TA DA!!! My Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica website

[_Moniker]

Beastie, update your profile and put your website in your profile.

[_beastie]

Will do!

[_beastie]

by the way, I don't mind criticism, but it is irritating when the criticism (such as ray's above) is formulated as a result of careless reading.

[_LCD2YOU]

A little "history lesson" for those who don't know much about FARMS. Founder Jack Welch never intended for his "baby" to be a "counter-mo" site. His original intention was to provide scholarly information and studies about the Book of Mormon,

And where is this "scholarly information"? Seems it is just a clearing house for TBMs to quell any doubt. See REAL scholars put their stuff out for all to see and tear down. If it stands up to the scrutiny, then it is a good theory.

In "REAL SCIENCE", there was a battle royale between two atheist/agnostic Palentologists who were on different sides of "Puncuated Equilibrium". It was nasty. It was personal. In the end though PE theory was strengthened and can stand on its own.

See that is what real scholars do. They attack weak points. If the proponent of PE were to have kept it quiet, called all criticism of PE "unscientific", it wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

So if he wants "scholarly", he should welcome other opinions that really put the stories of the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon in the harsh light of skepticism. That which is a lie withers under the light. That which is the truth shall flourish, right?

So why does th eLDS org have so much trouble admitting what they really believe?

and this is why the original FARMS Review was called, and limited to, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. In the late '80s FARMS began broadening its scope, and began focusing on anti-Mormon literature, because of its epidemic proportions. So the RBBM was changed to the FARMS Review, and they extended critical replies to all anti-Mormon literature, and even poor pro-Mormon literature (an insight that escapes most). This was, perhaps ironically, contrary to General Authority advice to ignore anti-Mormons.

Good advice. When you can't counter something, ignore it and it will go away. Too bad that is not the case.

This is unlike National Geographic and The Smithsonian who exclude the Book of Mormon oout of being polite. They don't want to have to say, "It's just complete BS".

They took on the Tanners in a move that surprised both Jerald and Sandra. This eventually led to the Tanners publication Answering Mormon Scholars. Bear in mind that the Church left the Tanners unanswered for over 20 years!

No informed person can argue about "who started this?". The anti-Mormons started it.

Complete and total BS.

Let's see some facts here:

1: According to Joseph Smith and LSD Canon, the word of god fell into apostasy and all other religions are abombinations to this god, right?

2: The Book of Mormon makes some pretty outlandish claims, none of which can be verified.

3: The LDS PR machine attempts to make Joseph Smith out as a matyr and saint when he took 14 year old to his bed, married wome who already had husbands and tried to take over an entire state.

4: BY ruled as an iron fisted dictator in what was a theocracy.

So any informed party can see that the LDS started it. The "anti-mormons" as you put it are not so. "Anti-lies", "Anti-Falsehoods", "Anti-Decpetion" and my favorite, "fact and evidence seekers" are what we are.

I think criticism is good, and it makes all of us think.

But the issue here is that when one really starts thinking about the total falsehood of the Book of Mormon there is only one conclusion. The issue is that the mental gymnastics TBMs are asked to entertain to maintain a slight hope that they haven't been giving their lives and livelyhoods to a total lie placed on them by a money digging pervert.

But don't blame Mormons for defending their religious beliefs against constant and unrelenting attacks.

See that's the thing.

If a person believes that by giving their money, time and efforts to a charlatan, wouldn't you try to help them see what is really going on? In that sense, that is what I and other nevemos are doing. Don't worry, I also do the same to my family who are still Catholic. While my wife has asked me not to question her, she knows full well what I feel for all organized religions. Fortunately things at her church are pretty much playing out the way I said they would (a power play in the laity and the preacher is in trouble" and she has really cut back on her church services.

Beastie's website is just another in the long list of vociferious anti-Mormon hubris.

Ah. Can't show where it is wrong so you're just going to label it as hubris? Like the hubris that comes out of a TBM's mouth when they repeat with vacant staring eyes, "The Prophets are real! If they weren't god will kill them!" Don't laugh, I heard that from a TBM's mouth when I worked in Provo.

She says she prefers to call "apologists" "Book of Mormon scholars", adding that she doesn't like the label "anti-Mormon". Here's the truth, beastie, apologists are apologists, and anti-Mormons are anti-Mormons, no matter what other names you call them.

