If plates then God

[Marcus]

Mg, you wrote this about Hales' essay:

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?

Bullet points would help.

Regards,
MG

You left my actual question (in blue, below) out of your quote:

...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?

Your recent statement in this thread disagrees with Hales' point about Smith's storytelling, and its relationship to the B of M text, which is why I asked if you read Hales' paper before recommending it. if you don't agree with a significant point of it, it seems odd you would put it forward as persuasive.

[malkie]

There's a very simple solution to this - one that makes all of the difficulties disappear. One that is consistent with much of the verifiable evidence.

None of the problems really exist - not if you accept that there is an author-Joseph.

That way :
- no need for real gold plates - or any plates at all, really
- no stone box to be found, or explained away
- no worries about the unreliable witnesses - just accept that they were credulous, and Joseph took advantage of them
- you have a story that fits in with the attempt to sell the copyright
- forget about anachronisms - it was a made-up story, and the imperfect writer slipped up
- no angels needed (or just accept that angels are imaginary)
- you can still assert that angels don't lie - they don't exist, so not lying is a given
- nobody has to look for physical evidence - shard of pottery or otherwise
- you can still talk about the Tower of Babel, and Noah's flood - fables within fables

Best of all, believing that there is an author-Joseph is easier than believing that there is a creator-God - after all, even critics of Mormonism accept that Joseph had a real existence, and a real history.

QED

[MG 2.0]

None of the problems really exist - not if you accept that there is an author-Joseph.

I’ve gone this route but it just doesn’t fit/work.

For example, a young Joseph creating on the fly the complex chiastic structure in sections of the Book of Mormon and other Hebraisms.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content ... -of-Mormon

And then you have the multiple independent/unique voices found in the Book of Mormon.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-Mormon

The critics have to out maneuver a number of roadblocks in order to come away saying what you’ve said above. I think some of these roadblocks present a real dilemma for those that would like to present Joseph as being sole author. Then you pile on the stuff found in the links provided earlier (Hales and Rasmussen) and the job to put the Book of Mormon squarely in Joseph’s becomes even harder.

Folks, you have to really go through convolutions to ignore the facts. Is it worth it?

I tried going through the contortions that critics go through and at the end of the day I had to be honest with myself and admit that there was no there there in regards to what the critics were providing in opposition to what appears to be the cold hard facts.

But the show must go on and the critics will always be there to explain away a simple story.

God, angels, plates, modern day scripture and prophets that hold keys to administer Christ’s church.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Then you pile on the stuff found in the links provided earlier (Hales and Rasmussen) and the job to put the Book of Mormon squarely in Joseph’s becomes even harder.

Folks, you have to really go through convolutions to ignore the facts....

And yet, you don't seem to agree with the Hales article you are mentioning. Could you explain your position? Here's my question, again:

You left my actual question (in blue, below) out of your quote:

...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?

Your recent statement in this thread disagrees with Hales' point about Smith's storytelling, and its relationship to the B of M text, which is why I asked if you read Hales' paper before recommending it. if you don't agree with a significant point of it, it seems odd you would put it forward as persuasive.

[tagriffy]

I’ve gone this route but it just doesn’t fit/work.

For example, a young Joseph creating on the fly the complex chiastic structure in sections of the Book of Mormon and other Hebraisms.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content ... -of-Mormon

And then you have the multiple independent/unique voices found in the Book of Mormon.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-Mormon

The critics have to out maneuver a number of roadblocks in order to come away saying what you’ve said above. I think some of these roadblocks present a real dilemma for those that would like to present Joseph as being sole author. Then you pile on the stuff found in the links provided earlier (Hales and Rasmussen) and the job to put the Book of Mormon squarely in Joseph’s becomes even harder.

Folks, you have to really go through convolutions to ignore the facts. Is it worth it?

I tried going through the contortions that critics go through and at the end of the day I had to be honest with myself and admit that there was no there there in regards to what the critics were providing in opposition to what appears to be the cold hard facts.

But the show must go on and the critics will always be there to explain away a simple story.

God, angels, plates, modern day scripture and prophets that hold keys to administer Christ’s church.

Regards,
MG

Interestingly enough, I just completed reading Earl M. Wunderli's An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself. He deals quite handily with Hebraisms and complex chiasms in chapter 7. And he makes a very good case for single authorship in chapter 3. They aren't that much of a dilemma. And without credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed, it isn't very hard to place authorship squarely on Joseph. Indeed, it becomes the only viable possibility.

[Dr. Shades]

I’m saying that [Dan Vogel] 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.

Dan Vogel most definitely has a "day job," and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. Writing about it is simply a hobby of his.

So being in it for the money can no longer be the excuse by which you dismiss what he writes. You'll have to find something else.

[I Have Questions]

Did Smith ever say there was?

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.

Regards,
MG

Upon what are you relying to make that assertion?

[MG 2.0]

I’m saying that [Dan Vogel] 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.

Dan Vogel most definitely has a "day job," and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. Writing about it is simply a hobby of his.

So being in it for the money can no longer be the excuse by which you dismiss what he writes. You'll have to find something else.

I don’t dismiss what he writes inasmuch as he is one of the respected biographers of Joseph Smith. Different authors do have their biases, however, and I think that shows in their writing.

So he has a day job. Great!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...Then you pile on the stuff found in the links provided earlier (Hales and Rasmussen) and the job to put the Book of Mormon squarely in Joseph’s becomes even harder.

Folks, you have to really go through convolutions to ignore the facts....

And yet, you don't seem to agree with the Hales article you are mentioning. Could you explain your position? Here's my question, again:

You left my actual question (in blue, below) out of your quote:


Your recent statement in this thread disagrees with Hales' point about Smith's storytelling, and its relationship to the B of M text, which is why I asked if you read Hales' paper before recommending it. if you don't agree with a significant point of it, it seems odd you would put it forward as persuasive.

You’re going to have to go back and start from square one in asking your question within the context that you’re placing it in. I’m happy to answer, but if you wouldn’t mind please either rephrase or add more context/meat to your concern with relevant sourcing material so that a fifth grader could understand exactly where you’re coming from and what you’re trying to get at.

As it is, your repeated question seems to be like a pesky fly moving from place to place without any real purpose.

By the way, I asked you a question in which you didn’t bother to answer but I haven’t repeated it again…yet.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

Regards,
MG

Upon what are you relying to make that assertion?

Go to Lucy Mack Smith’s “History of Joseph Smith”, Chapter 18.

Regards,
MG