Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 25, 2006 18:41:17 GMT -4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not that I'm wanting to get into a regilious argument here, so I'm going to just do a hit and run, but here's my take on The Book of Mormon. 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Galations 1:6-9 So, what is the basic message here? It seems to be "if you follow someone who is preaching something different from what we've preached - even if it's an angel - then you'll be in trouble." If you read this as a literal prohibition against the receiving of further scripture or revelations from man, god, or angels then you will have to reject the parts of the New Testament that were written after Galatians. As I don't know of any Christian church that does this, I'll assume that we agree this is not what is meant by the prohibition. The question then becomes, is the gospel preached by the Mormons different from the gospel as preached by Christ Himself and the early apostles? The position of the LDS church is that where our doctrines differ from those of "traditional" Christianity, it is because ours are a restoration of what was lost after the death of the apostles. The gospel we preach is therefore the same gospel that Christ and His apostles preached, and Paul's prohibition against acceptance of a new or other gospel doesn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 25, 2006 21:15:21 GMT -4
The reason Joseph Smith's visits to pubs is relevant is that he preached moderation in alcohol, etc. The current church does not. What's more, I find it amazingly hypocritical of the LDS church to claim they're restoring what has been distorted, given their long-standing and well-known precedent of changing their own history.
And, yes, I have indeed read at least some of the Book of Mormon; indeed, I own a copy. There was a steel bow in 983 BC in that book. That's historically wrong. What's more, there are quite a few words in there that don't mean what they are clearly intended in context to mean.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 25, 2006 23:01:08 GMT -4
The revelation concerning drinking was received in 1833. Before that time Joseph may well have preached moderation. When are the pub visits supposed to have occured? Even today, incidently, you can be a church member and be a heavy drinker and smoker. You cannot hold a temple recommend, however.
Please give examples of re-written history. I've heard this claim before but never attached to an example. It appears to be one of the "common knowledge" bits of Mormon criticism out there that no one ever substantiates.
The steel bow was in 600 BC, in the middle east rather than America (it occurs in the beginning of the book, before the family has left Asia). There is evidence of steel weaponry and tools in the Middle East at the time. The weapon was most likely a composite bow with steel ribbing rather than an "all steel" bow, as it broke a short time after the other bows carried by the family lost their spring. Once they reach the Americas there is little further mention of steel - and no refrence after the second book of Nephi.
Please give examples of "words that don't mean what they are clearly intended to mean."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 26, 2006 2:25:50 GMT -4
First, composite bows didn't exist then. Second, bows don't use steel ribbing, even composite bows. The passage clearly refers to bows having "springs" (1 Nephi, 16:21), despite the fact that a bow with springs is a much more recent development. And third, it says the bow is "made of fine steel," not that it's "banded with" steel. You're right that I had the date wrong, and you're right that steel did exist in that era, but you have no evidence that it was used for bows, even in the way you suggest.
As to rewritten history, are you aware that the LDS church commissioned Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History then had a hissy fit because she didn't write a version of which they approved? They wrote a snippy pamphlet called "No, Ma'am, That's Not History."
Further, Dallin Oaks himself is on record as having said, "The fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. By the same token, some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate.... Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local.... It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true." That is, in a nutshell, supportive of suppressing Church history.
Or look at the way the Church hid its frankly communistic past in the 1950s, when that wasn't a cool, funky mid-19th Century thing anymore. Heck, look at the history of Mark Hoffman!
As to words used wrong . . . well, frankly, the book's so badly written that I don't really feel like reading through it for a lot of examples right now. However, just by flipping through, there's 1 Nephi 17:42--"And they did harden their hearts from time to time, and they did revile against Moses, and also against God; nevertheless, ye know that they were led forth by his matchless power into the land of promise."
So. One does not "revile against" anything. One "reviles" something. One "rails against" something. One does not "revile against" anything.
