I was out discing my ground the other day and you have plenty of time to reflect on many topics. One topic that ran across my mind was the fact that critics attack the Book of Mormon. The content, how it was translated, etc. What right does anyone have to criticize this work? If you can reproduce this type of work, then lets see it. If you can not, then keep your mouths shut.
I was out discing my ground the other day and you have plenty of time to reflect on many topics. One topic that ran across my mind was the fact that critics attack the Book of Mormon. The content, how it was translated, etc. What right does anyone have to criticize this work? If you can reproduce this type of work, then lets see it. If you can not, then keep your mouths shut.
My guess is that it is the same right that those of you who criticize the bible have.
Rufus
Last edited by RufustheRed; 24th October 2009 at 04:47 AM.
... If you can reproduce this type of work, then lets see it. If you can not, then keep your mouths shut.
Are you not feeling well? I thought that LDS considered freedom of speech a gift from God.
Doctrine and Covenants 101
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
Freedom of speech, freedom of action within boundaries that do not infringe upon the liberty of others are … divine gifts “essential to human dignity and human happiness.” Pathways to Happiness, comp. Llewelyn R. McKay (1957), p. 166.
We allow you to have your religious beliefs, but we have the right and duty to disagree with you.
They trusted in Him and defied the king's command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.
(Daniel 3)
Last edited by Phoebe Ann; 24th October 2009 at 05:05 AM.
I was out discing my ground the other day and you have plenty of time to reflect on many topics. One topic that ran across my mind was the fact that critics attack the Book of Mormon. The content, how it was translated, etc. What right does anyone have to criticize this work? If you can reproduce this type of work, then lets see it. If you can not, then keep your mouths shut.
Have you been studying the tactics of our dear President Obama? Your theory sounds very much like his theory about how to deal with those who disagree with him.
__________________ "A dog barks when his master is attacked.
I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth
is attacked and yet would remain silent." John Calvin
Last edited by Wrigley; 24th October 2009 at 12:34 PM.
fb, I'm inclined to wonder, with Phoebe Ann, if you're feeling okay. Were you out of sorts while you were out there discing? According to your own Article of Faith No.11, you and your LDS fellows oh-so-graciously "allow" the rest of the world the right to worship in the way we see fit, and according to the amendments to the United States Constitution, which you support according to Article of Faith No. 12, we do share your right to freedom of speech. This means that you (and that's plural) can and do sometimes feel free to criticize the Bible and its translation(s) (and/or so-called mistranslation) and its content, and likewise we sometimes can and do feel free to make critical comment on the Book of Mormon. None of this means that anyone here the right to criticize any other personally, which right is, well, wrong.
This is designed to be a debate forum, after all. That's what we're here for, and that's what we expect when we sign on. If it upsets you that much, maybe it would be better for you to stick to all-LDS boards. Running heavy equipment when you're clearly upset can be dangerous, and no one wants to jeopardize your well-being.
Last edited by Moodshadow; 24th October 2009 at 11:50 AM.
Reason: to correct a typo
I was out discing my ground the other day and you have plenty of time to reflect on many topics. One topic that ran across my mind was the fact that critics attack the Book of Mormon. The content, how it was translated, etc. What right does anyone have to criticize this work? If you can reproduce this type of work, then lets see it. If you can not, then keep your mouths shut.
I've seen more than my share with the LDS dissing the Bible and how it came into being by "uninspired men" (I believe that was the phrase you used). We are just applying the same standards to the BoM. We see a con man who couldn't keep his story straight try to sell the world a bill of goods that nobody by him (and the LDS church by default) could possibly have been sincere in his efforts to know, love and understand God, who feels it is their responsibility to judge the hearts of men before they even get to the judgment throne of God. So I feel the same as you do, to be honest. But you know what? This is a debate forum and as much as I think LDS doctrine is false and Trinitarianism to be true, you all have a right to believe it and debate it here. But don't get upset when people question the BoM in the same manner you have questioned the integrity of the Bible.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think there is a legitimate reason to criticize any book which makes claims of historical fact and whose author asserts its absolute truthfulness. If none of the alleged claims of historical fact have been proven after 175 years, it does leave it wide open to criticism, along with its author.
We could discuss the location of the alleged Hill Cumorah as a starter, but then you would probably reject that as a mean-spirited criticism because you know, as well as all the rest of us, that no such hill has ever been discovered despite all the allegations made concerning its significance.
The Bible is the word of God. We believe this. We just take into account man's influence on it, just as we do The Book of Mormon. You can criticize all you want. But after all these years, you would think that someone could come up with iron clad method of destroying the Book of Mormon. Or if someone could author a similar book, writting it in the same amount of time, complete with the connections to the Bible. No one has. You don't have to believe it, but many have asked God and had their prayers answered in the afirmative. Since no one here has repeated what Joseph Smith accomplished, then you have no right to criticize.
The Bible is the word of God. We believe this. We just take into account man's influence on it, just as we do The Book of Mormon. You can criticize all you want. But after all these years, you would think that someone could come up with iron clad method of destroying the Book of Mormon. Or if someone could author a similar book, writting it in the same amount of time, complete with the connections to the Bible. No one has. You don't have to believe it, but many have asked God and had their prayers answered in the afirmative. Since no one here has repeated what Joseph Smith accomplished, then you have no right to criticize.
Many here believe that there's a better explanation for the BoM than what JS, himself, said (considering the many-times altered stor(ies)), and that explanation includes the book being written by someone else and JS being used as a front. There are just too many coincidences surrounding Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, the lost Solomon manuscript, etc., and so the claims of being able to do what he did are not applicable.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Many here believe that there's a better explanation for the BoM than what JS, himself, said (considering the many-times altered stor(ies)), and that explanation includes the book being written by someone else and JS being used as a front. There are just too many coincidences surrounding Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, the lost Solomon manuscript, etc., and so the claims of being able to do what he did are not applicable.
You can try and explain and dream of how it happened. There are not coincidences in anything. Pure and I mean pure opinion. No facts. nothing. Don't you think that more people would have recongized the work? You and other critics have tried to put this together for 170 plus years. There is no connection. The fact that the Book of Mormon exists still baffles critics.
Linear Mode
