tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1901069580075433526..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: Easy Way to Disprove the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith's "Blunder" in Following the KJV in Equating Lucifer with SatanJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-838869930153605212014-04-23T04:55:35.502-05:002014-04-23T04:55:35.502-05:00Another very interesting post,Another very interesting post,quran academyhttp://quranacademylive.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60745655707969570722012-07-25T09:59:34.624-05:002012-07-25T09:59:34.624-05:00Lucifer was equated to Satan in the second century...Lucifer was equated to Satan in the second century, however Lucifer, by that name, is only found in the Bible in the Old Testament in Isaiah. Interesting that a Roman word is found in Hebrew scripture before Latin even existed.<br />When Isaiah was first written and even to today, Jews do not view this verse with any connection to an adversarial being, aside from that of the King of Babylon. <br />For modern day Christians to change the meaning of scripture due to a Latin word, that was first a description in Hebrew, and then a name much later on in Latin, seems to falsify the original intentional meaning of the scripture. <br />Later on in this same passage, it refers to "the morning star" in Isaiah 14:16 by saying "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" <br />Here it refers to this "Lucifer" as a Man, which goes against all teachings Christianity and the LDS church teaches about the adversary. "Lucifer" as the devil figure was cast down from the heavens and not allowed a physical form. How can we view this as Satan, if we are also saying that Lucifer is a Man?<br />My final questions then lie as: How can we accept "Lucifer" as a devil figure when it only made that connection much later than when it was written, and that it being Hebrew scripture, the Jewish religion has no "Lucifer/devil" in that same passage? <br />How can the Book of Mormon be regarded to be translated correctly if within 2 Nephi 24:12, Nephi records verses from the brass plates and it comes across bearing the same mistranslation present in the King James Version of the Bible?<br />These questions have been bothering me a lot, and if you have an answer for them, it would be greatly appreciated.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53570190322074431212012-05-08T12:46:18.780-05:002012-05-08T12:46:18.780-05:00Real interesting stuff. I've always been kind ...Real interesting stuff. I've always been kind of interested in chiasmus and it's occurrences in the <a href="http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon/" rel="nofollow">Book of Mormon</a>. This article and thread brings up some interesting points. Thanks.sstohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813472741921242948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12554664538483284162011-11-29T22:44:24.142-06:002011-11-29T22:44:24.142-06:00Very good points, Eveningsun. I hadn't analyze...Very good points, Eveningsun. I hadn't analyzed it in those terms before, but it's true that the propagandists tend to go after the rumors, hearsay, the fringe statements, the out-of-context material, but not the concisely stated official doctrine. In the end, it's poor investigative journalism or lazy criticism.Rusty Southwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15219593571227897865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2840320209221878272011-11-28T10:51:06.272-06:002011-11-28T10:51:06.272-06:00Why don't you just ask me what I believe inste...<i>Why don't you just ask me what I believe instead of guessing and assuming the worst?</i><br /><br />That's a good question, Rusty.<br /><br />When people criticize "Mormonism," they might be criticizing any of the following things:<br /><br />1. <i>What some individual Mormon(s) believe or have believed.</i> Since the individual involved could be anyone from an old-time racist like Brigham Young to a contemporary feminist like Joanna Brooks, this covers a lot of territory, and the critic should be sure to indicate that they're disagreeing with this or that Mormon individual, rather than with Mormonism generally.<br /><br />2. <i>What the Church has officially proclaimed as its doctrine.</i> Very few critic focus on this category, probably because the Church's officially declared doctrines tend not to make a very juicy target.<br /><br />3. <i>What the LDS Scriptures actually say.</i> This is what I tend to focus on, partly because I'm a literary critic by trade, and partly because it helps to focus the discourse if two people who disagree can at least have the same text sitting in front of them.<br /><br />To the extent that I'm interested in the latter (in the LDS Scriptures), I really don't care what individual Mormons say they believe, or what the Church says Mormons should believe. Both of those things change, but the text is what it is.<br /><br />Obviously, the one exception to the above is that I do care what individuals believe, and what the Church declares, about the LDS Scriptures.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28149754377680054302011-11-27T20:46:09.944-06:002011-11-27T20:46:09.944-06:00Mormography;
