domain:philippelemoine.com
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
26m ago
Oh come on. The “if you have this opinion you’re an incel” implication is the most trite of Twitter-tier ad hominems.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1hr ago
So, if Rome got a separate bishop, and the pope was only head of the catholic church, that would resolve the issue? I would be surprised if its that easy.
Corvos
1hr ago
To be fair, it’s generally acknowledged that NICE is the part of the system that actually works, and it genuinely does a pretty good job of deciding what forms of treatment are sane and worth the money and what forms are just utility monsters.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
Change is dangerous, but the relevant part of the change has already happened and can't be undone. As Nietzsche said, "God is dead". Now the only choice is how to replace Him.
Corvos
1hr ago
I think there’s a lot of friction that arises from doctors of all nations attempting to minister to patients of all nations.
Supposedly there are stringent language tests and of course we have examples on this board that show some foreign doctors pass these tests with flying colours, but I’ve also heard lots of stories from close family of doctors just being completely unable to speak or comprehend basic English. And of course now half the patients don’t speak English, so all paper has to be massively duplicated in every language and then presumably translated for the docs. Likewise stories of doctors just repeatedly not turning up for appointments that they themselves booked with the patient.
Would an all English population of doctors be better? I don’t know but I’m pretty sure that replacing say the bottom 50% would help.
Corvos
2hr ago
You asked, and I answered. In the world as it is, it is not possible for everyone to have everything that one might ideally wish them to have. In another age technology may change the specifics of cancer funding but that fundamental truth will remain the same.
Jiro
2hr ago
There is a historical person who actually existed named Jesus, and he did not write a testament called "The Book of Mormon". This isn't a debate about theological interpretations, it is a historical fact.
I find Jesus writing a book that nobody's heard of not inherently goofier or ahistorical than rising from the dead. Or having communion wafers turn into his flesh. Of all the weird things people say about Jesus, writing a book that isn't in the historical record is nowhere near the top of the list of "things secular historians don't think are true about Jesus".
FeepingCreature
2hr ago
I read it as more like, sophistry may be employed against inconsequential or subjective matters like religion freely, as there's no harm to it; but if you try to argue with reality, reality is gonna win.
madeofmeat
2hr ago
Christianity isn't so much about 'things being true' but getting into a mindset where 'it doesn't matter if it's true or not, I believe it'. Christian theology is a complete mess because they go in with the answer in mind and then come up with justifications.
This is definitely what it looks like in TheMotte and adjacent places. People lean hard on the coordination power and social stability aspects and steer well clear of trying to explain nature in religious terms and just shrug at the historical narratives in religious doctrine being very odd. Meanwhile religions keep losing smart and sincere people who start out taking this stuff at face value, realize it doesn't come together, and end up feeling betrayed and lied to. There doesn't seem to be much of a way back either, unless you end up fully convinced in the "it doesn't matter if it's true" mindset after a lifetime of figuring out what is true being important to you. This hasn't always been the case, the 19th century introduced the double whammy of the theory of evolution showing up and a consensus forming that the bible's historical narrative is mostly mythical. I keep wondering what this will do to the religions in the long term, since the process has really only been going for a century or two at this point. You keep losing people who are both smart and sincere, and who you're left with either isn't very smart or isn't very sincere.
benny
2hr ago
Can anyone recommend me a book on Internal Family System or related modalities that explore multiplicities in your mind and how to address the ones that you may associate with negative behavior? I'm very woo-conscious (for better or worse) and I would like that not to interfere when starting out, as it appears there is something there.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
2hr ago
Let's say I have a difficult task that needs a lot of comms with Gemini to get it on the same page. Then forks allow for easily throwing that into the context for a variant of that task. Or simply A/B testing.
The first time I made use of forks, it was when I was generating images with Flash, and got it dialed in. I then forked it so as to try alternative prompts and the effects of different details, with the easy ability to jump back and forth.
Tenaz
3hr ago
I think there are many different meanings of the word "purpose," all of which are valid at times. Then there's "sense of purpose", which is being conscious of one's own purpose. If I say I have a sense of purpose, I'm not particularly saying I have purpose more than I did previously, I'm saying I'm more conscious of my own purpose, or that I feel more purposeful.
