If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

Knowledge acquired via The Spirit trumps all.

That’s questionable.

What “Spirit” might you be referring to?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...The actual picture has received many five star reviews. The critic’s job is to find and/or manufacture enough 1 and 2 star reviews to skew the balance and distort the picture. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the result is too many people are are viewing the distorted picture rather than the original intent the artist intended...

You give yourself away with this example, by describing how you think people approach learning the truth.

...What is the picture in this instance? The simple story that Joseph Smith told in regards to the plates, the angel, and the Book of Mormon being translated by the gift and power of God...

And, by your own words, you think that your job is to find a way to give five star reviews, even if you have to "skew the balance and distort the picture". Your words.

Your credibility takes a major hit when you reveal yourself this way.

But, let's get back to the challenge PG gave you:

Yeah, it kind of sounds vaguely reasonable as a general statement about nothing in particular, but it just doesn't actually connect specifically to anything in the quoted statement from me.

I question the validity of an all or nothing statement in this case. Not when there are multiple ways of viewing things from various reasonable perspectives.

What part of my text was an all-or-nothing statement? In what sense did I insist upon either all of something or else none of it? Huh?

It sounds, I'm afraid, as though MG just picked an adjective that can be applied to statements, "all-or-nothing". He picked that adjective because it sounds somehow extreme, and he wanted to suggest that my statement was too extreme to be reasonable. Out of all the ways of calling a statement extreme, though, it looks as though MG just picked "all-or-nothing" at random, because he couldn't identify exactly how or why my statement was too extreme.

My statement was indeed a strong assertion, in the logical sense that it asserted a lot. I'm denying the actual existence of a lot of conceivable things, namely all the conceivable reasons why one might possibly think that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon himself. Stylistic features, grammatical features, cross-linguistic puns, archaeological accuracy: whatever possible arguments you might imagine to show that it would have been hard for Smith to make the Book up himself, I'm saying that Nope, when you look at them closely, none of these arguments holds any water at all. They're all complete garbage, all of them. That's what I'm saying.

It's not unfair to call that an extreme statement; "all-or-nothing" just doesn't communicate the particular way in which it's extreme. It's the wrong term.

The thing about extreme statements like mine, though, is that if they're wrong, then it must be easy to disprove them. I'm denying any credit at all to any possible arguments against Smith composing the Book of Mormon himself. So to disprove that, all you have to do is find one single argument that carries even a bit of weight, that raises even a bit of legitimate doubt that Smith could have done it himself.

It's not enough just to point away to long discussions that have been published somewhere else. The point of my statement was to call that bluff: I'm saying I've read those long discussions, and they're garbage. But if they're not, then all MG has to do is find one decent argument, out of all of them, and lay it out here concisely.

If he can, then I'm wrong, a one-shot kill. If he can't, then I'm right.

What's your response, mg?

[Gadianton]

I question the validity of an all or nothing statement in this case

but he didn't question the validity of "all or nothing" in this statement from his previous post:

I think that once God would have set things in motion He might be more than likely to see things through rather than leaving everything on the cutting room floor.

Or many other statements he's made I've point out before like this one:

The plates and the angel, by association, demonstrate/prove the fact that God exists and Jesus is the Christ. The controversies of the ages are nullified.

PG mentioned MG objected "all or nothing" at random -- sort of, if you put the two or three talking points he has in a hat and he happened to pick "all or nothing" this time.

As I've mentioned before, MG has a formula of sorts. The world is hazy and lots of perspectives. There's zero chance one could ever say the Book of Mormon isn't miraculous because at any time, somebody could believe that it is miraculous. How could we ever say for sure that person is wrong? As PG mentioned, yes, he collapses everything into relativism. Like, immediately. He barely comes up with anything for real arguments, and immediately goes into meta arguments-- other smart people (apologists) see it different, Creator God can make it all work out, facts are subjective; blah blah.

Relativism -- we can't know anything, lots of perspectives, but critics should at least take a look at the position of faith. If the barest faithful possibility is true, that would change everything. He needs a single domino to fall, which brings the entire house down and absolute certainty follows. Sometimes it's false dilemmas like, if the plates are real, then the Church is true. Sometimes it's racing down the garden path -- if it is true, God can work out all those details and it would be so fantastic -- imagining just how fantastic it would be; wow, it must be true.

