The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....

[_Molok]

Please stop forgetting the reason we are looking at the text here. It isn't to find out if Joseph Smith made it up or made a mistake. The reason I find the story interesting is provided the Book of Mormon is historical, it means other people were involved that are not being discussed directly in the text itself.

So we're all simple minded jackasses because we won't engage in expanded universe fan fiction with Tobin. Ok, so be it then.

[_Tobin]

So we're all simple minded jackasses because we won't engage in expanded universe fan fiction with Tobin. Ok, so be it then.

No. You are just a simple-minded jackass. You don't need my assistance to be one.

[_Molok]

I'm sorry Tobin, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

[_robuchan]

Is there a place where we could see some solid debate from both sides on this issue?

Over here, ldsfaqs and tobin can't hang with the critics.

Over at MAD, if a critic gets dangerously close to embarrassing any of the LGT'ers, the thread will get shut down and the critic banned eventually.

Anywhere that could combine the smartest of both sides?

[_Fence Sitter]

Is there a place where we could see some solid debate from both sides on this issue?

Over here, ldsfaqs and tobin can't hang with the critics.

Over at MAD, if a critic gets dangerously close to embarrassing any of the LGT'ers, the thread will get shut down and the critic banned eventually.

Anywhere that could combine the smartest of both sides?

I think a variety of factors are at play here.

The internet is old news. Many arguments have been hashed over so many times that those who are highly capable of such discussions have already been involved in them, over and over, and see no need to engage again. Many of these have moved into the blogging sphere or tightly controlled Facebook groups.

Wile there are a few capable posters at MAD who could and sometime do try and engage here, (Nevo & J Green come to mind) they are usually bombarded with so many responses I am sure, to them it seems difficult to conduct a reasonable discussion here, just as for some of us it is difficult to conduct such a conversation there.

Your question could be interpreted to mean that given the right forum, one would find interesting discussions and defenses equally from both sides. I am not sure that is even possible. Religion is faith based. In those areas of uncertainty, where evidence is not overwhelming, religion assumes divine direction while those skeptical of religion assume the opposite. Conversations here with Kevin Sim and Mental Gymnast are great examples of this, where many discussions end with one side willing to continue belief in the hope they are right and the other demanding proof. There simply is no middle ground.

[_Tobin]

Is there a place where we could see some solid debate from both sides on this issue?

Over here, ldsfaqs and tobin can't hang with the critics.

Over at MAD, if a critic gets dangerously close to embarrassing any of the LGT'ers, the thread will get shut down and the critic banned eventually.

Anywhere that could combine the smartest of both sides?

And over here, critics just declare victory even when they haven't. How typical!

[_honorentheos]

Please stop forgetting the reason we are looking at the text here. It isn't to find out if Joseph Smith made it up or made a mistake. The reason I find the story interesting is provided the Book of Mormon is historical, it means other people were involved that are not being discussed directly in the text itself.

Perhaps the problem is that you are discussing two different things above. Why we - collectively - are examining the Book of Mormon may not be the sort of question that can be condensed into a simple response. Personally, I used to look at the text to see what God had to say in this Most Perfect Book. Then, I examined the text to determine if it was a valid assumption that it was the Most Perfect Book and I could look to it to see what God had to say. At some point, once it became clear it is more about Joseph Smith's involvement in its production, it stopped mattering to me what kind of mistakes Joseph Smith may have made or not in it's production. That we are talking about Joseph Smith being the architect of it's production itself is a fatal mistake, in my opinion. At that point, it stops being interesting as history except what it says about 19th c. beliefs and as a relic of my past.

When you say that the story is interesting to you once you say, "Let's assume it's historical, what does that imply?" we have parted ways in my willingness to invest in the project. The residual interest I may have in the Book of Mormon at that point isn't related to its historical value. Rather, there only remains some interest in it's ability to function as scripture in a broad, essentially secular sense.

So, as you were I guess.

[_Tobin]

Please stop forgetting the reason we are looking at the text here. It isn't to find out if Joseph Smith made it up or made a mistake. The reason I find the story interesting is provided the Book of Mormon is historical, it means other people were involved that are not being discussed directly in the text itself.

Perhaps the problem is that you are discussing two different things above. Why we - collectively - are examining the Book of Mormon may not be the sort of question that can be condensed into a simple response. Personally, I used to look at the text to see what God had to say in this Most Perfect Book. Then, I examined the text to determine if it was a valid assumption that it was the Most Perfect Book and I could look to it to see what God had to say. At some point, once it became clear it is more about Joseph Smith's involvement in its production, it stopped mattering to me what kind of mistakes Joseph Smith may have made or not in it's production. That we are talking about Joseph Smith being the architect of it's production itself is a fatal mistake, in my opinion. At that point, it stops being interesting as history except what it says about 19th c. beliefs and as a relic of my past.

When you say that the story is interesting to you once you say, "Let's assume it's historical, what does that imply?" we have parted ways in my willingness to invest in the project. The residual interest I may have in the Book of Mormon at that point isn't related to its historical value. Rather, there only remains some interest in it's ability to function as scripture in a broad, essentially secular sense.

And as you know, I don't approach the Book of Mormon that way. I view it as OBVIOUS fiction, just as you do, simply because there are no gold plates. However, that does not prevent me from considering the possibility that the Book of Mormon may be historical. Granted the circumstances under which the Book of Mormon is historical are very special and unusual. For that to be proven true, advanced beings would have to demonstrate to everyone involved that they exist, that they purposefully removed direct evidence of their involvement (primarily by removing the plates), and we would need to be allowed to examine the plates. Unless and until such evidence is forthcoming, Mormons can't state the Book of Mormon has a historical factual basis.

So, as you were I guess.

Exactly. I really don't need to examine the Book of Mormon to determine whether it is true. The fact the plates are missing is all I need to know that it is fiction.

[_Brackite]

More evidence that Sherem was a fellow Israelite is that he referred to Jacob as '"Brother Jacob" in Jacob 7:6.

Jacob 7:

[6] And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.




Deuteronomy 17 (NKJV)

14 “When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.

[_grindael]

Winning...