Book of Mormon questions for brave Mormons to answer

[_mikwut]

Jersey,

I think E's criticism is apt. If the critic is making certain criticisms, their knowledge of the text is more appropriate than other critics. Marg is an agressive S/R theorist, way beyond even your adoration. The theory nearly depends on the relationship of the text and an knowledge thereto. For one to preach so agressively and yet have such a juvenile understanding is to me, in agreement with E, simply nuts.

my regards, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

If it goes on for years, yes, I think ridicule is an appropriate response. It's ridiculous.

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

"Attempts"? Yes, I think it's pretty funny when a critic turns reading the Book of Mormon into a vast, daunting task of insuperable difficulty. Fairly young kids -- mine included -- have read and continue to read the Book of Mormon without too much faux heroism, huffing, puffing, and protest.

But no, when a critic simply reads the Book of Mormon, that's appropriate and minimal.

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?

Who cares if she asks for guidance or you use chapter summaries? I certainly don't.

I think it's absurd, as I've said before, that she holds such strong views on Book of Mormon authorship, and has posted on the subject for years, never having actually read the book.

[_EAllusion]

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

She's being ridiculed for 1) Only doing this after the fact and 2) Seeking out "easy" versions of the book. Hey, I agree that large swaths of it are boring as all get out - this isn't the poetry of Rumi here - but it's not that difficult and the text as is is important to her personal interests.

[_Daniel Peterson]

this isn't the poetry of Rumi here

I like the poetry of Rumi, too. In both the Persian original and the various souped-up English translations and paraphrases.

Large swaths of Rumi, however, are boring as all get out.

[_EAllusion]

I like the poetry of Rumi, too. In both the Persian original and the various souped-up English translations and paraphrases.

Large swaths of Rumi, however, are boring as all get out.

Heh. I decided to go for this reaction on a lark. This is why it is so easy for certain people to troll you. The English versions of Rumi I've read are really well done, but I'm aware this could easily be a consequence of there being writing talent behind the translating. The KJV's wisdom lit was beautifully written, but for all I know that elegant prose was translating clunky texts.

But seriously, the Book of Mormon is chloroform in print. It's a surprisingly quick read, though. Read it or don't Marg. But have a little self-awareness about how silly this seems.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Was I talking to you?

[_Jersey Girl]

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

If it goes on for years, yes, I think ridicule is an appropriate response. It's ridiculous.

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

"Attempts"? Yes, I think it's pretty funny when a critic turns reading the Book of Mormon into a vast, daunting task of insuperable difficulty. Fairly young kids -- mine included -- have read and continue to read the Book of Mormon without too much faux heroism, huffing, puffing, and protest.

But no, when a critic simply reads the Book of Mormon, that's appropriate and minimal.

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?

Who cares if she asks for guidance or you use chapter summaries? I certainly don't.

I think it's absurd, as I've said before, that she holds such strong views on Book of Mormon authorship, and has posted on the subject for years, never having actually read the book.

Who cares if she asks for guidance? You apparently do:

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

That's simply not serious

.

She was OFFERED both of those, Daniel. She simply asked for another version the text that was easier to read.

Show me where she asked for an illustrated version for children.

Sincerely,
Missouri

[_Jersey Girl]

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

She's being ridiculed for 1) Only doing this after the fact and 2) Seeking out "easy" versions of the book. Hey, I agree that large swaths of it are boring as all get out - this isn't the poetry of Rumi here - but it's not that difficult and the text as is is important to her personal interests.

Seriously. Was I talking to you?

[_marg]

Ok guys & gals, I mean E.A. and DCP...care to respond to my post rather than your pontifications about how one can't make comments regarding DNA evidence of American Indians or about 'who wrote the Book of Mormon'... unless they read the Book of Mormon cover to cover? You guys,( maybe E.A. is a girl) are both so brilliant it's just...I don't know..it's just awesome!!!!! To think on this board there is such mind boggling brilliance. Wow....I'm impressed.

First of all the reason I have commented recently on the quality of writing in the Book of Mormon is because of my experience in reading portions.

If one begins to watch a movie one can often at the very beginning in the first few minutes get a sense of whether or not it will be a good movie just by the quality of sound and filming production. As far as story-line and dialogue generally one doesn't need to watch the entire movie in order to get a sense of what the entire movie is going to be like.

I don't accept the N.T. Jesus story. It's not the least bit convincing that Jews should concern themselves about one of their own going on about being a son of God. In any group of people there will be the eccentric, the ones who make extraordinary claims. People's reactions tend to be to ignore them unless they are a danger to others or themselves. People don't get upset and want to kill them. So I don't accept the N.T. as being anything that likely happened and I view it as a story devised to appeal to pagan Romans. That continued theme obviously I won't accept in the Book of Mormon.

So to read biblical themes I don't accept as being actualities of events, carried over into the Book of Mormon, coupled with my perception that the Book of Mormon was written to sound like the Bible but is in essence a "pretend" translation unlike the KJV and other translations which are truly taken from ancient text writtern in Hebrew & Greek and the whole thing...is offensive to my sensibilities..and the combination of it all, makes it difficult for me to carry on reading it.

I don't really want to be critical, for the sake of being critical. But I can't for the life of me...see any "good" in the Book of Mormon. I can't actually see at this point one iota of good in it. It's bad mouthing the Catholic church, bad mouthing jews, and pretty much bad mouthing all those who aren't willing to believe a one and only God, a creator of mankind is part of it.


I'm at page 50..maybe ..just maybe it's got some good moral values in it. And for that reason I will continue. But this is like being at a movie I can't stand, but I think maybe it will get better..and quite frankly they rarely do.

[_EAllusion]

Was I talking to you?

This is a message board. That's how things work. Welcome to the internet circa 1995.

As a bonus, I'll point out that you look like you are defending marg out of tribal loyalty or bias deriving from it. At least that's the charitable way to read your less than stellar replies here.