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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
We are left with the 'artifact'...and it is what it is, that is true. And yes, there are no plates/source material.

What does that have to do with the actual translation process and whether or not Joseph and/or others besides the original authors, were also involved in the project? That is, of course, on the assumption that there was a revelatory process occurring in the mix.

Regards,
MG


It's another indicator of a con job. With cons you want to eliminate as much evidence of the con as you can. The reason's given for why the world could not view the plates or be keep around don't make sense, and how the few who were supposed to have viewed them went down. Not very smart way to do a legitimate translation of actual ancient plates, but it fits a con job.


You're starting with the presupposition/assumption that it was a con job (yes, I know you will say that the evidence led you to that one/only possibility).

The evidence, for you, will lead you that direction. Some evidence/records will be acceptable and some won't.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Xenophon wrote:
I have a question wrote:Not much room in there for Blake Ostlers "Joseph was free to choose the language" or "translated rather loosely".


Thanks for expanding further on my criticism from up thread. When you also throw in the Whitmer quote about not being able to proceed until the scribe had written exactly what was correct, you are left in a really awkward position with the loosey-goosey translation.


I don't think it was "loosey-goosey".

Xenophon wrote:But we shouldn't pretend that it fits neatly into the narrative that the LDS church puts forth.


As I said up thread, it would be interesting to get the private views of some of the GA's that are well read. I don't think there is necessarily a 'disconnect' unless you are making one up and/or limiting the possibilities.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

I have a question wrote:Given the absurdity of his scattergun and contradictory approach to presenting "what he believes", coupled with his descent into obstinace 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 would not expect to hear anything to the contrary from you, IHAQ. Along with some others...

I've learned to live with it. :wink:

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

I have a question wrote:Callister
“Joseph Smith [as a young man] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon.”32


OK.

I have a question wrote:Ostler:
"the Book of Mormon was translated rather loosely and was based on Joseph Smith’s conceptual abilities and horizons."


OK.

I have a question wrote:In his OP MG presents Callister as it being the case "in a nutshell".


OK.

I have a question wrote:Later on in the same thread MG presents Ostler as being "what many of us believe" even though Ostlers and Callisters positions are mutually exclusive.


I don't believe that they are. I think you're going to have to dig a bit deeper and get a bit more specific, IHAQ. You are creating a caricature which includes only one possibility and or interpretive framework.

It's the 'black/white syndrome' seems to crop with some folks, now and then, in which everything can only be looked at through narrow(closed?) eyes and/or tunnel vision.

Very little peripheral vision. We've been here before.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Lemmie wrote:
ihaq wrote: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.


Yes you would. Another 'high five' with very little of substantive content. None really...at least that I can see.

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

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

Post by _Lemmie »

mentalgymnast, really? you just posted TEN ELEVEN times in a row in this thread and FOURTEEN out of the last fifteen posts --in the last hour!!

There aren't even that many posts to respond to. Your tone seems awfully disjointed. Would you please just call a relative on the phone and ask them to check on you?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Lemmie wrote:mentalgymnast, really? you just posted TEN times in a row in this thread and THIRTEEN out of the last fourteen posts --in the last hour!!

There aren't even that many posts to respond to. Your tone seems awfully disjointed. Would you please just call a relative on the phone and ask them to check on you?


Every post is in response to posts that I believe merited a response. Even yours!

I see you're psycho-babbling again.

If things start to slow down and I can see that there isn't much else to respond to...(many of the comments, as best as I can remember, had to do with something I said, so, again, I responded)...I will move on.

It's been an interesting thread for me. You learn a lot about folks as you read what they say...or don't say.

Oh, yes, the posts were all in a row because I responded to everyone in one block of time. See how that works? :wink:

Lemmie, you're consuming my time. As I said earlier, you're kind of like a black hole of useless meddlesomeness (I think I must made this word up). You suck the life right out of a conversation and make it into something contrarian.

Regards,
MG
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

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

Post by _Jersey Girl »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
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


See that? Mormons always marginalize me because they're so self absorbed.

Okay, it's not "Mormons".

It's just you.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Jersey: Now ask me why I even bothered to read [the Book of Mormon] all the way through.

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

Thanks for responding.

Jersey: See that? Mormons always marginalize me because they're so self absorbed.

