Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Kishkumen]

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts. Last scene of all, that ends this strange eventful history, is second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Yep! Sobering thought as I become a grouchy old person.

[Moksha]

Well done. You get a ribbon. You make a great apologist!

Yeah, baby!

For a gold ribbon, you should have him translate "the lion in Phoenician fields" into Proto-Uto-Aztecan.



by the way, I am being plagued today by scammers from India. They somehow obtained a list of old people in my area. May Ganesha stomp all over them and then recite the classic Vedas!

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[Dr Exiled]

Maybe one day others here and I will have the hidden knowledge you possess. We can only hope.

Yes, hidden from those who mysteriously miss my public explanations on multiple threads in numerous posts.

If that is so, is it so tough to provide a link? Or provide a few sentences explaining your views? I know it is sometime tedious to have to repeat yourself or break down your views into a few headlines or provide links but that would be helpful. Not everyone here lives and dies by your comments professor.

[Physics Guy]

I've been told a few times now that I need to know the Book of Mormon better to appreciate it. No-one who has told me this, however, has yet offered any specific examples of what I should read in the Book of Mormon that would convince me that it was worth reading.

Up to a point that may be understandable. People who admire the Book of Mormon may be afraid that I, as a prejudiced anti-Mormon, will inevitably find some way to sneer at even the strongest verses in the Book. By offering me a best-shot passage within the Book, they would only make it easier for me to dismiss the entire Book, by defeating its champion in single combat. It would be safer for them, instead, to insist that I can only criticise the Book of Mormon if I read it all thoroughly. Rather than send forth a champion, they disperse the army into the forest and refuse to concede until the forest is cleared bush by bush.

It's a shrewd defensive tactic. But I have no interest in eradicating the army of the Book of Mormon. Having met at least a few of its scouts, I want to know how strong its champions are. Does it have some?

[Kishkumen]

I've been told a few times now that I need to know the Book of Mormon better to appreciate it. No-one who has told me this, however, has yet offered any specific examples of what I should read in the Book of Mormon that would convince me that it was worth reading.

Up to a point that may be understandable. People who admire the Book of Mormon may be afraid that I, as a prejudiced anti-Mormon, will inevitably find some way to sneer at even the strongest verses in the Book. By offering me a best-shot passage within the Book, they would only make it easier for me to dismiss the entire Book, by defeating its champion in single combat. It would be safer for them, instead, to insist that I can only criticise the Book of Mormon if I read it all thoroughly. Rather than send forth a champion, they disperse the army into the forest and refuse to concede until the forest is cleared bush by bush.

It's a shrewd defensive tactic. But I have no interest in eradicating the army of the Book of Mormon. Having met at least a few of its scouts, I want to know how strong its champions are. Does it have some?

I don’t care whether you like the Book of Mormon or not. My primary goal has been to explain something of why believers become attached to it and to make some points about how even books one does not like or respect can be more complex and interesting than one would think. It is facile dismissal that irks me, not dislike.

Also, I have never considered you an anti-Mormon.

[huckelberry]

I've been told a few times now that I need to know the Book of Mormon better to appreciate it. No-one who has told me this, however, has yet offered any specific examples of what I should read in the Book of Mormon that would convince me that it was worth reading.

Up to a point that may be understandable. People who admire the Book of Mormon may be afraid that I, as a prejudiced anti-Mormon, will inevitably find some way to sneer at even the strongest verses in the Book. By offering me a best-shot passage within the Book, they would only make it easier for me to dismiss the entire Book, by defeating its champion in single combat. It would be safer for them, instead, to insist that I can only criticise the Book of Mormon if I read it all thoroughly. Rather than send forth a champion, they disperse the army into the forest and refuse to concede until the forest is cleared bush by bush.

It's a shrewd defensive tactic. But I have no interest in eradicating the army of the Book of Mormon. Having met at least a few of its scouts, I want to know how strong its champions are. Does it have some?

Physics Guy, it is unfortunate that this thread has tangled up in so many person clashes. Nobody in the thread supports the book as history but different people have different interests and are looking at the book from different angles.

