Oh crap! A stalker.

“you are something of a purist when it comes to the use of language”

Oh, crap, again! This notion has escaped my familial bounds and the world is on to me. I am really going to have to watch myself now. I bet someone will take me to task the first time I slip in a double negative.

“if we acknowledge that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God, isn’t that really the bottom line”

Absolutely.

The difference though is that we can say the Book of Mormon contains the word of God and believe it and leave it at that; while we can say it is the word of God and eventually think it is inerrant. It is not inerrant; Mormon alluded to this very point in the Title Page.

“I submit that the Book of Mormon IS the word of God because each and every word in the book was prepared, approved, edited, compiled, revealed and translated under His direction.”

I disagree. Actually, I disagree to a point. I agree that God oversaw the translation of the Book of Mormon. I do not believe that He necessarily oversaw how every single word was prepared, edited, compiled and translated. I am very doubtful that the language of the Book of Mormon translated word for word into English easily. I am confident that Joseph Smith had thoughts or ideas come into his mind and through the spirit was able to express those thoughts or ideas into words with which he was familiar.

Translation, from what I understand, is very similar to how blessings are given. The voice in a blessing does not receive every single word by revelation. If he did, there would be far fewer brethren who struggle with what to say in a blessing. Rather, the Spirit causes ideas and thoughts to enter our minds and we express them as words.

“We have these words because He wants us to have them”

Absolutely.

Then you use the phrase “contains the word of God” as if that is not what people mean.

The purpose of my post was not to try and come up with an absolute definition of the phrase “word of God”. The purpose of my post was to try and determine what others mean when they say “word of God”, and then depending on that assumed meaning explain how it is semantically incorrect.

I am not the one who uses the word of God to describe the Book of Mormon, so the onus to define the phrase does not lie with me. Since no one was here with me at the time of my post, I simply tried to extrapolate that definition by asking numerous questions and then addressing some of the definitions those questions imply.

Whether people actually mean specifically “contains the word of God” still remains to be seen since users of the phrase “word of God” do not qualify their usage of the phrase with a definition. That being said, even if that is their precise meaning, then why not simply say that. Why use a phrase instead that takes us down the dangerous road of inerrancy?