Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_marg]

Hi marg. You're back. The evidence is the Book of Mormon. I know what the arguments are against the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure that you are also aware of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Until you are able to put the evidences for the Book of Mormon to rest once and for all, and if you are intellectually honest yourself, I think you have to look at the Book of Mormon as a possible and readily available artifact/evidence for God/Jesus Christ.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

A couple of things here MG, that any person appears to write in a particular literary style is not evidence for a God. But if we go along with your fallacious thinking and assume it is, then that would mean anyone who writes in a chiasmus style must be divinely inspired. I read on the net that James Strange claimed to have been divinely inspired and wrote a sacred text and it also contains chiasmus. So shouldn't you belong to the Strangite church? It would seem based on what you believe is evidence that your God has moved on to another sect.

Another point, since the Book of Mormon was produced in secrecy with only a few select people involved, the evidence is extremely weak that Smith wrote the contents himself. And the church acknowledges it is unlikely Smith wrote it. So while I'd agree with your church, I don't agree with their conclusion, that if Smith didn't or couldn't write it, it must be divinely inspired. In addition it is questionable about whether this chiasmus is deliberate. That it should show up is probable for 2 reasons. Repetition of words and phrases is common in the Book of Mormon therefore it is likely to show up, and if the writers of the Book of Mormon were well educated on the Bible as was Rigdon and Spalding both trained to be ministers, and both are suspects based on evidence then consciously or unconsciously that style may have been used, because the writer/writers were deliberately attempting to making the Book of Mormon sound similar to the KJV Bible.

You gave this link http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml..what on his page do you think provides evidence for a God's existence?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

On the level of mortal existence, I wouldn't want to argue about whether truth should be denied or not, but on God's level, I cannot imagine a God who would require or even condone untruths.

MG: this is one of those areas that you appear to be thinking in an either/or manner. At face value what you say sounds good and black/white right. But the fact is, there are many more of us humans running around here on the planet than there are of God. Is he somehow obligated to be the one man "lie cop" and reinforce/penalize every word that escapes out of the mouths of everyone of his children at all times and in all places? Is he that all powerful...or should he be? Remember the book 1984? Would you have God be the big brother and regulate every lie/truth that we tell?

If it sounds black/white at face value, that's because you aren't even considering that God doesn't participate in this world. If he does participate in this world, he'd have to be as nutty as we are so it doesn't really matter what approach he might take, does it?

For any one of the reasons I mentioned above (7:12am on this page) God may step back and watch things take their course when someone tells an untruth or leaves out elements of the truth. Even when it's someone who from our point of view "should know better" than to lie under any circumstances.

There's your Mormon concept of agency shining through! I'm not talking about agency, though. I'm talking about "lying for the lord," which I always interpreted as lying because the lord needs for you to, or orders you to (kinda like "killing for the lord." What does "lying for the lord" mean to you, MG?

The Mormon God has come down to man's level.

We're all he has to work with.

If he'd never condemned us, he wouldn't have to save us.

I believe in rising to the level of a God of Truth.

I'm sure he would be just as happy as pink if we would all do so. <g>

Regards,
MG

I really like the image of God being as happy as pink.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hi marg. You're back. The evidence is the Book of Mormon. I know what the arguments are against the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure that you are also aware of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Until you are able to put the evidences for the Book of Mormon to rest once and for all, and if you are intellectually honest yourself, I think you have to look at the Book of Mormon as a possible and readily available artifact/evidence for God/Jesus Christ.
Matthew 13:9 "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Hi, I'm not Marg (but ditto what she said). Speaking for myself, if I thought the evidences for the Book of Mormon came close to the overcoming the evidences against it, I'd stop arguing against it immediately. The evidence is quite clear to anyone but a True Believer that the Book of Mormon just isn't true. But just say it did turn out to be true, I'd be mighty disappointed in God and would shut up and try to fly under the radar so as to keep out of his presence forever, but hopefully in one of those fairly nice kingdoms.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't see where size matters.

Tell that to Lucretia MacEvil. :)

I'm going down to a stargazing get together in Bryce Canyon this next week. It's a heck of a lot more fun looking out at a big universe through a large telescope than have everything end at a black wall at the edge of space. Ever seen Truman Show? Why would God stick us in a tiny little box that we can see the end of? <g>

I loved the Truman Show. Great flick.

