Mark Beesley Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Look. the problem the church has is the lack of direct evidence to support the Book of Mormon.And that is your problem, the assumption that the Church has a problem in this area. The Church doesn't have a problem with the Book of Mormon. You do. And your problem is born of a lack of faith. The Church is growing, is healthy spiritually and temporally, and will be around long after you lie moldering in the earth.Let's look at some popular debates.Popular? Can you spell T-I-R-E-D?Everything you have identified has a plausible explanation.If it was just one or two things... I probably would have bought it.Well, it's not for sale.In the end, it is just too much controversy. Too many doubts are created, and too poor of excuses are made.The controversy exists among the faithless, just as it did among Christ's contemporaries.And after reading the snippets from your signature, it is little wonder that you can't find any satisfaction. You can't seem to place things in context.
Pahoran Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 What about Boyd K PAcker's quote from his speech of "Three Dangers to the Church?"How poorly did I misrepresent that quote?Very poorly.Look. the problem the church has is the lack of direct evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If it was there, then you wouldn't have to resort to working backwards. But it's not.Let's look at some popular debates.Book of Abraham...Clearly it reads other than what is written in the Pearl of Great Price. We are offered up the "dual meaning" theory.Your statement is incoherent. The Book of Abraham is what is written in the Pearl of Great Price. You are sidetracked onto the translation process, which is the most promising line of attack for the polemicists (and no-one else) while Klaus Baer insisted that the key to its authenticity is to be found in The Book of Abraham itself.Kinderhook Plates....I see, you are resorting to the scatter-gun approach. Got it.Clearly, they were a fraud. Yet Joseph Smith made a remarkable revelation.You are behind the times. Joseph Smith did not write that, William Clayton did. William was not Joseph's personal secretary at the time, as some have claimed, and he does not tell us any source for the statement.First Vision Accounts...Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [it should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]Yes, and? It is a well-known fact (to anyone who knows anything, unlike yourself) that in Joseph's day, the word angel was seen as encompassing all divine beings, including God. The notion that it denoted a class of "created beings" is an artifact of later Protestant theology." The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [it should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]I realise you probably don't know this, but Joseph had been dead for forty-four years in 1888; therefore he is not responsible for what is written at that time.Changes to the Book of Mormon...What about them?The United Order of Enoch...What about it?The Blessings of Jacob...What about them?and so many moreIf it was just one or two things... I probably would have bought it. In the end, it is just too much controversy. Too many doubts are created, and too poor of excuses are made.So what you are saying is that if the polemicists weren't trying so darn hard to find as many angles of attack as possible, your testimony would have survived?Remarkable!I have yet to see anything really concrete pose as a defense. Don't get me wrong, as both sides are often left grasping at straws, but that is the nature of debating a mormon intellectual... their goal is to create doubt, and not prove anything one way or the other.Really? I think you are projecting. Again.The reality is that there is no way to know if a man is speaking from God, or as a fallible man. However, if you take into consideration the massive amount of people who claim to have access to divine revelation through religious experience throughout the world and throughout history... the vast majority do not believe the LDS church is true.And you actually imagine that that is relevant to anything, do you?Regards,Pahoran
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 The fact that he leaves a manipulated false quote from Elder Oaks in his signature fully demonstrates the lack of reliability ond objectivity he demands of the LDS Church. It is dishonest. It has been demonstrated to be dishonest. He maintains that dishonesty.His quote from Epicurius has also been adequately answered, at least from an LDS perspective. Yet there it sits, every time he posts.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I think the main problem with the current LDS "intellectual system" is that the only clear agenda is to create enough obscurity to provide the illusion of reasonable doubt in any given issue.Apart from its being a factually false, at least partially incoherent, question-begging, self-serving, partisan, ad hominem specimen of poisoning the well and equivocation, there might be something to be said for this claim. I just can't think of anything at the moment.The problem with this approach is this.The principal problem with this approach is that it's mythical.1) You have to discount the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge. And since no serious Mormon thinker engages in such epistemological discounting, this should have been a very plain clue to you that you were on the wrong track.