2 Ne 2:13 last sentence

[Equality]

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

I'm still waiting for clarification as to whether it is OK to refer someone over to the AI megathread for further information on anyone topic as long as absolutely no cut and pasting is going on from here to there or from there to any one thread.

That seems like an honest compromise doesn't it?

Otherwise, information is limited and folks don't even have the opportunity to 'sift' through more rather than less information. Philo has found it interesting and effective to do so. He's one of 'the guys'.

If it is OK I would have referred folks over to that thread earlier from this one already.

Regards,
MG

In which MG reaches Inception levels of talking to himself.

[Shulem]

I'm still waiting for clarification as to whether it is OK to refer someone over to the AI megathread...

Please, take your derail somewhere else. This thread focuses on the *meaning* and *definition* of the English word "vanished" used by Smith to describe an imaginary universe without God. Either Smith correctly used the word "vanished" or he did not. It's as simple as that. If you have any background in education (I believe you do) and understand proper use of the word "vanished" and how it's used in context, then you are welcome to comment. Otherwise, please shut the hell up.

[Shulem]

In which MG reaches Inception levels of talking to himself.

Which is a tool he uses to troll others to talk about *him* and in the process threads are destroyed.

[Morley]

If this section being referred to in 2 Nephi has ancient origins would we or would we not have expectations that the language is figurative and would fit ancient rhetorical theological style?

Would we expect it to be technical? What is the interpretive frame that ought to be used when looking at this section in the Book of Mormon or any other section of scripture. Literal?

It might be well to look a bit more at how ancient Near Eastern religious texts 'argue' to make a theological point.

Remember, we are looking at EVERYTHING with modern eyes.

Regards,
MG

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

MG: If one smoking gun shouldn't be enough to "throw the Restoration narrative under the rug," how many smoking guns should there be? Are two smoking guns sufficient? Or should it take three or four? It's not really a question for most of us--because we're facing an entire infantry division of smoking guns.

But since you frame it this way, I'm curious. How many smoking guns would it take for you to change your mind and give up on Joseph and Brigham? I suspect that there's nothing that would make you budge. You could be staring down an entire nuclear annihilation of smoking guns and you wouldn’t waver. Am I right?

[MG 2.0]

Responses that are essentially a 'workaround' on what has been said in my post have been the result of my post. No direct confrontation with the meat of what has been said. If one comes into a discussion already convinced that the author of the modern-day canon of scripture is 'corrupt' they will not look for internal textual associations with the ancient world.

And for some, it always comes back to one particular 'pet peeve' that is the smoking gun that in their opinion throws the Restoration narrative under the rug.

Regards,
MG

MG: If one smoking gun shouldn't be enough to "throw the Restoration narrative under the rug," how many smoking guns should there be? Are two smoking guns sufficient? Or should it take three or four? It's not really a question for most of us--because we're facing an entire infantry division of smoking guns.

But since you frame it this way, I'm curious. How many smoking guns would it take for you to change your mind and give up on Joseph and Brigham? I suspect that there's nothing that would make you budge. You could be staring down an entire nuclear annihilation of smoking guns and you wouldn’t waver. Am I right?

My experience has been that when the dust settles after presentation of "smoking guns" many if not most of the so-called problems dissapate and/or go away when more context or information is given. That's why I'm such a proponent of "more information is better". In my opinion, there have been many times on this board when I've provided more information and context to a so-called problem the 'smoking gun' turns out to have been a cap gun or smoke machine set up by someone to cause a distorted view of 'the facts'.

I suppose, in answer to your question, I would say that if someone came along with a plausible alternative that explains the whole Restoration narrative/story, including the spiritual/experiential side, better than the one that believing Latter-day Saints accept, I'd have to give things fiftieth or fifty-first look (I've already been through one through forty-nine ).

As it is, most critics tend to focus on one thing at a time intending...wanting(?)... that thing to be the ONE thing that proves that the Restoration narrative has been cooked up as a fraud by self serving power hungry individuals seeking fame, fortune, and power. It really doesn't look that way to me.

And I've looked forty-nine times so far.

I think there are not a few people that have gotten to number four, five, or six and jumped out of the Good Ship Mormon. Not to say that others have given it a more in depth look. Unless one meets another individual face to face, however, it's difficult to know. Folks here like to give off the persona of being way up past fifty.

But then there's methods and means to get to where one is, right?

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

My experience has been that when the dust settles after presentation of "smoking guns" many if not most of the so-called problems dissapate and/or go away when more context or information is given.

Or in other words: all things must have vanished away.

MG, now that you've appeared, please disappear! Go away.

Goodbye!

[Shulem]

OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Here we see how "vanish" is a word employed in ancient scripture to show how prior circumstances/things once existed but have since gone away to make room for something new. The Old Covenant is done away and the New Covenant supersedes and take the place of those things that are no longer of use.

In order for something to vanish away it had to have existed in the first place. Thus we see, if there was no God and no creation of anything, then nothing could have vanished because it never appeared in the first place! It's really that simple. Joseph Smith slipped up while mumbling about how things would be or not be without God.



Screw u, MG! You dope. Idiot.

[sock puppet]

In which MG reaches Inception levels of talking to himself.

Which is a tool he uses to troll others to talk about *him* and in the process threads are destroyed.

That is his obvious purpose and impact. There is a correlation between the decrease in substantive discussion here and MG's participation. There would be more discussion of topics if MG were banned. But, it is not for me to decide what Shades wants: more discussion in threads or continue to indulge MG endlessly?

[MG 2.0]

There would be more discussion of topics if MG were banned.

Yep. You'd surely end up with one way results and narrowly approached topics without further context that critics might like to avoid (this is the root cause of why AI has been put into a box).

C'mon, sock puppet. That's obvious. It doesn't take an ivory tower degree to figure that out.

Reminds me of something that was prevalent in the United States until recently. Cancel culture.

We don't want to go there. Do we?

Regards,
Mg

[MG 2.0]

All voices/context/information are welcome, right?

People here are bright enough and sure enough of where they're coming from to sift through the crap.

I'm doing that, unfortunately, quite often.

Regards,
MG