[High Spy]

Knowledge acquired via The Spirit trumps all.

That’s questionable.

What “Spirit” might you be referring to?

Regards,
MG

The Wicker Man’S (The Wicker Man’s) Truthful Spirit.

His 5.7 magnitude earthquake was the first of four, and it came in the name of Crist (an old-world spelling) as per https://march8miracle.org

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=158072&p=2847502&hilit=384#p2847502 will show 48 represents an eclipse, and the scriptures tell us eclipses may serve as warnings. 384 begins with 38 so is in Christ’s name, from which evil must flee.

Did someone forget to fill the propane bottle, or whatever is fueling the investigation into these matters.

The Timekeeper is a curious cat also.

[honorentheos]

It's not a concern so much as an observation without folks coloring with spin. Facts are, the Book of Mormon production process and timeline was radically affected by Cowdery arriving. If God, why? If not God, it seems pretty clear Cowdery was instrumental in its production given Smith would have produced it without him earlier if he could have done so.

You’re coloring outside the lines and creating your own artistic expression/intention but in reality changing the picture into something it isn’t. All that matters (the picture) is that Cowdery was involved and later witnessed to the divine nature of the translation process.

It’s pretty simple. Trying to make it into something it’s not doesn’t change the facts in regards to what it is.

Oliver Cowdery is another witness to the plates, and God’s hand in things, that needs to be discredited by coloring outside the lines and creating something other than the actual picture.

The actual picture has received many five star reviews. The critic’s job is to find and/or manufacture enough 1 and 2 star reviews to skew the balance and distort the picture. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the result is too many people are are viewing the distorted picture rather than the original intent the artist intended.

Secular world cravings, influences, and false ideologies are very often overpowering the simple truths of the gospel and recognition of the creator of all things.

In my view, it was bound to happen. The casualties are unfortunately high.

What is the picture in this instance? The simple story that Joseph Smith told in regards to the plates, the angel, and the Book of Mormon being translated by the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

MG,

It is fact separated from narrative that the Book of Mormon production pace dramatically accelerated when Cowdery became involved. It was effectively dead in the water, with Smith barely producing anything between himself and Emma after the loss of the Book of Lehi. That is something that is independent of spin, opinion, or belief. It just is.

So again, if God, why?

[MG 2.0]

You’re coloring outside the lines and creating your own artistic expression/intention but in reality changing the picture into something it isn’t. All that matters (the picture) is that Cowdery was involved and later witnessed to the divine nature of the translation process.

It’s pretty simple. Trying to make it into something it’s not doesn’t change the facts in regards to what it is.

Oliver Cowdery is another witness to the plates, and God’s hand in things, that needs to be discredited by coloring outside the lines and creating something other than the actual picture.

The actual picture has received many five star reviews. The critic’s job is to find and/or manufacture enough 1 and 2 star reviews to skew the balance and distort the picture. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the result is too many people are are viewing the distorted picture rather than the original intent the artist intended.

Secular world cravings, influences, and false ideologies are very often overpowering the simple truths of the gospel and recognition of the creator of all things.

In my view, it was bound to happen. The casualties are unfortunately high.

What is the picture in this instance? The simple story that Joseph Smith told in regards to the plates, the angel, and the Book of Mormon being translated by the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

MG,

It is fact separated from narrative that the Book of Mormon production pace dramatically accelerated when Cowdery became involved. It was effectively dead in the water, with Smith barely producing anything between himself and Emma after the loss of the Book of Lehi. That is something that is independent of spin, opinion, or belief. It just is.

So again, if God, why?

How and why God would and/or does intervene and guide events and people in one direction or another is above my pay grade. If you were a believer I might assume you would say the same thing. As you are not…thus, the question.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As I've mentioned before, MG has a formula of sorts.

Ah, the machinations of a mastermind.

The world is hazy and lots of perspectives.

Hazy on days when overcast with fog or other atmospheric junk filling our noses. Perspectives? Not a few, for sure.

There's zero chance one could ever say the Book of Mormon isn't miraculous because at any time, somebody could believe that it is miraculous.

No, you can say it isn’t miraculous any time you choose.

How could we ever say for sure that person is wrong?