(This is impossible, but the belief is real in many people that science is unreliable. Many like to state that "Science cannot explain everything." And this is true. However, science can and does explain a great many things about how and why things happen. Even though it cannot explain everything, we have come a long way as a species utilizing that which we do understand. We actually use knowledge that we can acquire through scientific method to acquire more knowledge and even apply that knowledge to change the world around us.)And the relevance of this bit of obviousness to Mormonism is . . . what, exactly?2) You have to create unverifiable "what ifs" to discount what reason would dictate we believe.Such as, for example, "What if Mormons discounted the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge?"(An easy way for the LDS to create doubt in a situation is to say "man is flawed, and we are not always able to tell what is from a church authority, or from God." This is great from an LDS standpoint, because it allows you to suspend judgement and ignore the claims of non-believers. From a critic's standpoint, it changes nothing. It is a bad argument that doesn't prove anything or provide any insight into what did or did not happen. If anything, this just shows how unreliable any sort of revelation is, for any individual, of any religion. It supports that the LDS faith is misplaced.)And it's fictional. Don't forget that.3) You have to be very careful what you say and publish, because LDS intellectuals can very easily end up in church court, facing communication.Another marvelous expedition into the territory of the ad hominem. Don't actually deal with genuine Latter-day Saint positions. Don't engage the evidence and the arguments. Focus, instead, on the hypothetical (intellectually disreputable) motives of those who advocate such positions.(Ed Ashment sums it up nicely, "If one speaks out in a way the organization feels is unacceptable, the church has every right to ask them to leave.") I agree with Ed Ashment on this point. But to insinuate that the Church has commonly asked intellectuals to do so and, thus, seriously inhibited Mormon intellectual life, requires actual evidence, not mere assertion.Even Thomas Aquinas stated that his works "were as straw" just before he decided to stop writing forever.To his companion, Reginald of Piperno, after having a vision while celebrating mass. I alluded to this story above.Intellectualism and religion are at odds with one another.Nonsense.eventually, science became completely at odds with the Christianity of antiquity's view of the universe as handed down to them by God.Nonsense.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I forgot to add DCP to my list of LDS god-scholars. Consider him added now.
Helorum Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [it should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]You forgot to indicate who made this statement and tell us what its context is. http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Andrew_Jenso..._an_%22angel%22Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [it should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]Are you going to bother telling us WHO made the change and WHY they did it? Are you going to bother informing us what the significance of the change is or whether it even matters, since anyone can find the original phrase in a volume which is commonly, and currently, available at most LDS bookstores? And you forgot to acknowledge to everyone that the original phrase was published in an official LDS newspaper long before the edited version appeared in the History of the Church volumes.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 He's not interested in truth or accurate representation. Just take a look at his signature where he maligns an apostle of God.
PhilipTraum Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Why were you using a quote for your argument that you hadn't looked up to see the context for to make sure you were using it correctly?...because it wasn't me who used the quote?
PhilipTraum Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Your experience with the Book of mormon reminded me of Oliver Cowdery right off the bat. When he sought further witness that what he and Joseph were doing was of God, the revelation given said :22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness,[as you did when taking on Moroni's promise] cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things. [Likewise, you cast your mind upon the night you read and felt the influence of the Spirit. As you read God isn't going to wait until the end to verify the truth of what you read; the Holy Ghost attends truth whenever we are receptive. Thus, you felt the spirit earlier than the final chapter.]23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?That was the 'answer' that I had found acceptable in the past. In certain respects my views have changed since then, though I still tend to put more "faith" in intuition than in "consensual reality". In general, it seems I have had more profound "religious" experiences while studying than through prayer or meditation.
Calm Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 ...because it wasn't me who used the quote?I'm so sorry. My bad, very bad.
The Dude Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Who says Mormonism can't provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people? They just tend to become ex-Mormons with high frequency.
PacMan Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Who says Mormonism can't provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people? They just tend to become ex-Mormons with high frequency.
