Book of Mormon Contradiction: Freedom of Belief

[_Darth J]

The big question hanging over Rom at this stage, for me anyway, is whether he's going to resort to the ad hominem type of apologetics that attacks the man, and not the subject (or both). From his thread on MAD, it unfortunately appears so. It's nothing short of grandstanding. All he had to do was give me a nod and we could have had a civil debate. I also believe that what drives much apologetics is not facts, or realistic and balanced assessments which admit of "difficulties" (think of Roberts here), but "pure testimony".......

[T]here's nothing wrong at all with abiding by a spiritual witness. The problem arises when one tries to prove the Book of Mormon true through material evidences, or when material evidences are used as a "faith-booster", and sometimes shoddily so. I know apologetics is often qualified by the statement that they are not after proof, but I've never believed this. If the Book of Mormon had fatal flaws as a history text (and I believe it does), it would quickly be abandoned as history. And this is what truckloads of apologists-cum-critics have done, and I believe that Roberts was well on his way to doing this, if he had not already done it privately but maintained a "spiritual belief" in the Book of Mormon. Of course he would have spoken publicly of it "as if history" from Conference pulpits. Do you suppose he would express any doubts from a Conference pulpit? But in private conversation he offered radical re-interpretations of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and not very long before he died. It is simplistic to paint a portrait of [B.H.] Roberts only from his public addresses, without seriously weighing his private reflections, but this is exactly what apologists have done, and this is what they do all the time - conveniently ignore or rationalise away competing evidences that would be weighed in the balance by any serious scholar. So it becomes a case of demonising the opposition, or just excommunicating them if they don't follow "the Party line". Once the serious challenges are out of the way from the view of the faithful, and relegated to unbalanced reviews in a medium solely there for "faith protection", the Titanic continues on at full speed ahead, and members will have to read more balanced critical reviews and opinions from other sources. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7997&start=42

[_RayAgostini]

I'm pretty sure that although I've questioned the historicity of the Book of Mormon - I've never denied the spiritual impact it has had upon me, nor that I have always believed it "spiritually" (I won't deny this), even when I couldn't "explain it historically".

You're welcome to search for any such denials.

When you're finished with that, let me know what you think of Jesus.

[_Darth J]

One thing I would give my stamp of approval to is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation, an imaginatively constructed pseudopigraphical account created by Joseph Smith. I don't need a "natural explanation". The "natural explanation" is, as Krister Stendahl suggested, which was that Joseph Smith explained how "scripture" was written.

As "history", the Book of Mormon falls into pseudo-history. It "explains" Joseph's enviroment, while adding the ridiculous idea that Christians practised the Law of Moses and Christianity at the same time. The tall tales told in this book are, in my opinion, just beyond ridiculous, and I think anyone who reads it should do so very selectively. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... start=1428

[_RayAgostini]

One thing I would give my stamp of approval to is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation, an imaginatively constructed pseudopigraphical account created by Joseph Smith. I don't need a "natural explanation". The "natural explanation" is, as Krister Stendahl suggested, which was that Joseph Smith explained how "scripture" was written.

As "history", the Book of Mormon falls into pseudo-history. It "explains" Joseph's enviroment, while adding the ridiculous idea that Christians practised the Law of Moses and Christianity at the same time. The tall tales told in this book are, in my opinion, just beyond ridiculous, and I think anyone who reads it should do so very selectively. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8100&start=1428

That's a denial of its spiritual truth? That's a denial of how this amazing book has affected my life in a spiritual way?

Find me another more convincing one.

[_Darth J]

When you are tied up and forcibly taken to the chief judge and ruler of your polity, it is not an "equal debate about the existence of God."

Maybe he was like you, a stubborn God-denier who needed a whack on the ass.

Go into any Islamic society, and see how far you get criticising or denying the existence of God. Then compare that to how the Nephites treated Korihor.

There's a difference between cowardice and stupidity. Stupidity is continuing to argue with someone who distorts everything you write. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... start=1449

[_Darth J]

I don't mind "lying for the Lord". :)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3587&start=105

[Guest]

My educated guess is that you probably have some kind of compulsive masturbation habit, and you see Mormonism as a way of redeeming yourself.

Maybe you should check in to some kind of addiction centre.

Maybe that will also cure you of your obsessive need to attack "Exmos" to justify flogging your dick too much.

You married? Did you tell your wife that you masturbate on the side?
.........
Now be sure to check yourself into that compulsive masturbation centre, because you have all the classic signs of a compulsive masturbator who sees "apologetics" as a kind of "redemption" from dick addiction.

In other words, you're just a typical Mormon hypocrite, and probably a speck in the pool of "Mormon priesthood holders" who contribute to enormous porn viewing among Mormon males.

Now go have your daily wank.

I promise I won't tell your wife.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14333&start=21

[_RayAgostini]

blabber

You don't understand me any more than Wade Englund did. When Wade saw my criticisms of the Book of Mormon as history, he concluded that I was an anti-Mormon, until I explained to him that, never in my life, have I ever denied the powerful impact the Book of Mormon had upon me, which lasts to this very day. I can't explain it, either, but I've never, at any time, denied it.

[_Samantabhadra]

(To viewers: I know that discussing Nephite law is about as meaningful as discussing Klingon law, but we're staying in-universe for the sake of discussion.)

Ray, what does Darth's faith or lack of faith have to do with blatant contradictions in Alma? If you were arrested and put before a judge because you said something the authorities didn't like, how is that being allowed to speak your mind?

As a sort of olive branch, I'll help you out a bit. One possible answer might be: in Alma 30 it says there was no law to punish people who didn't believe. But it didn't say there was no law to punish people who spoke out in their disbelief. There was no thoughtcrime, but there wasn't freedom of speech either.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm waiting for you to produce a post where I deny the spiritual truth of the Book of Mormon.