Complex?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

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]

That's what atheist you-tubers tell us....oh wait. No they don't.

LOL!

That IS hallllarrious. What a sense of humor you both have! Intelligence squared.

Even if misplaced.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Personally I find it to be a pretty simple and repetitive text. I think the complexity is only relative, as in it's kind of complex for a dictated/oral composition. Here complex means "a lot of characters and plots to keep track of." But of course there are some continuity errors. The stories and the theology are very simple, though.

Complexity is kind of a red herring. It could be 10 times as complex as it currently is, that still wouldn't make it an ancient document.

Very simple. It's almost like "there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin."

[MG 2.0]

Personally I find it to be a pretty simple and repetitive text. I think the complexity is only relative, as in it's kind of complex for a dictated/oral composition. Here complex means "a lot of characters and plots to keep track of." But of course there are some continuity errors. The stories and the theology are very simple, though.

Complexity is kind of a red herring. It could be 10 times as complex as it currently is, that still wouldn't make it an ancient document.

Very simple. It's almost like "there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin."

I know what you're doing...

Anyone else catching on?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

B.H. Roberts on the complex and consistent Book of Mormon:

“But in addition to the striking parallelism in these incidents of Anti-Christs of the Book of Mormon, with the strong implication that they have their origin in one mind, I call attention again to the fact of “rawness” in dealing with this question of unbelief, the evidence of “amateurishness” increasingly evident in this story of Korihor. Does it not carry with it proof that it is the work of a pious youth dealing with the very commonplace stock arguments clumsily put together for the belief in the existence of God . . . rather than an adult appeal and argument on the great questions involved? .. . And is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer, rather the dream of a pious boy of what might very well have happened, rather than a matter of actual experience?

[MG 2.0]

B.H. Roberts on the complex and consistent Book of Mormon:

“But in addition to the striking parallelism in these incidents of Anti-Christs of the Book of Mormon, with the strong implication that they have their origin in one mind, I call attention again to the fact of “rawness” in dealing with this question of unbelief, the evidence of “amateurishness” increasingly evident in this story of Korihor. Does it not carry with it proof that it is the work of a pious youth dealing with the very commonplace stock arguments clumsily put together for the belief in the existence of God . . . rather than an adult appeal and argument on the great questions involved? .. . And is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer, rather the dream of a pious boy of what might very well have happened, rather than a matter of actual experience?

Similar patterns, yep.

More rinse and repeat. Even in Book of Mormon history. Who would imagine?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

B.H. Roberts on the most complex and consistent book:

“In all this war of extinction, and destruction there is only one important variation, and that is that in the case of the Jaredites, the annihilation was complete for both sides down to the last man; in the case of the Nephites and Lamanites only the Nephites were wholly annihilated; …And now, I doubt not, at the conclusion of this review of the Nephite and Jaredite wars of extinction (both of which coincidentally centered around the same militarily insignificant hill in Joseph Smith’s New York neighborhood), some will be led to exclaim—and I will set it down for them—“Is all this sober history inspired written and true, representing things that actually happened? Or is it a wonder-tale of human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?” (pg 279-283)

[MG 2.0]

B.H. Roberts on the most complex and consistent book:

“In all this war of extinction, and destruction there is only one important variation, and that is that in the case of the Jaredites, the annihilation was complete for both sides down to the last man; in the case of the Nephites and Lamanites only the Nephites were wholly annihilated; …And now, I doubt not, at the conclusion of this review of the Nephite and Jaredite wars of extinction (both of which coincidentally centered around the same militarily insignificant hill in Joseph Smith’s New York neighborhood), some will be led to exclaim—and I will set it down for them—“Is all this sober history inspired written and true, representing things that actually happened? Or is it a wonder-tale of human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?” (pg 279-283)

Do ancient records use hyperbole or symbolic/inflated numbers to convey the scale or magnitude of events?

What do you think?

Do other Old World motifs/texts use similar language?

Is this evidence for or against?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

B.H. Roberts on the most complex and consistent book ever:

Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, and that deal in matters of widespread public interest, there is built up in the course of years, a community of knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as ‘matters of common knowledge’ … Such ‘common knowledge’ existed throughout New England and New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures…and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt that it might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct a theory of origin for his Book of Mormon in harmony with these prevailing notions; and more especially since this ‘common knowledge’ is set forth in almost handbook form in the little work of Ethan Smith … It will appear in what is to follow that such ‘common knowledge’ did exist in New England, that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of possibility that the Book of Mormon could have been produced in that way.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, pages 152-54)

[MG 2.0]

B.H. Roberts on the most complex and consistent book ever:

Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, and that deal in matters of widespread public interest, there is built up in the course of years, a community of knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as ‘matters of common knowledge’ … Such ‘common knowledge’ existed throughout New England and New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures…and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt that it might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct a theory of origin for his Book of Mormon in harmony with these prevailing notions; and more especially since this ‘common knowledge’ is set forth in almost handbook form in the little work of Ethan Smith … It will appear in what is to follow that such ‘common knowledge’ did exist in New England, that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of possibility that the Book of Mormon could have been produced in that way.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, pages 152-54)

Keep it up!

Regards,
MG