Dale Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 I don't think that the writings by Christopher Nemelka have been mentioned yet... They include the lost 116 pages, the Book of Lehi, and the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon plates.The Sealed PortionHave a good one everybody!-RyanI looked at it several times and it's not as complex as the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has different poetical forms, internal geographic features. Mr. Nemelka has picked up a bit of the superficial flavor of the Book of Mormon, but not enough to look as wise as Joseph Smith.The Book of Mormon can still be a 19th century fraud. I see some 19th century things in the book. Some things suggesting antiquity have been suggested to be in the book. I have LDS scholar Blake Ostlers view that the book is a 19th century expansion of an ancient text as my own. That the Book of Mormon contains prophetic expansion, and commentary on the part of Joseph Smith from his time.Are you familiar with evidences for antiquity LDS scholars see in the Book of Mormon? Do you see such discoveries to be found in Christopher Nemelka's reputed translation? I look at it this way with a great laser copier I might be able to copy some of my U.S. currency. But the paper I used, and lack of features they use to prevent forgery would give away that my money was fake. Similarly anybody anybody that wanted to fake a Book of Mormon would have to have features found within the text of the Book of Mormon.
Thinking Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Suppose that GBH writes a book to be sold at Deseret Book. Being the sneaky critic that I am, I infiltrate the deseret Book Corporation and change the cover to credit me as the author instead of GBH. My guess is that not very many copies of the book would be sold, and the reviews would be average at best.After the mistake is corrected and the book is released by GBH, the sales of the book would be astronomical as well as the reviews.What's the point? If you have a preconceived idea about something, your judgement is subjective rather than objective.
rittermonster06 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 (rittermonster06 @ Jun 30 2007, 12:51 PM) I don't think that the writings by Christopher Nemelka have been mentioned yet... They include the lost 116 pages, the Book of Lehi, and the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon plates.The Sealed PortionHave a good one everybody!-RyanI looked at it several times and it's not as complex as the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has different poetical forms, internal geographic features. Mr. Nemelka has picked up a bit of the superficial flavor of the Book of Mormon, but not enough to look as wise as Joseph Smith.The Book of Mormon can still be a 19th century fraud. I see some 19th century things in the book. Some things suggesting antiquity have been suggested to be in the book. I have LDS scholar Blake Ostlers view that the book is a 19th century expansion of an ancient text as my own. That the Book of Mormon contains prophetic expansion, and commentary on the part of Joseph Smith from his time.Are you familiar with evidences for antiquity LDS scholars see in the Book of Mormon? Do you see such discoveries to be found in Christopher Nemelka's reputed translation? I look at it this way with a great laser copier I might be able to copy some of my U.S. currency. But the paper I used, and lack of features they use to prevent forgery would give away that my money was fake. Similarly anybody anybody that wanted to fake a Book of Mormon would have to have features found within the text of the Book of Mormon.Hello Dale,Honestly, I haven't even given the Sealed Portion any more than a casual glimpse... I have read his preface and the portion relating to how he claims to have received the gold plates etc., but not a great deal of his actual content. I just thought it was worth mentioning in light of the challenge to replicate revelation. Do I personally think that it is an authentic translation? No. And I am nowhere near versed enough on its content to comment on whether or not it is as complex as the Book of Mormon or contains the same poetical forms and internal geographic forms... But I am willing to take your word on that. From my brief exposure thus far, though, I would be inclined to agree that Nemelka only captured the "superficial flavor of the Book of Mormon." But I can't say that he didn't give it the ol' college try...Do you have any articles and/or books you would recommend to someone interested in your/Ostlers view that the BoM is a 19th century expansion of an ancient text?Thank you, have a good one...-Ryan
Doctor Steuss Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I don't think that the writings by Christopher Nemelka have been mentioned yet... They include the lost 116 pages, the Book of Lehi, and the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon plates.The Sealed PortionHave a good one everybody!-RyanWARNING TO ANYONE THAT READS THIS LINK... CONTAINS TEMPLE CONTENT.That is all.Carry on.
rittermonster06 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 WARNING TO ANYONE THAT READS THIS LINK... CONTAINS TEMPLE CONTENT.That is all.Carry on.My bad... Not my intention.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 My bad... Not my intention.I doubt anyone will inadvertently stumble upon it, just wanted to give the heads up in case. It isn't until one of the much later chapters (*admits to having spent way too much time reading that site once upon a time... in a land far, far away*).
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I believe the challenge was that the men write a revelation, not that they imitate a revelation or invent a revelation. The test is, can any of them receive a revelation from God, write it, and have it be confirmed by the Spirit to the group.
rittermonster06 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I believe the challenge was that the men write a revelation, not that they imitate a revelation or invent a revelation. The test is, can any of them receive a revelation from God, write it, and have it be confirmed by the Spirit to the group.Hello Life on a Plate,Not sure if your comment was a response to me or not, but I agree with you... It is my understanding, though, that Nemelka is not claiming to have invented or imitated a revelation, but rather that he has in fact received revelation. Although I am not sure how many followers he has claiming to have received a confirmation by the spirit that his revelations are true.Can we agree that there are in fact many revelations given by the founders and teachers of the various world religions which have been confirmed as true through the Spirit by their respective followers? The challenge has been met time and time again in my humble opinion...-Ryan
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 People can be deceived. But there can also be truth. The presence of deception does not indicate all are deceivers. The author of the Sealed Portion has admitted he made it all up in a City Weekly article. [he claims he made that story up, though, that he said those things to get out of jail.]
Doctor Steuss Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 People can be deceived. But there can also be truth. The presence of deception does not indicate all are deceivers. The author of the Sealed Portion has admitted he made it all up in a City Weekly article. [he claims he made that story up, though, that he said those things to get out of jail.]So... he made up the story that he made up the story that everything was made up. While we're all sharing stuff of people who received "revelation," here's an... ummm... interesting one:SUMMUM - Website (Just a basic overview of their philosphy, etc.)Sealed Except To The Open Mind (The book of "revelations" that Summum Bonum Amen Ra received -- click on the book and it will take you to the ToC, etc.).Wiki's dilly-dilly-doo-dah (Brief description by Wiki)I think Son might actually enjoy this (since one of the key Summum philosphies is that "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.")
rittermonster06 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 The author of the Sealed Portion has admitted he made it all up in a City Weekly article. [he claims he made that story up, though, that he said those things to get out of jail.]Just out of curiosity... Do you have a reference on that, please?Thank you,Ryan
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Just out of curiosity... Do you have a reference on that, please?Thank you,RyanHere's the City Weekly article. The retraction of the admission is on Chris's website as linked above. http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2001/feat_011227.cfm
rittermonster06 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Here's the City Weekly article. The retraction of the admission is on Chris's website as linked above. http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2001/feat_011227.cfmCool, thank you.-Ryan
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.