But to your question, god could have stuck us in a much smaller box that we still couldn't see the end of.

Maybe he did. Think about it.

Regards,
MG

Think about what?

Let's see... the universe is, as far as we can tell, infinite.

Infinity / 2 = infinity.

Hmmm... even if we cut it in half, he still comes out looking pretty wasteful.

Perhaps we should pretend for a moment it does have walls, and that it's finite. We've been able to measure the distance to stars billions of miles away. Our planet has a circumference of about 25,000 miles. If we compare that to the closest star which is estimated to be 4.3 lightyears away...

4.3 x 5,879,000,000,000 miles = 25,279,700,000,000 miles
25,279,700,000,000 / 25,000 = 1,011,188,000

So... it turns out that to travel to the closest star (aside from the sun, of course), you'd have to travel the equivelent of 1,011,188,000 times around the equator.

Um... holy crap, that's a lot of wasted space.

Intelligent design? Hardly.

This is what happens when you don't control spending due to an infinite budget. You get a less than optimal end product. I mean, look at the movie Waterworld.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hmmm... even if we cut it in half, he still comes out looking pretty wasteful.

Not really, because he used recycled materials (you know, rocks with dinosaur bones in them).

And what's more, the universe is expanding, which God is making happen for the delight of out-of-the-box-seekers like MG and that huge segment of the population who are into quantum physics.

[_Seven]

There are many statements from Prophets on how the truth or fraud of Mormonism rests on whether Joseph told the truth. It's easy to see how this could cause a crisis with our realtionship to God/Christ when we find out the church leaders lied & deceived.

A few things to look at or at least keep in mind here along with the fact that we're looking at little snippets/snapshots out of history and we "look through a glass darkly".

1) Were there any higher-order intentions at play in situations where it appears the truth was being manipulated?

2) Who or what was being protected/insulated from harm when it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

3) Lying involves more than just deceptive intent; the liar must also say something that they genuinely believe is false. Where are the shades of gray in particular instances where it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

4)Traumatizing and/or confusing situations/events in which one finds the line between revelation and an illusory auditory/visual perception to be somewhat fuzzy/incomplete.

Regards,
MG

Hi MG,
As an example, lets look at the deception and lies surrounding the practice of Nauvoo polygamy. Do you believe any of those lies were directed by God or supported by him for the protection of the church or individual? Was it for a higher order to lie and deceive the church membership on this practice until they are isolated in Utah and unable to pack up and leave? When you put innocent people in a "Jonestown" atmosphere and finally confess that all the rumors were indeed true and that church leaders had been practicing plural marriage, there isn't much these people could do. I can't imagine God working in that way. Angels with flaming swords commanding adultery doesn't sound Godly either.

Lies can be a gray area. If you have to lie to protect the innocent against wickedness/death, I would support that and don't worry that I am committing a sin. Example: If I was hiding a Jew in my home from the Nazis, I would lie to protect them.

Lieing to protect myself from my own sins and wickedness is wrong, especially when it could harm another. Innocent people are in prison from lies. Would the RLDS church exist had Joseph and Emma told the truth? There have been many people that were hurt and had reputations ruined from the lies of church leaders during polygamy. How could this be condoned of God to promote this higher order of marriage He commanded? (I don't believe it came from God at all)
If this was such a sacred and holy practice, it was started and ended with deceipt, wickedness, harm, and lies.

Why should I trust Joseph Smith when he couldn't be trusted by his own wife? Why would I trust the other insiders of polygamy who slandered innocent members that rejected God sanctioned adultery?

It becomes a game of "he said, she said" in which we are left to trust in one side over the other. I trust those who kept their morals and rejected sleeping with multiple women. They are more worthy of honor than any of the leaders that lied about their practice of polygamy. I trust the women who rejected polyandrous proposals over the ones who became entranced with Joseph Smith.

Lies have very harmful consequences when they are used to protect wickedness. It's very troubling to think of all the innocent women and men (the majority) who were lied to about polygamy before sacrificing everything in their trek to Utah. Do you believe they would have gone had they known the scandals going on among their revered leaders? Do you think the women had much of a choice to oppose this practice once they were isolated in the middle of nowhere?

Who do you trust and why? What are the gray areas for you on these lies?

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi marg. You're back. The evidence is the Book of Mormon. I know what the arguments are against the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure that you are also aware of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Until you are able to put the evidences for the Book of Mormon to rest once and for all, and if you are intellectually honest yourself, I think you have to look at the Book of Mormon as a possible and readily available artifact/evidence for God/Jesus Christ.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

A couple of things here MG, that any person appears to write in a particular literary style is not evidence for a God. But if we go along with your fallacious thinking and assume it is, then that would mean anyone who writes in a chiasmus style must be divinely inspired. I read on the net that James Strange claimed to have been divinely inspired and wrote a sacred text and it also contains chiasmus. So shouldn't you belong to the Strangite church? It would seem based on what you believe is evidence that your God has moved on to another sect.

Hi marg. Chiasmus is one of a number of internal evidences of the Book of Mormon. Yes, this writing structure can be found in other writings. It's found in the D&C and Book of Abraham also. A more in depth study has been done on chiasmus by some BYU folks. It can be found here:

byustudies.BYU.edu/chiasmus/pdf/Edwards.pdf

One of the things the study concludes is that: The results... indicate that the strongest chiastic structure in the Doctrine and Covenants[and]the Book of Abraham...could easily have emerged from random rearrangements of their literary elements. Our results do not support the claim that chiasms appeared by design—be it Joseph Smith’s, God’s, or Satan’s—in the
Doctrine and Covenants or in the Book of Abraham. Neither do our results rule out this claim, ...Our results are consistent with the idea that chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham are simply patterns of words that happen to fall into chiastic order by chance, patterns that are recognized only after the fact through the diligence of the analyst. Our results do not rule out the possibility that Joseph Smith knew about the chiastic style when he translated the Book of Mormon but do rule out the use of chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham as possible evidence of that knowledge...we conclude that the likelihood is high that chiastic structure appeared by design in the Pentateuch
and in the Book of Mormon. Our estimates do not support such a conclusion for the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham...

Ben McGuire, a Mormon apologist, says:

There are two ways to look at chiasmus. One is to view it as a structural phenomena. The other is to view it as a rhetorical device. Chiasmus viewed purely as a structure is meaningless. It can be found just about anywhere. Identifying it within a text doesn't help us understand the text, etc.

Chiasmus as a rhetorical device is something else. It is intentional. It plays a role in the text (even if that role is purely aesthetical). This kind of chiasmus is significant.

The objective is to demonstrate that a chiasmus is intentional and not coincidental. Even accomplishing that, however, does very little for claims of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Even though the name "Chiasmus" is of relatively recent origins, Chiasmus has been identified as a rhetorical device in English literature for several centuries (I can find references to it in 16th century literature). So, its use for a 19th century author can't be given particular significance.

It's value in Book of Mormon studies is less about historicity and more about the normal interpretative issues which come to the forefront when discussing chiasmus in any text. It is the value of the rhetorical device in altering interpretations of the text (hopefully towards the intent of the author) which makes it particularly useful.

Most critics are more likely to deny the existence of intentional chiasmus within the text (claiming that the chiastic structures are accidental). The other side of the response is to point out the fact that chiasmus is not exclusively an ancient rhetorical device, and thus not an indicator for historicity even if it does occur. Personally, I agree with the second argument, although I believe that there are a few instances in the Book of Mormon where chiasmus can be demonstrated as being intentional.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofive ... t7278.html

MG: The experts seem to agree that Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is not there out of chance. Vogel agrees with this assessment also. I haven't read any research on the Strangite Bible, but my hunch is it wouldn't pass the sniff test for intentionality. Ben McGuire's assessment is, "...that these aren't examples of chiasmus."

