tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post113055591540503902..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: King Benjamin's Speech: Forget Solomon Spaulding, Ethan Smith, and ShakespeareJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38055605241635637892009-10-18T10:30:48.103-05:002009-10-18T10:30:48.103-05:00Sometimes one little word can have big significanc...Sometimes one little word can have big significance. That is the case with me and King Benjamin's speech. At Mosiah 7:19 King Benjamin uses the word "was" when he spoke about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Bible never uses the word "was" when speaking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I was just hoping you might comment on that. I enjoy your web site very much. I am not a Mormon, but I am not an anti-Mormon either.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09939962547449167685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13432134744694647332009-02-28T22:55:00.000-06:002009-02-28T22:55:00.000-06:00unless you have a useful insight for actually answ...unless you have a useful insight for actually answering anonymous' question (which we should now assume was intended as an at least near polite inquiry) talking about the article would be much more productive. I am going to study Benjamin's speech again, and would love to read your insights into what more we can gain from it.Samuel Peckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01068448051376226936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18825035100256908502008-08-13T17:45:00.000-05:002008-08-13T17:45:00.000-05:00I am refreshed reading your comments, Jeff. Kim La...I am refreshed reading your comments, Jeff. Kim LairsonKimLairsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930870050370609826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67094325862024769322008-05-05T16:56:00.000-05:002008-05-05T16:56:00.000-05:00My favorite part about Anon's response was when IT...My favorite part about Anon's response was when IT got offended at being called "ilk."<BR/><BR/>Ilk is class of things, normally people. Nothing more, nothing less.<BR/><BR/>I can't stop laughing.<BR/><BR/>Chris DutkiewiczThe Dutkiewicz Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259207933744832835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77046694626497151512007-02-11T18:06:00.000-06:002007-02-11T18:06:00.000-06:00"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will desp..."Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the widom of thy words." - Proverbs 23:9Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1159328417862364332006-09-26T22:40:00.000-05:002006-09-26T22:40:00.000-05:00We are all biased. Honesty is to aknowledge it. ...We are all biased. Honesty is to aknowledge it. I read Jeff's site for the pro-LDS side. He aknowledges what the other side is saying but I don't expect him to pretend to defend it.David Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11266046963020498076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130860798270230022005-11-01T09:59:00.000-06:002005-11-01T09:59:00.000-06:00Oh brave new world!My rebuttal = reasoned argument...Oh brave new world!<BR/><BR/>My rebuttal = reasoned argument.<BR/>Your rebuttal = attack.<BR/>I disagree with you = freedom of speech.<BR/>You disagree with me = you're being divisive.<BR/>You don't print my point of view = censorship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130850058694042442005-11-01T07:00:00.000-06:002005-11-01T07:00:00.000-06:00His response caught me off guard as I didn't expec...<EM>His response caught me off guard as I didn't expect to be attacked by suggesting that he might have a bias and that bias might cause him to see things the way he wants.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree ... Jeff has a <EM>bias</EM> ... if by bias, you mean he believes in and knows certain things to be true. It's no surprise that he would seek & present evidence for his belief system. It would also seem that he is willing to hear out those that would contradict that and give them a fair voice. He may also rebutt (or attack as you say) those points due to his belief system/knowledge. What I'm wondering is ... is there something wrong, unexpected or dishonest about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130777813473682422005-10-31T10:56:00.000-06:002005-10-31T10:56:00.000-06:00Ah, I get it now. Rebuttal = personal attack.Would...Ah, I get it now. Rebuttal = personal attack.<BR/><BR/>Would you like some cheese with that whine?Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130772002331822412005-10-31T09:20:00.000-06:002005-10-31T09:20:00.000-06:00Hey J, You are right. After I read that again, I d...Hey J, You are right. After I read that again, I don't think I made much sense there either. I think Jeff got what I was saying though. <BR/>What I meant to say was, How is it that all the evidence supports your belief system? 100% for and 0% against. I asked if maybe he was just seeing things the way he wanted them to be. His response caught me off guard as I didn't expect to be attacked by suggesting that he might have a bias and that bias might cause him to see things the way he wants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130691810976289552005-10-30T11:03:00.000-06:002005-10-30T11:03:00.000-06:00Pardon me ... I mostly lurk here and occasionally ...Pardon me ... I mostly lurk here and occasionally post ... and this one really has me puzzled ... Anon said in his rebuttal ...