If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

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.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

Page 13.

Wunderli’s ‘pickin’ and choosin’ is questionable.

As I’ve said the authorship question precedes the issues involved in geography, historicity, and all the rest. If Joseph couldn’t have composed the Book of Mormon on his own then we are looking at the traditional narrative as being correct. If so, the other concerns become peripheral.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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 then you have the counter:

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

So the debate continues.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

MG knows he’s not supposed to link and run, but here are with #13000

- Doc

[Marcus]

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, and the explanation i added last time you left it out.

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

Sigh.
You left out 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.

It diesn't seem like mg will aswer this, but even his refusal is indicative of a problem i find typical in the use of mopologetics in an argument-- the fact that the evidence used to support one argument are not consistent with how others use that same evidence across various other arguments.

Add in the fact that Hales misused a reference from Lucy Mack Smith to incorrectly attempt to support his point and mopologetics becomes even more problematic.

In a nutshell, Hales picks out some elements of Smith's storytelling and argues they are not in the B of M, while ignoring the fact that the next four elements he 'storytells' absolutely are in the book. In fact, the Dales refer specifically to and rely heavily on all 4 in their egregiously incorrect statistical support of the book's historicity.

So, either Smith's storytelling elements NOT being in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (Hales) OR, Smith's storytelling elements BEING in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (the Dales.)

Can't be both. Plus, Hales fudged the truth, which means the article mg is lauding (even though he has posted in this thread his disagreement with one of Hales' main points!) is not a good reference, but simply another of the bad mopologetics the Interpreter doesn't peer review, but prints anyway.

[MG 2.0]

MG knows he’s not supposed to link and run, but here are with #13000

- Doc

Hey Doc, good to see you’re keeping up with this rather long thread. Yeah, I posted this link with the hope that you might give it a quick read through. I did. This thread is so long and has gone all over the place. I don’t want to go too far down any one rabbit hole at this point. I’m coming in where necessary to answer and respond to questions. This link is meant to be used as a resource in regards to the topic being discussed.

tagriffy mentioned a source author, I’m doing the same but also linking to the actual source.

You can simply take it or leave it. Doesn’t matter to me.

Some folks, however, might find it useful.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Upon what are you relying to make that assertion?

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

Regards,
MG

I don’t own the book. Can you provide the quote that supports what you said?

[MG 2.0]

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

Regards,
MG

I don’t own the book. Can you provide the quote that supports what you said?

Go to your App Store.

Download Deseret Bookshelf.

Open up app.

Do a search: Lucy Mack Smith.

Go to links as you link from her name.

Choose “History of Joseph Smith by His Mother”.

It’s free.

Go to Chapter 18.

It took me less than a minute to get there including the download to my iPad. I only had Deseret Bookshelf on my phone.

It’s better to read everything in context. That’s what is often frustrating here on this board. Folks want others to spoon feed them something that might be out of context. Context matters.

So then you have Doc and others complaining when source materials are linked to. They should be grateful.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

Go to your App Store.

Download Deseret Bookshelf.

Open up app.

Do a search: Lucy Mack Smith.

Go to links as you link from her name.

Choose “History of Joseph Smith by His Mother”.

It’s free.

I wonder if the Church's free copy is Lucy Smith's original version, which Brigham Young called a "tissue of lies" and ordered all Saints to destroy their copies of; or if it's the Joseph F. Smith "corrected" version that helped maintain the legitimacy of the Utah corporation church.

[Res Ipsa]

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 then you have the counter:

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

So the debate continues.

Regards,
MG

Please do not post a link to a reference without describing the author, title, publication, etc. Thanks.

[MG 2.0]

And then you have the counter:

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

The Deliberate Use of Hebrew Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon

Carl J. Cranney

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies

Vol. 23 No. 1 Article 8

So the debate continues.

Regards,
MG

Please do not post a link to a reference without describing the author, title, publication, etc. Thanks.

Done. Thanks.

I’ll try to keep that in mind.

Regards,
MG