cognitiveharmony wrote:I basically read this entire thread and I'm still unclear on what MG's point was. It seems that he wants to establish that the Book of Mormon has had much more apologetics written for it than any other book of scripture in it's class [note that MG is defining this class and the scope is unintelligible] but fails to say what this would mean if it were true? I'm really not sure what he's getting at. We live in a world of diversity where EVERYTHING is at least somewhat unique. So how does this or any other aspect of the Book of Mormon that you could attempt to establish as unique actually contribute to the authenticity or likely historicity of the book? Even if we were to throw you this bone.....and we're not.....how on earth does it help establish anything at all in support of the Book of Mormon? It doesn't. This is just another useless exercise in futility.
The point(s) were embedded in the OP. Some of the highlights:
...most recent holy books consist of doctrinal expositions, ritual instructions, moral codes, scriptural commentary, or devotional poetry. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, is narrative—a much rarer genre of religious writing.
Most world scriptures were created over decades, if not centuries, often under rather obscure circumstances, and they achieved their current form only after lengthy processes of editing and canonization.
Smith dictated over six hundred manuscript pages to his scribes...from April through June 1829.
...very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin.
The overall point that I'm making in this thread and other threads over a period of time is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the CofJCofLDS. Without it, the church falls. OTOH, if the Book of Mormon is 'true' then all else...including issues and other controversies along the way...become peripheral to the central message/mission of the church.
To believe in and plant the Book of Mormon in the soil of 'God's word' is a choice. But it's not a blind/ignorant choice. It's based on data...for and against.
How else can a choice be made? Personal biases/prejudices/assumptions play a role in how one views the Book of Mormon within the larger/universal/global picture of mankind and world history...and what one might consider to be a sensible view of eternity and life after death.
So, the point of this thread was simply to
put the Book of Mormon on the table instead of up on the shelf and encourage investigation rather than placing
permanent and/or insurmountable roadblocks in the way of
opening the covers and reading the book with the intent/desire to gain a testimony of Jesus Christ and the great plan of happiness for God's children.
But I realize that his all sounds like gibberish and gobbledygook to those that have biases/prejudices that get in the way. If one doesn't believe and/or hope in a creator/God, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one doubts the reality of continued existence after death as an individual entity, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one is biased in thinking that God's prophets must be closer to 'perfect' than 'weak', that will create a bias/prejudice when a prophet comes along who IS weak in ways that we might not expect/accept. If one let's the theory of evolution get in the way of US and why we're here...and questioning if there might not be some grander purpose...then that bias towards secular/humanistic thought is going to act as a bias towards spiritual things...consciously or not.
The list could go on. And the thing is, on this board the 'herd' mentality is pretty much of one mind and one heart, generally speaking. Yes, there are some folks here that are open Christian thought/belief/hope/teachings...but overall there is a general and STRONG bias/prejudice towards religion and God/Christ belief that acts as an insurmountable barrier in any conversation with the 'other'...one that is open to further exploration and thought in regards to possibilities/plausibility. There is a line in the sand and it can't be crossed. And when the herd says what will be...that will be. The 'other' is literally an invader. An outsider. A foreigner.
An alien. Not to be trusted. To be marked up and stamped as an undesirable.
A
virus which must be wiped out through any means available.
Regards,
MG
