Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[drumdude]

The thing is, I am not particularly interested in having a discussion here about my personal religious beliefs and faith. The only thing I will get here (and I speak from experience) is abuse. And I am old enough now that I just don't feel the need to put up with it. If you don't want me posting here, I am happy go and find something else to do with my time. This is a just a bit of a break from my current routine in any case ...

In as much as I have any control as the original poster, I’d definitely like this thread to be focused on the ideas and not attacking anyone’s personal beliefs.

In other words, I’d love everyone to keep peace and understanding in mind as they post. I’d love more believers to feel more comfortable here.

[MG 2.0]

I hope that you all can see the incongruity from these last two posts - one right after the other:

I don't see any incongruity. They are simply different questions. There's no more incongruity between them than asking, "Ben, does 2 + 2 = 4?" and "Hey Ben, does prime rib cost more than fried chicken?"

You can easily answer both questions separately from each other.

Anyway, if Moroni never existed, then he never buried any golden plates, and thus Joseph Smith didn't dig anything up and didn't translate anything. If the message "counts," then it doesn't count for anything more than, say, the Lord of the Rings counts. One need not be baptized into the LDS church, pay any tithing, undergo rituals in its temples, do any missionary work, or pay any heed to anything the prophets or apostles say.

Likewise, the entire concept of loan shifting anachronisms away means nothing, because there was no loan shifting to begin with--it's all made up. If Moroni never existed, then this entire thread is meaningless and is nothing more than extended mental masturbation on your part.

No Moroni, no restoration.

To be honest, I am not here to bear my testimony. Most of you already have strong opinions. At least officially, belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a litmus test for membership[.]

Belief may not be a litmus test for mere membership, but Moroni's existence or non-existence is of BEDROCK, PARAMOUNT importance toward whether membership makes any sort of difference in the first place.

[A]nd none of the questions for a temple recommend ask about the Book of Mormon. So, I think that you can be a believer and go either way on this question.

Right, but if Moroni never existed, then Mormonism is just another apostate church, just like all the rest, and membership is completely unnecessary.

Is it the message that counts? Part of me thinks that yes, the message matters. But a part of me also recognizes that the purpose of scripture should be to help us transform our lives - to help us become better people. And I can say with some certainty that my encounter with the Book of Mormon has left me a better person. (And yes, these are deliberate non-answers).

Well, my encounter with The Lord of the Rings has left me a better person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay 10% of my income to J.R.R. Tolkien's estate, for example.

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

From what I've read in this thread and Ben's response to me I would not hesitate to say he is definitely out of the mainstream.

The points you make Shades are those I've made previously. It's difficult to use weasel words to try and discount gold plates and the angel and still maintain any kind of orthodox belief in the restoration narrative. I think there are shades of color when one goes the nuanced route. I'm good with nuance here and there...but with the plates, the angel, Nephites/Lamanites/Jaradites?

Not so much.

Ya' either believe it, or you don't...or you put it on the shelf and own it. Maybe that's what Ben is doing. And I suppose that's OK. I'm not going to be the one to judge him on that count.

That shouldn't keep him from attending church. It's his headspace he's living in. His integrity.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Because that's the whole point of discussion. Did you, or did you not, make your initial post in order to convince us that your views on loan shifting are accurate, truthful ways of explaining the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon?

I did (well sort of). What I actually said was that there is no real evidence of loan-shifting in the Book of Mormon - because, even if we take the position of a believer, the idea of loan-shifting doesn't fit the text.

Everything else in my discussion was explicitly argued from the perspective of a believer. Now, if you don't take that position, then everything I said is rather meaningless. Buy my goal here was never to convince someone that they should be a believer. It was to look at the way that the critical and believer arguments are constructed (and why).

...

Sorry to disagree, but I would say that it's not at all meaningless for the non-believer.

On the contrary, by illuminating the believer PoV, and "the way that the critical and believer arguments are constructed (and why)", I believe that it's of great value to the critic, if only to help the critic avoid making meaningless criticisms.