You can.

As PG mentioned, yes, he collapses everything into relativism.

All encompassing empty rhetoric on your part.

Like, immediately. He barely comes up with anything for real arguments…

Deflection coming from your keyboard.

…and immediately goes into meta arguments-- other smart people (apologists) see it different, Creator God can make it all work out, facts are subjective; blah blah.

Well, yeah. So what’s your point. Something that goes against your grain?

Relativism, we can't know anything, lots of perspectives, but critics should at least take a look at the position of faith.

That’s up to you unless you’re locked into your own atheistic world view.

If the barest faithful possibility is true, that would change everything.

MANY believers would not agree with your use of the word ‘barest’.

He needs a single domino to fall, which brings the entire house down and absolute certainty follows. Sometimes it's false dilemmas like, if the plates are real, then the Church is true.

Well, yeah. But at don’t think we’re looking at a false dilemma. This thread has pointed out and shown otherwise.

Sometimes it's racing down the garden path -- if it is true, God can work out all those details and it would be so fantastic -- imagining just how fantastic it would be; wow, it must be true.

Word salad and empty accusations and rhetoric. Nothing there, Gadianton.

Do you have anything to actually offer people of faith? What floats your boat? What is your guiding star?

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

So again, if God, why?

How and why God would and/or does intervene and guide events and people in one direction or another is above my pay grade. If you were a believer I might assume you would say the same thing. As you are not…thus, the question.

Regards,
MG

MG,

My point isn't a subjective one open to interpretation or to be ignored. The theory God was involved in the Book of Mormon production you postulate has to explain the evidence that contradicts it or it isn't a serious point. It's not balanced to behave that way, it's biased in an attempt to avoid the evidence clearly pointing to the alternative being much more probable.

If God, why did Oliver Cowdery's arrival clearly lead to the production acceleration and completion when prior to his arrival it was dead in the water?

[MG 2.0]

How and why God would and/or does intervene and guide events and people in one direction or another is above my pay grade. If you were a believer I might assume you would say the same thing. As you are not…thus, the question.

Regards,
MG

MG,

My point isn't a subjective one open to interpretation or to be ignored. The theory God was involved in the Book of Mormon production you postulate has to explain the evidence that contradicts it or it isn't a serious point. It's not balanced to behave that way, it's biased in an attempt to avoid the evidence clearly pointing to the alternative being much more probable.

If God, why did Oliver Cowdery's arrival clearly lead to the production acceleration and completion when prior to his arrival it was dead in the water?

My point is that you are focusing on a peripheral issue. Throughout the thread my focus has been on the unlikelihood that Joseph Smith could have written/dictated the Book of Mormon on his own wherewithal at the time it was produced.

All else flows from that.

Peripheral issues, as I’ve mentioned a whole lot of times now here and there, are secondary to the primary issues. Folks that would like to either ignore or deflect from the critical importance of primary issues will move to secondary issues in order or with the intent of avoiding the primary issues.

Oliver played a part in Book of Mormon translation. Period. Gratefully he was there at the right time and at the right place.

The million dollar question, again, is whether or not Joseph was capable at the time the Book of Mormon was translated to cobble it together on his own. The words came out of his mouth, not Oliver’s.

I’m not going to continue down the ‘Oliver’ rabbit hole with you, honor. My interest lies in the main thrust of this thread and the arguments and evidence that has been presented.

Plates-Joseph’s translation.

Regards,
MG

[Manetho]

Peripheral issues, as I’ve mentioned a whole lot of times now here and there, are secondary to the primary issues. Folks that would like to either ignore or deflect from the critical importance of primary issues will move to secondary issues in order or with the intent of avoiding the primary issues.

Then please respond to this primary issue:

I'm denying any credit at all to any possible arguments against Smith composing the Book of Mormon himself. So to disprove that, all you have to do is find one single argument that carries even a bit of weight, that raises even a bit of legitimate doubt that Smith could have done it himself.

It's not enough just to point away to long discussions that have been published somewhere else. The point of my statement was to call that bluff: I'm saying I've read those long discussions, and they're garbage. But if they're not, then all MG has to do is find one decent argument, out of all of them, and lay it out here concisely.

If he can, then I'm wrong, a one-shot kill. If he can't, then I'm right.