It’s not meant as an ad hominem. Thousands…tens of thousands of people write books for a living.
I’m simply curious if Vogel has a day job or if he, like other authors, lives off the proceeds of his books. Simple question, simple answer.
His books appeal to a particular audience. If he’s making a sizable amount from writing to that audience he is most probably going to be known for taking a certain position. Otherwise his books wouldn’t sell.
Simple supply and demand.
Clancy writes books for a certain audience. Grisham the same. They make money, they keep writing books.
Regards,
MG
You're still insinuating Vogel's arguments are made because that's how he makes money. You're not dealing with his arguments at all, and that is why it's ad hominem.
I’m saying that he is going to write books that appeal to a certain audience. That will impact what he chooses to write about vs. what he chooses not to write about. He will show prejudice and preference towards certain lines of investigation vs. others.
You won’t see him writing an apologetic like Hales or Rasmussen for example. They both have day jobs. At the end of the day he will always be ‘the critic’. I’m simply saying that money is a motivating factor.
I don’t know the answer except to say that the visits of Moroni parallel the time span in which Joseph regaled his family with stories of the ancient inhabitants of America. If so, it would make sense that he would share ‘scripture stories’ with them.
Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon....
Hales' article includes some very specific arguments, including the one the PG was alluding to in his question. Your response confuses me, since you have been promoting Hales' essay as evidence, but your statement appears to specifically refute one of his main points. Did you read the Hales paper you are recommending?
I don’t know the answer except to say that the visits of Moroni parallel the time span in which Joseph regaled his family with stories of the ancient inhabitants of America. If so, it would make sense that he would share ‘scripture stories’ with them.
Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon....
Hales' article includes some very specific arguments, including the one the PG was alluding to in his question.
Would you kindly point out when and where Hales or I contradict the above statement that Joseph would have been very unlikely to have been the sole author of the Book of Mormon?
If the Book of Mormon shows the indications of having not been written by Joseph Smith we are left with VERY few possibilities. One of them being that it is what it purports to be. An ancient history and book of scripture written on plates and delivered by an angel who was the custodian and keeper of the plates.
Joseph not writing the Book of Mormon from his own mind=visionary experience with angel=plates containing an actual history of ancient peoples living somewhere in the New World.
Regards,
MG
There are no indications the Book of Mormon wasn't written by Joseph. The fact there is not one shred of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples existed leaves us with only one viable possibility--Joseph wrote it.
You're still insinuating Vogel's arguments are made because that's how he makes money. You're not dealing with his arguments at all, and that is why it's ad hominem.
I’m saying that he is going to write books that appeal to a certain audience. That will impact what he chooses to write about vs. what he chooses not to write about. He will show prejudice and preference towards certain lines of investigation vs. others.
You won’t see him writing an apologetic like Hales or Rasmussen for example. They both have day jobs. At the end of the day he will always be ‘the critic’. I’m simply saying that money is a motivating factor.
His books don’t come cheap.
Regards,
MG
It still says nothing about the arguments, and therefore still contitutes an ad hominem.
