"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[Beowulf]

QUOTE (Beowulf @ Nov 16 2005, 09:31 PM)

My my.

Another bitter soul... 

Bound for outer darkness, are we. (According to you...) 

And would a person be bitter if they shouted at someone standing on train tracks while a train was headed their way? Or are they trying to save the person's life?

QUOTE 

Lehi named the river. They camped there for awhile. And then they moved on. The NEXT person to arrive at the river valley did not know that Lehi had named it, and he called it something else... In an area that was largely uninhabited, this process has probably happened hundreds of times over the centuries.

That would perhaps be true, if there was a river there found by someone else.

You seem pretty sure of this. Tell me, what is that river that was found that used to be Laman? 

The train track analogy is remarkably misplaced. Especially since YOU are the one standing on the train tracks... (From my perspective at least. Maybe it has something to do with Einsteinian Relativity? )

I do not have to know exactly where the river is for my assertion to be true. All I have to know is the description in the text... And experience living in a dry region where names often change. (Just try reading a lexicon of names of locations in Western America. They changed often. And this is only since the arrival of the White Man. No one asked the Indians what THEY called the places.)

Beowulf

[charity]

Bernard the Urbane asked about the objections to the use of "adieu": "Why not just quietly say, "Okay," and move on to some other non-issue?"

Because those who do are painted into a corner, and they can't admit they see the error of their ways, because they would lose face. (Did I use enough trite phrases in that? )

But we need to back off, and let them have a chance to just slink away. Then if MC ever comes back with an "adieu" objection we send out the Danites.

[Pahoran]

Then by all means, reveal the truth to us.  Affirmatively proclaim the Gospel as recorded in the Bible; preach Christ and him crucified.  Is that enough?  If not, why not?  Is your faith in the converting power of the Holy Word so weak that you feel a need to soften us up first by creating doubt in the founding events of the Restoration?

When people believe things that are not true to be true, you have to show them how it's untrue before they can believe it.

That is the expected, conventional excuse for your anti-Mormon bigotry.

Now for the reality: we are likewise engaged in teaching what we believe to be true to others who do not yet share our beliefs. By all accounts, even during downward fluctuations of our growth curve, our effort is more successful than yours, and we do it without the kind of hate-based negative propaganda that you admit you would be lost without.

And why is that?

Simply because, on a level playing field, in a fair comparison, our beliefs and practices come out ahead of yours. That's just the way it is.

Can your version of Christianity, whatever it is, stand up to a fair, side-by-side comparison with ours?  Or are you so insecure that you need to tilt the playing field first?

I believe my version of Christianity can stand up to anything. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Any religion that speaks of salvation (exaltation might be a better word for you ) by any other means is false to me.

This is called "lip service." The reality is that you know that your lesser form of Christianity can't make any inroads on believing Latter-day Saints, so you first have to try to undermine our beliefs; and you're not too particular about whether you rely upon fair means or foul.

Well there you are, you see.  You claim that it is a "fact" that Anthon "called the characters fake" to Harris--but Harris doesn't report it that way.  This is therefore not a "fact" but a disputed claim, as you would admit if you could bring yourself to be honest about it.

What I'm saying is, while Harris and Smith went around claiming Anthon backed their story, Anthon was writing letters saying he didn't. He wasn't trying to be quiet about the letters either. He was requesting that they be printed so people know the truth.

All of which simply supports what I said; yours is a disputed claim. You may have convinced yourself that you have good reasons to believe it, but most people who are informed about this issue disagree with you.

Which quote would you like a citation for?  I have them all.

The lot, thank you.

Here you go...

Gardiner - Quoted in Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates [salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 1996], pg. 52.

Wilson - Letter to Stuart Ferguson, February 5th, 1957

Matheny - Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit?: A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," in Brent Metclafe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon [salt Lake City: Signature BOoks, 1993] pg. 321.

Thank you for at last providing citations. See, that wasn't hard, was it?

