New Book Published by FAIR

[hagoth7]

Mike,

It looks like a very worthwhile publication.

To expand your market to those of us whose reading stacks are already growing too quickly, if you also sold this in an audio format, (or in digital text format, so our computers could generate our own audio/speech files from the text), we could listen while we drive, exercise, mow the lawn, etc. I would be happy to be a customer if you go that route.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And I have a great reading voice if you want me to do the reading. No joke.

[orion88]

At the risk of appearing presumptuous, I direct MA&D participants to the new book, "Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt," published by FAIR & distributed by Deseret Book. See http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

Mike

Hi Mike,

In the online version of one of the chapters (4), you say "We might similarly

ask how Old Testament prophets could be wrong about the shape of the

earth."

Do you have some references of the Bible to indicate this about the Old

Testament prophets? And were you taking their words as doctrinal

statements instead of personal opinions or words uttered by them while

they were spiritually distant from God? Recall that Elijah and Job also

said various things in their moments of weakness.

Tony

[MAsh]

Hi Mike,

In the online version of one of the chapters (4), you say "We might similarly

ask how Old Testament prophets could be wrong about the shape of the

earth."

Do you have some references of the Bible to indicate this about the Old

Testament prophets? And were you taking their words as doctrinal

statements instead of personal opinions or words uttered by them while

they were spiritually distant from God? Recall that Elijah and Job also

said various things in their moments of weakness.

Tony

A lot has been written on this topic. A good overview can be found here: http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

The point is that prophets (both ancient & modern) are men with authority, yet they are still men (with moments of weakness as you note above). In the absence of revelation they are free to speculate like any other human-- be it speculation about the shape of the earth, the coverage of Noah's flood, the validity of evolutionary theories, the geography for the Book of Mormon, etc.

[cartman]

This is one book that I'm sure the First Presidency would not like to see at the top of the charts. Could be a barometer of what's happening to the faithful.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not sure I follow, cartman. The First Presidency is well aware that some people encounter trials of faith as discussed in Mike's book. Take President Eyring, for example. He's given a talk to CES educators on the subject. Here's the .pdf

[wenglund]

This is one book that I'm sure the First Presidency would not like to see at the top of the charts. Could be a barometer of what's happening to the faithful.

I think this falsely assumes that the First Presidency prioritizes public image over viable solutions to problems had among Church membership.

Were that the case, General Conference would merely be a love/PR-fest, rather than a frequent call to obedience and repentance and at times stern counsel.

But, I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

I don't think the cover is so bad...

GG

Now that I have the actual, physical book in hand...I think that the cover's great. I didn't notice all of the detail in the online photo - all of the words printed across the background. I've just opened it up and read the section on how anti-Mormons view FARMS scholarship. It looks like it's going to be a good read.

[juliann]

This is one book that I'm sure the First Presidency would not like to see at the top of the charts. Could be a barometer of what's happening to the faithful.

One of the indications of how effective a book is likely to be is by how many hopeful comments like this emerge. My favorite is "s/he will be excommunicated!" Yet, FAIR has been saying such things for a decade without one word of criticism from leaders.

[Aquilifer]

Now that I have the actual, physical book in hand...I think that the cover's great. I didn't notice all of the detail in the online photo - all of the words printed across the background. I've just opened it up and read the section on how anti-Mormons view FARMS scholarship. It looks like it's going to be a good read.

Oooh, how do they view FARMS scholarship? Could be fun to discuss in light of one of the other threads that's been tacked to the top of the forum.

[Wiki Wonka]

Oooh, how do they view FARMS scholarship? Could be fun to discuss in light of one of the other threads that's been tacked to the top of the forum.

Uhhh...well...I could start with the chapter title: "Anti-Mormon Disdain for LDS Scholarship and Apologetics." After perusing the chapter, I'm beginning to get the idea that the anti's don't think much of FARMS and FAIR.

My favorite part of that chapter is learning about the book review that claimed that the anti-Mormon book was very balanced, "contrary to the reviews published in FARMS," and then learning that at the time the review was written, that FARMS had not yet even reviewed the book. And they claim that believers try to make the end results fit their preconceptions! I also find it amusing to see endnotes referencing the comments and pseudonyms of individuals on the ex-mormon boards. Where else could I read a quote from folks with names like "Phiastus Hurlbut" or "Mojo Jojo?"

[orion88]

A lot has been written on this topic. A good overview can be found here: http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/g...ommoncosmos.htm

The point is that prophets (both ancient & modern) are men with authority, yet they are still men (with moments of weakness as you note above). In the absence of revelation they are free to speculate like any other human-- be it speculation about the shape of the earth, the coverage of Noah's flood, the validity of evolutionary theories, the geography for the Book of Mormon, etc.

I have ordered your book.

I looked at a web site that bears your copyright at http://www.mormonfortress.com/infall1.html

It says, "According to the Bible, the earth is flat (see Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 49:32,

Revelation 7:1, Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 28:24, etc.).

Doctrine and Covenants 124:3,128 also refers to the four corners of the earth

as Isaiah 11:12 does.

So according to your own standard, Doctrine and Covenants 124 says the earth

is flat too.

Tony

[juliann]

I have ordered your book.

I looked at a web site that bears your copyright at http://www.mormonfortress.com/infall1.html

It says, "According to the Bible, the earth is flat (see Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 49:32,

Revelation 7:1, Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 28:24, etc.).

Doctrine and Covenants 124:3,128 also refers to the four corners of the earth

as Isaiah 11:12 does.

So according to your own standard, Doctrine and Covenants 124 says the earth

is flat too.

