DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades, What would be the difference between believing there is a longer Manuscript Found as a critic, and believing in a longer Book of Abraham scroll destroyed in the Chicago fire as an apologist? Thank you! I was thinking the very same thing yesterday. By the time I got back to the thread th...

It wasn't a silly assumption. You said that "the Book of Mormon bears a generic and rough narrative resemblance to Manuscript Found." The extant manuscript to which we can compare the Book of Mormon is the rough draft recovered from Ms. McKinstry's trunk. You can't say that regarding Manuscript Fou...

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 2:50 pm

How can you have read that book but still make the rookie mistake of conflating the rough draft found in the trunk with the finished Manuscript Found?

How can you make silly assumptions?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2024 3:52 pm

Hence his need to respond.

LOL! I suppose my views represent something of the range of BY criticism. Any criticism that does not include great reverence for BY’s role as a prophet is bound to provoke an apologetic response of some kind.

I am pleased to announce that at least a portion of the schedule and speaker list for the 2024 FAIR Conference has been released . FAIR acolytes will notice that this year's conference will be held over two days rather than three, and some presentations will be held simultaneously, requiring attend...

Session 3: Daniel Peterson, "Appreciating Brother Brigham" (10:29 - 10:54 AM) Congrats, Reverend. A direct response to you personally. I doubt it is a response to me personally. After all, I believe in giving Brother Brigham his due. I just don't feel obliged to like him or revere him beyond his ro...

I’ve read that book, Shades. Somehow I did not come out of it as convinced as you. As I have argued here before, the Book of Mormon bears a generic and rough narrative resemblance to Manuscript Found, as its language resembles the Late War, but it is its own, unique work. What the evidence supports ...

Imagine you’ve grown up with The Lord of the Rings , and then someone tells you it was all made up. Sure, there was Sauron, they say; and yeah, he was defeated and all the orcs disappeared. There were no hobbits, though, and no rangers or riders or Nazgûl. There was no Gandalf and there was no Ring...

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Fri May 03, 2024 7:18 am

No, the Spalding-Rigdon connection hasn’t been debunked. Just because the Mopologists have declared it so doesn’t mean they’re correct.

It remains the most valid explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon.

The only problem with it is a lack of evidence supporting it.

He has repeated variations of that in interviews. When I heard it I thought it at best impolitic, at worst delusional. However, I did leave room for the possibility that he could deliver the proof. It seems that my initial impression was, sadly, correct. I don't want to go ad hominem on the guy, bu...