Now let's see what someone who knows more about this subject than you has to say about the last of these:

Matheny states that "no one has convincingly demonstrated a link between any" of five writing systems developed in Mesoamerica on the one hand and the Nephite writing system(s) as reported in the Book of Mormon on the other (pp. 320-21). (In fact, there were more like fifteen systems known, although some fall together into families and some are barely identifiable.) This sounds like a serious charge, but let's look more closely. The apparent significance is vitiated in the first place when we realize that nobody has made a serious attempt to demonstrate any links. More important, it is not clear how one would go about doing so. Several halfway approaches have been made. Carl Jones showed convincingly that characters on "the Anthon transcript" relate quite remarkably with the writing on a one-of-a-kind artifact from Tlatilco, Mexico. Linda Miller Van Blerkom found that "the six main types of signs of a word-syllabic system" are used equally in the Mayan and Egyptian hieroglyphic systems, but more fingerprints and a smoking gun would be nice. What we need is a competent linguist who's willing to follow up on these projects? (By the way, what would "competent" constitute?) [sorenson, "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" in FARMS Review of Books 6: 1, pp. 269-328. ]

So your dogmatic assertion, pretending to offer some kind of final verdict, has once again been shown to simply be yet another disputed opinion.

I'm not in the habit of accepting homework assignments from those who attack my faith.  Just so you know.

As long as you're not just saying that to dodge the challenge. But that's fine. It still stands anytime you wish to accept it though.

Boy, did you ever pick the wrong person to patronise.

Ah, a cheap shot.

I'll admit, it was. Conversations are like volleyball to me. If you see the perfect set, you have to go for the spike.

A nice sports metaphor. What does it actually mean? In practice, it seems to be something equivalent to, "to heck with dialogue; if an opportunity arises to be nasty, show your true colours."

The fact remains that it takes no knowledge and no talent to take cheap shots, as you have amply demonstrated.

The fact also remains that Joseph became and remained a genuine believer in the Gospel that was restored through him, and only the most ignorant bigots have ever accused him of "conning" anyone.

Now convince me that you are genuinely interested in actual interfaith dialogue.  Go on; try.

I am.

Now it's your turn to convince me that I'm not.

Duh? How dense are you?

You have amply demonstrated your complete lack of interest in a genuine interfaith dialogue, with your spiteful cheap shots and false accusations; a mere self-serving claim to the contrary does not trump the actual evidence in view.

Because you yourself have never been motivated by genuine religious belief, naturally you cannot possibly relate to Joseph.  You ASSume he "made up" his beliefs, because you don't share them, and neither your intellectual acuity nor your compassion is sufficiently powerful to enable you to put yourself in his place.

Oh, and just BTW: he never had any "occultic ones he practiced with his fellow money-diggers," if by that snide crack you mean Josiah Stowell.  Decker and Schnoebolen are laughing-stock around here; if you have come to tout some form of "new-age" anti-Mormonism, I suggest you think again.

You're right. I don't share Smith's beliefs. My beliefs about him have been formed by looking at the evidence of his life, seeing his gradual evolution from practicing divination- coming up with a story of gold plates protected by the ghost of what looks like a spaniard that guards treasures to multiple accounts of his first visitation, and deciding that Smith's life was filled with too many doubts to be anything but holy and from God.

There you are, you see. You try to pose--quite unconvincingly, I might add--as someone who formed his opinions as a result of Rigorous and Impartial Research. But it is obvious that you have merely swallowed and regurgitated, without the slightest hint of any critical evaluation, a bunch of standard anti-Mormon lies--and you give yourself away all over the place. Let me give you just one little hint: absolutely nobody who has any credibility at all believes the palpably absurd and hilariously ridiculous "bleeding Spanish ghost" story.

Absolutely nobody.

In case you missed the point: anybody who does believe it--or who claims to believe it because he'd never let scruples get in his way--has in either event demonstrated that they have no credibility at all.

Thank you for admitting that you simply made it up.  False accusers don't often do that.

False accusers don't do a lot of things I do.

They all falsely accuse, as do you.

I'm still chuckling that you want evidence for a possible theory as to why Smith told Harris to go to New York.

I'm still scratching my head as to how you got to be so arrogant as to imagine that you get to fling out all sorts of unsupported accusations and expect us to just roll over.

The fact is, I don't say any of this to cause a fight.  I say it because I honestly believe Mormons are hell-bound.  I suppose a better way of saying that is that they're bound for outer darkness.

Hey, I'd rather be in hell with the Mormons I know than in heaven with your kind of arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, bigoted, frightened "Christians." The Mormons are simply better people--and better Christians--than you are.