Tony

You are playing with words. "Four corners" is an idiom. And English one...the Bible wasn't written in English. What matters is what the ancients believed. You are quite aware that no one has ever interpreted this idiom to mean a flat earth in JS's time or now. Four corners isn't the greatest problem with the ancient worldview. They also talked of going to heaven on ladders or building buildings to reach heaven. The earth is held up by pillars. Floodgates let rain through the dome of the firmament. Isaiah describes the earth as a circle with the heavens as a curtain made into a tent. If you are aligned with conservative Christians you might get a hearing in trying to dispute this....but not anywhere else.

[Calm]

I would assume that the English idiom "four corners of the earth" is probably rooted in biblical language. Anyone know if this assumption is correct?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/four+c...rs+of+the+earth

[LifeOnaPlate]

Anyone who wants to argue science from the Bible is imposing a current view on an old text, like square pegs in round holes, plain and simple. The Bible is not a scientific text, and that's okay.

[Rommelator]

I just picked up a copy and have been skimming through. Its lookin' good Mike. I am looking forward to reading it.

Congrats!

[Jan]

I just got mine in the mail today and started it. It's written in an easy, flowing style --- very easy to understand and just weaves complex topics together well.

Good job, Mike. I'm planning on giving my copy to my bishop when I'm done with it (and picking up another copy at the FAIR conference).

Jan

[William Schryver]

This is one book that I'm sure the First Presidency would not like to see at the top of the charts. Could be a barometer of what's happening to the faithful.

I'm entirely persuaded that the only accurate barometer of "what's happening to the faithful" (assuming by "the faithful" you mean those who self-identify as "believers" in the restored gospel) is the content of the addresses delivered at the semi-annual general conferences of the Church.

.

.

.

As for Brother Ash's book: I had the opportunity to read an early draft, and I was extremely impressed by it. I would recommend it to anyone who is shaken by the information masquerading as "facts" that is manipulated by calculating individuals -- often exmormons -- in an attempt to erode faith.

Of course, I would also recommend a generous dose of fasting, prayer, and feasting on the word of God. In the final analysis, that is the only thing that will reliably nurture the faith necessary to survive the challenging days in which we live. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an armchair apologist ...

[orion88]

Hi Mike,

I am not a Mormon but I ordered a copy of your book. It arrived a few

days ago. So far I am into chapter 3. I'll send you some comments

after my read.

There is some ambiguity (maybe it will be cleared up when I read further)

about how the Book of Mormon was written by Smith. I have always

heard that it was translated off of the gold plates (I have not seen any

official LDS teachings on exactly how), but your text seems to indicate

that it could have been largely the influence of Joseph Smith's

interpretation instead.

From page 29 - "This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator

himself remains in his translation ... It's likely that Joseph used familiar

language and terminology to dictate the intent of what was on the plates."

Tony

[Scott Gordon]

Tony,

I don't mean to speak for Mike, but you might want to check Brant Gardner's article on this question. http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...istoricity.html

[orion88]

Tony,

I don't mean to speak for Mike, but you might want to check Brant Gardner's article on this question. http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...istoricity.html

Thanks Scott.

Tony

[MAsh]

Hi Mike,

I am not a Mormon but I ordered a copy of your book. It arrived a few

days ago. So far I am into chapter 3. I'll send you some comments

after my read.

There is some ambiguity (maybe it will be cleared up when I read further)

about how the Book of Mormon was written by Smith. I have always

heard that it was translated off of the gold plates (I have not seen any

official LDS teachings on exactly how), but your text seems to indicate

that it could have been largely the influence of Joseph Smith's

interpretation instead.

From page 29 - "This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator

himself remains in his translation ... It's likely that Joseph used familiar

language and terminology to dictate the intent of what was on the plates."

Tony

Hi Tony,

Sorry if I was ambiguous in the book. I believe that the plates actually contained pretty much what we have in the printed Book of Mormon. When someone translates a document from one language to another, they use the words and expressions in their own vocabulary and according to how the feel it best reproduces the intent of the original author. Therefore, Joseph's scriptural language and terminology are bound to show up in the translation.

Mike

[orion88]

Hi Tony,

Sorry if I was ambiguous in the book. I believe that the plates actually contained pretty much what we have in the printed Book of Mormon. When someone translates a document from one language to another, they use the words and expressions in their own vocabulary and according to how the feel it best reproduces the intent of the original author. Therefore, Joseph's scriptural language and terminology are bound to show up in the translation.

Mike

Hi Mike.

Thank you for clarifying.

Is there a way to determine how much of the Book of Mormon is a literal

translation of what was recorded on the plates versus how much was Smith's

interpretation to best reproduce the intent of the original author?

Tony

[LifeOnaPlate]

Tony: There are ways to guess, but that's about it. For example, the title "Christ" appears early in the text. This being a Greek form makes it pretty clear that Smith used what was familiar. (Christ=anointed (Greek)=Messiah=anointed, Hebrew).

[MAsh]

Hi Mike.

Thank you for clarifying.

Is there a way to determine how much of the Book of Mormon is a literal

translation of what was recorded on the plates versus how much was Smith's

interpretation to best reproduce the intent of the original author?

Tony

To some degree it's probably all influenced by JS. There do appear to be areas of "tight" translation and these provide from some interesting Hebraisms. But every human that does a translation-- from another language, and idea, or even a thought-- has to express it in words that make sense to that person & the intended audience. If JS did a word for word translation it would be nearly unintelligeable (look at any NT or OT lexicon). Even then, JS would have to decide the best word to express the meaning of each individual word. There are no 1 for 1 equivalents for every word from one language into another. For example, in Japanese there is no word for "brother" -- just older & younger brother. Knowing this, how would you translate "the brother of Jared," without any additional information. All languages have some words that are untranslateable in the sense that we don't have precise equivalents. When this happens we must decide (from our own experience, analysis, intellect, etc.) what word(s) to use. No doubt Joseph had to do this many times.

Mike