Chap wrote:On that basis, I think the question in the OP has been answered very clearly: man-made. Even if there are any deities, there is no need to suppose that one or more of them played any role in the production of the Book of Mormon.
If MG had a shred self respect or integrity, he would acknowledge Chap's summary post above, give it up, and stop wasting everyone's time.
I acknowledge his post and his conclusions/summary.
I do not agree with his summary conclusion that the Book of Mormon is simply/strictly a nineteenth century production. I am not being intellectually dishonest as I say this. In the final analysis after many years of study, thought, and prayer...that's where I'm at. I am comfortable in my own skin, so to speak. I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.
I believe we now have that record.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I can understand why YOU may not believe in the Book of Mormon's historicity and truthfulness. Some of the arguments are compelling. I can understand why you may not believe in a creator/God. Some of the arguments are compelling. I can understand why you may not believe in Jesus Christ's mission of Atonement/Resurrection/Salvation. Some of the arguments are compelling.
I believe that you have a sense of integrity in thinking/believing the way you do. I hope that your beliefs, whatever they may be, are bringing you happiness, fulfillment, and joy.
I am OK leaving it at that. And if you would like, I will stop "wasting everyone's time" at this point in the thread...if that is the overall consensus/desire of the majority of folks here.
spotlight wrote:If there were a god...he'd mean by the use of the word would be according to the definition of the word in our language.
MG wrote:Putting words in the mouth of the Big Guy now, huh?
Is there a problem with the definition, “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth”?
Thanks MG for the distinction you created from whole cloth in meaning between intelligence vs light and truth. Now since these do not depict the same concept, according to you, you must agree (in order to remain consistent) that (Mormon) god is not intelligent vis-a-vis the common definition of the word in the English language.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
This explains a lot about Mormon theology actually. The not so intelligent Mormon god has no other way to exclude those spirits more intelligent than himself from ruining the environment of his crib so he makes rules for admission that tend to weed out the intelligent thinkers from the gospel net that gathereth of all kinds. That's why faith is so high on the list.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.
For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...
mentalgymnast wrote:I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...
It's really that simple...isn't it?
I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.
But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...
mentalgymnast wrote:Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.
Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.
And now, he is back to this:
mentalgymnast wrote: I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.
Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.
Lemmie wrote:I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on ......
....Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.
Plus his cut and paste answers with his added tunnel vision commentary and plagiarisms.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
Lemmie wrote:I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.
For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...
mentalgymnast wrote:I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...
It's really that simple...isn't it?
I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.
But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...
mentalgymnast wrote:Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.
Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.
And now, he is back to this:
mentalgymnast wrote: I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.
Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.
There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Thanks, however, for giving some of my thoughts expressed earlier the additional 'limelight' they deserve.
The thing I see going on (and I mentioned this several months ago) was that he either doesn't know how or isn't able to go point for point with anyone, which is why with a poster like MG it's better to ask one specific question without any other commentary like I did in the midwife exchanges.
The problem with that is that for the other guy, it can become an exercise in patience that most of us don't want to invest our time in.
When I mentioned this back whenever, I said that when I first came online on a certain discussion/debate forum, that I was accused by some folks of being intellectually dishonest and that it took me a while to understand what they were talking about.
I wasn't responding to exactly what they were commenting on but I wasn't aware of it until I printed out their posts and made myself read them over and over again, and begin replying point by point, going through the whole post. Prior to that, I just shot out replies. I doubt that MG will make that effort.
If anyone has watched me in certain exchanges, they'll notice me repeatedly pressing someone to answer the question I posed to them. I've found that people tend to focus on what they want to say more than focusing on what is being asked of them.
It's basically active listening in print. And, it doesn't come natural to most of us.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
For what it's worth, the few threads on this subject that were active the last few days have been valuable for me in illuminating how much the believer and the (perhaps limited to secular?) critic really have in common. How so?
