sunstoned wrote:Something that I have always found odd is that in many of these massive battles, it comes down to just two standing, both of them being the kings or generals.
I believe this is one of Roger Ebert's laws of filmmaking. When the heroes are killing the bad guys, they kill them in ascending order, starting with the no-name guards, moving on to the middle tier baddies who may have had one or two lines of dialogue, next to be killed are the right-hand men who are typically seen walking/driving with and consulting with the main bad guy, and finally the main bad guy is killed, typically by the main hero. Also, the level of violence involved in each death escalates in proportion to the importance of the bad guy. Joseph Smith was ahead of his time by having the Kings and Generals survive to the very end of battle.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them
Even when describing the burning of people, Joseph can't resist his practice of constantly inflating the story with "up wording". We all understood the first part,"and he doth suffer that they may do this thing". The story becomes no more clear when he adds the second part, "or that the people may do this thing unto them ".
The tedious thing is, the whole Book of Mormon trudges on awkwardly like this with this overlapping babble just to fill space.
Can you imagine Moroni sitting there, with his stylus, tediously engraving character by character onto plates of gold (or tumbaga), and actually adding filler crap like this on purpose?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Doctor Steuss wrote:The thing I find the most odd about its content is how so few people, who either believe in it or criticize it, have actually read it.
I have come to the conclusion that the content is magical and can bring about strong opinions (pro or con) without ever being read.
I have a strong opinion about Dianetics, but I have never read it. Time is limited. First, the case would have to made that the book is compelling based on its origin and history. To demand that everyone read something before they form an opinion is unreasonable.
Doctor Steuss wrote:The thing I find the most odd about its content is how so few people, who either believe in it or criticize it, have actually read it.
I have come to the conclusion that the content is magical and can bring about strong opinions (pro or con) without ever being read.
I have a strong opinion about Dianetics, but I have never read it. Time is limited. First, the case would have to made that the book is compelling based on its origin and history. To demand that everyone read something before they form an opinion is unreasonable.
John
However, to go onto a Dianetics/Scientology debate board and start throwing out how horrible the book is would be a bit short sighted, don't you think?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
help me find that one incredibly long verse in the Book of Mormon, that is a single sentence, or in other words, there are no periods in this sentence in which I speak of and the words never stop, insomuch that when you reacheth the end of the sentence or the end of the three hundred words that have been strung together with out the aid of periods, the reader will have forgotten what comprised the starting of the sentence, to the confounding of their understanding.
Mosiah 7:21-22 works pretty well for that purpose.
21 And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about— 22 And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives.
It's no coincidence that the next line is, "Now, is not this grievous to be borne?"
that's a good one. I remember a verse with a run on sentence that was three times the length. Maybe it will pop up here.
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
Doctor Steuss wrote:The thing I find the most odd about its content is how so few people, who either believe in it or criticize it, have actually read it.
I have come to the conclusion that the content is magical and can bring about strong opinions (pro or con) without ever being read.
I have a strong opinion about Dianetics, but I have never read it. Time is limited. First, the case would have to made that the book is compelling based on its origin and history. To demand that everyone read something before they form an opinion is unreasonable.
John
Dianetics isn't even on my radar. I haven't read it, I don't care about it, therefor I leave it to the winds.
As far as "demand[ing] that everyone read something before they form an opinion" being unreasonable. This is true and isn’t what I’m advocating. But, I fail to see how someone can find justification for a "strong opinion" about a book without reading it. Upon my initial read (I made it through about 80 pages) of Sound and the Fury, I had an opinion about it -- that it was mindless drivel written by a buffoon. This wasn’t a “strong opinion” though, it was merely a precursory opinion based on the limited reading I had done. It wasn’t until I came back to the book later and actually read the whole thing that I formed a “strong opinion” -- that it is brilliant.
Spending time spewing criticisms of the Book of Mormon prior to reading it is akin to disgorging testimonials of its truthfulness prior to reading it. It's usually people who haven’t read it that think that you don’t need to read it prior to having a “strong opinion” about it. I wonder why that may be?
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Out of curiosity, is there anyone who has replied in this thread so far who hasn't actually read the Book of Mormon? I'm trying to figure out where Steuss is coming from on this one. At least the exmos and still-members-in-name-only critics here I would assume have read it before.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
charity wrote: You know, seth, you can't prove it didn't happen any more than I can prove it did happen.
Well, because you said this, you do realize that you must believe everything that's not provable, right? If we can't prove it wrong, we must believe it... that's essentially what you're saying here.
I can't prove the nonexistence of the following:
- Santa Claus
- The Tooth Fairy
- Easter Bunny
- Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Orbiting Teapot
And last but not least:
- Some Schmo's Magical Three Headed Space Monkey God Who Demands All Believers Give Schmo All Their Money Otherwise They'll Go To Hell.
I'll expect you to contact me soon to arrange making your payments, charity. You don't want to go to hell, I assume.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Sethbag wrote:Out of curiosity, is there anyone who has replied in this thread so far who hasn't actually read the Book of Mormon? I'm trying to figure out where Steuss is coming from on this one. At least the exmos and still-members-in-name-only critics here I would assume have read it before.
Do you disagree with my comment that many who criticize it, and many who believe in it have never actually read it? The thread asked what people found odd about the contents of the book. This is merely something that I was thinking about yesterday and this seemed like an appropriate thread for it as it is indeed odd to me that the contents can polarize people without ever being read.
I would assume by John Larson’s response to me that he has not read it. As for others, I am pretty sure a large proportion of those who have responded in this thread have not only read it, but have most likely read it more times than myself.
That would be where I'm "coming from on this one."
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski