Complex?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:30 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:56 am
If I tell you what the product is, and a very brief description of the product, does it become valid?
I'd have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.
That is reasonable.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 4:46 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:30 am
Wow, that’s incredible.

So instead of managing MG’s poor behaviour to come into line with the board’s rules, you’ve rewritten the board’s rules to come into line with MG’s poor behaviour.

I’m dumbfounded.

This is the link and run that started it off
That doesn’t meet even the new “MG Amendment” to the board rule.

He does not describe what is at the end of the link - a company selling a book. He does not describe in sufficient detail its content for readers to decide if it’s worth their while clicking on it, because he doesn’t explain that it’s not a link to the books content, it’s just a link to an online book seller. There’s no “content” at the end of the link. He doesn’t explain readers would have to buy it to access the content that’s supposedly relevant to the discussion.

It clearly, and obviously fails to meet even your newly diluted rule.
He says the other end contains a book, then he indicates the book is about a scientist who converted to Christianity, so I disagree with you about it failing to meet even my newly diluted rule.

Is it perfect? No. Does it contain enough information for us to make an informed decision whether it's worth our time to click on it? Yes.
I think that many here will be a bit more careful about our posts and making sure we don't fall into the "link and run" mode. I've seen others besides myself do the same thing. Honestly? I think it is something that we do sometimes without thinking about it. I know I'm going to be more careful.

Thanks to IHQ for making a big deal out of it. That he would voice his concern in admirable. He must have known he might get some pushback. ;)

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Complex?

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

I Have Questions wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 10:11 am
huckelberry wrote:
Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:14 pm
It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?
Let’s get back to the topic in question.

One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?

Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?
The Book of Mormon is consistently bad.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:28 pm
I Have Questions wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 10:11 am
Let’s get back to the topic in question.

One element against the notion that the Book of Mormon is complex in a consistent manner, is the narrative about the indigenous population in the land that Nephi supposedly traveled to - The Americas. The book claims it was an uninhabited land. Yet within the book it relates the story of the Jaredites and the Mulekites who both supposedly travelled, at separate times, settled there prior to Nephi’s group. So which is it, a land that was kept uninhabited, or a land that was already settled by the Jaredites and then the Mulekites?

Is that complexity, or is that Joseph not keeping his story straight?
The Book of Mormon is consistently bad.
There you go, folks! Wang has spoken!

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Complex?

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

malkie wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:19 pm
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon...
But it's such a compelling book.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:41 pm
malkie wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:19 pm
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon...
But it's such a compelling book.
What do you find compelling?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Complex?

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

malkie wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:19 pm
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon...
But it's such a compelling book and so very consistent.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:49 pm
malkie wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:19 pm
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon...
But it's such a compelling book and so very consistent.
That's an interesting comment, Wang. Compelling might be the word to describe it.

And you're being consistent!

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 6826
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by Marcus »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:49 pm
malkie wrote:
Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:19 pm
I really do not want to read the relevant chapters of the Book of Mormon...
But it's such a compelling book and so very consistent.
That's what atheist you-tubers tell us....oh wait. No they don't. :lol:
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Complex?

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 11:03 pm
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:49 pm
But it's such a compelling book and so very consistent.
That's what atheist you-tubers tell us....oh wait. No they don't. :lol:
No lost expectations there. :lol:

Regards,
MG
Post Reply