“I have also retained the right to legally extend this freedom to use the results of the critical text project to anyone wishing to create their own single reading of the Book of Mormon text”

Is it under a Creative Commons license, or something similar?

Is it free for all of those who believe in the Book of Mormon to share, or is it free for the compiler to select who is able to reproduce it and under what conditions?

The question is whether the title page was originally written by Mormon, or Moroni, or Joseph Smith. The further question is, why is the name of Jesus Christ not more prominent in this “title page”?

Some here have contended that “titles” as we know them in our modern world were not so conceived in ancient times.

If that were so, why did the ancients create “titles” at all, not to mention “titles” for each of the books in the BOM (e.g., “Words of Mormon”)? And what does that say about the “title page” of the BOM?

“(61) I think what is odd is not seeing the standards of what constitutes a title as socially defined and largely arbitrary.”

Interesting, given the fact that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 appear to have agreed with my point and decided to officially add the sub-title “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” – we can only presume because some “inspired” modern or ancient leaders made a terrible omission!

I am not a Platonist, so I cannot justify why anyone would be a Platonist.

But by the same token, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be a post-modern deconstructionist, ether.

But I don’t think there is a formal Mormon theology as such.

As to the problem of evil note I didn’t say there was a solution. I agree with Dennis Potter in that. However the view we chose to experience these evils for personal growth is very compelling and I believe points us towards the solution.

However if good and evil are viewed Platonically as pre-existing determinate propositional content then this transformational view won’t be compelling. Which returns us to the original point. Why be a Platonist?

I would love to oblige by providing examples of LDS Theology that reconcile with my view, but there would have to be some preliminary issues addressed first.

First of all, we would have to agree on what constitutes official “LDS Theology”, wouldn’t we? Finding an obscure quote from a long-dead Church leader, or even finding an obtuse academic treatise on the notion of “prophecy” by a “leading” LDS scholar would hardly resolve the issue.

I don’t understand why it is so difficult to expect that an author whose sole purpose in writing is ostensibly to testify of Christ, should be able to mention Christ in the “title” (or first lines, or whatever the work would be summarily referred to).

It is quite a simple and straightforward idea. We need not be linguists or professors of religious studies or theology to see the point. The title of the BOM does not (until very recently) mention Jesus at all. Neither to any of the books contained in the compilation. What I don’t get is why that does NOT strike anyone else as odd. These authors claim to have written because they were commanded to do so BY JESUS. They were claiming to have supernatural abilities (whether you call it “exhaustive foreknowledge” or whatever) given to them BY JESUS. Their sole purpose was to preach that name without which no man can be saved!

All rhetoric aside. Isn’t that odd?