The gnat-strainer prize.

[_SteelHead]

I must also warn you (as I believe in being honest), that should you agree to fund me while I write;

I will plagiarize heavily from the fishing related writings of Norman Maclean and David James Duncan. The rest will borrow from a multitude of philosophers both ancient and contemporary.

The chief tenets of the gospel of Steelhead are:

• God, whatever else he/she/it may be is love.
• God is not manifest through supernatural events (as there are no "supernatural events" just awesomely amazing natural ones), but by kindness.
• God may be pretty remote and unknowable, but there are plenty of people worth knowing, loving, and sharing with.
• Find such people and fish with them.
• However else creation may have occurred, irrespective of the number of creative periods, a couple time a week God goes fishing. This gospel really doesn't care about the details of creation, finding it sufficient that it (creation) exists, but tends to heavily believe in the big bang and evolution. All the details are secondary to the fact that there exists oceans, seas, lakes, clean running water, and fish.... who though possessing a brain smaller than a pea are wily and elusive and worthy of pursuit.
• God's chief desire for humanity is for everyone to be happy. Loving spouses, children and fishing are manifest proof of this desire (but not necesarrily in that order for everyone and not everyone need marry or reproduce, but everyone should at some point fish. Preferably with a dry fly).
• God personally revealed to me that everyone should fish more. Though I received said revelation I am not a prophet. There are no prophets, just people at different places in understanding, and in their ability to express love.
• Dry fly fisherman are the highest manifestation of humanity save for those who swing for steelhead (and no, that is in not in any way a sexual reference for those who do not speak flyfishermanese).
• Those who chase fresh chrome with dry flies have already entered exaltation, as there is no action more sublime than catching a big chromer on the top, except perhaps for a good romp with a loving companion.
• It is possible, through the mastery of art and the joy of being in the moment to enter a state known as "more perfect". This state is most readily attained by fly fishing or great sex. Great sex only occurs where there is true love.
  

  When I was young, a teacher had forbidden me to say "more perfect" because she said if a thing is perfect it can't be more so. But by now I had seen enough of life to have regained my confidence in it.

• The god of SteelHead cares little about morals per se.... he/she/we/it is all about rights, and not infringing upon the rights of others. Not touchy, feely, made up rights like the right to high speed internet, but rights to freedom, expression and the use of ones own time and talents. The only moral is to not infringe upon the rights of others. There is no inherent right to anything that by default infringes upon the rights of others, there is only their right to express themselves via compassion and love.
  

  Each one of here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing help, Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don't know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them - we can love completely without complete understanding. (see the God is love thing above)
  

• All people regardless of color, creed, sex, orientation, whatever ( as in whatever else classifications we human dorks like to use to divide people up and cause division because of differences) are equal and have equal opportunity to succeed or fail.
• Sexual sin is rape and such as such are a violation of rights(see above). Whatever else consenting adults do with consenting adults is their own business in as much as it does not violate the above. Children inherently are not equipped to consent, but don't ask me where the demarcation line is. The "creepy dating age rule" may be a decent solution... 1/2 your age + 7 for anyone older than 19. The verdict on this is still out, but that rule seems to make sense.
• Be responsible for your own actions. Own up to your mistakes. Care for those you create in all senses emotionally, physically, etc. If you can't be responsible for whatever reason then refrain from making messes, creating burdens that you can not bare etc. Society does not owe you a living.
• Conversely help out those in need as much as possible and in as varying means as possible, be it time, talents, love, or money.
• The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana (though Stanley Idaho is nearer to perfection and hence has a lower number of bastards). Bastards are those who feel that they have the right by their birth to the product of the sweat of another's brow, or who purposefully violate the rights of another. Accidents do happen.
• Live each day as it may be your last. Love your spouse (companion, whatever), love your children. Life is fleeting make sure your loved ones feel of your ferocious love daily.
• Make the most of each moment. Work as much as you need to support those things that you love, and then spend as much time as possible with those you love doing the things you love.
• The Gospel of SteelHead is undecided on an afterlife but hopes it will involve tall mountains full of soft snow, clean rivers full of anadromous fish, and most of all surrounded by those we love, but focusing too much on an afterlife makes one forget to make the most of what one has, and making the best of what is here and now.
• Be excellent to one another is not just a phrase from Bill and Ted. Primarily this is because if more people were excellent to one another, there would be much less unhappiness and suffering. The great majority of human suffering could be averted if we as a whole were just excellent to one another.
• Life does not inherently have a purpose. Give it one. Make the purpose one that is worthwhile. Fishing is almost always worthwhile (with a few caveats), love on the other-hand is always worthwhile, even though at times it is painful. Those who intentionally and deliberately bring you pain and or abuse most likely don't truly love you. You can however love them and be compassionate to them, but this does not equate to letting them use you as a punching bag.
• Be honest....... in most things, but lying about the size of/number of (a) fish is perfectly acceptable.

There is more but I need to sleep.

[_Darth J]

OK; from J.S.H., vs. 67, he states that he and Oliver Cowdery commenced translating the Book on April 7, 1829. It was first published in 1830. I may have been off on my "3 months", but he wasn't engaged in the translation 24/7; he had to take some time off to move and avoid persecution, but, OK: I'll give you a full year. Better get busy. I first suggest you find 11 people to swear they have seen the sources from which you'll write your book; in addition, 3 of them must bear witness that they had an angel from God declare the truthfulness of your project to them, and, though they later wind up estranged from you and your organization, none will ever deny they had such experiences. (Personally, I doubt you could do it in 6 years, or even in a lifetime. I've written a book that is about 40% the size of the Book of Mormon; I spent decades gathering material for it, then 6 years organizing the material, writing, re-writing, editing, adding new material and on and on. Those who have never written a book have no idea of the work that goes into it. It's much easier and quicker to translate one by the power of God, as Joseph did.) So: ball's still in your court. Put up or shut up.

Notice how the parameters of this test keep changing as the original ones are met. First, Logjamislds was using a D&C 67 standard. As shown in this thread, however, people have written purported revelations like unto those in the Book of Commandments, and have written things "like unto" the Book of Mormon, as well.

I wrote a story like unto the first 3,000 words of the Book of Mormon in two hours (look at the time stamps for the posts in the thread to which I linked). Go ahead and extrapolate that to six months, or a year, or whatever. Yes, I do think that I could write a story like the Book of Mormon given the time and the inclination to do it. But, as I and others have pointed out, who is going to support the person taking this challenge? Joseph Smith had Martin Harris as his patron, and Joseph Smith also had nothing else to do during the time period when the Book of Mormon was being produced.

So when it is shown that the Koran issues the exact same challenge as D&C 67, and that I can start writing a story like the Book of Mormon in just a couple of hours, and Warren Jeffs is getting revelations like the D&C, and Christopher Nemelka has produced a translation of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (and also the lost 116 pages), then instead of acknowledging that his D&C 67 challenge has been met, Logjamislds changes the rules. Now, you also have to produce witnesses to say that they think what you wrote is true. In other words, to prove that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, you have to engage in a fraud yourself. But if you would like to discuss the credibility of the Three Witnesses, I would be happy to. I would also be happy to discuss how the Eight Witnesses had no way of knowing whether the plates that Joseph Smith showed them were what he claimed they were, or whether they were faked (I take it you've heard of the Kinderhook plates and the Voree plates?).

The premise of the Book of Mormon "challenge," in its varying forms, is an appeal to gullibility. In order to demonstrate that something is a hoax, you have to reproduce the hoax. If you won't or can't, then you have to concede that it's real.

For example, the Surgeon's Photo of the Loch Ness Monster. Some people suspected the photo was a fake, but did not know exactly how it was done. A journal of photography even explained that the photo was faked, but the journal got it wrong as to the precise details of how it was faked. Eventually, one of the men involved in the hoax admitted to it before he died and explained how it was done.

According to the logic of the Book of Mormon "challenge," everyone was obligated to accept the Surgeon's photo as genuine---and therefore the Loch Ness Monster as real---because they could not explain how it was faked. And the British journal explaining that the photo was a hoax did not disprove the authenticity of the photo, because the author could not explain the precise way in which it was faked. Under the Book of Mormon challenge logic, until one of the co-conspirators made a deathbed confession, everyone in the world was obligated to believe that the Loch Ness Monster was real because they could not explain the exact way in which the photo was faked.

The logic is, of course, absurd. To determine whether a claim is a hoax, you don't need to reproduce it. You need to look at the evidence in support of, and contrary to, the claims being made. If the claims do not stand up to scrutiny, you have sufficient information to conclude that there was a hoax, regardless of how exactly they did it, and regardless of witnesses who really believe it, or at least say they believe it. If the claims cannot stand up to scrutiny, then the witnesses are at best mistaken and at worst liars.

Notice also that logjamislds demands that to meet his challenge, the witnesses have to maintain their profession of belief for the rest of their lives. This only proves the sincerity of the belief, not the truth of the underlying claim. It also adds to the ridiculousness of the "challenge," since we have to wait any number of decades for these witnesses to die to see if they ever retract their stories.

But since the parameters have changed (since the bluff has been called), I have a counter-challenge to logjamislds new demand that we need to get witnesses, too. I am going to call it "the Koran Challenge." The Koran invites those who dispute its authenticity to produce a sura like it. But that might actually be possible, so I'm going to hedge my bet. Not only do you have to produce a sura like it, you have to get people to believe in what you wrote so fanatically that they will become suicide bombers and fly airplanes into buildings.

Until you meet that challenge, you have to concede that the Koran is the word of God and Islam is the one, true religion. No excuses. Put up or shut up.

[_subgenius]

... "the Koran Challenge." The Koran invites those who dispute its authenticity to produce a sura like it. But that might actually be possible, so I'm going to hedge my bet. Not only do you have to produce a sura like it, you have to get people to believe in what you wrote so fanatically that they will become suicide bombers and fly airplanes into buildings.

Until you meet that challenge, you have to concede that the Koran is the word of God and Islam is the one, true religion. No excuses. Put up or shut up.

