Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_aussieguy55
_Emeritus
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _aussieguy55 »

In Studies in the Book of Mormon Roberts writes a letter to Heber J Grant expressing disappointment "over the next results of the discussion" p.48 The answers to Mr Couch's questions are very inadequate" p.50.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _Dr Exiled »

Here is an article done by the young apologist and former couch meister Smoot in response to more evidence provided by Ms. Montez that shows that B.H. Roberts was at least considering the non-historical perspective: https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/ ... endum.html

Ms. Montez points to a radio address that B.H. Roberts gave while he was mission president in the eastern U.S. The bolded parts below are where B.H. Roberts shows that he is at least acknowledging a non-historical Book of Mormon:
Following its bold and unique initiative, “Mormonism” announced a revelation respecting America and her ancient inhabitants that was equally astounding and appealing. Who were these people of the western world discovered with their continent four hundred years ago? Were they children of the Most High? And if so had God left himself without witnesses among them? To this question men could give no answer. But “Mormonism” did by producing an American volume of scripture written and compiled by their prophets, proclaiming not only an Israelitish origin for the people, but giving an account of the resurrected Christ’s personal visit to them, after his departure from Judea; also the proclamation of the one and “Everlasting Gospel” to them by the Christ; the founding of a church; and at the necessary departure of the Son of God from their midst, a promise given of a future return, and a personal reign with the righteous in a Kingdom of Glory. If all this were not true, it might well be hoped that it was true, for it should say so much in vindication of the justice of God in not allowing whole continents of people to perish in ignorance of God’s plan of human salvation. It would add so much to the vision of a loving Christ, this visit to the people of America, and the establishment of his Gospel and his church among them: It would mean so much to the present distraught Christendom if a New Witness could be found in the voice of the sleeping nations of ancient America, testifying to the Deity of the Christ; to the reality of the resurrection from the dead, and the life everlasting. To the Latter-day Saint this is what the Book of Mormon is, A New Witness for God, and for the fundamental truths of the old Christian faith. This is what it does for him: strengthens his faith, but increasing the evidence on which that faith rests; makes brighter his star of hope of the life everlasting; his church, rising out of all this, and guided by continuous revelation,—abiding in touch with God—becomes for him a present temple of God, built up of living stones wherein is not darkness or doubt. Does all this excellent initiative and procedure in the founding of a great religious movement arise merely from the happy and forceful but eratic [sic] cogitation of an ignorant youth, Joseph Smith? Or is there something more in it than that?
Would one of the apostles venture today to even consider a non-historical Book of Mormon in a public address? I don't think so and perhaps this address by E. Roberts can be viewed as acknowledgment that non-historical views are rational and perhaps inevitable?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _huckelberry »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:46 pm
Here is an article done by the young apologist and former couch meister Smoot in response to more evidence provided by Ms. Montez that shows that B.H. Roberts was at least considering the non-historical perspective: https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/ ... endum.html

Ms. Montez points to a radio address that B.H. Roberts gave while he was mission president in the eastern U.S. The bolded parts below are where B.H. Roberts shows that he is at least acknowledging a non-historical Book of Mormon:
Following its bold and unique initiative, “Mormonism” announced a revelation respecting America and her ancient inhabitants that was equally astounding and appealing. Who were these people of the western world discovered with their continent four hundred years ago? Were they children of the Most High? And if so had God left himself without witnesses among them? To this question men could give no answer. But “Mormonism” did by producing an American volume of scripture written and compiled by their prophets, proclaiming not only an Israelitish origin for the people, but giving an account of the resurrected Christ’s personal visit to them, after his departure from Judea; also the proclamation of the one and “Everlasting Gospel” to them by the Christ; the founding of a church; and at the necessary departure of the Son of God from their midst, a promise given of a future return, and a personal reign with the righteous in a Kingdom of Glory. If all this were not true, it might well be hoped that it was true, for it should say so much in vindication of the justice of God in not allowing whole continents of people to perish in ignorance of God’s plan of human salvation. It would add so much to the vision of a loving Christ, this visit to the people of America, and the establishment of his Gospel and his church among them: It would mean so much to the present distraught Christendom if a New Witness could be found in the voice of the sleeping nations of ancient America, testifying to the Deity of the Christ; to the reality of the resurrection from the dead, and the life everlasting. To the Latter-day Saint this is what the Book of Mormon is, A New Witness for God, and for the fundamental truths of the old Christian faith. This is what it does for him: strengthens his faith, but increasing the evidence on which that faith rests; makes brighter his star of hope of the life everlasting; his church, rising out of all this, and guided by continuous revelation,—abiding in touch with God—becomes for him a present temple of God, built up of living stones wherein is not darkness or doubt. Does all this excellent initiative and procedure in the founding of a great religious movement arise merely from the happy and forceful but eratic [sic] cogitation of an ignorant youth, Joseph Smith? Or is there something more in it than that?
Would one of the apostles venture today to even consider a non-historical Book of Mormon in a public address? I don't think so and perhaps this address by E. Roberts can be viewed as acknowledgment that non-historical views are rational and perhaps inevitable?
Dr Exiled, I am puzzled. I cannot find anything in the quote that would point to a fictional Book of Mormon. It explicitly points out a series of central strengths of the book none of which would work if the book was fiction. How would the book testify of Jesus appearance in the new world or anywhere outside of Israel if the book was fiction? It would only testify of a wish held by people in 19th century America. I am afraid all I hear is a well used apologetic statement.