"while at the same time a produ...Mormography;<br /><br />"while at the same time a product of translation difficulties, dictation errors, and imperfect human vessels when convenient."<br /><br />I'm sure you meant, "when human limitations manifest themselves".Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47650882975631444812011-11-27T16:30:28.480-06:002011-11-27T16:30:28.480-06:00Eveningsun,
I wish more people would take the per...Eveningsun,<br /><br />I wish more people would take the perspective you take with regard to focus of LDS doctrine, instead of them using their own interpretations which don't mesh with LDS interpretations. The ultimate straw army. My question to them: Why don't you just ask me what I believe instead of guessing and assuming the worst?<br /><br />Also, you said, "I think you're absolutely right that there's a lot of bad anti-Mormon arguments out there. But that doesn't mean there isn't also some good criticism out there. To focus only on the junk is intellectually kind of lazy and definitely misleading. That's fine, of course, if the goal is to never have your beliefs seriously challenged."<br /><br />The problem with the propaganda that I've always seen is that it is lumped together amidst the junk, and we're left to sort through it. While there are some potentially substantive arguments against points of LDS doctrine, scripture, history, and practices, when these criticisms are merely thrown in amidst the lies and misrepresentations, this is a clear indication that the critic is making no distinction or recognition between the two types, which then makes debating impossible. <br /><br />The very problem is that the critics tend to not focus only on the serious items, but get wrapped up in the rest also. So then we need to ask ourselves about the process. If two sides are involved in a debate and one side dumps a pile of mostly non-serious accusations against its opposition, is it the job of the opposition to sort through the morass for them to make sense out of it? I think not. It makes more sense that it's the responsibility of the critic to produce honest and accurate critiques up front. The shotgun approach just doesn't fly in serious, reasoned debate. So in my view, it's the critics of Mormonism who are being intellectually lazy.Rusty Southwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15219593571227897865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2286739156857072152011-11-27T16:23:31.065-06:002011-11-27T16:23:31.065-06:00"Allow me to set aside for a moment the quest..."Allow me to set aside for a moment the question of chiasmus to ask this: is there a general LDS belief that the Book of Mormon rivals the Hebrew Bible in terms of overall literary quality?" <br /><br />I don't think so. I certainly hope not, because it doesn't - and doesn't claim to be.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38090774116669268842011-11-27T16:09:57.520-06:002011-11-27T16:09:57.520-06:00I have a copy of "The Book of Mormon, the Ear...I have a copy of "The Book of Mormon, the Earliest Text" which has a comparison of all the various copies of the manuscripts that went into the printing of the Book of Mormon. The changes, and there are many, are mostly underwhelming. The book was only $20 so I am not out that much but the book is interesting to look at and refer to when a detractor comes along with "the Book of Mormon has had changes" argument. What I do find amazing is how internally consistent the 500 + pages of the Book of Mormon are. Anyone who has gone through a review and editing cycle for any document that has to be published knows how remaining consistent can be a challenge.<br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60151531434476775852011-11-27T12:12:32.297-06:002011-11-27T12:12:32.297-06:00Eveningsun,
http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introd...Eveningsun,<br /><br />http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng<br /><br />The BoM introduction (not considered canon by some) declares itself “comparable to the Bible”<br />and “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”<br /><br />Obviously what is meant by “correct” is open to interpretation. However, its declared superiority is tough to argue against. As for the Bible the LDS oddly declare it Holy Scripture/the word of God, though tampered with scripture. For example, Old Testament baptism is removed from it, no one really knows what Matthew’s original rendition of the Lord’s Prayer was, Isaiah variants, etc. So the Isaiah chapters in the BoM and Lord's Prayer might be considered superior to the Biblical versions.<br /><br />And of course if you have not figured it out from this Lucifer-translation-chiasmus thread, the BoM is both ancient and divinely inspired literature when statistical voodoo indicates, while at the same time a product of translation difficulties, dictation errors, and imperfect human vessels when convenient.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28537716531408969472011-11-27T12:04:22.994-06:002011-11-27T12:04:22.994-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2959955736592605722011-11-26T20:23:34.331-06:002011-11-26T20:23:34.331-06:00Anonymous;
