Jump to content

Moroni as Treasure Guardian


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

Sigh.

Over at another message board, I just read a passage from one of the brighter critics of the Church in which, as if it were settled and established historical fact, he declares that "Joseph knew that the magic stuff was a problem for many respectable religious people too, which is why as he revised his project in a religious direction he gradually censored out the magical aspects of the early accounts. Originally Moroni had been a treasure guardian with his throat slit, and the tales of Joseph going repeatedly back to the hill to get the plates were full of black magic, astrology, and other such stuff. In later memory all these narratives were heavily revised and Christianized."

I didn't realize that anybody still suffered from this sort of delusion. Anyway, in case anybody here does, I offer two antidotes:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=17&num=1&id=567

Take two, and get plenty of rest.

Link to comment
I didn't realize that anybody still suffered from this sort of delusion.

Not everyone finds lds apologetic rebuttals as persuasive as you do, Dan. Especially for those who are not personally invested in the truth claims of the church. If you'd like to engage these "delusional" people, I am sure many of them would be happy to oblige ya. When and if you do, you may want to refrain from throwing out personal insults at the start.

Link to comment

And here I was thinking it was all about money. As there was not enough money in treasure hunting, Joseph Smith decided to write the BoM and become a succesful author and when that didn't pan out, het started a religion. So that's yesterday's news? Man, I should frequent those other boards more to keep up to date...

Link to comment
Not everyone finds lds apologetic rebuttals as persuasive as you do, Dan.

There are members of the Flat Earth Society, too. And fans of reality television.

I don't have to be agnostic simply because you or somebody else find something unconvincing.

Especially for those who are not personally invested in the truth claims of the church.

And most especially, I suppose, for those who are personally invested in rejecting the truth claims of the church.

Or do you imagine that personal predilections exist only among believers?

If you'd like to engage these "delusional" people, I am sure many of them would be happy to oblige ya.

I see no need. The case against their position is, to my mind, perfectly solid.

I was serious when I said that I was astonished to learn that anybody (besides Ron Huggins, I suppose, and perhaps some of his trusting but uninformed readers) still holds his opinion on this matter.

When and if you do, you may want to refrain from throwing out personal insults at the start.

If I want to insult somebody, I'll identify him or her and I'll make the insult very clearly insulting.

You really don't need to imagine things.

Lighten up. Develop a sense of humor. Stop being so grim. This isn't a war. Life is good. And, fortunately, the gospel is true. Someday, you'll remember that, and you'll be grateful.

Link to comment
If you'd like to engage these "delusional" people, I am sure many of them would be happy to oblige ya.

Maybe if I had time. But I'm already a week and a half behind on my homework as it is, on account of trying to single-handedly battle a gaggle of Spalding-theorists.

Link to comment

There are members of the Flat Earth Society, too. And fans of reality television.

Both of which you know exist. On the other hand, when it comes to scholars who currently connect Moroni with the guardian spirits of treasure lore... by your own admission (strangely), you don't have a clue: "I didn't realize that anybody still suffered from this sort of delusion," you said.

I see no need {to engage these critics}. The case against their position is, to my mind, perfectly solid.

If it is true that you are ignorant of the scholars, then it it is quite possible that you'd be ignorant of some of their arguments too. You'd be in an unreliable position to know whether their arguments are "solid" after all.

Link to comment

Brother Reed, you seem to be in the mood to pick a fight.

I'm not.

Have a pleasant Easter. (It really happened, by the way.)

Maybe if I had time. But I'm already a week and a half behind on my homework as it is, on account of trying to single-handedly battle a gaggle of Spalding-theorists.

A worthy cause.

Link to comment

Brother Reed,

Feel free to call me Mike.

you seem to be in the mood to pick a fight.

Nope. Just calling you on what seems to be a logical inconsistency.

I'm not.

Which is why you insinuated that Chris Smith is being delusional, right?

Have a pleasant Easter.

You too, Dan.

It really happened, by the way.

Perhaps.