And I'm afraid my list of examples is a bit limited at the moment, as I can't find my main reference book. Sorry. I rather regret it myself; it's really worth reading--though you'll probably say it's wrong because the Church says so. At least, that's what has been said to me in the past.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Sept 26, 2006 10:15:08 GMT -4
Its obvious that the whole thing was written by some guy trying to justify his cult. That people are duped by it is the surprise. Although if you are born into a cult I supppose you think it normal. I apply this to all religions, they are all brainwashing cults as far as I can see, some are just taken as normality because they are so widely pervasive.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2006 12:09:32 GMT -4
Composite bows were used in Egypt as early as 1700 BC. Several have been found in Egyptian tombs. True today, as they use graphite, fiberglass, and other advanced materials. Can we say "they never used steel" or can we only say "we have no evidence of anyone having used steel in bow construction"? The passage does not refer to coiled metal springs - it refers to a bow having lost its spring - as in the wood no longer sprung back to it's original shape when the string was released, making the bow useless. Banded with steel and made of steel are both appropriate ancient usage. There is mention of "chariots of iron" in the Bible where the chariots were finished with iron, not actually made entirely of iron (such chariots would be much to heavy for horses to pull in combat). No evidence except the translation of an ancient record from the time - the Book of Mormon iteslf Considering that iron and steel tools of the time have only been found in tombs and other protected areas it's not surprising that no examples of other steel bows have survived. "No Man Knows My History" was not comissioned by the Church and Brodie herself stated that she had lost her faith in religion years before she began writing the book. "Snippy" is a subjective term. I personally quite like Hugh Nibley's writing style. The pamphlet's text can be found at farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=47 if you would like to look at it yourself. Do you have a refrence for the original speech? I would like to read it in context and without the elipses. And handily avoids providing any actual examples of such suppression. Please provide examples of "hiding" the history of the United Order, which I believe is what you're refering to here. Mark Hoffman produced forged documents relating to early church history which the church cautiously purchased from him for investigation, he then started using mailbombs when it looked like he would be discovered. None of that has anything to do with the church attempting to suppress or change history. In fact excerpts from several Hoffman documents were published publicly. That's a subjective criticism - it's only your opinion. You're nitpicking. The meaning of the passage is clear, even if the usage of "revile" does not exactly match modern usage. I googled "revile against" and found several non-Mormon usages, including a quote from a dali lama. I can't say it's wrong until I know what it is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2006 12:24:21 GMT -4
Its obvious that the whole thing was written by some guy trying to justify his cult. The book was published before there was an organized religion. The church brings in near a quarter-million new converts per year which were not "born into" it. I disagree of course.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 26, 2006 14:25:20 GMT -4
You can't use the Book of Mormon to provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is right. That's circular reasoning. And you say that I'm nitpicking when I provide evidence that a word is used incorrectly. There's no point in continuing.
The book is The Mormon Murders, by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith. Examples a-plenty of what you're looking for, though I'm sure you'll have an explanation for why they're wrong. (This is why my personal belief that I could be wrong is so comforting to me--I don't have to continually reorder the universe to fit my prejudices.)
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2006 14:41:09 GMT -4
You can't use the Book of Mormon to provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is right. That's circular reasoning... What if it contradicts itself?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2006 14:49:28 GMT -4
You can't use the Book of Mormon to provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is right. That's circular reasoning. And you say that I'm nitpicking when I provide evidence that a word is used incorrectly. Yes I know that - hence the smiley face. My real point was that lack of evidence isn't evidence. You have no evidence that people never used steel bows, just a lack of any that survived to the current day. It's only surprising if there is some definite reason they should have survived. You sure are quick to throw in the towel. You're not even going to address the issues in my last post? I thought you said I was the one who was going to end up enraged. Oh, I'm sure a book titled The Mormon Murders must be an authoritative and totally even-handed account of the history of the LDS church. I don't know why anyone would think that any sensationalism could be involved. No doubt Naifeh and Smith won the Pulitzer for their sincere objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 26, 2006 16:15:13 GMT -4
Yes I know that - hence the smiley face. There wasn't one about my "nitpicking." You asked for an example. I gave you one. You said I was nitpicking. I could spend hours trudging through that book, finding others, and you'd tell me I was nitpicking there, too. The word was used incorrectly. I have no evidence that you'd accept as evidence, such as things like the fact that steel isn't terribly flexible and doesn't make a good bow unless it's a crossbow--ie, has a winch to make the thing cock properly--and that the steel from that era was brittle, meaning it was even less flexible than modern steel. I'm not enraged. I find the whole thing tedious. You disbelieve me about Fawn Brodie, but you're wrong. The Church appointed a historian in the 70s who was supposed to bring about a new era of Church openness, and he was fired. (I'm afraid I don't remember his name.) Since I don't particularly believe in telling people their faith is wrong, I'm not happy with myself for having the discussion at all, even though I do believe Mormonism is actively harmful to its female adherents. Actually, it is pretty even-handed, yes. It's called The Mormon Murders because it's about the Hoffman case. Those were murders about Mormonism. It will also tell you where you're wrong about him--the Church did not voluntarily release that information; Hoffman leaked it to the press.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 26, 2006 18:41:30 GMT -4
Just what point are you trying to make with this criticism? Joseph Smith had no formal education, so saying that he occasionally used english a little differently than the rest of us in his translations isn't really saying much. I thought the meaning of the passage was very clear despite non-standard usage, so the criticism is a nit.
Composite bows were often made with horn. Horn isn't terribly flexible and can be quite brittle once it has dried out, yet it was used in the construction of bows. You're right - I'm not convinced.
