Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[MG 2.0]

So, the new poster who goes by "Limnor" has been actively promoting his views in regard to the origins of the Book of Mormon. There really haven't been a whole lot of comments one way or the other on some of his threads. Overall, how do those on this board view his contributions to Book of Mormon Studies? Most importantly do you see his views as being more viable and all-inclusive to the facts surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon? Does his representation of Book of Mormon origins make more sense to you than angels and gold plates?

You probably know where I stand, but I think it would be interesting to see where others come down on Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon.

If you had to choose between just two narratives, his and Joseph Smith's...which one would you choose and why?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Joseph Smith’s father had the “Tree of Life” vision when Joseph Smith was only 5-6 years old. This excerpt is from the book “The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother” by Lucy Mack Smith. The phrases and verbiage compared to Nephi’s telling of his father’s vision in 1 Nephi 8 are nearly identical.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... fe_vision/

To me, it’s not a question that this is a thing. It’s only a question of how much.

[MG 2.0]

Joseph Smith’s father had the “Tree of Life” vision when Joseph Smith was only 5-6 years old. This excerpt is from the book “The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother” by Lucy Mack Smith. The phrases and verbiage compared to Nephi’s telling of his father’s vision in 1 Nephi 8 are nearly identical.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... fe_vision/

To me, it’s not a question that this is a thing. It’s only a question of how much.

Are you willing to go full 'onboard' with Limnor? Where would you draw the line if not? Is he too extreme? If not, why not? And again, if you had to choose between Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon and Joseph's account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself, which would you choose?

And if it's not 'either/or'...,where are you more comfortable going?

So again, Limnor narrative vs. Joseph Smith narrative. Which is it, folks?

Take a stand?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

So, the new poster who goes by "Limnor" has been actively promoting his views in regard to the origins of the Book of Mormon. There really haven't been a whole lot of comments one way or the other on some of his threads. Overall, how do those on this board view his contributions to Book of Mormon Studies? Most importantly do you see his views as being more viable and all-inclusive to the facts surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon? Does his representation of Book of Mormon origins make more sense to you than angels and gold plates?

You probably know where I stand, but I think it would be interesting to see where others come down on Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon.

If you had to choose between just two narratives, his and Joseph Smith's...which one would you choose and why?

Regards,
MG

MG ,
If I had little reason to doubt the history of the story gold plates would have a strong advantage of being simpler and more direct. I find some of Limnors proposals very plausible yet some seem for me to stretch plausibility. Limnor is seeing relationships and is following them as far as he can. I suspect some of his ideas will be stuck in the land of maybe or maybe not.

He is presenting explanation for word print indicating variable sources. He is presenting explanation of the puzzling relationship between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith. It is speculative however.

I am glad my mind and choice is not limited to these two.

I understand or see value in seeing translation as being connected to dreams and memory revealing a spiritual past. I am cautious about a meaning of such a spiritual past At the same time thinking such could be a part of strong stories such as the Iliad , and well many more.

[drumdude]

Joseph Smith’s father had the “Tree of Life” vision when Joseph Smith was only 5-6 years old. This excerpt is from the book “The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother” by Lucy Mack Smith. The phrases and verbiage compared to Nephi’s telling of his father’s vision in 1 Nephi 8 are nearly identical.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... fe_vision/

To me, it’s not a question that this is a thing. It’s only a question of how much.

Are you willing to go full 'onboard' with Limnor? Where would you draw the line if not? Is he too extreme? If not, why not? And again, if you had to choose between Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon and Joseph's account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself, which would you choose?

And if it's not 'either/or'...,where are you more comfortable going?

So again, Limnor narrative vs. Joseph Smith narrative. Which is it, folks?

Take a stand?

Regards,
MG

I'm happy to entertain them on a case by case basis.

As a non-believer, I don't think the Book of Mormon has a supernatural origin. We already know Joseph used parts of his life and inserted them into the book. I believe progressive Mormons like Terryl Givens are calling it "bricolage". A fancy name makes the idea more palatable to TBMs. We're well past the days of believing Joseph was an uneducated farm boy who couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag.

[MG 2.0]

Are you willing to go full 'onboard' with Limnor? Where would you draw the line if not? Is he too extreme? If not, why not? And again, if you had to choose between Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon and Joseph's account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself, which would you choose?