I am not familiar with the challenge you write of...a sura is likened to a chapter, of which there are about 114.
I suggest you check out the 29th sura (The Spider)

As for getting people to believe in something enough to kill, that is no way to hedge your bet. That type of convincing is easily done (ie. Jim Jones, Manson, Bush, etc..)
It is much harder to get people to give of themselves, or better, to be selfless....wait

[_Buffalo]

Now, you also have to produce witnesses to say that they think what you wrote is true. In other words, to prove that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, you have to engage in a fraud yourself. But if you would like to discuss the credibility of the Three Witnesses, I would be happy to.

You're over-thinking it. Joseph got his friends and financial backers with a stake in the Book of Mormon's sales to be the witnesses. Your fellow apostates can be yours.

A deer came to me in a vision and told me that your story was inspired of god! Just be sure to give me 5% of the sales on your story.

One down, 10 to go.

[_Themis]

You're just trying to weasel out of writing the book. One year left, minus a couple days. The ball is still in your court; put up or shut up.

I know this is the celestial forum, but you are being an idiot here. You are hiding behind the fact no one here is going to put in the time and effort to create their own religion just to appease you. If I want to put that effort into starting my own religion I would have already been working on it. Darth has already shown that the Muslims have their own challenge. James strange claimed to translate some brass plates and produced witnesses and a following around him. You also want to restrict others on how they can produce it, and in what time line, even though you have no information on how long Joseph may have taken and who may have helped him based on the assumption he made it up. Think about it for a second. If Joseph made it up and was talking about it in 1824, then does it not make sense that he could have been working on it by at least 1824, and that others may have been involved. Considering that the Book of Mormon is not very complex, and the story line very simple and copies others sources like the Bible and has at least similar sources as the view of the Hebrews, it does not seem a stretch that some others could do the same, which we have already shown some have.

[_Themis]

As for getting people to believe in something enough to kill, that is no way to hedge your bet. That type of convincing is easily done (ie. Jim Jones, Manson, Bush, etc..)
It is much harder to get people to give of themselves, or better, to be selfless....wait

Getting people to believe enough to kill is same as getting people to give of themselves. Both are following you. Jim Jones certainly had a following of people who gave everything for what they believed. Even to drink the punch.

[_schreech]

You're over-thinking it. Joseph got his friends and financial backers with a stake in the Book of Mormon's sales to be the witnesses. Your fellow apostates can be yours.

A deer came to me in a vision and told me that your story was inspired of god! Just be sure to give me 5% of the sales on your story.

One down, 10 to go.

BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That I, through the grace of Zuess, and our Lord Apollo, have seen the laptop which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Virgil, and also of the olympians, their brethren, and also of the people of rome, who came from the land of which hath been spoken.

And I declare with words of soberness, that a purple unicorn came down from olympus, and he brought and laid before my eyes, that I beheld and saw the laptop , and the word documents thereon; and I know that it is by the grace of Zuess, and our Lord Apollo, that I beheld and bear record that these things are true.

Schreech

2 down....

[_Darth J]

... "the Koran Challenge." The Koran invites those who dispute its authenticity to produce a sura like it. But that might actually be possible, so I'm going to hedge my bet. Not only do you have to produce a sura like it, you have to get people to believe in what you wrote so fanatically that they will become suicide bombers and fly airplanes into buildings.

Until you meet that challenge, you have to concede that the Koran is the word of God and Islam is the one, true religion. No excuses. Put up or shut up.

I am not familiar with the challenge you write of...a sura is likened to a chapter, of which there are about 114.
I suggest you check out the 29th sura (The Spider)

As for getting people to believe in something enough to kill, that is no way to hedge your bet. That type of convincing is easily done (ie. Jim Jones, Manson, Bush, etc..)
It is much harder to get people to give of themselves, or better, to be selfless....wait

If that kind of convincing is easily done, then it should be no problem for you. Put up or shut up. Or admit that Islam is the one, true religion.

Also, feel free to discuss what Martin Harris, David Whitmer, or Oliver Cowdery gave of themselves or did seflessly as a result of their belief in the Book of Mormon.

[_logjamislds]

No; you're still trying to weasel out of the challenge. I said an equivalent to the Book of Mormon; not a 3,000 word "story" which virtually anyone could write. That's less than 1/100th of the Book of Mormon. Anyone who has written a book, as I have, will tell you that keeping it up until completion is the hard part. I think you suffer from premature extrapolation. You owe me about 300,000 more words.

by the way: I'm actually offering you a chance for money and glory. If you could actually pull this off, Christian bookstores would be clamoring for your volume; you'd be invited on lucrative speaking tours. The anti-L.D.S. world would have, at last, the means to break that "keystone of our religion." This is a serious endeavor I'm pointing you towards; no 3,000 word essay is going to cover it. Come on, get cracking. You've wasted 4 days so far; about 361 left to go. Put up or shut up.

[_SteelHead]

I offer you the Homecoming Series by Orson Scott Card. Each one is about 300 pages long, each is a derivative of some other work and several were published within a year or two of each other.