quote: Palmer, a longtime Mormon educator, was asked to defend himself on charges of apostasy stemming from his 2002 book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which challenged traditional beliefs about the church's history.
I'm sorry -- but I guess I just don't fully understand this. They have the right to throw him out because he wrote a book they didn't agree with?? So he can have absolutely NO contact with any of his LDS friends or family? That just seems a little harsh......
Farmgirl
edit: Edited to note that Kat correct my interpretation of the word "disfellowship" further down this thread. What I posted in this post was too harsh.
[ December 14, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's also not true - the no-contact part.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:The all-male priesthood leaders in his Willow Creek Sandy LDS stake could have excommunicated the 64-year-old author, but chose instead a lesser punishment - to "disfellowship" him - which means he may not enter the temple, serve in a church position, give a talk, partake of the weekly sacrament or offer a public prayer. This typically lasts about a year, but the length will be determined by his LDS stake president, Keith Adams, who may also spell out more conditions of the suspension in a letter sometime later this week. Palmer has the right to appeal the decision to higher church authorities.
That doesn't really sound too bad at all.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Now, I don't know much about LDS, but it seems to me that if I were a part of a religion, being banned from that religion's place of worship would be pretty bad.
Edit: Ok, what's the difference between temple and church?
[ December 13, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The church is where people go every week, and it's for everyone. He's still welcome and wanted there.
The temple is for adult members only, and it's where we do things like baptism for the dead.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
This is what I find so problematic about exclusionary churches like the Mormons and the Catholics. The idea that only certain people are good enough to worship fully and that doing something the church doesn't like can result in being shunned and/or rejected by the church is almost directly contradicting the message of Christ. This is a guy who preached to the lowly and to the sinners, against the norms of the religious officials of the day.
One thing I like about the church I go to is that before communion the pastor always makes a particular point to mention that God's table is open to everyone, regardless of beliefs, sins, etc. You should not be prevented from worshipping fully just because you've done something the higher-ups in the church don't like.
[ December 13, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Thanks, kat.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. (emphasis added)
Dagonee
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Xaposert:
You seem to have a rather one-dimensional view of Christ.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ah -- I apologize for misunderstanding the depth of the term "disfellowshipped" in the LDS church. Apparently it is not as bad as I feared. I basically read the term, and associated it with my already-preconcieved ideas of what disfellowshipping is.
::has to remember to not read when busy and in a hurry:
Thanks for the clarification.
Farmgirl
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In our church, if someone was engaging in unrepentant sin, they could eventually be asked to leave our fellowship, which means their membership in the church would be terminated. They would still be able to come to church, of course - our doors are open to any and all, but they could not hold an office or vote in congregational meetings.
It's never happened, but it's in our bylaws.
It's not for me to judge what the mormon church authority does, but I agree that forbidding someone from worship does seem very harsh, for something like a different view of the church's history. Then again, I'm not familiar enough with the differentiation between church and temple to really know what it all means. Plus it's temporary, which definitely makes it an easier pill to swallow.
But, does he have to change his view on the origins of the church in order to be allowed back in? And what types of differences of opinion on things like church history are tolerated?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll say it before Dag has a chance to. Tres, you don't understand what you're talking about. The motive that you're ascribing, while perhaps valid in some cases, has nothing to do with the theoretical justifications for the exclusionary actions. You have to realize that these religions believe in the actual reality of both their authority strutures and their rituals. Their processes of exclusion are not (theoretically) intended as a punishment. If they are used as such, it is actually against their real purpose, which is more a recognition that the person is not in a state harmonious with the practice of the religion, generally with the ideas that the real nature of the rituals are not then available to the person and as a means to put them on notice to this.
When you start off with the basic, close-minded assumption that a religion's rituals and authority structure don't have any validity, then, yeah, you're going to have problems when people treat these things as if they are important. But all you've presented is that assumption, which may seem very clear to you, but is disputed by people who are at least as smart and well-informed about it than you are. So what did you really say besides "I personally think these religions are wrong."?
edit: Darn it Dag, why you gotta pre-empt my pre-emption?
[ December 13, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Zalmoxis, I don't think Christ could be described as one-dimensional at all, but I do think he had certain points he was very outspoken and clear about.
Mr. Squicky, The churches may be attempting to help those by excluding them from certain worshipping, but I still don't think that makes it consistent with Christ's teaching, because he seemed to reject that strategy. Definitely, if the churches have the authority they say they do, then they are right... I'm just saying I think this is a good reason to think they don't have that authority.
[ December 13, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's not exclusionary to "kick someone out" for saying your organization is founded on lies. Any organization has the right to do so. Had the church seized his property or banished him from the state, then they would be treading on civil rights and would be in the wrong. As it is, they are not allowing him to take part in leadership roles in the church, which is rather appropriate for someone who's been claiming that the line of authority stretches back to a liar.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also, I dislike the slant in that article. Every time they mention an "intellectual," it is in the context of someone being punished by the church. The church does not disapprove of or punish intellectuals. It does disapprove of and punish anyone who is teaching false doctrine.
I hate it when efforts are made to paint the church as an incubator of ignorance - there is nothing so blatantly false. In fact, out of studies that followed college students from various religious backgrounds, the LDS church was number two in the percentage of members who remained with their parents' religion after receiving a college education.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Xap:
I'm not saying Christ is -- I'm saying your perception of him as mentioned in your prior post *is*.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did he say anywhere that what he was writing was/should be doctrine?
He's teaching something that suggests doctrine is untrue, perhaps, but not teaching false doctrine (as that would require him not only to argue it, but to argue it from a supposed position of religious authority).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap-- Goats/sheep?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The church absolutely has the 'right' to do this, however this makes the LDS church look bad. It makes the church look like it can't take criticism or brook dissent from within its ranks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Darn it Dag, why you gotta pre-empt my pre-emption?
. I like your response. I purposely chose not to respond in my own word, but rather to provide information to contrast Xap's characterization of it.
Frankly, his opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing to me. There are so many things we likely disagree about in spiritual matters that are far more fundamental than this. Lacking agreement on those, there's no point in arguing about this. Similarly with his comments on making sacraments available to non-believers. Since we likely disagree on the number of sacraments, why have the discussion at all.
As to the LDS actions in this instance, the church has a duty to make it clear when people are saying things that might be attributed to the church that don't coincide with their beliefs. I just wish Christian churches in general (including the Catholic Church) would be more outspoken about some of the more hateful messages, rather than just the doctrinal ones.
quote:he church absolutely has the 'right' to do this, however this makes the LDS church look bad. It makes the church look like it can't take criticism or brook dissent from within its ranks.
I think the only people this looks bad to are those who don't share the same starting principles, so likely they flat out don't care how this looks outside the church.
Dagonee
[ December 13, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29
This was the verse my church referenced when deciding who they would allow to take communion. I don't think that's inappropriate.
Also, keep in mind that most churches don't just take the 4 Gospels as canon, they take the Bible as a whole. So the doctrine taught by St. Paul has equal authority with that taught in the Gospels. Both are considered to be the Word of God, one doesn't supercede the other.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think the only people this looks bad to are those who don't share the same starting principles, so likely they flat out don't care how this looks outside the church.
I seriously doubt that the LDS church doesn't care about its reputation, how it appears to those outside the church. The Mormons on this board certainly seem to care about it.
Given that one of the church's primary missions is to evangelize and bring more members into the church, anything that threatens that mission should be considered of the highest importance. I daresay that a longtime Mormon being, for all intents and purposes, punished for publishing a book that doesn't fit with accepted truth inside the church, isn't going to win a lot of fans to the church in the U.S., and isn't going to go very far towards countering the 'cult' accusations that Mormons have to face from time to time.
It would have been much better had the church staged open debates with this guy, showing that it isn't afraid of argument and showing the world that the facts are on its side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course it cares about its reputation. But it cares more about carrying out its mission, which includes preserving its central doctrine from dilution.
If a questioner believes the basic tenets of the faith as explained by a missionary, which justify the decision, they won't decide not to convert because of this decision. If they don't accept those tenets, they won't convert anyway.
I'd bet a lot of money they went to great pains NOT to take into consideration what others would think of the decision.
Dagonee
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But he disbelieves in one of the basic tenets of our church. He shouldn't be taking the sacrament if he doesn't believe. That's just not how it works.
Edit: Right-o, Dag.
[ December 13, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Even setting aside the fact that the LDS leaders are acting in accordance with scripture and the commandments of the Lord, diluting doctrine to avoid offending people is a losing proposition for a system of belief. If the doctrine matters so little that it's possible to be a member and advocate against it, then what's the point of being part of it at all? Sociality can be found at the country club (or online); the idea of defending the faith is only ornerous if you don't believe there is anything worth defending.
[ December 13, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, While I started out with showing the mistatement of the religion, my main point was the last sentence. I think Tres made a functionally empty argument with no other point than to say that he didn't agree with these religions.
---
Considering this does bring up something that's been sort of floating around in ym head for a bit. Religions that put an emphasis on authority and authority structures appear to me to be a great deal more concerned with doctrinal orthodoxy in what I would view as an insecure manner. That is, as in this case, the response isn't to basically shrug off the false doctrine, but instead to try to prevent it from spreading as it could harm the faith of others. The powers of the religion don't seem to want what they consider false doctrine to enter into the marketplace of ideas.
This is just an interesting phenomenom for me because looking at it from the perspective of a belief that ruth comes at least partially from non-universal authority it makes a sense, but it looks a lot more objectional from an outside perspective, especially one informed by Enlightenment philosophy. So, my first response to this, which I'm willing to bet is shared by many people), was to think "Why don't they just let the obviously false stuff out there where, if they have faith in their truth, it will be seen as false." However, if it can only (or largely) been seen as false from an authoritative standpoint, then those with this autority should try to keep it away from the public who have not been granted the authority to see it's falseness. It's a very different way of looking at things, but as I come to understand it, both as a potentially valid way of seeing things and as an authentic historical way of thinking, it opens up some interesting perspectives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No statements of his have been suppressed, and no one has advocated taking what he wrote out of the public sphere.
He's just no longer doing it with the blessing of the church he's saying was started by a liar.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
A consistent assumption I am feeling in reading this post is that the church's view of history is true and this book is false (I am not saying peopel here on Hatrack hold that assumption--I simply don't know). The church, since it knows the truth, should have open debates and let falsehood be exposed.
My questions are:
Has anyone here read the book?
Is there anyone versed enough in LDS history enough to say this book is spreading false ideas?
Is it possible that the book is honest and truthful?
I would like to hear from both Mormons and a non Mormons who have read the book.
Are these questions in church history legitimate in member’s eyes?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Apostacy, this is the second time in as many days that I have come across this word.
Per dictionary.com:
quote: Abandonment of one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause
Not heresy, as I had thought. Thanks for making me look it up.
I also thought this was funny:
quote: Get the Most Popular Sites for "apostasy"
Woo-hoo!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I don't know what the guy said in his book, or how it contradicted doctrine or, you know, excatly what LDS doctrine consists of But I do want to point out one thing. Katie said:
quote: diluting doctrine to avoid offending people is a losing proposition for a system of belief
I agree with that, but if the doctrine doesn't hold up under scientific examination of known facts, then defending the doctrine is also a losing proposition. Look what Copernicus and Gallileo did to Catholic Doctrine, and what the Church did to THEM. I don't know that the situation is analogous; It probably isn't, but I think that's where the uneasiness of the non-LDS members on this board has it's roots.
I mean, not knowing the particulars, it does seem similar. Knowing the particulars would probably change that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, I've no indication that this is actually the case. If his book follows the normal way of doing things here, he's not claiming to be absolutely currect, he's advancing a proposition and reviewing the evidence for this proposition. From my academic/Enlightenment propsective, the proper rsponse to this is to answer with the competing held proposition and an analysis of why the facts he talked about really don't support his proposition or are contervened by other facts, not through authoritative condemnation.
As one of the LDS leadership's primary complaints is that this book could "damage other people's faith", I think that it's reasonable to suggest that they are in fact taking steps to try to keep it out of public consumption or at least severly discourage people from reading it, which would be a likely result of their actions of disfellowshipping it's author.
[ December 13, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I find this to be a difficult issue for me. I believe in general that the proper response to "bad" speech is more speech. I'm rabidly free-speech when it comes to government interference or censorship, so the acceptance of such things on the religious side is a little strange.
Here's how I look at it from within my Catholic beliefs. The Church is charged with preserving the elements of Christianity here on earth. Part of the harm of sin is that it can lead others to act the same way. This tendency is especially pronounced when an incorrect doctrine is being promulgated. In these cases, inducing others to sin is the desired result, although the person doing the promulgating does not see the desired beliefs as sin.
Public censure of public sin is required when it must be made clear that the promulgated doctrine is not in conformity with Church teachings. This is at least one of the purposes of excommunication or denying Eucharist to someone. I'm glad the days of book and heretic burning are behind us. But the authority to be able to state doctrine must carry with a power to somehow censure false statements about that doctrine.
Note that in these cases, a substantive response to the problematic statements is always issued as well. The Church doesn't ignore it's duty to refute heresy by simply punishing it.
Even less authoritarian denominations take steps to maintain a certain level of consistency within those who teach their doctrines. Witness the recent "trials" within the Methodist faith.
What does he say in it that is considered apostasy?
FG
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is advocating burning the book or shutting him up or forcing him to recant. He can say whatever he wants. He just can't say it as a member in full faith with the church.
I think I understand the Copernican uneasiness, but nothing like what was done to Copernicus has been advocated.
If he doesn't believe it, why would he want to be part of the church anyway? Why would he want to be part of something that he doesn't believe in? The Book of Mormon is not a minor footnote - it's scripture and the keystone of religion. Tearing at that IS tearing at the foundations of the church. The church is under no moral obligation imaginable to support what this man is saying.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The article I read stated that the author says he doesn't believe that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon by divine gift, but that he wrote it.
That is violating one of the basic tenets of our religion.
And no, I'm not going to read it, because I do believe that would give Satan an "in" into my mind.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Farmgirl, I thought you were a Mormon?
Posted by Lucky4 (Member # 1420) on :
Annie, great posts. Just out of curiousity, do you have a link to that study about people who stay with their parents' religions after college? I thought that was really interesting.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Actually, if anything, the publicity surrounding this case (which LDS Church authorities had to know was going to happen) is going to foment interest in Palmer's book.
If they had really wanted to discourage people from reading it, they would have ignored him.
Which suggests, not that I expect anyone not LDS to buy this argument, that perhaps the action taken was in part for the benefit of clarifying for the church and for Palmer himself his relationship with the church.
----- Olvietta:
Oh, of course we understand that. But at the same time, I think that secular-ists (and I have more secular leanings than most Mormons) tend to be oversensitive to anything that even remotley smacks of 'censorship' -- just as religious orthodox-ites tend to be oversensitive about anything they see as 'critical.'
In short, there's a huge difference between the science practiced by Galileo and Copernicus, and the soft social science arguments that Palmer employs -- and perhaps employs without the full rigor one would expect from a published, peer-reviewed scholar.
For a brief perspective on Palmer's book see this round up of reviews. FULL DISCLOSURE: I post this link only to show that there are multiple sides to the issue. I'm not a huge fan of apologetics and don't endorse the tone and don't necessarily agree with the substance of the site. I haven't read Palmer's book -- mainly because it sounds like he's trotting out many of the same arguments that those who've looked for a naturlistic explanation to the work and life of Joseph Smith have used for decades.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I remember sitting outside a Gospel of Matthew class, waiting to speak to the professor, who was my New Testament Greek professor.
He had assigned several readings for the class, outside of the scripture itself, mostly the writings of theologians with opposing interpretations of the Greek. He meant to inspire discussion. One fellow was intensely pissed off about it, confronting the professor about forcing them to read 'that trash'.
Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Sounds like what he suggests in the book is not provable or disprovable, but it could be refuted, point for point if you were willing to do so. Though I have no problem with the church deciding to restrict his fellowship, I wonder if any good will really come of it. Not my business, really, but it seems sad all the way around.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which suggests, not that I expect anyone not LDS to buy this argument, that perhaps the action taken was in part for the benefit of clarifying for the church and for Palmer himself his relationship with the church.
Exactly what I was trying to get at, although I think there's likely an element of clarifying the relationship for non-members as well.
So it's not just LDS that might buy that argument, even though they'd disagree with the specific objections to the book.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If any good will come of it, it will probably be for Palmer. Whether it does or not is largely up to him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What does he say in it that is considered apostasy?
With my limited understanding of LDS, I'd say it would be similar to someone saying the Apostles got together and made up the story of Jesus (or added elements to the story such as the Ressurection) in order to teach some moral lesson.
Essentially equating that which should be taken as fact with fable.
Is that close?
Dagonee
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: And no, I'm not going to read it, because I do believe that would give Satan an "in" into my mind.
What do you mean?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Disfellowshipping and excommunication are among those things that I have always heard are truly for the benefit of the person they most effect, but my secular and cynical side always thought that was way too good to be true.
I suspect it may be, though. The publicity DOES bring more attention to the book than it would otherwise, and the church doesn't usually comment either way on all the anti materials out there. What this guy is advocating is at variance with what the church teaches. Perhaps this will get his attention - he has to pick a side. You can't be a member in full faith and advocate that it's all untrue.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag, yeah, something like that. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Farmgirl, I thought you were a Mormon?
No, no, Stormy.
I dated a Mormon guy for awhile, so attended an LDS church for a few months several years ago, and am familiar in that way with a few of their beliefs (and I still have some Mormon friends) but personally, no...we are not LDS.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: and I still have some Mormon friends
Even after you got to know them?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Miro: I believe that I have enough temptation in my life without deliberately exposing myself to books with false, though "logical" beliefs about doctrine in them, and I don't need to give Satan an opportunity for more temptation. That's all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It looks like a slap on the wrist for a non-crime.
quote:The church is where people go every week, and it's for everyone. He's still welcome and wanted there.
The temple is for adult members only, and it's where we do things like baptism for the dead.
That's freaky. I'm used to praying for dead souls, but drafting them is going to take some time for me to get comfortable with.
[ December 13, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think the Church is acting to do anything to or about the book at all. Instead they're acting exactly as they said they would, and have acted when confronted with someone who is activley trying to tear down the Church (like claim that the Book of Mormon wasn't inspired). It has nothing to do with getting the book to go away, or in my opinion, remove some sort of Church approval from the book that comes by him being a member. The book started this because it should his leaders that he was not only falling away from the faith, but doing so in such a way as to attack the foundations of the Church.
If someone came into Church talking about how one of the cornerstone scriptures that that Church held as holy was in fact false, and not inspired, would you really be critical of the Church refusing to put him into a position, like a speaker or giving prayers, in which he could spread that belief? Does the fact that he published a book instead of ranting and raving about it on Sundays really change what type of doctrine and falsehoods he would spread should he be given the chance to?
No one's telling him he can't question the Church, or disbelieve whatever he wants, the Church is just saying that while he attacks the foundations, he can't praticipate as a full member in what he's attempting to tear down.
Hobbes Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the biggest problem isn't whether or not his writing was intended to be taken as doctrine. The problem is that he was publishing books that contradicted church doctrine with a list of his credentials as a CES educator on the back. People would pick up a book like that, see that it came from someone with authority, and assume that its contents were sanctioned by the church. They were not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's not drafting; we do the ordinances in their stead and then they have a chance to accept or reject it. Cute, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, you must have missed the ten-page proxy baptism thread. Your characterization is incorrect. -------
The guy was using his church membership to bolster his credentials for an argument that tears down the church. What they did was take away the assumed authority that he was speaking for the church. There's no censorship or shunning; it's more like a giagantic "We don't agree."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think Tres made a functionally empty argument with no other point than to say that he didn't agree with these religions.
This is not correct though. My point was not just that I disagreed with it, but that I disagreed with it for a specific reason - namely that the given practice is inconsistent with a certain interpretation of Christ. These are not functionally equivalent because, although I suspect noone would reject these churches' actions just because I say I disagree with them, I suspect many might reject those actions if they were in conflict with the teachings of Christ.
quote:Sounds like what he suggests in the book is not provable or disprovable, but it could be refuted, point for point if you were willing to do so. Though I have no problem with the church deciding to restrict his fellowship, I wonder if any good will really come of it. Not my business, really, but it seems sad all the way around.
I agree with that question... Historically, has any good ever came of that sort of thing? Generally, I think that in the long run being banned or censored in any way tends to actually lend legitimacy to what is being restricted.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree that the author is a non-story.
I missed the thread on baptizing dead people. So if I'm burning in hell or wandering around in the ether, an angel is going to track me down in the ever after and ask me to accept? It sounds like a good deal, but how do the people on earth know whether I accepted?
[ December 13, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yep - I like the "angel tracks you down and asks if you accept" explanation. The people on earth don't know - that doesn't matter. You don't go on membership roles or anything.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Sweet. There something kind of virtuous about that.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heh, I thought it was funny when someone stated here that they thought a major chunk of LDS membership was comprised of dead people who had had the ordinance done for them.
Talk about padding the numbers!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
...
I think this is a lot like Samson walking into a building and having the ushers ask him to stay away from the pillars.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Ah, thanks for posting this Olivia. It sums up how I feel.
When quoting Matthew 22:37, it pays to look at the final word:
quote:Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
We're supposed to love God with our minds - we are supposed to be thinking, intelligent beings. Our faith should not be considered a blind one, but rather one that can be questioned - should be questioned! Only by asking questions can one learn more. I read all viewpoints, I've read many a book that had some pretty heretical stuff in it - if my faith was so weak that it affected me it would be sad thing for me.
I can understand the mormon church not wanting to bless the efforts of someone that is saying their religion is, ultimately, a fraud. And if this guy believes that, truly believes Joseph Smith made everything up, then why would he want to remain a mormon anyway? Doesnt' really make sense.
However, I think people of any faith should never be afraid to hold their beliefs up to the light and see if they pass muster. If you are afraid to do that, it says something about what you call faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think this is a lot like Samson walking into a building and having the ushers ask him to stay away from the pillars.
That's funny, Hobbesy.
I thought it was more like Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah before they saw the angel.
Or, alternatively, think of Akma and the sons of Motiak. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Olivia has also summed up how I feel. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel the same way about it.
Disfellowshipping this guy takes away his ability to claim that what he is saying is in accordance with the church. NO ONE IS SILENCING HIM or advocating that.
[ December 13, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay, so...the bit about his book eroding other people's faith...was that happening because those people assumed that what he wrote was in accordance with the church because he was still a full member?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Letting him continue to use his church membership as part of his claim to authority would be tantamount to the church supporting false doctrine.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I don't think there's any doubt his own involvement in LDS has been used to promote the book. Here's a blurb about him from an Amazon link:
quote:About the Author Grant H. Palmer (M.A., American history, Brigham Young University) is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, a former instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations. He has been active in the Mormon History Association and on the board of directors of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. Now retired, his principle hobby is pigeon fancying. He has four children and eight grandchildren; he and his wife live in Sandy, Utah.
This probably accounts for the response - it's an "insider" book - and now he's not as "inside" as he once was.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This is all a little strange from someone brought up in a Congregationalist church, where varying interpretations are welcomed... I'd like to see if what he was writing was simply a refutation of the Book of Mormon (in which case I think the church's response is well within their right, even if it's not the way I'd go about it), or rather an opinion that the Book, while written by J. Smith, was still inspired. Even if he thinks it's fabricated, he might think that it's still the best book on morals, and would want to remain Mormon because of what the church is and does in this lifetime.
Of course, now I'm being apolegetic for an incident I have no real basis for.
-Bok
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, people's credentials are often used to sell their books....I don't see a problem with that.
I've seen many a book full of what I call heretical ideas published by people who say they're members of a protestant church and teach seminary or have theology degrees.
No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think one of the primary reasons given not to trust outsiders' views (at least, that I've seen) is that they do not now nor have they ever loved the Church. How would they know what it was really like? And given the particular nature of faith in the LDS Church, how would one know if this person ever gave the Scriptures a chance?
So I can see why the author's having been a faithful member and having received training at BYU, e.g., might be relevant to publicizing a controversial book about the LDS. However, I see no problem with the disfellowshipment. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, people's credentials are often used to sell their books....I don't see a problem with that.
I've seen many a book full of what I call heretical ideas published by people who say they're members of a protestant church and teach seminary or have theology degrees.
No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Right. Which is why they're not suing to get him to be honest about his relationship. Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Like someone said upstream, almost all male members are clergy in the church. Since it's all lay ministry, speaking as an insider does imply that the church accepts what is being said.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Belle- What if it was an assistant pastor of your church who wrote a book, to use someone else's example, stating that the Gospels were made up by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as a moral lesson, but Jesus didn't really exist. And what if right on the front cover it stated that he was an assistant pastor at your church. Wouldn't the church be justified in letting him go? I can think of very few churches that would keep him on in such circumstances. That's what's happening here. He's no longer allowed to give talks in service, or to pray publically for the congregation. He's still allowed to come to church, sure, but he's no longer in a position of authority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider."
But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Belle:
About what you said about reason and faith -- word.
----
RE this:
quote:Keep in mind that pretty much all male members of the LDS church are considered clergy, which makes the situation a little different than it would be for a Protestant or Catholic church.
And this:
quote: No where does it say the Mormon church endorsed his book.
Both good points. However, because of that, LDS often (wrongly, imo) give greater credence to those who seem to have a certain church impramateur *even though* church authorities have been pretty clear about the fact that although they may say/write good things, their words aren't canonical or even official.
Those who have been or are BYU professors or LDS insitute directors (they teach religion classes to college students) have a certain credibility within the Mormon community. That's a big part of the problem with this case, imo.
And while I think that on a personal level, it's important that Palmer go through this process. On another level, I'd like to see church officials actually back off of some of the semi-official (but not really official) stuff that gets people confused and instead encourage rigorous study and prayer. I think, for instance, that it might be better in the long run if the LDS Church give up it's ownership of Deseret Book. Granted, they are somewhat careful to not make it look like the church endorses all of DB's products, but because there is a relationship there, some members think that everything that is published is the gospel truth (and conversely if something is published by another company it must be, you know, dubious).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:image the LDS church wishes to present.
And the doctrine it teaches, and the foundation of the church. Come on, Tom.
quote:On another level, I'd like to see church officials actually back off of some of the semi-official (but not really official) stuff that gets people confused and instead encourage rigorous study and prayer.
Don't they now? That's the impression I always got - the final word is the scriptures, and the only books the church endorses are the missionary library. Everything else is personal commentary.
[ December 13, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And frankly, using his involvement with the church to sell the book is something he should protest against if he really cares about the church.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Right. Which is why they're not suing to get him to be honest about his relationship. Instead, they're publicizing that he is not an insider.
Actually, the church is not publicizing anything at all. As was mentioned earlier, the decisions of church councils of this nature are not spoken of outside of the council. Ever. So the publicizing is being done by the author himself.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
No. It indicates that he's switched lenses. A valid thing to do. But his previous status doesn't do anything to validate his historical claims -- which should be reviewed on their own merit and not sold as "well, he should know -- he was one of them."
As I understand it, his book doesn't deal with anything that's secret. All that it proves is that a member can lose their faith and as a result buy into the semi-historical, pseudo-scholarly approach that some have used to explain the Book of Mormon and other claims related to early Mormonism.
In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar. That doesn't mean one should entirely dismiss the results of his scholarship -- all I'm saying is that his previous position does nothing to add weight or authority to his scholarship.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Not to mention the media, some of whom love to jump on the church.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
kat:
Sure. In word.
But it's real easy to have the personal commentary that some people have when they see the close relationship that certain businesses, authors, venues, etc. have with authorities of the church.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar. That doesn't mean one should entirely dismiss the results of his scholarship -- all I'm saying is that his previous position does nothing to add weight or authority to his scholarship.
Zal, you don't think the following is true? (*honestly curious)
quote:I think one of the primary reasons given not to trust outsiders' views (at least, that I've seen) is that they do not now nor have they ever loved the Church. How would they know what it was really like? And given the particular nature of faith in the LDS Church, how would one know if this person ever gave the Scriptures a chance?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But he was an insider until he went public with his inside knowledge, right? The fact that he was disfellowshipped doesn't invalidate his previous experience as a respected Mormon; it merely indicates that his historical claims are inconsistent with the image the LDS church wishes to present.
But it does say that this is not a position consistent with that of the church, and that the difference is serious enough that the church as a whole is repudiating it.
I'm not talking some nebulous concept of credibility here - I'm talking agency. The man does not speak for the church, and the church has made this clear.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...maybe selling Deseret Book would be a good thing then.
I figure they have to have a close relationship with somebody. Everything outside of official doctrine - scriptures, manuals, and General Conference - is by definition culture and I'm not required to believe.
I had a recomend interview when I was 18 where I expressed some severe doubt about my institute teachers, and the bishop said that was totally fine. So, no problem there. I don't read LDS non-fiction, commentary books at all, mostly because it feels like someone is using the church to make a profit and that annoys me.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Sara:
I do think that it is true.
But it all depends on what we're talking about.
I think that when it comes to the personal and social experiences of being an insider, it's very true -- when it comes to the sharing of personal narratives. That's while I tend not to denigrate the narratives of faithful or lapsed (or even antagonistic) Mormons or outside observers as long as they remain at the level of personal discourse -- "this is how I experienced it."
When it comes to the level of historical or socio-cultural claims, however, I think that things should be approached as one does any academic inquiry -- with skepticism and awareness of the agendas of those who are presenting their theories and supporting evidence whether they be insider, outsider, or former insider.
The genius (however you choose to interpet the source of that term) of the Book of Mormon is that it makes both spiritual and historical claims -- it's a damn document, a textual product. If Joseph Smith had just preached his doctrines and said that God had revealed it to him, then it'd be easy -- either you believe what he said or you don't.
As far as I can tell, there's nobody involved in writing about it who is equipped to deal with it. The truth claims it makes requires too much for either academics or apologists or anti-LDS activists. It's beautifully, wonderfully maddening Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks for the explanation, Zal. I understand your perspective a whole lot better. It did help. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I think, for instance, that it might be better in the long run if the LDS Church give up it's ownership of Deseret Book. Granted, they are somewhat careful to not make it look like the church endorses all of DB's products, but because there is a relationship there, some members think that everything that is published is the gospel truth (and conversely if something is published by another company it must be, you know, dubious).
Exactly. I've been irked by semi-official Mormon fiction (like the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites books) for quite some time. I live in an area where Mormons are the minority, and when we take trips to Utah or Idaho and go to Desert Book, a lot of us (teenage me included) get the mistaken impression that the cultural phenomena of Utah are part of our religion. Things that come from a church-sanctioned book store must be church-sanctioned, right? This is especially dangerous with the new HaleStorm movies and other Mormon cinema - kids who don't live in Utah don't know the difference between Finding Faith in Christ and The Singles' Ward. They end up getting overly concerned with all types of cultural nonsense that have nothing to do with the doctrine of the church.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
May or May not be a relevant analogy, however, Mr. Kevin Smith wrote and directed a film entitled Dogma that called into question many of the beliefs held true and concrete in the Catholic Church. He made the film while constantly reaffirming the fact that he is a proud and firm Catholic meanwhile Questioning much of the church's doctrine. Yes, some of it was satire, some tongue in cheek, but many of the points brought up are believed to be at least POSSIBLE by the Kevin Smith. some members of the church protested, some public statements were made by the church. Do you believe the Catholic church reserves the right to excommunicate Mr. Smith? Should they keep Mr. Smith from receiving the body and blood of Christ?
once again, may be considered irrelevant...
[ December 13, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I've been irked by semi-official Mormon fiction (like the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites books) for quite some time.
How can anybody think that is even slightly official? Have you really talked to anybody that doesn't realize that Single's Ward is not about the LDS Church, but about mormon culture?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
If the church willed it, sure. This isn't a big deal. The guy can still worship. He can hold on to his faith. He made a decision when he published the book, and I don't see the consequences as being that vicious? Has it cost him his job?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In other words, his experience only has weight within the context of a believing member -- i.e. in terms of his faith per se. Outside of it, he's just another skeptic and amateur scholar."
Except that he's not an amateur scholar, is he? Until he decided that he had been believing a lie, and the facts didn't support his case, he was considered a completely reputable "real" scholar by the church. What makes him more of an amateur than the people at FARMS?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Have you really talked to anybody that doesn't realize that Single's Ward is not about the LDS Church, but about mormon culture?
No, but I did talk to several people who didn't get it-- because they are the characters in that movie.
[ December 13, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Ben:
This is my own personal opinion, and I do know that there have been at least two LDS writers who have been part of a church disciplinary process [Although, again, because the church chooses to keep the details of such things private, how much the actual art had to do with it and whether or not other questions were part of the process is entirely speculative, or if the person chooses to speak out -- one-sided], but I tend to give artistic discourse more leeway than I do other forms of discourse.
Mainly because our society tends to value "fact-centered" (i.e. non-artistic) discourse so much.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also: on being an "insider."
There are no "insiders" in the LDS faith. There are those in leadership positions who direct the church, but there is no inner party that has access to things that others do not.
Palmer's claim that being an institute director made him an insider to suppressed information is silly. I served for two years as the student president of my Institute. In this position, I worked with two counselors and the Institute director in overseeing social events as well as deciding the courses of study to be taught at the institute. I am good friends with my institute director, and know exactly where his curriculum comes from. The courses of study are regulated strictly by the Church Educational System, and those who teach it are not given access to anything that is not available to the general membership of the church. There are no secret doctrines on the life of Joseph Smith that the church doesn't want to get out.
Palmer's research was an independent venture. Others have done similar research on the life of the prophet, others like Dallin H. Oakes, former Utah supreme court justice and currently one of the church's twelve apostles. As a law student at the University of Chicago, he conducted independent research on the legality of claims made against Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo period. His conclusions casted the prophet in a positive light; however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle. He doesn't publish books with blurbs that say, "this research, conducted by an apostle of the church, provides an insider's viewpoint on legal matters from the 1840's that you won't read anywhere else."
The church hasn't said anything to its membership about avoiding the works of Palmer and others who write things counter to accepted doctrine. It does, however, have a right to distinguish the work of "insiders" working in official church capacities from those working outside of what is acceptable and sanctioned.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
TomD:
I consider all CES employees (CES = Church Educational System i.e. institute and seminary teachers) to be amateur scholars.
And, yes, for the most part the FARMS people are amateurs. But I consider all apologetics to be amateur scholarly work -- which isn't to say it isn't valuable or "true."
Until their work is peer reviewed and they stop with the smarmy sometimes viturpative attacks on anti-LDS activists, FARMS is suspect. But I probably take a more dim view of them than most [while at the same time, I like some of what they've published that I've read].
-----
Of course, many Mormons aren't super concerned with what either FARMS or Palmer is writing.
Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:How can anybody think that is even slightly official? Have you really talked to anybody that doesn't realize that Single's Ward is not about the LDS Church, but about mormon culture?
I'm not familiar with people who would honestly think that Mormon fiction is doctrinal.
I do, however, know far too many people who base their testimonies on things they read in The Work and the Glory and read exerpts from Children of the Promise during Relief Society lessons. Youth outside of Utah often get the mistaken impression that LDS media are part of their religion - they're not familiar enough with the existence of a Mormon culture to know that there's a difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"His conclusions casted the prophet in a positive light; however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle."
*polite cough* I'm not going to say what I'm thinking, here. But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom? *grin*
-------
"Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity."
*nod* But, by the same token, as you've pointed out, the Book of Mormon (like the Bible) makes a number of verifiable historical claims and, unlike the Bible, cannot -- somewhat ironically -- claim mistranslation or a poor signal-to-noise ratio. This does make historical research, particularly in the Americas, more important to Mormons than many other faiths; it's in tacit acknowledgement of this that institutions like FARMS exist in the first place.
[ December 13, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What makes him more of an amateur than the people at FARMS?
I'm a little dubious about FARMS. It's helpful for some people, because it gives another perspective that someone may not have thought of, but FARMS is also not officially a branch of the church.
quote:however, they are not considered church doctrine even though he currently serves as an apostle
It's not considered doctrine unless its said in General Conference or labeled as such.
They are still just people, Tom. Even the book Mormon Doctrine, written by a sitting apostle, is not considered actual doctrine.
quote:the conventional wisdom
Saying things like "conventional wisdom" and "the image the church is trying to project" is biased and not what LDS think about themselves. It's transferring your cynicism onto those who don't have it.
[ December 13, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Most people's faith doesn't rest on whether or not the FARMS folks successfully parry the next attack on Book of Mormon historicity.
Outside of Utah, I have met very few people who follow or take seriously FARMS research. Most have never heard of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Outside of Utah, I have met very few people who follow or take seriously FARMS research."
When debating the historicity -- or lack thereof -- of the Book of Mormon with members of the LDS church, it has been my experience that most members willing to have the conversation (rather than just writing me off as an "anti-" and running away) tend to refer to FARMS research as authoritative. While this is anecdotal, I suspect that most Mormon apologetics are very reliant on FARMS-type studies.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom?
What do you mean by "been particularly kind?" I don't think they've tarred and feathered any of them. I don't think they've blacklisted them. I don't think they've spoken against anyone specifically from the pulpit. They've disfellowshipped and excommunicated many... but part of a church member's temple worthiness interview is an affirmation that they do not uphold or promote doctrines that are contrary to those of the church. People who do so can not enjoy the benefits of being a member in good standing.
The church is under no obligation to put up with teachings that are contrary to doctrine. Is the Sierra Club required to let George W. Bush write articles for its newsletter?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:While this is anecdotal, I suspect that most Mormon apologetics are very reliant on FARMS-type studies.
I think you're probably having these conversations with a certain demographic within the Mormon community. Most church members, if asked about archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't even answer archaeologically. The would say that they don't know and don't particularly care where the ruins of Zarahemla can be found. The official church position is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual document and not a historical record to be proven by archaeologists.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Personally I like FARMS just because if someone keeps insisting they have proof that the BoM can't be true for this that and the other reason (archelogically) and no amount of "I haven't looked into that yet and don't much care that such and such ruins didn't have such and such painting" will get them to stop bugging me I can refer them to FARMS. It may be just as meaningless as all the rationalization going on against the Church, but it's proof that you can rationalize from either side and it's probably not a good place to start the foundation of your testimony.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"it's probably not a good place to start the foundation of your testimony"
Because, y'know, God forbid you base your testimony on provable fact. j/k
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah, well the whole point was that niether side is provable.
Hobbes Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
TomD:
Well, duh.
That's because such conversation are, in my opinion, not that much different from doctrinal discussions such as whether or not Christ said that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of god or if the sabbath day should be celebrated on Saturday or Sunday.
Each side has their script -- horses! DNA! -- and they go through it. Of course Mormons are going to use FARMS' work -- that's what apologetics is for.
And that's the whole problem with apologetics -- as well as with those who are amateur debunkers of the LDS.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
There's provable and then there's provable .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
At some point, Zal, we have to entertain the idea that we may not in fact be Napoleon, no matter how confident we are that Josephine has our cell phone number. Know what I mean?
[ December 13, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Here are the relevant links from FARMS. Whether you like FARMS or not, these are the most knowledgeable scholars in the field. And be nice -- one of the articles is by my father, one of the most prominent LDS historians ever.
Kristine Card
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm Napoleon. I don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Yeah, but, what if Josephine actually calls you up from time to time? Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
RE Kristine's post:
To be fair, I should mention that while engaged in collaborative goals, FARMS isn't a monolithic enterprise. FARMS authors vary in their tone and in the quality of their work.
That said, my points about apologetics stand. A useful critical tool, but *a* and not *the only* tool.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, this may come as a revelation to you, but the use of and j/k doesn't make your catty little remarks either more funny or less insulting.
Dagonee
[ December 13, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nor any less accurate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nor more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's difficult to get more than 100% accuracy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but thankfully Tom isn't close to approaching that difficulty.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
100% is such an artificial limit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Plainly, our opinions differ on that score.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Even the book Mormon Doctrine, written by a sitting apostle
He was a Seventy when he wrote it, not an Apostle, I believe Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Plainly, our opinions differ on that score.
Yes, but as you and Tom are leading advocates of ridicule and disrespect when it comes to religion on the board, I'm not surprised at that.
[ December 13, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Wow, the discourse has taken a remarkably mature turn.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well that was a useful bit of back and forth.
Annie: Jinx! Now you have to kiss me.
Hobbes
[ December 13, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Hobbes, I'm on AIM and you are not. I agree with 100% of that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*curtseys to Taalcon's superior knowledge*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm in the civil engineering lab, but we'll see what we can do about that AIM express you kids have got now a' days.
Hobbes Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I agree that I think no one here is Napoleon.
Probably.
Maybe.
[ December 13, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You mean the little guy who wears funny hats and sticks his hand inside his shirt?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
You know how to stop me, but you don't have the discipline.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Could those who have been through the temple be considered LDS insiders?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
First, we'll take Manhatten.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Maybe "inside-the-Templer"ers...
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Well, I think so, Kat, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Maybe "inside-the-Templer"ers...
Well, if they went to evening events, they could write about...
"Inside the nights of the templerers"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
And then Wong Kar-wai could make a movie out of it that becomes a smashing success in China.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Only after hiding the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm not going to say what I'm thinking, here. But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom? *grin*
It takes more than challenging the conventional wisdom to get an historian in trouble with the Church. My own grandfather has looked into a lot of issues and come up with interesting takes on things that some members and leaders of the church would rather see left alone (eg, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision), and it has never landed him in a disciplinary council.
It isn't history or questions that the Church has a problem with. It's conclusions. If you draw the conclusion from your work (in whatever field, amateur or professional) that the Church's teachings are false, and if you publicize that conclusion, then the Church is quite right to ask, "Then why are you still a member?"
Unfortunately, certain historians (notably, D. Michael Quinn) who have drawn such conclusions have made their issue with the Church into a public debate about freedom of thought, as though they were just a few poor, persecuted scholars who dared merely to question the tyrannical authority of the big scary Church. They portray themselves as new Copernici (heh heh) and Galileos, when in truth, their story is no more grand and noble than that of any lay member who loses their faith.
People lose or abandon faith all the time. And oddly, in the case of this church, people also turn around and try to "expose" the Church they once believed in. Being an historian doesn't make anyone special in this regard. It just gives them a different podium to preach from.
Anyway, my point is, historians are not being singled out for special treatment. Rather, historians are offended because they are being treated exactly like everyone else. If you lose your faith and publically preach against the core doctrines of the Church, you get disfellowshipped. Being an historian doesn't transform your opinions about your faith into scientific findings worthy of extra credence and respect.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Darn not-noticing-third-pages!
If the conversation has moved on since that page-2 quote, feel free to ignore me.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
:: ignores puppy ::
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:The official church position is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual document and not a historical record to be proven by archaeologists.
Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
Events like that involve things like new world Jewish cities, metal weapons, horses, chariots, mid-19th century middle class political thought, that sort of thing.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
They even put that exact sentance on the title page.
Hobbes Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm not saying that we think the historical parts of the Book of Mormon isn't true. I'm just saying that that's not its purpose.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
It does? Where?
Its authors claim do several times to not be able to include even the hundredth part of the goings-on of the people. The Book of Mormon is intended to be more of a record of the teachings and the spiritual aspects of the civilization(s) within.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Foust:
That's a pretty standard anti-LDS litany. I recognize that you may find it compelling and don't find the apologetic responses convincing, but if dismissing the Book of Mormon on such grounds, you're really missing out on some good stuff -- whether it's historicity is valid or not.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I haven't read the book, and I haven't read about 66% of the posts here, so I'm probably de-railing things by saying this, but here goes...
quote: In the book, Palmer argues that the faith's scripture, The Book of Mormon, reflects LDS founder Joseph Smith's own 19th-century environment, not ancient America as Mormons believe. He further suggests that Smith embellished his divine revelations to respond to critics and to stabilize the church.
If this is what he argues, he basically is arguing that the story of the golden plates are false, and as such, almost everything Joseph said was false. Looking at his credentials, he has absolutely no authoritative qualifications to examine the Book of Mormon or church history. He has a Master's in American history and has taught in the Church Education system for 34 years, with a single stint at the Church's New Zealand college. What this means is that his treatment of the subject isn't as reliable as it would be if he had been a doctor, and what seems to be his goal (As I looked at the description of the book on the publisher's website is actually a good thing. My guess is that he failed miserably by adding in some personal opinion, and basically just being a bad writer. I can see how his subject matter could easilly get out of hand for someone without a good deal of experience in writing books of a historical fashion. What's funny about the author is that he attempted a doctorate, but didn't complete it. One can only guess at why. I looked a little bit into his explaination of the book. He mentions "The Salamader Letter" written by Martin Harris, explaining his reasons for financing Joseph. However, he took the letter out of context and began questioning the things the church taught. If you do something like that in a historical study, you can get a false start, which will lead you to find false proof for a false theory (I'm just going to go aside here and give the example of Bean in Ender's Shadow). You can get really close to the truth, but something that isn't completely true is in great part false. I have a hard time accepting the work this guy did as a serious treatment of history, given his credentials, history, and slant. But that's just me, I guess. And for those who think the disfellowshipment is a bad thing, please realize that I know people who have been disfellowshipped for things as seemingly non-serious as heavy petting. The purpose of this is to help him examine his stand on history, maybe it will get him to go back and take an objective look at his work to see exactly where he screwed up.
[ December 13, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Kat, shouldn't that be, "are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
With all due respect to this site's host and the LDSers here...
I'm interested in this "anti-mormon" label.
Exactly what does it mean? I've had posts deleted in the past because they were called "anti", but from my perspective, I was just trying to ask about some of the more historically difficult aspects of the BOM.
Is the "anti" label applied to anything that questions the LDS faith, or only to intentional assaults on the faith?
In what context would it be acceptable for me to ask about, say, New World horses in the pre-contact period?
It seems to me that the "anti" label is a carte blanche to stifle questions; how far am I from the truth?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
Events like that involve things like new world Jewish cities, metal weapons, horses, chariots, mid-19th century middle class political thought, that sort of thing.
You have an odd way of asking questions.
Hobbes Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Haha. I should have been more clear. When I wrote about having asked questions, I was thinking about previous threads.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Perhaps you should examine your tone when posting. The way people perceive something determines whether or not it is anti-Mormon, not just the intent. If you ask what you feel is a "difficult question" in a condecending way, people will be insulted, and the thread will be removed. If you ask the same question with the intent to learn, rather than point out problems, it will more than likely stay long enough for a discussion to take place.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: In what context would it be acceptable for me to ask about, say, New World horses in the pre-contact period?
If you were to ask about it like this, it would be easy to tell you that the Spaniards never made it past the Mississippi river in the US. The fact that there weren't any horses in the heavilly forested Eastern US doesn't prevent the possibility of there being wild horses at the time in the wide open plains of the west. Rule #1 of history, you can only know what documents and archaelogical remains tell you, and you can suppose no more of history, but assuming that those documents contain absolute truth about history is just plain...well...stupid.
[ December 13, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If something claims to authoritatively talk about the events of the past, then it is a historic document.
The Book of Mormon, however, would not be the first or the most prominent historic document to seem inconsistent with certain other pieces of evidence. Almost every major religious document I can think of has a similar problem, at least among those which talk about the events of the past. Many nonreligious documents too....
[ December 13, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The fact that there weren't any horses in the heavilly forested Eastern US doesn't prevent the possibility of there being wild horses at the time in the wide open plains of the west.
Fossil record, anyone? People have searched for bones all over the Great Plains; it beggars belief that they would not have found horses if there were any. Particularly since they did find the Eohippus, or whatever it was called, that the paleo-Indians wiped out.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
How far back do you want to go? And exactly how deep are people digging to find fossils? There are a million things that could prevent more modern fossils from appearing, but, here. Continuing, what do you get when you remove the water-storage device found on camels (The hump). Can someone say, "Llama." Well, those are all over the place in South America. How many lamma fossils have been found and no one cares? How many times could a horse fossil have been found and no one cared because horses are all over the place for crying out loud? How possible is it that the dating of the horse fossils that were found is incorrect? You can't prove something is wrong using archeological evidence because we simply haven't found it all.
[ December 13, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Perhaps you should examine your tone when posting."
Because Farmgirl didn't understand that when she started this thread.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Will anyone answer my question?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Could those who have been through the temple be considered LDS insiders?
They could be, but some people would not consider them real insiders, since it is so easy to qualify to enter the temple.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It is?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't understand what the llamas have to do with it. They may look like camels, though according to Wiki you can distinguish them by dentition :
quote:The isolated canine-like premolar which follows in the camels is not present.
But they don't look anything like horses. Further, people have been studying the American megafauna for quite some time, and they do indeed find horses, lots of them. Before historical times, that is. They disappear along with the mammoths 12000 years ago. How likely is it that people would find horses up to 12k years ago, and then mistake any horses found after that for a llama?
Best link I can find. Ye gods, twenty hits on some game called "American Megafauna" and one actual article? My Google-fu must be weakening.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Hm. [Smile]
Wow, Tom, you're great at debate aren't you? I think my comment there was a little hasty, since I hadn't read the whole article. But it isn't going to get deleted because someone thinks it is insulting. The fact of the matter in this thread is that a man published a work that was passed off as a scholarly work by a person with a long background in the church that was more of a personal opinion piece. It did not fit the ideals of the church, even though the author made a point of giving his church background as a basis for his authority on the subject. That's just bad in all ways. My comment in the other thread was made under the impression that a select few people complained that a monument to a dead soldier was considered "insulting" because it depicted an Eagle and said (paraphrasing) "We support our troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Those detractors even went so far as to contest the word "Support." Come on man, it's like they were reading it as just "We support Operation Iraqi Freedom." Yes, I think wording is important, but I think meaning is more important, and for some reason, people who nit-pick over wording seems to miss what is meant in a statement....Much like you have, Tom.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: But they don't look anything like horses. Further, people have been studying the American megafauna for quite some time, and they do indeed find horses, lots of them. Before historical times, that is. They disappear along with the mammoths 12000 years ago. How likely is it that people would find horses up to 12k years ago, and then mistake any horses found after that for a llama?
Llamas have nothing to do with horses. I just threw that in for fun Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The King James Bible refers to Joseph in ancient Egypt growing corn. Does this mean that what we know today as corn isn't a new world plant like we had supposed and was actually growing in the ancient middle east?
No, it means that word usage has changed since the middle English of the King James version. Who's to say that the "horses" mentioned in the Book of Mormon aren't some other beast of burden that we don't have a name for? Who's to say that the events didn't occur in an isolated, small geographical area not condusive to fossil formation and that the populations of horses weren't fleeting in duration?
The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record. The very first prophets of the book, Nephi and Jacob, state that the small plates (the record from which Joseph translated) were meant as a spiritual record of the people and that the historical and day-to-day events were to be recorded on a separate set of plates.
quote:And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings. -Jacob 3:13
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
King James is in modern English (not in the sense that some people use it, but in the sense that it is not middle English and comes after middle English), and it is known to have (many) translation problems, both intentional and mistaken.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I'd say that most of the more provable problematic possibilities with Mormon texts arise from the Pearl of Great Price, rather than the BoM.
In the case of the BoM, the only apologetics necessary are "its a case of equivocation of meaning!" (the "horses") and "just because nobody's found it yet . . ." (lots of things).
The Pearl of Great Price has more significant problems.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Here's an interesting disclaimer, written by Moroni, the last author in the Book of Mormon:
23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock• at these things, because of our weakness• in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty• in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness• of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote• were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot• write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness•, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock• at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools• mock•, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness•. I give• unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble• themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak• things become strong unto them.
Ether 12:23-27
[ December 14, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate because it teaches you to be humble? *blink*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, you know that's not what he's saying.
Just that Moroni knew this would be happening, it freaked him out, and the Lord told him not to worry about it, his grace is enough to make up for any defficiencies.
The Book of Mormon makes a great deal more sense with the Spirit.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
mack:
I'm not sure how to answer your question. As I was using the term 'insiders' meant anyone who actively believes in the basic doctrines of the church i.e. who has a testimony.
Certainly those members who have gone through the temple have received access to 'inside' things, but because I see the temple covenants as being profoundly personal, I wouldn't consider a member who has been through the temple more of an insider than one who hadn't -- at least not if we are going by the term 'insiders' to mean like "Washington insiders" or "sources close to the team" or whatever.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:It seems to me that the "anti" label is a carte blanche to stifle questions; how far am I from the truth?
Foust:
Not at all. You seem to have misunderstood what I have been trying to say [not an unusual circumstance for me].
I responded the way I did because the instances you bring up are the standard script that I mention on page 3.
You have your obejections. The Mormon apologetics have their responses. We can go through the routine, but I'd prefer not to. It's a level of debate that I don't find all that fruitful and that boils down to what all amateur religious and political discussions seem to get to --- one's worldview -- i.e. whether one is accepting of spiritual evidences or not -- affects how one approaches the 'physical' evidences. Is it horses or llamas? Swords or war clubs? etc. etc.
Anything the apologists come up with is going to be dismissed as apologetics. And unless you are a serious expert in the field, any of the historical objections you are going to come up with are going to be founded on the work of anti-Mormons -- those who are actively trying to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon for ideological reasons (and I'm willing to be corrected on this point -- but so far, I don't know of any scholars who have approached the historicity of the Book of Mormon sans agenda).
In other words, it seems to me that you are trying to start what is at least for me a rather tired out conversation. Thus my previous response.
What I've also tried to suggest is that there are a lot of interesting things going in the Book of Mormon that I haven't seen non-LDS actively engage in. The horses et. al. stuff is small potatoes, imo.
Does that make more sense?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: and I'm willing to be corrected on this point -- but so far, I don't know of any scholars who have approached the historicity of the Book of Mormon sans agenda
I have a question: Would a Baptist scholar who approached this be considered to have an agenda simply because they were Baptist? What if they didn't mention their religious affiliation, but rather it was dragged up by someone else? Wouldn't anyone who disbelieves in Mormonism be considered to have an agenda?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote: It's a level of debate that I don't find all that fruitful and that boils down to what all amateur religious and political discussions seem to get to --- one's worldview -- i.e. whether one is accepting of spiritual evidences or not -- affects how one approaches the 'physical' evidences. Is it horses or llamas? Swords or war clubs? etc. etc.
Isn't one's worldview based on reasons, though? And if so, can't one's reasons be critiqued and discussed in a way that might allow you to question or better understand them?
Just because the difference comes down to a conflict in worldviews does not mean the discussion is not fruitful. It just means that when you get to that point, you must then discuss whether the worldviews in question are wrong or right.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I believe the agenda Zalmoxis is referring to is one of actively trying to undermine the church--for whatever reason, usually ideological--and devoting time and attention to this pursuit. Obviously a Baptist will have different viewpoints than Mormons, but that doesn't necessarily consitutute an agenda. We can vocally disagree, but do so respectfully.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Of course.
Which isn't to say that there would be no merit in their arguments. I'm all for a diversity of voices.
My emphasis, however, is always on a person's ability to engage in rigorous, intersting, fruitful dialogue (not that I'm a paragon of this). What I'm mainly objecting to is discussions -- in textual discussios (there's more leeway for in-person stuff which should be more casual) -- that basically follow the standard script for apologetics and its detractors. It's not that there is *no* value in re-hashing the same ground. But in my experience much of this is performance rather than communication -- like talk radio.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The fact of the matter in this thread is that a man published a work that was passed off as a scholarly work by a person with a long background in the church that was more of a personal opinion piece.
I have not read the book. Have you? I think it is a stretch to say that the fact is that this is just a personal opinion piece. I will buy the book today. It seems the author uses many sources, not just anti-Mormon literature. He also states pretty clearly that the anti-Mormon literature has an agenda, but we must be willing to look at all sides.
I don't think that is merely an opinion, I will let you know, AFTER I have read it and personally checked the different sources.
quote: The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record.
I was reading some of the author’s motivation for writing this book, and it seem you two are in agreement. He still is a Mormon because he believes in the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon.
If you look at it like a metaphor, then you are right, archaeological evidences don't matter.
But the Book of Mormon is supposed to be more then just a metaphor, it is literal--right? If it is literal, then we have every right to examine it with scientific eyes. There is a great deal of archaeology in Jerusalem. The location of the cities and the history being uncovered very much adds to the spirit of the Bible.
It seems strange to me to defend the Book of Mormon by dismissing the archaeology against someone who wrote a book saying that the archaeology is not important. Focus on Christ, re-examine your beliefs about the literalness of the Book of Mormon, and appreciate the stories.
The LDS church can’t do that. If they admit it is a metaphor, then it denigrates the priesthood authority. If they hold it is literal, then they are open to honest criticism to the lack of archaeological evidence. It opens doors to justified doubt. Not all doubt is anti-Christian and cantankerous in nature. The church is in a tough position, but they are a strong enough social force that I have no doubt will find a way.
I do doubt that there ever was Gold Plates that someone translated by peering at two stones in a hat. Oops, that sounded cantankerous.
It is hard to make religion literal because when you state it as it is, it just sounds flippant. Say “Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by placing two stones in a hat and looking at them to decipher glowing words” out loud. It just sounds so un-inspirational. The Gift and Power of God has a much better ring.