And if it's not 'either/or'...,where are you more comfortable going?

So again, Limnor narrative vs. Joseph Smith narrative. Which is it, folks?

Take a stand?

Regards,
MG

I'm happy to entertain them on a case by case basis.

As a non-believer, I don't think the Book of Mormon has a supernatural origin. We already know Joseph used parts of his life and inserted them into the book. I believe progressive Mormons like Terryl Givens are calling it "bricolage". A fancy name makes the idea more palatable to TBMs. We're well past the days of believing Joseph was an uneducated farm boy who couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag.

Limnor, you may have a convert to your Revised Book of Mormon. A bit lukewarm, maybe, but a convert nonetheless. If you ask me, he’s kind’a beating around the bush in response to my posts though.

Full throated? It doesn’t seem so.

It is possible that others will follow him up to the pulpit.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I'm happy to entertain them on a case by case basis.

As a non-believer, I don't think the Book of Mormon has a supernatural origin. We already know Joseph used parts of his life and inserted them into the book. I believe progressive Mormons like Terryl Givens are calling it "bricolage". A fancy name makes the idea more palatable to TBMs. We're well past the days of believing Joseph was an uneducated farm boy who couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag.

Limnor, you may have a convert to your Revised Book of Mormon. A bit lukewarm, maybe, but a convert nonetheless. If you ask me, he’s kind’a beating around the bush in response to my posts though.

Full throated? It doesn’t seem so.

It is possible that others will follow him up to the pulpit.

Regards,
MG

Do you disagree with Terryl Givens as well?

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, you may have a convert to your Revised Book of Mormon. A bit lukewarm, maybe, but a convert nonetheless. If you ask me, he’s kind’a beating around the bush in response to my posts though.

Full throated? It doesn’t seem so.

It is possible that others will follow him up to the pulpit.

Regards,
MG

Do you disagree with Terryl Givens as well?

Tell us a bit more as to how Terryl Givens theory would dovetail with what Limnor has done. More importantly, imagine if Terryl was not a believer in the Restoration narrative. Do you think that he would give Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon a 'shout out' and that he would come up to the pulpit. If so, why? If not, why?

As of yet, as a reminder, you have not come right out and said that you would go, say, 80-90% with what Limnor has done with his character/narrative matching exercise. Are you at 20-30%? Higher? Gosh, folks, if he is right THIS is the smoking gun. I'm questioning why more folks here aren't jumping on the Limnor Revised Book of Mormon bandwagon?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Do you disagree with Terryl Givens as well?

Tell us a bit more as to how Terryl Givens theory would dovetail with what Limnor has done. More importantly, imagine if Terryl was not a believer in the Restoration narrative. Do you think that he would give Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon a 'shout out' and that he would come up to the pulpit. If so, why? If not, why?

As of yet, as a reminder, you have not come right out and said that you would go, say, 80-90% with what Limnor has done with his character/narrative matching exercise. Are you at 20-30%? Higher? Gosh, folks, if he is right THIS is the smoking gun. I'm questioning why more folks here aren't jumping on the Limnor Revised Book of Mormon bandwagon?

Regards,
MG

I’m not sure if Limnor himself is going as far as you think he is. This is a discussion board, not a scholarly journal. The bar for putting forth interesting ideas is intentionally low.

[Morley]

So, the new poster who goes by "Limnor" has been actively promoting his views in regard to the origins of the Book of Mormon. There really haven't been a whole lot of comments one way or the other on some of his threads. Overall, how do those on this board view his contributions to Book of Mormon Studies? Most importantly do you see his views as being more viable and all-inclusive to the facts surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon? Does his representation of Book of Mormon origins make more sense to you than angels and gold plates?

You probably know where I stand, but I think it would be interesting to see where others come down on Limnor's Revised Book of Mormon.

If you had to choose between just two narratives, his and Joseph Smith's...which one would you choose and why?

Regards,
MG

MG, I admit that up until now, I was kind of swayed by Limnor’s arguments, but now that you remind us of the angel thing, I’m going with Joseph Smith’s version. What is a good story without angels or unicorns or elves or something?

…

By the way, Limnor, welcome to the board. I’m enjoying watching you work through your thought puzzle.