’t true. Full disclosure, I’ve continued to read the Book of Mormon in the years I’ve come in and out of this board, including up through today (this morning) and find that it is through the actual reading of the Book of Mormon consistently that one is able to determine whether it holds water in the ‘truth department’ and feeds one’s soul in regards to a testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Restoration.

Regards,
MG

I remember that thread! Although i believe Kishkumen already addressed your concerns back on pg 159 of it:

_Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:38 pm

honorentheos wrote:OTOH, if one saw The Late War as demonstrating what a 19th century attempt at replicating the language of the King James Bible would look like, resulting in many of the grammatic structures and phrasing often claimed by apologetics for the Book of Mormon as evidence of genuine Hebrew authorship, then that was conclusively demonstrated with the initial study and to my knowledge remains unchallenged.

Despite the overreaction to what it could ultimately prove and subsequent cooling off, I believe it deserves far more mentions than it gets these 6 years on for essentially pruning away entire branches of Book of Mormon apologetics even if it didn't prove Smith was copying the Book of Mormon from a 19th century source.

Although I stand by the title of the thread for its accuracy, it was nevertheless a poor choice considering the target readership. Very early on in the thread I stipulate that I am talking about generic similarities. The most obvious plagiarism in the Book of Mormon is plagiarism of the KJV. Plagiarism is the wrong concept for grappling with what the Book of Mormon is as a whole.

I agree that this does deserve more work and more mentions. It is unfortunate that the failure to take up this task has resulted in the usual apologetic obfuscations about this significant discovery. It is treated as a flop criticism, or as if it falls into the “asked and answered” file. This is yet more evidence of the epistemicide of apologetics. Often apologetics are destructive of knowledge, or at least they hamper the progress of knowledge.

But then, so too does the fixation on simple debunking.

And then of course he also noted this:

_Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:26 pm

Philo Sofee wrote:Did anything of substance ever come of any of this? Or was it decided that, after all, we still don't have any modern source(s) for the Book of Mormon for sure other than Smith's imagination? Is anyone still doing an studies and comparisons and analysis?

Nothing that I know of yet. The best work of this kind is actually William Davis’ work on John Bunyan’s influence on the Book of Mormon. In many ways, I think his work is much more significant than the discovery of The Late War.

Davis' work eventually culminated in this book:
Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon.
It is an excellent resource for understanding the process by which Smith created his work.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:46 am

Full disclosure, I’ve continued to read the Book of Mormon in the years I’ve come in and out of this board, including up through today (this morning) and find that it is through the actual reading of the Book of Mormon consistently that one is able to determine whether it holds water in the ‘truth department’ and feeds one’s soul in regards to a testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Restoration.

I continue to find passages I had overlooked, such as the blatant anti-semetic message in this one from 2 Mephi:

“Joseph Smith” wrote: Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

I find more reasons every time to believe the Book of Mormon is not what the church claims.

High Spy wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:40 am

Tom wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:25 pm

I think we need some links to newer classic threads or at least nominations.

Parker type name anomalies at search.php?keywords=PTP

Valiant As ruled.

High Spy, as a favor to all of us, please only type posts that make sense. Refrain from posting nonsensical things consisting of acronym salad.

Thank you.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:46 am

Popping in and saw this thread in the list:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=131734

During this discussion you (Kishkumen) took the position that the Late War was a ‘smoking gun’ for the death knell of the Book of Mormon. As the thread continued there seemed to be a generalized backing off from this position as Nevo and others joined in. Anyway, do you still, after some years now having gone by, stick to your guns, so to speak? Shulem, yourself, and others seemed fairly confident that your thread and the ‘spark’ it would set off would end up being the beginning of the end regarding any possibility that the Book of Mormon could from that point on be taken seriously as ‘the word of God’.

Do you still/now ‘approve of this message?’

Time often softens what may have been taken as a hard position before. But sometimes those positions become even more entrenched. Where do you find yourself on the Late War? Has anything happened between the time you began that ‘ancient’ thread and now to soften your position?

As it was/is I felt Nevo, at the time, took a reasonable position juxtaposed next to yours.

Some folks during that thread were honest in saying that they didn’t read the Book of Mormon after they came to know/believe it wasn’t true. Full disclosure, I’ve continued to read the Book of Mormon in the years I’ve come in and out of this board, including up through today (this morning) and find that it is through the actual reading of the Book of Mormon consistently that one is able to determine whether it holds water in the ‘truth department’ and feeds one’s soul in regards to a testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Restoration.

Regards,
MG

Hey, MG! I think Marcus has covered the basics, and I thank the professor for that. I will simply add that at no time have I criticized faith that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired scripture. I do think that evidence of 19th century composition is a smoking gun in showing that the Book of Mormon is 19th century scripture. I do not gainsay the ability to live a rich spiritual life that includes regular study of the Book of Mormon. I am glad to hear that you are thus enriched by it, MG.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:48 pm

High Spy wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:40 am

Parker type name anomalies at search.php?keywords=PTP

Valiant As ruled.

High Spy, as a favor to all of us, please only type posts that make sense. Refrain from posting nonsensical things consisting of acronym salad.

Thank you.

My Bad, because I didn't include Princess Type Person for (PTP) on my first use.

