tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1592032715852783118..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: Apologetics: Still an Important Tool in Strenghtening FaithJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54616696696950265632017-11-09T16:00:38.976-06:002017-11-09T16:00:38.976-06:00Hey Jeff, you're quoted on page 439 of Book of...Hey Jeff, <a href="http://bookofmormonontrial.com/ch7-pg439.html" rel="nofollow">you're quoted</a> on page 439 of <i>Book of Mormon on Trial</i>!Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81201849332639737362017-11-04T01:11:09.179-05:002017-11-04T01:11:09.179-05:00Deleted. Thanks for the correction and for your co...Deleted. Thanks for the correction and for your comments, Ramer. <br /><br />Mormography, I'm too emotionally insensitive to decide who's being more insulting to whom. But you do seem to engage too much in argumentative spats that don't contribute to a discussion of the topic at hand. That's my perspective. Feel free to cite this comment as an example of my glaring hypocrisy the next time I tell others that you play a valuable role here and should be tolerated. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53346389833677623622017-11-02T12:15:57.628-05:002017-11-02T12:15:57.628-05:00Jeff, could you delete my 10:12 PM, October 28 com...Jeff, could you delete my 10:12 PM, October 28 comment (with the broken HTML)?Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52068286426225002092017-10-30T11:10:54.176-05:002017-10-30T11:10:54.176-05:00Regarding 1769 KJV, I believe Mormanity and I have...Regarding 1769 KJV, I believe Mormanity and I have said the same thing, only I did so more succinctly. Mormanity concurs the evidence exists and does not necessarily interpret it differently. According to Mormanity, all such fingerprints are dismissed as voice of the translator. That is the principle of falsifiability will never be applied and intellectually conversation is therefore pointless.<br /><br />Hardly unique though. Every time I point out to a Catholic the Lady of Guadalupe Tilma looks suspiciously similar to the European artwork of the time period, without hesitation the Catholic’s respond is God works with the mediums at hand. The Catholic’s never see a need to go on for several paragraphs, much less 200+ pages. More superstitious than the Calvinist, the Catholic’s long ago conceded that evidence will never favor them. The challenge for Mormons though, is that in their current form, they are solidly Calvinist, therefore feel the emotional need to write lengthy treatise of why the irrational is really rational.<br /><br />Unlike the Tilma, the gold plates were taken aware so that they could not be examine and tested. So yes, the apologetic response is God wants his religion to appear organic and not derived from supernatural or extraterrestrial forces and therefore indistinguishable from originators that believe their own mental inventions or deliberately crafted frauds.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61707222791957975572017-10-30T11:07:24.973-05:002017-10-30T11:07:24.973-05:00Mormanity – Are you saying I have been insulting a...Mormanity – Are you saying I have been insulting and Ramer has not? As far as I know, I have only shown Ramer his reflection and it is his reflection at which his hate and anger are directed. I do agree with you though, regarding the fact I have never lost an argument here, even to my own surprise.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24698253902837600592017-10-30T09:25:10.710-05:002017-10-30T09:25:10.710-05:00John Tvedtnes makes a good case that the Book of M...John Tvedtnes makes a good case that the Book of Mormon's quotation of Isaiah 9:1 with the 1769 KJV error of inserting "red" before "sea" is simply a case of Oliver Cowdery making a scribal error, having written "red sea" correctly in multiple verses before this passage. See <a href="https://bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/specific-criticisms/criticisms-2-nephi/2-nephi-191-red-sea" rel="nofollow">Bookofmormonresearch.org on 2 Nephi 19:1</a>. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62476201782267466852017-10-30T09:20:05.442-05:002017-10-30T09:20:05.442-05:00One further point: If there was a pre-translation ...One further point: If there was a pre-translation of some kind into KJV-like English but with a stronger twist of certain aspects of pre-KJV Early Modern English for some reason (perhaps enhanced readability or for evidentiary purposes by adding a finger print inexplicable based on theories of plagiarism or fabrication), then one might expect that the 1611 KJV would be favored, but I don't see any strong reason why the 1769 KJV could not have been selected as the tool for scriptural citations to keep the quotations familiar to the intended audience. I think the vast majority of the 1769 relationships to the Book of Mormon are also found in earlier editions of the KJV. An interesting exception may be the insertion of "red" before "sea" in Isaiah 9:1, not found in the 1611 KJV. This is actually quite an interesting "error" that may be easily explained as a scribal error as Oliver Cowdery prepared the printer's manuscript, a stage where he may have been influenced by his knowledge of the 1769 text or, more likely, by having previously written Red Sea and then accidentally slipping "Red" into this verse while copying it. <br /><br />On the other hand, it might not be an error after all. I discuss this issue in <a href="https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#red" rel="nofollow">my LDSFAQ page on Book of Mormon problems</a>. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22435516591061080522017-10-30T08:57:10.947-05:002017-10-30T08:57:10.947-05:00The peculiarities of the language of the Book of M...The peculiarities of the language of the Book of Mormon involve many issues. The fact that KJV language is used is not a problem. It challenges some expectations, like the expectation that God should redo the translation into a completely new vernacular that can give a perfect translation of the urtext, or the intended urtext, free from human interactions and influences. From what we can see in the scriptures, it seems that God lets human agents do as much as possible. So when we say the Book of Mormon was written, preserved, and translated through divine inspiration and power, in no way do we mean that God did it all Himself or ensured there were no human errors. Rather, many human hands inspired and commanded by God were involved, as well as some less inspired hands like printers and typesetters, and in each human act, there is the possibility of some occasional error. It's a messy world, but one with miracles nonetheless. <br /><br />The use of the KJV to me seems to follow the rule that when a passage is available in the KJV, the KJV language is used when it is "good enough," minor warts and all, but there are notable changes, some major and some subtle, in some matters of doctrinal import. It is not a slavish copy of the KJV text. <br /><br />One of the most fascinating things in LDS studies has been the recognition that many awkward phrases, grammatical errors, and other problems in the Book of Mormon text as dictated by Joseph that we long attributed to Joseph's dialect and lack of education appear to fit into Early Modern English. It is almost as if the base text in English that was the source for the inspiration given to Joseph Smith was composed by a human translator or translators with expertise in Early Modern English, including Early Modern English slightly before and measurably different than the English of the KJV Bible (see the works of Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen). It's a controversial and puzzling thing that is still a topic of research. While pointing to a few verses that suggest a later KJV Bible was used, we need to also understand that vastly greater number of verses showing influence from before the KJV was involved. <br /><br />In considering any verse, we need to consider what we know of the original language dictated, how Oliver wrote it initially, how it was rewritten for the printer's manuscript, how that was converted into text, and how that was subsequently edited by Joseph or others. There is bound to be some messiness and some puzzles in all of this. A handful of puzzle do not constitute a smoking gun, especially when the overwhelming bulk of material points to something really amazing going on: a dictation hour after hour unaided by any manuscript often rich in Eerly Modern English dialect differing from the KJV and from Yankee dialect, yielding a remarkably consistent and complex text rich in Hebraisms, Hebraic poetry, subtle Hebraic wordplays, and beautiful scripture abounding in evidence of ancient plausibility and authenticity. A few verses with 1769 wording, whatever their source in this messy work involving many human hands, does not shatter the overwhelming evidence that permeates this text. <br /><br />If you demand that a true Book of Mormon would require God Himself to have provided the translation in perfection, you might as well require that God had to do the engraving on the gold plates and the typesetting for the modern press. Instead, He uses humans wherever possible. "By the power of God" does not mean free of typos, free of minor error, and free of controversy. So to approach the Book of Mormon fairly, we need to have reasonable expectations and be able to consider the strengths and not just the apparent flaws. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39591261756477121012017-10-30T08:15:20.271-05:002017-10-30T08:15:20.271-05:00Nolan's Lastname, sorry, I recognize Mormograp...Nolan's Lastname, sorry, I recognize Mormography can be problematic for readers here and tends to insult, contrary to my desires for dialog. On the other hand, while I am often bothered by his tone and have deleted some of his posts, I have increasingly come to recognize that he offers some useful perspectives for us to understand. But trying to argue with him goes nowhere, so I often don't try. In any case, I hope all of us can engage without resorting to insults and seeing the worst in others. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64163085406975050922017-10-29T18:20:05.492-05:002017-10-29T18:20:05.492-05:00Ramer's insulting and degrading of others is s...Ramer's insulting and degrading of others is so obsessive it does not like competition.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13801304442377698612017-10-29T16:47:49.384-05:002017-10-29T16:47:49.384-05:00reading these just makes me wonder how Jeff Lindsa...reading these just makes me wonder how Jeff Lindsay thinks reading these comments, if he even bothers to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32903500512915528922017-10-29T12:17:30.145-05:002017-10-29T12:17:30.145-05:00“That's why I don't use it myself.” He say...<i>“That's why I don't use it myself.”</i> He says in the same breath he uses it. Lol<br /><br /><i>“Bennett DOES respond”</i> If that was true you would have listed it.<br /><br />From the start this has been the repeated pattern with Ramer. He started by falsely claiming that my reasoning was twisted, then with quotes from even Fairmormon it was proven that it wasn’t. Even further it was proven that Ramer’s reasoning was twisted with quotes from an official publication that polygamy may in fact be a requirement in Mormon heaven. Over and over again it is proven Ramer resorts to insults while his “reasoning“ is debunked.<br /><br />It is refreshing to see you could not argue with the 5:58 AM, October 29, 2017 commentary.<br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73246990684568270222017-10-29T11:51:46.510-05:002017-10-29T11:51:46.510-05:00I just remembered yet another apologetic work that...I just remembered yet another apologetic work that I was introduced to early on. When I was a child I had an activity book about Book of Mormon evidences. Recently I found out its companion work, a graphic novel, was available online. It's called "<a href="http://bookofmormonontrial.com/table-of-contents.html" rel="nofollow">The Book of Mormon On Trial</a>," and despite the simple graphic novel appearance, it's very well researched and thought out. It's written so that both children and adults can understand it.<br /><br />Mormography can assert the insults all he wants, but it doesn't make them true. And he has about as many comments on here as I do, so it's pointless to try to bring that up and use it against me. I fully understand the problem with his "because I said so" "reasoning." That's why I don't use it myself.<br />And Bennett DOES respond to the 1769 KJV language in the Book of Mormon. Just because it's harder to make a strawman or summary out of his response doesn't make it less valid, and pretending it isn't there doesn't make it disappear.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75543927985861250382017-10-29T05:58:16.006-05:002017-10-29T05:58:16.006-05:00Ramer and Jim Bennett succumb to the fallacy that ...Ramer and Jim Bennett succumb to the fallacy that just because they are talking they are responding. If mortal time is finite, then this is the internet version of Gish Gallop. Bennett goes on for 200+ pages falsely claiming he has beat a dead horse. Bennet may be attempting to beat an alive, kicking horse, but Bennett does not actually address the horse’s blows and the horse tramples him. Same here with Ramer.<br /><br />Take for example the 1769 KJV signatures found in the BoM. Bennett and Ash do not really address the question. Fairmormon did, with only two possibilities. 1. JS consulted a 1769 KJV in producing the BoM or 2. God planted the signatures in the BoM. Now, 1 is not well thought out, because it is conceding, it is exactly what the CES Letter is claiming. So, despite multiple pages on that one little subject, we are left with the only apology that is logically consistent and which Ash unwitting demonstrates with his opening salvo’s analogy: God planted evidence to make things appear as they are not. Apparently, God engages in bizarre dictator tests of emotion/spirituality/obedience over that-doesn’t-make-sense-intellect. Could be. Isn’t that what Abraham-son-murder anecdote is all about?<br /><br />Simple enough apology, but of course it sounds crazy, so 200+ pages is required to make it sound more reasonable and give it the false appearance of being well thought out and intellectual, the opposite of the emotional test premise of the apology.