Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[malkie]

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.

Since Limnor's analysis is not in agreement with the official stance on the origins of the Book of Mormon, surely all of those who criticise the church must be overwhelmingly in favour of Limnor's ideas. /s

[MG 2.0]

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.

I knew sooner or later you'd see the light.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

Since Limnor's analysis is not in agreement with the official stance on the origins of the Book of Mormon, surely all of those who criticise the church must be overwhelmingly in favour of Limnor's ideas. /s

Are you?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Since Limnor's analysis is not in agreement with the official stance on the origins of the Book of Mormon, surely all of those who criticise the church must be overwhelmingly in favour of Limnor's ideas. /s

Are you?

Regards,
MG

I'll draw your attention to the "/s" - indicating sarcasm - and let you draw your own conclusions, as you likely will in any case.

[Limnor]

THIS is the smoking gun.

Regards,
MG

If I ever do write a book, I’ll include this endorsement lol

Please recall, MG, that this is just a hobby for me, nothing more.

I’m not looking for converts, I’m just treating the book as a piece of literature.

I haven’t even gotten to the best parts yet - the “sons of Mosiah” and Rigdon’s “Moroni” insertions. I won’t even need to mention the Nephi and Mormon parallels.

[Limnor]

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

Thank you!

[I Have Questions]

So, the new poster who goes by "Limnor" has been actively promoting his views in regard to the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Why have you assumed Limnor is a "He"?

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?

Why don't you respond to Limner's thoughts and hypotheses within the relevant threads?

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

Your need to make a thread within which you can assert an arbitrary binary choice suggests Limner's thoughts have got you a little sweaty. It's worth pointing out that the Church has already undermined Joseph Smith by rebutting his narrative about the Book of Abraham, for example. Why should people take Joseph Smith's version of things seriously when the current SL version of the LDS Church doesn't?

Maybe you could take some of what Limnor has been suggesting and show why one shouldn't take it seriously, but maybe that would take more effort than you are prepared to put in.

[Limnor]

I’m still a little puzzled about this “poll” and I’m not sure why it would matter to anyone whether I’ve had “converts.”

I’ve never mentioned that, and I’m not trying to gather any. My goal has simply been to explore the historical and textual evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon in a way that’s consistent with what we actually know (or think we know). Additionally, I think the correlations are fascinating, and think others may as well.

If someone finds my reconstruction interesting or useful, great. If not, that’s fine too. The question of origins shouldn’t depend on whether people “join” one side or another, but on which explanation best fits the data. I’d rather keep the focus there.

[malkie]

I’m still a little puzzled about this “poll” and I’m not sure why it would matter to anyone whether I’ve had “converts.”

I’ve never mentioned that, and I’m not trying to gather any. My goal has simply been to explore the historical and textual evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon in a way that’s consistent with what we actually know (or think we know). Additionally, I think the correlations are fascinating, and think others may as well.

If someone finds my reconstruction interesting or useful, great. If not, that’s fine too. The question of origins shouldn’t depend on whether people “join” one side or another, but on which explanation best fits the data. I’d rather keep the focus there.

I suspect that the counting or declaring of "converts" may be a result of binary thinking - the idea that if someone rejects the official LDS version of the FV and the Book of Mormon, then they are more or less likely to accept any opposing (or at least different) explanation.

I doubt very much that any of the board members who have engaged with your ideas see themselves as joining anything. Rather they may see it as an intriguing alternative view that exercises the mental faculties.

[MG 2.0]

THIS is the smoking gun.

Regards,
MG

If I ever do write a book, I’ll include this endorsement lol

Please recall, MG, that this is just a hobby for me, nothing more.

I’m not looking for converts, I’m just treating the book as a piece of literature.

I haven’t even gotten to the best parts yet - the “sons of Mosiah” and Rigdon’s “Moroni” insertions. I won’t even need to mention the Nephi and Mormon parallels.

I'm being a bit facetious when using the word "convert". Although I would expect that many here are more willing to look at almost any kind of environmental/naturalistic explanation rather than what Joseph Smith testified/said in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG