Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_Roger]

DCP:

Nobody's mocking her for reading the book.

Of course you are. She is in a no-win situation and why? Because of her honesty. She did not have to admit that she has not finished the Book of Mormon. But she did. You see the weak spot and pounce. As I stated earlier in response to this:

Think of somebody who opines without ceasing on the founding of the Republic, but has never read either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Or of someone who posts up a storm about Beethoven's life and creativity, but has never listened to an entire measure of his music. Or of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

...I wrote:

The logic here would seem to imply that if one actually does take the time to read every word in the Book of Mormon, then one will no longer "opine without ceasing" against it being an ancient text. I can refute that in two words: Sandra Tanner.

You wrote:

The logic implies nothing of the sort.

(Sigh.)

All right, if the logic implies "nothing of the sort," what exactly is your point? You seem to imply that reading every word of the Book of Mormon is critical toward drawing conclusions as to who wrote it. And yet there are plenty of critics who have read every word many times and they still disagree with your theory of Book of Mormon production. The fact is there is nothing magic about reading every word. I commend marg for making an effort to read something she finds tortuous.

And I was serious when I wrote:

When the missionaries visited me in 2001, Dan, they never mentioned that I had to read every word in the Book of Mormon before I could pray about it and receive an answer--so long as I received the correct answer.

This is the kind of thing that is really annoying... the convert gets a pass when he or she accepts the Book of Mormon in the official way. No LDS apologist EVER criticizes a convert for NOT reading every word of the Book of Mormon before making a decision to join the church. And yet, if you're going to conclude against the official version then boy you'd better have done your homework.

[_Jersey Girl]

I get paid to deliver "stellar", EA. Why on earth would I bother with "stellar" on a message board?

I'd think you'd want to offer sound arguments and sensical replies all the time rather than when you are just getting paid for it, but that's me.

Arguments and sensical replies for what, EA? Topics I began engaging going back 10 years? Your mock posts?

Right.

The reference to getting paid was a reference to real life. You know, the one without the screen in front of it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP:

Nobody's mocking her for reading the book.

Of course you are.

You can't find me saying anything to that effect, and I deny it. So what's your evidence?

Because of her honesty.

Oh right. That's it. We're laughing at her honesty.

She did not have to admit that she has not finished the Book of Mormon. But she did. You see the weak spot and pounce.

She and I have conversed on this topic several times over the past several years. On not merely one, but two message boards. She has proudly declared that she didn't need to read the Book of Mormon in order to pontificate on it. I've always thought that ridiculous, and have always said so. You're coming to the conversation quite late.

As I stated earlier in response to this:

Think of somebody who opines without ceasing on the founding of the Republic, but has never read either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Or of someone who posts up a storm about Beethoven's life and creativity, but has never listened to an entire measure of his music. Or of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

...I wrote:

The logic here would seem to imply that if one actually does take the time to read every word in the Book of Mormon, then one will no longer "opine without ceasing" against it being an ancient text. I can refute that in two words: Sandra Tanner.

You wrote:

The logic implies nothing of the sort.

(Sigh.)

All right, if the logic implies "nothing of the sort," what exactly is your point?

My point is precisely what I've said it was, and what others (e.g., Mikwut and EA) have clearly understood: Publicly pontificating for years on a subject on which you haven't done the minimal basic reading is ridiculous.

You seem to imply that reading every word of the Book of Mormon is critical toward drawing conclusions as to who wrote it.

I think that rather dogmatically commenting, publicly and for years, on the authorship of a book that you haven't read is risible. I think that a vocal partisan on Shakespearean authorship who proudly declined -- as marg has done for years with the Book of Mormon -- to read any of the sonnets or plays would be, and deserve to be, a laughingstock.

And yet there are plenty of critics who have read every word many times and they still disagree with your theory of Book of Mormon production.

That's irrelevant. At least they've paid the minimum price to claim a legitimate place in the discussion. Even if, perhaps, only from the cheap seats.

The fact is there is nothing magic about reading every word.

Nobody said anything about "magic."

But a frequent and vocal commentator on the authorship of the Federalist Papers who had never read them would be judged by every serious observer to be something of a fool.

I commend marg for making an effort to read something she finds tortuous.

I think it's good that she's finally making an effort to acquaint herself with the book on which she's commented for all these years.

And I was serious when I wrote:

When the missionaries visited me in 2001, Dan, they never mentioned that I had to read every word in the Book of Mormon before I could pray about it and receive an answer--so long as I received the correct answer.

This is the kind of thing that is really annoying... the convert gets a pass when he or she accepts the Book of Mormon in the official way. No LDS apologist EVER criticizes a convert for NOT reading every word of the Book of Mormon before making a decision to join the church. And yet, if you're going to conclude against the official version then boy you'd better have done your homework.

You're missing the point.

I simply think it's ridiculous (and plainly I'm not alone in this) to comment for years, expressing very strong opinions, on a book that one hasn't read.

[_EAllusion]

there is a certain predictability here.

The preferred alternative being what?

Oh, I was just being tactful. I mean I knew how I mentioned Rumi in comparison to the Book of Mormon was going to force you to mention you read him in the original because you don't let those opportunities to flash those kind of credentials pass by. Not a big deal in this instance - it's not like you are somewhat unnecessarily mentioning how busy you are while referencing three academic paper titles and a trip to (let's say) Princeton. What's predictable is an unfortunate habit of taking oppurtunities to impress credentials when they open themselves up and when they do not. Predictable in this instance just means a bad habit. So if you post in another thread some vague innuendo about a person implying that you are privy to insider information that reflects very poorly on them and I happen to call you predictable, you can rest assured that I'm not saying that people's behavior should be totally random. I have something else in mind.

