I did not state that there was an analogy between the Book of Mormon and The Cat in the Hat. My point was that Kishkumen and I seemed to be agreed that a text became scripture (or a sacred text, or canonical, or whatever term you prefer) in the context of its relationship to a faith group that accepted it as a scripture. We also agreed that it was up to the faith group in question to decide what it did or did not accept as scripture.
This happened after Kishkumen stated that the evidence provided by studies of The Late War did nothing to show that the Book of Mormon was unworthy of being scripture, or of being considered divinely inspired.
If any of the above is in dispute, I'd be surprised. So please excuse me from re-posting the lot.
I then commented to the effect that there was not much point in saying things like Kishkumen's statement just referred to, since we seemed to be agreed that the 'scripturality' of a text solely resided in its acceptance as scripture by a particular group. Thus, if a faith community adopted The Cat in a Hat as scripture, nothing could be said to invalidate their choice - at least on the basis of what Kishkumen and I had agreed about how scripturality was acquired by a text, which did not involve any objective properties of the text. So it would appear (on that view) to be impossible to show by any evidence or argument that the Book of Mormon was unworthy of scriptural status, since scriptural status is not a matter of a text having to pass an objective 'worthiness test', but simply of getting accepted by some religious group as its scripture.
The only resemblance between the Book of Mormon and The Cat in the Hat required by this argument is that they are both texts. How that can be construed into an assertion that the two texts are analogous beats me.
Please keep the bolded statement in mind in reading what follows:
Kishkumen wrote:EA, Chap's post wasn't an invitation to a serious discussion in the first place. And you don't know enough to be able to distinguish between a legitimate point and an argument over semantics in this case. So, let's just drop it. Your utterly clueless adherence to the stupid idea that the Cat in the Hat is a reasonable analog for the Book of Mormon is an obvious non-starter. Only he most prejudiced anti-religionists would fail to see that. Wait, or people who haven't read one or both books.
The phrase 'blind with rage' is beginning to occur to me as a possible element in any explanation of why Kishkumen keeps on making statements like the one I have emphasized in quoting this post.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Kishkumen wrote:The use of the term scripture in a certain way simply is a kind of colonialist gesture. Mormon Christians and other Christians are probably not going to accept the possibility that the Cat in the Hat could be scripture. Nor do they really have to. Simply because a Harvard religion professor applied the term scripture to anything he felt was treated as such (according to his own standard) does not make him right or oblige me to follow in his footsteps.
The fact that you find this dubious doesn't really trouble me.
You're arguing over semantics that no one is interested in challenging. You aren't even attacking a strawman so much as having an argument with figments of your imagination. It simply does not matter if you think Christian norms are determinant of what can constitute scripture in a narrow sense of the term. If you don't like the term scripture to refer to the concept Chap was talking about, I'm sure Chap would be happy to oblige and describe the concept with other terminology. The terms don't matter in this instance. Yet you persist on, which suggests you are uninterested in actual discussion at best and dodging the real discussion at worst. I don't get the define the terms of your discussion, but I sure as heck can see when you stubbornly aren't having one.
AlmaBound wrote:Is anyone aware of research regarding the Quebec Act and possible ties to the Book of Mormon?
Please explain.
Problems with auto-correct: In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
AlmaBound wrote:Is anyone aware of research regarding the Quebec Act and possible ties to the Book of Mormon?
Please explain.
I am wondering if anyone has researched The anti-Catholic fervor of the time period, cast back to the Quebec Act, and it's possible impact on the cultural influence on the Book of Mormon.
Dr Mitchill's apparent limited involvement have intrigued me to think along those lines.
Just wondering if anyone else had considered that line of thinking.
I have been headed in that direction, but never heard of the Quebec act. Anti-Catholicism certainly had a lot to do with the Book of Mormon. Thank you. This is a windfall
The Indian education program at Dartmouth was extremely frustrated with their inability to recruit students, because the Jesuit priests had such a strong influence. They appealed to the representatives of the English government in Canada, who were singularly unhelpful. The governor even in places used words like papist to conciliate them.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Problems with auto-correct: In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
Lucy Harris wrote:I have been headed in that direction, but never heard of the Quebec act. Anti-Catholicism certainly had a lot to do with the Book of Mormon. Thank you. This is a windfall.
It sheds a different light on the "Kingmen" vs "Republican" type in the book, especially when considered within an anti-Catholic viewpoint.
Ethan Smith's view on this also shaped the book. He saw royal forms of government as synonymous with Catholicism. I couldn't get a grasp on that, until now. So the king's and parliament's attempt to conciliate the French Catholic Canadiens had far-reaching consequences.
I am wondering, too, about whether the British government wanted to slow down immigration into the colonies out of consideration for the Native population. Late War calls the Brits "savages" because they were allied with Tecumseh and his alliance. Canada never had a Trail of Tears.
Problems with auto-correct: In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
Mostly I wonder how it could be that someone almost 200 years later could see these connections, yet there were thousands of converts in that time, much closer to the events.
They almost certainly were aware of the events in their time, yet they believed a young man, one who had admitted to "pretended" scrying, who claimed to have found some plates and translated them, describing events similar to their timeframe cast in an ancient setting.
Many have pondered what Joseph's motives were, but I wonder what were the motives of those who believed.
