2 Ne 2:13 last sentence

[Shulem]

Well it is possible Joseph Smith came up with the melodramatic phrase.

Really? Do ya think? Whatever gave you that idea, hucky?



Know ye not that Joseph translated the gold plates by the power of MorMan God® who has a full grasp of his the English language -- even more so than our dear Dr. Shades?

Look into the hat, dearest Joseph, and behold a 14 year old girl and touch the young thing:



_____________________________________________
Put's his face in the hat and smells muff musty.

[Gadianton]

seems to contradict the d&c, the more unique Mormon ideas may not have been thunk up yet.

[I Have Questions]

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

It’s a good catch. From memory, I’ve been taught (especially in the temple) that the creation of things came as a result of Jesus, under the direction of God, organising matter that already existed. So we can deduce that prior to that creation, there wasn’t “nothing” there was “something”. Another distinction is that God didn’t create this earth, Jesus did. Apparently.

[Shulem]

seems to contradict the d&c, the more unique Mormon ideas may not have been thunk up yet.

Nearly all of the D&C predates postdates the 1830 Edition of Book of Mormon which falls in line with Trinitarian thinking and even pays special mention to the Virgin Mary who "is the mother of God" and declares "the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father" thus classifying God as "the Father and Son: and they are one God, yeah, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth."

Note the revelation states that the Son is classified as "Eternal Father" of both Heaven and Earth! Hence, Jesus was the very Eternal Father in Heaven by which the angels ever worshiped him as God. But all of this, of course, changed when Smith got his hands on the papyrus and thunk up new ideas about the God of the Christian religion.

[Shulem]

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

It’s a good catch.

It really is but I'm afraid most people will fail to see the full implication of what it suggests: Mormon god is a jive talker! It's utter nonsense and cannot be justified linguistically or by doctrine. It goes to show that Joe was spouting crap while narrating his stories off the cuff. You can be sure that God would never say such a stupid thing. I might add that "vanish away" was a popular phrase in those times and in the era preceding it. Surely Joe knew this and simply employed that kind of speech into Book of Mormon theology.

[Shulem]

Good morning!

In 2 Nephi chapter two, Smith was building up a kind of doctrinal theses in which he wanted to demonstrate how there is opposition in everything and having understanding of both sides helps people make the right choices. He pointed out that without opposition everything would "be a compound in one" (verse 11) in which if there were no opposition then what could discriminate the difference between life and death, corruption vs. incorruption, or happiness vs. misery? The end result would be purposeless existence void of the need for a God of justice and mercy. And, above all, it would deny Smith's belief for the need of a Religious God who manages the affairs of his creations by a strict rule of law.

Now verse 13 makes several points:

1. If there is no law then there is no such thing as "sin"
2. If there is no sin then there is no such thing as "righteousness"
3. If there is no righteousness then there is no such thing as "happiness"
4. If righteousness and happiness do not exist then there can be no such thing as "punishment" or "misery"

Then comes the zinger in which under such circumstances a Religious God disappears/vanishes from the equation:

"And if these things are not there is no God."

Then:

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon;"

Notice that the circumstances being described is a blank and lifeless universe having nothing at all -- God does not exist!

But then comes the contradiction:

"wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

The above declaration is an impossibility because if nothing existed (not even God) then nothing could have vanished/disappeared because it never existed in the first place!

Gotcha!

Smith tripped up in describing an opposition in all things wherein if there is no God then nothing can appear/materialize and nothing can vanish/disappear because there is no such thing as intelligence and nothing is observed.

Smith should have said:

"And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things no thing must have vanished away could ever exist."

Like I said earlier, Smith screwed the pooch! The verse cannot be defended from a logical point of view because the end result is illogical!

[MG 2.0]

If this section being referred to in 2 Nephi has ancient origins would we or would we not have expectations that the language is figurative and would fit ancient rhetorical theological style?

Would we expect it to be technical? What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used when looking at this section in the Book of Mormon or any other section of scripture. Literal?

It might be well to look a bit more at how ancient Near Eastern religious texts 'argue' to make a theological point.

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

If this section being referred to in 2 Nephi has ancient origins

No, it does not have ancient origins; it's modern religious discourse compliments of a 19th century man (Joe) pretending to prophetically expound upon theological truth that is outside time and space. The statement pretends to portray truth in scientific terms the same as if saying, hey look: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head," but we know there is no king's name in those characters and neither is there a royal Cartouche required to signify a royal name.

would we or would we not have expectations that the language is figurative and would fit ancient rhetorical theological style?

No, when I'm told by a man who pretends to be a prophet and can interpret things by God's power, for example, a King's name in the characters in which that name is said to appear, I also expect that name to be encircled by a royal Cartouche. I won't allow a false translator to BS me or an apologist (MG) who dangles words like figurative in a futile effort to excuse that which is not true. Mentalgymnastics performed by religious zealots does not command my respect.

Would we expect it to be technical? What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used when looking at this section in the Book of Mormon or any other section of scripture. Literal?

When Joseph Smith said there was a king's name in the writing and that the name "Shulem" was contained in certain characters then I expect that technical declaration to be true and if it isn't then a false prophet/charlatan is exposed.

It might be well to look a bit more at how ancient Near Eastern religious texts 'argue' to make a theological point.

It might best serve YOU to admit there is no king's name and neither is the name Shulem written in the characters of the writing of Facsimile No. 3. Then you can better judge other crap expressed by a man who pretended to speak for God, like the bit we read in Nephi that makes zero sense.

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was written for those who would read it in the last days. The statement made in the last sentence of 2 Ne 2:13 is nothing but crap. It's not scientific, it misuses the English word, and is entirely false. It's crap that Smith claimed to read from the writing that appeared on his silly seer stone.

Your apologetics, MG, is twisted and evil. Just like you. You make me sick. I rebuke you!

I say that in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

[Shulem]

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Your corrupt apologetics can't save the verse for being what it is -- wrong thinking. No matter who said it or when they said it makes no difference because the statement is wrong and is like putting the cart in front of the horse. Here I explain:

God = Horse
Cart = God's creations/things

The horse is what pulls the cart and allows the cart to follow in the design and path of the horse's power. Right? Likewise, with God, everything he creates came into existence because of his power, not the other way around! The cart cannot move without the horse but it's the horse that moves the cart just as the creations of God cannot come into existence without there first being a God to create things.

So, when Smith mistakenly said that all things must vanish/disappear if there never was a God in the first place is like saying all creation materialized and came into existence without the existence of God and then everything vanished/disappeared as if to prove a point. Look, it's really simple; Smith goofed up in his thought process and misused the word "vanished." So, in trying to excuse the error by asking "What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used," is just another apologetic ploy and trick to get our eye off the ball.

You lose again, MG.

[Shulem]

Would we expect it to be technical?

Smith said what he meant and meant what he said. Yes, he was quite technical while revealing many things he figured nobody could ever prove otherwise, such as:

• Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
• Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
• Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Furthermore, from a technical perspective, Smith proclaimed that all things materialized/appeared and came into existence on their own because God didn't exist. That is the order of operations by which he used the word "vanished."

And there you have it, MG. Simple as that. Do you think you can process that bit of information inside your pea-sized brain?