This Wikipedia page specifically about the book containing a comprehensive summary of its contents and main themes. It also contains links to other resources about the book and its contents.
Ahh yes, good point.
I ask again, is a link to a product advertisement now to be considered a valid link?
This Wikipedia page specifically about the book containing a comprehensive summary of its contents and main themes. It also contains links to other resources about the book and its contents.
Ahh yes, good point.
I ask again, is a link to a product advertisement now to be considered a valid link?
Not by itself, no.
If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?
I'd have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.
Yes, ambiguity will solve the problem.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.
My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.
Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.
Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?
Let’s get back to the topic in question.
One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?
Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.
My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.
Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.
Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?
Let’s get back to the topic in question.
One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?
Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon, but I seem to remember that there may be a faithful explanation: the land was to be reserved for the righteous, so perhaps not solely for Lehi's family.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?
Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon, but I seem to remember that there may be a faithful explanation: the land was to be reserved for the righteous, so perhaps not solely for Lehi's family.
“this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” 2 Nephi 1:8
At the point God told Nephi that the land was as yet kept from the knowledge of other nations, two other nations already had knowledge of that land and had settled there.
It’s a fairly big plot hole.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon, but I seem to remember that there may be a faithful explanation: the land was to be reserved for the righteous, so perhaps not solely for Lehi's family.
“this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” 2 Nephi 1:8
At the point God told Nephi that the land was as yet kept from the knowledge of other nations, two other nations already had knowledge of that land and had settled there.
It’s a fairly big plot hole.
Any indication Mr. Smith had access to the works of Josephus prior to the penning of the Book of Mormon? I recall Josephus mentioned that at the Tower of Babel some people built ships and went away to settle far distant lands. Some might view this as an apologetic victory that it includes this in the form of the Jaredite story, which is why I wonder if we can be sure Mr. Smith hadn’t read it elsewhere. Maybe he read it part way through concocting the story in his head over the years which explains the ‘complexity’.
“The ego is not master in its own house.” - Sigmund Freud
Anything that an educated person in Smith's place and time might have known is something that Smith might have heard in a sermon, or might have heard from someone who heard it in a sermon.
