Gadianton wrote:...you can read the quote from the very link you shared with the board in full confidence that it is the Brant you're thinking of.
Purportedly this was a comment Brant made in a comment section connected to an article/essay Carmack wrote. Again, would you mind linking to the actual page (URL address) where you cut and pasted his comment from? It doesn't sound like something Brant would say. I'd like to see it right from the 'horses mouth', not just repeated here on the thread as though he did say it. Not to say that he didn't...but still, I'd like to read his words on the original source location/page.
mentalgymnast wrote:... It seems like one of the last things that a con man would ask folks to do.
Actually pray to God?
Are there other sacred text produced in the later Christian era and/or in the last couple of centuries that have a directive and a promise that even comes close to this?
Joseph understood how easy it was to manipulate emotion into belief.
What kind of book is so insecure that it needs to constantly reassure you that it's history?
I'm sure you've seen the video where people of all religions talk about praying to God about their church (including polygamous LDS off-shoots) and getting spiritual confirmation of its truth?
It's not reliable for finding truth... and putting it in a book to try and assure the reader it's true does nothing to prove its authenticity...
even scientology uses this technique:
DOES ONE HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SCIENTOLOGY?
No. One is not expected to “believe” in Scientology. One is only expected to study and apply Scientology religious principles and practices and see for himself if Scientology works. To quote L. Ron Hubbard:
Lemmie wrote:even scientology uses this technique:
DOES ONE HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SCIENTOLOGY?
No. One is not expected to “believe” in Scientology. One is only expected to study and apply Scientology religious principles and practices and see for himself if Scientology works. To quote L. Ron Hubbard:
jfro18 wrote: If you're trying to insist in the book being a true history, this is what you do when you're unwilling to let people actually see the source documents.
Again, Joseph is coming from a time of magic and revivalist movements where emotions are often thought of as from God or the devil.
You're right that it's an odd thing to have in a book that is supposed to be an abridgement of a history, but I think if anything that speaks to it more being from a man made source as opposed to being from God.
Meh.
Your reasoning isn't wrapping itself around me and saying, "Yes, this is it!" "This is the reason Joseph inserted these three verses in the final part of the Book of Mormon."
I don't think you're giving enough credence to these three verses being tied to the Book of Mormon as the grand finale to the narrative. They could have just as easily been left out and no one would have been the wiser. Except for the fact that WITH the promise/directive it has made ALL THE DIFFERENCE for those that have taken the time to seek and follow that directive/promise. It is the witness of the Spirit as one reads and prays about the truth of the Book of Mormon that brings many people into the church and also keeps people in the church as they continually read, study, and pray about the Book of Mormon and it's teachings, etc.
Regards, MG
Of course no one would've been the wiser. Joseph Smith could've left *any part* of the Book of Mormon out and no one would be the wiser. That's just a pointless argument.
It only makes the difference in those who are predisposed to believe it. Moroni's promise works great when you read the Book of Mormon without any outside information. I got that same feeling reading it... but again spiritual confirmations come today to people in polygamy off-shoots just as it did Russell Nelson in 2015 that gays should be labeled as apostates only to reverse it 3.5 years later.
If spiritual confirmations were truly from God, then the church wouldn't have gotten so much wrong. Joseph Smith wouldn't have claimed an angel with a drawn sword was going to kill him if women didn't marry him as polygamous wives. They wouldn't have said it doctrine from God that blacks were banned from the priesthood. John Taylor wouldn't have written the 1886 revelation that polygamy was forever just to reverse it 4 years later.
Every time you open a new door to try and make this work you're introducing a lot of new problems.
mentalgymnast wrote:Nothing there about going to God in prayer seeking an answer from Him.
I was responding to jfro18's point:
Lemmie wrote:
jfro18 wrote: ....Joseph understood how easy it was to manipulate emotion into belief.
It's not reliable for finding truth... and putting it in a book to try and assure the reader it's true does nothing to prove its authenticity...
even scientology uses this technique:
DOES ONE HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SCIENTOLOGY?
No. One is not expected to “believe” in Scientology. One is only expected to study and apply Scientology religious principles and practices and see for himself if Scientology works. To quote L. Ron Hubbard:
Brant Gardner wrote: Third, whoever translated the Book of Mormon into English was fluent in western European culture (in which the US participated). We get agricultural concepts and idioms that are specific to that cultural inheritance, but which contrast to agricultural and historical practices anywhere in the Americas. That tells us that the translator knew a particular culture, and it wasn’t the original. Thus the translation shows evidence of the modern rather than the ancient in some of those particulars (flora and fauna are one example, but references to wheat culture is also significant). For me, that tells me that the suggestion that Moroni did the translation cannot be accurate. Regardless of fluency in English, Moroni would not have so easily misrepresented his native culture....
I fixed the spelling of Brant's name, so now you can read the quote from the very link you shared with the board in full confidence that it is the Brant you're thinking of..
Purportedly this was a comment Brant made in a comment section connected to an article/essay Carmack wrote. Again, would you mind linking to the actual page (URL address) where you cut and pasted his comment from? It doesn't sound like something Brant would say. I'd like to see it right from the 'horses mouth', not just repeated here on the thread as though he did say it. Not to say that he didn't...but still, I'd like to read his words on the original source location/page.
Here's the link, from YOUR post. And when you cut and pasted the quote and link (which I used in another thread), why did you think it came from an article Carmack wrote? Did you read the page it came from before you cut and pasted it out of my post?
mentalgymnast wrote:I have a tough time with Joseph Smith throwing in a promise/directive that requires prayer and an answer from God to determine if the Book of Mormon is true. There are too many stories/experiences that I have heard from people that I trust who have received this witness from God.
And they know it.
This would carry more weight if any of these folks asserted so without ever having read - or heard of - the Book of Mormon.
MG wrote:It doesn't sound like something Brant would say
Why? Well, before answering that, do you grasp the point he's making? Would you be able to restate it in your own words?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
mentalgymnast wrote: I have a tough time with Joseph Smith throwing in a promise/directive that requires prayer and an answer from God to determine if the Book of Mormon is true. There are too many stories/experiences that I have heard from people that I trust who have received this witness from God.
And they know it.
Are you suggesting all witnesses people claim from God are all in agreement?
Why in the world would Joseph put this directive in the Book of Mormon? It seems like one of the last things that a con man would ask folks to do.
Interesting. Do conman not use emotions/feelings etc as their main tool to manipulate people to believe in them? Are you suggesting people cannot get many different sensations from praying. Do some FLDS not pray and get what they know to be a witness from God that someone like Warren Jeffs is God prophet? Are you saying people cannot pray to God and get their body to create an experience for them. The church has a number of articles admitting emotions/feelings are hard to differentiate between the spirit and your own body.
Actually pray to God?
Are there other sacred text produced in the later Christian era and/or in the last couple of centuries that have a directive and a promise that even comes close to this?
I don't know enough to answer that, but I do recall Christians promoting asking God, and why would Joseph's copycats do it if they were con men? I suspect Joseph had enough experience with revivals to know how easily people can delude themselves, so it seems something a conman would do. In the end this doesn't look like you have much to show what Joseph did not fitting man made.
Here's the link, from YOUR post. And when you cut and pasted the quote and link (which I used in another thread), why did you think it came from an article Carmack wrote? Did you read the page it came from before you cut and pasted it out of my post?