Kemara Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 How did you get that info? I hear the church is actively seeking to get rid of those materials. After all they are not church approved nor are they found in the scriptures.Very very difficult Mola. If I could have ordered them directly from BYU's online bookstore and had them mailed to me I would have. But since the church secretly forbids this to happen and uses draconian means to achieve its evil goal I had to employ spies to sneak in and steal them for me. Bond aint got nothing on my spies.
Ariarates Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]
Kemara Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.What a load of complete and utter rubbish! 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]Pseudo-intellectuals? Wow, thanks for the compliment. Your too kind.Ariarates, Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage? Edited January 11, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Kemara Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Ariarates, Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage?Now your just being mean.
Pahoran Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 As you are intimately aware Ngaruawahia, while not totally destitute of resources, is hardly a bustling New Zealand metropolis even today. In 1992 it was even less so. but somehow I still managed to use a telephone (gasp!) to track down Bill Forrest, who at the time was working with Van Hale on Mormon Miscellaneous. It certainly took some time, some effort, lots and lots of international phone calls and a rather large telephone bill but I managed to get a hold of him at his place of work (a high school if I recall correctly) and I got my very first lot of Mormon Miscellaneous materials. It was shortly after my discussion with Bill that I again used that marvelous invention, the telephone, to get my very first article published by the then Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, a very interesting piece regarding Nephi’s bow. It was not until I moved to Australia in 1994 that I managed to track down my first edition of Sunstone, which contained rather interesting views on Elder Boyd K. Packer’s tyrannical crusade against the intellectuals, and I did so by again using the telephone.Really? They had telephones way back at the end of the 20th, did they?And did you realise the enormous risks you created for the people you telephoned? You know, don't you, that the SCMC (which recently took over from SPECTER as the top evil conspiracy in the world) probably sent a "reactivation" squad, by black helicopter, to the homes of those people, who almost certainly were never seen again?If I can track down non-correlated materials by telephone from Ngaruawahia in 1992 do you think it is too much to expect that others from places such as Europe and most anywhere else, with a little of effort, could have done the same….or am I just super human?Well, your arms do look as if you could bench-press a small car, but that's another discussion.Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]So evidently you think (1) that it isn't possible to sincerely disagree with you and (2) no believing Latter-day Saints are actual intellectuals.What happened, Aria? Did you overdose on bigot pills this morning?Regards,Pahoran 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) What happened, Aria? Did you overdose on bigot pills this morning?Regards,PahoranLol. Oh my.I needed a good laugh. It has been a while. I remember when this board had a bit more sarcasm then it does now.I honestly miss those days. Edited January 11, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
Pahoran Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Ariarates, Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage?A gun? He did?How did you know, Mola? Don't you know that the Church has "actively suppressed" this information? They did it by putting it in History of the Church, thus ensuring that no-one would ever read it. Have you been reading material put out by such "dangerous (gasp) 'intellectuals'" as President Gordon B. Hinckley?Regards,Pahoran
Calm Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I agree that they didn't have ready access. I vigorously dispute that there has ever been a time when the Church was anti-intellectual, or that there has ever been any "pressure" not to read anything apart from scriptures and lesson manuals.Regards,PahoranGrowing up outside of Utah, books were often made available through the High Priest Group. Many wards had either a store or a ward library available or both for members to use if desired, many included nonChurch books. You can often see traces of the library in older buildings even though technically they shouldn't be there any more according to the current instructions given out by the Church on ward libraries. I find it sad but totally understandable as first off, there just isn't enough room and second, there is always someone that assumes that such must mean that everything in the book is church approved. When I worked at a church themed bookstore, there on occasion was a customer who would ask for confirmation of their belief that everything in the store had gotten a stamp of approval on doctrinal issues from the Church. Considering we had a fiction section that included Harry Potter and other nonLDS themed books, I always wondered how they managed to make that assumption. Edited January 11, 2012 by calmoriah
zerinus Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]Some people say "intellectual" when what they really mean is "dissident". Dissent is not a sign of intellect. Any idiot know how to be a dissident. What the Church does not tolerate is what I will call "proactive dissent," for want of a better term. You are allowed to dissent; but you are not allowed to use the Church as a venue to promote your dissent. If you want to do that, you will have to do it from outside of the Church, not from within.
