MG 2.0 : I don’t know about anyone else, but I personally find it particularly credible when a researcher almost exclusively references their own previously written material in the bibliography.
Bibliographic Sources
Much of the information in this article derives from the following articles of mine:
mg wrote:
...I see why the saying exists God moves in mysterious ways. Leaves plenty of room for just so confabulations...
So. Saying "god moves in mysterious ways" is a way to confabulate.
Ellipsis, front end and back end. Please quote this statement within context and then demonstrate the direct correlation with what is being discussed.
For all we know I may not have even said this.
Methinks that posters are shouting “Squirrel” in unison at this point. I think I have presented some ‘uncomfortable truths’.
I’m still chuckling at PG’s comment that all the research/evidence showing that it is highly unlikely Joseph Smith could have composed the Book of Mormon is “garbage” without giving ONE reason why. We’re just supposed to accept his word.
You are by passing the what appears to be a miraculous creation of the text itself.
I know that I keep returning to this, but I’m at a loss to understand the miracle that you claim that is The Book of Mormon.
Besides the opinion of a few relatively small groups of restorationist Latter-day Saints, where is the value? The book has no unique theology—any of that that exists in Mormonism was introduced later. It has little literary merit—if it did, it would be studied in American Literature courses throughout the US. It’s not a guide for anthropologists or archaeologists who are looking at pre-Columbian civilizations. Its espoused historical narrative doesn’t line up with anything we know about immigration to the Americas. It gives us nothing we can use in sociology, pre-Columbian biology, politics, military strategy, or DNA studies. It didn’t pioneer any area of social justice or moral philosophy. Outside of being a catalyst for Mormonism, where is the value? What is the miracle?
Outside of being a catalyst for Mormonism, where is the value? What is the miracle?
I’m asking seriously.
Exactly.
MG, what you are sharing aren't uncomfortable truths. It's kind of cringe in its obliviousness to the repeated points made that Morley summarized well. The Book of Mormon does not include content with value to anyone outside of your faith. It's authorship isn't a million dollar question because it's barely the literary and scientific equivalent of a crayon drawing a parent pins on the fridge because it was drawn by their kid. Not the kids parent? Not giving the drawing a place of merit in your house.
I personally do not think Smith produced it on his own as we've discussed to death. But I also don't care about it that much, either. Aliens could land tomorrow with alientech recordings of the production showing that theory is wrong and I wouldn't be put out by it because it's irrelevant to humanity. The content of the Book of Mormon is what it is, and that is boring 19th century American frontier American-Christian fan fiction.
...MG 2.0 : I don’t know about anyone else, but I personally find it particularly credible when a researcher almost exclusively references their own previously written material in the bibliography.
just when you think you've read all the ways mopologists misuse the concept of references...
Bibliographic Sources
Much of the information in this article derives from the following articles of mine:
....
I find nothing in this that contradicts Cowdery's influence being more than just a scribe. And more evidence that supports it such as Oliver's willingness to make changes to the original text when preparing the printers manuscript.
I'm curious what you felt was supporting your position?
The Book of Mormon does not include content with value to anyone outside of your faith.
I don’t disagree with that. What I do find interesting is the amount of time a nonbeliever will spend talking about it.
Regards,
MG
As a former believer, I grappled with the question and viewed it as a million dollar one for a meaningful period of time. I don't think about it much at all anymore. But without reservation, I would have much preferred the evidence support the Book of Mormon being ancient than being the obvious 19th century invention. Having ones worldview ripped out by the roots and having to grow a new one isn't enjoyable. A lot of my life had been invested in what turned out to be a spiritual ponzi scheme, with receipts holding no value outside the scheme. I get why it seems better to chose to believe. I do. I think it is a choice with consequences in other places such as ones thought processes and integrity being bent by the choice. But I get it.
he captured your approach perfectly.
just when you think you've read all the ways mopologists misuse the concept of references...