The statement acknowledges that people might wonder if the book is fiction. People have wondered that since the books first appearance. I think generally the people who decided in favor of the fiction view did not join the church.

For myself I do not see enough in a fictional Book of Mormon to hold together much of an organized church. I realize I must be missing something because I understand the Reorganized church allows for a fictional view. I wonder what percent of members actually view it that way. I wonder what missionaries say about the book. (we have a swell novel that we like, would you like to join our church?)
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _huckelberry »

Taking a quick review of Community of Christ official comments on line I find no actual statement that the Book of Mormon is fiction. The book is carefully subservient to the Bible for authority. There is a statement about scripture authority in general which rejects historical inerrancy in favor of scriptural inspiration. It is the sort of view that I have always held about the Bible. Then I believe there is a historical trunk or stem running through the Bible even if hazy behind later reconstruction.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _huckelberry »

Of course people can continue to be LDS while personally believing the Book of Mormon to be fiction. It is better to keep the view to oneself I suspect. I am put in mind of a comment I heard long ago from an older Mormon long active in the church. He liked going to church because he could always fall asleep and upon wakening know what is being said and done.

I do not wish to be too critical of nonbelieving participants.(or participants with limited belief) My father likely was one though he did not actually admit it. My mother was the one with the firm belief.
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _Dr Exiled »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:42 pm

Dr Exiled, I am puzzled. I cannot find anything in the quote that would point to a fictional Book of Mormon. It explicitly points out a series of central strengths of the book none of which would work if the book was fiction. How would the book testify of Jesus appearance in the new world or anywhere outside of Israel if the book was fiction? It would only testify of a wish held by people in 19th century America. I am afraid all I hear is a well used apologetic statement.

The statement acknowledges that people might wonder if the book is fiction. People have wondered that since the books first appearance. I think generally the people who decided in favor of the fiction view did not join the church.

For myself I do not see enough in a fictional Book of Mormon to hold together much of an organized church. I realize I must be missing something because I understand the Reorganized church allows for a fictional view. I wonder what percent of members actually view it that way. I wonder what missionaries say about the book. (we have a swell novel that we like, would you like to join our church?)
I think the point is that B.H. Roberts was allowing for a non-historical Book of Mormon when he said "If all this were not true," in the quote. This combined with the other evidence Ms. Montez supplied and others have supplied and the Madsen book about B.H. Robert's questions, seem to point to B.H. Roberts not believing in a historical Book of Mormon. Of course this is speculation as Mr. Roberts isn't here to give us his views or clarify his views.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Interpreter planning a hit piece disguised as a book review before the book is even written...

Post by _huckelberry »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:07 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:42 pm

Dr Exiled, I am puzzled. I cannot find anything in the quote that would point to a fictional Book of Mormon. It explicitly points out a series of central strengths of the book none of which would work if the book was fiction. How would the book testify of Jesus appearance in the new world or anywhere outside of Israel if the book was fiction? It would only testify of a wish held by people in 19th century America. I am afraid all I hear is a well used apologetic statement.

The statement acknowledges that people might wonder if the book is fiction. People have wondered that since the books first appearance. I think generally the people who decided in favor of the fiction view did not join the church.

For myself I do not see enough in a fictional Book of Mormon to hold together much of an organized church. I realize I must be missing something because I understand the Reorganized church allows for a fictional view. I wonder what percent of members actually view it that way. I wonder what missionaries say about the book. (we have a swell novel that we like, would you like to join our church?)
I think the point is that B.H. Roberts was allowing for a non-historical Book of Mormon when he said "If all this were not true," in the quote. This combined with the other evidence Ms. Montez supplied and others have supplied and the Madsen book about B.H. Robert's questions, seem to point to B.H. Roberts not believing in a historical Book of Mormon. Of course this is speculation as Mr. Roberts isn't here to give us his views or clarify his views.
Exiled I can see how other statements from Mr Roberts would color how the one quote would read. I do not wish to claim to know Mr Roberts mind on the matter. Perhaps Mr Madsen book would provide interesting observations.

A preplanned rebuttal does suggest there could be material of interest in Madsen's book.
Post Reply