The thing about Christianity being true is that while most would agree that it would give people purpose, it doesn't necessarily give them a sense of purpose. That comes, not from Christianity actually being true, but from belief in Christianity.
If Christianity is true then God created us and gave us purpose. We can choose not to pursue that purpose, I guess, and reject our creator, but rejecting a purpose doesn't make it cease to exist. That purpose exists even if we're not conscious of it. It doesn't matter whether it's subjective or not (though I reject that--in the hypothetical, God's purpose for us is as objective as anything can possibly be); it's still a purpose either way, one which the Creator is aware of even if we are not.
This is frequently to the detriment of their drastically reduced number of children
Most of the Western fertility decline was justified and needed. Infant mortality rates approaching 50% were near-universal before the 19th century; the average woman doesn't need to and shouldn't have 4+ children anymore, lest we tempt the spectre of Malthus. (The demographic argument for pro-natalism still applies, but in the long run fertility still needs to converge on replacement.)
Mothers can't be "more precious than rubies" when the job prerequisite is the bare biological minimum expected of a mammalian female. I've seen such pro-natalist exhortations to value motherhood more before, but since status (especially female status) is a zero-sum game, the end result of such efforts is going to look much more like shaming barren women rather than celebrating mothers. It only makes sense for women to branch out into the male realm when the need for their singular area of expertise has been significantly obviated.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3hr ago
No big surprises there :) There's a reason more books have been written about the Bible than any other topic!
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
3hr ago
· Edited 1hr ago
A fair warning that, though he analyzes the patristic evidence powerfully and fairly, he also has a unique model of catholicity that he sees as the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He at times presents this as the "Orthodox view of ecclesiology," but I'm given to understand that it's more of a minority view. But still, I found his views on ecclesiology irresistible.
And, to be clear, I am not a current Catholic, nor have I ever been received into the Catholic Church. I believed firmly in Catholicism for a long time, and the priest who worked with me was happy to receive me, but I backed away because of issues of conscience with some Catholic doctrines, and personal struggles with sin -- as well as, to be blunt, utter confusion as to what Catholicism precisely was in a post-conciliar world.
I had a similar experience with Orthodoxy -- the "intellectual evangelical convert" in my narrative wasn't a caricature, but actually myself, and my mother and my girlfriend indeed accompanied me to liturgy a few times and didn't like it. My struggles with Orthodoxy were not so much about doctrines I could not assent to, but about doctrines that were load-bearing in my Christian faith, like the principle of "faith seeking understanding", the concept of inherited fallenness and separation from God (original sin), the importance of divine justice, and the reality of Hell as a place of separation from God (and tragically suffering), being hard to reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox approach especially post-Romanides.
I would argue that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy underwent a severe and belief-altering ressourcement in the 60s, and that has brought them closer in some ways -- every time I read Catholic theologians talking about paschal mystery theology, they sound very Orthodox to me -- but also separated them, injecting polemic where there might have been agreement. While I agree with Orthodox reservations about De Trinitate and believe his works must be understood extremely carefully, I hold St. Augustine to be a great saint, and a personal patron, and the view among some Orthodox that outright denies his sanctity or experience of divine grace is unnecessary and offensive.
I do not believe the West is the author of heresies, as many of Orthodoxy's greatest writers do, and I believe reason in religion to be, not the enemy of divine illumination, but a means of illumination that opens the mind to be receptive to divine grace by teaching how truly deep "the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God" are, in the words of the apostle. I worry sincerely that Eastern Orthodoxy often collapses into a kind of quietism that does not reflect the serious philosophical and theological capacity for thought I see in the fathers of the Church.
I've tried not to present myself as a Catholic, but a "mere Christian," defending views that I believe represent Christianity at its fullness, but this often means I defend Catholic doctrine because, to be blunt, I agree with it as a matter of theology. At the very least, my goal is that Catholicism is described fairly, as I believe Catholics deserve a fair hearing and don't always get it.