And of these, Joseph Smith heads the list.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Hale and Farewell to Adieu:

Etymologically speaking

[usadingo]

That is the expected, conventional excuse for your anti-Mormon bigotry.

...we do it without the kind of hate-based negative propaganda that you admit you would be lost without.

... our beliefs and practices come out ahead of yours.

...your lesser form of Christianity can't make any inroads on believing Latter-day Saints

...you first have to try to undermine our beliefs; and you're not too particular about whether you rely upon fair means or foul.

...let's see what someone who knows more about this subject than you has to say about the last of these:

...your dogmatic assertion, pretending to offer some kind of final verdict, has once again been shown to simply be yet another disputed opinion.

...Boy, did you ever pick the wrong person to patronise.

...it takes no knowledge and no talent to take cheap shots, as you have amply demonstrated.

...only the most ignorant bigots have ever accused him of "conning" anyone.

...Duh? How dense are you?

...your spiteful cheap shots and false accusations; a mere self-serving claim to the contrary does not trump the actual evidence in view.

...it is obvious that you have merely swallowed and regurgitated, without the slightest hint of any critical evaluation, a bunch of standard anti-Mormon lies--and you give yourself away all over the place.

They all falsely accuse, as do you.

I'm still scratching my head as to how you got to be so arrogant as to imagine that you get to fling out all sorts of unsupported accusations and expect us to just roll over.

...I'd rather be in hell with the Mormons I know than in heaven with your kind of arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, bigoted, frightened "Christians." The Mormons are simply better people--and better Christians--than you are.

Your argument is so full of holes, that I don't know where to begin. I don't think I'll even try to start. As you can see, you're so full of hatred for non-Mormons, that I think I'll let you address those issues first.

It's absolutely laughable how you go on crying about people being anti-Mormon, but then go on rants full of hateful speach.

Go on with your hypocricy.

I'll at least admit to being against Mormonism.

[Gohan]

I don't hate anti-Mormons; I just pity them.

You never see any Mormons protesting outside buildings where the religious events are held, but as soon as we have an event like the Hill Cumorah Pageant or General Conference there are a bunch of people with picket signs calling us "Brainwashed", "Devil-worshippers", and saying that we're going to hell for "believing in another Jesus".

Besides, aren't we as Christians supposed to be accepting of others? Of course as soon as we step up to defend ourselves against such things we're accused of being "full of hatred for non-Mormons". I have only one response to a statement such as that . The fact that you could even make such a statement shows your ignorance of our doctrine.

I'll leave you something a friend of mine once said to me, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it." Ponder it.

[Pahoran]

Your argument is so full of holes, that I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps by actually quoting some part of it, instead of abstracting the filler material.

I don't think I'll even try to start.

Very wise.

As you can see, you're so full of hatred for non-Mormons,

Something none of my non-Mormon friends, acquaintances, neighbours, workmates or relatives seem to have noticed.

Why?

Because it isn't true. What is true is that my disdain for anti-Mormon knavery knows virtually no bounds; but to equate "non-Mormon" with "anti-Mormon" is simply false.

It's absolutely laughable how you go on crying about people being anti-Mormon, but then go on rants full of hateful speach.

Go on with your hypocricy.

It's absolutely laughable how you come to an LDS forum, disgorge a load of malicious hate propaganda, and then when someone is mean enough to call it what it is, you run away crying that you aren't loved.

I'll at least admit to being against Mormonism.

Thank you.

And I'll admit to being against anti-Mormonism.

Regards,

Pahoran

[usadingo]

It's absolutely laughable how you come to an LDS forum, disgorge a load of malicious hate propaganda, and then when someone is mean enough to call it what it is, you run away crying that you aren't loved.

Who's run away? I simply stated that it's not worth debating with someone who does nothing but insult.

[Pahoran]

What has been established so far:

1) The "adieu" argument is dead and buried.

2) Martin Harris came back from his visit with Anthon and did nothing that he should have done if Anthon's subsequent revisionist version of events was true, and everything he should have done if the version he and Joseph told was true.

3) People who rely upon outdated polemics in their taglines are going to end up with egg on their faces; Mr. Key is simply wrong.