I find my self, reviewing the section in question here, impressed by the extent of connection to the exodus theme. There is not great poetry and the narrative is an odd mix of clumsy and engaging if the reader is willing. In at least the imagination the reader may participate in this exodus and adventure to the new land. It might not be a huge surprise that the history of the LDS church is also one of exodus, across the country. This exodus particularly to Utah is remembered as acts of courage defining a people. It is perhaps not a wonder that exodus is the theme in the Book of Mormon. Perhaps what Kishkumen is considering is that the power of the exodus theme is not in some strong passage but woven through the book.(as well as by handcart to Salt Lake City)
/////////
an addition,

My Book of Mormon is a paperback owned long ago by my sister. I looked for underlines to find what struck her as important or memorable, I found Alma62;48
"And the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land and began to multiply and to wax exceeding strong again in the land. And they began to grow exceeding rich.
49 But not withstanding their riches or their strength or the prosperity they were not lifted up in the pride of their eyes, neither were they slow to remember their Lord their God but they did humble themselves exceedingly before him.
50Yea they did remember how great thigs the Lord had done for them that he had delivered them from death and from bonds and from prison and from all manner of affliction and he delivered them out of the hand of their enemies
51 and they did pray unto the Lord their God continually, insomuch tht the Lord did bless them,according to his word so that they did wax strong an prosper in the land."

If one combines this with the proposal that "men are that they might have joy" I think one has a pretty central image of Mormon hope. My memory says that it is likely many Mormons hold this foundation to be an escape from puritanical negativity found in early American protestant teachings. The Mormon hope is an exodus from all that.

[Philo Sofee]

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts. Last scene of all, that ends this strange eventful history, is second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Yep! Sobering thought as I become a grouchy old person.

Hey...HEY... HEY!!! Easy on that old pal...

[Physics Guy]

I don't doubt that the Book of Mormon can be complex or interesting, actually. Even people who all agree that a work of art is in many ways bad can still find interesting aspects to it, after all, just as people who all agree that something is really great can still recognize flaws in it.

So far I'm still inclined to suppose that Joseph Smith was simply a charlatan, and that any evidence of sincerity he seemed to show was really just him getting into a role that was a great ego trip. I'm willing to allow for some reasonable doubt on that, though. I'm not going to say it's crazy to think that he had some real convictions or even inspiration.

What I don't think anyone can get around, though, is that (apart from what seem to have been quite minor revisions) the Book of Mormon was canonised in its first draft. It's 1-1/2 times as long as the New Testament, over three times as long as the Quran, and instead of being composed by multiple authors and filtered through decades or even centuries of oral transmission and copying, it was dictated by one man over the space of a few months, and then printed.

Even if you grant that Joseph Smith had some real inspiration, no one person has ever really had that much inspiration. If he did have some deep spiritual insight, maybe even from God, he padded it out massively, to compete in length with the Bible. The result is a Scripture which is just bound to have a lower ratio of profound revelation to length than other sacred texts. It's not that the Bible or the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita are all pure glorious brilliance in my view. They have their highs and lows, for sure. A one-man shop is not going to have hit even close to their average level, though.

And when I read the Book of Mormon, in the admittedly sporadic sampling I've tried, it doesn't seem to exceed that expected low ratio. I really don't think I'm just dismissing it facilely. It would be astonishing if it actually did show much better than I have found it, given how it was made.

I could believe that it has a few highlights that I just haven't found, that its very best ideas were indeed in the range of the world's great Scriptures, even if it only had a few of them. Hence my asking after highlights and champions. I'm willing to believe that the Book of Mormon has a few.

Even Jesus, however, whom Joseph Smith portrayed as a divine being, was never supposed to have contributed more than about 1-1/2 gospels worth of original material, if you take the minimal covering set of the four Christian gospels. Joseph Smith would have ranked high as a prophet indeed if he could have produced that much high-grade Scripture. Instead he tried to make a triple-Quran single-handed in a single draft, dictate and print. Even if he had an inspiration, that's hubris.

[Shulem]

You'll also note that Church leaders today, moreover the apostles, hardly ever rant and rave about this genuine historicity of the Book of Mormon. They want the Book of Mormon to be read on a spiritual basis ONLY and not pay attention to the mechanics of the book because too many flaws can be easily demonstrated. Leaders of the Church don't want to call attention to how the Book of Mormon can be scrutinized by eyes that haven't been brainwashed via the Mormon Holy Ghost. The book as far as the world is concerned is a proven hoax.

Nonetheless, pat on the head to the members: Pray, pay, and obey. It's always been that way ever since Smith founded his Church.