Okay, it's not "Mormons".

It's just you.


I wasn't going to respond to this...but I will.

Persecution complex? I meant absolutely no harm in my response to you.

This thread has meandered off from what I intended it to be at the beginning. A discussion of the Elder Callister's talk and the Book of Mormon and other associated 'interests' that came up.

We're getting into 'other stuff' now, full steam.

I was actually interested in whether or not you had read the Book of Mormon. Your comment, "If it weren't for the chloroform, I'd have been just fine", said something. I was curious why you may have felt like Mark Twain did as he read the Book of Mormon.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no harm, no foul. Unless you would like to escalate things. You may find that I won't join in and play that silly little game.

If there are some more posts that have to do with the topic(s) we've been discussing, I may pop in.

I think I'll leave the personal 'psycho-babble' stuff to the experts. :wink:

IHAQ asked the question earlier, "What have we learnt?"

My answer: all kinds of stuff! We each will have different 'takeaways'. That is to be expected.

Thanks all for chiming in on this thread.

Regards,
MG
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

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

Post by _honorentheos »

Jersey Girl wrote: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.

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.

Hi Jersey Girl,

Simple but expanded explanation. I apologize if it seems dumbed down. I’m just wanting to cover what needs covered.

Jacob 5 is purported to be unique parable preserved from an otherwise unknown biblical prophet named Zenos who would have to have lived in the Kingdom of Judah prior to the Babylonian captivity. The Lehite party is claimed to have had his words preserved and brought with them to the Americas in the brass plates which the Book of Mormon describes as the pure form of the Old Testament before it was corrupted. This makes this parable unique in that it is composed by a person living in the middle east at an unknown time but at least before 600 BCE, but his works ultimately only end up being available to the migrated Lehite party living in the Americas. Part of what makes it especially unique is that it includes a description of the Nephites and Lamanites as offshoots of Israel. Were it to be discovered in manuscript form in the Old World, it would be immensely consequential as evidence for the Book of Mormon’s validity as an ancient text.

The parable describes a master of a vineyard that grows olives that are compared to the tribes of Israel. It makes use of olive tree grafting as an analogy for God having a chosen tree (Israel) that alternately bears good or bad fruit along with having healthy or unhealthy root stock which God, the master gardener along with his servants, either grafts from or into other branches in order to produce good fruit. The analogy cumulating with the restoration of Israel with it’s promised blessings being distributed throughout the world’s peoples as all the good fruit bearing trees share root and branch.

So the problem: The practice of grafting olive trees is not attested to among the Israelites in historical records during the timeframe when it could have reasonably made it into the brass plates before Lehi and his family left for the Americas. It is mentioned as a technology very prolifically as Greek influence spread a century or two later but not before this. The Bible may or may not describe grape vine grafting but it isn’t indisputable either. Olea culture among the Israelites would have included cultivating olives but not necessarily the important part for the parable – grafting.

When apologists hold up Jacob 5 as an example of, “How could Joseph have known?” they often point out the accuracy of various techniques used in grafting fruit trees. The grafting of apples was a common practice in the 19th century frontier, and when compared in detail the grafting techniques described in Jacob 5 are comparable to those used when grafting apples. Apples grown from seed are very genetically variable so an apple grown from seed from a parent whose fruit is sweet won’t necessarily be sweet and the grafting of branches from a tree known to bear sweet fruit onto one that bears sour or bitter fruit was very much part of the practice.

In short, Jacob 5 aligns very well with the practices of apple cultivation including grafting which Joseph Smith would have been familiar as his mother describes their family cultivating apples in her biographical works.

Jacob 5 can’t be known as to how well it aligns with the practices of pre-exilic Israelites when it comes to grafting if they did indeed practice olive tree grafting because it isn’t actually described in historical texts from the time period. Apologists who defend it report on later works but these are typically from a period when the practice has expanded out of Greece.

To add to this, the little bit from the Talmud quoted in the Purdue paper I shared earlier suggests that Israelites may not have grafted olive trees after they were familiar with its use as a horticultural technology with grapes or perhaps other fruit.

It appears, based on this, that Jacob 5 is better evidence for the Book of Mormon being a product of the 19th century than it is of ancient origin.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Post Reply