4) Anti-Mormons who start spitting contests with Mormons are likely to complain when they lose.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gohan]

...I simply stated that it's not worth debating with someone who does nothing but insult.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response....

[Sput]

did we win yet?

[Outshined]

What has been established so far:

1) The "adieu" argument is dead and buried.

2) Martin Harris came back from his visit with Anthon and did nothing that he should have done if Anthon's subsequent revisionist version of events was true, and everything he should have done if the version he and Joseph told was true.

3) People who rely upon outdated polemics in their taglines are going to end up with egg on their faces; Mr. Key is simply wrong.

4) Anti-Mormons who start spitting contests with Mormons are likely to complain when they lose.

Regards,

Pahoran

[charity]

Sput, we won before they even started with this one. It was actually over in 1389 when 'adieu' was first used in Old English as a farewell. So, those guys who can't keep up (and wouldn't you think they could in 1,616 years!) drag it out again and again. So, yes, we won. We won the first time they brought it up.

[Sput]

Sweet! good job you all.

[Homestar Runner]

Yeah, it feels good to declare victory on the adieu issue, but it'll stink bigtime in a month when the critics push the "brain reset" button on the back of their heads and come back with their latest version of the new and devastating criticism: "So, if the Nephites didn't speak French, how come Joseph Smith put "adieu" in the BoM?"

HSR

[usadingo]

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response....

I hope not. I haven't even been talking to you. It'd be odd to respond to statements not made towards you.

[charity]

Be nice, dingo. What is said to one is said to all here.

[usadingo]

But I was responding specifically to one person, as I'm responding to only you right now.

[charity]

We engage in conversations. If you only want one person to respond, go to the personal message function.

[usadingo]

I can understand that. I just hate when people take things personal that weren't directed at them.

To be honest, a small part of me came to this site to try and convert a few- but I mainly came to get a balanced view of the stuff I've been researching. For example- how do Mormons explain verses like Ether 7:9 that mentions steel in Abraham's time, yet it wasn't even developed until about 1,400 years later?

The problem though, is so far I haven't been able to get a good response without someone insulting me or calling my question stupid and not responding.

I do actually hope to have civil discussion. It'll probably just take time.

[thesometimesaint]

usadingo:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_metals.shtml#laban

[charity]

usadingo, I haven't gone back to look over your post history. Generally, from what I have seen, people are pretty civil here until someone gets condescedning or insulting or treats us like we were idiots for believing.

And sometimes, someone new coming on does not know that we just had a topic that covered the subject that went for days and hundreds of posts. And we would like to see that a person will take the time to look up the information when we suggest a link.

But keep coming at us with questions, and we will try to answer.

But don't expect any converts out fo the TBM crowd. We wouldn't be here if we weren't rock solid.

[TrespassersW]

usadingo:

To be honest, a small part of me came to this site to try and convert a few- but I mainly came to get a balanced view of the stuff I've been researching.... The problem though, is so far I haven't been able to get a good response without someone insulting me or calling my question stupid and not responding.

I do actually hope to have civil discussion. It'll probably just take time.

All due respect, but it probably won't happen. I don't know if you realize this, but your posts here come across as extremely condescending and hostile. This is why you've been met with hostility. Believe it or not, there are a number of non-LDS on this board who are highly respected, even admired, by both LDS and non-LDS alike.

But, when a person tends to, for example, take two contradictory historical accounts and promote the non-LDS account as "historical fact" and then ask why LDS were so dishonest in their own account... well, believe it or not, Latter-day Saints tend to see that as a sign of a closed mind and tune you out. If you're here to try to convert a few and get a more balanced view, then you might want to think about toning it down just a bit. Treat people with respect and they will be more likely to listen to you. And you just might find that some of the issues aren't as cut-and-dry as you thought they were.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, it is not a smoking gun, but it is a red flag. It's an oddity that should lead an investigator to further research. That's it.

And once again, we have a demonstration of the attitude exemplified earlier in this thread by Lady Sundancer which, in essence, is this:

The adieu contention is valid because I, who already reject the Book of Mormon on other grounds, say it is valid, not because the contention itself has any inherent merit.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll at least admit to being against Mormonism.

Yet you're not anti-Mormon? How does that follow, exactly?