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Clearly we need a Magesterium.You don't mess with something called a "Magesterium".
volgadon Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]Curses! I'm unmasked again!
altersteve Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Pseudo-intellectuals? Wow, thanks for the compliment. Your too kind.Ariarates, Did you know that JS had a gun at Carthage?And he was killed in a gun battle.
volgadon Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 And he was killed in a gun battle.The meanie.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Go ahead folks, mock and ridicule all you want. Deep down, you know I'm right. It's only LDS pseudo-intellectuals who think the church is a fruitful venue for intellectuals.[Enter DCP with a link to mormon scholars testify...]Is there no end to Anti-Mormon nincompoopery? Apparently not!(Deep down, Ariarates knows I'm right!) 3
Freedom Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Where did you find it?I first went to the community library and got a hold of books like Kingdom of the Cults and other such polemic literature. I found that the local community library had quite a bit of information about the church. I then went to my CES director and he provided me with Sunstone articles among others. They had a mailing list that I subscribed to just before my mission. When I enrolled at the community college I was introduced to real libraries and found huge amounts of resources on the history of the church. Anybody who has any desire to find out more details can do so with little effort. This was the case in 1986, and it certainly is the case today. People either don't care or do not have sufficient motivation to read esoteric books written in a style that requires a dictionary.
mathilde Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Okay. Let's assume that Canada exists, Europe and New Zealand and even Utah have telephones, computers and cars, and every community has a well-stocked library. Is there misleading information in current church-produced material and curriculum? Is it possible to read Preach My Gospel and see not once but twice the illustration of Joseph translating with his finger on the plates, his scribe across from him taking down the dictation – if that is not how most of the translation was accomplished, is that a misleading idea? If we are not really sure how most of the translation was accomplished, and what we do know from Joseph Smith's own words is that it was accomplished by the gift and power of God, why use this illustration twice? If I am in Relief Society or Priesthood and have any manual of the teachings of any president of the church, why is it that if I read Joseph Smith's biographical summary there is only mention of his marriage to Emma? Likewise with Brigham Young, only Miriam Works, who died, and then Mary Ann Angell are listed as marriages? And why from that point forward are no marriages listed whatsoever in the historical summaries until George Albert Smith, who happens to be the first to not practice polygamy, and from then on every wife of the prophets is again mentioned as part of the historical summary? In the manual on Joseph Smith, it states "as commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage." However, that does not make it clear that he himself practiced it, does it? As I read my own set of scriptures, the introduction to the Book of Mormon states that "after thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." This has been corrected online now to read "they are among the ancestors of the American Indians" but there is to my knowledge no explanation online or in our manuals as to why that change was made or even an acknowledgment that the change was made. Right after that is this: "After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah." Is it understandable that most people would assume that this was the same hill Cumorah spoken about in the Book of Mormon as the scene of great battles and the same where the plates were found?These are all relatively small points. There are many more, including church-produced/approved films and other manuals. The gospel survives regardless. But I think the question to Brant Gardner was fair: "how do you feel about the fact that we're still not depicting this accurately?" And if someone's honest answer is, "I feel betrayed" maybe there really is something there, and maybe there really is some sort of responsibility to make sure that the curriculum of the church, for the average member of the church who may or may not be studying elsewhere, is as straight-forward and correct as possible, even if that means openly correcting mistakes of the past.
