If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

“We have Joseph the farmboy producing a work that has gone on to becoming a recognized book of scripture” Nope. You have Joseph the imaginative story teller and Oliver the well educated school teacher, with some contemporary reference materials (including the KJV of the Bible) producing a work of 19th Century Fiction.

It’s amazing (well maybe not so much) that you are able to concisely explain how the Book of Mormon was created whilst at the same time ignoring all that has been written to the contrary that would poke holes in your one sentence shrink wrapped conclusion.

And critics criticize believers for supposedly walking around with blinders on.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Lol. You are too funny. Quit trying to bury honor's response to YOUR request he read the book. His response is eminently applicable to the conversation at hand:

I've stated the Book of Mormon is not complex. It's not. I've stated Grant Hardy's book calling it complex was garbage. It is. I regret the hours lost in reading it as I bought and read it out of a promise I would do so only to discover it was clearly a book I would normally have abandoned early on so as to not waste time reading garbage when there are so many great books I will never have time to read. I'm bitter about that and learned a lesson about how I phrase a promise of reading something going forward. Jesus that book was bad.

Here's the thing: Joseph Smith the person has no connection to my life now. None. I don't think about him and I don't have much to do with the religion he started now outside of participating on this board and an occasion comment from family living in Utah still. I don't feel the need to paint him in a negative light just as I don't feel the need to elevate him, either. Everyone is complex but we don't deal with people as complex individuals out if economy. We simplify by necessity. Is Joseph Smith complex as a historical figure? Sure. Should I look to his life for examples on how to live? Hell no. Should I reread the Book of Mormon again? Again, hell no. Should I feel angry about being raised in the church he started? Why waste the time?

Again, I agree with Dan Vogel and many others, smarter than me on the subject (I have read), that Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon. We will have to agree to disagree.

They aren't that smart, then. Smith and Cowdery collaborating during the writing of the Book of Mormon is documented in the D&C. They discussed the content. And again, if Smith could have written it on his own he would have the first time he tried but failed. The facts are what they are. Cowdery changed the calculus where before his involvement was a slow process of which we have limited remaining product. With Cowdery's involvement they produced the pre-edited version of the book we have. We have a product of the 19th century whose production was affected by Smith and Cowdery working together in a way Smith working with others prior to that where the result was unable to match what we see when Cowdery was involved.

There are very few hard facts really available to us in the 21st century when it comes to the production of the Book of Mormon. But the timeline is as close to one as we have access to, and it strongly favors a Smith/Cowdery collaboration scenario over a Smith as primary sole source scenario...

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, he did, thank you for mentioning that. Here's his opinion:

Yeah. So there you have it. Yay. Substantiative paragraph.

He’s got his opinion, like I said.

Thanks for reposting this. Definitely impacts my views on what is presented by Hardy, Hales, and others.

Regards,
MG

The boss can double check me on this, but when the quoted material is composed of complete, consecutive sentences, there is no requirement to indicate, by ellipses or otherwise, that there are unquoted sentences that proceed or follow the original. We all should avoid selective quotation that misrepresents what the author is actually saying. But the remedy for that is supplying the additional material that is needed.

On the other hand:

When using the quote function or quotation marks to quote someone else’s post, do not alter the original text — including changing type face, size, or color — without clearly indicating you have done so.

Thanks.

[Marcus]

Brian Hales has been quoted a number of times in this thread. His approach to footnotes has always irritated me, because of his propensity to engage in the typical mopologetic technique-- the technique of misusing footnotes to mislead.

Here is one that popped up recently:

"Creative dictation is more difficult than creative writing because, as Louis Brandeis, who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939 explained: “There is no good writing; there is only good rewriting.” "43
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... tnote43sym

Interesting quote. Very specific in terms of author and time frame. And footnote 43?

43. "The exact source of this quote is unknown."

And there you have it. The Mopologist footnote finagle, laid bare.

[MG 2.0]

Lol. You are too funny.
*snip

This is your fourth time now simply cut and pasting THE SAME POST and wasting our time.

And you ignored some relevant questions. They were in blue in case you missed them.

Are you going to cut and paste a fifth time?

(banging my head wondering why I humor this person…)

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Brian Hales has been quoted a number of times in this thread. His approach to footnotes has always irritated me, because of his propensity to engage in the typical mopologetic technique-- the technique of misusing footnotes to mislead.

Here is one that popped up recently:

"Creative dictation is more difficult than creative writing because, as Louis Brandeis, who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939 explained: “There is no good writing; there is only good rewriting.” "43
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... tnote43sym

Interesting quote. Very specific in terms of author and time frame. And footnote 43?

43. "The exact source of this quote is unknown."

