Jump to content

Steve J

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Steve J

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You have been congratulating her in this thread consistently.... (which again is fine)...I’m sure both he and she are both aware of each other approaches and simply disagree on how they interpret the evidence. But it was YOU who was solely holding up her pov/terminology as being the singular valid one.
  2. Steve J

    Evidence for the Book of Abraham

    Just curious, why didn't you just complete the 1 class to get the major? Not here or there, but I heard stories like these before
  3. Again with your accusation that Dr. Wayment is not being honest in his statements and beliefs bc of outside pressure. Your obvious desire to label is tiring. However, I do look forward to their future publications on JST.
  4. So you did a great job of an ad hominem attack on Professor Wayment opinion and view, while also making the claim that the person who finds something is necessarily the sole arbitrator of it’s meaning and significance 🤦‍♂️ She also stated that Prof Wayment was stoked about her find. I also listened to that podcast But thanks for reminding me about that the article from Sam Brown, one of my favorite people to read!
  5. From the Thomas Wayment, “ When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken. To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible. I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works. The reality of what happened is inspiring. Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church. 2) Your Phelps quote shows that he also potentially had background with Clarke’s commentary. Additionally, restoring Adamic pure language was much more broadly discussed than solely that commentary.
  6. Steve J

    Evidence for the Book of Abraham

    You 2 can Run back and report like ...
  7. Steve J

    Evidence for the Book of Abraham

    It really doesn’t matter to me bc my view on the BOA doesn’t change no matter the answer to the question of a missing scroll or length But while I am not well verse enough to comment on particulars, I know people who know Mr. Vogel’s arguments and the documents, and don’t think it is settled and I wouldn’t smugly say that they weren’t “rationally” looking at the evidence. But I guess I don’t study enough by wandering around posting message board remarks or memes
  8. I would definitely never say that his non-belief comes from a lack of scholarship. I would say that his current unbelief comes from his training in historical criticism and the social issues concerning the church. As he stated "the book of Mormon takes ancient motifs and puts them into the 19th century." I have faith that this was done by the "gift and power of God" and I think that there are interesting scholarly avenues that open up when you believe that, but he is right that there is not necessarily anything without "faith" that proves a miracle happened. So its not surprising that if you use the tools of "scholary criticism" that you would see the BOM as 19th century pseudo-graphia. But I def respect him as a scholar, a decent human being, and someone who takes these questions seriously.
  9. Do you know all I did was quote from Reel’s latest post?
  10. why is this even a long thread. From his last posting it seems like he wanted this Mormonism, while not what it claimed to be was the very lie... It wasn’t me who had something wrong…. something broken. It took years to come to grips that it was in fact Mormonism that had a Crisis. A Truth Crisis. It had built its entire foundation on stories that simply don’t hold up. Mormonism can not stand an honest investigation. I learned this the hard way. Learning your Religion and the God your religion handed you are not what was claimed The podcast will continue for the foreseeable future and I will continue to ensure that it offers the tools and resources to help others wake up and to deconstruct their religious system. In fact I expect very little to change.
  11. It was the running circles around them comment that got the eye roll. If I stated that if some apologist came prepared with slides and allowed to speak to a group there not prepared to discuss those issues and said the same thing.. you, and many other posters would be out for blood. I made a relatively benign comment