Craig Paxton Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Brant…I wonder if you might enlighten us further on which other words in the Book of Mormon fell victim to Joseph’s functional translation process other than horse, chariot, skins of blackness, wheat, barley, fig, elephant, pig, synagogue, silk, cement, glass, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, copper, iron, ore, plows, silver, swords, steel. The Greek names Lachoneus, Timothy, Jonas, oh and Christ; the 3 letter word for donkey, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, ox, domestic sheep, sow and swine….to name just a few. Or was his functional translation process only limited to words that cast doubt on Book of Mormon claims? And if not...why doesn't this translation process cast doubt on every word in the Book of Mormon?And I wonder if you might also enlighten us on what words Mormon might have wanted Joseph to correctly translate to describe the animals and objects he wrote about on the golden plates that Joseph got wrong? Or in other words, what animal or object or even noun might Mormon (the abridger of the golden plates) have preferred Joseph to use in place of horse or any of the other words mentioned above that resulted in functional translation errors? Clearly Mormon didn’t mean horse when Joseph dictated horse…so what word did Mormon want Joseph to dictate?I also noticed that no one has yet explained how Joseph’s functional translation process works when applied in equal fashion to specific Jaradite animal names such as cureloms and cumoms? Why is your premise applicable for the specific word horse, yet not applicable with other specific words like cureloms and cumoms…are you suggesting that Joseph simply made up these words whole cloth?Brant…I know you don’t feel that I “get it”…but I believe that a more accurate statement would be that I “don’t buy it”. Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Paxton
Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted January 12, 2012 Popular Post Posted January 12, 2012 Brant…I wonder if you might enlighten us further on which other words in the Book of Mormon fell victim to Joseph’s functional translation process other than horse, chariot, skins of blackness, wheat, barley, fig, elephant, pig, synagogue, silk, cement, glass, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, copper, iron, ore, plows, silver, swords, steel. The Greek names Lachoneus, Timothy, Jonas, oh and Christ; the 3 letter word for donkey, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, ox, domestic sheep, sow and swine….to name just a few. Or was his functional translation process only limited to words that cast doubt on Book of Mormon claims? And if not...why doesn't this translation process cast doubt on every word in the Book of Mormon?And I wonder if you might also enlighten us on what words Mormon might have wanted Joseph to correctly translate to describe the animals and objects he wrote about on the golden plates that Joseph got wrong? Or in other words, what animal or object or even noun might Mormon (the abridger of the golden plates) have preferred Joseph to use in place of horse or any of the other words mentioned above that resulted in functional translation errors? Clearly Mormon didn’t mean horse when Joseph dictated horse…so what word did Mormon want Joseph to dictate?I also noticed that no one has yet explained how Joseph’s functional translation process works when applied in equal fashion to specific Jaradite animal names such as cureloms and cumoms? Why is your premise applicable for the specific word horse, yet not applicable with other specific words like cureloms and cumoms…are you suggesting that Joseph simply made up these words whole cloth?Brant…I know you don’t feel that I “get it”…but I believe that a more accurate statement would be that I “don’t buy it”.Brant has written a six volume commentary on the Book of Mormon and a book on the translation issues. Why don't you stop badgering him, go read what he has to say, and then engage his actual arguments? 5
Kemara Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Why don't you stop badgering him, go read what he has to say, and then engage his actual arguments?I think you are asking a bit much of the universe there Bill.
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Is there misleading information in current church-produced material and curriculum? ...Only if you decide to misunderstand them as you have.These are all relatively small points.Then what's your complaint?
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Deleted- due to lack of charity. Edited January 12, 2012 by mfbukowski
Craig Paxton Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Have you ever even heard of "historical criticism" or "higher criticism"? Do you think these guys are making up this methodology?http://en.wikipedia....igher-criticismThe impression you are giving is that you are uneducated- I am not saying you are not, but your failure to address the issues appears to indicate that.If you have a problem with the methodology, address the methodology. I think your arguments will not be good arguments, but at least you will sound as if you are at least informed on the real issues.LOL... Thanks...you literally made me laugh out loud...To your point...ahhh...yes, I'm quite familor with Historical and/or Higher Criticism Methods. Surprized that you would bring it up actually. By every independant (non-LDS) study that I've ever seen and even by some studies by some LDS members using higher criticism their studies have concluded that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. But if you are aware of any non-LDS studies that came to a different conclusion I'd love to read them.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 LOL... Thanks...you literally made me laugh out loud...To your point...ahhh...yes, I'm quite familor with Historical and/or Higher Criticism Methods. Surprized that you would bring it up actually. By every independant (non-LDS) study that I've ever seen and even by some studies by some LDS members using higher criticism their studies have concluded that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. But if you are aware of any non-LDS studies that came to a different conclusion I'd love to read them.Fallacy alert.Hey Craig, if you can find any LDS studies that conclude that the BoM is false I would love to read them.This argument that you present is really one of the worst I have seen. You limit the playing field, then declare victory. This used to work when I was 12. I soon realized the weakness of the argument. I would suggest a different approach.
Recommended Posts