<BR/><BR/><EM>... and you would see that I only question why it is that you seem to only find evidence that supports your belief system? </EM><BR/><BR/>I dont' quite understand .. why would one spend time seeking to evidence against their own belief system ("Kindgom divided against itself shall fall" ... that's from the Bible, not Book of Mormon)? Seems to me, that's a sure way to drive yourself crazy.<BR/><BR/>I understand the need to 'test' things and one can be open-minded and examine things when they come up that are contradictory to their belief system, but why seek out evidence that is contrary to what you believe? Seems it would just make your life all the harder? Especially, if like Jeff, you are certain of certain things in your life ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130678559170847142005-10-30T07:22:00.000-06:002005-10-30T07:22:00.000-06:00OK, I'm sorry if in my haste I jumped to conclusio...OK, I'm sorry if in my haste I jumped to conclusions about the question being "anti." I apologize for my inappropriate remarks - perhaps I should delete them and keep this apology up. Your note just sounded like the troll comments I get from people who haven't bothered to read my site or my post, and they often post anonymously, so it's easy to make that assumption.<BR/><BR/>But I still wonder about your remarks. Look, I know God exists. So when discussing issues about science and atheism, do you think I'm going to find and present evidence that God does not exist? For someone who believes or knows that God exists and feels a desire to stand as a witness for Him, any discussion of evidence - no matter how inclusive - is going to point to why it does not refute His existence or why it supports His existence or why it's not relevant to the issue. And if there's not a good answer at the moment, the person might admit that we don't know enough, but will still turn to the fact that God does exist. Is this a problem? <BR/><BR/>I have a strong testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, and that God exists. The purpose of my writing is not to provide an equal balance of anti-Mormon and pro-Mormon text, but to take on the anti-Mormon or atheistic stuff and show that what I already know to be true can still be plausible in spite of the attacks. Yes, I'm pro-Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Sorry that I ruffled your feathers - but please note that it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you have not responded to the topic at hand. The "ilk" = "category" that I hastily lumped you into is the group of people who do not respond or notice the presentation of possible evidence ini favor of the Book of Mormon, while making broad, conclusory negative accusations in other areas, as if the evidence presented just never existed. So, from my perspective, your anonymous comments haven't yet clearly distinguished yourself from that group, but I apologize again for making conclusions too hastily since that may not properly describe you. I infer from your last comments you may be LDS but not a believer in the Book of Mormon, rather than an active "anti."Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130668933395761402005-10-30T04:42:00.000-06:002005-10-30T04:42:00.000-06:00To BOMII "This web site has had plenty of anti-mor...To BOMII <BR/>"This web site has had plenty of anti-mormon comments that Jeff has allowed to stand."<BR/>Yes, I have seen that. I didn't say that he does not allow all to post and offer opinions. Kudos to Jeff. Yet, I only see Jeff post favorable comments to those that agree with his conclussions. Seems pretty closed minded to me. <BR/>To Jeff<BR/>"An anonymous poster shows that defenders of the LDS faith like Jeff Lindsay don't spend time attacking it. Ex-mos and antis outraged."<BR/>That is a huge mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't say you should attack it. I don't expect you to. I think you should re-read what I said and you would see that I only question why it is that you seem to only find evidence that supports your belief system? Was that too big of a question for you? <BR/>"Hey, anon, you should notice that I do discuss many frequent objections to the Church and the Book of Mormon. But I believe there are responses or at least perspectives that need to be considered, things that weight against leaving the Church or abandoning God. Sorry that you're unhappy with that."<BR/>Where do you get that I am unhappy with that? I didn't say anything about it. And from what I have seen, you have never found any evidence that suggests anyone not agreeing with your opinion could be right. <BR/>"For so many antis who claim that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, etc., when something that might be possible evidence supporting its plausibility is raised - something like Shazer or Nahom or the River Laman in the Arabian Peninsula, or chiasmus or volcanism in the Book of Mormon or paired tricola or many parallels to Mesoamerican civilization - the response is to FLEE the discussion and change the topic. It's not just that many of your ilk have blinders, it's that you've taken rolls of intellectual duct tape to seal your eyes and ears shut so that there can be no intellectual encounter with positive evidence, no matter what."