Parsimonious? A more parsimonious explanation is that the text reflects an autobiographical or 19th-century composition rather than an ancient record. The simpler explanation doesn’t require additional assumptions like angels taking the plates back, translation via stones in hats with no requirement for the plates, or missing things like horses or DNA.
Parsimonious heh
The standard position is angels and the supernatural is disregarded thereby creating a counter apologists narrative. The constant clamor by smac is that no naturalistic explanation can connect all the dots their supernatural narrative can.
That’s fair I suppose, though I would disagree that a naturalist explanation isn’t sufficient. I don’t know Smac nor if Smac has considered an autobiographical explanation. My guess is he or she isn’t even open to the idea of a naturalistic explanation.
I’m open to the supernatural, but I don’t understand the necessity for the plates’ discovery requiring an angel. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn’t. There seems to be some risk-taking that the plates weren’t accidentally found by someone in the 1400s.
There is a quote from Joseph, the line “why can I not get them?” that makes no sense to me in the discovery of physical plates. I mean the plates were either physically there or they weren’t. The way the story reads with the “why can’t I get them” is like he’s upset because a supernatural object didn’t appear when he expected it to. The line makes more sense in the early 1826 context in which he had been trying to retrieve a treasure-object guarded by a spirit who kept refusing him.
As a thought experiment and alternate explanation, maybe he was talking about a preexisting document or record he believed he should have access to, like “records” Alvin and Sidney had been using. “Why can I not get them?” becomes an expression of frustration that the material he expected to inherit or use was not available to him, because Alvin had died and Sidney had the manuscripts elsewhere but was reluctant to turn the project over to Joseph.
I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.
But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed
I made a kind of breakfast burrito, with egg, bacon, and cheese, but since we're cutting down on carbs I used rice paper instead of tortillas.
Anyway, back to my reasons for disagreeing.
As we've all seen for months now, MG has been moaning and griping about the AI rule, and has accused the mods - especially The Venerable Dr Shades - of creating the rule specifically to disadvantage MG. The rationale was that using AI as a force & effort multiplier, or waldo, a "Synchronous Reduplicating Pantograph" (see Heinlein's short story: Waldo), MG as pretty much the sole valiant defender of Mormonism could perform "fairly" against the horde of apostates, heretics, and general miscreants. You may recognize yourself as apparently part of that horde I'm a happy member.
Waldos are wonderful devices if you can master them and use them effectively. If not, they can inadvertently do a lot of damage. Worse is constantly proclaiming how well you can use a waldo while demonstrating your lack of skills, over and over again.
Derail alert!!
Popular Science wrote:After over four years of war, Ukraine’s military says it’s testing an exoskeleton in the field that can help soldiers more easily load artillery and run at speeds of up to 12 mph over sustained periods. The tests would mark one of the first known examples of exoskeletons used on the front lines of an active military operation.
There is a quote from Joseph, the line “why can I not get them?” that makes no sense to me in the discovery of physical plates. I mean the plates were either physically there or they weren’t. The way the story reads with the “why can’t I get them” is like he’s upset because a supernatural object didn’t appear when he expected it to. The line makes more sense in the early 1826 context in which he had been trying to retrieve a treasure-object guarded by a spirit who kept refusing him.
As a thought experiment and alternate explanation, maybe he was talking about a preexisting document or record he believed he should have access to, like “records” Alvin and Sidney had been using. “Why can I not get them?” becomes an expression of frustration that the material he expected to inherit or use was not available to him, because Alvin had died and Sidney had the manuscripts elsewhere but was reluctant to turn the project over to Joseph.
The Spalding Manuscript perhaps? A copy of The Pilgrim's Progress or The View Of The Hebrews maybe?
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.
There is a quote from Joseph, the line “why can I not get them?” that makes no sense to me in the discovery of physical plates. I mean the plates were either physically there or they weren’t. The way the story reads with the “why can’t I get them” is like he’s upset because a supernatural object didn’t appear when he expected it to. The line makes more sense in the early 1826 context in which he had been trying to retrieve a treasure-object guarded by a spirit who kept refusing him.
As a thought experiment and alternate explanation, maybe he was talking about a preexisting document or record he believed he should have access to, like “records” Alvin and Sidney had been using. “Why can I not get them?” becomes an expression of frustration that the material he expected to inherit or use was not available to him, because Alvin had died and Sidney had the manuscripts elsewhere but was reluctant to turn the project over to Joseph.
The Spalding Manuscript perhaps? A copy of The Pilgrim's Progress or The View Of The Hebrews maybe?
In my view it was an altered Spalding manuscript—but that manuscript was further altered and added to by Joseph.
I have been aware of the LDS Church's most recent efforts to attack John Dehlin's Mormon Stories for some weeks now, but I have frankly not had the energy to post about this stupid, bullying effort until today. I need a break from work, so I will point out what ChatGPT says about the use of the term Mormon outside of the context of the LDS Church:
Yes—“Mormon” has been used in a few contexts beyond referring to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though that’s by far its most common meaning today.
The term originally comes from the Book of Mormon, which believers regard as a sacred text translated by Joseph Smith. Because of that, “Mormon” became a nickname for members of that religious movement.
But outside that main use, you’ll find a few other meanings:
Historical or sectarian variations:
“Mormon” can refer broadly to the wider Latter Day Saint movement, not just the main Utah-based church. This includes smaller denominations that split off after Smith’s death.
Cultural shorthand:
In everyday language, people sometimes use “Mormon” to describe aspects of a distinct subculture—foodways, social norms, or communities historically shaped by LDS influence, especially in places like Utah or Idaho.
Place names and natural features:
The word shows up in geographic names in the American West, like “Mormon Trail” or “Mormon Lake,” reflecting 19th-century migration history.
Informal or outdated uses:
In the 19th century, critics or outsiders occasionally used “Mormon” more loosely or even pejoratively to describe perceived behaviors or beliefs, but those uses aren’t standard today.
I draw special attention to the point about cultural shorthand. That is where I see Mormon Stories operating. Mormon Stories is devoted to the stories and experiences of people who engage with Mormonism in some way. It discusses issues of interest to such people. It never sought to present itself as an official organ of the LDS Church. I hope that the LDS Church's efforts to attack Mormon Stories fail utterly. I consider their suit an attack on free speech. I worry that they will succeed because our country is no longer a land of civil rights so much as a land of corporate power. Corporations and plutocrats use their wealth and power to push the rest of us around for their own benefit. Even though I do not believe the LDS Church approaches the suit from the same place as, say, Microsoft or Elon Musk, their methods and aims still work against the freedom of individuals and smaller organizations to express themselves with generous, salutary latitude. I can't support that, and I will not remain silent on the issue.
I'm right there with you. Once power is acquired it is more often than not abused. And it is intolerable.
I have been aware of the LDS Church's most recent efforts to attack John Dehlin's Mormon Stories for some weeks now, but I have frankly not had the energy to post about this stupid, bullying effort until today. I need a break from work, so I will point out what ChatGPT says about the use of the term Mormon outside of the context of the LDS Church:
You can't do this. You are breaking the rules! Do you want to be like MG?
UNIVERSAL RULES: wrote:12. All A.I.-generated text may only be posted within the appropriate forums' artificial intelligence megathreads, found here for Mormon-related topics and here for non-Mormon topics. Additionally, do not post any links to anything in those threads (just send the person whom you want to see the text a private message pointing it out). For additional information, see here.