This is the dilemma for those of us who are re-examined the church at the request of a loved one. I am not sure if it is a dilemma for the Church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, Zal, under what circumstances could someone attempt to research the Book of Mormon's historical claims in a manner you would consider unbiased?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:The LDS church can’t do that. If they admit it is a metaphor, then it denigrates the priesthood authority. If they hold it is literal, then they are open to honest criticism to the lack of archaeological evidence. It opens doors to justified doubt. Not all doubt is anti-Christian and cantankerous in nature. The church is in a tough position, but they are a strong enough social force that I have no doubt will find a way.
It's hard to see how the Book of Mormon could be a metaphor. It's not set up to tell another story metaphorically. It is set up to illustrate and elucidate a whole bunch of doctrine while quite literally recounting events and lives. It contains metaphor in a few spots to illustrate doctrine, but that metaphor is fairly easy to distinguish from the majority of the text.
Criticism of the Book of Mormon based on archaeological evidence tends to strike Mormons as somewhat beside the point. The Book of Mormon doesn't take many pains to establish a geographical context. It's more concerned with the people, their teachings, and their interactions in the context of those teachings. The majority of its material was taken from far more comprehensive records kept by the people. Whatever appears in the Book of Mormon is there by specific and stated intent.
And with all its alleged archaeological shortcomings, we still believe it to contain the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is its intent, and that is its value to us. We believe that these people did exist and that these events really did take place, but our interest lies primarily in the application of their teachings and the lessons they learned.
Having doubt is a natural part of the learning process. Taking that doubt, however, and setting it up publicly as an alternative to Church doctrine goes against Church regulations, and the Church handles it accordingly. Why should it be any different?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Fugu, exactly. Any justification of word usage using the KJV should skip back to the Greek to double check.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote:have a question: Would a Baptist scholar who approached this be considered to have an agenda simply because they were Baptist? What if they didn't mention their religious affiliation, but rather it was dragged up by someone else? Wouldn't anyone who disbelieves in Mormonism be considered to have an agenda?
Everybody who approaches anything does it with an agenda, at least at first, and anyone who says they don't is kidding themselves.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am astounded at the attitude toward apologetics here.
I love apologetics, I do apologetics research as a hobby. Apologetics is defending the faith with factual truth. That shouldn't be something to be shied away from.
If your faith is true - if what you believe is sound, then you should welcome questions against it! It should give you a chance to 1) reaffirm your own beliefs and 2) help to show others the truth of what you believe.
I read constantly - things written by Christians and by those who do not believe and set out to disprove some of the claims of Christianity.
I've had fellow Christians tell me things like "Oh don't read Da Vinci code, it attaks Christianity." No thank you, I want to know what it says, because I believe I know the truth and it doesn't threaten me. Only by reading it and dealing with the claims made in it (which were ridiculous) was I able to say confidently that nothing in that book is a threat to my belief system. If I don't read it and confront what it says, it's always in the back of my mind "Gee, I wonder if the reason nobody wanted me to read the Da Vinci code is because there is some truth to it..."
I watched "Last Temptation of Christ", it was a way of generating some intriguing conversation. What if the devil had tempted Christ with such a vision - it certainly would have been powerful, but the point is Christ didn't give into such temptations. Since I know he didn't give into it, then why is that movie a threat to me?
If you believe the book of MOrmon to be historically true - and the other sacred texts - they why not welcome questions about it and have dialogue with the people who are questioning you? Deleting posts and refusing to discuss it because everyone who brings up a question is immediately labeled as "anti-Mormon" smacks of fear.
This book written by this guy should be something that Mormons read and then address - not just the apologetics groups, but everyday Mormons so they can be aware of it and address the points brought up by it.
I think it's inherent on the follower of any belief system to be firmly grounded in what they believe and why they believe it. Like I said in an earlier post, we are to love God with all our mind - not just our heart and spirit. We should use the intelligence we were given to examine our beliefs, and if what we beleive is true it will hold up under the scrutiny. If you're afraid to even examine it (and I know many Christians even in my own church who are, so this isn't an attack merely on Mormons) then you seem to have a pretty shallow faith indeed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think it's inherent on the follower of any belief system to be firmly grounded in what they believe and why they believe it.
I agree.
But the belief system is not based on historical research and mental gymnastics. To be firmly grounded in what he believes and why he believes it, one studies the scriptures like crazy, prays for the spirit, and lives in accordance with the gospel as best one can.
FARMS is not necessary - just helpful sometimes, for some people. It's not canon, and it's not sine qua non.
[ December 14, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, exactly. [to belle]
[ December 14, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What part of mine do you disagree with, mack?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I didn't say I did or didn't.
What do you consider mental gymnastics?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Munches popcorn....
I think I know how this is going to play out...
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
TomD:
No one is unbiased. And I'd say that's even more true when it comes to a faith as young and as highly charged as Mormonism.
Note I have never said that there is *no* value in looking critically at the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And I have said that a plurality of voices is important -- although some voices have more credibility than others.
My points are these:
1. In my experience because of the particular conditions related to Mormonism those who engage in a study of it -- esp. those based on historicity concerns -- tend to have more of an agenda/bias than say your normal, everyday academic (I have my doubts that such a thing exists, but for the sake of clarity here).
2. No. 1 is evidenced by the fact that most work in this field is done by and marshalled by those who engage in apologetics and Mormon skeptic-ness (to not use the anti word) -- thus my comments about the whole script thing -- horses, swords, etc. Because both sides are convinced one way or the other, their arguments are only convincing to those who are already convinced.
3. Academics who are doing work in, say, Latin American archeology and anthroplogy are, naturally, not going to buy into Book of Mormon historicity. Thus one might assume that any descriptions that they come up with of the ancient Americas that don't seem to fit in with Book of Mormon historicity automatically discount that historicity. I think that such work should be given more weight than the work of the skeptics and the apologists. However, to what extent those sources apply are complicated by the fact that they weren't intended to prove anything one way or the other in terms of Mormonism.
The question then becomes -- how does one make such application? And that again thrusts us into the realm of apologetics.
-----
Also: of course then there's the whole problem and the crux of dealing with an ideology that makes both spiritual and historical claims and privileges personal exepriences with deity as a way of knowing the truth of something.
How can a person who has not had such (subjective -- which raises a whole other set of problems, something we've discussed before) experiences be trusted to get it right, to not let their skepticism interfere with the lenses and assumptions they bring to their research?
How can someone who has had such subjective experiences be trusted -- afterall, aren't they going to be more willing to consider evidences and create explanations that fit in with what they believe to be true on a metaphysical level?
This is why, I think that when one is approaching a study of Mormonism, a person should focus on three things.
1. The core doctrines taught and how they cohere --- thinks like the premortal life and the eternal nature of our being (i.e. the rejection of creation ex nihilo), the nature of God, the Mormon understanding of Christ, the whole thing with priesthood and ordinances, etc.
2. The community and practices of worship. What is it like to worship with Mormons?
3. Study of scripture and sincere prayer for the subjective (i.e. personal) spiritual experiences. Such experiences form the foundation of believing Mormons testimonies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Out of curiosity, do you or not?
---
Things of the spirit must be understood with the spirit. I agree with Galileo (I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.) and Paul (But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.).
Attempting to understand the mysteries with only intellect and neglecting the things the Lord has said will lead to knowledge and testimony (repentance, prayer, obedience, and scripture study) is a great way to get to know your own mind better, but heaven stays closed.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't know yet.
Okay, so mental gymnastics is the scholarly study of the scripture without discerning the spirit? Or are you defining it another way?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Belle:
I agree with what you say about apologetics. I think it has its place.
At the same time there are major limitations to such a form of discourse -- as I've mentioned.
In fact the only thing that I really take issue with is this:
quote:If you believe the book of MOrmon to be historically true - and the other sacred texts - they why not welcome questions about it and have dialogue with the people who are questioning you?
That's totally fine with me. But I'd like to emphasiss the "dialogue" part of it. In my experience, many who bring up the issue aren't looking for dialogue -- after all, they've probably already read the responses by apologetists -- instead they're looking to follow the script [I'm not saying there's a specific actual script out there -- rather I'm saying this is the type of conversation that apologetics-type discussions tend to encourage]. Again -- it's like talk radio. I don't find that much value in talk radio.
But that's just me.
This is the entire problem with conversations between believers and skeptics. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. But I try to do my best here. And I appreciate those like TomD and Belle who are at willing to listen to and address the substance of our discussions.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Belle, I have no objection to Palmer writing his book. I don't think it's dangerous for Mormons to read. I have read plenty of books in my time that challenge my faith. I like to live by the maxims of one of my favorite teachers: "Don't be afraid to ask the hard questions. The Gospel is true; it can take whatever you throw at it."
I do, however, have a problem with Palmer writing a book like this and citing his positions of Church authority to qualify him as an "insider," giving the mistaken idea to many that what he is teaching is sanctioned by a church, or worse, kept as some deep dark secret by a church that doesn't want it to get out. That is the problem here, and why I've been defending the church's actions.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Annie, since you're posting here I'm going to assume that either A) You're taking a break from your paper, or B) You haven't started yet, C) You've finished. If it's either C, or A for another little bit, you should be aware that I'm on AIM.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Annie, I did not say the church should endorse his book. I have no problem with the church's actions, they don't have to support something that goes against what they believe to be truth.
And kat, I do not mean to insinuate that the spirit has nothing at all to do with faith. I just don't think that God intends us to say "Spiritually, I know through prayer and revelation that God is real and that's the end of it." I think it's inherent upon us to know the factual basis behind our beliefs, not necessarily for our own sake, but as a witnessing tool.
quote:This is the entire problem with conversations between believers and skeptics. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is.
Well the solution certainly isn't to refuse to have the conversation.
I have dialogued or argued or whatever you want to call it with plenty of people who have pre-conceived notions - and in most cases it wasn't at all immediately clear if it was beneficial for me. I've been beaten down by people who've called me names. And I've gone through periods of time where I just didn't want to do it anymore and I've taken breaks.
But, since I know what I believe to be true, I always come back to it. And I've had people come back to me later to tell me they admired my stand and that much of what I said made sense to them, they just didn't want to admit it at the time.
That would not have been possible if I were afraid or just unwilling to have the conversation because I thought the person's mind was already made up. If you think someone's mind is made up - then change it! I mean, if you possess the ultimate truth, isn't that possible? After all, I'm just a messenger, it's God who changes hearts and minds, but part of my mission on earth is to obey him and carry the truth to others, even if they seem hostile to me.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:If you ask the same question with the intent to learn, rather than point out problems, it will more than likely stay long enough for a discussion to take place.
And that is exactly what I want to do. I'm sitting here in London, Canada, and Mormons aren't exactly thick on the ground. The LDS here are pretty much the only flesh and blood sources I have.
quote:If you were to ask about it like this, it would be easy to tell you that the Spaniards never made it past the Mississippi river in the US.
Boris, isn't it a standard position among the LDS that the BOM took place largely in Mesoamerica?
I understand the distinction between official doctrine and popular LDS belief, and I know the local of the BOM isn't official doctrine. But am I right to think that is the standard belief among churchmembers?
Where do you stand on that issue? If the BOM took place in Mesoamerica, than the Spaniards' experiences weigh heavily.
quote:No, it means that word usage has changed since the middle English of the King James version. Who's to say that the "horses" mentioned in the Book of Mormon aren't some other beast of burden that we don't have a name for?
Here's a point of doctrine I need clarification on.
Wasn't the BOM miracuously translated from the Reformed Egyption? I didn't think Joseph Smith was relying on his own abilities.
Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
quote:The point is, the archaeological record doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon isn't meant as a historical record.
Over here, people are talking about the value of a religion if its historical claims are invalid.
So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
That seems to me to be what you're suggesting, Annie. By insisting that the BOM is not a historical record, are the LDS saying it doesn't matter if the historical claims are literally accurate?
quote:And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock• at these things, because of our weakness• in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty• in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them
What does this mean? It seems like you're saying that the historical facts stated in the BOM are not connected to the truth of the spiritual doctrines.
quote:Anything the apologists come up with is going to be dismissed as apologetics. And unless you are a serious expert in the field, any of the historical objections you are going to come up with are going to be founded on the work of anti-Mormons
Do you believe that the entire fields of North American archeology and paleontology are intentionally anti-mormon, then?
When an archeologist that knows nothing of the LDS faith outlines a Mesoamerican timeline that has no room for an advanced Jewish civlization, what is the basis of that? Is it a matter of spiritual corruption - that he unintentionally attacks the faith? Or has he been misled by others in the field who are intentionally anti-Mormon?
quote:What I've also tried to suggest is that there are a lot of interesting things going in the Book of Mormon that I haven't seen non-LDS actively engage in. The horses et. al. stuff is small potatoes, imo.
I am 100% willing to talk about this stuff with someone. I've got a copy of the BOM sitting beside me, and if any of the LDSers here want to educate me over email or MSN, I'm willing to have a go at it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Whether or not the Book of Mormon is 'historically accurate' or not is beside the point. There are evidences for its claim that it comes out of a Middle Eastern milieu, there are evidences against it. Most members of the Church are uninterested in either of those sides. To them (us) its relevance, its importance, its proof, come from what it has done for them. It has transformed their lives, made them better people, and most importantly, brought them to Christ. Even Palmer admits it is to be commended for that. THAT is where its worth lies. Everything else is irrelevant. So what if it's proven to be 100% historically correct; if it hasn't done what it says it's designed to do: "convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations", then it's pointless. And let's not forget that 'historical accuracy' is a pretty fragile base to build on. What is thought of as historically accurate is constantly being revised in many areas.
This is one of my favourite OSC quotes, from The Call of Earth: "The story the Oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true - but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life, and the life that disgusts me - your life, your view of life - is the lie."
The only proof of the Book of Mormon possible is the one that an individual can gain for him or herself, by seeing if the book does what it claims it can do - bring us to Christ. The other stuff is largely fairly meaningless trimmings: interesting, fun to argue about, but in the end irrelevant. I love the richness that the presence of a chiastic structure brings to the message of Alma chapter 36, for example, and that seems pretty strong evidence for a Middle Eastern origin. But I loved the MESSAGE of Alma 36 long before I knew of the chiasmus there, and the worth of its message of reconciliation and forgiveness through Christ does not depend on whether it is a genuine Hebrew chiasmus or a contrive 19th century one.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
Yes, the LDS faith would be invalid. There are some, like the author of the book we are talking about, who would say that we can take the spiritual lessons taught in the Book of Mormon and apply them to our life.
However, a major tenant of the LDS faith is priesthood authority. They are true because they have the authority from God to do their ordinances. If Joseph Smith lied about the BoM and did not have the priesthood authority to translate the BoM, the LDS church looses its’ claim of being the restored church.
The church defines itself as non-protestant. It is not just a good church, it is THE CHURCH. Joseph Smith can't lie and the church be true. The stories in the BoM are factual; otherwise, the church is false.
The BoM title page states:
quote: Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
It is the keystone of the faith. It must be true (including the story of how it was translated) or everything else falls apart.
[ December 14, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
I don't know about other Mormons, but I've never claime that it's inerrant -- innerrant and inspired aren't the same thing in my book.
I also don't think that the source material is inerrant -- it's clearly filtered through both the authors and the overall editor/compiler.
There's also a question of translating for a target audience. That sounds like a cop out to any skeptic, but what if God was actually working with the translator's existent discursive resources and the intended audience?
--------
quote:Do you believe that the entire fields of North American archeology and paleontology are intentionally anti-mormon, then?
When an archeologist that knows nothing of the LDS faith outlines a Mesoamerican timeline that has no room for an advanced Jewish civlization, what is the basis of that? Is it a matter of spiritual corruption - that he unintentionally attacks the faith? Or has he been misled by others in the field who are intentionally anti-Mormon?
Of course not. They are what they are -- secular fields with certain assumptions and methodologies -- assumptions and methodologies that are subject to change, I might add -- although, usually such changes are for the better. Are you saying that the current MesoAmerican narrative categorically leaves no room for Book of Mormon historicity?
The whole problem, as I see it, is that skeptics see the current field and think "well that's settled." On the other hand, the apolgists keep saying "well that could be this and there's still more we don't know."
How much is enough to discount or prove the historicity?
----- You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it.
----- Belle's fine post on engaging in conversation aside (and I mean that --- very good and something I needed to hear). Finally, I have neither the time nor interest (nor is this really the place -- or at least so I undersand) to engage in a drawn out discussion of Book of Mormon historicity. There are plenty of places on the Net where you can find that.
But I would like to ask: What do you think about the Book of Mormon in terms of meta-narration? All those places where it seems rather postmodern (to use a term incredibly loosely and faciley) in its awareness of the text as text (and even as scriptural text).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it
Well so far no archeologist has ever uncovered a counting machine in acient Meso-America.
Hobbes Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Quick note to Cashew:
I'd be careful with the chiasmus claims. They don't really prove much because it is, after all, a translated text.
Not to say that it's meaningless -- just not quite as convincing as some like to think it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hobbes, can you see the problem with OSC's argument?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(from Hobbes' link)
quote: How many of you have seen old episodes of _I Love Lucy_? The relationship between a husband and wife in that show, between males and females in general, is deeply offensive, to me at least. Actually, it was deeply offensive to me even in the fifties. I never liked Lucy as a child because I thought she was an idiot, and I really never liked her husband because I thought he treated her like a jerk -- but I had a different standard of what a husband and wife should be than the rest of American culture, apparently, because I never saw the series criticized on those grounds at the time. ... 1820s America should leap out of every page, exactly the way 1950s America leaps out of every minute of every episode of _I Love Lucy_. ... _I Love Lucy_ episodes never stopped to explain, "By the way, the husband is the head of the home and has the authority to tell his wife what to do, just as if she were a child." They assume that the audience will know that. They assume that the audience doesn't need a defense of Ricky's spanking Lucy. "By the way, this isn't wife abuse." [emphasis added]
This is fascinating. A bit of a different perspective from the more recent article about the 50's, albeit in a different context. Different essay and addressing different points, of course.
[/tangent]
[ December 14, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Having read Hobbes' link, it seems to me that Card is a bit too unwilling to give Smith credit for being able to have interests other than those that dominated his culture. For example, the argument that all the American literature of the time dealt with romantic love and women as important motivators, though not actors, while in BoM women are hardly mentioned. Well, consider contemporary culture. A touch sex-obsessed, yes? Card has been known to remark on it, in fact. Yet he himself writes books that have little or no sex in them, that do not even mention it as a lack. Ender, apparently, is a virgin until 36, but never once complains about his lack of a sex life. Clearly, this does not follow the American pattern, right? Card must be copying works from someone else's culture! Or... he's just a man with interests different from those dominating his own culture.
Later on, Card argues that parts of the book have a different voice; in particular, the Book of Alma concentrates on military matters, while nothing in Smith's life shows that he was interested in the military. Well, in the first place, how interested do you have to be to write well about something? But in the second place, if we accept multiple authorship, that does not preclude multiple hoaxing. If the book is a hoax, after all, the three-and-eight witnesses must have known it. Incidentally, are there by any chance twelve different authors to the book? And, as Card himself points out, other members of the early Church, "Samson Avard, for instance" were interested in military matters.
Card has a lot of other arguments, and at first sight, a lot of them do look good. I'm just not well-educated enough on the matter to argue convincingly. For example, several references are made to 'Joseph Smith's educational level'; what was it, exactly? Three Rs? Charity student at a cow college?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So my question is: if a particular historical claim is innaccurate - eg, it turns out that there was no Nephite civilization in the New World - is the LDS faith still valid?
