You don’t read posts or sources do you? You skim them then make up some jumble of words that fill up empty space. You misrepresented yourself twice if not three times in a row today. That’s a soft/kind way of saying you misspoke. Readers can go back and see if I am misrepresenting you. Might have to do some thread hopping though. And maybe it’s not worth the effort.
You’re predictable if nothing else, Lemmie. May I call you Lemmie?
Regards,
MG
You really have no credibility at all talking about intellectual pursuits, but it is precious to see you try. (May I suggest projecting your own problems with academic research isn’t really the way to go. ) Anyway, Mentalgymnast is truly a great name for you. What you could do is stay on topic! Let’s go back to Shulem’s question:
And that Wasatch front passive aggression never fails to entertain.
Yep, it’s Lemmie. Why the moniker change?
I’m going to take another break from the board. Back to real life.
Hmm, both Binger and Atlanticmike know I’m a moderator. Maybe you missed that..
But, Re taking another break, good call, mentalgymnast. Gotta unknot those pretzels at some point, right? Maybe next time try staying on topic— aww who am I kidding? It’s clear why you come here! You can’t resist us. : D
I'm afraid that Joseph Smith's references to ships being girls has nothing to do with divine protection from a goddess or deity. There is no reason for Nephites to refer to ships as girls that sink in the ocean or do nasty sinful things because they are tempted by Satan.
The logical conclusion seems to point that Joseph Smith was influenced by Late War and nautical expressions of modern times in referring to ships as girls. Sailor talk, baby!
I'm pleased to say that David Bokovoy has returned my email requesting his input on the passages in the Book of Mormon that apply the feminine gender to ships in the Book of Mormon. He said he will look it over when he has the time but is super busy at present. So, I think a response will be forthcoming, hopefully sooner than later.
Here is someone who did their Theses on feminine qualities of the Book of Mormon. Note my emphasis to point out that her point is a haphazard assumption or based on the Book of Mormon itself being ancient scripture as if that is what we might expect from the Bible too.
Wendy Hamilton Christian wrote:Ships in the Book of Mormon are feminine as is common nautical practice today andevidently in ancient times. In alma 63, after an initial successful sea-journey to explore the lands north of the Nephites Nephites, a man named Hagoth took his ship again into the unpredictable waters. The ship didn’t return a second time and “they were never heard of more. [And] that one other ship also did sail forth; and wither she did go we know not” (v.8). Another seafaring object is assigned a feminine pronoun as Mormon uses a figurative description of the Nephites to communicate their unfortunate spiritual state: Behold. They are led about by Satan, . . . as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they” (Mormon 5:18).
EVIDENTLY? Since when is Book of Mormon times considered ancient times by nonMormon scholars such as the Smithsonian Institution? The Book of Mormon is NOT ancient! It is 19th century plagiarism and EVIDENTLY Joseph Smith borrowed the modern nautical expression of applying the feminine quality to ships. But what evidence is there that they did that in Israel in order to justify means for the Nephites to do the same?
I think this plot thickens and await David Bokovoy to land his ship into this thread.
You really have no credibility at all talking about intellectual pursuits, but it is precious to see you try. (May I suggest projecting your own problems with academic research isn’t really the way to go. 
) Anyway, Mentalgymnast is truly a great name for you. What you could do is stay on topic! Let’s go back to Shulem’s question:
