Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_Daniel Peterson]

Whatever, EA.

I'm unimpressed.

[_Morrissey]

One person's richness is another person's snoozefest.

Precisely.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... um=1&id=21

For what it's worth Daniel, I rarely read linked articles out of the interest of time. If you have a point to make, you are much more likely to make it in my case by actually stating it. I did skim that opening paragraphs, and I must say that I disagree very much with the following:

"and it should grow clearer with each passing year that Mormonism, too, is a legitimate and serious religious option. "

Yes it is, for .001% of humanity (or thereabouts).

I also find it interesting that you are citing Rodney Stark, whose simplistic projections viz. Mormonism's growth trends have been shown to be hogwash. Mormonism may be spreading among those who come in contact with it, but it is doing so in relatively minuscule amounts, and the large majority of those who do affiliate with it, never again (or rarely) darken the door of a Mormon chapel thereafter. Comparing Mormonism with Islam is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

A lot of undeserved self-congratulatory rhetoric there in the beginning of the article.

[_Morrissey]

Unfortunately DCP I can not respond to you, because if I do besides being a waste of time, it would simply be a personal attack.

What's to respond, marg?

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.

Which applies to probably over 90% of the US population. Surely you are not suggesting that one must have read the founding documents to have any standing whatsoever to 'opine' on the Founding?

This kind of a statement smacks of highhanded elitist arrogance. It is also a rhetorical device used by elitists in an attempt to invalidate criticisms/opinions offered by those not in the elitist class.

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.

This strikes me as more accurate as per creativity, but I do not see that one must have listed to Beethoven's music to comment on different aspects of his life--some, yes, others, no.

Or /of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

Translation: "Only experts like myself are qualified to say anything about Muhammad, thus only our opinions count."

True to an extent, but elitist attempt at cutting off debate to an extent as well.

[_gramps]

DCP wrote:

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.

Mormons do this all the time, in my past experience. In fact, they often stand up in testimony meetings and testify to its divine truth without ever having read its contents. (I think Roger has been working off this idea in his prior comments.)

I always thought that to be quite ridiculous myself. Hey, we agree on something! Cool!

[_Morrissey]

So Daniel,

Would you prefer that critics of the Book of Mormon read it or not?

Rather obviously, I would prefer that they read it.

It's not only as a Mormon but as an academic and, yes, as a teacher (PO's favorite term of contempt when insulting me) that I find it simply risible that someone would presume to comment for years, and to take strong positions, on a subject when s/he has not read the single, central, fundamental text relating to that subject.

When I discover that a student has written a paper or a thesis without having done the requisite reading, that student doesn't pass.

Yet you appear to have reached the conclusion that all but one of the world's thousands of religions are false without reading a single, central fundamental text relating to those subjects.

One does not need to read the Book of Mormon to know (or have high assurance) that it is false. Its supernatural origins, and the fantastic claims that surround it, are sufficient to reach that conclusion. One need no more read the Book of Mormon to know it is tripe than to read Dianetics to know that Scientology is crap.

There is no intellectual obligation for one to thoroughly investigate all claims of the supernatural or fantastic to conclude with a high level of certitude that they are bogus.

[_marg]

I couldn't respond tonight because I had the devil in me..wine and good times. Let's sanctify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovml5tWO1Hw

[_Paracelsus]

DCP wrote:

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.

Mormons do this all the time, in my past experience. In fact, they often stand up in testimony meetings and testify to its divine truth without ever having read its contents. (I think Roger has been working off this idea in his prior comments.)

I always thought that to be quite ridiculous myself. Hey, we agree on something! Cool!

Touché ! -- as my french grandson likes to say it to his german grandpa' .

[_Roger]

marg:

I couldn't respond tonight because I had the devil in me..wine and good times. Let's sanctify

Good beat. Love the piano, but he seems a bit too happy about his relationship with satan.

We're on the same page on Spalding... sometime we'll have to have a talk about God.

[_marg]

Roger... sure I'm very comfortable talking about God.

This is my favorite of Zucchero's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiUn8RwpcfY

[_gramps]

Paracelsus wrote:

Touché ! -- as my french grandson likes to say it to his german grandpa' .

I see you are not too far away. I am now just outside of Munich. Are you experiencing as awful weather as we are here?

Rain, sun, rain, sun.... And I am not talking daily. Rather, ten minute intervals. Strange weather this year. (And soooo humid.)

Excuse me. Back to topic.