But, to make a long story short, this hopefully answers @TheDag's question as well: I am a committed Chalcedonian Christian, but too rationalist, cataphatic, and "western" for Eastern Orthodoxy, too sacramental and synergistic for Protestantism, and too, well, insufficiently totalizingly Marian for Catholicism. I am a wanderer in the wilderness, or taking refuge in "the hallway," in the words of C.S. Lewis, as from a storm prepared to blow away the house built upon sand.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3hr ago
Do you usually fork because you're unsatisfied with the response, didn't want to clutter the context, felt you had a natural off-topic you wanted to explore somewhat sandboxed, or something else? I'm trying to imaging the typical use case where it would feel so essential.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3hr ago
No problem, still appreciate the reply. Hope it's been interesting for you as it has in return. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands.
Paul's definitely an interesting case. Of course we all must acknowledge to some extent that the NT after the gospels is not really a comprehensive look at everything going on in the church, there's some "selection bias" so to speak. A lot of the leadership seems to have viewed him as the go-to guy for Gentile stuff, despite not even being a Gentile himself (though his Roman citizenship and language proficiency certainly made him better suited for the job than many of the 12), but the exact extent of his authority and his position isn't spelled out very clearly, though we do have hints. And on top of that, although the LDS position is that the 12 apostles are special, the word "apostle" is used a bit more freely in the NT, and Christian vocabulary is just getting defined anyways, somewhat haphazardly. With that said, I'll freely admit that at some point, I and others choose to make plausible inferences about Paul. This "backwards" reasoning is not load-bearing despite that, I still think it's decently supported. For example, although the laying on of hands isn't strictly mandatory for some stuff, I choose to believe that at some point he was given some sort of special dispensation to fill the role he filled in the early church, and definitely people perceived him as such beyond just respect for the man that brought them the gospel of eternal life. Regardless, I do not think he was operating as a rogue preacher or anything, rather he
You're definitely correct that Hebrews has a very particular audience and goal. Aside from the wide belief that it's not actual by Paul, it's directed toward Jews and their questions about, among other things, how Jesus was from Judah, in hopes of keeping them in the church -- a big issue for the Jews who have believed for centuries that Levites are the only ones who can do priesthood rites! The letter talks about how Christianity is superior to Judaism in various ways, for example Jesus is better than angels, and also discusses how Levite priesthood isn't actually the only game in town. There's this Melchezidek guy who Abraham paid tithes to, kind of implies he's higher up, the author say, right? And Jesus is a Melchezidek-like figure. See, it's Biblical for non-Levites to do priesthood things! (And in fact the LDS theology takes this even farther and to this day has two separate priesthood lines reflecting this, a lesser Aaronic one that does baptism and communion and the Melchezidek one that does eternal marriage and is a prerequisite to be a bishop and such, which is an interesting detail but more of a modern application)
Note however that at no point here is there the implication that it's open season, anyone perform ordinances and covenants and rituals, the somewhat spontaneous and sporadic callings of OT prophets notwithstanding. And 5:4 emphasizes this same point, that because many rituals (e.g. the day of atonement ritual on Yom Kippur) have the priest literally as a stand-in for God or Christ, not just anyone can decide to step up and play the role (v4). Jesus also didn't do this of his own accord, but in fact (v5-6) "Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him... You are a priest forever, after the order of Melcheizedek" (emphasis mine) . You are correct that in some places in Hebrews and elsewhere in the NT we are taught very specifically that the whole point of the Levite rituals (especially the scapegoat of the above ritual) was to symbolize Christ and prepare them for him, and as far as we know the Levites didn't have a particularly special role in the early Christian church, but when talking about authority more generally, Christians including Jewish converts still would have implicitly understood that authority in general is a more fundamental principle. Moreover, in v11-14 we learn that the audience has, broadly speaking, been doing a pretty bad job with the "basic principles". Foreshadowing, in my book. Far from the only time, too.
As an aside, despite my church's love for the KJV, I'm a bit of an NRSV man myself. The 2 Timothy passage starts by talking about Paul's good example worthy of emulation, but also the inevitability of persecution. Then, however...