DCP in regards to the BYU Studies pdf I've referred to said,

"They also examine other chiasms in the Book of Mormon, and find them likely to be deliberate, as well. However, by the way, they are unconvinced that purported chiasms in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham represent more than chance occurrences -- which means that, while deliberately constructed chiasmus probably appears in the Book of Mormon, it does not seem to appear in other scriptural texts produced by Joseph Smith, thus suggesting that it is not an artifact of his particular style.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofive ... t7278.html

So then we're left with a situation where we ask ourselves, how did complex examples of chiasmus get in the Book of Mormon? You then get into the arguments revolving around who know what, and who contributed this or that towards the writing of the Book of Mormon. You end up somewhat at a stalemate.

But it is there. When you combine chiasmus alongside the other evidences on the other Jeff Lindsay site, the arsenal becomes somewhat more powerful. Granted, the physical evidences are not going to be the deciding factor either way in making a decision as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God or not. But they are interesting in the fact that they are there. I choose to think that Joseph Smith and those that he worked with were not able to come up with all the intricate inclusions to the Book of Mormon on their own.

But, to each his/her own on this.

In addition it is questionable about whether this chiasmus is deliberate.

The evidence may show otherwise.

You gave this link

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

what on his page do you think provides evidence for a God's existence?

It's the Book of Mormon that, if true, provides evidence of God's existence. You can hold it in your hands and read it. My experience/belief is that the Book of Mormon is not simply a 19th century creation by a creative individual or group of individuals.

And that's where we'll have to go our different ways. I see the Book of Mormon as evidence...and you don't. Where does one go from there?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi marg. You're back. The evidence is the Book of Mormon. I know what the arguments are against the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure that you are also aware of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Until you are able to put the evidences for the Book of Mormon to rest once and for all, and if you are intellectually honest yourself, I think you have to look at the Book of Mormon as a possible and readily available artifact/evidence for God/Jesus Christ.
Matthew 13:9 "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Hi, I'm not Marg (but ditto what she said). Speaking for myself, if I thought the evidences for the Book of Mormon came close to the overcoming the evidences against it, I'd stop arguing against it immediately. The evidence is quite clear to anyone but a True Believer that the Book of Mormon just isn't true. But just say it did turn out to be true, I'd be mighty disappointed in God and would shut up and try to fly under the radar so as to keep out of his presence forever, but hopefully in one of those fairly nice kingdoms.

I know you probably believe that anything that comes out of FARMS is not worth looking at for one reason or another, but I would suggest...if you haven't...watching the DVD that's been produced called "Journey of Faith". The documentary takes us to the Old World evidences of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Nahom, Bountiful, and such.

Has anyone on this board sat down and watched this DVD? If so, what did you think? If not...why not?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But to your question, god could have stuck us in a much smaller box that we still couldn't see the end of.

Maybe he did. Think about it.

Regards,
MG

Think about what?

If we somehow were able to see, and thus get to/arrive at, the end of the universe and "touch" the black star wall at the other end and walk up the stairs, open the door and step to the other side...what would that mean? Man developed telescopes that can see, what seems to us, a very long distance. If the universe was smaller and telescopes could see the concrete star wall, wouldn't that kinda mess things up? The universe has to be big to keep us from seeing what's on the other side. If there is anything.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG,
As an example, lets look at the deception and lies surrounding the practice of Nauvoo polygamy. Do you believe any of those lies were directed by God or supported by him for the protection of the church or individual? Was it for a higher order to lie and deceive the church membership on this practice until they are isolated in Utah and unable to pack up and leave? When you put innocent people in a "Jonestown" atmosphere and finally confess that all the rumors were indeed true and that church leaders had been practicing plural marriage, there isn't much these people could do. I can't imagine God working in that way. Angels with flaming swords commanding adultery doesn't sound Godly either.

Hi Seven. Hey, I'm not trying to beg/bail out here...but I've pretty much covered my way of thinking in regards to your issues stated in this paragraph and throughout the rest of your recent post. I'd rather not have to go back and cut a paste everything. Don't have time right now anyway, I work from four to midnight today.

If you are wanting my slant on things here (which I assume you do since you're answering my post <g>), would you mind going back and re-reading through the thread and see whether or not you think I've already tackled your concerns?

I think I have and I'd rather not beat a dead horse.

by the way, there isn't anything you've mentioned here that I would think God didn't know about.

Regards,
MG