BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

I would invite others to do the same. I'd just as well not rehash and/or repeat myself or focus on more or less nit picky stuff.

Really? Then why this pattern of disrupting threads with your Strang nonsense?

You've already gotten this thread so far off topic I might as well lay out what I see happening. Up thread I noted how you have followed this pattern for some years now of professing ignorance about Strang. I was curious as to what the mopologetic goal might be with such a strategy, so I looked at your pattern in 2011, 2016, and 2017, and found you followed the exact same process every time, right down to using almost identical wording and phrases.

You may have done it more frequently than that, but I stopped looking when I found a thread in 2009 where you were discussing the contents of Strang's writing in detail, with Dan Peterson and others. At that point, I concluded the repeated initial professions of ignorance about Strang had to be an apologist strategy.

Your pattern, each year followed exactly, with virtually exact phrases and wording:

Step 1. a variation on:

"A number of years ago when I looked in depth at Strang,"

Step 2. a variation on:

"the lack of any purported divine manifestation or involvement"

Step 3. Upon being corrected, EVERY TIME, a variation on:

"Strang claimed to see angel(s). None of his 'witnesses' had any divine/angelic administration that I am aware of."

Step 4. And then variations on the final claim, still using almost identical words and phrases:

"Of course the narrative is not the same with Joseph Smith and those that claimed divine and/or angelic witness of either the plates and/or the truth of the Book of Mormon narrative...its coming forth, translation, etc. "


Of course, each time you go through all of these steps it disrupts the actual, OP-related conversation and derails the thread. So my question, is this professed ignorance and your identical pattern of artificial "learning" about Strang, over and over and over, simply a mopologetic technique to disrupt threads?

[_fetchface]

Remember when God stripped me of my free agency to believe in the Book of Abraham by leaving that steaming pile of crap that is the notes to Facsimile 3 in there? No matter how hard I try, I simply cannot believe that that is anything but obvious fraud. Thanks, God. Great job taking away my agency.

[Guest]

You're right. I can't prove that the plates were used in the translation process. I suppose I ought to say...to clarify...that I can't see any reason why they couldn't have been used during the translation process. The fact that they weren't sitting right next to Joseph the whole time translation was taking place needn't be a deal breaker as far as the plates being used as the and/or a resource during that process.

Along with, apparently, text from the KJV Bible and other sources that were available to the 'translation group/committee'...including Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

In the course of this single post, you’ve moved from:

1. The plates were necessary to the translation process.

to

2. The plates were used in the translation process.

to

3. The plates could have been used in the translation process.

Why is number 3 even worth discussing? Sure, an omniscient and impotent God could have read the words off the plates and beamed the translation onto Smith’s rock. Or, he could have relied on his knowledge of the authors had written at the time the wrote and never looked at the plates in Smith’s day. I mean, he’s God, right? He will ride in Deus ex Deus to rescue any could have argument without breaking a sweat.

In fact, that’s what was wrong with your assertion that the plates were necessary to their translation. Who are you to tell God what is possible and what is not.

As long as you stick to “could have,” I won’t argue. I know a sucker bet when I see one.

[_SteelHead]

The plates were a moot accessory to a record produced via a rock in a hat.

Laban died for nothing.

[_Jersey Girl]

You've already gotten this thread so far off topic I might as well lay out what I see happening. Up thread I noted how you have followed this pattern for some years now of professing ignorance about Strang. I was curious as to what the mopologetic goal might be with such a strategy, so I looked at your pattern in 2011, 2016, and 2017, and found you followed the exact same process every time, right down to using almost identical wording and phrases.

You may have done it more frequently than that, but I stopped looking when I found a thread in 2009 where you were discussing the contents of Strang's writing in detail, with Dan Peterson and others. At that point, I concluded the repeated initial professions of ignorance about Strang had to be an apologist strategy.

Help me understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that in 2009 he engaged in conversation with DCP where he showed himself to be well familiar with Strang's writing, and yet you have located several later instances where he claimed ignorance of this?

You're saying this is an apologetic device to drive threads off topic?

[Guest]

As long as you stick to “could have,” I won’t argue.

From where you sit, that's OK with me.

From where I sit, I see it as a distinct possibility the plates were accessed during the translation.

Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. It is conjecture on my part.

At the end of the day all we really have is the "translated by the gift and power of God" to go on and what we have from the historical record/witnesses.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

You've already gotten this thread so far off topic I might as well lay out what I see happening. Up thread I noted how you have followed this pattern for some years now of professing ignorance about Strang. I was curious as to what the mopologetic goal might be with such a strategy, so I looked at your pattern in 2011, 2016, and 2017, and found you followed the exact same process every time, right down to using almost identical wording and phrases.

You may have done it more frequently than that, but I stopped looking when I found a thread in 2009 where you were discussing the contents of Strang's writing in detail, with Dan Peterson and others. At that point, I concluded the repeated initial professions of ignorance about Strang had to be an apologist strategy.

Help me understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that in 2009 he engaged in conversation with DCP where he showed himself to be well familiar with Strang's writing, and yet you have located several later instances where he claimed ignorance of this?

You're saying this is an apologetic device to drive threads off topic?

That's what I'm saying. Whether the actual goal is related to mopologetics or just plain old contrarian trolling, I don't know.

[_Res Ipsa]

MG, I tried to fix the formatting, but I’m not seeing whatever the mistake is. Can you see what I need to change?

[_Jersey Girl]

Experiment

[quote=“mentalgymnast”]You're right. I can't prove that the plates were used in the translation process. I suppose I ought to say...to clarify...that I can't see any reason why they couldn't have been used during the translation process. The fact that they weren't sitting right next to Joseph the whole time translation was taking place needn't be a deal breaker as far as the plates being used as the and/or a resource during that process.

Along with, apparently, text from the KJV Bible and other sources that were available to the 'translation group/committee'...including Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG[/quote]

In the course of this single post, you’ve moved from:

1. The plates were necessary to the translation process.

to

2. The plates were used in the translation process.

to

3. The plates could have been used in the translation process.

Why is number 3 even worth discussing? Sure, an omniscient and impotent God could have read the words off the plates and beamed the translation onto Smith’s rock. Or, he could have relied on his knowledge of the authors had written at the time the wrote and never looked at the plates in Smith’s day. I mean, he’s God, right? He will ride in Deus ex Deus to rescue any could have argument without breaking a sweat.

In fact, that’s what was wrong with your assertion that the plates were necessary to their translation. Who are you to tell God what is possible and what is not.

As long as you stick to “could have,” I won’t argue. I know a sucker bet when I see one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right. I can't prove that the plates were used in the translation process. I suppose I ought to say...to clarify...that I can't see any reason why they couldn't have been used during the translation process. The fact that they weren't sitting right next to Joseph the whole time translation was taking place needn't be a deal breaker as far as the plates being used as the and/or a resource during that process.

Along with, apparently, text from the KJV Bible and other sources that were available to the 'translation group/committee'...including Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the bloody hell am I looking at the formatting mistake and not seeing it or something?? Is the board breaking?

[_Lemmie]

MG, I tried to fix the formatting, but I’m not seeing whatever the mistake is. Can you see what I need to change?

Res Ipsa, re: formatting, in your first quote bracket, the quotation marks around mentalgymnast are not standard. Replace them with your standard ones, once the quote is in the MD composition box, or else remove his name and just use [quote]