Fortunately it is now edited. Acronyms are one way to find related threads.

Maybe I slipped up, because It was such an amazing anomaly about Parker, used in your signature.

Christ is our prime exemplar, in part because of his name.

Names often convey meaning.

Parker in particular is interesting, as a TV character that was a friend of the friend of God on CBS God Friended Me.

God Friended Me is a title, so correctly should be underlined. Go and sin no more.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 6:24 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:46 am

Popping in and saw this thread in the list:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=131734

During this discussion you (Kishkumen) took the position that the Late War was a ‘smoking gun’ for the death knell of the Book of Mormon. As the thread continued there seemed to be a generalized backing off from this position as Nevo and others joined in. Anyway, do you still, after some years now having gone by, stick to your guns, so to speak? Shulem, yourself, and others seemed fairly confident that your thread and the ‘spark’ it would set off would end up being the beginning of the end regarding any possibility that the Book of Mormon could from that point on be taken seriously as ‘the word of God’.

Do you still/now ‘approve of this message?’

Time often softens what may have been taken as a hard position before. But sometimes those positions become even more entrenched. Where do you find yourself on the Late War? Has anything happened between the time you began that ‘ancient’ thread and now to soften your position?

As it was/is I felt Nevo, at the time, took a reasonable position juxtaposed next to yours.

Some folks during that thread were honest in saying that they didn’t read the Book of Mormon after they came to know/believe it wasn’t true. Full disclosure, I’ve continued to read the Book of Mormon in the years I’ve come in and out of this board, including up through today (this morning) and find that it is through the actual reading of the Book of Mormon consistently that one is able to determine whether it holds water in the ‘truth department’ and feeds one’s soul in regards to a testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Restoration.

Regards,
MG

Hey, MG! I think Marcus has covered the basics, and I thank the professor for that. I will simply add that at no time have I criticized faith that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired scripture. I do think that evidence of 19th century composition is a smoking gun in showing that the Book of Mormon is 19th century scripture. I do not gainsay the ability to live a rich spiritual life that includes regular study of the Book of Mormon. I am glad to hear that you are thus enriched by it, MG.

Hi Kishkumen,
It sounds like you would be somewhat in agreement and/or running in tandem with the author that Marcus referred to. William Davis. If so, I’m on board with that. A few years ago, however, the gist of what I was getting from you, Shulem, and others was that The Late War was some sort of ‘bombshell’ that was going to blow the Book of Mormon out of the water.

I was wondering whether or not you still had those strong feelings in that regard. It sounds like you may have mellowed a bit.

Anyway, hope all is well with you.

Regards,
MG

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 5:08 am

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:46 am

Full disclosure, I’ve continued to read the Book of Mormon in the years I’ve come in and out of this board, including up through today (this morning) and find that it is through the actual reading of the Book of Mormon consistently that one is able to determine whether it holds water in the ‘truth department’ and feeds one’s soul in regards to a testimony of Christ and the veracity of the Restoration.

I continue to find passages I had overlooked, such as the blatant anti-semetic message in this one from 2 Mephi:

“Joseph Smith” wrote: Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

I find more reasons every time to believe the Book of Mormon is not what the church claims.

Yeah, it can work both ways. Nevo referred to a long list of source material to look at in the aforementioned thread. Not sure in the intervening time between now and then how many folks referred to those sources vs. those that are more critical in nature.

I do agree that one can find what they want to find in regards to evidences pro and con as it relates to the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be. Folks have gone around the block on these things for many years now. I thought it interesting that in this old thread that Kishkumen had started years ago that he and others seemingly jumped on the ‘smoking gun’ bandwagon.

And yet, here we are…

The Book of Mormon is still keystone. The Late War notwithstanding.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 10:29 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 5:08 am

I continue to find passages I had overlooked, such as the blatant anti-semetic message in this one from 2 Mephi:



I find more reasons every time to believe the Book of Mormon is not what the church claims.

Yeah, it can work both ways. Nevo referred to a long list of source material to look at in the aforementioned thread. Not sure in the intervening time between now and then how many folks referred to those sources vs. those that are more critical in nature.

I do agree that one can find what they want to find in regards to evidences pro and con as it relates to the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be. Folks have gone around the block on these things for many years now. I thought it interesting that in this old thread that Kishkumen had started years ago that he and others seemingly jumped on the ‘smoking gun’ bandwagon.

And yet, here we are…

The Book of Mormon is still keystone. The Late War notwithstanding.

Regards,
MG

I learned the other day that the early church originally thought the book was such a literary accomplishment that they copyrighted the book and sold it for a handsome fee.

Unfortunately they quickly discovered the only way to get it into people’s hands was to give it away for free. I think the judgement of people back then is the same as it is today. Without some prior priming, in the form of family or missionary pressures, more people decide to leave the book than take it.

I think that is very different than the Bible. In the same 200 year span that Mormonism has had, the Christian religion had spread to cover most of the known world. Not so for Joseph Smith’s little folly.

I think Mormonism will have to wrestle with that fact, elder Holland can no longer assert that the church is exponentially growing because clearly it is not. No one really cares about the book enough to wrestle with it, or step over and around it. They just ignore it completely.