Interesting Book of Mormon comments from RFM "No Moniker"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

harmony:
Now, now, Blixa. According to Don Bradley, Daniel is just playing when he's being his normal condescending self and we shouldn't fault him for his attitude, no matter how wearisome it is.


As "just" "play" its even worse: other than the writer, I don't know who'd find this pleasurable; moreover, "playing" is a mighty strange attitude for what, from a believer's point of view, is a matter of great importance and consequence.

I can imagine spending one's life defending that which one finds sacred. Using that as a platform to craft a "persona," seems a very unseemly vanity.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

harmony wrote:Now, now, Blixa. According to Don Bradley, Daniel is just playing when he's being his normal condescending self and we shouldn't fault him for his attitude, no matter how wearisome it is. (And it's not "great man". Those of us on a certain team refer to him as The Great One. I'm sure you can figure out why.)


Wait a second. I thought Blixa was quoting Levi Peterson, not Daniel Peterson.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Shades I first quoted Levi and then Daniel...an opposition of Peterson's. However I never cited DP by name, just by reference to the essay Gaz had linked to.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

In that case, where do Daniel Peterson's words begin and end?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Its not that hard to see I think, but its after I explain why I quoted at length from Levi Peterson. First, because of the ellipses "objection" so often raised, and second, as a contrast with the content and tone of the essay Gaz proffered:

"James R. Spencer’s small brochure has been circulating since the early 1990s. In and of itself, the pamphlet is of little importance. The points it raises are not original; others have argued the same case for well over a decade. And, indeed, Mr. Spencer’s arguments have long since been answered (although his brochure betrays no awareness of that fact).

Replying to such anti-Mormon materials as “The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts” is somewhat frustrating. First, it obliges an advocate of the restored gospel to take time off from the pleasant duty of affirmatively teaching the truth. One is tempted to respond much the way Nehemiah did, when Sanballat and Geshem the Arabian tried to distract him from his rebuilding of the temple: “I am doing a great work,” Nehemiah replied, “so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” (Nehemiah 6:3). Answering such attacks as this requires, rather, that the discussion take place on ground chosen, often rather arbitrarily, by the critic. It distracts from the impressive quantity and quality of evidence now available in support of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.2 Second, and perhaps even more frustrating, it involves responding, yet once more, to objections that were successfully answered years ago and that, therefore, do not really merit renewed discussion—objections, moreover, that will almost certainly continue to be raised no matter how often and how convincingly they are settled."


It is this affected and world-weary pose I compared to the kind of character George Saunders was usually cast in (though it certainly misses his veneer of urbanity).

Hope its clear now.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Many Mormons in good standing have read and accepted it as evidence that Roberts had some serious questions and doubts. Nobody questions the sincerety of his "testimony," but they are aware that he had doubts and questions. Faithful Mormons discussed this first and brought it to public attention. It is far from "ridiculous."


Questions? Yes

Doubts? No.

Here is another link that discusses the topic well:http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/response/qa/roberts.htm

Included are these Gems:

Q. Did Elder Roberts worry that people would misunderstand his "Study"?

A. Yes. He wrote, "Let me say once for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine."

Q. Why does Elder Roberts not suggest any answers to the problems he is raising in his study?

A. The "Study" is not an answer book. It is a question book. Many of the questions he had answered before, and others he would answer in the future. For example, he raised the objection that the small party of Nephites could not possibly have constructed a temple like the large and opulent temple of Solomon. Brother Roberts had already answered that question himself in 1909. 11

As another example, he poses the question of whether Joseph Smith's powers of imagination were sufficient to have written the Book of Mormon. Elder Roberts regularly preached in the 1930s that the "perfect" sacrament prayers in Moroni 4-5 are evidence that the Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith.

Some of the questions require no answer, such as the bogus suggestion that Joseph Smith got the name Ether from the name Ethan Smith. Elder Roberts himself says in the "Study," "Do not take the idea too seriously."

Q. Did the "Study" change Elder Roberts's use of the Book of Mormon?

A. No. Before and after the "Study" he used the Book of Mormon as the focus of his missionary programs. He voluntarily chose to speak on Book of Mormon subjects again and again in conferences and in the media. 13 More than fifty-six major talks or statements were made by B. H. Roberts after the "Study" in which he affirmed his faith in the Book of Mormon. 14 After the "Study," Elder Roberts may have taken less interest in archaeology and placed more emphasis on the doctrinal and philosophical strengths of the Book of Mormon, but in no way did he ever doubt or reject the historicity of this "ancient American volume of scripture," as he called it on many occasions.

Q. Did Elder Roberts, perhaps knowing that his "Study" would be troublesome to people, affirm his testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon after he wrote the "Study"?

A. He wrote in May 1922 of "the tremendous truth" of the Book of Mormon. He said in 1924 that the Saints should build upon the Book of Mormon "wherein is no darkness or doubt." He spoke at general conference in April 1928 of the "hundred more such glorious things that have come to the world in that book to enlighten the children of men." He spoke repeatedly of the historicity of the book. 15

Nevertheless, Brother Roberts knew that he had been abrasive and challenging at times during his many years of service to the Church. At October general conference, 1929, Elder Roberts may have had his Book of Mormon "Study" in mind when he remarked: "I happened to be reminded today that next April it will be fifty years since I commenced my public ministry in the Church .... I am mentioning some of these things in order that my profession of faith that I have made here today may be supported by the evidence of steady, persistent effort on my part to develop and to advocate and to establish this great work of God.

"But this is my object, and my object alone; that after bearing testimony to the fundamental things of this work, and my confidence in it, I hope that if anywhere along the line I have caused any of you to doubt my faith in this work, then let this testimony and my indicated life's work be a correction of it. I make reference to these personal things in fifty years of service so that you may know that my testimony has some sanctions for it in the life of service I have given to the cause.'' 16

Q. Is it possible that B. H. Roberts had a faithful facade that he wore in public but in private was a skeptical doubter?

A. If Elder Roberts was anything, he was outspoken and honest. It is extremely difficult to believe that he was two-faced. In his April 1928 general conference talk, Elder Roberts emotionally spoke of the Book of Mormon and of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ among the Nephites gathered at the temple in Bountiful. He said: "And now, O Lord Jesus, if thou couldst but come into the consciousness of our souls this day, as thou didst come into the vision of the ancient Nephites in the Land of Bountiful, we would join their great song of praise and worship, saying-Hosanna! Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And we, like them, would fall down at the feet of Jesus and worship him this Easter day! Amen." In powerful statements like this one, Elder Roberts revealed his deep-felt faith in the Book of Mormon.

[/url]
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Post Reply