The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_mentalgymnast]

I will only repeat that you have very little of actual substance to add to the conversation.

The irony meter just broke.

Say what you will, but it's true. Lemmie hasn't had much, if anything, to add to the discussion. I'll stand by that.

Whether or not I have had "very little" to add I am happy to leave up to others...but I'm not much surprised that you would make this derogatory comment. I've come to expect it from some folks.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...there is more substance in Lemmie's/Ihaq's posts than in Callister's entire talk.

Of course you would say/think that.

Regards,
MG

[_zerinus]

Zerinus misses the point. The cultivation of the olive is not the anachronism complained of. It's the references to grafting, which did not reach the ancient Israelites before the Lehi party left for America. That's absolutely plain to anybody who reads what honorentheos wrote.

No I don't. It is unlikely that a society and civilisation who had been acquainted with horticulture, viticulture, and olive culture for so many centuries, had not figured out tree grafting. The likelihood that they had is greater than the likelihood that they hadn't.

[_mentalgymnast]

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both.

Wait. What? Did we just depart Kansas?

You've read Blake Ostler, right?

The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest,
MG

[_Themis]

I was reading lots of apologia when I first started looking at these issues and certainly came across the same arguments he is impressed with. I just knew better to check them out for accuracy from both sides. I found that Joseph not only did know, or the information did exist in his environment. I don't do Mental Gymnastic's.

Themis, over the years I have read both sides. A LOT. Months worth of reading pro and con and this and that.

Not so much in the recent past, however. I've pretty much settled where I'm at.

Regards,
MG

Yes you admitted you just decided to believe, which means now playing mental gymnastic's. It would make better sense to forget about all the problems and do something else.

[_zerinus]

honor,

I'm not understanding the issue you raised regarding Jacob5 and olives/apples. I read through Jacob 5 and I don't understand the peculiarities you were attempting to identify.

He doesn't either, so it is no good asking him.

But, (and I assure you I mean no one any disrespect here) when I read the Book of Mormon, my brain tends to zone (hypnotic) and so I might not be picking up on what you're telling us here on the thread.

I am sure trusting your hypnotic brain will yield better results.

[_Themis]

That thought was percolating around in the back of my foggy mind last night too, zerinus.

Regards,
MG

Foggy would be a good description. After two people explained the problem any clear mind should see where you are wrong in asking someone for evidence something doesn't exist.

[_Xenophon]

You've read Blake Ostler, right?

Yes, but I don't find it all that compelling (I didn't when I was a member either).

It has built in assumptions that just because references are ancient they could not have been done so by a modern author. I suppose it is probably the only viable theory on how a document could be ancient while still having so many modern influences but it always felt forced to me.

It does not account for the numerous written accounts of how the Book of Mormon was recorded, in that it allows for Joseph Smith to have the flexibility to select what language appeared (a point I believe Blake concedes).

It also clearly doesn't solve the problem of the Book of Mormon lacking source documentation. The plates are gone, apparently along with the culture of the Nephites, so we have nothing but the 19th century publication to go off of.

[Guest]

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both.

Wait. What? Did we just depart Kansas?

You've read Blake Ostler, right?

The Ever Behaviorally Deteriorating and Intellectually Dishonest,
MG

In a bizarre and hard to explain plot twist, you appear to have just thrown the author of the talk in your OP - Brother Callster, and the Book of Mormon itself, and the Church, all firmly under the bus.

For clarity, explain (specifically) what you (not Ostler) mean by the Book of Mormon being a mix of ancient and modern translation...

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes you admitted you just decided to believe...

It wasn't simply on a lark...hey, I think I'll believe!

Doesn't work that way. Didn't work that way...for me, anyway.

Then again, you need to define "belief". There are folks...some right here in this neck of the woods...that tend towards over simplification and/or pigeon holing. They then look at others through very narrow lenses and say things that aren't true.

They make stuff up in one way or another.

I'll not take that any farther...unless forced to. I don't want to derail what I think has been a worthwhile thread. I've learned some stuff...it was worth sticking around. I think it is worth pointing out, however, that latter part of the thread has again stumbled into the 'pointing finger syndrome'. It gets rather cumbersome and disruptive to the conversation.

Regards,
MG