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

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm not interested in Ostler.

And I am. So where do we go from here? You seem to want to control the conversation. We have at least one other 'control freak' I've been having to deal with.

I'm interested in hearing your explanation of your statement. But, like the numerous requests for evidence that supports your claim that the Book of Mormon is God-Given that have gone unanswered page after page after page, on the thread you started, I expected the response you gave above.

I've already said up thread that I don't think there is any "hard evidence".

For those who don't think MG just threw his own OP article, Church, Callister and Book of Mormon under the bus, read OSTLER

Rather than link to an article, I would like you to tell me in your own words how I am throwing the church "under the bus". Be specific please and use my words in context.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

To apply the expansionist theory while considering that quote you have to assume one of a couple of things:

1) The seer stone is following Joseph's whim, not God's

2) God is cool with Joseph's 19th century mindset in the Book of Mormon even though it isn't for just the 19th century

3) God was injecting the modern stuff into the ancient document and it just so happened to sound like 19th century thinking

I don't assume anything beyond the fact/possibility that the translation was the effort of more than just one person. Whether that person be Joseph and/or God. There may have been others involved also as per Skousen. He doesn't directly say this...but I think he alludes to the possibility.

The neuro-chemistry and other 'interfacing' going on during that process, I can't say. If you were to pin me down to having to choose your alternatives I would say a mix of 2 and 3. But I really don't know the details as to how it may have worked assuming that it was more or less a collaborative effort. What I do know is that Joseph had the 'wetware' and God would have the 'know how' to run whatever 'program' would have been used in order to present a combination/amalgamation of an ancient and modern document.

The thing is, we have evidence of both ancient and modern. We are left to decide what are we going to do with that. Coming from the presupposition and/or assumption that there is a creator/God and that there was a need for a restoration of lost truths and a fullness of the gospel, I look at alternatives other than simply defaulting to 'Joseph and Co.' did it.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, I have read [the Book of Mormon] all the way through. I even had a fairly well known apologist help me get started. When I read it, I used chapter summaries to supplement my reading.

Does that help?

Yes, thank you.

You asked if I've ever given any consideration to what it purports to be. Yes, I have.

Oh wait, did you want to know the outcome of that consideration?

It looks like you may willing to share. Thanks.

Well, as you can see (or not) I don't post many criticisms of the Book of Mormon on this board. That's because I don't hold a goal of being complicit in disabusing anyone of their religious beliefs.

I have noticed that.

My conclusion remains the same as it was the very first time I was given a Book of Mormon more than 30 years ago, and opened it. My very first impression was that it was a poorly plagiarized imitation of the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

I will not hold you complicit in disabusing anyone's belief by making this statement.

Only now I have more evidence to base that impression on besides just the words on the page.

As we all do, that's for sure.

Now ask me why I even bothered to read it all the way through.

That's OK, I'm sure you may have had your reasons at the time.

Thanks for responding.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Given the absurdity of his scattergun and contradictory approach to presenting "what he believes", coupled with his descent into obstinance and dishonesty over time in threads where people don't just accept his musings at face value,. I'd suggest it's not going so well for him...

I think this is key, ihaq.

[_mentalgymnast]

what is up with mentalgymnast? His last dozen posts, including the SIX in a row, his extreme flip-flopping in his opinion, and his weird mix-up with Xenophon's post and expansion theory have all just been bizarre. (Even for him. I hope he's not ill. Has anybody else noticed the difference?)

I am ill (as I've mentioned a few times...in fact I feel like crap, can't get rid of a migrating virus of some sort that keeps reoccuring. Might be due to a recent trip back east and spending time cooped up in a jet ), but very healthy in mind.

Thanks for your concern.

You really don't have anything substantive here to respond to so I will move on.

I'm not going to play the 'he said, she said (judges)' game with you.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

what is up with mentalgymnast? His last dozen posts, including the SIX in a row, his extreme flip-flopping in his opinion, and his weird mix-up with Xenophon's post and expansion theory have all just been bizarre. (Even for him. I hope he's not ill. Has anybody else noticed the difference?)

In his defense he does say he is not feeling well, perhaps also taking cold medicine (that always throws me off), and is juggling about 3 different conversations in the thread.

I will say I don't think dragging Blake's theory into this thread was all that helpful to his position (mainly because I imagine Callister wouldn't accept the theory) but he also said he would need to go back and read up on it, so that may be where the disconnect is.

I don't actually see the disconnect, but be that as it may...

No cold medication today. I'm about ready to though. I probably should have just stayed home from work today.

It's so nice outside, but I don't have the energy/health to get out there and 'do stuff'...quite frustrating. So here I am doing this, reading, and other stuff around the house. A load of laundry coming up. My wife won't be back until next week.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I will say I don't think dragging Blake's theory into this thread was all that helpful to his position...

I think that it is. It would be interesting to get Elder Callister's POV on the expansion theory. I really don't know why he wouldn't look at it as being a possibility though.

IHAQ seems to think that it's a big deal that folks might have their own ideas in regards to the 'nitty gritty' details of the translation process. Like we're supposedly throwing the church and/or our ecclesiastical leaders under the but...paraphrasing his words. I don't think so.

Not sure why he's going that direction.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Re: Blake's theory, it is helpful to his new position though, which he's had for quite a while apparently, 48 hours or so.

I've always...at least for a long time now...given Blake Ostler's ideas a 'run for the money' and a place in the 'possibilities'.

What do you think about his Expansionist Theory? Not that I expect you'll actually answer any of my questions...

Just thought I'd ask anyway.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...you were the one to say you didn't have good answers for the problems but made a choice to believe.

I don't have all the answers, no way. No one seems to. There are enough 'bread crumbs' scattered around to suffice though.

I haven't seen your posts showing you have a good knowledge of the issues from both sides.

I've mentioned repeatedly that I default/take the position of support for the doctrines/teachings/mission of the CofJCofLDS. I'm not going to necessarily bring up the counter examples or arguments against the church.

That's your job.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

FTR, Ostlers expansion theory has been rendered untenable by the Church's confirmation that Joseph read words off a rock....

Whoops...

Not sure why the "whoops"? You seem to think that the fact that Joseph used translation tools is an impediment to Blake's theory?

Regards,
MG