That's a very good question. I've been asked if certain claims in the bible were untrue would it invalidate my faith.
On a minor detail, like how many horses were in Solomon's stable, of course not. On a major detail, like the resurrection of Christ, then yes.
I imagine that many mormons are the same way - if there is a detail that could be down to translation error or copying mistake, then it certainly wouldn't be enough to invalidate a faith. But major problems would be much harder to overcome.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just picked up a book of mine off my book shelf that is devoted to apologetics. I love having a room devoted to being a library.
Anyway, interesting tidbit here about historical reliablity and how to determine it.
Military historian C. Sanders lists and explains the basic principles of historiography: 1) the bibliographical test 2) the internal evidence test and 3) the external evidence test.
What I think most people are interested in is number 3 - what other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves?
I would love to see evidences of external evidences for the Book of Mormon, for my own education. And I think we can offer up such evidences and discuss them civilly, can we not? I mean, dialogue is the goal here, not antagonism.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: Hobbes, can you see the problem with OSC's argument?
Tom, can you see why that’s such a patronizing question?
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*grin* Nice, Hobbes. Very nice. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote: would love to see evidences of external evidences for the Book of Mormon, for my own education. And I think we can offer up such evidences and discuss them civilly, can we not? I mean, dialogue is the goal here, not antagonism.
Try this link for starters,Belle. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#mulek The things referred to here are some of the main things, but there are others. You could check out Hugh Nibley, "Since Cumorah",and others by him for discussions on things as the Hebrew background of the Book of Mormon, as well as John Welch for discussion of Hebrew literary forms in the book of Mormon, too. Here's a link on Nibley. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=13 I'm sure this will provoke comments by others who have participated in this discussion. As I said in my earlier post, the evidences are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The real evidence is in the book itself.
[ December 15, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I can see how you might figure it's patronizing. Except that I didn't want to explain something to you that I felt was mostly self-evident, because I thought that would be more patronizing. So I figured I'd ask the question, since at the very least I'm saying, by asking, that I don't know whether you see the flaw there, as opposed to acting on the assumption that you do not.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Personally, I've never found a detailed and accurate rebuttal to be patronizing in the least, even if I saw it coming. If anything, it is a show of respect to actually put effort into refuting someone's claim.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - after starting this thread, and having it go off in an entirely different direction that I had thought would happen, I was going to stay out, in respect for my Mormon friends.
But after reading the essay by OSC that Hobbes linked to -- I see that my question is still not really addressed that I can tell.
Back when I was an "investigator" (someone learning about the LDS church to see whether or not I wanted to join, which I didn't, in the end) everything basically hinged on whether or not the Book of Mormon was true -- whether or not I could believe that it was a much true as the Bible.
And here is the one thing that bugged me:
from OSC's essay:
quote: At the language and word-choice level, of course, the Book of Mormon, as a translated document, should be pure Joseph Smith. It should reflect what a man of his level of education in 1820s America thinks scripture should sound like. And of course we have exactly the ersatz King James version voice that the Prophet knew the translation would have to have if it were to be taken as scripture by the people he was going to offer it to. Fake or genuine, the Book of Mormon would need that. And, fake or genuine, the Prophet's attempt at old-fashioned formal English should reveal his lack of education -- which it does, with numerous grammatical errors and misuses of archaic forms, many of which survive even in current editions of the Book of Mormon.
But it's no surprise that the translator repeatedly errs, because this is not his natural speaking voice. No one speaks this kind of language around him. He doesn't understand the grammar, and so grammatical errors are thick on the ground. Those who believe, like David Whitmer, that the translation appeared word for word on the Urim and Thummum, are ripe for disillusionment -- or else they are accusing God of some really embarrassing grammatical errors.
For those of you who have not read the Book of Mormon, it is written much like the King James Version of the Bible, however, not quiet as well. Very old English, Thees and Thou's, etc., but not with quite the flow of the KJV of the Bible.
So here is what always puzzled me: If the golden plates were in a totally foreign language (as claimed) that had to be translated by the angel because no one knew this language, and Joseph Smith wrote down the translation as given by the angel, why was it written in old English? Why not translate it into however Joseph Smith actually talked in the 1820's? People weren't talking as stilted and archiac in the 1800's as this book is written. It was almost like they were trying very hard to mimic the popular King James Version of the bible, which was not the only language of the bible available at that time, of course.
I know OSC says above that it was because otherwise people wouldn't take it as scripture. I just can't believe that.
I just can't believe God would say "Hey, Joe -- the people aren't going to believe it unless you write it in Old English" and then go on to have the old English written so poorly. In all of the Bible, scripture was written in the language of the day and time it was put down.
So I just couldn't get past this in my head -- why it was taken from some ancient unknown language and put into King James Style. It made it very hard for me to swallow.
Farmgirl
[ December 15, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think it was it was the Lord saying "Translate it as I put the meaning into your head, only do it old English so people will take me seriously", I think Joseph Smith knew he was writting scripture, and to him (and to just about everyone else who speaks English) scripture means old English with the "thees" and "thou art"s. He had the meaning, and to him, meaning came out in the form of old English.
Then there's also the respect issue. Latter day saints are instructed to pray in a respectful tone, and if possible, use old English, since it shows more thought and is ... well ... more respected, if only because it is so associated with scripture. I don't think Joseph Smith would've been treating the word of God very reverently if he wrote it: "My name is Nephi, and my Dad raised me well, and you know, I'm a pretty smart guy so I'm not just making this stuff up."
Hobbes Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Then there's also the respect issue. Latter day saints are instructed to pray in a respectful tone, and if possible, use old English, since it shows more thought and is ... well ... more respected, if only because it is so associated with scripture.
Huh?
If you wanted something more associated with scripture, why not learn to pray in the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever?
FG
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Some of us don't know Hebrew or Greek. Of course I know it, but I'm special.
*Secretly runs off to the library for "Old English to Greek for LDS" books*
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Seriously though, it's not necessarily because old English is associated with the scriptures that it's better to use it, at least not directly, but because the use of old English shows a greater degree of respect, which we should use when speaking to God.
[EDIT: And if you did speak Greek, I see no reason why you wouldn't want to use Greek in prayer, at least personal prayer...]
Hobbes
[ December 15, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
:: tries to wrap mind around idea that one language shows more respect to God than others. Creator of all languages, no respector of persons ::
fails to comprehend.
FG
[ December 15, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
"Hey there God, What's up? I like the body you gave me, it is totally great, thanks a lot!"
"I thank thee, Heavenly Father, for the gift of Flesh that thou hast given me."
Does that help? It is both more reverent, and encourages the thoughts them selves to be more reverent.
Hobbes
[ December 15, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
How exactly does older english command more respect?
I wouldn't think it would be the language as much as the person and thought and truth behind it. You can use older english and still be superficial and it won't be respectful. Or you can pray with meaning from within in any language and it will be respectful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I dont' think it's that it's more respectful to God, but that it's a sign of respect among humans, and so is being given to God who deserves our respect.
The value humans place on it, not God, is what makes it a sign of respect to God.
I'm not sure how much it really is a sign of respect among humans, but I think that's the logic behind it.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What's really funny is that in Italian, there is no 'Olde Italian' to refer to.
And you use the informal 'tu' to properly speak to God, not the formal 'lei.'
Ain't religion quirky?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well as I see it, a perfect person could use any language, any time, and it wouldn't make a difference to God, since being perfect, that person would say the right things with the right attitude and understanding. For the rest of us Old English is associates with respect and reverence, and will help us show that we use that language in relation to God, as well as help shape our thoughts in that tone.
Kind of like wearing your Sunday best, it helps keep up a feeling of reverence and show respect to God, not because the dress is someone morally better, or God thinks it looks better, but as Dag said, we asasociate it with respect, and it shows that we will treat the Lord with that respect, as well as help keep us in the proper state of mind.
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*shrug* to each his own I guess. the use of an older version of english always seemed stiff and formal to me, which I guess is a type of respect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Formality is one of the traditional signs of respect.
I certainly don't pray in King James English, but I understand the reasoning behind it.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the use of an older version of english always seemed stiff and formal to me, which I guess is a type of respect.
Kind of like wearing your Sunday best.
[ December 15, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's sad that the only alternative to the stiff formality of the KJV, as presented by Hobbes, is chummy colloquialism.
Why not "I thank you, Heavenly Father, for the gift of Flesh you have given me?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think all of the above are fine.
I need to work "the gift of Flesh" into my conversation sometime this week.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd love to be a fly on that wall.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Maybe you'll get invited to a BBQ?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
In fencing, I generally give "gift of the fleche" instead.
Dag, yeah, I understand it.
And Tom has a point, there IS a middle ground.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course there is. Nobody said there isn't. It was asked how it could be possible that one language is more respectful than another. Hobbes gave an example that hilighted it well.
One example.
Example.
That's all it was.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I know I know.
The same comes up in the Catholic church between Latin and the language of the geographic area.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Fair 'nuff.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*fleches*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*tachi doris*
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*flees*
I KNEW you'd do that.
What day is your test?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you knew I was going to do it, it was foolish of you to fleche me.
I think my test is going to be the 28th of January.
*nervouses*
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Nah. It'd be foolish of me to come near you with any way with a sword.
I just wanted to say fleche. And I just LEARNED how to fleche, though I've yet to use it in a bout.
I'll keep thinking of you and your test. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It would be foolish of me to do anything except give my wallet to somebody with a sword.
<-- doesn't wear a watch
Thanks for the encouragement, mack. I'm pretty nervous, but less so than I might be. I decided that I *am* going to test, whether I'm ready or not. It's just a matter of trying to prepare myself fully between now and then.
I'll let you know what happens, whether I pass or fail, which is a very real possibility.
[ December 15, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Back to the whole translation and grammatical errors thing.
Isn't it possible that all/a lot/quite a few/some of the grammatical errors/syntax/whatever in the English version of the Book of Mormon are also caused by the original authors?
Nephi. He didn't finish high school or go to university, and even if he had, that's no guarantee that his writing abilities are perfec. We have no idea how he would score on any test of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and all the rest of it. So is it impossible that he just wasn't perfect at expressing himself? Same as the rest of them. The Book of Mormon was written over a span of what, 1200 years, correct? Any language shifts in that time period. That can also account for some differences in language.
I've never thought of this before in terms of Joseph Smith and his language abilities. I'd always assumed that the problems - speaking of language - were caused by the original authors.
And now I tell you that I haven't read OSC's article yet. It's late, and I'm going to bed. But the question. Is he saying that all those language problems are caused by Joseph Smith and not the original authors?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I seem to remember the missionaries being a little evasive on why they don't read the NIV or other translations of the Bible. It made them nervous that I had a Greek New Testament, and could read it myself.
Is it okay to read the Bible in the original languages (if you can) when you're an LDS member? I remember thinking it was funny that the LDS published their own Bibles, even though they said it was for cross-referencing (the same reason I had to buy a particular version of the Bible in college- so all our page numbers would match up).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you can do it, it's a great thing.
IIRC, Joseph Smith said that the KJV is the most accurately translated English Bible, which is why we always use the KJV. He also said that one of the German translation is even better.
But if you can eliminate one tralsation step, it's even better.
[ December 15, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'd always assumed that the problems - speaking of language - were caused by the original authors.
Well, I took it from Hobbes' post above
quote:He had the meaning, and to him, meaning came out in the form of old English.
That Joseph Smith was given "the meaning" of the stories, etc. and he then put it into language the best he knew how -- not that the angel told him word-for-word what to write. I mean, would an angel, translating the words of Nephi to Joseph Smith -- would the angel have left in all the errors and (sics)?
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Some of them he might of. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
But he wouldn't be able to speak to the accuracy of the newer translations, would he?
I enjoyed the 'Amplified' version that puts other possible interpretations of tricky words in parenthesis after the first choice of teh translaters.
erm, anyway... Back to the regulary scheduled discussion.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Olivetta:
It's totally okay. There are Mormons who have graduated from theological schools. Most institute directors I have known have studied at least one of the languages useful for biblical studies -- i.e. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic.
The version of the Bible published by the LDS Church is the KJV text with added footnotes (not that many of these actually -- most of them refer to a word that wasn't translated so well in KJV) and cross references to the other works in the LDS canon -- the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine & Covenants.
The discomfort of the missionaries you met with can probably be attributed to the discomfort the average lay member has in discussing texts (or versions of texts) they aren't familiar with.
The Church has said that the KJV is the version that we should primarily use. That's not to say that it is even the *most* correct version. Joseph Smith actually said in one sermon that the Luther translation of the Bible was the best in his opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
At the time, it probably was the most accurate translation.
I'm not sure why we stick to that one, but if you get LDS scriptures, it's the KJV translation. The sections of the Book of Mormon where the writers quote the Hebrew prophets were translated into the same language as the KJV, and the translations done by Joseph Smith are also from the KJV.
This is really Taalcon's question - he has a whole rant/explanation about this in him. I wonder if he's ever posted it anywhere.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:would the angel have left in all the errors and (sics)
As I understand it, most of those errors are due to either the transcriber or printer.
I don't know that I completely buy his theories on how the book was translated, but I think it's safe to say he is the leading authority on the text of the Book of Mormon. He has some intersting things to say about errors and about the language used.
----- In regards to Farmgirl's complaint that it doesn't have the flow of the KJV of the Bible....
It depends. Some passages are incredibly awkward. Others are quite amazing and beautiful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The same comes up in the Catholic church between Latin and the language of the geographic area.
Not any more, at least as far as I can tell from my understanding of Vatican II.
But prior to that - oh, yeah.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, here is one of my many problems with the claims of Joseph Smith. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, like Farmgirl I think, I did not have any hostility against the Mormon faith. I had friends that were Mormon who I greatly respected and liked. During my "seeking" phase, I guess, when I drifted away from the Christian upbringing I had I did in fact look into Mormonism. Mainly because of a co-worker I had, I admired him because he was just a great guy, I could tell he loved and respected his wife and was devoted to his family, and he was pretty much an ideal husband type, and that was something I really wanted. (and found later )
It bothered me when I learned that the Mormons believe that the church was basically apostate, until Joseph Smith had his visions. The way I took it, he pronounced everybody wrong, and said that only he had the "true church."
Well, that pretty much flies in the face of everything I knew. For one thing, the church (which I believe was established at Pentecost) had continued since that time until today. This matches up with what Jesus said, when he proclaimed that "the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it." Yet, some, what roughly 1800 years later? We have God saying that "oh no, actually I was wrong - the church didn't last, so now I'm starting over with this guy Joseph Smith." That was a pretty tough pill to swallow.
Also, I don't like that the Bible is considered unreliable. My understanding is that the Mormons believe it's been corrupted?
(Belle turns to her book on the reliability of the New Testament)
Okay, we have more manuscripts attesting to the textual authority of the New Testament than any other ancient work. Here is a quote by Sir Frederic Kenyon, from his book Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
quote:In no other case is the interval of time between composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century - say from 250 to 300 years later.
This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death.
Not only are the New Testament copies closer to the source material in time, but we have many more of them than any other ancient work.
Take Homer's Iliad Written in 900 B.C., the earliest copy is 400 B.C., a timespan of 500 years, and the number of manuscript copies we have for it are 643. In contrast, the New Testament was written in A.D. 40-100, and we have more than 24,000 manuscripts dating from A.D 125 (some of the trifling scraps mentioned by Kenyon.)
Also the accuracy of the New Testament scriptures is supported by translations in other langugages, from the earliest versions. Christianity is a missionary faith, and the scriptures were translated into various languages, so the accuracy across versions can be compared. There are more than 15,000 existing copies of early manuscripts in different languages - translated into Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. Metzger, Bruce M, The Text of the New Testament Oxford University Press
It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable, that God would need to completely re-write scripture and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, that makes sense that you don't believe it, because if you did, you'd be Mormon. Or, no organized religion at all, if you believed that the gospel as set up by Jesus Christ had been lost, but yet did not believe that it was restored by Joseph Smith.
Added: The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of the Bible, though.
[ December 15, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
We really don't know very much about the translation process, in spite of the work of LDS scholars. I think the average member assumes that it was a word for word translation, that is the exact English translation was given to Joseph word by word. I've just finished reading the Herald Publishing edition of the Book of Mormon, i.e. the one in the original format, without the modern chapter divisions and versification, or the grammatical corrections. It's fascinating. There are spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes such as "the Nephites was ..." etc. My own feeling is that they reflect the standard of Joseph's own English, written and spoken, at the time, and that he was translating as any translator does: reading, understanding the meaning, and then putting that into a style of language he feels is appropriate for its purpose. (Edit: I've just read the Skousen link where he knocks that idea on the head. Interesting.) There are some areas of awkwardness, but there are phrases and whole sections of real power and beauty in the way the language is used. And underlying any language idiosyncrasies is the incredible power of the message.
[ December 15, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable,
We don't believe that it's completely unreliable. Only that it was written, translated, and transcribed by human beings, and that we should bear in mind that not every word is placed there specifically by God. That level of uncertainty is pretty reasonable, whouldn't you say?
quote:that God would need to completely re-write scripture
The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of scripture, any more than Mark is a rewrite of Luke, or the New Testament is a rewrite of the Old Testament. It's just more stuff that gives us further perspective on the core truth that we are striving to understand.
quote:and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
He didn't say the church would prevail "throughout time".
Imagine that two people (let's call them Twisp and Catsby) are fencing. Twisp stabs Catsby, inflicting a near-mortal wound. Catsby spends four weeks recovering, and then lies low for ten years, waiting for the perfect moment to get his revenge. Then suddenly, he pops up and stabs Twisp to death. Who prevailed?
Similarly, the church does not have to have a continuous, unbroken line of history to prevail.
(Also, I believe that the phrase "gates of hell" had a very different meaning to ancient Jews than it does to modern Christian readers. I may be wrong about this, but I thought the gates of Sheol were what kept the dead from returning to life, and had little or nothing to do with Satan or his schemes.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Added: The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of the Bible, though.
I know that.
Is it not true, however, that the Bible is considered to be inaccurate because it has been corrupted? Here's the quote I have in my notes, if it's not correct please point me to sources that refute it.
quote:The Book of Mormon claims that a correct translation of the Bible is impossible since much has been taken away from the Word of God "many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord" (1 Nephi 13:26b, 27)
I have two obvious questions here - who took them away? And to what purpose? I mean, why would it serve the early church to take away important parts of the manuscripts? And why aren't there, among 24,000 ancient copies of parts of the New Testaments, any evidences of stuff that's been omitted?
Edit: changed are to aren't
[ December 15, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable, that God would need to completely re-write scripture and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
Mormons rely quite heavily on both the Old and New Testaments, and the writers of the Book of Mormon were heavily influenced by the writers they had available to them at the time -- i.e. some of the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, most notably).
It's not that the New Testament is unreliable -- it's that it's only part of the picture. It's an incredibly important part -- esp. because parts of it are as close to the historical moment of Christ's ministry here on earth as we can get.
But it's only part of the picture. The LDS canon is conservative (i.e. not a ton of stuff is part of it), but at least it is open.
----- And just as you don't get the need for a restoration, I don't understand two major things about mainstream Christianity:
1. How they account for the history of God's dealing with the world before the coming of Christ.
2. Why the Church became so splintered after its establishment.
Please note that I understand the arguments that mainstream Christians use in responding to both of these points, but they just don't make sense to me.
