DiscussMormonism.com

Joey wrote:Time to step back from the real ruse in the arguments and defense of Lds apologetics!!!

The Book of Mormon either is or isn't a historical document on what is stated in it's text. It doesn't need FARMS to explain it's content to those mesoamerican experts who can read and make their own conclusions based on their knowledge of mesoamerica (as opposed to their knowledge of computer software!!)

Joey, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.

My impression is that Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner and other so-called intellectuals don't even read the Book of Mormon. Why? I think they consider the work beneath their literary intellect. Rather, they make a neverending sophomoric attempt to explain simple words to all us "stupid" people that even children can actually understand with no help from them.

Before being jaded by the truth of the Mormon history, I took the Book of Mormon literally. I also listened to and obeyed all of the Mormon prophets concerning it.

From the time I was 16, I read the Book of Mormon over 23 times. I studied it on the mission by subject and memorized many concepts and actual verses. I took Reid Bankhead's Book of Mormon class at BYU. He took it literally (as did his heros). We were required to write 16 paradigms on the Book of Mormon. I taught Book of Mormon in Gospel Doctrine at BYU. When my children were entering their teens, we woke up and read the Book of Mormon as a family. We read it through twice in three years spending 15 to 45 minutes each day. I stopped using the GD manual about 14 year ago and taught directly from it.

Prior to my entrance down the rabbit hole I was preparing a study guide. To date, I had over 24 seperate and distinct subjects to be covered in this guide. There is no guide out there that even comes close to this.

And yet after all of this I'm just a nobody (and would prefer to remain that way). But I do know the Book of Mormon.

One of the primary reasons for making the Book of Mormon a life study was this statement by my former hero, Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any book on earth and the keystone of our religeon, and that a man would grow nearer to God by abiding by it's precept than any other book" (Book of Mormon | Preface Introduction:6).

Peterson and Gardner don't know the Book of Mormon. They would prefer reading about an intellectuals take on it. If they did actually know it, they would forsake this adolescent treasure hunt for proof - FARMS (and their life's work of self vindication) and simply take the wisdom from whoever the author was and teach from it's pages (which, oddly enough, are nearly all about Jesus Christ).

by the way, Smith didn't know the book either. If he translated it, he never pondered it. If he read it, he didn't understand it. Ironically, if reveals him (and even apologists) for who they really are.

And as amazing as the book is, it's still just a work of fiction.

inc.

You ALL need to read my words more "carefully"..... I said NOTHING of the sort. In fact, I stated something completely opposite. It is a sad thing with anti-mormons that they quote things out of context seeing only "part" of things and then ignoring the rest thus ignoring the actual meanings of things, which is what all of their false judgments of the Church are based on. A little truth used to tell great lies. The posts since my post are a perfect example of this phenomenon. You all quote one part of my post to make me say something I wasn't actually saying in which the rest of my post makes absolutely clear.

I wasn't talking about the "Faithful" of a particular Religious Belief, I was talking about "Faith" as a principle of learning, experience and action. I specifically even stated that "belief" wasn't a requirement, specifically making clear that I wasn't talking about the thing you all are now attacking my words on. I was talking about Faith as a law of life itself, not about the "faithful" of a particular ideology or belief.

Do you even know the "definition" of the word Faith?

"Faith is the Evidence of things not seen but which are true". or....
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

In other words, Faith is based on Evidences. Faith has never been "blind" as many in their unrighteous judgments believe.

I'm a Mormon BECAUSE OF the "evidences" I've learned by Study AND by Faith, not because I simply believe and then seek evidences. I've been active in several religions, learned all religions, even left the LDS Church being anti-religion and anti-mormon, and for many years now and forever a believer "because of" the evidences I've had the Faith to seek out to see IF they existed, and they do. Because of that, the LDS Church and no other religion is the ONLY "true" Church on the earth. It's the real deal, not another man-made religion. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in it.

So, don't tell me Faith isn't based on evidences, it is. Even those who believe in other religions base their faith on evidences. The question then is, is how much evidences, how accurate, how wise, common sense, truthful, etc. is those evidences. Mormonism is the only "complete" and sensible one. Of course, I've done the work and experience to know for sure, so I can with certainty say it.

Thus, Faith isn't blind, and those who think such do both themselves and good intelligent people a disservice by believing it, because it closes your mind and makes YOU the very thing you condemn in others that you falsely believe in that they believe in "blind faith".

Anyway, FYI.....

Fence Sitter wrote:

Obiwan wrote:I won't comment on what his point was, but your statement is actually true.
Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences. It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to believe in the Church, but it does me you must have faith in the process, that the "answers" are there. And if they aren't, you won't find them, but only after you've done the proper work. If you haven't done the proper work, they you won't find the answers.

I think I understand. If I look at the archeological evidence knowing the Book of Mormon is true I will clearly see the evidence to back up what I already know, just as if I look at the archeological evidence knowing the Book of Mormon is false I will clearly see there is no evidence for it. It makes sense now.

Thanks

Oh just one question. What would one see if they looked at the archeological evidence knowing nothing about the Book of Mormon at all?