[A]s for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness... (emphasis mine)
To me it seems quite clear that the whole passage emphasizes that the source of teaching (i.e. the person(s) doing so) is very important, and is paramount in assessing its reliability. And that Scripture assists in maintaining those teachings. Thus I draw the conclusion, supported elsewhere, that the person of the teacher matters a lot when assessing doctrinal purity. Obviously, there are many passages of the scriptures encouraging teaching each other more generally, but as a few of the other passages (among others that exist too) suggest, the congregations themselves seem to have perennially done a poor job at policing their own doctrine. That's what I take away from many of the (especially Pauline) epistles, at least.
In fact there are vanishingly few people teaching fellow members who don't have some line of authority. Apollos (Acts 18) was among these odd-man-out examples, a convert to the baptism of John who is doing missionary work and who knows the scriptures really well, he gets corrected by another missionary couple ("coworkers" of Paul, elsewhere) in private, and then goes back to missionary work in the synagogue. Interestingly, no mention of internal teaching, and in fact he is later the cause of a schism in 1 Cor 1:12 (though plausibly this is not his fault)! I'm not aware of any other cases. And actually his case is illustrative - he had a pretty good, scripturally grounded understanding, he was even immediately receptive to the truth, but was still unable to independently come to the proper conclusion with scripture alone. Thus my earlier point about how despite having some major sympathy and Sola Scriptura roots the end result was clear that at some point extra revelation is needed.
It was James 1:5 after all, encouraging those who have gotten stuck to seek revelation, that was according to his account, the prompt for Joseph Smith to pray for guidance in the first place. He later found good company with many people who read things like Eph 2:20 or Eph 4:11-13 and felt that a Christian church needed apostles and prophets as a key attribute, or were dissatisfied with the Protestant status quo in other ways. It was largely these people, as far as I know, who initially converted, and honestly the church has never attracted large numbers of Catholic converts specifically. Part of the early LDS appeal was precisely to this audience of people who had gotten deep into the scriptures, and didn't see its reflection in contemporary Protestant groups.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3hr ago
The actual alternative for Brits is to kick out their unproductive, non-British population, tighten their belts, and spend a decade or two training up new doctors and nurses from the natives. That would drive down costs and reduce wait times in the long run,
What is the mechanism by which replacing foreign-trained doctors with native British doctors is supposed to make healthcare more affordable for patients?
My naïve assumption is that doctors from, say, the Indian subcontinent are willing to accept lower pay and less favorable conditions than comparable Brits, simply because the opportunity to live and work in Britain is worth so much more to them than it is to a native Brit who takes that opportunity for granted. This is, as far as I can tell, pretty uniformly the story of nearly all immigrant labor, skilled or unskilled, throughout the developed world. And presumably the ability to furnish such doctors lower wages and less benefits would in turn redound to the patient in terms of lower costs.
I’m extremely sympathetic to many of the arguments for deporting foreign laborers — even doctors — and thereby clearing the field for natives to move into their remunerative positions; however, the argument that it will make things cheaper for the end users of those services seems to be quite dubious. Perhaps I’m missing something. Am I wrong that Indian doctors accept lower pay and that this causes healthcare costs, ceteris paribus, to decrease relative to the counterfactual in which all doctors are white Brits?
Supah_Schmendrick
3hr ago
I refuse to debate you further about the exact technical definition of "purpose" and whether it exists objectively or just subjectively, no matter how much you want to have that debate.
Okay, I don't particularly care about technical definitions; I was asking because I didn't understand what you were trying to get at with "not just a sense of purpose but an actual purpose," which seem to me to round to the same thing.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
3hr ago
I've occasionally edited my own responses, but never the LLMs. I wonder if that would be helpful for jailbreaks. At some points, when the context window wasn't enough, I'd delete unnecessary responses to clear up space, but with a 1M window now? Never necessary.
The ability to fork chats is clutch, I can tell you. I miss it on every other platform.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
4hr ago
One could argue that the expected role of the woman has changed, and now they are all out of the house doing labor (and “labor”) elsewhere. This is frequently to the detriment of their drastically reduced number of children, because young children really do need a mother around most of the time.
I’ve never met a daycare provider or a maid who is even half as good as a half-decent stay-at-home mom. And there are many decent stay-at-home moms out there, women who love their homes and their kids. They just don’t get noticed because of mal-oriented societal norms, and because they aren’t and never can be influencers, and because they understand that they don’t have to become like men or compete with men to be more precious than rubies.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
4hr ago
Except we strongly disagree on what Biblical actually means.
