Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Shulem]

Maybe one day others here and I will have the hidden knowledge you possess. We can only hope.

Kish comes into the thread to disrupt and disturb and find fault with posters. He does nothing to advance the cause of the OP and fails to demonstrate he has a working knowledge of the mechanical sequence of the Book of Mormon in how sequentially it fails to measure up to its claim of being a believable accounting of how people really live. Kish just wants to find fault with posters. Attack the posters and throw out abstract concepts about things that have nothing to do with the OP which is: Did Nephi have outside assistance? But what we get from Kish is la la la la, I've read all these other historical books and look how learned I am with my college degree! But when it comes to the Book of Mormon he says very little if anything and fails to work with the text in a thread that is strictly about the text.

It can be shown using reason and logic and by taking elements of the Book of Mormon given in sequential order that the answer is that Nephi was alone. All he had was his family and his brethren. There was no outside assistance. I've demonstrated this by using the text itself. Kish comes to argue things that have no bearing on the opening post as he attempts to disrupt the thread -- derail it. He attacks the posters and has provided no material evidence from the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith to counter my presentation which is that Smith had no outside assistance. He's trolling and playing mind games. He adds little to the discussion at hand. Waste of time. He analyzes nothing FROM the Book of Mormon to show that Nephi had outside assistance. He's here to attack posters and find fault with posters on a personal level. He's playing mind games and is not interested in actual scholarship using the WORDS of the text. He wants to talk about Rome. Then go start a thread about Rome.

Show me by the Book of Mormon HOW Nephi had outside assistance. If you can't do that, Kish, shut the hell up. Get with the OP of the thread or concede that you don't have jack. You are simply being disruptive and are a wasting time attacking posters rather than discussing what's actually IN the Book of Mormon which you don't seem to have a real good working knowledge of from what I gather. Show me in the Book of Mormon how it supports the idea that Nephi had outside assistance. If you can't do that, please, shut the hell up. Take your professor double talk somewhere else. You don't impress anyone with your snootiness and snobbery.

Jesus. Good morning world!

[Kishkumen]

Maybe one day others here and I will have the hidden knowledge you possess. We can only hope.

Yes, hidden from those who mysteriously miss my public explanations on multiple threads in numerous posts.

[Kishkumen]

Kish comes into the thread to disrupt and disturb and find fault with posters. He does nothing to advance the cause of the opening post and fails to demonstrate he has a working knowledge of the mechanical sequence of the Book of Mormon in how sequentially it fails to measure up to its claim of being a believable accounting of how people really live. Kish just wants to find fault with posters. Attack the posters and throw out abstract concepts about things that have nothing to do with the opening post which is: Did Nephi have outside assistance? But what we get from Kish is la la la la, I've read all these other historical books and look how learned I am with my college degree! But when it comes to the Book of Mormon he says very little if anything and fails to work with the text in a thread that is strictly about the text.

Yes, it is true that I am not here to help you in your cause of depicting the Book of Mormon as a stupid book and Joseph Smith as a con man, all of which are your fervent personal convictions. I was not aware that any of us were obliged to agree with and support the views of the person who starts a thread. I must have missed that in the rules.

In any case, whether Nephi had help is an interesting question, even as a purely literary one. The author may not explicitly mention helpers and yet it may be assumed by the reader that there were. Everything in the text that is even indirectly related to the question should be considered in arriving at the answer. I say that the author consistently emphasizes the miraculous aspects of the journey, especially the role of God and the “prophet,” so the role of others could be omitted or it is non-existent.

For fun, I recommend listening to the podcast Elder Sign, which features two geeks who discuss weird fiction such as the stories of H. P. Lovecraft. The thought that these guys put into the stories they examine is impressive. I offer them as a model of intensive, fair, and critical examination of literature without being jargony or abstruse. Moreover, the stuff they read and discuss is just fun reading.

[Chap]

In any case, whether Nephi had help is an interesting question, even as a purely literary one. The author may not explicitly mention helpers and yet it may be assumed by the reader that there were. Everything in the text that is even indirectly related to the question should be considered in arriving at the answer. I say that the author consistently emphasizes the miraculous aspects of the journey, especially the role of God and the “prophet,” so the role of others could be omitted or it is non-existent.

Helpers are not explicitly mentioned?

Well, you could have fooled me:

1 Nephi 17 ends thus (after a loooong sermon from Nephi to his brothers, and a blast from his divine phasor set to 'shake' rather than 'wither'):

54 And it came to pass that I stretched forth my hand unto my brethren, and they did not wither before me; but the Lord did shake them, even according to the word which he had spoken.
55 And now, they said: We know of a surety that the Lord is with thee, for we know that it is the power of the Lord that has shaken us. And they fell down before me, and were about to worship me, but I would not suffer them, saying: I am thy brother, yea, even thy younger brother; wherefore, worship the Lord thy God, and honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee.

Then 1 Nephi 18 begins:

1 And it came to pass that they did worship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship.

So although his acknowledgment of assistance is less than fulsome, Nephi is clearly represented as telling us that his brothers helped him.

[Kishkumen]

So although his acknowledgment of assistance is less than fulsome, Nephi is clearly represented as telling us that his brothers helped him.

