Volcanoes: Proof of Truth

[_Daniel Peterson]

You need absolutely no more practice in ignoring inconvenient facts. You already excel at it.

This is the high level kind of exchange that makes this place so dispensable.

On the whole, there isn't much real discussion here. Just contests of one-upmanship and triumphalism.

For those who like this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing they'll like.

[_Ray A]

Kerry, I've view your You Tube video commenting on Charlesworth.

Your claim (and Charlesworth's) that Christian influences can be attributed to Mormon's abridgement has one fatal flaw - 1st and 2nd Nephi (on the Small Plates) were not abridged.

[_beastie]

This is the high level kind of exchange that makes this place so dispensable.

On the whole, there isn't much real discussion here. Just contests of one-upmanship and triumphalism.

For those who like this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing they'll like.

Let's get this straight. This thread referred to a MAD claim that the description of a volcanic eruption constituted a major hit for the Book of Mormon since there was no way Joseph Smith could have known such details. In response, I provide a passage from The Wonders of Nature, a text that Bushman verifies was in the Manchester Rental Library, that was almost a perfect match for the Book of Mormon description.

You ignore this, and your only response to this fact was this:

I've assiduously ignored it, and I plan to assiduously ignore quite a bit besides.

With practice, I believe that I'll be able to assiduously ignore more and more here. And it already feels very good.

And now you act as if my reply to you marks the "high level of exchange" and base "one-upmanship"?

See, folks, this is how it works. Apologists make claims that fall apart under analysis, and then act as if the fact that critics have the audacity to analyze and critique their claims constitutes something base and untoward.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You haven't really missed the point.

You're not that stupid.

[_Ray A]

Kerry, I also viewed your You Tube video on Krister Stendahl.

I don't think you understand Stendahl. When scholars write like this they write in an "objective third sense". In other words, they present religious records as they are understood by believers, and expound on what the texts themselves claim, not necessarily what the scholar believes (if you understood that, you didn't make it clear). I followed along with you using my own copy of Reflections on Mormonism. You quoted pages 151-152, and 154. However, you stopped quoting on page 152 at the penultimate paragraph.

The next, and last paragraph, gave us a better understanding of what of where Stendahl is coming from (please note my bold):

That can be a beautiful thing [the insatiable hunger for knowing more revelation], but it has its risks and its theological costs. You may have heard about the preacher who preached about the gnashing of teeth in hell. And one of the parishoners said, "But what about us who have lost our teeth?" And the preacher answered, "Teeth will be provided." Preachers think they have to have an answer, otherwise they are letting the Bible, Jesus and God down. The apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings [into which the Book of Mormon falls], when looked at from the outside, are driven by this horro vacui. The gaps of knowledge have to be filled in somehow

You didn't provide your viewers with this context, which clearly shows how Stendahl views the Book of Mormon as part of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha tradition.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

You didn't provide your viewers with this context, which clearly shows how Stendahl views the Book of Mormon as part of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha tradition.

Since Stendahl's ideas were published, the change of definition has occurred and is still occurring. If the Book of Mormon is in that sacred tradition then that's incredible. This is not to say the scholoars are agreeing the Book of Mormon is scripture, they aren't. But what they are doing is changing the interpretation of what scripture is. Apocrypha *IS* scripture in some traditions. Etymologically alone, it means that which was so sacred that it was hidden from profanity. That's a step *above* the publically canonized scripture! Think that through. They are not saying the writings are spurious, but that the accorded authors are. There is an IMMENSE difference here!

[_Ray A]

Since Stendahl's ideas were published, the change of definition has occurred and is still occurring. If the Book of Mormon is in that sacred tradition then that's incredible. This is not to say the scholoars are agreeing the Book of Mormon is scripture, they aren't. But what they are doing is changing the interpretation of what scripture is. Apocrypha *IS* scripture in some traditions. Etymologically alone, it means that which was so sacred that it was hidden from profanity. That's a step *above* the publically canonized scripture! Think that through. They are not saying the writings are spurious, but that the accorded authors are. There is an IMMENSE difference here!

I have thought it through, and the clearest definition one can/may place on this is that we might have something that is "inspired but not historical". Historians don't "fill in the gaps" in historical accounts, except perhaps in an interpretative sense. They try to make sense of history, but they don't create history!

The Apocrypha is scripture in the Catholic tradition. That doesn't make it historical either. These were writings included in the Catholic canon because of what was considered to be "inspired content", not historical fact.

[_moksha]

Ray A

Since Stendahl's ideas were published, the change of definition has occurred and is still occurring. If the Book of Mormon is in that sacred tradition then that's incredible. This is not to say the scholoars are agreeing the Book of Mormon is scripture, they aren't. But what they are doing is changing the interpretation of what scripture is. Apocrypha *IS* scripture in some traditions. Etymologically alone, it means that which was so sacred that it was hidden from profanity. That's a step *above* the publically canonized scripture! Think that through. They are not saying the writings are spurious, but that the accorded authors are. There is an IMMENSE difference here!

Would your argue against the Vedas being Hindu scripture?

[_JustMe]

Moksha

Would your argue against the Vedas being Hindu scripture?

Not at all. Not anymore than I would argue the Koran is not scripture for them. God speaks to all his children as they are able to receive it. If they write it down, I would propose that is scripture for them.

[_JustMe]

Ray A

I have thought it through, and the clearest definition one can/may place on this is that we might have something that is "inspired but not historical". Historians don't "fill in the gaps" in historical accounts, except perhaps in an interpretative sense. They try to make sense of history, but they don't create history!

Of course they don't create history, that is for prophets to do.......GRIN!