The secular critic of the Book of Mormon looks at the evidence available independent of any spiritual witness and sees an incredibly compelling case against the book being written by ancient Israelite migrants to the Americas. There is hardly a branch of the sciences that lacks from form of evidence that works against the Book of Mormon being ancient, while sociologically the Book of Mormon is very easy to align with religious and mistaken cultural views prevalent in the time period when Joseph Smith claimed to have been translating it. When challenged to then provide a definitive explanation for how the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th Century if this is the case, the secular critic can postulate a number of plausible theories that make use of various forms of evidence. But given the state of the historical record and what information is available, it's unlikely the critic could defend any potential explanation to the satisfaction of the believer.
OTOH, the believer looks at the divine claims of origin for the Book of Mormon and experiences compelling perhaps moving examples that support that the Book of Mormon is of God and is working to the betterment of human kind when allowed to do so. It dovetails into Mormon explanations for many important theological concepts regarding the importance of the plan of salvation, the universal nature of God's love but the necessity of covenant in order to receive promised blessings, or as a witness of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Among many other things. When challenged to provide definitive explanation for the various signs of human error, misinformation, anachronisms, or plagiarism from the KJV of the Bible, the believers who choose to engage with these problems postulate a range of theories that make use of the evidence explained through a believing paradigm. But given the state of the historical record and claims made about the translation process, it's unlikely the believer will be able to defend their theory to the satisfaction of the all but the most uninformed of critics.
So, now what?
The human condition is tragic comedy. Our progress as a species seems to come from an innate viciousness that drives us to relentlessly attack what we see as a vulnerability. It doesn't matter if it is in a person's character or their opinion. And frankly, it's a necessary condition of progress just as death and the destruction of the less fit is a necessary condition for evolutionary forces to be effective.
That doesn't make it any less ugly, though.
Callister turning the critical argument against the Book of Mormon into a straw man about authorship that satisfies his believing BYU audience is not really that different than watching you being bludgeoned like a baby seal in this thread. Unlike some, I don't enjoy that kind of spectacle. But I'm not interested in defending you, either. You made a point to defend the obvious issues with Callister's talk so apparently you aren't that concerned with fair representation or taking what every person in this thread has essentially maintained when they noted that Callister had it categorically wrong in how he presented the argument.
People, man. People.
To borrow from Camus' opening in The Myth of Sisyphus -
I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question.
Part of the background to these discussions is that there is no real price to any one of us other than time as near as I can tell. Your life decisions and mine were made based on a calculus that is reflected in where we currently are in life - I a former Mormon while you are apparently very much a TBM if perhaps aware you made a choice to be one rather one by default. The cost-value analysis that went into working to this point isn't actively involved in the discussion now where we all simply turn over the cards of our past and the haggle over their value. Ok. A parlor game to keep us entertained, then.
I don't say that to dismiss the real value potential in the discussions. I gained from revisiting the question of Jacob 5 as an anachronism as it's been years since last time I looked into the research. I also revisited some old and interesting threads. Sometimes we only appreciate where we are when we catch a glimpse of where we once were? There is potential for value, and it isn't necessarily tied to being met by a partner of good faith on the opposing side of an argument so long as they provide a vehicle for movement in the discussion.
That said, religion and it's worst manifestations occur in many forms in these discussions. We feel obligated to explain the meaning of our own position when the were not gained through reason. We feel obligated to extend the security we feel in knowing a certain thing can't be to then asserting why this other thing must then be so. We create hope in a meaningless universe of indifference that makes religion of all human endeavors. We call those things furthest in our past religion or superstition with a lost sense that to those living at the time they were the best humanity had to offer. What they share that we hide from is their imperfect, anthropocentric nature which guarantees they will be seen as absurd and the religious superstitions of the species some time in the future...if we can make it that far.
To further quote Camus' criticism of the existentialists, he notes, "...they deify what crushes them and find reason to hope in what impoverishes them. That forced hope is religious in all of them."
Anyway, if you do find yourself inclined to summarize the critical position in a way you believe I and perhaps others would accept as a reasonable representation rather than the caricature Callister propped up for the amusement of his audience as he whacked at and broke them like piñatas, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Happy Easter.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
mentalgymnast wrote: There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Thanks, however, for giving some of my thoughts expressed earlier the additional 'limelight' they deserve.
Facetious mode kicking in...
Happy Easter, MG
Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