Link to comment
Which is why you insinuated that Chris Smith is being delusional, right?

Are you always completely humorless, rigidly literalistic, and eager for a quarrel? I hadn't noticed that before, but then, I don't know you all that well.

Do you seriously imagine that I genuinely think that somebody who holds Huggins's mistaken view is clinically delusional? Seriously? For real? You're not joking? Good grief. April Fool's Day was on Thursday. Or so I thought. (Do you perhaps also imagine that I regard the two articles to which I provided links as literal "antidotes" to a literal mental illness?)

If I had wanted to insult somebody, I would have identified that person by name and I would have identified the message board by name. And I would have made an insult.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it. The fact you're an agnostic doesn't oblige me to talk like one.

.

Link to comment

Are you always completely humorless, rigidly literalistic, and eager for a quarrel?

Ahh... you were trying to be funny at Chris' expense. Ok... got it. I guess that is better than being ignorant, or as you accused Palmer recently--"disingenuous". Were you trying to be funny at Palmer's expense then too?

No perhaps about it. The fact you're an agnostic doesn't oblige me to talk like one.

Proclaimed like a true spokesman for interfaith dialogue. Some people don't share your religious convictions, Dan. And that is okay. No need to "pick a fight" over me saying "perhaps".

Link to comment

Why do I find it singularly ironic to see Mike complaining about something that he never seems to find offensive when he is doing it or standing by silently while others do it on his favorite message board? Dan and I (among others) are routinely disparaged as "delusional" (or worse) in the GSTP, and Mike (and Chris, for that matter) either explicitly or tacitly concur with the sentiments. And yet, served a very mild dose of their own medicine, they just can't seem to choke it down.

Link to comment
Ahh... you were trying to be funny at Chris' expense. Ok... got it.

Plainly, you haven't "gotten it." And your schtick is growing very tiresome.

Had I wanted to name anybody, I would have named somebody. I'm capable of doing that. I can spell. As it is, I neither named anybody nor even identified the place where the comment was made. (In fact, the only identification that I supplied was that the person is one of our "brighter critics." Pretty vicious, that.)

I guess that is better than being ignorant, or as you accused Palmer recently--"disingenuous". Were you trying to be funny at Palmer's expense then too?

Nope. I think it beyond reasonable dispute, if what I've been told by multiple people directly involved in the matter isn't a conspiratorial lie, that Palmer was being disingenuous.

Are you trying to re-open this ever-fresh matter, too? Have you had a bad day or something? Just rarin'for a fight?

Proclaimed like a true spokesman for interfaith dialogue.

When I do interfaith dialogue, I do interfaith dialogue. When I don't, I don't.

But, by the way, I never do ecumenical negotiations, or pretend to disbelieve what I believe.

Some people don't share your religious convictions, Dan.

What a stunning revelation. I'd never realized that.

What, honestly, is your issue here? You seem to be really struggling to find something.

Link to comment
And yet, served a very mild dose of their own medicine, they just can't seem to choke it down.

I have a very strong gag reflex, as my visceral reaction to Dan's remarks about me in this thread has amply demonstrated.

Or something like that. :P

Link to comment
Why do I find it singularly ironic to see Mike complaining about something that he never seems to find offensive when he is doing it or standing by silently while others do it on his favorite message board?

I pointed the insinuation out to show the obvious: HE is the one who has "picked a fight". I also suggested that he might get better results, while engaging critics in a debate, if he didn't dish out such insults "from the start."

Link to comment
I pointed the insinuation out to show the obvious: HE is the one who has "picked a fight". I also suggested that he might get better results, while engaging critics in a debate, if he didn't dish out such insults "from the start."

Go to bed, Reed. Or put a DVD on.

Good grief.

I suggest something from the Three Stooges.

Link to comment

.... in the GSTP,....

Funny but:

I just love how we are now abbreviating euphemisms.

Multiple layers of in-jokes? Good grief. What are ordinary English speakers supposed to do to follow these threads?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...