You know, it really helps for one to interpret what is said in a conversation in the context of what has already been said in the conversation. "Others," in the discussion of the Lehi party's shipbuilding, was always referring to people outside of the Lehite party.

LOL.

My heavens.

[Chap]

In any case, whether Nephi had help is an interesting question, even as a purely literary one. The author may not explicitly mention helpers and yet it may be assumed by the reader that there were. Everything in the text that is even indirectly related to the question should be considered in arriving at the answer. I say that the author consistently emphasizes the miraculous aspects of the journey, especially the role of God and the “prophet,” so the role of others could be omitted or it is non-existent.

Helpers are not explicitly mentioned?

Well, you could have fooled me:

1 Nephi 17 ends thus (after a loooong sermon from Nephi to his brothers, and a blast from his divine phasor set to 'shake' rather than 'wither'):

54 And it came to pass that I stretched forth my hand unto my brethren, and they did not wither before me; but the Lord did shake them, even according to the word which he had spoken.
55 And now, they said: We know of a surety that the Lord is with thee, for we know that it is the power of the Lord that has shaken us. And they fell down before me, and were about to worship me, but I would not suffer them, saying: I am thy brother, yea, even thy younger brother; wherefore, worship the Lord thy God, and honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee.

Then 1 Nephi 18 begins:

1 And it came to pass that they did worship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship.

So although his acknowledgment of assistance is less than fulsome, Nephi is clearly represented as telling us that his brothers helped him.

"Others," in the discussion of the Lehi party's shipbuilding, was always referring to people outside of the Lehite party.

Uh-huh. So 'help' as used by you always means 'help by others from outside Lehi's party'.

Maybe try to make it more explicit when normal English words have to be understood in a special sense in interpreting what you write on an open thread on a discussion board?

[Shulem]

In any case, whether Nephi had help is an interesting question, even as a purely literary one. The author may not explicitly mention helpers and yet it may be assumed by the reader that there were. Everything in the text that is even indirectly related to the question should be considered in arriving at the answer. I say that the author consistently emphasizes the miraculous aspects of the journey, especially the role of God and the “prophet,” so the role of others could be omitted or it is non-existent.

Okay, thank you for actually contributing something of content to the OP and addressing the issue at had. Mind you, these are only remarks and are not backed with citations from the text with actual concrete material fact expressed therein. You have not analyzed the text nor demonstrate a working formula to solve for x.

PS. I don't appreciate my scholarship being compared to Scooby-Doo in which you marginalize and wave off my work like a cartoon. So far, your scholarship has been essentially pretty much nothing because you have not examined the text itself. You tend to chalk everything up as a story when it's more than just that. It's Smith's claim of an ancient man writing about his family history in diary like fashion. Do you understand that? DIARY-LIKE-FASHION!

[Kishkumen]

Uh-huh. So 'help' as used by you always means 'help by others from outside Lehi's party'.

Maybe try to make it more explicit when normal English words have to be understood in a special sense in interpreting what you write on an open thread on a discussion board?

I think it is pretty obvious from the context, Chap. Sorry you missed that. It happens to everyone from time to time.

[Kishkumen]

Okay, thank you for actually contributing something of content to the opening post and addressing the issue at had. Mind you, these are only remarks and are not backed with citations from the text with actual concrete material fact expressed therein. You have not analyzed the text nor demonstrate a working formula to solve for x.

Do I need to cite the text? I thought you knew the text well enough to understand what I was saying. If you have forgotten the Book of Mormon, I am happy to provide citations to remind you of its contents.

PS. I don't appreciate my scholarship being compared to Scooby-Doo in which you marginalize and wave off my work like a cartoon. So far, your scholarship has been essentially pretty much nothing because you have not examined the text itself. You tend to chalk everything up as a story when it's more than just that. It's Smith's claim of an ancient man writing about his family history in diary like fashion. Do you understand that? DIARY-LIKE-FASHION!

I don't think your discussion of the text itself is like Scooby-Doo. I think your preoccupation with confirming that Joseph Smith was a bad guy is.

Yeah, so far I have not contributed to your Book of Mormon scholarship project. It is true. I am not obliged to, and I am not disallowed from critiquing what you have done because I am not contributing to your project.

I don't always chalk up everything as a story. I sometimes discuss those Book of Mormon in those terms, yes. Like you, I am fascinated by the way the Book of Mormon is written, and how the author has constructed the narrator and perspective. Those are interesting and important literary questions.

[Shulem]

Okay, thank you for actually contributing something of content to the opening post and addressing the issue at had. Mind you, these are only remarks and are not backed with citations from the text with actual concrete material fact expressed therein. You have not analyzed the text nor demonstrate a working formula to solve for x.

Do I need to cite the text? I thought you knew the text well enough to understand what I was saying. If you have forgotten the Book of Mormon, I am happy to provide citations to remind you of its contents.

Any good teacher will tell his student to show his work. You need to cite the text and demonstrate how your factoring arrives to a formula that supports your conclusion. SHOW YOUR WORK! I would say the same thing if we were discussing the Book of Abraham and you damn well know that I haven't forgotten the Book of Abraham and neither have I the Book of Mormon which I know inside and out -- I wager far better than you. You are the student and I am the master. I strongly suspect that you're somewhat weak in the Book of Mormon and you had the audacity to slam Physics Guy? I thought that was a cheap shot and you really ought to apologize to him.