DiscussMormonism.com

Link below to the reaction by the BYU Daily Universe editorial board to the word change in the Book of Mormon Intro. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

http://newsnet.BYU.edu/story.cfm/66259

My favorite line.

The same attack has reared its head in the form of horses and elephants being on North America during Book of Mormon times

It'll be fun when BYU students start googling to figure out what these problems are and the complete stream of BS churned out to try to explain away the problems. One word . . . .Tapirs


Phaedrus

I agree with your assessment, Rollo.

I thought I'd quote one particular paragraph that struck me as particularly ridiculous.

Ironically, these scientific critics allow much larger degree of tolerance to their own profession than they do to the realm of faith. When science admits it was wrong, it is seen as progress. When a religion modifies a statement in the slightest degree, it is seen as being an imposter. When believers accept the change, they are guilty of doublethink. When intellectuals accept science’s changes, they are on the cutting edge of knowledge.

They seem to completely miss the point. Scientists understand and acknowledge that they are converging toward truth based on hypotheses put forth from the minds of human beings who admit not to having the absolute truth. The LDS church leaders, on the other hand, have always been in the business of reminding us that this particular church is a church of revelation from God. They aren't just making this up as they go along, as scientists methodically do; they are getting their Truths from God.

When the LDS church has to make changes like this, it just reinforces what the critics have known this whole time, which is that the LDS church isn't getting their Truth from God after all - that human beings are making it up as they go along.

Sethbag wrote:
When the LDS church has to make changes like this, it just reinforces what the critics have known this whole time, which is that the LDS church isn't getting their Truth from God after all - that human beings are making it up as they go along.

Exactly. These apologists are unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) giving up ground to the critics. It surprised me that their strategy to deal with embarassing statements from past prophets was to conceded that prophets are just men speaking their opinions. Isn't that basically the same opinion critics have of the Mormon prophets? Now they're telling us that knowledge within Mormonism comes from the same source as knowledge in science? I applaude the apologists for trying to bring science and reason into Mormonism, but they are sacrificing the illusion that the church operates through revelation.

Sethbag wrote:I agree with your assessment, Rollo.

I thought I'd quote one particular paragraph that struck me as particularly ridiculous.

Ironically, these scientific critics allow much larger degree of tolerance to their own profession than they do to the realm of faith. When science admits it was wrong, it is seen as progress. When a religion modifies a statement in the slightest degree, it is seen as being an imposter. When believers accept the change, they are guilty of doublethink. When intellectuals accept science’s changes, they are on the cutting edge of knowledge.

They seem to completely miss the point. Scientists understand and acknowledge that they are converging toward truth based on hypotheses put forth from the minds of human beings who admit not to having the absolute truth. The LDS church leaders, on the other hand, have always been in the business of reminding us that this particular church is a church of revelation from God. They aren't just making this up as they go along, as scientists methodically do; they are getting their Truths from God.

When the LDS church has to make changes like this, it just reinforces what the critics have known this whole time, which is that the LDS church isn't getting their Truth from God after all - that human beings are making it up as they go along.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Sethbag wrote:
When the LDS church has to make changes like this, it just reinforces what the critics have known this whole time, which is that the LDS church isn't getting their Truth from God after all - that human beings are making it up as they go along.

Exactly. These apologists are unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) giving up ground to the critics. It surprised me that their strategy to deal with embarassing statements from past prophets was to conceded that prophets are just men speaking their opinions. Isn't that basically the same opinion critics have of the Mormon prophets? Now they're telling us that knowledge within Mormonism comes from the same source as knowledge in science? I applaude the apologists for trying to bring science and reason into Mormonism, but they are sacrificing the illusion that the church operates through revelation.

What do you guys believe in?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Link below to the reaction by the BYU Daily Universe editorial board to the word change in the Book of Mormon Intro. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

http://newsnet.BYU.edu/story.cfm/66259

College students wrote that? It was badly written and rife with grammatical errors and poor style.

Plus, it could have been far more succinct if they'd just written "Poo on your head, nasty critics", since that was the main thrust of the editorial.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:What do you guys believe in?

I'm agnostic. I believe that the Mormon prophets are fallible human beings who speak their opinions over the pulpit, basically what the apologists believe. I also believe knowledge within Mormonism comes the same way as it does in other organizations. That is, the men at the top meet regularly and make decisions that are in the best interests for the survival and growth of the organization.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

LifeOnaPlate wrote:What do you guys believe in?

I'm agnostic. I believe that the Mormon prophets are fallible human beings who speak their opinions over the pulpit, basically what the apologists believe. I also believe knowledge within Mormonism comes the same way as it does in other organizations. That is, the men at the top meet regularly and make decisions that are in the best interests for the survival and growth of the organization.

I didn't mean in regards to Mormonism. What else interests you?

The same attack has reared its head in the form of horses and elephants being on North America during Book of Mormon times. Such attack-minded reasoning is more agenda driven than truth driven.

Lol. Scientists asserting that horses didn't exists in the americas at the time of the nephites are agenda driven - not truth driven. riiiigghhttt....

The ancestral teaching (which was not a part of the original book) of the introduction is far from the core theological witness of the book.

But they're forgetting to mention that this 'ancestral teaching' was taught by Joseph Smith, and carried through to the more recent prophets - and it was written by an apostle, and accepted by the church.

Why can't they just admit that the prophets have been wrong all these years? What's so hard about saying that? Why turn it around on the 'critics'?

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Sethbag wrote:
When the LDS church has to make changes like this, it just reinforces what the critics have known this whole time, which is that the LDS church isn't getting their Truth from God after all - that human beings are making it up as they go along.

Exactly. These apologists are unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) giving up ground to the critics. It surprised me that their strategy to deal with embarassing statements from past prophets was to conceded that prophets are just men speaking their opinions. Isn't that basically the same opinion critics have of the Mormon prophets? Now they're telling us that knowledge within Mormonism comes from the same source as knowledge in science? I applaude the apologists for trying to bring science and reason into Mormonism, but they are sacrificing the illusion that the church operates through revelation.

Except that knowledge through the church doesn't through the same process as knowledge through science, even though human beings are making both up. Science has the scientific method working for it, to converge on truth over time. The church just proclaims things and establishes "truth" through the exercise of authority. I'm right not because I can demonstrate that I'm right. I'm right because I'm a damn Apostle and you're just a home teacher.