Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Mormon was charged with making an abrigment from many texts, thus Mormon included the texts, and not Nephi. Perhaps the chronology of their inclusion truly was prophetic, but not on the part of Nephi, but Mormon?

Okay, I see what you're saying, but the problem is the small plates were not an abridgment. The material was written by Nephi himself, unabridged, and then included later. The Isaiah material, according to Nephi, came straight off the brass plates. There was Isaiah material on those brass plates that had not been written yet. Hence the problem.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

For example 2nd Isaiah, not written until well after the exile is included in the BOM, before it had even been written yet. Yes, I know, many say that the 2nd Isaiah dating is controversial....well, it's not controversial to mainstream scholars. If you read it, it presumes a post-exilic historical context, as much as LDS scholars try to say it is *prophesying* about the exile. It just doesn't fly.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/23/1#1

Assuming your premise is correct, who's to say how or when the Nephites obtained the various writings of Isaiah? Certainly the existence of the Mulekites would show that there is a possibility that they or some other unnamed group that arrived in the Americas might have had any writings of Isaiah that would post-date Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/23/1#1

Assuming your premise is correct, who's to say how or when the Nephites obtained the various writings of Isaiah? Certainly the existence of the Mulekites would show that there is a possibility that they or some other unnamed group that arrived in the Americas might have had any writings of Isaiah that would post-date Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.

Nephi tells us how he got them. It's right there, read it. It came from the brass plates he took from Laban around 600 BC.

[Indy Coug]

So what's your conclusion?

1. Nephi lied or failed to fully explain himself.
2. Joseph Smith lied, or failed to fully explain himself
3. Additional Isaiah writings were acquired by the Nephites after arriving in America and were inserted by Mormon or someone else without documenting that fact
4. God had Joseph Smith stick it in there because it was as good a spot as any
5. The mainstream dating of 2nd Isaiah is flawed.
6. Other

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what's your conclusion?

1. Nephi lied or failed to fully explain himself.
2. Joseph Smith lied, or failed to fully explain himself
3. Additional Isaiah writings were acquired by the Nephites after arriving in America and were inserted by Mormon or someone else without documenting that fact
4. God had Joseph Smith stick it in there because it was as good a spot as any
5. The mainstream dating of 2nd Isaiah is flawed.
6. Other

1. Not possible...
2. No, I don't think so...
3. No, given what Nephi says about the brass plates
4. This is the most likely, if you believe JS was inspired.
5. If you just read it, the answer is no.
6. ***my opinion: The BOM is not historical, there's too much evidence against it and none for it. Beyond that, who knows? Warm fuzzies tell me nothing. Personally I'm fine with it and have embraced the ambiguity. If the BOM is inspired, fine. I'm open to it but don't know.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Warm fuzzies tell me nothing. Personally I'm fine with it and have embraced the ambiguity. If the BOM is inspired, fine. I'm open to it but don't know.

Is this your way of saying that you don't believe in witnesses from the Holy Ghost? That you don't believe in a spiritual dimension removed from rationalism?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is this your way of saying that you don't believe in witnesses from the Holy Ghost? That you don't believe in a spiritual dimension removed from rationalism?

What I'm saying is that warm fuzzies, which is how spiritual communication is conceptualized these days, and which I've had plenty of, is too universal a phenomenon. If you have a exclusive religious belief, ie. this is the only true church, then it should be confirmed in such a way that is spiritually exclusive. But the same kinds of feelings tell people radically different things regarding the truth. Warm fuzzies are common to every tradition, even other exclusive ones. It's not that hard to see through.

As for a spiritual dimension, I'm open to it, but don't trust feelings as a guide for truth. So at this point, I don't know, and I take a wait for further light and knowledge approach. I'm NOT asserting or arguing that there is NO spiritual dimension, and I'm honestly not trying to argue with anyone one way or the other. This is a sidetrack for me, I'm more interested in arguing historical issues, such as source criticism of the BOM, dating of Isaiah, NT textual criticism, etc.

[MikeWaters]

My aunt told me "when i was a Catholic, I would feel the spirit at times. When I became Mormon, I felt it more often and stronger."

I don't think that the spirit is exclusive to a particular religion. And because it is not, I don't think that is a reason to dismiss it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Okay, I see what you're saying, but the problem is the small plates were not an abridgment. The material was written by Nephi himself, unabridged, and then included later. The Isaiah material, according to Nephi, came straight off the brass plates. There was Isaiah material on those brass plates that had not been written yet. Hence the problem.

You speak very definatively about the subject, almost in absolutes. However it doesn't change the fact the overall work that is the Book of Mormon is an abridgment by a prophet hundreds of years removed from Nephi.

In what order and over what time frame did Nephi restate in his own writing what he had read and seen in visions, that was in turn abridged? How many small plates involving dealings with God and the Nephite nation verses larger 'a peoples history' plates did Mormon have to study and draw from for his abridgment?

Furthermore the more and more I read this section it is not always clear to me at what point Nephi is no longer speaking and in fact Jacob is speaking, in addition to the author of the abridgment? Perhaps it's due mostly to my poor reading comprehension?

I am not stretching, or looking for a silver bullet explaination. The Book of Mormon is a whole work of abridgment, note merely a complilation. I feel there is a very clear distinction to be made.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My aunt told me "when i was a Catholic, I would feel the spirit at times. When I became Mormon, I felt it more often and stronger."

I don't think that the spirit is exclusive to a particular religion. And because it is not, I don't think that is a reason to dismiss it.

Then you have a progressive view of the spirit and I appreciate that. But when it is used as a tool to confirm exclusive claims, it becomes very different. Not to mention the oft-taught principle that what sets the LDS church apart from everyone else is the possession of the Holy Ghost (Joseph Smith). With all due respect, I like your view and to me it is an ideal view, but I don't think it works as a tool to gain any knowledge with regard to exclusive claims.