Wordprint Studies & the Book of Mormon

[consiglieri]

How are things in Glacmora?

Which one? I'm a "two Glacmora" believer.

Hoping someone gets the Finian’s Rainbow reference…

[Dr Exiled]

Redundancy is not a sign of literary achievement.

What would meet your qualifications then of what is an acceptable level of “literary achievement” that could be expected with Joseph Smith as translator? And if those expectations aren’t met what impact/effect does that have on its teachings/message?

Regards,
MG

How he did it is still and probably always will be a black box in some respects. It was a long time ago. However, there isn't any outside evidence to support the story being historical, unless one uses a lot of faith based conclusory reasoning. DNA evidence is a dagger in historicity's heart. One has to then conclude that it being invented is the more plausible conclusion. Then reading it, especially in its original form, shows that Joseph Smith could have easily invented the story using the Bible as a guide combined with the mound builder myth. Just read passages from the Bible while reading the Book of Mormon and one will see the striking similarity in some of the stories Joseph Smith concocted. Paul's journeys in Acts are repeated with Alma/Amulek. Isaiah is quoted extensively as probably our hero got tired of inventing stuff. The sermon on the mount, Pauls charity discussion, etc. find their way into the book. The documentary hypothesis is also a dagger in the hope for historicity. Clearly, it is a 19th century invention. But, it takes humility to reach this given the extensive pressure from family, neighbors, etc. that must weigh on you.

[MG 2.0]

What would meet your qualifications then of what is an acceptable level of “literary achievement” that could be expected with Joseph Smith as translator? And if those expectations aren’t met what impact/effect does that have on its teachings/message?

Regards,
MG

How he did it is still and probably always will be a black box in some respects. It was a long time ago. However, there isn't any outside evidence to support the story being historical, unless one uses a lot of faith based conclusory reasoning. DNA evidence is a dagger in historicity's heart. One has to then conclude that it being invented is the more plausible conclusion. Then reading it, especially in its original form, shows that Joseph Smith could have easily invented the story using the Bible as a guide combined with the mound builder myth. Just read passages from the Bible while reading the Book of Mormon and one will see the striking similarity in some of the stories Joseph Smith concocted. Paul's journeys in Acts are repeated with Alma/Amulek. Isaiah is quoted extensively as probably our hero got tired of inventing stuff. The sermon on the mount, Pauls charity discussion, etc. find their way into the book. The documentary hypothesis is also a dagger in the hope for historicity. Clearly, it is a 19th century invention. But, it takes humility to reach this given the extensive pressure from family, neighbors, etc. that must weigh on you.

Way back when, President Gordon B. Hinckley said this:

The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God ... to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ" (Book of Mormon title page).

It is here. It must be explained. It can be explained only as the translator himself explained its origin. Hand in hand with the Bible, whose companion volume it is, it stands as another witness to a doubting generation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is an unassailable cornerstone of our faith ("Four Cornerstones of Faith," Ensign, February, 2004).

This is as true today as it was back then.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Which one? I'm a "two Glacmora" believer.

Hoping someone gets the Finian’s Rainbow reference…

We're all like bill reel, its pearls before swine with your high brow references

[BeNotDeceived]

Does the Book of Mormon not teach and testify of Christ and His atonement enough for you? Or is it overkill? Too much testimony/teaching in regards to the Savior and His mission?

Regards,
MG

I have a seer stone here which contains a Third testament of Jesus Christ, when he visited the Zeegramites in Antarctica about 40,000 years ago. It tells the fascinating story of a group of Muslims who received instructions to build a time machine and settle the frosty wilderness. Of course, they grew prideful and half of them had their skin turned green (to indicate wickedness). Fortunately Jesus showed up, set off some volcanoes, and then gave his best hits with a 3rd telling of the sermon on the mount. All of this was recorded on sheets of ice buried in the snow in a glacier called Glacmora, which I found next to my house after seeing an angel the other night.

[BeNotDeceived]

Nothing anyone says will convince a true believer that J.S. could have produced what he did on his own. Claiming J.S. could not of done something is the worst kind of argument from ignorance in that it assumes those using such a weak defense actually know the limitations of a historical figure from 200 years ago. They don't.

