If plates then God

[Marcus]

So, your disingenuous opinion is that a 'sponge, of sorts' is the same as a dishonest plagiarizer, with fraudulent intent.

The word ‘disingenuous’ is yours, not mine. But, yes, I would maintain that those that accuse Joseph Smith as a plagiarist would be accusing him of soaking up and taking information from one source and squeezing it out into another.

Wow. What an excuse for plagiarism!

Well, that's pretty much the definition of intellectual disingenuousness, so there's not much else to say. Except, again, WOW.

By the way, I don’t think that there is any substantial and/or sustainable evidence that holds any amount of water that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon through the process of plagiarism.

It should be important to note that this is conjecture on your part. Unless you can show evidence.

use your own method- search Clarke commentary + joseph Smith.

And I will point out again, as I have at other times to others, that as a disbeliever in a creator God you (and others) have no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that claims to have seen angels, received plates, seen God, etc...

You are again assuming everyone else thinks like you, by assuming tbeir conclusion before looking at evidence. You would be wrong, but suppose we apply it to you. By tour own logic, you have "no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that" doesn't believe in angels, received plates, seen God, etc."

You've hoisted yourself with your own, biased petard.

[MG 2.0]

The word ‘disingenuous’ is yours, not mine. But, yes, I would maintain that those that accuse Joseph Smith as a plagiarist would be accusing him of soaking up and taking information from one source and squeezing it out into another.

Wow. What an excuse for plagiarism!

Well, that's pretty much the definition of intellectual disingenuousness, so there's not much else to say. Except, again, WOW.

By the way, I don’t think that there is any substantial and/or sustainable evidence that holds any amount of water that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon through the process of plagiarism.

It should be important to note that this is conjecture on your part. Unless you can show evidence.

use your own method- search Clarke commentary + joseph Smith.

And I will point out again, as I have at other times to others, that as a disbeliever in a creator God you (and others) have no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that claims to have seen angels, received plates, seen God, etc...

You are again assuming everyone else thinks like you, by assuming tbeir conclusion before looking at evidence. You would be wrong, but suppose we apply it to you. By tour own logic, you have "no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that" doesn't believe in angels, received plates, seen God, etc."

You've hoisted yourself with your own, biased petard.

Marcus,

There is nothing here except for a Wow! and a runaround. You’re coming up empty.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

love your response Shulem!!

I might only add that while Smith is indeed the sole author of every word he dictated, a minor clarification might be that he, um, borrowed more than a few of those words from other sources before he lumped them together into his storyline, and then dictated them.

(Kind of like how a certain blogger is the sole poster of the {way too frequently plagiarized} words on his blog. : D )

Right, absolutely. Whole chapters of Isaiah were copied straight from the KJV with a few variations to sprinkle and mix into the text. The sermons of Jesus (Greek name) were also pretty much copied into the text as presently constituted in our modern Bible during that particular time of the dictation/translation process.

Thank God for St. Timothy (Greek name ) in the Book of Mormon! How could the Book of Mormon possibly be authentic if it didn't have a Greek disciple?

Thank you for the follow up, it seems pretty obvious but it's no surprise how often the obvious needs to be stated.

Also, i am very partial to that greek name--

[Res Ipsa]

…your "poll" [is] a meaningless exercise.

I don’t think so. I think that it’s OK to get everything out in the open.

There have been a number of theories over the years as to how Joseph ‘did it’. The theory that seems to have risen to the top among unbelievers and/or critics is that Joseph made it all up and was a sponge, of sorts, to what was in his environment.

The responses thus far seem to demonstrate this to be true among a small group here.

In a sense, maybe you’re right…we may have had an inkling as to how people would respond.

Regards,
MG

The best way to investigate what people think is to ask them and listen to what they say -- not rate one of many different explanations on a 10 point scale. You've been so busy arguing your point of view and throwing in your usual ad hom barbs that I would be surprised if you understand the point of view of anyone who has posted in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with taking an argumentative stance on a given topic. But trying to understand is a different frame of mind you have to shift into. I don't see it. I see you trying to confirm what you already think about how people "explain" how the Book of Mormon was created.

I've posted a bunch on this thread. Can you accurately describe my thinking on how the Book of Mormon was produced?

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think so. I think that it’s OK to get everything out in the open.

There have been a number of theories over the years as to how Joseph ‘did it’. The theory that seems to have risen to the top among unbelievers and/or critics is that Joseph made it all up and was a sponge, of sorts, to what was in his environment.

The responses thus far seem to demonstrate this to be true among a small group here.

In a sense, maybe you’re right…we may have had an inkling as to how people would respond.

Regards,
MG

The best way to investigate what people think is to ask them and listen to what they say -- not rate one of many different explanations on a 10 point scale. You've been so busy arguing your point of view and throwing in your usual ad hom barbs that I would be surprised if you understand the point of view of anyone who has posted in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with taking an argumentative stance on a given topic. But trying to understand is a different frame of mind you have to shift into. I don't see it. I see you trying to confirm what you already think about how people "explain" how the Book of Mormon was created.