[drumdude]

The Bible is not a historical record. It is a rhetorical record. It certainly has history in it, but only in so far as it is being leveraged to serve the interests of other rhetorical goals. Nobody who wrote anything that went into the Bible prioritized being historical over all else. History is always subordinated to other rhetorical goals.

If the Book of Mormon is described by the LDS church as a piece of scripture comparable to the Bible, does this also not apply to the Book of Mormon, in their minds?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Interesting take. As a nonbeliever, I would disagree. To me, the discussion about anachronisms makes sense because they are just another piece of evidence that the story that the LDS religion puts forward about the book is not true. (What doesn't make sense is the endless, illogical twisting and turning to explain and justify, but that's a different matter.) If the story were true, anachronisms linked to a time centuries in the future would not be recorded in the past. Anachronisms are just another in a very long list of elements that means the LDS religion's claims about the text cannot be taken seriously.

So how does this work?

If the Book of Mormon really was a translation of an ancient text, this wouldn't be in there - it would be anachronistic.

So, what if Joseph Smith, as translator, put it in there, or what if there is a loan-shift, or [insert favorite theory here]

Well, you can't believe that either ...

Is that how it's supposed to go?

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, this is not me suggesting that explanations that deal with alleged anachronisms are sufficient evidence to believe the narrative about the Book of Mormon. I am simply pointing out that criticisms of anachronisms (of the sort we see in that list in the OP) aren't going to be sufficient evidence for believers to stop believing. Mormons generally have other reasons for belief, just as non-believers generally have other reasons for that default position of unbelief.

[Marcus]

Interesting take. As a nonbeliever, I would disagree. To me, the discussion about anachronisms makes sense because they are just another piece of evidence that the story that the LDS religion puts forward about the book is not true. (What doesn't make sense is the endless, illogical twisting and turning to explain and justify, but that's a different matter.) If the story were true, anachronisms linked to a time centuries in the future would not be recorded in the past. Anachronisms are just another in a very long list of elements that means the LDS religion's claims about the text cannot be taken seriously.

So how does this work?

If the Book of Mormon really was a translation of an ancient text, this wouldn't be in there - it would be anachronistic.

So, what if Joseph Smith, as translator, put it in there, or what if there is a loan-shift, or [insert favorite theory here]

Well, you can't believe that either ...

Is that how it's supposed to go?

In my opinion, Smith wrote a story that fit into the beliefs and cultural knowledge base of his day, which was similar to many other efforts of the time. It was a very human approach, filled with the human errors and biases of his generation.

The fact that his story contains elements like this (some of which are the anachronisms under discussion in the op paper) is more evidence that the story did NOT come from an ancient text.

It was simply a piece of fiction, written in the 19th century. It was just another in a long list of cons in which he engaged. Not scripture, not divine, just another con.

[Shulem]

It was simply a piece of fiction, written in the 19th century. It was just another in a long list of cons in which he engaged. Not scripture, not divine, just another con.

Amen.

And let all the congregation (Discuss Mormonism) say, "Amen."

Benjamin McGuire (dodo) is burnt toast. What a joke! Not worth my time...

[drumdude]

It was simply a piece of fiction, written in the 19th century. It was just another in a long list of cons in which he engaged. Not scripture, not divine, just another con.

Amen.

And let all the congregation (Discuss Mormonism) say, "Amen."

Benjamin McGuire (dodo) is burnt toast. What a joke! Not worth my time...

Shulem, I get where you’re coming from and the humor but let’s dial it back a bit . I’m really liking the discussion and he’s not at all a troll like some of the other believing members here.

[Shulem]

Shulem, I get where you’re coming from and the humor but let’s dial it back a bit . I’m really liking the discussion and he’s not at all a troll like some of the other believing members here.

Relax, I've not said a damn word in this thread until now, but Shades moved me to do so in what he said, and I've been absent from the board for a whole month! That is all I have to say.

Retirement is grand! Isn't that right, MG?

Let the games continue....