Lars Nielsen's "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

[Res Ipsa]

That’s a lot of arguing, for not arguing.

We’ll, he does like circumlocution, no?

- Doc

I'm just worried that he's going to surpass me in wordiness...

[MG 2.0]

We'll, he does like circumlocution, no?

- Doc

I'm just worried that he's going to surpass me in wordiness...

Fat chance. I don’t have the vocabulary. I’d run out of words long before you!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I'm just worried that he's going to surpass me in wordiness...

Fat chance. I don’t have the vocabulary. I’d run out of words long before you!

Regards,
MG

You better believe it! I have a reputation to protect.

[Dr. Shades]

Hope you’re doing well, Shades. Thanks for all you do to keep the lights on around here.

You're welcome.

My problems with Hales are similar. His conclusions regarding polygamy are especially problematic, because he draws every possible conclusion except the obvious one: Joseph's libido inspired him to make the whole thing up so he could satisfy said libido.

Obvious to you. Others in the room may see it differently.

Would you see it differently if it was any polygamy-starter other than Joseph Smith, Jr.?

[MG 2.0]

Hope you’re doing well, Shades. Thanks for all you do to keep the lights on around here.

You're welcome.

Obvious to you. Others in the room may see it differently.

Would you see it differently if it was any polygamy-starter other than Joseph Smith, Jr.?

I suppose I would look at it case by case. I feel differently about John C. Bennett’s spiritual wifery then Joseph’s plural marriage arrangements.

Mohammad? Not sure. I’d have to know more. And there are others…

I know enough about Joseph Smith by way of the ‘larger picture’ so I am able to make a better judgement. And I don’t think it was simply a matter of libido on his part.

This is a discussion that has been had, again and again, and has made trips around the block hundreds if not thousands of times since the early days of the church. I’m not interested in another walk around the block.

I think we each have our own views and have arrived at different conclusions, and that’s fine.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

In my experience, Hales is a frustrating interlocutor. I am sure he means well, and he is not a bad guy, but his tactics are pretty slippery. He straw mans his opponents, and his own arguments are recycled. His Joseph couldn’t have done this ergo God arguments are his usual go-to approach.

My problems with Hales are similar. His conclusions regarding polygamy are especially problematic, because he draws every possible conclusion except the obvious one: Joseph's libido inspired him to make the whole thing up so he could satisfy said libido.

It goes back to that problem of starting with an assumption that one's particular type of religious inclination requires one to conclude. It's an egregious error to make, and is only compounded by statements like this:

...I just thought I'd throw in an additional piece of the puzzle that is historical and as factual as we can achieve these days...

No, it's not. Better peer review would help, but then again, it's published in the Interpreter.

[Dr. Shades]

...I just thought I'd throw in an additional piece of the puzzle that is historical and as factual as we can achieve these days...

No, it's not. Better peer review would help, but then again, it's published in the Interpreter.

That's a very, VERY good point.

[Philo Sofee]

No, it's not. Better peer review would help, but then again, it's published in the Interpreter.

That's a very, VERY good point.

I second Dr. Shades’s sentiment.