I've posted a bunch on this thread. Can you accurately describe my thinking on how the Book of Mormon was produced?

Essentially that “unless your God is necessary to explain the events being discussed, Occam's Razor should leave God on the cutting room floor.”

Your words.

So, back to the simple question which I don’t believe you’ve answered directly: Do you consider Joseph Smith to be the sole author of the Book of Mormon?

It is this question that I think has a direct connection/correlation with your concerns in regards to evidence for God. Evidence that might cause one pause as they make a conclusive determination that there is no creator God.

Would you be so good as to give an answer that could be understood by a fifth grader?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

So, your disingenuous opinion is that a 'sponge, of sorts' is the same as a dishonest plagiarizer, with fraudulent intent.

The word ‘disingenuous’ is yours, not mine. But, yes, I would maintain that those that accuse Joseph Smith as a plagiarist would be accusing him of soaking up and taking information from one source and squeezing it out into another...

Wow. What an excuse for plagiarism!

Well, that's pretty much the definition of intellectual disingenuousness, so there's not much else to say. Except, again, WOW.
use your own method- search Clarke commentary + joseph Smith.


You are again assuming everyone else thinks like you, by assuming their conclusion before looking at evidence. You would be wrong, but suppose we apply it to you. By your own logic, you have "no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that" doesn't believe in angels, received plates, seen God, etc."

You've hoisted yourself with your own, biased petard.

Marcus,

There is nothing here except for a Wow! and a runaround. You’re coming up empty...

No, you expressed your bias pretty clearly:

...And I will point out again, as I have at other times to others, that as a disbeliever in a creator God you (and others) have no other option but to discredit/disbelieve anyone that claims to have seen angels, received plates, seen God, etc.

I think that object always needs to be seen sitting on the table...

But you don't want that to be assumed about you. The definition of bias.

[MG 2.0]

No, you expressed your bias pretty clearly:
But you don't want that to be assumed about you. The definition of bias.

I have biases.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

So, IHAQ, on a scale of 1to10 what do you think the likelihood is that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own? Why?

1 being very likely and 10 being very unlikely.

And on a scale of 1to10 how important do you think the answer to the previous question is?

1 being very important and 10 being not important at all.

Do you believe that the title of this thread, “If Plates Then God” has any correlation/connection to the answer of these two questions?

MG 2.0, it doesn't really matter who wrote The Book of Mormon. It's a minor 19th Century American novel with little literary or theological value to anyone outside of the Latter-day Saint Restorationist Movement. It contains no valid history, no unique theology, and little literary merit. Hardly anyone outside of Mormonism takes the book seriously.

And since you're going to bring it up, most of those who have read, prayed, and investigated--but have still rejected the book and religion--are fervent believers in a Creator God. So please throw that tired, red herring back into the deep, blue, endless sea.

Would you be so good as to give an answer that could be understood by a fifth grader?

Of course. To be certain, I ran this by a fifth grader and she said it was okay and that I could post it for you.

[Res Ipsa]

The best way to investigate what people think is to ask them and listen to what they say -- not rate one of many different explanations on a 10 point scale. You've been so busy arguing your point of view and throwing in your usual ad hom barbs that I would be surprised if you understand the point of view of anyone who has posted in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with taking an argumentative stance on a given topic. But trying to understand is a different frame of mind you have to shift into. I don't see it. I see you trying to confirm what you already think about how people "explain" how the Book of Mormon was created.

I've posted a bunch on this thread. Can you accurately describe my thinking on how the Book of Mormon was produced?

Essentially that “unless your God is necessary to explain the events being discussed, Occam's Razor should leave God on the cutting room floor.”

Your words.

So, back to the simple question which I don’t believe you’ve answered directly: Do you consider Joseph Smith to be the sole author of the Book of Mormon?

It is this question that I think has a direct connection/correlation with your concerns in regards to evidence for God. Evidence that might cause one pause as they make a conclusive determination that there is no creator God.

Would you be so good as to give an answer that could be understood by a fifth grader?

Regards,
MG

OK. You get an D in reading comprehension. I said those words, but you quoted them out of context. Those words were part of my explanation of why the razor, which you invoked, works the opposite way you claimed.

So, you’re still not listening. You’re trying to find support for your pre-determined conclusion.

[MG 2.0]

So, IHAQ, on a scale of 1to10 what do you think the likelihood is that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own? Why?

1 being very likely and 10 being very unlikely.

And on a scale of 1to10 how important do you think the answer to the previous question is?

1 being very important and 10 being not important at all.

Do you believe that the title of this thread, “If Plates Then God” has any correlation/connection to the answer of these two questions?

MG 2.0, it doesn't really matter who wrote The Book of Mormon.

I think you and I both know that it does. Your response shows little thought or understanding of the implications.

What an obvious dodge.

Regards
MG