Harold Lee wrote:So it takes all that to know the Book of Mormon is true? That's a lot of commitment. I think I'd like a little closure before making a 30 year investment like that.
by the way I know what's going on here lol. RM, various ward leadership callings, ordinance worker, etc. Just saying I honestly don't think there's a time I've personally seen or heard something supernatural. Quite the contrary however, and a couple personal experiences convinced me it was hokey all along, and that was hard to accept. All these logical and historical reasons I wouldn't have listened to and just dismissed, but now I'm amazed how much writing on the wall I ignored. Religion does some funny things to you.
You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter how long you are a member (or not a member) of the LDS Church (or any church). It is the attitude that matters here. You seem to think having been a Mormon or having various callings makes you entitled in some way to an answer?!? It does not. It is what you ARE that matters here. Are you dedicated to seeking the Lord and doing as he asks - OR are you not?!? If the former, then do so. If not, then do not. But there is no in-betwen. There is no I'll try it for a while, then do something else. That kind of wishy-washy thinking isn't ever likely to succeed.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Harold Lee wrote:Have you guys read the Book of Mormon from a non-religious standpoint. It's extremely overrated and dull, and the storyline in there is just recycled and concepts from the Bible. Wandering in a desert, building a ship to get here, starting civilization, a rebellious group of wicked people becoming savage Indians and describing them, fighting back and forth, recycled concepts from the New Testament, things he was hearing in church and seeing in different denominations, an army getting drunk so they escape, and on and on.
I find Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Emily Bronte, etc from the same century to be much better reads. The reason there are no real in-depth literary analyses of the Book of Mormon from non-mormon scholars is because it is not a good piece of literature, it doesn't claim to be itself and I'm not sure why Mormons say it's so amazing how could a kid under the age of 25 have written it (the book wasn't published until he was almost 25, I don't know why they say at the pulpit a 14 year old boy couldn't have wrote it)?
He was a voracious reader, told many stories about Indians in his teenage years (including a Spanish ghost with his throat slit informing him of buried treasure) so he was a very creative and imaginative youth, and he had an English schoolteacher's 'help', we really have no clue what happened outside of that.
The idea that he couldn't have come up with the storyline himself with the resources he had is ridiculous, what he needed help with was grammar and structure and I don't doubt at all that where that help came from.
I don't think he stole and libelized another manuscript as scandalous as that might sound since the pretty low quality of the Book of Mormon's storyline doesn't necessitate that kind of drastic action, he may have just asked around and heard about it or talked to him directly about it as an interested youth.
This statement make sense to me. The Spaulding theory seems weakly supported at best and unnecessary. I can understand that curiosity may drive people to investigate the Spaulding theory but it is completely unnecessary to the project of having an alternative to it was written by ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Howe found people who thought the Book of Mormon sounding like a Spaulding manuscript. It is possible they heard some sort of similarity but that hardly requires an actual connection. On the other hand connecting the book to Joseph Smith presents no problems and presents a like source for the book right off the bat, Joseph Smith.
Actually I do not see any players more likely to be capable. I think that there is more Cambellite material in the Book than is easy to explain with Joseph as sole source. There are a variety of ways of picturing multiple sources being put together by Joseph. Reading and listening to religious ideas in the area at the time are plausible sources for the contemporary religious ideas the book is full of..
Tobin wrote:You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter how long you are a member (or not a member) of the LDS Church (or any church). It is the attitude that matters here. You seem to think having been a Mormon or having various callings makes you entitled some way to an answer?!? It does not. It is what you ARE that matters here. Are you dedicated to seeking the Lord and doing as he asks - OR are you not?!? If the former, then do so. If not, then do not. But there is no in-betwen. There is no I'll try it for a while, then do something else. That kind of wishy-washy thinking isn't ever likely to succeed.
Truth. I don't feel like explaining my personal situation and that's nobody's business. The subtle assumptions and character judgments (bad attitude, arrogance, etc) I don't think are accurate in this case. You'll just have to take my word for it.
I am a moderate Spaldingite. In the context of other probable sources, the Spalding theory becomes a much less significant part of the picture. Joseph Smith had a LOT of help.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
Tobin wrote:I like it when the critics put forward the Spaulding Theory. It is really a nutty theory with not one shred of evidence that such a manuscript ever existed - no drafts, no copies, nothing you can cite. It's simply bonkers.
That sounds a lot like some of the LDS Apologists with their missing papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Tobin wrote:I like it when the critics put forward the Spaulding Theory. It is really a nutty theory with not one shred of evidence that such a manuscript ever existed - no drafts, no copies, nothing you can cite. It's simply bonkers.
That sounds a lot like some of the LDS Apologists with their missing papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham.
Harold Lee wrote:So don't pray about it? I'm confused what you want exactly.
Dedicate your life to doing what God wants and seeking him and we'll talk in 30 years. That is that is the attitude it takes. You seem to think God is going to answer you because you are going to say a prayer. Hardly. God knows you. Don't think for an instant you can fool God and believe that he'll just answer you because you demand it. It isn't likely to happen.
Harold,
You can't understand the entirety of the movie Rocky in just one viewing. Dedicate your life to the movie, watching it every day consistently throughout your life. You should even take two years off work to spread the good news about the movie to fellow movie goers, financed through your life savings.
After you have done that for 30 years, we can talk about whether the movie Rocky is true or not.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
sock puppet wrote:The screenplay for Rocky (1976) must have come from god too, goes this Mormon logic.
After all, Sylvester Stallone (albeit attended some college) wrote the screenplay for the Academy Award-winning movie in 3 days by one account (The Rocky Story by Stallone) or 20 straight hours (Stallone to Tony Robbins), after having witnessed the the Muhammad Ali–Chuck Wepner fight.
I think that the fact Stallone penned that successful of a screenplay in either 20 hours or 3 days is proof of divine intervention.
I therefore testify that I know that Rocky is true.
That isn't the basis for why Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture and you know it. They should do so because God tells them it is true.
But, I had strong, positive emotions when watching Rocky. It made me want the underdog boxer win. These strong feelings are the Holy Ghost confirming to me the truthfulness of Rocky. This is Mormon epistemology; I bear you my witness that Rocky is true!
Harold Lee wrote:So don't pray about it? I'm confused what you want exactly.
Dedicate your life to doing what God wants and seeking him and we'll talk in 30 years. That is that is the attitude it takes. You seem to think God is going to answer you because you are going to say a prayer. Hardly. God knows you. Don't think for an instant you can fool God and believe that he'll just answer you because you demand it. It isn't likely to happen.
Does it really take 30 years to accomplish the self-delusion?
Tobin wrote: Dedicate your life to doing what God wants and seeking him and we'll talk in 30 years. That is that is the attitude it takes. You seem to think God is going to answer you because you are going to say a prayer. Hardly. God knows you. Don't think for an instant you can fool God and believe that he'll just answer you because you demand it. It isn't likely to happen.
Harold,
You can't understand the entirety of the movie Rocky in just one viewing. Dedicate your life to the movie, watching it every day consistently throughout your life. You should even take two years off work to spread the good news about the movie to fellow movie goers, financed through your life savings.
After you have done that for 30 years, we can talk about whether the movie Rocky is true or not.
Will it help to give you 10% of my income for 30 years? I don't feel like carrying around all those cumbersome zeroes and commas on my bank statements.