The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Jersey Girl]

But, (and I assure you I mean no one any disrespect here) when I read the Book of Mormon, my brain tends to zone (hypnotic) and so I might not be picking up on what you're telling us here on the thread.

I am sure trusting your hypnotic brain will yield better results.[/quote

If it weren't for the chloroform, I'd have been just fine.

[_mentalgymnast]

It does not account for the numerous written accounts of how the Book of Mormon was recorded, in that it allows for Joseph Smith to have the flexibility to select what language appeared (a point I believe Blake concedes).

That is a point that needs to be conceded. I don't see a problem with that. It's a modern text. Believers would go as far as to say, "It's written for our day." For us. If so, one would/could expect that the 'expansionist theory' would bring the ancient into the modern and the modern would also leave its 'fingerprint' on the text.

It also clearly doesn't solve the problem of the Book of Mormon lacking source documentation. The plates are gone, apparently along with the culture of the Nephites, so we have nothing but the 19th century publication to go off of.

Could you go into a bit more detail as to why you think the expansion theory somehow connects or really has anything to do with your last two sentences?

We are left with the 'artifact'...and it is what it is, that is true. And yes, there are no plates/source material.

What does that have to do with the actual translation process and whether or not Joseph and/or others besides the original authors, were also involved in the project? That is, of course, on the assumption that there was a revelatory process occurring in the mix.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

In a bizarre and hard to explain plot twist, you appear to have just thrown the author of the talk in your OP - Brother Callster, and the Book of Mormon itself, and the Church, all firmly under the bus.

How so? Be specific, please.

The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest,
MG

**edited to add a clarifying 'sign off' at the end of my post. I had forgotten to.

[_mentalgymnast]

For clarity, explain (specifically) what you (not Ostler) mean by the Book of Mormon being a mix of ancient and modern translation...

First of all, and again you have this habit of asking and not answering questions(IHAQ, right? ), I asked if you have read Ostler's writings in any detail.

Are we at the same starting point and/or on common ground?

Admission. It's been a while since I explored his thoughts/writing. It wasn't yesterday.

The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

Zerinus misses the point. The cultivation of the olive is not the anachronism complained of. It's the references to grafting, which did not reach the ancient Israelites before the Lehi party left for America. That's absolutely plain to anybody who reads what honorentheos wrote.

No I don't. It is unlikely that a society and civilisation who had been acquainted with horticulture, viticulture, and olive culture for so many centuries, had not figured out tree grafting. The likelihood that they had is greater than the likelihood that they hadn't.

That's the great advantage when talking about fictional civilizations, one is able to imagine that they were capable of doing anything.

They were amazing these Nephites. They were able to develop all these different technologies, like smelting iron and producing steel, domesticating cattle & bees, use horses and wheeled vehicles drawn by domesticated animals, maintain a completely distinct unknown written language for 800 years, advances in horticulture never seen in this hemisphere and so on, and yet at the same time were so incompetent as not pass any of this information on to any single group such that that group was able to leave any trace of these technologies.

/boggle

[_Xenophon]

Could you go into a bit more detail as to why you think the expansion theory somehow connects or really has anything to do with your last two sentences?

No, because you were the one that brought up the expansion theory in response to my pointing out the lack of source texts. I was saying it doesn't solve that problem so I am unsure as to why you brought it up in response to me.

[_Fence Sitter]

I also note there are still no responses that will satisfy either a believing Scientologist on how e meters work or a believer in Islam on how the Koran was produced.

Seriously, they both must be of divine origin then, according to the OP's "logic".

[_mentalgymnast]

If it weren't for the chloroform, I'd have been just fine.

You're still here "amusing" yourself, I see.

I hope I'm playing a part in that?

Just a tangential little "Hi there!"

by the way, have you read the Book of Mormon all the way through and given it any consideration for being what it purports to be...rather than and/or other than going along lockstep with Twain?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Could you go into a bit more detail as to why you think the expansion theory somehow connects or really has anything to do with your last two sentences?

No, because you were the one that brought up the expansion theory in response to my pointing out the lack of source texts. I was saying it doesn't solve that problem...

OK.Well, that is true as far as it goes...

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

For clarity, explain (specifically) what you (not Ostler) mean by the Book of Mormon being a mix of ancient and modern translation...

First of all, and again you have this habit of asking and not answering questions(IHAQ, right? ), I asked if you have read Ostler's writings in any detail.

Are we at the same starting point and/or on common ground?

Admission. It's been a while since I explored his thoughts/writing. It wasn't yesterday.

The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest,
MG

I'm not interested in Ostler. I'm interested in hearing your explanation of your statement. But, like the numerous requests for evidence that supports your claim that the Book of Mormon is God-Given that have gone unanswered page after page after page, on the thread you started, I expected the response you gave above.

For those who don't think MG just threw his own OP article, Church, Callister and Book of Mormon under the bus, read OSTLER