The Book of Mormon is no rival in anyw...Anonymous;<br /><br />The Book of Mormon is no rival in anyway to the Bible; but its compliment. In terms of literary greatness, there's some really in depth parts of the Book of Mormon but there's also great poetic passages in the Bible. In terms of what the Book of Mormon is, an abridgment of writings, I'd say they are equivelents, in literacy, yes.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63395556919631741132011-11-26T19:29:56.738-06:002011-11-26T19:29:56.738-06:00Allow me to set aside for a moment the question of...Allow me to set aside for a moment the question of chiasmus to ask this: is there a general LDS belief that the Book of Mormon rivals the Hebrew Bible in terms of overall literary quality?<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91906484458193009962011-11-25T12:06:54.312-06:002011-11-25T12:06:54.312-06:00Anomynous @ 11/21/11 10:17 AM
"Anyone can wr...Anomynous @ 11/21/11 10:17 AM<br /><br /><i>"Anyone can write a poem in the form of a Shakespearean sonnet, but that fact alone does not make anyone Shakespeare. Literary merit is simply not reducible to the use of recognizeable technique."<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />"Thus far, Jeff, you haven't even begun to make a case for the literary greatness of the Book of Mormon. Its defects are legion and alleviated only by its extensive quotations from truly great writers like Isaiah."</i><br /><br />If I were to write a sonnet and say it is equivalent to that of a Shakespearean sonnet yet upon examination it lacks the style and depth of a Shakespearean then you would have a strng argument on to use to counter my claim that my sonnet is on par with that of Shakespear. Likewise, The Book of mormon is equivalent to that of the bible. It testifies of Christ as a divine being, even the Son of God, and that all must come unto Him to be saved. The book of Mormon claims to have been written in "reformed Egyptian" and its first known author, Nephi, writes, "2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." (1 Nephi). From this we can conclude that there be elements of both "the Jews" and Egyptians. Chiamus is part of the ancient Jewish writing style and only if there is a lack of chiamus then there would be a strong argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Lindsay pointed out to you, "But chiasmus and many other forms of Hebraic poetry would not be discovered in the Book of Mormon until over a century later," which is accurate as far as i can tell. So, one hundred years later, a writing style in the Book of Mormon was discovered and it is precisely that of the writing style of the ancient Isrealites. Ths is evidence, not proof, that the Book of Mormon is as it claims to be. <br /><br />As for the profoundness of the chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon, I strongly recommend that you read Jeff Lindsay's own link on the matter. On the front page thread Lindsay posted <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#chiasmus" rel="nofollow">Evidence of the Book of Mormon</a>. From there you can find, <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml" rel="nofollow">Chiamus in the Book of Mormon</a>. Look at Alma 36 for yourself and see the chiasmus structure. Accidental? If you honestly think and feel so, then so be it though I would emphatically disagree. <br /><br />You will never come to gain a persnoal witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon by its grammatical structure. Such particular evidences are more for those who believe than for those who do not; but it is evidence nonetheless. <br /><br />As for the errors of the Book of Mormon being "legion", many of the changes of the Book of Mormon was to make it less grammatically Hebrew and more grammatically mainstream English. Yet another point of evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. That its origin is as it claims to be. (The vast majority of spelling erros are from the printing process than from Joseph Smith's transcripts. And no doctrines were ever changed, but words were changed for clarity).Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22242938540924996312011-11-24T12:21:47.072-06:002011-11-24T12:21:47.072-06:00@PapaD: I make no statement as to my personal stat...@PapaD: I make no statement as to my personal state. Humility and obedience are qualities we should all strive to develop . I would let you know if and when I get there, but, as you correctly noted, that would be a self-contradiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10737062593325724172011-11-24T11:05:32.049-06:002011-11-24T11:05:32.049-06:00Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
