x Times Through the Book of Mormon

[_John Larsen]

I have noticed a reoccurring theme among apologists. There seems to be an idea that the number of times you have read the Book of Mormon somehow leads credence to your understanding of Mormonism. I find this idea to be a bit weird and one that you do not meet in any other venue. Have you ever heard of two people debating their understand of of a novel based on the number of reads or individuals debating their theories on Plato based on the number of times they have raced through The Republic?

What do you think is the origin of this idea? Is it because constant reading is encouraged? Is it because normal measurements of mastery are ignored? What are your thoughts?







(ad)

[_Gadianton]

There is a correlation between repetition and belief, and boasting how many times one has read the Book of Mormon is akin to the practice of memorizing the Koran. Understanding is secondary.

But, as many are aware, around about the mid 80s, Mormon apologists had thrown in the towel on understanding the Book of Mormon. Midgley and others it would seem, held that the standard way Mormons learn the teachings of scriptures is mere proof-texting, and called for a detailed scholarly undertaking of the geography, economy, language, politics, and everthing regarding the culture in order to understand the meaning of the text.

Even with a growing number of scholars trained in ancient methods, we don't yet know enough to even propose one single matter of doctrine found in the Book of Mormon, I estimate we're at least 50 years out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have noticed a reoccurring theme among apologists. There seems to be an idea that the number of times you have read the Book of Mormon somehow leads credence to your understanding of Mormonism. . . . What are your thoughts?

I haven't noticed this allegedly recurring theme, and, while I've encountered considerable flack here for advocating the reading of books, I don't believe that the number of times you have read the Book of Mormon somehow lends credence to your understanding of Mormonism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Even with a growing number of scholars trained in ancient methods, we don't yet know enough to even propose one single matter of doctrine found in the Book of Mormon, I estimate we're at least 50 years out.

Priceless!

(Gad: Just between you and me -- I certainly don't want to damage your on-going spoof; it's hilarious! -- what do you think of Terryl Givens's proposal, in By the Hand of Mormon, regarding the concept of dialogic revelation as a principal contribution of the Book of Mormon?)

[_John Larsen]

I have noticed a reoccurring theme among apologists. There seems to be an idea that the number of times you have read the Book of Mormon somehow leads credence to your understanding of Mormonism. . . . What are your thoughts?

I haven't noticed this allegedly recurring theme, and, while I've encountered considerable flack here for advocating the reading of books, I don't believe that the number of times you have read the Book of Mormon somehow lends credence to your understanding of Mormonism.

Here is an example: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37818

[_John Larsen]

Even with a growing number of scholars trained in ancient methods, we don't yet know enough to even propose one single matter of doctrine found in the Book of Mormon, I estimate we're at least 50 years out.

Priceless!

(Gad: Just between you and me -- I certainly don't want to damage your on-going spoof; it's hilarious! -- what do you think of Terryl Givens's proposal, in By the Hand of Mormon, regarding the concept of dialogic revelation as a principal contribution of the Book of Mormon?)

I'm not Gad but I will give my opinion, it is a desperate attempt to hold onto to a critically flawed book and that helped create a flawed religion. It is the equivalent of Givens throwing sand in his own eyes. It creates many more problems than it solves. Givens should stick to dance metaphors, they are obtuse enough to make for excellent apologetic.

[_The Dude]

It makes sense, I guess, to have recently read the Book of Mormon at least once before you criticize it, but reading it over and over is silly. Anijen claims to have read it 40 times, but it would be better to have read broadly, in my opinion. I wonder what were the last 40 books Anijen has read....

1 How many times have you read the Book of Mormon?
2 How many times do you attend a LDS service?
3 Have you served a mission?
4 Have you had a leadership position in the church?
5 How many times have you participated in an LDS service project?

When they talk about the number of readings, or sacrament meeting attendance, etc. (as in the cited thread), it becomes a cheap way to disqualify critical opinions. That's why it is useful to amateur apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not Gad but I will give my opinion, it is a desperate attempt to hold onto to a critically flawed book and that helped create a flawed religion. It is the equivalent of Givens throwing sand in his own eyes. It creates many more problems than it solves. Givens should stick to dance metaphors, they are obtuse enough to make for excellent apologetic.

My opinion is that you're completely wrong.

Thanks for sharing, though.

[_Ray A]

I remember a thread on RFM in 2002, something like "How many times have you read the Book of Mormon?".

And I thought my 20-plus times was a record......

[_John Larsen]

I'm not Gad but I will give my opinion, it is a desperate attempt to hold onto to a critically flawed book and that helped create a flawed religion. It is the equivalent of Givens throwing sand in his own eyes. It creates many more problems than it solves. Givens should stick to dance metaphors, they are obtuse enough to make for excellent apologetic.

My opinion is that you're completely wrong.

Thanks for sharing, though.

I am all about the sharing. Next time you need an opinion, you know where to find me. ;)