What I do know is that there are other things going on in the Book of Mormon that critics have not had satisfactory responses to. Stylometry, Chiasmus, complex narrative, shadows and reflections of the ancient world, additional archeological/linguistic evidences discovered over the years, etc.
Shucks is right. Critics don't need to have responses to these. Outside of a few folks who engage in Mormon apologetics as a hobby, no one thinks that these things are really there.
That is a common response.
Apathy.
For any lurkers out there that have an interest, here are some sources to study on just ONE of the topics I’ve asked IHQ to comment on multiple times now and he refuses to. He focuses on one issue that he has a fixation on to the exclusion of anything else. I’ve already commented on the the issues that he is concerned with multiple times and his response is essentially, ‘I don’t understand what you’re talking about’.
I call BS.
Anyway, here are some excellent sources to begin a study on a process of investigation called stylometry or sometimes referred to as word print studies. Please take the time to look at this in detail and ask yourself whether it is more likely a semi literate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon or that we might consider taking him at his word that the translation was done through “the gift and power of God”.
You are jumping around and up and down not saying anything, IHQ. You’re simply repeating yourself.
Are you done? You are going to wear yourself out.
Regards,
MG
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.
Which statement isn’t true?
I don’t understand why you’re scared of giving a straight answer to a straight question. I’m sure many people are baffled. It’s like you’re avoiding answering in an effort to avoid confronting an awkward truth.
The two statements cannot both be true. Would you say 1. Is true, or would you say 2. Is true? Just pick the statement you think is NOT true and we can move on. (Note: I will keep asking g you this straight question until I get a straight answer or you say you refuse to answer - which will obviously answer the question as well).
Last edited by I Have Questions on Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Shucks is right. Critics don't need to have responses to these. Outside of a few folks who engage in Mormon apologetics as a hobby, no one thinks that these things are really there.
That is a common response.
Apathy.
For any lurkers out there that have an interest, here are some sources to study on just ONE of the topics I’ve asked IHQ to comment on multiple times now and he refuses to. He focuses on one issue that he has a fixation on to the exclusion of anything else. I’ve already commented on the the issues that he is concerned with multiple times and his response is essentially, ‘I don’t understand what you’re talking about’.
I call BS.
Anyway, here are some excellent sources to begin a study on a process of investigation called stylometry or sometimes referred to as word print studies. Please take the time to look at this in detail and ask yourself whether it is more likely a semi literate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon or that we might consider taking him at his word that the translation was done through “the gift and power of God”.
At the bottom of this presentation are many other sources that one can use to take a deeper dive.
Critics will generally respond that there is nothing to see here and/or simply ignore it.
Regards,
MG
This doesn't come from the Church. Which Church publication officially endorses this? There is no byline. No one is brave enough to even attach their own name. This is like someone linking fan fiction to explain why Autobiography of a Yogi should be considered to be straight from God.
For any lurkers out there that have an interest, here are some sources to study on just ONE of the topics I’ve asked IHQ to comment on multiple times now and he refuses to. He focuses on one issue that he has a fixation on to the exclusion of anything else. I’ve already commented on the the issues that he is concerned with multiple times and his response is essentially, ‘I don’t understand what you’re talking about’.
I call BS.
Anyway, here are some excellent sources to begin a study on a process of investigation called stylometry or sometimes referred to as word print studies. Please take the time to look at this in detail and ask yourself whether it is more likely a semi literate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon or that we might consider taking him at his word that the translation was done through “the gift and power of God”.
At the bottom of this presentation are many other sources that one can use to take a deeper dive.
Critics will generally respond that there is nothing to see here and/or simply ignore it.
Regards,
MG
This doesn't come from the Church. Which Church publication officially endorses this? There is no byline. No one is brave enough to even attach their own name. This is like someone linking fan fiction to explain why Autobiography of a Yogi should be considered to be straight from God.
What I said. “Nothing to see here.”
Lurkers, don’t let one or two critics keep you from doing a deep dive in your research. More information is better than less.
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.
Which statement isn’t true?
I don’t understand why you’re scared of giving a straight answer to a straight question.
Shucks is right. Critics don't need to have responses to these. Outside of a few folks who engage in Mormon apologetics as a hobby, no one thinks that these things are really there.
That is a common response.
Apathy.
Tell me why I should care about some website devoted to the realistic intricacy of L. Ron Hubbard's works The Book of Mormon.
I don’t understand why you’re scared of giving a straight answer to a straight question.
I did. You came back with, “No comprendo”.
Dead giveaway. Tunnel vision.
Regards,
MG
Because it wasn’t clear which statement you’d picked. Which one did you pick, 1 or 2?
1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written in the 1st Century or earlier.
2. The Book of Mormon contains unique written errors, verbatim, that were made by people producing the KJV Bible in the 17th Century.
At the very least you should explain to people why you are too scared to pick one.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I do agree with you that folks should follow your links and read what they say. They should study this in their hearts. They should pray about this. They should look at all the evidence. There's a reason that most missions have such abysmal conversion and retention rates. Both God and mind tell folks that this is patently silly stuff.