[_Jersey Girl]

You're missing the point.

I simply think it's ridiculous (and plainly I'm not alone in this) to comment for years, expressing very strong opinions, on a book that one hasn't read.

No. You're missing the point, Daniel. She's working on reading the book right now and where is your sense of forgiveness?

I'm going to do this once and once only. My testimony of marg: marg and I have a long history with eachother, most of it bad. When I first came across marg, she often criticized religion, the Bible and Christianity, and it seemed to me that she had only a surface understanding of all three. Over the years I have seen her gain a grasp of the Bible and Christianity. I have seen her write kindly of the concepts in Judaism.

Back then, if marg would have approached me and said, "Jersey Girl, I want to gain a better understanding of the Bible", I would have (knowing that she was unaccustomed to reading scripture of any kind) suggested that she begin with a children's version of the New Testament and then, the Old Testament. Then move on to the KJV with a chapter by chapter study guide.

That's exactly what she's trying to do with the Book of Mormon and instead of harping on her, you of all people, should be helping her.

I have enormous respect for her efforts to gain a better understanding of Christianity and the Bible. Why? Because she didn't have to do it. She is not religious, not churched and yet, she made herself more conversant on these topics.

I'm going to send you a link to a thread where I announced that I planned to read the Book of Mormon, Daniel, and I want you to see what happened to me.

At that time, I didn't finish the book. I later read it in "chunks" using the chapter summaries online. I STILL don't have a good grasp of the storyline in sequence. But the point is that I tried and continue to try.

Isn't the effort worth something in your eyes?

Link will be coming as soon as I can find it.

[Guest]

Ah. Well.

Rumi in English is, to a very considerable degree, fraudulent. Just so you know. His "translators" sometimes don't even know Persian. They've created a New Age Rumi who never existed.

For that reason, it's relevant to mention that I've read him (at least partially) in the original. Sorry, but I got a Ph.D. in Arabic and Persian -- and that means that I might well have a better vantage point on Rumi than somebody who knows no Persian has.

Your stated high opinion of the consistently fascinating style of Rumi -- which you now say was intended solely as a stupid joke -- appeared to me to rest, almost certainly, on inaccurate "translations" of mere selections of the poet. While I was pointing out your error, it seemed to me reasonable to mention the fact that I had standing to do so.

If you think that's pointless showing off of credentials, I disagree.

[_EAllusion]

Arguments and sensical replies for what, EA? Topics I began engaging going back 10 years?

Let's take this post:

she is making an effort to read the book. In response, instead of helping her out, she's getting ridicule.

Do you guys not want to see critics read the literature in question?

Maybe not.

Nobody is ridiculing her for reading the Book of Mormon or implying that they don't want her to. This fundamentally misunderstands what she is being ridiculed for even after it being explained on several occasions explicitly and it being rather obvious even if no one offered any explanation.

So, really, this post is either nonsensical as it is offered or it is making a really bad argument. And yeah, I'm saying that you look like you are doing this because of some personal defensiveness.

The reference to getting paid was a reference to real life. You know, the one without the screen in front of it.

I think you need to read what I wrote again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

She's working on reading the book right now and where is your sense of forgiveness?

Not reading the book is not a sin, and it doesn't need "forgiveness." Neither mine nor anybody else's.

Back then, if marg would have approached me and said, "Jersey Girl, I want to gain a better understanding of the Bible", I would have (knowing that she was unaccustomed to reading scripture of any kind) suggested that she begin with a children's version of the New Testament and then, the Old Testament. Then move on to the KJV with a chapter by chapter study guide.

Jersey Girl, marg and I went the rounds on this years ago for quite some time, and she defiantly and rather angrily refused to read the Book of Mormon. I'm simply astonished that, even now, years later, after countless posts about the Book of Mormon, she still hasn't.

That's exactly what she's trying to do with the Book of Mormon and instead of harping on her, you of all people, should be helping her.

If marg ever really wants help in understanding something in the Book of Mormon, she can always write to me, and I'll answer.

I suggest that she do it via PM or daniel_peterson@BYU.edu, so as to avoid any performance for the audience here and any idiocy from the juveniles.

Isn't the effort worth something in your eyes?

Very much so.

[_Jersey Girl]

EA: I'm not going around in circles with you on things that really don't matter.

Daniel: She's making that effort right now. My guess is that she will have to make repeated efforts to read the whole Book of Mormon.

Gotta go.

[_EAllusion]

Ah. Well.

Rumi in English is, to a very considerable degree, fraudulent. Just so you know. His "translators" sometimes don't even know Persian. They've created a New Age Rumi who never existed.

There is an autistic individual I see who is into Rumi in a way that autistics can get into things. As a result, I've developed some familiarity with English translations. I'm quite aware of potential limitations of those translations properly reflecting the underlying text and have already said so in a previous post. With limited exceptions, poetry doesn't translate well even when there is fidelity to the content.

Your stated high opinion of the consistently fascinating style of Rumi -- which you now say was intended solely as a stupid joke -- appeared to me to rest, almost certainly, on inaccurate "translations" of mere selections of the poet.

I think you are misreading me here. I picked Rumi as my comparison instead of, say, KJV Ecclesiastes because I figured I'd get the response I got from you. I certainly regard the (English) Rumi I've read as a smoother, more engaging read than the Book of Mormon. I wasn't solely intending a stupid joke. I was writing a point to someone else after all. I just knew you were reading the thread.

While I was pointing out your error, it seemed to me reasonable to mention that fact that I had standing to do so.

I really wasn't making an error, though, and this is why you get trolled. As for whether Rumi is more or less boring that the Book of Mormon to read through in Persian, I can't say.