Or apologists are self delusional fools and "Anti-Mormons" are good people who are trying to help what are some of the best people on the planet escape from a corrupt and greedy orginization?

[_Ray A]

For god's sake, ray, not only did I acknowledge Sorenson's rebuttal, but I quoted from it.

No need to get uptight. You're the webmaster and creator, I'm the critic.

So obviously you're not reading carefully.

In addition, I referenced the apologetic explanations for these things repeatedly. In fact, the entire point of the essays was to rebut certain apologetic responses to the problems of the Book of Mormon. I don't know what essays you're responding to in your mind, Ray, but they don't appear to be mine.

I am reading carefully, but I did not get to the Metallurgy chapter yet (which is near the end), and was referring to the essay on Horses, as you will note from the bibliography I pasted. There is one reference to Sorenson in that bibliography, his 1985 book. There is no reference, or link, to the main rebuttal, Volume 6:1 of the FARMS Review. That way a reader can see the original review source for New Approaches, not just selected quotes within your essay. Even in the Metallurgy section where you quote Sorenson's essay, you don't provide links, as I did above, yet they are easily available to you, but a reader might not know where to look. You do provide some links, but ignore other important ones. Remember, volume 6:1 of the FROB is the main rebuttal, the one I read three times. Without that review I would not have been able to properly compare the two books.

[_Ray A]

In "REAL SCIENCE", there was a battle royale between two atheist/agnostic Palentologists who were on different sides of "Puncuated Equilibrium". It was nasty. It was personal. In the end though PE theory was strengthened and can stand on its own.

Before I go any further with you, how many apologetics works have you read, and in particular, how many issues of the FARMS Review have you read?

[_LCD2YOU]

In "REAL SCIENCE", there was a battle royale between two atheist/agnostic Palentologists who were on different sides of "Puncuated Equilibrium". It was nasty. It was personal. In the end though PE theory was strengthened and can stand on its own.

Before I go any further with you, how many apologetics works have you read, and in particular, how many issues of the FARMS Review have you read?

Quite a few, why?

[_Ray A]

Quite a few, why?

How many is "quite a few"? One? Two, three? Have you read, for example, Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (FARMS, 1997)

Or, Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, (FARMS, 2002, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch)

How many issues of the FARMS Review have you read? Still no answer to that.

The point is if you're going to criticise something you must first be familiar with it. Then your criticism can be taken seriously.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG -

I never stated categorically Joseph Smith had access to this information. If one is working from the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century product, then one is forced to concede that the actual authorship is unknown. And it may have had more than one source. Sidney Rigdon is seen, by many, as a viable candidate, and he certainly would have had access to information about ancient Israel.

A number of years ago I read a book called, "Sidney Rigdon, A Portrait of Religious Excess". I came away from reading that book concluding that at some point in time in his life Sidney would have had reason/cause to spill the beans. He didn't. He was a believer in the divinity of the Book of Mormon to his dying day.

Even if one insists upon Joseph Smith as sole author, there is no way to identify all the information he could have been exposed to during the writing of the Book of Mormon, particularly given the fact that his family was extremely interested in religion, and the area was visited by traveling preachers, sometimes very educated ones. So this is just too open ended to ever provide conclusive evidence that would help one determine if certain information could only be included via supernatural means.

I hear what you're saying, but in my mind there are too many internal complexities that fit/dovetail into the Book of Mormon being more than simply a creative process originating in Joseph Smith's fertile imagination. To imagine Joseph Smith sitting with his head in a hat and rolling off the Book of Mormon with its intricate narrative and doctrinal teachings/expositions is a real stretch. It's less of a stretch to imagine/concieve God having a hand in it.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

He was a believer in the divinity of the Book of Mormon to his dying day.

The divinity of the Book of Mormon and the historicity of the Book of Mormon are two entirely different things.

I hear what you're saying, but in my mind there are too many internal complexities that fit/dovetail into the Book of Mormon being more than simply a creative process originating in Joseph Smith's fertile imagination. To imagine Joseph Smith sitting with his head in a hat and rolling off the Book of Mormon with its intricate narrative and doctrinal teachings/expositions is a real stretch. It's less of a stretch to imagine/concieve God having a hand in it.

Regards,
MG

God having a hand in it, and real Nephites/Lamanites are two entirely different things.