For me, one of the appealing aspects of Mormonism is that it accounts for the history of God's dealings with man as one of apostacy and restoration and retrenchment, of the need for dispensations and authority and revelation that speaks to the societal configuration and cocerns of each period of human history.
Mormonism also has answers for the whys and hows of God's relationship with mankind -- how he can be both an interventionist god and a merciful and just god.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Geoff, I understand the argument that there are translation problems, and certainly all those 24,000 copies of the New Testament don't line up word for word exactly with each other.
But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
Saying that someone corrupted the Bible for their own nefarious purposes, which that passage from 1 Nephi suggests, is a lot different than saying there can be translation errors. It's a completely different claim.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
Yes, that's the whole point We believe that mankind's knowledge of God should grow continually throughout time. Moses taught new things that Abraham never had, Christ taught new things that Moses never had, and even the Apostles offered invaluable insight into Christ's teachings that we would not have had if the book had ended with the Gospels.
Similarly, the Book of Mormon and the other writings of Joseph Smith and his successors further expand our knowledge above and beyond what is available in the Bible. It was never meant to be a restate of the same stuff, but rather a whole new set of inspired perspectives and ideas.
Naturally, since you're not Mormon, you think we're wrong about this. That's fine. I'm only correcting your statement because it is based upon an inaccurate understanding of Mormon belief, not because I'm trying to persuade you to believe as I do.
quote:Saying that someone corrupted the Bible for their own nefarious purposes, which that passage from 1 Nephi suggests, is a lot different than saying there can be translation errors. It's a completely different claim.
That's why I very rarely repeat Nephi's claim. Since we have no means of determining WHAT parts might have been altered or removed, how pervasive the problem was, or how we might address it, I just leave it be until we have more solid information.
In the meantime, as I said before, a book written and transcribed by humans is inherently imperfect, and should not be treated as infallible or absolute, in my opinion Although Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon the "most correct book", he still never praised it in absolutes. Even his greatest work has flaws. It just has fewer important flaws than other works of scripture.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Joseph Smith said that the KJV is the most accurately translated English Bible, which is why we always use the KJV. He also said that one of the German translation is even better.
Crap, really?
Dag, yeah, that's what I was referring to. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I hate to run out on a great discussion - but I just remembered I have to embroider 21 shirts before church tonight!
I totally forgot until I went to get something out of my car and found the box of t-shirts I promised to have back tonight.
Sometimes the memoray lapses with ADD are very, very frustrating.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
mack:
Of course, Joseph Smith didn't have access to the New American Standard Bible.
I don't see anything wrong with referring to other translations. The practice of using the KJV does make it easier to:
1. have consonance with the other works of Mormon scripture that quote from the KJV.
2. have consonance with sermons given by LDS leaders throughout its history
3. relate to other Christians who use the KJV -- that percentage may be decreasing, but I would imagine that it's still rather high and it was even higher at the time the LDS Church began publishing KJV versions. Obviously, when it comes to other languages, Mormons use whatever translation is either standard for the language or that local leaders thinks works best.
And as I mentioned above, if you really want to folow the counsel of Joseph Smith, you should learn German and read the Luther translation -- i.e. that's what you quote is referring to (sorry but a quick scan didn't reveal the person who posted it).
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Belle:
May your fingers remain nimble and unscathed. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I had a Doctrine and Covenants teacher who spoke about the grammar in the Book of Mormon (which is atrocious) and the grammar in the Doctrine in Covenants, which is quite a bit better. It was his belief that there was still a certain amount of "static noise" in the process of the translation of the BoM while the D&C was given as direct revelation with a lower signal-to-noise ratio.
I am amused at the number of times in the BoM a prophet says something and then says, "in other words" and says something a bit different. It reminds me of the spoof someone made called "The Book of Lemuel" when one passage reads, "Hi, I'm Lemuel, and I'm retarded" and then the next passage reads something to the effect of, "That was my brother Laman. Dork. What I wouldn't give for a jewler...." Basically, the idea that you can't erase what was written on metal plates.
Also, in the Doctrine and Covenants when the Lord is talking to Oliver Cowdry about the process of translation, he talks about how it isn't just a matter of looking at it and asking God what it says. You have to work it out in your mind, and if it is right your heart will burn. If it is wrong, you will have a stupor of thought causing you to forget it. That you will feel that it is wrong.
This being the case, it seems to me that the process of translation was not a simple matter of God speaking to Joseph exactly what the words should be. That he had to do a lot of figuring himself, putting it into his own words being only one aspect of the difficulty. (Supposedly the translation became easier for him over time, to the point that he no longer relied on the Urim and Thumim, as he became better able to discern things by the Spirit.)
And if he was very familiar with the "scriptural tone" of Old English in the KJV, it makes sense to me that he would try to emulate it--since to him that is what scripture is supposed to sound like. And perhaps because of that, most LDS ever since feel pretty darn strongly that that is what scripture is *supposed* to sound like.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I am amused at the number of times in the BoM a prophet says something and then says, "in other words" and says something a bit different. It reminds me of the spoof someone made called "The Book of Lemuel" when one passage reads, "Hi, I'm Lemuel, and I'm retarded" and then the next passage reads something to the effect of, "That was my brother Laman. Dork. What I wouldn't give for a jewler...." Basically, the idea that you can't erase what was written on metal plates.
That's hilarious - I would love to read that. *goes off to Google*
[ December 15, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote:But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
But if you're familiar with Mormon doctrine it's not hard to see it referred to in the New Testament. e.g. Exaltation: Romans 8: 16, 17 (joint heirs with Christ of the Father's glory) Apostasy: Acts 20: 29,30; 2 Thess 1: 1-11; Gospel preached to the dead: 1 Peter 3: 18-20; 4:6; 1 Cor 15: 29; John 5:25-29
etc. Obviously, others' interpretations of these scriptures will differ I'm sure, but to me they show that what's considered distinctive Mormon doctrine can be found without difficulty in the New Testament.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Every time were are reading as a family and we come across one of those passages (there are a surprising number of them), bev and I look at each other and crack up.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ooo, thanks Kat! I was too lazy to look it up....
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
That was hilarious, thanks Kat. I loved the bit about maybe untying Nephi after Family Home Evening! Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Does anyone know how Joseph translated the book of Mormon? It was my understanding he used a "Seer" stone, but after someone lost a bunch of pages, that was taken away and he then used two stones (urim and thummin) in a hat.
I have been reading a lot on the topic (before I buy the Origins of Mormonism book), and that process seems to be the recurring scenario.
Are there any Mormons who can put that idea to rest? Or validate it?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Here's some more fodder for the "Why do LDS use the KJV?" issue.
Frankly, because there's no better alternative.
Please note that I'm not saying there are not more accurate translations. I'm a big fan of the NASB and NRSV. I refer to them constantly.
But it is a small part of it, and here's what I'll get into:
a) DOCTRINAL ACCURACY Which translation to choose to be an 'official' translation? While many of the other translations may be a great deal more accurate , sometimes a few select word choices used confuse or water down a point that is made more clear in the KJV translation - not necesarily because of mistranslation, but when a single hebrew/greek phrase can have a few similar renderings, generally translaters tend to go with the one that fits the standard theology better. Hence, most newer translations will say "one and only son" as opposed to "only begotten son". That's kind of a big deal. While there are many mistranslations in the KJV, very very few of them are of doctrinal import. It would be foolish to go to another translation where important specific doctrinal points are made less explicit.
b)A NEW TRANSLATION? To use a previously existing translation, the rights would have to be purchased. Not only is this a potential money issue, but also I bet that there are many Bible publishers who would not ALLOW the LDS to purchase a licence for their translation if they would be putting their footnotes and so-called 'false doctrines' into it. Not only is it financial, it's political. So if a currently existing translation can't be used, why don't we make a new scholarly translation? Because honestly, people would take the LDS church even less seriously if now they used their 'own Bible'. Nobody would trust it, very much like people accuse the Jehovah's Witnesses of needing to use their own New World Translation to prove their doctrines right. It makes discussion with non-LDS Christians that much tougher. The KJV, while a little archaic, is pretty much universally accepted.
c) COMPATIBILITY Since the KJV was the only English version Smith (and the majority of people at the time) used, this was voice of the text used when the works he translated matched up to the T with familiar Biblical texts. when Nephi quotes Isaiah, the KJV version was accurate enough - and familiar enough - that the words used to translate Nephi's reading of the selection were the same as the KJV words. And when Christ gave a sermon very similar to his Palestinian Sermon on the Mount, the same thing applied. There were subtle differences in each, but they mach up for a fascinating contrast-and-compare. They complement each other beautifully. Now to have Nephi quoting a scripture passage that doesn't match up at all to the wording used in some New Modern Translation would, even though the meanings are the same, somehow delude some of the sense of cohesiveness.
d) TRADITION! Old people would have a fit, and Seminary students would complain that "they memorized all that old english stuff for nothing" now that a newfangled version is now the Standard.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Taalcon:
Great analysis. Thanks.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
This is completely random, but:
Why do missionaries only give out the Book of Mormon? You never see commercials urging people to ask their neighbors for a copy of Pearl of Great Price, or to call this number for their free copy of Doctrines and Covenants. Why?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Those contain more deep doctrines, things less crucial to salvation. The Book of Mormon is pretty darn basic, a great starting-place. I have seen people be downright confused at how plain and simple the Book of Mormon is--they are expecting something more "far out".
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Notes from Pg. 1
quote:but I agree that forbidding someone from worship does seem very harsh, for something like a different view of the church's history.
It is more than a different view about its History. It goes much deeper than that and touches on the very meaning of its existance! People have left and formed their own religions over less disagreements. In fact, religions have killed for less differences of view than this person in even the mainstream strains of religions.
His views are tentamount to calling Jesus a good philosopher and, at worst, a nutcase liar. As was said similarly by someone else after the above quote; It would be like saying that whole "Christ" thing for Jesus was falsified by his supporters. Sure, you might make the case that you don't need the Christianizing of Jesus' message to be a good Christian. But, what kind would you be? If you go by the argument that what this person said about Mormonism created out of a lie (but one that has done good), than Mormons should just as easily be called Catholics and Protestants. Don't tell me Mormons aren't excluded from those institutions if they speak openly and with some kind of authoritative voice. My guess from experience is there would be more than shunning and refusal of worship happening.
quote:Is there anyone versed enough in LDS history enough to say this book is spreading false ideas?
Considering the years of reading his kind of LDS History as he is far from the first, I would say he is spreading false ideas (if you mean what LDS Theology would consider such). Luther, for instance, might have been a Catholic at first. But, as soon as he stuck those notes on the door he was no longer worthy of that association. His ideas and the Catholic institutions' ideas of what consituted true faith were no longer reconcilable. However, I would actually say in this instant that it is more like Calvinism vs. Catholicism. The differences between his beliefs and the LDS beliefs at this point are too far apart.
quote:Is it possible that the book is honest and truthful?
Again, from a believer's point of view it can't be. At least, if it is than there is no reason to even have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution, because it denies its Divine Sanction of Real Authority (The bedrock of its organization).
quote:Look what Copernicus and Gallileo did to Catholic Doctrine, and what the Church did to THEM. I don't know that the situation is analogous
Those two challenged particular viewpoints (although stronly held) that turned out to be side-issue. They never challenged the Divine Authority of the Catholic Church as much as perceptions. The Catholic Church changed, but it didn't go away or shrink or dilute its message of Holy Order of God. What Palmer is doing is basically challenging the very premise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints having any real authority outside of some feel-good ideas about faith in Christ. He is more liberal Protestant than he is "Mormon."
quote:What does he say in it that is considered apostasy?
As I have said over and over in the above, he has said that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to lie. He had no vision of God and Jesus Christ, he didn't have the Plates of Gold that became the Book of Mormon, he didn't recieve Priesthood Authority from Angels, and the list goes on. All he had, according to this author, was a good message about Jesus that should be the primary focus of the Church. Basically, he religated Joseph Smith's religious mission to that of a story-teller for the good of humanity.
[ December 15, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Long post ahoy. I'm swamped with exams, and have a lot to catch up on.
quote:You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it.
I should be saying Isrealite, I guess. The Nephites were Isrealites that created cities, had metallurgy and used wheeled vehicles. That makes them fairly advanced in certain fields, relative to contact-period Mesoamericans. right?
quote:Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
I don't know about other Mormons, but I've never claime that it's inerrant -- innerrant and inspired aren't the same thing in my book.
I also don't think that the source material is inerrant -- it's clearly filtered through both the authors and the overall editor/compiler.
Well, the BOM does describe an act of metellurgy in Esther 7:9:
quote:...he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel...
Can you really chalk that up to a quirk of translation?
quote: How much is enough to discount or prove the historicity?
Well, it depends on the consequences of the statement.
For example, if I told you that I was wearing a white shirt at the moment, you'd probably believe me. It's a trivial statement that has no consequence or application. So with only my word to go on, you'll probably believe me when I say I'm wearing a white shirt. Which I am.
Now, if I say that I'm currently sitting on the moon as I type this statement, then you probably won't take my word for it.
In order to believe that I'm currently sitting on the moon, you'd have to concurrently accept an incredible array of consequences. You'd have to accept that someone has decided to live on the moon and as procurred the means to do so, etc, ad nauseum.
In other words, you woudln't take my word for it. It doesn't matter who I am; if I'm making a claim that requires a series of highly unusual and strong concurrent beliefs, then you are going to insist on a great deal of evidence to back up this claim.
A different example. There are those that claim the Holocaust claimed only a few hundred thousand lives. If we believe them, then we must simutaneously accept that both pre-war and Nazi records of Jewish people were fabricated. We must accept that the Nazi records of buying adequate fule for burning were intentionally forged, etc.
We demand a high standard of evidence from holocaust deniers, because their claims require us to believe a whole host of related claims, and each of theses claims requires its own body of evidence.
Uh, I'm using holocaust deniers as an example because they figured heavily in a historigraphy course I took last year, not to imply that LDSers have something in common with them.
So to sum up, simple claims require simple evidence, while complex and sweeping claims require complex and sweeping evidence.
So turn to the BOM. Does it make complex and sweeping claims, and is there complex and sweeping evidence to support these claims?
Historical statements in the BOM:
1. Multiple urban centres across multple nations.
Concurrent claims: that multiple cultures built multiple urban centres simultaneously, and then left no records or traces behind.
For example, a BYU study suggests a location for the city of Zarahemia.
Zarahemia is described in the BOM has a walled city that is large enough to largely equip and maintain an army tens of thousands strong. This army used metal weapons as well as bows and arrows.
So the claim: that a battle waged near a city large enough to support thousands of warriors equipped with metal weapons existed over in Guatamala over 2000 years ago, and left behind no traces.
That's a pretty sweeping claim. In order to believe it, you must accept that tens of thousands of metal weapons as well as a walled city all disappeared without a trace.
How much evidence is required to substantiate these claims? Well, finding one single 2000 year old sword would in itself shatter the currently existing mainstream timeline.
Btw, I'm not a Christian. I hold the Bible to the same standard (global flood that didn't affect ice cores at all? hrrm...).
quote:But I would like to ask: What do you think about the Book of Mormon in terms of meta-narration? All those places where it seems rather postmodern (to use a term incredibly loosely and faciley) in its awareness of the text as text (and even as scriptural text).
This, I guess, is a matter of perspective. It honestly seems very fishy to me, as it Smith was trying to be more authentic than an authentic ancient text.
About OSC's article. I've read it before and the sentence that naws at me is the same one that Sara quoted.
quote: 1820s America should leap out of every page, exactly the way 1950s America leaps out of every minute of every episode of _I Love Lucy_.
Except 1820s American does leap out of every page. Why on earth are ancient Isrealites talking exactly like post-enlightenment middle class political theorists?
Alma 21:21:
quote:And he did also declare unto them that they were... a free people, that they were free from the oppressions of the King....
and 21:22,
quote:And he also declared until them that they might have the liberty of worshipping the Lord their God according to their desires...
46:35,
quote:...enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government...
There are dozens more examples. It's as if John Locke himself wrote the BOM.
There are similar examples with racial issues; the villainous Lamenites are described in identical terms to those used of African-Americans in 19th century America.
I can't say that the BOM doesn't contain multiple voices, but even if it does, that means very little. There could have been multiple authors, or Smith may have had an imagination that at least equals or surpasses OSC's.
quote:And, fake or genuine, the Prophet's attempt at old-fashioned formal English should reveal his lack of education -- which it does, with numerous grammatical errors and misuses of archaic forms, many of which survive even in current editions of the Book of Mormon.
This is an issue I have with inspired scripture in general. If someone isn't educated enough or careful enough to write properly, why on earth would I believe everything they say with 100% certainty? I'm not saying it's reason to discard someone's writing - I can see the grammar nazis reading my post over while I say this - but it's reason to second guess their interpretation and recollection of events, isn't it?
[ December 15, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I wanted to comment on the Paradox of the importance of taking the Book of Mormon as history, but not considering archeology as part of the proof of that history.
For a Latter-day Saint, the only real test of the Book of Mormon's validity is through the Spirit. The only importance of the Book of Mormon is its religious and Spiritual message.
However, within that message is its basis in a real and concrete reality. As such, any negative "proof" from an archeological standpoint is arguably important. This is because it could very well put to question the Spiritual witness one might have gotten. That is why you have apologists arguing one way or the other.
Yet, the need for positive archeological study to a Latter-day Saint is irrelavant. The Book of Mormon doesn't have that as a criteria for recognition of its truth claims. Prayer and a Witness of the Spirit is all it demands. The book's narrative takes its existance in time and space as a given.
To sum up, archeology doesn't matter at all for believing in and understanding the Book of Mormon. As such, it is not a basis of study for ITS truth claims. It does matter, however, for upholding or defending that belief. As such, it is a basis for argumentation. Archeology is irrelavant for faith. It is relavent for apologetics.
In many ways what is happening with the Book of Mormon is going on with Jesus studies. There is the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of History (as some scholars would say). Yet, those who believe in the Jesus of Faith believe that the Jesus of History is innacurate and heretical. Yet, those same people don't believe that studying the Time of Jesus is relavant to understanding the truth of the New Testament; although they will fight to show how "Christ" of Jesus is historical. Those who study the History of Jesus reject the Jesus of Faith, although still accepting the Moralizing within the text. They have (like Palmer with Mormonism) rejected the premise of Christianity to replace it with a meaningful lie (what they would call propaganda for idealogy).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Foust, I don't know much about it because I have not studied it. But here is a link I found that addresses some of your questions: linky
I imagine it is true that if we are to understand that those swords and cimitars mentioned in the BoM were metal, it shouldn't be too hard to find the remains of such metal weapons. So *if* the BoM is true, either there is a reason they have not been found, or the weapons weren't made of metal (as the link addresses.)
Do I wonder about these things? Yes. I am an intelligent, rational human being. But I am also aware of the evidences *for* the BoM. I choose to believe it is scripture. I do not fault people who do not choose to believe this.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:Those [referring to the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price] contain more deep doctrines, things less crucial to salvation.
I fundamentally disagree.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Except 1820s American does leap out of every page. Why on earth are ancient Isrealites talking exactly like post-enlightenment middle class political theorists?
Except that it pops up in combinations that are expressly NOT 1820s. The above examples are superficial quotes and out of context. Closer looks at the political and social structures show that the language for expressing ideas might come from Joseph Smith's time, but the overall details do not.
For instance, all that talk of freedoms is shown to be far from what enlightenment would allow. The Nephite and Lamanite civilizations are expressly Theocratic. If a civil leader isn't the religious leader, he does go to the religious leader for the word of God on matters of State. The balance of government is nearly non-existant, with the leadership based on ogligarchy<sic> and blood relations. The "Presidents" (actually more like High Judges) are only placed into office by vote once. All subsiquent High Judges are assigned the possition by the original High Judge. Not only that, but the idea expressed about Kings is totally against what was held in 1820 by Americans. It basically says that the best governments are when you have Kings. The only reason that Kings shouldn't be the authority of the land is the possibility of bad Kings.
quote:There are similar examples with racial issues; the villainous Lamenites are described in identical terms to those used of African-Americans in 19th century America.
Interesting enough that the Lamanites don't become slaves or are ever seen as slaves. Rather, they actually take the "White" Nephites as slaves. And, in many parts of the Book of Mormon they are as civilized if not at times even more civilized than the Nephites. In fact, race quickly gives way to politics rather than blood and skin. You are recognized for the social sphere you live with, rather than what you look like. It is true, to be fair, that the Nephites and Lamanites never get past their hostility. But, its more like the relationship of the Jews and Arabs than blacks and whites. Not only that but those "Villinous" Lamanites are never seen as evil as the Nephites can become. Sometimes the "Villinous" Lamanites actually become the heroes and are guber-righteous.
Thus, you have 1820s (and 1600s for that matter) language and ideas stuffed into decidely alien contexts and situations.
[ December 15, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:I mean, why would it serve the early church to take away important parts of the manuscripts? And why aren't there, among 24,000 ancient copies of parts of the New Testaments, any evidences of stuff that's been omitted?
The way I understand this is that it's not so much the actual words of the Scriptures that have been changed, it's the interpretations thereof. The words are still there, but the meaning that a certain church/churches ascribes to them has been so changed in places that they might as well have been removed.
I'm not making myself clear. Let me give an example, using a fictitious Scripture verse.
The Book of Yozhik, chapter 3, verse 2:
"Proclaim the truth, for ye shall not allow a wrongdoer to continue living among you."
When the original author wrote this, she meant "If somebody is committing sin, don't let them simply continue in their wrong doing, but make every effort to convince them of the error of their ways. (The person may continue to live among you, but he/she will change and not be a wrongdoer anymore.)"
However, over the last few millennia, the church of Yozhik has gradually changed its doctrine. The verse is now commonly understood to mean "Drive sinners out of your community; proclaim the high standards of your community to everyone by getting rid of the immoral people."
The words are still there: the "plain and precious" truth of the author's inspired meaning is gone.
Why the doctrinal change? There are many possibilities. Maybe the church of Yozhik becomes less tolerant, perhaps as a backlash against a permissive period. Or maybe it's just easier and more fun to drive sinners out than to convert them.
[ December 15, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Zal, why do you disagree? When I say salvation, I am not referring to exaltation. The gospel requirements for salvation are faith, repentance, baptism by correct authority, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the same, and enduring in the faith to the end. The BoM covers that quite well. The D&C and PoGP address things concerning exaltation, which goes beyond salvation.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
IMHO we give investigators the Book of Mormon because if we gave them the Doctrine and Covenants, they would be too bored after the first five pages to investigate further. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heh, what about the 2nd Nephi Isaiah chapters?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
At least they've got First Nephi (an exciting story) behind them by then.
"Must...keep...reading...we WILL get back to the Nephites and Lamanites at some point, won't we?..."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Occasional, as that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'd think a person from the 1820s who saw a lot of the same overarching problems but rather liked some of the parts about kings in the bible, its hardly convincing.
Particularly as you seem convinced everyone in the 1820s had exactly the same sort of ideas, which must be based on everyone nowadays having exactly the same sort of ideas.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Hence, most newer translations will say "one and only son" as opposed to "only begotten son". That's kind of a big deal.
A slight tangent : It's not clear to me why this is a big deal. Could you explain?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:It is true, to be fair, that the Nephites and Lamanites never get past their hostility
Wait a minute! The Lamanites (at least some populations of them) and the Nephites are joined together in one peaceful nation after the visit of Christ to the New World. (Can't recall the exact scripture, but it goes like "there were no more manner of -ites among them...")
Later there is a split into Nephites and Lamanites again, but the split takes place along religious and political divisions, not racial or familial ones. And by then, both sides are so wicked and corrupt that it doesn't much matter which side wins.
-----------------
Complicating the discussion of Nephites/Lamanites is the fact that early on, "Lamanite" becomes a general designator for anybody who's not a Nephite or allied with the Nephites. This includes members of population groups that are NOT descended from the Israelite settlers. (These groups are never mentioned by name, but their presence can be inferred from various clues in the text. Most obvious is that while the Nephites and Lamanites start out as roughly equal population groups, the Lamanites quickly grow to outnumber them and continue to *massively* outnumber them throughout the BoM narrative. Therefore, either the Nephites are practicing birth control, or the Lamanites are getting an influx of guys from outside their original group.)
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
And will somebody address my "Book of Yozhik" post? I thought it was rather good. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:It's not clear to me why this is a big deal. Could you explain?
For LDS it's a big deal because we believe that we are ALL spirit children of God. (One of the titles we give to Christ is "Elder Brother.") To say that Christ is the "one and only son" denies that God has any other, spirit sons and daughters, and this means that therefore we don't have any kinship with God at all, even a slight one: we're His toys or playthings, rather than His (very, very, very young and immature) children.
For us, it's more accurate to say "only begotten" in reference to Christ, as He is the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father. (The rest of us were born into mortality of earthly parents.)
[ December 16, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
beverly:
I just don't think the distinctions you make really apply to the texts.
Both the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants have a lot of valuable, even crucial things to say about
quote: faith, repentance, baptism by correct authority, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the same, and enduring in the faith to the end.
Part of it may also be my bias against the term "deep doctrines."
----- On a related note: Although I fully agree with the emphasis placed on the Book of Mormon -- because I do believe that it has a certain power for converts. It hasn't always played such a central role in LDS missionary efforts. I'm not saying that it wasn't part of it, but there's no doubt that it took on a greater emphasis in the latter part of the 20th century.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fugu, I'm attempting to be honestly objective about what you are saying here. I personally find OSC's argument/explaination more logically convincing than yours. I don't expect you or anyone else to be convinced by it. And of course you will believe that I am unable to be objective about this. (I personally believe it is impossible for anyone to be truly objective about anything.) I understand that it is tied to something you cannot believe for other reasons, Ackham's Razor and all that, and I come from a standpoint of believing the BoM to be what it claims to be, but there it is.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote: IMHO we give investigators the Book of Mormon because if we gave them the Doctrine and Covenants, they would be too bored after the first five pages to investigate further.
I think that there's some merit to this idea, actually. There's a lot to be said for the narrative aspect of the Book of Mormon -- something the Doctrine of Covenants lacks. And the Pearl of Great Price is great, but short.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It hasn't always played such a central role in LDS missionary efforts. I'm not saying that it wasn't part of it, but there's no doubt that it took on a greater emphasis in the latter part of the 20th century.
Though in the D&C the missionaries of that time were chastized for not relying on it. There is quite a bit in the D&C that makes the importance of emphasis on the BoM clear. President Benson was just reiterating that--reminding us of something we should already have known.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
fugu writes:
quote: Occasional, as that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'd think a person from the 1820s who saw a lot of the same overarching problems but rather liked some of the parts about kings in the bible, its hardly convincing.
Particularly as you seem convinced everyone in the 1820s had exactly the same sort of ideas, which must be based on everyone nowadays having exactly the same sort of ideas.
This is a bit of an aside, and I'm not saying it's a valid way of looking at things, but I find it kind of hilarious.
Just as apologists seem to find a way to explain everything. Skeptics who approach Joseph Smith seem to want to have it both ways -- he's both ignorant and a genius (actually Mormons do this too), or even funier -- he's just reflecting his times except the parts where he isn't -- that's where his inventiveness comes in or where he magically has access to sources that seem unlikely considering his background.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It seems to me they only believe it because it is easier than believing all this came from divine intervention. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: archeology doesn't matter at all for believing in and understanding the Book of Mormon. As such, it is not a basis of study for ITS truth claims. It does matter, however, for upholding or defending that belief. As such, it is a basis for argumentation. Archeology is irrelavant for faith. It is relavent for apologetics.
I think that it doesn't matter once you believe. I was discussing the idea of the Book of Mormon with a Methodist seminary student a few weeks ago and he said that for him, the lack of archeological evidence for the BOM countered reason because it seemed logical to him that there would be at least some archeologicial evidence of an advanced civilization. For him, this was irrefutable evidence that it was false. So while perhaps the archeological evidence isn't necessary for belief, I think it is definately a barrier for many of us to even consider trying to develop faith in it. Dismissing the lack of evidence as being "irrelevant for faith" is not very convincing to someone who will not even try to develop faith in something that seems unreasonable to them.
quote: It seems to me they only believe it because it is easier than believing all this came from divine intervention.
I find this statement rather offensive. Surely you've heard someone say something along the lines of "it's easier for them to believe it was divinely inspired than to look at the contradicting evidence and see that it's false" or something equally offensive. I think that blanket statements for both sides are extremely false. There is no one generic "easier" thing to believe. It depends entirely on the person and their situation.
[ December 16, 2004, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I personally find OSC's argument/explaination more logically convincing than yours."
*giggle* I addressed this once in another thread.
What you are saying when you say this is that it is EASIER for you to believe that Joseph Smith was SO exceptional that he was chosen to receive multiple messages from God and/or all kinds of interesting revelations, but not quite exceptional enough to write a really, really good book.
It's a point of view that is, I think, to be expected of someone who takes writing seriously: "Smith was a podunk farmboy, and couldn't've been intelligent or educated enough to have written this book -- but he COULD have been visited by angels and been given some giant metal plates which were unfortunately removed later."
I think it takes a very special worldview to conclude that the latter is the more likely explanation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What you are saying when you say this is that it is EASIER for you to believe that Joseph Smith was SO exceptional that he was chosen to receive multiple messages from God and/or all kinds of interesting revelations, but not quite exceptional enough to write a really, really good book.
Actually, I wonder why you think that the qualities that would make one a good prophet are the same as the qualities that would make one a good author/translator.
Dagonee
[ December 16, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Moses is considered (by many believers) as one of the greatest prophets this earth has ever seen. And yet he was severely lacking in some areas, public speaking being one of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What are you talking about, MPH? He was a fine public speaker in 'Prince of Egypt. . .'
You're crazy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Actually, I wonder why you think that the qualities that would make one a good prophet are the same as the qualities that would make one a good author/translator."
Oh, I don't. But if we're basing our entire argument on the LIKELIHOOD of an event, I think we can agree that it is empirically more likely, just from a statistical viewpoint, that someone would write a surprisingly good book than it is that someone would be chosen by God to bring His testimony back to Earth.
[ December 16, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The difference is that to write the book, he would need to rely on his own merits, but to become a prophet, he didn't.
Joseph Smith was the person God chose, and he became eminently qualified for the tasks given to him, but he didn't become the prophet BECAUSE of his gifts. He was given the gifts because the Lord needed him to be a prophet.
It's easier to believe the second precisely because he didn't need to be a spectacular genius for it to occur. In other words, it's easier for some people to believe that God is amazing than that a human being was.
---
I'm not sure why the Lord chooses some to have more definite experiences with himself than the rest of us get, but I am sure that it isn't because those chosen are more special, just (for whatever reason), more useful.
---
Taalcon: I just knew you'd know.
[ December 16, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: What are you talking about, MPH? He was a fine public speaker in 'Prince of Egypt. . .'
He was also a weenie in 'Prince of Egypt'. Certainly not a man who could have gotten ticked off at a guard, killed him with his bare hands, picked up his corpse, ran outside of town, and buried it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Oh, I don't. But if we're basing our entire argument on the LIKELIHOOD of an event, I think we can agree that it is empirically more likely, just from a statistical viewpoint, that someone would write a surprisingly good book than it is that someone would be chosen by God to bring His testimony back to Earth.
You have statistics on that?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote:I was discussing the idea of the Book of Mormon with a Methodist seminary student a few weeks ago and he said that for him, the lack of archeological evidence for the BOM countered reason because it seemed logical to him that there would be at least some archeologicial evidence of an advanced civilization.
Let's not forget that when the Book of Mormon was published there was NO archaeological evidence of advanced civilisations anywhere on the American continent. It wasn't till about 20 or 30 years later (1850s?) that the discoveries of the American archaeologist, Stephens I think, in Guatemala showed that America had hosted advanced civilisations, previously unknown. The writings of the Spanish conquistadors had been largely dismissed as propaganda, and so these really were new. Of course, correspondence to Nephite civilisations is the question. But, it's the victors that write the histories, and it was a common practice for all physical traces of a despised king/race to be eradicated from public monuments etc in the ancient world (eg Egypt). There is speculation that this is why no trace of Moses can be found in ancient Egyptian documents. So it seems to me to be quite POSSIBLE that any traces of Nephite civilation were eradicated in the final Lamanite victory. The Book of Mormon is about the Nephites, not the Lamanites.
quote:I think we can agree that it is empirically more likely, just from a statistical viewpoint, that someone would write a surprisingly good book than it is that someone would be chosen by God to bring His testimony back to Earth.
Well, of course. But what's one got to do with the other? What qualifies one to be a prophet are 1) chosen by God, 2) see 1. Nothing about ability to write a surprisingly good book in there.
On a slight tangent, I've always felt that a good 'control' for Joseph Smith's ability to write the Book of Mormon was Tolkien's ability to write Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. Both create new worlds, with their own histories, unique names, cultures, systems of government, rivalries/wars. Both have a tragic underlying theme (I'm talking mainly about the Silmarillion here) of inevitable winding down to destruction (particularly in The Akallabeth). Tolkien spent a lifetime writing, rewriting, rethinking, modifying, etc, and yet when he died it was a monumental task for his son to put it all together in some coherent form, and even then there were internal inconsistencies that were still there. Joseph Smith did the same and more in far less time, and without the internal inconsistencies. Tolkien was the only one who came close to meeting the much scoffed at challenge of Hugh Nibley to write his own version of the Book of Mormon, but not even he was able to meet all the conditions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You have statistics on that?"
Sure.
# of people since the dawn of time who've been chosen to bring God's message to the people: 3-7, depending on whom you ask.
# of people who've written a book that turned out to be far better than most people would have expected of them: at least six since 1994.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:# of people since the dawn of time who've been chosen to bring God's message to the people: 3-7, depending on whom you ask.
*blink* Tom, there are a dozen prophets in the Book of Mormon and another couple dozen in the Bible.
And to be fair with the second one, how about "number of books written that have started and sustained major religious movements."
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Seriously.
At least give us credit for our dispensation view of history and God's dealings with men [which I discuss above (in part)].
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Doesn't anybody like (or hate) my interpretation of how "plain and precious truths" came to be removed from the Bible? Does it answer Belle's question at all?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I liked it, and I think it makes sense.
No surprise there. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
(*the Church of Yozhik allows katharina to remain among us*)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
(*katharina sits primly on the front row during class and then sneaks in after hours to practice the piano*)
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Yeah, I like it too, Yozhik, but what about my Tolkien thing??
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Sorry to drag up an old topic, but what some people said about "thee" and "thou" and all that earlier really bothered me. Those words are not really more respectful, but more familiar. In old english there were familiar and formal "you" forms just like there are in Spanish and French and other languages today. "Thou" is actually the familiar form of "you" and "you" is formal form. It is not the other way around! Quakers use these archaic familiar forms because all men are brothers and one man is not more worthy of respect than another. In most western languages, people pray in the familiar form. So, those "thee"s and "thou"s are not a form of respect, but familiarity! I'm not saying that if you don't use "thee" and "thy" and "thou" that you don't have a familiar relationship with God, the language has just changed is all.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Law Maker, I took Spanish in high school and became aware of the fact myself. But languages change. What at one time was the familiar no longer serves that purpose. And when someone talks that way now, they sound uber-duber formal.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Did you just say über-düber?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
If someone used old english concerning an everyday topic, I'd assume they were mocking that topic. Law Maker's right, there's nothing respectful about it. It just sounds religious.
Why not just drop that facade and speak like you do in everyday life?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why would someone not of that faith even say something like that?
Does it hurt you that they use archaic forms?
You don't think it signifies respect. They do. And they believe God recognizes it as such.
It's fairly safe to assume that the translators of the KJV knew a little bit more about the usage of those forms than people do today.
Dagonee
[ December 17, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Foust, if you ever wonder why you're not taken seriously and your views are dismissed as those of a petty child, that's a good example of why.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: *blink* Tom, there are a dozen prophets in the Book of Mormon and another couple dozen in the Bible.
In order for you to be able to count the prophets in the Book of Mormon, you need to have faith that they existed, and that rests on a testimony of Joseph Smith. I don't think it is fair to count them.
We need to count people we can all agree existed with evidence to support that claim. No one claims there was not Joseph Smith. Who are other people whoclaim God has called them to be prophets that we have secular proof existe(s/d)?
EDIT:
Ack..bad grammer....should say "No one claims there was never a Joseph Smith."
[ December 17, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Why would someone not of that faith even say something like that?
Does it hurt you that they use archaic forms?
500 years ago, scholars and clergy spoke latin. I suspect this practice originated because latin was simply more useful in terms of vocabulary than contemporary vulgar languages.
But they eventually, they stopped doing it for practical reasons. They used latin because sounded scholarly and it sounded religious.
Slowly, that changed. Protestant clergy changed, then scholars, then catholic clergy.
They grew up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, please. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, it's not like it's an essential tenet of our faith to pray like that. I don't always do it, if I'm in a situation where someone might be uncomfortable with it or where I don't have the energy/brains left to phrase it the way I want to. And people praying in other languages obviously don't do it. It's a cultural thing. We show reverence in whatever way is appropriate to us. To Joseph Smith, when translating, it was thee/thou, etc. To you, it may not be. That's fine. Why is this an issue?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe because it's so pointless? Actually attacking a religion is against the user agreement, so it has to be done more subtley?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
lem, Tom said:
quote: # of people since the dawn of time who've been chosen to bring God's message to the people: 3-7, depending on whom you ask.
So, "depending on whom you ask" means that not everyone has to believe in them.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They didn't grow up. Latin is still used. Have you ever heard Gregorian Chant? It's absolutely beautiful and has been done for a long, long time.
Each language has its time and place and uses. People use them as they see fit, and whatever is true to THEM. Ultimately, it's between them and god and who are we to judge?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:500 years ago, scholars and clergy spoke latin. I suspect this practice originated because latin was simply more useful in terms of vocabulary than contemporary vulgar languages.
But they eventually, they stopped doing it for practical reasons. They used latin because sounded scholarly and it sounded religious.
Slowly, that changed. Protestant clergy changed, then scholars, then catholic clergy.
They grew up.
Too bad you didn't.
