Chapstick owns the apologists on the Liahona

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

[Sledge]

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”

With your rock you got from digging a well? That makes perfect damned sense. Good job.

- Doc

[Doctor Scratch]

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”

"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"

[Kishkumen]

Isn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”

"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"

"These Egyptian scrolls must mean something."

"Hang on, let me translate them into an epic tale for you."

Mopologists: "Nahom."

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

“Honey, I think we’re lost.”

“Hang on, let me check the torpedo.”

"Bambi... Why is that man with a cowboy hat trying to put a saddle and a bridle on you?"

You guys are killin me!

[Philo Sofee]

Isn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?

My suspicion is because they have the assumption that it must be ancient in order to be authentic. When the Book of Mormon first came out lo those many years ago it was entirely feasible to argue for the vacuum, as I shall put it. There was nothing modern to draw on, therefore, only ancient knowledge could be admitted, which, in their opinions was the only valuable kind. Nibley tried to solidify it with the canard "How could Joseph Smith possibly have known that?" Now with world wide almost instant knowledge, that approach has no validity since we have discovered new evidences (which changes the probability just like Bayes says! - sorry... couldn't resist) showing there is for all the world as many modern evidences where Joseph Smith could have gotten his materials for the Book of Mormon as there ancient ones. That doesn't invalidate the ancient ones, it lowers their probability of influence on our thinking, since that is exactly what evidence does. It has raised the probability on the "other theory" that the Book of Mormon could have been written by Joseph Smith using his surrounding materials. Now the putative ancient evidences don't have nearly the punch. A most perfect prime and exalting example is the NOW modern name Alma, the man. It simply has no power even when found as an ancient name, to verify the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Since Alma was known even in Joseph Smith's home region. So the effect is, even though if yet another entirely separate ancient document is found with a male Alma we all will continue yawning and say Meh. Because we now know it is also a modern and easily obtainable name for Joseph Smith to have used.

[Gadianton]

Isn’t this just a translation issue? I don’t see why Joseph’s use of language from a book he read, like The Late War, or the Bible, should be such a big deal on either side of the argument. I can’t imagine wasting my time saying that there is no way the language applied to the Liahona didn’t come from The Late War. What’s the big problem?

Our Interpreter rep hasn't done much of a job selling those Interpreter articles on the Late War. Presumably, s/he is full bore with blinders on the most important point the articles make, the same point getting press by the Mopologists themselves on that thread. The articles, therefore, must totally suck. A much better route to take would be to argue exactly what you suggest here. If the KJV is already accepted as copy / paste source for the Book of Mormon, why not other texts? Just extend the argument they already have for the KJV.

Where I would begin if I were a desperate Mopologist living in fear of my mortality, is with the other pseudo-biblical texts that came up with impressive n-gram hits, just not nearly as many as the Late War. I won't say before the fact what the resulting argument would be, but at issue is, are they all sources, or in what way are any of them sources?

I'm not really into the Late War right now, I just thought it was funny that Chapstick could so easily wipe the floor with those guys; none of them able to come up with a semi-decent response. Among the worst responses were from Peterson himself.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Honey, wasn’t your family’s old landlord was named Lemuel?”

“Wow, what a coincidence one of the antagonists in the Book of Mormon shares that name. Who woulda thunk it?”

Mopologist: “Landlords hAvE nOtHiNg tO Do WiTh bEiNg a MeRcHaNt!”

“Wow, wasn’t Jospeh Smith’s dad a merchant?”

Mopologists: “We never said that.”

“Nibley did.”

Mopologists: “He was a scholar, not an apologist.”

-_-

- Doc