Each of you need to see my post above, I wasn't saying this at all.... Your judgment is a blatant misrepresentation of my words, quoting only "part" of what I said to make it appear I was saying what you are now attacking, when my point was the complete opposite.

Themis wrote:

Obiwan wrote:
There is no "either/or"..... There is both a tight and loose translation. Any translator knows that you have to "adapt" language for the translation, that there are going to be parts that are more tight/direct and others that are looser, because there is no word for word translation. You forget also that the translation is being done through a mortal and by vision, thus there are always going to be limitations and nuances. But, despite those things, those of us who have actually studied FULLY understand that there is plenty of evidence otherwise, despite human transmission.

Umm No. Tight and loose translation is an LDS apologetic invention to try and protect the Book of Mormon. They have particular meanings as well. A tight translation is Joseph receiving the translation/revelation(not to be confused with secular translation) word for word, repeating those words to his scribe who copies it down. Loose translation is Joseph receiving inspiration, visions or such with no words attached and he has to put that inspiration into his own words. I am not aware of much evidence for a loose translation other then an apologetic need, while I am aware of very good evidence for a tight translation such that even some apologists like Skousen accepts it.The problem of course is that much of the Book of Mormon has to be tight but some has to be rejected due to the problems it presents to apologists so loose translation is invented to try and fix this problem. Now I can't see any evidence for a loose translation nor why it would be logical for God to do so when a tight translation would be the best.

I'm well aware of the definitions, I simply don't agree with your judgement of them as to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon came through a man, as a result, there will always be "artifacts" of nuance specific to that man, but there are MUCH MUCH MORE other things which show that the book "wasn't" of that man, but was directly what God wanted said.

There is no "apologist invention" here, it's simply what the Facts of the book are. There exists BOTH loose and tight aspects to the book, period. And that would be exactly what we would expect from a book that comes from God, but has to go through a man to be given to the world.

Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences.

If only the faithful can see the evidences then the evidences are very weak if not incorrect. I don't care whether it's with the LDS, Scientology, Muslim, JW, etc.

Since I never made such a claim accept by taking my words out of context and completely ignoring my actual point (see above) your words are irrelevant.

It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

LOL you have got to be kidding, and by the way most of us were very active believers in every way. We had plenty of faith and we were biased in favor of the Church. Faith does not produce objectivity, but lessens it. This is why only the faithful in Scientology can see the evidences. Learning false evidences will never help one to make more accurate judgments.

Faith is a principle of "action".... If you don't DO, believing that there will be RESULTS "one way or another", you don't achieve. In other words, if you don't DO the necessary work to learn if the Church is actually true, to find out if there ARE in fact plenty of evidences proving it's validity, then you will continue in ignorance believing the Church is false based on your "current" judgements. You already think you know it all, so you don't do anything more to prove if you're actually right. For example, you once believed the Church was true, did you ever think that maybe your "current" judgement is false, that you learned just a little more to be dangerous, but not enough to make a true accurate judgement about the Church???

Do you know why I ask you this? Because I've been through it. I once left the Church and religion myself, thinking it was just another man-made religion. But, fortunately at one point I decided to put away my judgements and have "faith", that is to keep learning and let God if he existed and the actual truth to come out when I put forth the necessary and balanced/objective effort to find out. Do you REALLY think you have been as "objective" and non-judgemental, and studied enough to really say "for sure" that your current judgements are truly right??? Can you really compare yourself, your own learning, experience, wisdom, etc. to the very best of the Church, the most righteous, the most learned??? I doubt it. What you have done, is you've latched on to a current judgement based on just a little more information, and now think that is the "real" truths about the Church. When all you've actually done is just discovered the anti-mormom/satans version of the truth about the Church, not the "actual" truths on the issues. I can say that because I've been there. I've compared the sides when I no longer had a bias toward either side, and anti-mormonism does nothing but use a little truth to tell great lies. You all have done it in this very thread toward me the last two pages. Proves my point. You see only the negative you want to see, not the whole and actual truth, which makes most of the seeming negative, not negative or bad at all.

Obiwan wrote:You ALL need to read my words more "carefully"..... I said NOTHING of the sort. In fact, I stated something completely opposite. It is a sad thing with anti-Mormons that they quote things out of context seeing only "part" of things and then ignoring the rest thus ignoring the actual meanings of things, which is what all of their false judgments of the Church are based on. A little truth used to tell great lies. The posts since my post are a perfect example of this phenomenon. You all quote one part of my post to make me say something I wasn't actually saying in which the rest of my post makes absolutely clear.

I didn't realize calling us liars was a good approach to apologetics. I learn something new every day.

Joey wrote:
Time to step back from the real ruse in the arguments and defense of Lds apologetics!!!

The Book of Mormon either is or isn't a historical document on what is stated in it's text. It doesn't need FARMS to explain it's content to those mesoamerican experts who can read and make their own conclusions based on their knowledge of mesoamerica (as opposed to their knowledge of computer software!!)

The problem with your comment is there is no mesoamerican experts who have ever even read the Book of Mormon. And the ones who have, are either anti-cutltists already in the first place and thus judge it by their paradigm, or there are some who simply find it interesting but don't believe in it because they simply aren't religious.

The other problem with your comment is that there isn't yet "enough" real world artifacts valid to the Book of Mormon for the layman expert to use it in their research. The Book of Mormon is NEW to the world, and Mesoamerican science is in it's infancy with so much unknown so far. I mean, non-religious scientists using the Bible in their work has only been built in the last however many couple of hundred years. Prior to that, most simply considered the Bible a religious text and generally only Jewish and and Christians tried to use it for scientific study in their research. Yet, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be already well accepted like the Bible when it took the Bible 1400-2000 years to be well accepted in the non-religious community???

Please, ignorance and double standards doesn't help your case.

Runtu wrote:

Obiwan wrote:You ALL need to read my words more "carefully"..... I said NOTHING of the sort. In fact, I stated something completely opposite. It is a sad thing with anti-Mormons that they quote things out of context seeing only "part" of things and then ignoring the rest thus ignoring the actual meanings of things, which is what all of their false judgments of the Church are based on. A little truth used to tell great lies. The posts since my post are a perfect example of this phenomenon. You all quote one part of my post to make me say something I wasn't actually saying in which the rest of my post makes absolutely clear.

I didn't realize calling us liars was a good approach to apologetics. I learn something new every day.

1. I didn't personally call anyone "liars". I simply IN GENERAL told the facts of peoples actions, that by telling a half truth which gives a different conclusion is simply NOT being truthful. Thus, by default it is a lie. Do you understand?

2. Learn to deal with the actual "issues" of a persons comments, rather than dwelling on periphery irrelevant nuances of speech and writing style. Such makes YOU look even less intellectual if you think I'm so non-intellectual by using the word "lie" within a huge amount of words and points.

You have utilized a common anti-mormon diversionary technique of dwelling on your own perceptions of the flaws of character and style in others, rather than dealing with the actual CONTENT of what is at issue. Further, I WAS "lied" about in this thread, for my words were perverted for your own means of attack against Mormonism (those who did it). Thus, my calling lies lies, doesn't make me somehow "less" of a good Mormon or apologist. YOU are the one with the problem that needs correcting, not me or any other apologist. We wouldn't have to exist if people like you weren't going around bearing false witness against my faith and people. Tisk tisk on you.... :(

Obiwan wrote:1. I didn't personally call anyone "liars". I simply IN GENERAL told the facts of peoples actions, that by telling a half truth which gives a different conclusion is simply NOT being truthful. Thus, by default it is a lie. Do you understand?

You said "ALL" of us did this with your posts. Didn't seem general to me at all.

2. Learn to deal with the actual "issues" of a persons comments, rather than dwelling on periphery irrelevant nuances of speech and writing style. Such makes YOU look even less intellectual if you think I'm so non-intellectual by using the word "lie" within a huge amount of words and points.

I thought I was commenting on the issue. Either way, I've never said you were "non-intellectual," so I don't know what you mean. I just took your first point, which was that your position had been distorted, making ALL of us purveyors of the great lie.

You have utilized a common anti-mormon diversionary technique of dwelling on your own perceptions of the flaws of character and style in others, rather than dealing with the actual CONTENT of what is at issue. Further, I WAS "lied" about in this thread, for my words were perverted for your own means of attack against Mormonism (those who did it). Thus, my calling lies lies, doesn't make me somehow "less" of a good Mormon or apologist. YOU are the one with the problem that needs correcting, not me or any other apologist. We wouldn't have to exist if people like you weren't going around bearing false witness against my faith and people. Tisk tisk on you.... :(

I have never borne false witness against your faith or your people (there you go with that whole lying thing again). In fact, your saying I have is bearing false witness.

In this thread, I have done nothing but point out where I see huge problems with Brant's position. That's not a lie, or an attack, or a perversion of anyone's words.

I don't recall you ever calling me an anti-Mormon or a liar when I was on the MADB board. What has changed?

I don't know or off hand recall you (though I remember seeing the name), however I often speak in generality's to the things I see people doing. If my words don't specifically apply to you then don't take them so.

You dwelt on my usage of the word "lie" rather than everything else that my posts were actually about. Thus, you did not address the issues being discussed. So, it would be best to not say you did, cause that makes you lying again.

The "all" is toward those who did and engaged in such, something like 4 people the last two pages from my one post. That is who was being addressed, other than my general comments toward critics and anti-mormons. Again, if that's not you, then why are you commenting? However, your dwelling on the "lie" thing rather than any of the substance of my posts was in fact a common anti-mormon technique, so, if you don't want to be identified with such, then it might be best for you to reflect on whether you are acting as such. I wouldn't have said you were acting as such unless you were, which you did by posting the irrelevant diversionary statement.

Anyway, can we actually get back to the "substance" of things, the discussion, and my comments, rather than your pet peeve dwelling on my general negative views of anti-mormons and the bearing false witness they engage in???

If you have something to say to me, discuss the issues I'm addressing, not my offhand personal views that are thrown in on the side.

Thanks.