Hi FS,
You’re right. We don’t have a complete view of historical figures from the past. None of us do, including you. What we do have, at least in the case of Joseph Smith, is a book that he left us. We are left to determine whether he was telling the truth or not about that book and it’s origins.

https://www.debunking-cesletter.com/wp- ... FINAL2.pdf

https://gospeltangents.com/2021/10/wordprint-studies/

https://gospeltangents.com/2021/10/skil ... of-Mormon/

Your views of a “weak defense” are yours. Others have differing views.

Regards,
MG

Let's see... stared at a rock in a hat, the same rock he used as a money-digger to scam people, to orally tell a story with no gold plates present for the process while most of the book contains phrases and sentences/sentence structures plagiarized from the works of 5-6 different religious and philosophical men who wrote books in the 1700's... sounds legit to me.

[MG 2.0]

Hi FS,
You’re right. We don’t have a complete view of historical figures from the past. None of us do, including you. What we do have, at least in the case of Joseph Smith, is a book that he left us. We are left to determine whether he was telling the truth or not about that book and it’s origins.

https://www.debunking-cesletter.com/wp- ... FINAL2.pdf

https://gospeltangents.com/2021/10/wordprint-studies/

https://gospeltangents.com/2021/10/skil ... of-Mormon/

Your views of a “weak defense” are yours. Others have differing views.

Regards,
MG

Let's see... stared at a rock in a hat, the same rock he used as a money-digger to scam people, to orally tell a story with no gold plates present for the process while most of the book contains phrases and sentences/sentence structures plagiarized from the works of 5-6 different religious and philosophical men who wrote books in the 1700's... sounds legit to me.

Pretty amazing for a first try at writing a book.

Try to duplicate Joseph Smith’s efforts!
With the advent of smartphones, virtually anyone can attempt to replicate Joseph Smith’s book-dictating efforts. By using voice-to-text apps, the need for a dedicated scribe is eliminated. Instead, an author could dictate a series of text messages of 20–30 words each to a recipient who would then compile them in order to create a manuscript. Before hitting “send,” spelling and grammar could be corrected. Once sent, the sequence and meaning of the phrases and sentences would not be altered. After repeating this process around 10,000 times to create a continuous string of words of about 270,000, the combined narrative would be delivered directly to a publisher for typesetting and printing.

https://www.debunking-cesletter.com/wp- ... FINAL2.pdf

Your reply is boilerplate. Quick. Succinct. But doesn’t cover all the bases. You’re going to have to do better than that.

How about going through the two page link I’ve posted and start there. Explain how a young farmer and part time treasure digger accomplished a work such as the Book of Mormon on his first try at writing a book. And doing it all within a three month period by sending ‘text messages’ to a scribe.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

How about going through the two page link I’ve posted and start there. Explain how a young farmer and part time treasure digger accomplished a work such as the Book of Mormon on his first try at writing a book. And doing it all within a three month period by sending ‘text messages’ to a scribe.

Also MG:

You’re right. We don’t have a complete view of historical figures from the past. None of us do …

-_-

- Doc

[Lem]

How about going through the two page link I’ve posted and start there. Explain how a young farmer and part time treasure digger accomplished a work such as the Book of Mormon on his first try at writing a book. And doing it all within a three month period by sending ‘text messages’ to a scribe.

Also MG:

You’re right. We don’t have a complete view of historical figures from the past. None of us do …

-_-

- Doc

It's got to be incredibly difficult to maintain a position as an apologist when the one rule, irrespective of actuality, is: cast doubt on sources that you think make your church look bad, and build up sources that you think make your church look good. It is inevitable that following that rule will cause one to directly contradict oneself, occasionally in the same thread, post, or even sentence. It's not the first time we've seen this, but it is (sadly,) instructive. Sort of a "how NOT to do apologetics if you want to be taken seriously" object lesson.

.

[consiglieri]

Hoping someone gets the Finian’s Rainbow reference…

We're all like bill reel, its pearls before swine with your high brow references