David Bokovoy's explanation of OT

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well sure.  But, if'n we had nothing to go off of except a few manuscripts from after Jesus we wouldnt' have the theory anyway.  Well we might but it'd be far more tenuous and far less convincing. 

I said seventh century BC not AD. Is that the point of confusion.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I said seventh century BC not AD. Is that the point of confusion.

Well no, but my comment probably was.  It seems you are saying if we had more evidence that the theory is wrong, then we'd have to re-evaluate the theory.  I was trying to add "well sure if we had less evidence supporting the theory, then theory would at least leave more room for criticism, if not might not even exist." 

You could wishful think either way.  The problem is we have to deal with what we do have and know. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well no, but my comment probably was.  It seems you are saying if we had more evidence that the theory is wrong, then we'd have to re-evaluate the theory.  I was trying to add "well sure if we had less evidence supporting the theory, then theory would at least leave more room for criticism, if not might not even exist." 

You could wishful think either way.  The problem is we have to deal with what we do have and know. 

Yep, and many are skeptical about there being one author and I am skeptical of their skepticism.

In this case I also am a basic believer and the evidence has convinced me of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon which makes the current theory unlikely.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, and many are skeptical about there being one author and I am skeptical of their skepticism.

In this case I also am a basic believer and the evidence has convinced me of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon which makes the current theory unlikely.

Well the theory could make your current view of the scriptures unlikely.  I see you've made your pick. It's possible the BoM carry with it some authenticity and the current theory also carry some merit. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Well the theory could make your current view of the scriptures unlikely.  I see you've made your pick. It's possible the BoM carry with it some authenticity and the current theory also carry some merit. 

I doubt both can work together without "spiritualizing" the Book of Mormon from an accurate account from real people to a spiritual story or parable or the like.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt both can work together without "spiritualizing" the Book of Mormon from an accurate account from real people to a spiritual story or parable or the like.

Why not?  Something as simple as Joseph copying some Isaiah into the story doesn't nullify the possibility of the whole work.  Or if the translation is from God in some sense, and God quoted Isaiah (which is really what it must have been) as found in our modern bibles, then, its on God.

[The Nehor]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Why not?  Something as simple as Joseph copying some Isaiah into the story doesn't nullify the possibility of the whole work.  Or if the translation is from God in some sense, and God quoted Isaiah (which is really what it must have been) as found in our modern bibles, then, its on God.

It does when Nephi and Jacob are offering commentary on something they did not have.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Would you prefer that I not apologize? I shouldn't have posted that stuff from Stan, and I've said so publicly. When I do wrong, I acknowledge it and apologize. 

I am glad that you did post that material, John, and am glad that it brought Stan in for some commentary (although I was not the instigator).  Helps clarify things.  Just a bit of academic rough and tumble.  No harm done, and much to learn.  That's why this board is here.

Aside from all that, I count both you and Mark Bukowski as friends.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It does when Nephi and Jacob are offering commentary on something they did not have.

I agree with you....Deutero-Isaiah is damning to the Book of Mormon's truth claims...for this and other reason's

 

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

 

Quote

 ttribe said:

You clearly need to up your paranoia level some; here's some reading to encourage some more looking over your shoulder...or, as in my case, laughter:

http://www.illuminatirex.com/masonic-conspiracies/

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/05/top-8-most-compelling-masonic-conspiracy-theories-out-there/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories 

I'm aware of these modern conspiracy theories involving free masons. But I'm not aware of 1829 free mason conspiracy theories that approach what is described in Ether 8:24-25. Especially considering the context, which was the destruction of two mighty nations. If I've missed something, though, I'm interested in new information. 

There have been some rather large and powerful conspiracies in world history (and currently) which make the Freemasons look quite tame and benevolent in comparison.

There was a humorous, yet chilling article on secret societies at Yale University in the September 1977 “Back to College Issue” of Esquire: Skull & Bones, and all that, you know (even a feature film was once made about “The Brothers of the Bell,” starring Glenn Ford).  Conspiracy buffs love that sort of thing.

Yet that is all small time and insignificant, and even with the fame of the Japanese Yakuza, and of Al-Qaida (“The Base”), and lately of ISIS, the Chinese have always had one up on everyone for their antiquity, complexity, and the sheer danger of their secret societies (see Richard Deacon, The Chinese Secret Service, passim, but especially chapter 3): 

White Lotus Society (originally a religious cult)
Eight Trigram Society (anti-establishment)
Heavenly Reason Society
Red Eyebrows Society (rebellious farmers in the Han Dynasty)
Yellow Turban Society (peasants led by a magician in the Han Dynasty, which lost ½ million members in one battle alone)
The Taipings (19th century, which copied the Triads)
The Triads (originally a Buddhist sect)

etc., leaving the BofM Gaddiantons in good company.  Look them up:  The Taiping Rebellion alone cost around 20 to 70 million lives. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

FYI - You're being a jerk, again.

