Long time no comment:)

Tolkien didn’t have wandering Jews but I’m sure the wandering Elves could be an adequate parallel. And while Tolkien didn’t claim sacredness to himself, he has a huge fan base that may see it a bit different.

Not to mention it’s a heck of a lot better read;)

“If you are looking at the Book of Mormon from an analytical and philosophical approach you might as well quit reading it because you are just wasting your time.”

You’re saying it doesn’t stand up to analysis? That it is something not to be read with the intellect?

“Try reading it with a spiritual approach. You seem to have already made up your mind that ‘this book’ is a work of fiction, so quit reading it and slandering it’s history and contents.”

It’s true that I approach this from a skeptical position, as I do the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, and any other book claiming (or claimed to have) spiritual value. But I’d love to take your advice about the “spiritual approach” if you’d explain what that means. I’m afraid, based on the earlier portions of your comment, that that would mean a non-analytical approach. Perhaps I’m wrong. Can you enlighten me?

It’s fairly easy to read a text and imitate its style. As for his third grade education, I would wager that a third grade education in Smith’s time would produce a much better reader (and writer) than a third grade education in our day. Reading and writing were the only subjects in school, and they would have gotten much more coverage than they do today. Lastly, the Bible’s stories and language was much more a part of the society of Smith’s day than ours. Biblical language and stories would have been learned similarly to talking: seemingly absorbed, not purposely taught.

Are you looking for the things that are “pleasing unto the world?”

Nephi had limited room to write on the plates, he wasn’t going to waste it with stuff that was already written on other plates (”kept by my father”).

If you are looking at the Book of Mormon from an analytical and philosophical approach you might as well quit reading it because you are just wasting your time.

Try reading it with a spiritual approach. You seem to have already made up your mind that “this book” is a work of fiction, so quit reading it and slandering it’s history and contents.

“Hope” is not a strategy, but it is a useful frame of mind. Since Obama ran a sharp, smart, well-orchestrated political campaign that’s impressed organizers and marketers alike, I don’t think he’s one to rely on idealism alone.

As far as being a “Lightworker” is concerned, well, I’m not real sure how to interpret that. Sounds to me like the liberal equivalent of “George Bush has a mission from God.” I’ll be satisfied with him doing a good job.

Should he actually become president he’ll find the real world doesn’t work according to idealism.

Care to elaborate? What are the one or two premises you think I’m working from? How am I ignoring other possibilities?

I’m a simple man — enlighten me.