<br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1030960215471570182017-10-29T05:06:47.916-05:002017-10-29T05:06:47.916-05:00Not quite. The provided was to the previous expla...Not quite. The provided was to the previous explanation (3:47 PM, October 27, 2017) which (8:01 PM, October 28, 2017) further demonstrates. There are 30 comments here, a third of which are yours. The more you comment here, the more you demonstrate the original assertions. The good teacher that I am, your latest comment demonstrates what we all suspected, that you fully understanding what is wrong with your “because I said so” “reasoning” and you are fully aware of your double standard hypocrisy, demanding citation for others and not yourself. Ergo:<br /><br /><b>“The more Ramer attempts to refute the more he validates.”</b><br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82472878518400135862017-10-28T22:14:09.732-05:002017-10-28T22:14:09.732-05:00Link was broken on original comment, please delete...Link was broken on original comment, please delete it.<br /><br />When asked for proof of an assertion, Mormography cites the original assertion. This is the fallacious "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">because I said so</a>" argument.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77989269073049095332017-10-28T22:12:59.501-05:002017-10-28T22:12:59.501-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61369726184415759052017-10-28T20:10:38.651-05:002017-10-28T20:10:38.651-05:00cited - 3:47 PM, October 27, 2017cited - 3:47 PM, October 27, 2017Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9526124416567983562017-10-28T20:01:15.753-05:002017-10-28T20:01:15.753-05:00For Ramer, reasoning and logic is labeling somethi...<i>For Ramer, reasoning and logic is labeling something pro or anti.</i><br />[citation needed]Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28139987678999455452017-10-28T13:33:49.832-05:002017-10-28T13:33:49.832-05:00For Ramer, reasoning and logic is labeling somethi...For Ramer, reasoning and logic is labeling something pro or anti.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53593847905442444892017-10-28T13:31:33.049-05:002017-10-28T13:31:33.049-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19945656676708468332017-10-28T12:46:11.044-05:002017-10-28T12:46:11.044-05:00although I do think their answers are disjointed.
...<i>although I do think their answers are disjointed.</i><br />I do have to agree somewhat, Nolan. Sometimes the number of apologists there are can make things a bit disjointed. They'll have different opinions on the same subject, and at this point it's basically down to your own thoughts as to who to believe. Like, one story of David Whitmer claiming he heard God telling him to separate from the Latter-Day Saints has several responses. Some believe, since he had apostasized (did I spell that right?) from the Church at this point, that the prompting was from Satan. FairMormon says they don't have a problem believing that it really was God, and that He was trying to ensure Whitmer's safety.<br /><br /><i>my own apologetics of super unofficialness</i><br />I love that phrase.<br /><br /><i>procrastination and defense by trolling anti-mormonist videos on youtube</i><br />Yeah, trolling really isn't the best way to get things done, regardless of which side you're on.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13221584508732180392017-10-28T12:37:41.700-05:002017-10-28T12:37:41.700-05:00my first experience with anti-Mormonist material a...my first experience with anti-Mormonist material actually happened earlier this year. i had posted something which i had thought to be uplifting and somebody responded with copy-paste arguments from one of the websites that hold the "50 difficult questions for Mormons to answer". i had begun to research the answers when i found out that the answers had been answered already by FAIRmormon. although I do think their answers are disjointed. ever since i have been trying to do my own apologetics of super unofficialness and all i've really accomplished is procrastination and defense by trolling anti-mormonist videos on youtube. but things are slowly changing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59767481301853136142017-10-28T12:20:58.293-05:002017-10-28T12:20:58.293-05:00the more comments there are, the more targets for ...the more comments there are, the more targets for trolls to aim for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-92167907896267864642017-10-28T12:16:46.601-05:002017-10-28T12:16:46.601-05:00The more pro-Mormon comments there are, the more M...The more pro-Mormon comments there are, the more Mormography thinks is conceded.Ramernoreply@blogger.com