TheBailey
soapy mop
4hr ago
Surely that's more to do with the cultural coercion affecting his “brides”? cf. Elon Musk's quasi-harem, the sheer exploitativeness and power asymmetry seems to disqualify it from really counting as a mutually constructed "romantic" relationship...
Did you attempt to read the Book of Mormon, or merely dismiss its provenance and not bother? I think that's usually more valuable than extra-textual criticism. I'm not in the habit of being a Book of Mormon apologist or promoter on its non-spiritual merits, like some members might, as I still believe reading it is the best way of assessing it as scripture rather than dealing in endless speculation or attempting to make some scholastic proof (and honestly, the same could be said of the Bible)... but I will mention a few points in response. I agree that if the Book of Mormon is fraudulent so is the religion. Thankfully, I do not think this is the case. Even if you do, the case you have presented above has at least some major misunderstandings. I it was going to be brief but I guess it ballooned. Oh well. Hopefully the thoughts are in a roughly coherent order. Not that this is really the proper forum for this anyways, and we're way off topic, but maybe this can provide some further unfamiliar information at the minimum.
Internally, there are some passages that allude to the script being somewhat of a rare skill in the first place, and likely not even corresponding to the typical spoken language of the people there. In-text there is further described a tendency of the victors to burn the loser's records and texts, a classic and historically accurate thing to do, so we wouldn't really expect much writing to survive. We hardly had any Mayan codices to begin with, even before the Catholics started burning it all, plus there were an estimated 200 or so languages spoken in the region before 1500, we hardly knew all of them to start with. Finally, contrary to popular belief, historians seem to have found that although writing itself is excellent and obviously useful, not all cultures adopt writing systems even when there are examples nearby, or can die out for other reasons, especially in more ancient contexts. Even in mesoamerica itself, while the Mayans had a system, their neighbors for centuries generally did not, and when they did it was pretty limited. (On top of all that, it was largely assumed by most in Smith's region at the time that all Native Americans were basically illiterate, even knowledge of the complexity of Mayan script wasn't yet popularly known, a point to be revisited below)
I also think that you are mistaken about a core point about the people involved -- these are not, in fact, Egyptian people. This is a set of Jews, primarily a family of merchants (perhaps metal traders), who left Jerusalem at a known point in time, and we have seen (limited but existing) evidence of a denser Egyptian script mingling with Hebrew in exactly that time period. The text does describe with remarkable precision a route out of Jerusalem that matches known geographical features, as well, again something Smith had no knowledge of (e.g. their coastal boat-building site was described as lush, something you wouldn't expect out of the Arabian desert coast)
The text does describe several attributes of mesoamerican people not yet popularly known, but since confirmed, and moreover avoids a ton of Indian stereotypes common at the time and in Smith's region, which is notably odd (no teepees, no scalping, they aren't savages, all the stereotypes don't fit at all). As one example, you can map major battles to months recorded in-text, and viola: we see a clear pattern of historically accurate seasonal warfare. Not really what fan-fic usually does, seems like a weird choice that would actually undermine contemporaries' opinions about it. It also doesn't do the sci-fi fiction thing where descriptions of certain things are subtly hinted at to the reader. Nope, we get at times some random words or items dropped in and described, with the assumption we'd know what they are.
There is Hebrew-style poetry in it that was also unknown to scholars at the time, as well as other Hebrew literary elements, and at least a few genuinely Hebrew-inspired names, in addition to some strange turns of phrase one assumes are linguistic artifacts of the original language ("and it came to pass" as the classic example, is repeated a lot). We even get a random olive tree parable, that actually gets a lot right about the growing process, that's not a New England thing. There are over a thousand intra-textual references, quotes, and callbacks as well, a lot to keep track of. On top of that, Smith makes the seemingly strange decision to relate slightly different versions of Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount, and some of these departures show up in the Dead Sea Scrolls or early Septuagint versions even, since discovered. The records are mostly of the nobility among the people, often following lineages and select spiritual stories and developments, not intended as primarily historical, as is the case for many ancient records in terms of focus. Compare for example the Mayan Dresden Codex - a record mostly of the nobility, following select lineages and with select stories bolstering the nobles' lineage. Yep, sounds familiar in format.