Neighbor Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 I have often wondered when or if mormonism will produce great masters of mormon thought and doctrine. Is there room in mormonism for the likes of an Augustine or an Aquinas, I have asked myself, or is the likes of Nibley the best we can do? Don't get me wrong I am not forgetting that the ancient church didn't produce either Augustine or Aquinas in the first two hundred years, for Aquinas at least it was closer to two thousand. Will we have to wait that long? Well, I recently discovered that the good news is that we won't have to wait that long because our religion doesn't have the capacity to support the truly great thinkers. I was reading what I understand to be a very popular, informative and qualified account of the transition between the fall of Rome and the "dark ages", called "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. Cahill uses Augustine as a lens to examine the final days of Rome's fall with particular emphasis on the wisdom and knowledge which was lost with the death of men like Augustine, he is talking about why Augustine left Manicheism, when all of a sudden he says this,"Like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism, it was full of assertions, but could not provide any intellectual system to nourish a great intellect".It was really an out of place comment, I think even if I wasn't mormon I would have furrowed my brow at the seemingly out of place remark. But he raises an interesting question, can mormonism provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people?For a moment I thought you said it was a no-good intellectual system:-)
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Who says Mormonism can't provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people? They just tend to become ex-Mormons with high frequency.What's the frequency rate on that, Kenneth? Can you be so kind as to provide some statistics? 2 Nephi 9: 28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
The Dude Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 What's the frequency rate on that, Kenneth? Can you be so kind as to provide some statistics? No. Now go ahead and be disgusted with me.28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.2 Nephi 9:28-29 is emblematic of Mormon intellectualism. Faith-promoting = good ; faith-challenging = bad. What a very simple system!
Tarski Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Who says Mormonism can't provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people? They just tend to become ex-Mormons with high frequency.Like Kip Thorne.
The Dude Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Like Kip Thorne.Yeah, or Paul Boyer.But you know the famous scripture: they only think they are wise, but it is really the cunning plan of the evil one.
PacMan Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Yeah, or Paul Boyer.But you know the famous scripture: they only think they are wise, but it is really the cunning plan of the evil one.No...that just refers to counter-mopologists without advanced degress.The Dude's just an aberrartion.PacMan
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Ah, the dude and tarski have apostles, too."Faith-promoting = good ; faith-challenging = bad"I don't see that phrase in the scripture; I see him mention the importance of hearkening to the counsel of God. I'm not seeing anything about the quality of knowledge.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Who says Mormonism can't provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people? They just tend to become ex-Mormons with high frequency.Which may well be true -- depending upon one's definition of "truly remarkable people" and "high frequency." Lacking such definitions, though, the claim is essentially meaningless (probably its strongest virtue) beyond suggesting the obvious fact that some people leave the Church.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Which may well be true -- depending upon one's definition of "truly remarkable people" and "high frequency." Lacking such definitions, though, the claim is essentially meaningless beyond suggesting that some people leave the Church. Which is probably its strongest virtue.Although it wasn't expressly stated, I believe he did define "truly remarkable people" as "men with advanced education and high recognition in science who decide to leave the LDS Church," based on the links he and Tarski provided.
Tarski Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Although it wasn't expressly stated, I believe he did define "truly remarkable people" as "men with advanced education and high recognition in science who decide to leave the LDS Church," based on the links he and Tarski provided.The link I posted is not supposed to be the basis of any conclusion about LDS intellectual life. It's just a lone example.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 The link I posted is not supposed to be the basis of any conclusion about LDS intellectual life. It's just a lone example.The post you responded to claimed "high frequency." Not to say you intended to respond to that aspect of the dude's post, but it was a part of it. I was speaking more towards him than you.
Anijen Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 +John Moses Browning+Orson Scott CardI've never heard of Lavell Edwards or Bronco Mendenhall. All I was able to pull up on Google under those names were a couple football players. Who are they?Well its because they are a couple of football players/coaches. As perhaps you might can tell from my avatar I am a huge BYU football fan. Though the last two names are not known as intellectual thinkers I was adding them more for tongue in cheek humor. However I think anyone who says LDS cannot produce a great thinker, well, er, is not a great thinker themselves. Any religion or lack religion can produce great thinkers. To say LDS cant is sorta of saying we are second class citizens and not 100% human...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.