Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_Jason Bourne]

Actually, you've got a bit of a point here, Marg. Certainly, Harold Bloom would agree with you. The bulk of the Mormon experience actually has very little to do with the text of the Book of Mormon

This is an over simplification at best. While there is much of LDS thought and doctrine that is extraneous to the Book of Mormon the critical basis of LDS doctrine is found there in. Needless to say the LDS Church devotes one out of every four years in its study. One of four year of high school seminary is so dedicated. At BYU a year of study of the Book of Mormon is required.

The book is fundamental to LDS thought and teaching.

[_Roger]

Responding to marg, JB wrote

So are those plates supposed to be written in Egyptian heiroglyphics or Hebrew?

Reformed Egyptian is all we know about it.

Not according to Ben. But I agree with you.




DCP wrote:

Think of somebody who opines without ceasing on the founding of the Republic, but has never read either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Or of someone who posts up a storm about Beethoven's life and creativity, but has never listened to an entire measure of his music. Or of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

The logic here would seem to imply that if one actually does take the time to read every word in the Book of Mormon, then one will no longer "opine without ceasing" against it being an ancient text. I can refute that in two words: Sandra Tanner.

When the missionaries visited me in 2001, Dan, they never mentioned that I had to read every word in the Book of Mormon before I could pray about it and receive an answer--so long as I received the correct answer.

[_EAllusion]

I happen to think a person can get away with reasonably commenting on many issues surrounding the LDS faith in an informed way without reading the Book of Mormon cover to cover. It'd be odd to have that interest and not read the Book of Mormon, but it's doable. But Marg has made quite a hobby out of discussing a theory about the authorship of the Book of Mormon without having actually read the Book of Mormon. That's just nuts.

By the way, I got the biggest kick out of her favorably comparing Spaulding theory to Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare theories. Exactly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP wrote:

Think of somebody who opines without ceasing on the founding of the Republic, but has never read either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Or of someone who posts up a storm about Beethoven's life and creativity, but has never listened to an entire measure of his music. Or of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

The logic here would seem to imply that if one actually does take the time to read every word in the Book of Mormon, then one will no longer "opine without ceasing" against it being an ancient text. I can refute that in two words: Sandra Tanner.

The logic implies nothing of the sort.

(Sigh.)

[_Jersey Girl]

Unfortunately DCP I can not respond to you, because if I do besides being a waste of time, it would simply be a personal attack.

What's to respond, marg?

Think of somebody who opines without ceasing on the founding of the Republic, but has never read either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Or of someone who posts up a storm about Beethoven's life and creativity, but has never listened to an entire measure of his music. Or of somebody who expects to be taken seriously on the life of Muhammad, but won't read the Qur’an.

So Daniel,

Would you prefer that critics of the Book of Mormon read it or not?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So Daniel,

Would you prefer that critics of the Book of Mormon read it or not?

Rather obviously, I would prefer that they read it.

It's not only as a Mormon but as an academic and, yes, as a teacher (PO's favorite term of contempt when insulting me) that I find it simply risible that someone would presume to comment for years, and to take strong positions, on a subject when s/he has not read the single, central, fundamental text relating to that subject.

When I discover that a student has written a paper or a thesis without having done the requisite reading, that student doesn't pass.

[_Jersey Girl]

So Daniel,

Would you prefer that critics of the Book of Mormon read it or not?

Rather obviously, I would prefer that they read it.

It's not only as a Mormon but as an academic and, yes, as a teacher (PO's favorite term of contempt when insulting me) that I find it simply risible that someone would presume to comment for years, and to take strong positions, on a subject when s/he has not read the single, central, fundamental text relating to that subject.

When I discover that a student has written a paper or a thesis without having done the requisite reading, that student doesn't pass.

Well, she's doing it, Daniel.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, she's doing it, Daniel.

It's about time. She's been pontificating about the Book of Mormon for years now.

But she's looking for a Cliffs Notes edition or an illustrated version for children.

That's simply not serious.

Again, if, in one of my classes in which my students are assigned to read Augustine's Confessions or al-Ghazali's Incoherence of the Philosophers or Plato's Republic, I found out that a student had been trying to get by with Cliffs Notes or some internet summary, a failing grade would be guaranteed.

[_EAllusion]

Well, she's doing it, Daniel.

Only after having spent years passionately arguing in favor of a specific minority theory on how the Book of Mormon was produced. That's ridiculous. I'd be like spending years arguing that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare without ever reading any Bacon or Shakespeare. I think the appropriate reaction to that is ?!

One of marg's flaws is that she seems to think truth will just flow through her if she applies a little common sense skeptics dictionary critical thinking skills to a cursory familiarity with a topic. It comes across as shallow and naïve. It's like she parodied herself here.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, she's doing it, Daniel.

It's about time. She's been pontificating about the Book of Mormon for years now.

But she's looking for a Cliffs Notes edition or an illustrated version for children.

That's simply not serious.

Again, if, in one of my classes in which my students are assigned to read Augustine's Confessions or al-Ghazali's Incoherence of the Philosophers or Plato's Republic, I found out that a student had been trying to get by with Cliffs Notes or some internet summary, a failing grade would be guaranteed.

So...if a critic offers criticism of the Book of Mormon without having read it the result is ridicule.

And if a critic attempts to read the Book of Mormon, the result is ridicule.

marg is a life long atheist not in the habit of reading scripture. I see no reason for her not to ask for some sort of guide to help her slog her way through scripture.

I used chapter summaries. Do I deserve criticism, too?