posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
# 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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
At least give us credit for our dispensation view of history and God's dealings with men [which I discuss above (in part)].
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
(*katharina sits primly on the front row during class and then sneaks in after hours to practice the piano*)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe because it's so pointless? Actually attacking a religion is against the user agreement, so it has to be done more subtley?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm glad I moved to New Jersey, within easy driving distance of both Manhattan and Lancaster County. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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. linkPosts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
I just knew you'd know.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