<BR/>WOW! I think you shoud have directed that at some antis. Or are you thinking I am anti cause I asked that question? I hope you didn't make that leap. Not sure why you called me ilk. Don't think I deserve that for asking a question. I have not insulted you or called you names or tried to belittle you. What makes you think I have duct tape on? What comment brought that on? I did not state any opinion on the topic you blogged on. Don't think it is fair to say I have duct tape on. I certainly did not say that about you. I don't think it polite to be nasty. Yes, it is your blog, and you set the rules. Guess being nasty today let you get some frustration out. Whatever. <BR/>"Is there anything else I can do to help you?"<BR/> No, not at all. You are free not to answer any question I ask. But, from the tone of your post, I think you might just being a bit sarcastic here. <BR/>You have a good Sunday with your family Jeff. I will with mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130642536353620252005-10-29T22:22:00.000-05:002005-10-29T22:22:00.000-05:00News flash: shocking Mormon scandal uncovered! An ...<I>News flash: shocking Mormon scandal uncovered! An anonymous poster shows that defenders of the LDS faith like Jeff Lindsay don't spend time attacking it. Ex-mos and antis outraged. </I><BR/><BR/>Hey, anon, you should notice that I do discuss many frequent objections to the Church and the Book of Mormon. But I believe there are responses or at least perspectives that need to be considered, things that weight against leaving the Church or abandoning God. Sorry that you're unhappy with that. <BR/><BR/>But let me turn the tables for a moment. Why is it that you have not discussed the evidence at hand? For so many antis who claim that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, etc., when something that might be possible evidence supporting its plausibility is raised - something like Shazer or Nahom or the River Laman in the Arabian Peninsula, or chiasmus or volcanism in the Book of Mormon or paired tricola or many parallels to Mesoamerican civilization - the response is to FLEE the discussion and change the topic. It's not just that many of your ilk have blinders, it's that you've taken rolls of intellectual duct tape to seal your eyes and ears shut so that there can be no intellectual encounter with positive evidence, no matter what. <BR/><BR/>I may be seeing what I want to see, I'll admit, but at least I'm trying to see. And when antis present something they think I should look at, I at least try - in most cases, I think - to look, consider, and discuss. <BR/><BR/>So, my advice is to take the duct tape off and consider the topic at hand. Could King Benjamin's speech have ancient Semitic elements that Joseph probably could not have known about? Was it just a lucky guess? Are we forcing things into the text that really aren't there? Is it the result of plagiarizing from yet another lost document of Spaulding or someone else? You don't have to say anything, but it would be helpful if you would comment on the topics I've raised if you are going to comment. <BR/><BR/>Is there anything else I can do to help you?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130633685406153912005-10-29T19:54:00.000-05:002005-10-29T19:54:00.000-05:00Anon at 3:36pm: Baloney! Jeff's web sites, includ...Anon at 3:36pm: Baloney! Jeff's web sites, including this blog, do contain a "warts-and-all" history. <BR/><BR/>You've completely mischaracterized things.<BR/><BR/>This web site has had plenty of anti-mormon comments that Jeff has allowed to stand. The main rules seem to be no profanity, and no links to anti-mormon web sites, though the names of those web sites are often mentioned.<BR/><BR/>If you review the recent comments, BYU Alter Ego (formerly BYU Gestapo) has posted plenty of information about how he believes DNA evidence refutes Mormon claims. <BR/><BR/>There are also plenty of instances where Jeff's answer to an anti-mormon accusation has been "We don't know for sure", or "I'm sorry. That shouldn't have happened. Is there anything I can do to help you?"<BR/><BR/>Anyways, why should Mormons carry water for their detractors? There are plenty of anti-Mormon web sites where only the attacks and the negatives are displayed, and pro-Mormon comments are FORBIDDEN (as you probably well know.)<BR/><BR/>Do you also post comments at those sites telling them they see only what they want to see?<BR/><BR/>This blog and the accompanying web site, http://www.jefflindsay.com, are some much needed BALANCE to many of the negative attacks and outright lies that get published on the web.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130625367903911562005-10-29T17:36:00.000-05:002005-10-29T17:36:00.000-05:00I see that quite commonly on your site every evide...I see that quite commonly on your site every evidence you examine always points to the deviness or thruthfulness of the BOM or Mormon religion. Evidence supporting your belief system-100%. Evidence against-NIL <BR/> Could it be that you are just seeing what you want to see?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1130559555050215442005-10-28T23:19:00.000-05:002005-10-28T23:19:00.000-05:00Excellent post, Jeff. When I taught Mosiah 2–5 la...Excellent post, Jeff. When I taught Mosiah 2–5 last year in Gospel Doctrine, it was the first time I'd actually seriously analyzed the structure and content of the speech. It's amazingly complex, yet logically structured and consistent (as well as inspiring). An amazing piece of literature, whether one considers it divine or not.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.com