I'm still curious as to why someone who does not believe in a faith would argue about a practice in that faith that affects no one but the practicioners.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I'm still curious as to why someone who does not believe in a faith would argue about a practice in that faith that affects no one but the practicioners.
It's not because it's a faith issue. The basic issue for me is this: I see language as something deeply personal, and I can't fathom why someone would happily alter their normal speech patterns just to fit in with that group.
It's a collective vs. individuality issue for me. I'm immediately suspiscious of groups that insist you alter personal matters such as speech patterns in order to be a part of that group.
That being said, I apologize if my comment was insulting. It was abrasive and I didn't express myself well.
[ December 17, 2004, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I think most folks who swear try not to do so around those who would be offended.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Allll of which is to finally get to the issue I actually want to discuss.
I don't care about the historiocity of the BOM, I care about how the LDS community handles questions.
I don't care about what language LDSers use in prayer, I care about how the community handles those that use the vernacular exclusively.
It's the LDS community I want to know about. I get this from OSC's essays, like The Hypocrites of Homosexuality in which he argues that one cannot being a practicing LDSer and a homosexual at the same time. As I understand it, OSC's issue with LDS homosexuals is that they are violating community standards.
Every single one of my posts concerning the LDS church boils down to this issue: what is the nature of the LDS church as a community.
I should have said that at the begining, but the rabbit holes all distract me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"what is the nature of the LDS church as a community"
That depends largely on whether it is a dominant community or not. Everywhere it is dominant, it is (IMO) stifling; everywhere it is not dominant, it is empowering. This may be true of most subcultures, however.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Every single one of my posts concerning the LDS church boils down to this issue: what is the nature of the LDS church as a community.
Ha,ha,ha. Good luck with THAT one. Its a discussion that has been going on (both in and outside the Church) since the day Joseph Smith printed the Book of Mormon.
However, to throw something out there, for a member of the LDS Church the ultimate objective is to become a ZION commmunity. In other words; a community of people with pure hearts and Enoch-like faith.
[ December 17, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Tom, I usually avoid posting in religious threads because I generally find them dull and unproductive, and I almost always avoid responding to your posts regarding religion because I have a great deal of respect for you, and religion is the only topic I have seen you react to without your usual even-handedness and fair demeanor.
That said, I can't help but ask: have you actually lived anywhere where the LDS church was the "dominant" social force? Or are you just assuming that anytime a group makes up 51% of the population they become "stifling?" Or is it just religions that do that?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:This may be true of most subcultures, however.
I certainly found it to be the case in Madison when I lived there: the dominant culture there also works better as a subculture.
(I had really looked forward to moving there in 1992, but after half a year, realized that I couldn't tolerate the stifling political conformity. I found myself rebelling against it by moving much further to the right than I had been. I'm glad I got out of there when I did; by now I'd probably be calling for restoration of the divine right of kings or something.)
[ December 18, 2004, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
And I'm glad I moved to New Jersey, within easy driving distance of both Manhattan and Lancaster County. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'll be happy to hear that Madison is somewhat less liberal nowadays than it used to be.
But while I have steadfastly avoided living in places where Mormon culture is dominant, Dante -- although not out of any dislike for Mormon culture, I assure you; it's more geographic than anything else -- I've spoken to enough people from such regions to have a pretty strong mental picture of the lifestyle. And it's not always a flattering one; Mormons themselves often make conscious distinctions between Utah Mormons, Idaho Mormons, and Mormons almost everywhere else -- and those distinctions, when they're visible, appear directly related to the church's majority role in the larger community.
As I said, though, I think most religions are most useful when they represent minority opinions.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Tom, maybe you could help me understand your point better by explaining what "stifling" means in the context of, say, living in Utah. Is there some oppressive entity that prevents me from thinking freely or stifles my creative or intellectual pursuits?
I'll certainly admit that there are negative aspects to it, but I'm also guessing that your distaste for religion encourages you to note the negative ones at the expense of the positive and make assumptions based on premises that, in other topics of discussion, you wouldn't consider strong enough.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have not been able to read and catch up - but I will as soon as I can. Thanks in advance to anyone who tried to answer my concerns - I will read them. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'm inclined to agree with Tom, Dante. When there is a dominant identify group, and that is one all has every known, then one will do whatever they have to to remain a part of that group. And that can be stifling; giving up a part of yourself to stay within a group.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is there some oppressive entity that prevents me from thinking freely or stifles my creative or intellectual pursuits?"
Dante, what you consider "stifled" may not be what someone who considers Utah stifling might consider "stifled." Those people who are well-suited to Mormon culture are likely to find Mormon culture suitable. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I make jokes about Utah Mormons all the time. I'm sorry if that's given the impression that I consider my particular geographical vein of Mormonism to be superior. There are far more smart, savvy, respectful Mormons in Utah than there are any type of Mormon here. There are good and bad people everywhere; it just so happens that most of the bad people in Utah are Mormons. I would wager to say that most of the bad people in Wisconsin are protestants - that doesn't mean that they are the product of protestantism.
quote:What is the nature of the LDS church as a community.?
We're pretty shady characters that like to lie and steal a lot. You better steer clear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I would wager to say that most of the bad people in Wisconsin are protestants - that doesn't mean that they are the product of protestantism."
I would submit that the LDS church is a dominant -- even deliberately monolithic -- economic and cultural influence on its members in exactly the way that, say, the various protestant sects of Wisconsin are not. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: But, it's the victors that write the histories, and it was a common practice for all physical traces of a despised king/race to be eradicated from public monuments etc in the ancient world (eg Egypt). There is speculation that this is why no trace of Moses can be found in ancient Egyptian documents. So it seems to me to be quite POSSIBLE that any traces of Nephite civilation were eradicated in the final Lamanite victory. The Book of Mormon is about the Nephites, not the Lamanites.
But even if the civilization was destroyed from the record, aspects of it would remain. While Moses is not mentioned in Egyptian documents, phsyical evidences of Egyptian culture mentioned in Exodus do exist. There is evidence that bricks were made and that chariots existed at that time. Yet, there is no evidence of the wheel being used for transportation purposes in Meso-America. Even if the Lamanites despised the Nephites, no sane person would dispose of valuable technology like the wheel simply because it came from their enemies. Even if they somehow did, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that some phsyical evidence of transportation related wheels being used in Meso-America would remain.
Cashew, I'm curious as to what exactly Stephens found. I googled it and from what I read, it doesn't look like he found anything that supports the more controversial claims of the Book of Mormon such as wheels, horses, elephants, and swords existing in Meso-America.
A lack of evidence clearly does not provide definative proof against the Book of Mormon. There are many explantions, as many people have listed, as to why evidence could be lacking. Yet, I find the lack of evidence of something as basic as the wheel to be very telling. I freely admit the possibility that I am wrong, but I can tell you that for me, the lack of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon does prevent me from further considering it as a source of truth. Thus I think it is unwise to dismiss the lack of archeological evidence as unimportant when it is clearly important to helping nonbelievers consider the LDS church.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Dante, what you consider "stifled" may not be what someone who considers Utah stifling might consider "stifled." Those people who are well-suited to Mormon culture are likely to find Mormon culture suitable.
Right, but you made the comment that you thought a predominantly LDS culture was stifling (specifically as opposed to a minority LDS culture, which you termed "empowering), so I was asking you what you meant rather than asking what I might mean.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I was asking you what you meant rather than asking what I might mean."
Specifically, I think a number of the cultural elements of the church are excellent when they are set in opposition to a majority culture, and offered as alternatives to those majority elements -- but are both less practical and less useful than those majority elements if/when adopted by the majority and/or enforced by cultural tradition. I will not enumerate those here, however.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Hmmm. Refresh my memory. Where does it say in the Book of Mormon that they used wheels?
What's the terrain like in Mesoamerica? Even if you knew about the wheel, would it be worth it to use wheeled vehicles, especially if you didn't have especially sophisticated road-building skills?
[ December 19, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote: Even if they somehow did, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that some phsyical evidence of transportation related wheels being used in Meso-America would remain.
Pre-columbian Mexican civilizations built wheeled toys. link Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The examples I linked to above were all from Veracruz civilizations, among the older mesoamerican cultures. It's entirely possible that a concept existed and fell out of use.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
The undesirable characteristics in UTAH Mormon culture might simply be the effect of Utah's historical geographic/cultural isolation. Most of the traits I see people complaining about (and Eric Snider making fun of) can be summed up as "people being oblivious to/afraid of the 'outside world.'"
(Provincial attitudes are not restricted to Mormons, of course; the small, rural town I grew up in was full of them, despite being located nowhere near Utah and containing almost no Mormons. In a recent controversy near my hometown in PA, a local school erected a modern-art sculpture of a pair of doves, donated by a local doctor. A group of fundamentalists got their knickers in a knot over this, because the doctor was a Muslim, and the sculpture "looked like a crescent" so obviously the doctor was attempting to convert their children to Islam through subliminal messages. )
I wonder how Mormon culture would have developed if the Saints had not been driven out of Nauvoo, Illinois--if they had been permitted to continue building Zion in the heartland of America, rather than on its edges.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
That's a good point, Yozhik. I thought of an example - the population of Tonga is nearly 1/3 LDS. (link) I wonder if they'd characterize it as a stifling environment?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Wading into the Tom and Yohzik "Utah" Mormon thread...
I learned a word for members of the Church from Utah on my mission - Utards. I love it, and to this day still use it. When I use it, fellow members usually get exactly what I'm talking about and chuckle along.
I think Yohzik and Annie both have good points - From what I've seen, it's really the Utah/Idaho and other western US groups (inc southern Alberta here) in the church that seem to have a doctrine-defeating culture. (ie. The culture has warped the doctrines and re-enforces conformity to ideas that are NOT doctorine. eg. Marry an RM.) I've never met members from other parts of the world that offend you with thier cultural superiority like some I've met from Utah. (Note: I know that Utards don't make up the whole state - I know a lot of Utah members who are totally open, loving and understanding. I don't mean to offend!)
Having said that... ... Tom is absolutley right. The culture of the Church in Southern Alberta/Idaho/Utah is positivley stifling, depending on who you meet. Especially amoung the youth and young adults. What do I mean by stifling? (Tom: feel free to clarify if this doesn't hit on what you meant by "stifling".) - Attitudes of cultural superiority - Ignorance regarding other faiths/lifestyles (I don't mean just sexual orientations, I mean lifestyles besides rich-white-western US.) - Racial stereotyping (Mexicans in the US, Native Americans in Alberta) - Regarding "Gentiles" as outsiders.
Something worthwhile to remember: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn't claim to have the corner on all truth. Truth is found amoung all faiths, all peoples, all over the world - especially amoung the compassionate and the learned.
What the Church claims to have is the only Heaven-sanctioned pipeline of authority and global revelation around. I know of few other organizations that make that claim or anything like it.(seriously - the Pope is the only other guy I know who claims and asserts a right to world-wide religous guidance - but I may be missing a lot, all I get is western media and thought.)
So, back to my main point: I consider some aspects of Mormon-dominated culture stifling, expressley in the western US and southern Alberta. And Tonga, Somoa, and Hawaii rock! Everyone should move there!
Oh, and the Book of Mormon is true - right down to the archeology. We're going to feel silly when we find out that "Curlom" meant Llama, "Cumom" meant Alpaca and "Chariot" was a popular brand of sneaker.
Woof.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:- Ignorance regarding other faiths/lifestyles (I don't mean just sexual orientations, I mean lifestyles besides rich-white-western US.)
I disagree with this. I think the volume of LDS people who serve foreign missions makes otherwise "backward" rural communities a lot more world-conscious than many of their peers. I attended a Christmas program in an small, isolated Montana town where everyone in the congregation (mostly ranchers) who spoke a foreign language was asked to repeat a verse of scripture in their various languages. Out of a congregation of maybe 150 people, there were 14 languages represented.
I have known many returned missionaries who continue, years later, to tear up when telling about how much they came to love the Brazilian/Mexican/Australian/Russian/Taiwanese people that they served. Areas of high LDS concentration, notably the various campuses of BYU, are extraordinarily multicultural. Language, culture, and folklore presences from all over the world are found in an otherwise backward, conservative area.
I have a good friend who is from Beijing and got her master's degree here in Montana. She applied to several schools' PhD programs, and got the best funding offer from BYU. She is not LDS or religious at all. Since moving to Provo, she constantly writes and tells me how much she enjoys the tolerant cultural atmosphere there and the huge Chinese community. She feels much more at home there than she has in any of the (3) other US cities she's lived in and is constantly shocked when "white boys" talk to her in perfect Mandarin Chinese.
A lot of predominantly LDS communities have plenty of problems of cultural backwardness but lack of exposure to foreign cultures is not one of the causes.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
And the word 'backward' being defined as....?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Not frontward?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Good point. Alas, my experience with fellow-missionaries, since returned (I served in Ontario, most of my companions were from western US), is limited. I can totally see that with a group with lots of return missionaries from diverse places, you'd get an acceptance and love of other cultures as you've described. It's unfair of me to ignore the huge positive impact the missionary program has on keeping Church culture open, loving and kind.
[ December 19, 2004, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*thwap* (that was for Jamie) Yeah, I guess that's the implication (in the two times it was used in Annie's above post.) Edited, baleeted, etc.
[ December 19, 2004, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Are you asking me?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
OOOOOOOOOW! *stab*
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm so confused.
Jamie and Cecily, darlings, why are we still awake?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Same reason I am.
Writing talks for later today?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Beats the hell out of me. I took my sleep med hours ago and should be out cold.
Instead, I futzed around with the new pic gallery on madowl, charged the battery to the camera for the U-20 fencing tourney I'm helping out at in *looks* five-ish hours, and read.
Maybe I should read in bed.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Yes! How did you know?
Mine is on "Giving the Greatest Gift" and I've gotten sidetracked into trying to read Greek versions of the Bible.
Perhaps I should write talks in the daylight hours...
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I know, I've been sick, so my sleeping patterns are all kaflooy. I really do want to get to church tomorrow, so I SHOULD be going to bed soon.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Interlinear? Or have you taken Greek?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
How's your choir going these days?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I've never taken Greek. I'm just trying to figure out if they use a different word for "gift" in the occasions when they mean it in the context of "sacrifice."
It's not working.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Fantastic. They are amazing and I love them to death. We did a killer setting of "Alleluia" (yeah, difficult text) for our christmas sac. meeting last week and it was a cappella, broke up into 6 parts etc. I had 3 new tenors for the occasion and I was so very pleased!!
My accompanist just married one of my altos today, so that sucks, but everything else is great!
edit to change "I" to "we" It's terribly late!!
[ December 19, 2004, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Whoa - you got out a greek translation to prepare a talk? Your sacrament meetings must be intense!
I'm lucky if I'm grammatically coherent when I speak.
(BTW, isn't Hatrack a great way to avoid work? )
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*goes to look it up*
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh, and Celily, if you ever see my dear married friend Brigette, you'll have to tell her that I said Hello and that I wrote a book about her.
Maybe best not to tell her that last part.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Oh, which one is she in the book???? Don't worry, I won't tell her....I never do see her anymore, isn't she married to that guy yet?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
You do have a tenor coming home in a few short months here...
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Oh, and last minute is always the best time to write a talk. Makes inspiration so much more.. inspiring. (Preperation is a high ideal in my books - I'm just not very idealistic.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
She is Brittany in the book. And yes - she and Mike got married in October. Their wedding announcements looked like campaign posters. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
WOW! Is he coming home already?!!
Holy cow!! I have had this calling for almost 2 years, haven't I? Sheesh!! (I've had this calling longer than I was a missionary. Isn't that baffling?)
YES!! Another tenor! And he's a good one too. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Is that smiley face and "I approve of the campaign poster design" smiley face or an "I'm smiling in sarcasm" smiley face?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
He's home in May, I believe, which is a few short months in my book.
WD - I hear you there. I had to give a lesson for the teacher preparation class on how to be a more effective teacher and one of my main points was about preparing in advance. I wrote the lesson earlier that afternoon. Eeek! Just to avoid being hypocritical, I stressed mostly that one should not be afraid to rely on the manuals and not be so tacky as to tell the class how little preparation you did.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It was a smiley of approval. The front said "Brigette and Mike 2004" and the back said, "Brigette and Mike approve of temple marriage.... " I think it listed their parents as campagin managers.
I am a firm believer that most wedding announcements take themselves far too seriously.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What verse are you referring to, Annie?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Well, there were more examples in the OT, but I gave up on the Hebrew. One of my NT examples is: Matt 5:23-24 (compared with, say, Matt. 2:11)
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
That's an awesome wedding announcement. Goodnight dearies. Happy talk writing and I hope you get some sleep Jamie.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote: Cashew, I'm curious as to what exactly Stephens found. I googled it and from what I read, it doesn't look like he found anything that supports the more controversial claims of the Book of Mormon such as wheels, horses, elephants, and swords existing in Meso-America.
The point I was trying to make by referencing John Lloyd Stephens was that, at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon, the fact that ANY kind of advanced civilisation had existed pre European contact WAS one of its more controversial claims. The writings of the Spanish conqistadors and their associates were either not well known, or were regarded as Spanish propaganda. Stephens' discoveries helped reverse the idea that American Indians were incapable of any kind of cultural sophistication. You have to look at 'archaeological evidence' for the Book of Mormon on a kind of continuum of developing knowledge. For example: Sophisticated cultures described in Book of Mormon: regarded as ridiculous until the discoveries of Stephens and others; Ancient peoples writing on gold plates: fairy tale, until numerous examples were discovered in all areas of the world of this being done; And so on, down to no evidence of wheeled transportation (although clear evidence exists that the wheel was known) AS YET. Things taken for granted now were regarded as unbelievable in 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published. Only a very small proportion of MesoAmerica has been excavated,and we constantly make the mistake that the sum of our knowledge now is the way things were and that's it. Ideas and attitudes change as further discoveries are made. We also can make the mistake of interpreting terms used in the Book of Mormon through what we understand of ancient American culture, i.e. of trying to assign Nephites to one of the cultural groups already known about in Ancient America. Who's to say that they are not a yet undiscovered group? No one. We just don't know, yet at least. We need to keep an open mind, on both sides of the question.
quote:Thus I think it is unwise to dismiss the lack of archeological evidence as unimportant when it is clearly important to helping nonbelievers consider the LDS church. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, anyway, I think you place far too much importance on 'archaeological evidence'. The Book of Mormon has never claimed to be an archaeological handbook. What it claims to be is inspired scripture designed to help people come to Christ. (That's a far more controversial claim.) If it was a handbook of MesoAmerican archaeology you would expect to be able to test that claim by using it to find ancient ruins/cultures/artifacts/etc. The fact that it doesn't do that shouldn't be surprising. But, apply the same sort of test, one that IT prescribes as a test of what it DOES claim to be: read it, ponder its teachings, pray with a sincere desire to know one way or the other if it is true, and by the power of the Holy Ghost you will know. If it passes that test, then the other stuff will resolve itself. If it doesn't pass, then fine, dismiss it. But don't try to dismiss it on grounds that it doesn't claim.
[ December 19, 2004, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I like your response. I purposely chose not to respond in my own word, but rather to provide information to contrast Xap's characterization of it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I do want to point out one thing. Katie said:![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
It's not drafting; we do the ordinances in their stead and then they have a chance to accept or reject it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)