And there you have it. The Mopologist footnote finagle, laid bare.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1342360

https://www.quoteslyfe.com/quote/There- ... -is-827111

https://kidadl.com/quotes/louis-brandei ... rt-justice

Number 31.

How do you think this quote applies to the questions/material posted in the recent post to PG?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158043&start=1290

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Brian Hales has been quoted a number of times in this thread. His approach to footnotes has always irritated me, because of his propensity to engage in the typical mopologetic technique-- the technique of misusing footnotes to mislead.

Here is one that popped up recently:

"Creative dictation is more difficult than creative writing because, as Louis Brandeis, who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939 explained: “There is no good writing; there is only good rewriting.” "43
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... tnote43sym

Interesting quote. Very specific in terms of author and time frame. And footnote 43?

43. "The exact source of this quote is unknown."

And there you have it. The Mopologist footnote finagle, laid bare.

Inexcusable. I took a quick Google and found that quote attributed to five different people. The only actual identified source was a style guide by Robert Graves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rea ... Graves1998

ETA: I found it in this book by Harry Shaw. https://books.google.com/books?id=Il5ZA ... +rewriting

[honorentheos]

Hey MG -

On one hand I can understand why you might feel my post quoted here is largely an expression of my opinion. It is. On the other hand, you and I had a direct engagement at the time I read it where we discussed specific issues I had with the book and...you couldn't provide a specific point made by Hardy that you could articulate in your own words nor discuss. It was the first of many instances to come of you expressing your opinion of a source that proved to have little more to it than it evoked a feeling of doing heavy lifting so you shared it with limited to no internal understanding yourself. So there's a bit of huffy hypocrisy to your complaint, in my opinion.

But to help address your concern, Hardy's book is a typical case of abusive textual close reading. In fact he tells us in the intro that was his intention as the approach was meant to apply to the book as literature independent of its religious or historic legitimacy.

And then he used this overly extended close reading to still argue the book couldn't have been written by Joseph Smith so..."Hardy: I'm not saying angels were involved but you draw your own conclusions."

An example includes his attempt to show Nephi being a flawed, complex tragic character writing the history of his people with pre-knowledge of their destruction which flavored his representations of his older brothers. Wow, must be great literature or maybe actual history written by a guy who had visions of the future. Or alternatively, it is a simple didactic narrative where good guys wear white hats, bad guys wear black hats, and Cowdery/Smith wrote 1 Nephi after they wrote Moroni.

So. Yeah. It sucked and I learned a lesson about the value of my own time. I guess I should thank you for that. It led me to quit reading a book by Carter Page suggested by Ajax in the SP forum a while back. I had to learn to trust folks when they tell you repeatedly who they are, and someone who doesn't read posts for comprehension isn't going to read a book even if they promise to after I did. That book sucked worse than Hardy's, believe it or not, so I dropped it and moved on.

[Morley]

You're certainly right, the larger picture is what's important. For example, if one were to look at a painting by Thomas Kinkade, even his most jaded critics might concede that some of the individual stokes or color choices might be acceptable. It's when one steps back from the painting, and considers the impact of the whole composition, that the overwhelming feeling of nausea embraces you. That there are some small parts of the work that might be worthwhile does not redeem the benign toxicity and saccharine artificiality of the whole.

That’s where we differ. As I look at the Monet I see the whole as being ‘good fruit’. The gospel of Jesus Christ is what it’s all about. He who was crucified for our sins, rose the third day, and lives today and guides and directs His church in order to bring souls back into God’s presence.

I do not view that as toxic.

Now you're mixing Monet and Kinkade.

You've repeatedly referred to the perceived mistakes made by the LDS Church, or the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon, as being like blotches that are unappealing when you're up close but look beautiful when you step back and look at the whole picture. Then you use Monet's work as an example.

Monet didn't paint ugly blotches or make what looked like unfortunate mistakes that, when taken taken as a whole, joined to make a larger composition that looked beautiful. His work is compelling whether seen up close or from afar. There are no questionable blotches. For the most part, you don't even have to step back to get the whole picture.

This is generally true for any piece of art that I can recall. Small, ugly parts don't usually combine to create a gigantic, beautiful, splendid whole. Maybe Huckelberry, or somebody else, can correct me on this.

It's irritating and offensive when you repeatedly misrepresent and misuse a discipline (and a painter) that I have some familiarity with to bungle your argument. All I'm asking you to do is to find a more appropriate analogy.

[honorentheos]

I'm reminded of when the Phoenix Art Museum hosted a traveling Rembrandt exhibit. The opportunity to look closely at the work of a true master is something I didn't appreciate enough before this.