Zub Zool oan wrote:no evidence for a large...ancent steel making...civilization that lasted over a thousand years
It would be helpful to at least get the problems straight. Book of Mormon doesn't describe such a civilization. There are legitimate issues and then there's trivia like this that isn't worth bringing up.
Exactly what trivia do you refer to. When did Joseph Smith ever indicate any of the things that "current" apologetics has been forced to try to squeeze out of all this because since B. H. Roberts it has been apparent that Book of Mormon believers (the literal ones , in that it actually occurred some time and some place) have a hopeless situation vis a vis historicity. And the claims of "new" scholarship notwithstanding, so many things aren't there, down to traces of pollen from plants listed in your book. So the interesting question in this (to me anyway) is why do you get an endless number of do-overs or "mulligans" as Dr. Cam said, when things don't turn up. If your prophet was the real thing, then why did he get so much wrong? Rather than the current prophet clarifying anything, these matters are left to apologists to cast around until they catch on something that might stick. They aren't set apart or designated for this that I am aware of. Yet they have the power to change long understood points and it is all Kosher? Who speaks to and for God?
There is a multiplicity problem involved in all this. This multiplicity has to do with the math of chance and how as you have more and more of these holes where archaeologists have never found any aspects of the cultures described in the Book of Mormon, the odds become astronomically high against the book's truthfulness, in so much as any of this is real. This doesn't negate it's value to those who find wisdom there. But given so many factors and evidences that have never turned up, this is a giant problem that has greatly increased in recent decades rather than having been somewhat mitigated by apologetic efforts. The more holes dug (currently in excess of one-hundred-thousand) and artifacts don't turn up, but the same patterns that have already been found over and over in wide areas magnifies the big problems with the claims. If you are one who won't accept the science, then you can wait and contemplate the day when all will turn up and prove the book which is what so many apologetic efforts would like but settle for creating plausibility for those who have to believe.
18 And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat. Moses 4:18
Water Dog wrote:It would be helpful to at least get the problems straight. Book of Mormon doesn't describe such a civilization. There are legitimate issues and then there's trivia like this that isn't worth bringing up.
2nd Nephi 5:15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Jarom 1:8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.
Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.
I don't mind when people come up with apologetics to save their belief, which include not taking the Book of Mormon at its word. But you don't get to pretend that apologetic is suddenly the only possible interpretation.
Yeah, I laughed when I read "Book of Mormon doesn't describe such a civilization". I love apologetics.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
suniluni2 wrote:"Real intent" always leads to "the church is true". If it doesn't, it's because you masturbate.
I want to call a CFR on this, just to be cantankerous.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
I enjoyed a comment on this article found here.. On a forum for believers.
I'm an exmo, and I just wanted to say in an effort for active LDS to understand people like me, that this article is really depressing. I imagine my parents reading something like this and feeling like I did something wrong because I had sincere questions. The article feels like a character assassination on those of us who have had questions and felt like the answers we got weren't sufficient. I was a completely faithful RM until I decided that the church wasn't for me (I won't go into details because my purpose in writing here isn't to challenge anyone's faith). I hope those of you who read this article know that people like me don't leave just because I got tired of keeping the commandments or something. I fully embraced the gospel. I feel that the author is playing with semantics by implying that "questioning" and "doubting" are different things. It's kind of like how we talk about the difference between people who are happy and joyful--when it comes down to it, the words mean basically the same thing. But in Mormonism, we would say happy = fleeting happiness and joy = eternal happiness.
"Just want to sin" and "lose your family" memes really disgusts me.
What's awful is the kind of rhetoric espoused in the article helps to cause and worsen family problems over disbelief. But instead of trying to mitigate it they take said damage and try to capatilize on it. Placing all of the blame on the doubter.
This is the third example of a recent trend of Church leaders and related articles expressing the sentiment that members shouldn't go digging into facts or answers to questions outside of Hollands 'first level of truth'.
In and of itself that isn't noteworthy.
However, when that trend comes at the end of a twelve month period of the Church releasing essays covering second, third or fourth level truths, what are we left to conclude?
That the essays have been counter productive? That the essays are generating more questions for members than answers?
It seems like the Church is having a regretover (like a hangover where when you wake up you realise you've done stuff you wished you hadn't) about the essays. If not, the Church and Holland and the Deseret News should be encouraging questions and doubts and directing members to the resources provided.
If I were a betting man I'd say the numbers are in and the essays haven't made a dent in the trend. Further, I'd suggest if they could turn back time and not publish them, or at least some of them, then they would.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I mean, the article starts out by redefining and emotionally loading a couple of very simple words so that they can use them to induce shame.
Questioning is the act of asking questions. It is a request for more information, nothing more and nothing less. The word implies nothing about motivation or "keeping commandments."
Doubting is where you start to think that something you are being taught or told might not be true. This word also implies nothing about motivation.
Imagine an abuser saying these sorts of things in an abusive relationship and you begin to see how sinister loading the language like this is. "Honey, it is okay to question me but you can never doubt me. The difference between doubting and questioning is that when you are doubting me you will stop being obedient to everything I say. Questioning is okay because you are being pure, good, and obedient when you question." See what I did there?
The article really has nothing to do with clarifying anything. It's real purpose is tying negative emotions to independent thought and action.
It is a total mind----.
Edit: Someone should forward this article to Steve Hassan so that he can use it in his lectures as an example of how loaded language can be used effectively in thought reform programs.
I mean, the article starts out by redefining and emotionally loading a couple of very simple words so that they can use them to induce shame.
Questioning is the act of asking questions. It is a request for more information, nothing more and nothing less. The word implies nothing about motivation or "keeping commandments."
Doubting is where you start to think that something you are being taught or told might not be true. This word also implies nothing about motivation.
Imagine an abuser saying these sorts of things in an abusive relationship and you begin to see how sinister loading the language like this is. "Honey, it is okay to question me but you can never doubt me. The difference between doubting and questioning is that when you are doubting me you will stop being obedient to everything I say. Questioning is okay because you are being pure, good, and obedient when you question." See what I did there?
The article really has nothing to do with clarifying anything. It's real purpose is tying negative emotions to independent thought and action.
It is a total mind----.
Can I just say I really enjoy your blog.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
So, will this article really help those LDS who are having faith crises or encounter disturbing (but true) information on the internet? Or is it just an example of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
Because I truly wonder if they print something like that and think "Wow, we really hit this one out of the park!", or if it's more like "Well, this is the best we got. I hope it works, even though it's got serious problems if you really think about it..."
cinepro wrote:So, will this article really help those LDS who are having faith crises or encounter disturbing (but true) information on the internet? Or is it just an example of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
When I was in the midst of my "faith crisis" this type of writing was deeply disturbing to me. For people like me, this type of defense will never be effective to questions like, "Why did Joseph demand his friend's wives as a loyalty test?" But I was miserable as a Mormon. I think these articles work much better on people who like it.
cinepro wrote:Because I truly wonder if they print something like that and think "Wow, we really hit this one out of the park!", or if it's more like "Well, this is the best we got. I hope it works, even though it's got serious problems if you really think about it..."
I think that they honestly believe that this was an awesome article.