-- EveningsunHappy Thanksgiving, everyone!<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46693648166020474442011-11-24T10:33:06.891-06:002011-11-24T10:33:06.891-06:00Anonymous, you might want to reread what you just ...Anonymous, you might want to reread what you just wrote in light of what you just wrote. It's kind of hard to see something as humble that says, essentially: <br /><br />"I am enlightened, because I am humble - but you're ignorant, because you're clever." <br /><br />See the disconnect? <br /><br />Before you respond, remember, I and Mormography aren't exactly buddies, and my natural view of these sort of topics is much closer to yours overall than his. However, I really cringe whenever I hear an argument dismissed as wrong in the manner you just did. <br /><br />Claims of superiority through humility are hard to take seriously. Just saying.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57577169493639055442011-11-24T10:27:24.732-06:002011-11-24T10:27:24.732-06:00I think it's interesting that some people don&...I think it's interesting that some people don't post and comment to "win".Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28510490538947472402011-11-24T10:24:23.986-06:002011-11-24T10:24:23.986-06:00We are indeed blessed that spiritual truths are no...We are indeed blessed that spiritual truths are not acquired in proportion to one's cleverness, which leads ultimately to arrogance and error, but rather through humility and obedience, which lead to enlightenment. For if God is real and omniscient, then it is by Him that we can most reliably learn truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81841384526052286972011-11-23T21:39:45.213-06:002011-11-23T21:39:45.213-06:00Anon regarding Koran:
(with thick sarcasm) I am s...Anon regarding Koran:<br /><br />(with thick sarcasm) I am shocked. You didn’t like any of the blogs. I could not have possibly predicated that your next post would say that you did not like any of the blogs given.<br /><br />Accusing me of being RfM (I had to look it up) sophomoric, straw-men, mischaracterizing, specious arguments, mind-games, etc without any examples tends to make you guilty of them. <br /><br />The mere fact that I respond to you is prove positive that I am not afraid take on those who want to “track you down and go jihad on you.”Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63549467076616392902011-11-23T21:36:10.357-06:002011-11-23T21:36:10.357-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23946970766034173172011-11-23T21:19:52.765-06:002011-11-23T21:19:52.765-06:00Derek,
Yes, but the declaration lumped Mohammed i...Derek,<br /><br />Yes, but the declaration lumped Mohammed in with Socrates, Plato, Confucius, essential anyone with a philosophical following. This is probably why Daniel Peterson and James Toronto (Mormonism resident SMEs) don’t consider Mohammed divinely inspired.<br /><br />Your theory does maintain a consistent explanation of the universe. However, it implies a massive conspiracy. It implies that Mohammaded was a Christian reformist that never denied that Jesus was the son of God and messiah, but when Mohammed died conspirators erased any evidence of this from history, and false made him into a Christian antagonist.<br /><br />Also, your paradigm does not provide a method for rejecting the Bahai faith, which gives religious importance to Joseph Smith, but not necessarily Mormonism.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1647314709815501692011-11-23T20:53:28.049-06:002011-11-23T20:53:28.049-06:00Mormanity,
Talk about mischaracterizing. Where, ...Mormanity,<br /><br />Talk about mischaracterizing. Where, where, where did I or the anon (or eveningsun if eveningsun is the anon) claim that you claimed that you did not “pointed out that chiasmus can be found almost everywhere.” Why should we have to point where you did when we never claimed you did? To the contrary the anon clearly addressed the issue of beauty/complexity/whatever in the parts you left out: ”And the mere fact that a chiasmus is bigger hardly makes it better.“<br /><br />What you did write was<br /> “elements goes vastly beyond chance and vastly beyond what Joseph could have fabricated”<br />"Now if Joseph were the author of the Book of Mormon and knew about chiasmus somehow, and was adding it to make it look more Hebraic, then surely he or his co-conspirators would have eventually pointed out the evidence”<br />"One could even say that it gets 'truer' with time--truer than ever, anyway."<br /><br />The anon’s post sums this up rather well. That is actually what you said. No one claimed that you did not think the BoM chiasmus are prettier than other chiasmus, only that beauty is not an argument “bigger hardly makes it better.“ It is well understood that Mormons think the BoM is the most beautiful thing. Nowhere in the anon’s post did the anon say that you did not think BoM chiasmi are prettier. Honestly, does modifying to “1. The Book of Mormon contains examples of [pretty|complex| non-coincidental |beautiful|Hebraic | chose your modifier] chiasmus“ vastly change the characterization. Absurd, especially when you read the anon’s entire post.<br /><br />For example, lets modify it to: 1. BoM contains Hebraic chiasmi. 2.Therefore, BoM has Hebraic influence. 3.Therefore JS could not be its author.