Actually I'm quite correct about Fawn Brodie. She came to a conclusion that Joseph Smith was no prophet and then wrote a biography about him to prove the point. It has nothing to do with the church commissioning a history and then snubbing the writer when they didn't like the results, which was your original story about her.
Without a name and more specific dates this is really just a vague rumor.
Why do you think that? One of the reasons I am in the church in the first place is that my mother and grandmothers (and great grandmothers) are/were so supportive of it.
No they weren't - they were murders committed by a desperate criminal caught in his own trap. The fact that his business was attempting to snooker a church doesn't have much to do with the validity of that church. I lived in Bountiful when Hoffman was caught (in the blast of one of his own bombs), and although I was a bit young to be seriously interested in the news it was big local news at the time. My neighbors at the time were relatives of one of the people he killed.
I admit I'm not up to speed on the Hoffman story - I may have to go look up the details again (it happened years ago, after all).
But are you saying the church should be condemned for not having released forged documents that cast it in a bad light?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 26, 2006 19:23:01 GMT -4
FWIW
Steel crossbows date from the late medieval period and required a crank mechanism to draw them.
There is no evidence that anyone ever tried making a steel longbow: there is little point as such a weapon would have been too expensive, required too much strength to draw and weighed too much.
Composite bows were made of wood, horn and sinew arranged to place the horn in compression and the sinew in tension, making optimal use of the properties of each material. Largely because only animal-derived glues were available, they took up to a year to make and needed careful looking after.
"Self" bows were generally made from trees like Yew, which naturally grow in layers, giving the properties of a composite bow in a single carved piece. The relative abundance of raw material and ease of manufacture made them by far the most common type: composites were very much a product of necessity.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 26, 2006 20:10:37 GMT -4
You can't use the Book of Mormon to provide evidence that the Book of Mormon is right. That's circular reasoning... What if it contradicts itself? I mean, can the book of mormon be used to prove that the book of mormon is wrong?I am sure some faithful will use all their energies to show that the following two are not contradictions. Here it goes anyway. - (#1) Were precious things found in great abundance by the Nephites in America?
Yes: 2 Nephi 5:15 "And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. "
No: 2 Nephi 5:16 "And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land.... "
- (#2) Were there laws against disbelief?
No, everyone was free to believe or disbelieve.
Alma 1:21
Now there was a strict law among the people of the church that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.
Alma 30:9
If a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
Yes, it was illegal to express disbelief.
Alma 1:15
What he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.
Alma 30:29
Now when the high priest and the chief judge saw the hardness of his [Korihor's] heart, yea, when they saw that he would revile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words; but they caused that he should be bound; and they delivered him up into the hands of the officers, and sent him to the land of Zarahemla, that he might be brought before Alma, and the chief judge who was governor over all the land.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2006 1:18:38 GMT -4
Just what point are you trying to make with this criticism? Joseph Smith had no formal education, so saying that he occasionally used english a little differently than the rest of us in his translations isn't really saying much. I thought the meaning of the passage was very clear despite non-standard usage, so the criticism is a nit. If the translation was, as Mormonism holds, inspired by God, Joseph Smith's own educational level shouldn't matter. Had you defended the educational level of the original authors, you might have had a leg to stand on, though many of the words used don't exist in ancient Hebrew, but you didn't. You defended Joseph Smith instead, as though he were the author. Uh huh. That's not my information, but you've already said you don't trust my source to be reliable. Regardless of whether it's true or not, no non-Mormon source derides her scholarship. Mormon sources pretty much invariably do. Either every single non-Mormon source is biased or else the Mormon ones are. You can check my information, if you'll trust my source and then do further research on your own. Unfortunately, I have no idea what happened to my copy, and it doesn't seem to be in Salamander. Well, for one, there's a major double-standard in treatment of Mormon men and women, and I'm opposed--it's one of the reasons I'm no longer Catholic. There's the fact that Mormon women are supposed to be completely subservient to their husbands, despite their own beliefs. There's the fact that the Church has historically shown little support to women who leave abusive relationships and is doing little now to rectify that. And then there's the book for Mormon youths a former (Mormon) roommate of mine had that basically implied that Mormon girls didn't know enough to come in out of the rain--and this was supposed to be helpful in adolescence. Except for the fact that the authorities weren't allowed to investigate freely. Except for the fact that, when Hoffman sold the Church the documents, the Church locked them up without bothering to authenticate them. Except for the fact that Hoffman only committed the crimes that he did out of a deep sense of disgruntlement with that Church--which doesn't have anything to do with its validity, true, but it does mean that the title The Mormon Murders is pretty accurate. Do you think it might help you to do some research about them before you try to explain them to me? Are you planning to trust Mormon sources exclusively? Because if you're not, don't bother. How would they know they were forged? They bought them and locked them up before they could be authenticated--because they didn't want people seeing documents that cast them in a bad light.
|
|