I would add that the internal setup is that of two specific people assembling and in some long stretches summarizing and paraphrasing this largely spiritual set of events, hundreds of years worth (there was never the allegation that "one person" witnessed it all, I'm not sure where you got that from?), this is a little over half the book, so that is a bit different in format than the Bible, but it's far from all. In fact, the story internally references a variety of source texts, splices them in at a number of points, and engages at times in periodic flashbacks offering different perspectives of the same event. There is some clear internal evidence of different author tones and styles, reinforced by modern textual analysis techniques.
There are random digressions into migrations, descriptions of different internal cultures, notes about the calendar, weight and measure standardization listed on the reign of a new king with similar natural ratios as those we find in authentic ancient records. We have over 150 named people, 200 place names, 600 relational geographic passages, no map, but the info we have is internally consistent. Plenty of stuff perfectly fitting the internal editorial decisions as well as what ancient records tend to digress about.
With respect to the plates themselves and the manuscript resulting, first of all the idea that records would be written on metal plates at all was at the time ridiculous, but we have since found a few examples. In terms of timeframe, there is significant evidence that the whole book's 'translation' was produced at a pretty fast pace, a little over 2 months, with significant complexity and references and setup as described above in part, and obviously some spiritual teachings too that many have since found to be extremely faith-promoting (the actual point of the book), and this is the quite factually the case even if you think his scribes were all in on it too. I only briefly touched on the spiritual aspect, despite the bulk of this post, but there's some genuinely interesting and unique theological concepts there inside that need to work for any of it to work at all. This chapter has some interesting doctrines about sin and the fall. This one has some great teachings about insecurity and grace. This one contains a timeless analogy about the process of nurturing faith in God. This one and the next three chapters is a classic sermon encouraging faithfulness, but with fiery rhetoric about taking care of the poor and our purpose on earth. Faith, charity, and repentence are constantly emphasized. Aren't those the main takeaways from the gospel anyways? But the classic challenge is, can you write a similar amount in two months, and have it be spiritually enjoyable to read, let alone display the depth and complexity described in all the points above? Press X to doubt.
And lastly, when it comes to the physical gold-looking (probably a lighter alloy) plates themselves, we actually do explicitly have more than just Joseph Smith's word - although some of them are family or friends, there were 11 total people who signed testimony they saw them or handled them or saw an angel present them, with a half dozen more besides, none of whom recanted despite several leaving the church or thinking Joseph has become a fallen prophet.
Which, by the way, sounds more likely to me than just a straight con job. Has any other con artist in history ever produced something comparable? In word count it's like half the full Lord of the Rings trilogy, for comparison. There was the Hitler Diaries, I guess, but a lot of the heavy lifting was done by matching up existing newspaper accounts and plagiarizing, and they were pretty quickly shown to be fake, and excessively tropey with known Hitler flourishes. Scientology and Hubbard's writings? Maaaaaaybe? Eh, no, not really. Connection is a bit weird, because he was quite literally a science fiction writer. Then took a detour into self-help psychology. Then gave some lectures. Then and only then near bankruptcy he starts dropping in spiritual-ish stuff, and boy is it a gradual process over decades. So yeah, prolific writer, but bad comparison, and he took decades to accomplish not half what Smith did in two months. Ellen G White of Seventh Day Adventist fame also was a book-writer and vision-haver. But her visions are atomic, continuations and plays on her normal writings, occur throughout her life, and don't have the same demand for consistency of course due to their nature. (Atheists might also note she was, in fact, literally knocked out with a rock as a child as the start of her spiritual awakening. I don't know enough to opine). The only other thing I know or have heard of would be the Ossian Poems, according to AI, where some guy in the 1700s wrote his own poems of warfare and romance with some maybe some legit old Gaelic inspiration, blended them together, then claimed to only be the translator of them (but refused to show the allegedly too-delicate manuscript). Still a bit of a far cry from the potent Book of Mormon claims and its own textual complexity.
More options
Context Copy link