<br /><br />The characterization is the same especially when given the anon’s sentence that follows. “Anyone can write a poem in the form of a Shakespearean sonnet, but that fact alone does not make anyone Shakespeare.” Ex1: Anyone imitating Hebraic styles is more likely to have complex accidental chiasmi. Ex2: Think Nostradamus imitating Isaiah.<br /><br />originally, I thought you were most upset about claims of provability. I see now that Hebraic origin is vastly more interesting than great literature to you than it is for the rest of us. Hebraic items influence many things in the west, including great literature.<br /><br />Plausability is not interesting. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Everything that you reject is plausible. To borrow a tactic from the Koran anon: The Koran is plausible, so why are you not interested in the Koran?<br /><br />You would have been better off offering an alternate clarifying characterization (as I just did), instead of falsely accusing the anon of a mischaracterization. You only pretend to be interested in genuine dialogue. A person genuinely interested dialogue would have no problem stating their rejection criteria for declaring the Voree plates translation a non-translation.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63636536881439061952011-11-23T18:26:52.433-06:002011-11-23T18:26:52.433-06:00Mormanity,
Unless I misread you, you lean toward ...Mormanity,<br /><br />Unless I misread you, you lean toward the position that statistical analysis shows that chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants is accidental in contrast with chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, but let's be careful not to overgeneralize the results of the study by Edwards and Edwards. That study deals with a very specific hypothesis: that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon (or other books) is unintentional and occurs as a consequence of frequent repetition of literary elements. <br /><br />There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis: 1) There are non-chiasmus forms of repetition which are also Hebraisms. Using the hypothesis, we're more likely to erroneously conclude that a Hebrew author accidentally composed a chiasmus because the same author used frequent repetition of literary elements that bracket the chiasmus. In other words, the proximity of too many other Hebraisms leads us to mistakenly conclude that chiasmus isn't a Hebraism. <br />2) The notion of "intentional" chiasmus is too ill-defined. Was JFK "intentionally" using chiasmus when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?" He probably didn't know what chiasmus is and didn't mean to use it as Hebrew poetry, but I'm sure he deliberately used the chiastic form of the words for its rhetorical effect. <br /><br />The paper essentially shows that if chiasmus occurs "unintentionally" as a consequence of repetition, then chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants is more likely to be "unintentional" than chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. What the paper does not show is that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is more likely to have a Hebrew origin than chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants. <br /><br />There are a couple of criticisms of the paper. Although they attempt to define literary elements and boundaries objectively, there is still some unavoidable subjectivity in selecting what is an element and what is a boundary. Their statistical analysis doesn't account for grammatical, linguistic, and logical constraints on the ordering of literary elements, thus overestimating the potential number of orderings. <br /><br />Does anyone really think that this chiasmus from the Doctrine and Covenants is an accident of repetition? "for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2362882574364669732011-11-23T11:53:08.748-06:002011-11-23T11:53:08.748-06:00Jeff claims that Alma 36 demonstrates a degree of ...Jeff claims that Alma 36 demonstrates a degree of some sort of "mastery" that supports (while not proving) its authenticity. I claim it does no such thing, for the simple reason that chiasmus is so easy to produce. I could compose a text with a complicated, 50-part chiasmus, but if that text were otherwise as inartfully written as the Book of Mormon, what sort of "mastery" would be demonstrated? None. What would be demonstrated is the unsuccessful effort of an unskilled writer to improve his work.<br /><br /><i>Don't play the game of saying, "well, you didn't say that actually, but when we 'abstract" your text, then you did."</i><br /><br />Well, yes and no. Suppose I were to write this: "The examples of chiasmus in the so-called Book of Mormon, which is believed to be authentic by those indoctrinated in the tenets of Mormonism, are not very convincing."<br /><br />What's more important, my explicit claim about chiasmus, or my implicit claims about the BoM's inauthenticity and the indoctrination of Mormons?<br /><br />If by "abstracting your text" is meant "picking up on your text's implicit meanings," then it is indeed a viable procedure.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com