Hey Ray

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray,

I apologize if I misinterpreted you. I did think that you saw me as deceptively pretending to attempt scholarly detachment and friendliness toward Latter-day Saints while secretly hostile to them and their faith.

While I have arrived at the conclusion that Mormonism is not what it purports to be, I have no animus against the faith and its associated community. There are things about the faith and community that I find distasteful, and also things I admire.

In fact, I think our impressions of Mormonism, and the good and bad therein, are probably not as far apart as you may now believe, albeit with a major divide over the issue of divine inspiration. I've always appreciated the perspective you brought to Mormonism, and I agree with you on a number of issues (e.g., that the Book of Mormon is remarkable, complex work; that it's worse than foolish to demonize Joseph Smith and Mormonism; that DCP is a decent fellow; etc.)

I know your feelings about the Book of Mormon are deep and intense, and I can understand that. I *don't* fully understand your view of those who fail to attribute divine origins to it--hence, my questions to you. But I also don't want our friendly long-time interaction on the Web to mutate into personal enmity. If my comments here tended to sour that interaction, which they doubtless did, you have my apology.

My Best,

Don

You will recall, Don, that I mentioned to you about our similarities on MADB. My opinion of that has not changed. As I mentioned to beastie, I think you were an innocent victim of some harsh criticism on my part. My bad, and my apology to you. But I'm not going to "dwell" on this, nor should you. Let the debates go on.

Like many others, including DCP, I don't understand how anyone can conceive that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. To me, all of the evidences to support this fail, and the alternative explanations also fail. We are therefore stuck with Joseph Smith - either he wrote it, or he got it by revelation. I believe the latter. I have attempted to explain the production of the Book of Mormon through "spirit writing" (since in my opinion theories like Spalding fail, and fail miserably), as an alternbative explanation, but this doesn't sit well with either "side" of the debate. Though I do know that Uncle Dale has suggested this as a possibility, in some way, though he has not been explicit.

If someone can explain the production of the Book of Mormon by "natural means", given all of the circumstances of its production, which include the circumstances of the "author", then Mormonism is finished. This has not been done, in my opinion.

[_Ray A]

My questions for you have arisen in my mind precisely because you do insist that your position should be universally held, and that those not adopting it are "brain dead" and motivated by immorality--I.e., not abiding the teachings of the Book of Mormon, like that one about the sin like unto murder, which you've admitted to neither believing nor following. You seem to be in a rather precarious position for one insisting that everyone else should adopt his position.

No, Don, I do not "insist" that my position be universally held. I have strong opinons, and beliefs, which others will not accept. My "braindead" comments are also in reference to those who call Mormons "braindead" for believing the Book of Mormon. I can understand why people believe and disbelieve, but mockery of someone's belief I find intolerable. And I know you understand that. If a Hindu believes a human can reincarnate as a cow, or vice versa, I don't mock that belief. And, given the qualitiy of some of our politicians, I find it quite feasible.

I'm catching up on some replies I wanted to give you.

[_Ray A]

Finally, to move for a moment from these personal matters to the issues of real substance, you've stated that to disbelieve in the Book of Mormon's inspiration is "braindead." For this to be true, the truth of the book would have to be self-evident. Do you really think it is? How?? A book can have fine and beautiful narratives and ideas in it without being divinely inspired--because human beings are capable of developing fine and beautiful narratives and ideas. And, in addition to presenting such narratives and ideas, the Book of Mormon also presents plenty of clunky prose, improbable plots, tangled sentences, violations of basic grammar and sense, and historical inaccuracies galore, and proffers as absolute truth teachings even you reject. How is its truth self-evident??? I don't see it.

Don

This raises a question in my mind, Don. Did you ever believe the Book of Mormon? Are your expressions above ones you've always held, or did you later realise these points? Roberts seems to have arrived at similar "feelings", but he does not appear to have lost his belief in the Book of Mormon.

[_DonBradley]

This raises a question in my mind, Don. Did you ever believe the Book of Mormon?

This is the very sort of thing that puzzles me about you--that you would question whether I ever believed in the Book of Mormon because I don't believe it now. Of course I believed the Book of Mormon--and felt such a certainty that I would have said I knew it was true. But we've already established that I suffer from the vice of being able to change my mind; so why would it be surprising for me to not believe it now? There is a great deal in Mormonism that I find beautiful. But human beings are capable of creating beauty. One needn't posit a divine cause for beauty in Mormonism anymore than for Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables," Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2.

Don

[_Ray A]

There is a great deal in Mormonism that I find beautiful. But human beings are capable of creating beauty. One needn't posit a divine cause for beauty in Mormonism anymore than for Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables," Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto #2.

This is where we "part company", in our thinking, that is. Let me remind you what Mormon critic Dr. Michael Coe said:

It's as though P.T. Barnum had started to believe his own fakeries. In many respects he was a great man, [and] he could have done something of the same thing, but he didn't. He didn't have this kind of inner spirit and this sense of destiny that Joseph Smith had. Joseph Smith had a sense of destiny -- and most fakers don't have this -- and this is how he transformed something that, I think, was clearly made up into something that was absolutely convincing, convincing to him and to a lot of people, and he never could have convinced a lot of people if he hadn't been convinced himself.

Coe, however, does not explain how a "faker" who really believed is any different. He, Joseph, "convinced himself". Wow! And Coe knows this?

Remember, this guy (Coe) was heavily convinced by reading none other than - Fawn Brodie - who Dale Morgan said in private correspondence to her that she was too biased in her anti-Mormon views!

You doubt Brodie's influence on Coe? Check this out:

Well, in fact I'm a totally irreligious person, even though I was born and raised a perfectly good Episcopalian Christian. Yet figures like Joseph Smith fascinate me as an anthropologist, and I suppose as an American, too. When I read Fawn Brodie's wonderful book, No Man Knows My History, I couldn't put it down. I mean, it's the most exciting biography I've ever read.

Exciting? But totally accurate? You be the judge.

Here was Coe's "thesis":

He convinced a small number of people at the beginning, the witnesses -- not all of them, but he did. This man had an incredible memory. He made it up and dictated it nonstop. It's very long, the Book of Mormon. I mean, it's an incredible feat of the mind. Even if it is all made up, to do something like that is really extraordinary. And how literate was he? He knew the Bible very well, because it comes out in the language of the King James Bible, which I was raised on. But to be able to carry this through to its logical end, that's amazing. Really, it is. I mean, if it's a work of fiction, nobody has ever done anything like this before. And I think it is fiction, but he really carried it through, and my respect for him is unbounded.

Please note my bolded italicised portion, Don, and spare me your comparisons to Les Miserables. If you can't see this, I will excuse your myopia on the grounds of - different beliefs. But I'm entitled to my opinion.