Sorry Mr Tim!

I could use some help with my profile too.

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I agree with you....Deutero-Isaiah is damning to the Book of Mormon's truth claims...for this and other reason's

Whether the Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah theory is correct might not be up for grabs in your mind, but there is an interesting aspect of this dispute published recently by Book of Mormon Central.  That is, the Book of Mormon uses the Hebrew “prophetic perfect” even more consistently than the King James Version translation of the Hebrew Bible.  One can see this in Abinadi’s quotation of Isaiah 53:7 (Mosiah 14:7) where the Hebrew past tense is systematically applied to an even greater extent than the KJV.  Book of Mormon authors consciously employed that understanding, and said so (I Nephi 5:5, Jarom 11, Mosiah 16:6).  How can that be?  And in a section of Isaiah which is supposed to be Exilic or Post-Exilic?

See “Why Did Book of Mormon Prophets Speak of Future Events as if They Had Already Happened? (Mosiah 16:6),” Book of Mormon Central, May 9, 2016, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-book-of-mormon-prophets-speak-of-future-events-as-if-they-had-already-happened . .

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Wait.  Just so I'm absolutely clear on this, your takeaway from the Hofmann situation is that scholarly consensus might be an unreliable source of confirmation regarding the authenticity of certain claims? 

That's what you learned?

Cute, but the record shows that the Church leaders were more tentative about swallowing Hofmann's hoaxes than the supposed experts.

So no, scholarly consensus might not be the end-all-and-be-all.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Cute, but the record shows that the Church leaders were more tentative about swallowing Hofmann's hoaxes than the supposed experts.

So no, scholarly consensus might not be the end-all-and-be-all.

And the Tanners were even more tentative. In fact, they were on record saying they believed it was fake. 

[ttribe]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry Mr Tim!

I could use some help with my profile too.

LinkedIn?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And the Tanners were even more tentative. In fact, they were on record saying they believed it was fake. 

To their credit.

Rhett James up in Cache Valley, Utah, was not taken in either.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To their credit.

Rhett James up in Cache Valley, Utah, was not taken in either.

I once thought Sandra was evil incarnate. She's actually quite a delightful person. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Cute, but the record shows that the Church leaders were more tentative about swallowing Hofmann's hoaxes than the supposed experts.

So no, scholarly consensus might not be the end-all-and-be-all.

That's fair.  I just thought out of all the different lessons we could learn from that terrible and tragic chapter in Church history (and Church history history), it was odd that that was the one that stuck with you.

Certainly, if you can apply your skepticism to all such claims that you encounter, from wherever the source, I'm sure you'll be better for it.

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by cinepro

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whether the Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah theory is correct might not be up for grabs in your mind, but there is an interesting aspect of this dispute published recently by Book of Mormon Central.  That is, the Book of Mormon uses the Hebrew “prophetic perfect” even more consistently than the King James Version translation of the Hebrew Bible.  One can see this in Abinadi’s quotation of Isaiah 53:7 (Mosiah 14:7) where the Hebrew past tense is systematically applied to an even greater extent than the KJV.  Book of Mormon authors consciously employed that understanding, and said so (I Nephi 5:5, Jarom 11, Mosiah 16:6).  How can that be?  And in a section of Isaiah which is supposed to be Exilic or Post-Exilic?

See “Why Did Book of Mormon Prophets Speak of Future Events as if They Had Already Happened? (Mosiah 16:6),” Book of Mormon Central, May 9, 2016, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-book-of-mormon-prophets-speak-of-future-events-as-if-they-had-already-happened . .

You'd really have to ask Joseph why he did that...

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

What, specifically, was Moroni referring to?

Meaning, as Moroni wrote Ether 8, you are suggesting he saw some specific group or events happening post 1829, and felt the need to warn us in general and non-specific terms. 

 

Do tell.

The next question will be to imagine that President Monson mentions in a talk that Ether 8:24-25 hasn't been fulfilled yet. 

Based on the information in the verses, please explain the specifics of who, what, where and when you would expect for this prophecy to be fulfilled (and conversely, falsified if you are wrong).

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/a-witness-and-a-warning?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, JarMan said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/a-witness-and-a-warning?lang=eng

So, does this mean that the Comintern was the sole and only fulfillment of Ether 8?  Or are other or multiple fulfilments possible?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You'd really have to ask Joseph why he did that...

Did what?

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Did what?

Did that when he included Isaiah in his Book of Mormon 

[JarMan]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, does this mean that the Comintern was the sole and only fulfillment of Ether 8?  Or are other or multiple fulfilments possible?

I think Ether 8:24-25 was talking about a single thing since it uses the singular. I think ETB saw the worldwide Marxist movement as specifically fulfilling that prophecy. However the plural is used in verse 22 and elsewhere so I think there are multiple other fulfillments possible. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

LinkedIn?

Sho nuff!