David : The Book of Mormon ? Heck, I cannot take it seriously. If you want religious fiction, well, it has its value, but it is made up from start to finish. I have a list of place names from BOM and --minus a few exceptions-- all the names are variants of either local villages, etc that Smith knew as a boy in upstate NY, or stuff he may well have gotten from the a library atlas, using 19th century spellings Like the Camarra Islands, we know as the Commoros = Cumorah. Besides, there also are models for the book itself in early 19th century American lit, AND, a legend in upstate NY, real enough but rare and Smith surely never saw it, there was a scripture ( in some form ) written by a Delaware prophet which also has parallels. Basically a young man with a vivid imagination created a "scripture" based on what he knew from growing up where he did, when he did. I don't buy it for a minute. This said, how in the heck did he come up with use of concrete by Native Americans ( and other such things ) ? Who knows ? At the time no-one knew. But years later, at Teotihuacan and elsewhere, you find concrete. I was at the site many years ago on vacation and saw the stuff myself. Made with pulverized lava, not like Roman or other European concrete, but nonetheless.......... Anyway, except for these kinds of mysteries, and I have no explanation, I regard the BOM as strictly fictional. Then you get to the D&C, Doctrine and Covenants. Totally different kind of book. Real life story of Smith and the early Mormons, basically persecuted wherever they went. Lots of theologizing but mostly a narrative that can be checked out as far as facts go. This book has all kinds of values problems but it has the virtue of not being fiction and is a pretty good read. Then there's the Book of Abraham, "translated" from the wrapping of a real mummy that Smith purchased --seriously, sale of mummies were more or less common in that era. About 30 or 40 years ago they found the exact mummy, in storage somewhere. Smith's version of the hieroglyphs has zero to do with the actual hieroglyphs, which archaeologists know how to actually translate because of the Rosetta Stone. So, I'd say that there are somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 major problems with LDS texts. Then there's actual LDS history, Nauvoo, Liberty ( Mo ), SLC, etc, and that's a whole 'nuther story. Louis L'Amor could not have written a better saga, if you ask me. There is a ton of fascinating stuff. Even Mark Twain had a go at it. Pure Americana at its best. So, take your pick. Billy ============================================ 10/11/2011 9:41:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I have a little trouble getting past the Spalding thing. _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding%E2%80%93Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Morm on_authorship_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding– Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship) I find the story of the origin of the Book of Mormon just too, well, convenient. Golden Plates that appear and disappear making it all impossible to verify. Interesting intermingling of King James English throughout the narrative, and an angelic visitor called Moroni. Which spelled sideways is "I Moron." Just sayin'. Theologically, there are other problems. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 10/11/2011 2:37 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: During my time of religious seeking, most of the 1980s, Mormon history was one of the areas that interested me. NOT most of Mormon theology, although parts of it made sense from my perspective, but its real life and experienced history. That is a different matter altogether. For whatever reason Mormon faith does seem to produce a large % of good people. Which I also know from being an employee of Mormons in the past. The following article makes full use of this theme ; worth thinking about and asking "why" ? Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Real Clear Politics / Real clear Religion Section October 12, 2011 We Have a Lot to Learn from Mormons By _Rod Dreher_ (http://www.realclearreligion.org/authors/?author=Rod+Dreher&id=14497) Mormonism deviates so far from basic orthodox Christianity that I have a difficult time, as a theological matter, considering it authentically Christian. Nevertheless, it's patently absurd to claim that Mormons don't love Jesus Christ, or are, because of their religion, to be treated with suspicion. In my view, it is an irrational prejudice (and yes, there are such things as rational prejudices) to say a Mormon like Mitt Romney is unworthy of one's vote because of his LDS faith. The only thing about Mormonism itself that would give me pause in considering a Mormon presidential candidate is the theological role American exceptionalism plays within Mormon thinking. But in truth, the way American politics and culture goes, American exceptionalism may as well be a theological principle for all US Christians. It is an article of faith for most Americans that God has a Very Special Plan for the _United States_ (http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/united_states/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink) of America, and that we are, in some respects, a Chosen People. I don't believe this, at least not in the way most people do (if America is exceptional, it's in a "to whom much is given, much is expected" way, not a triumphalist-nationalist way), but it is quite common. I'm certain that on this point, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Romney and any Republican candidate who stands a chance of being his party's nominee. Anyway, it is especially offensive, at least to me, to hear Christians speak of Mormonism as a "cult." Usually when you hear that word being applied to a church or religious group, it's designed not to describe, but solely to marginalize. Was it Tom Wolfe who said that a "cult" is a religious group without political power? That's mostly right. I think cults really do exist, and can be identified in part by their overweening desire to be secretive and controlling of their adherents -- e.g., Scientology. (It should be noted that one can find cultish behavior within mainstream religions too.) But I think the Guardian blogger Andrew Brown is more or less correct when he says that a "cult" can be defined sociologically as being far from a society's mainstream -- though by that definition, one would have to call the Amish a "cult," and maybe even cloistered Catholic and Orthodox monks and nuns a "cult"? Anybody want to do that? Anybody? Didn't think so. So why so hard on the Mormons? Especially given that it's hard to find a more idealistically American group of people anywhere in this country. The sociologist Robert Bellah writes in his new book that the test of the truth of a particular religion is the kind of people it produces. Bellah is not really making a theological statement -- I doubt very much that Bellah, an Episcopalian, believes in the foundational mythology of the LDS church -- but rather a sociological one. Few people are ever converted by rational theological discourse alone. Rather, it's more common to look at the lives of people who profess that religion, to find them admirable or otherwise inviting, then open oneself up to the beliefs that produce that way of living. In my experience, Mormonism produces exemplary people, the kind who form stable families and strong communities, and who make good neighbors. I do not believe in Mormonism, nor do I have the slightest interest in becoming Mormon. That Mormons tend to be good people does not make their doctrines true. But inasmuch as Mormons -- and I'm generalizing here -- tend to produce people who are often better Christians, in terms of their behavior, than the more orthodox expressions within the Christian tradition, should make thoughtful Christians consider what truth may exist within Mormonism, and what we may learn about how to live well from the Mormon experience. For example, while Mormons in general have a divorce rate about the same as everybody else, those Mormons who marry in a temple service are far, far more likely to stay married. The Los Angeles Times once explored the reasons for that, and they're truly admirable. Note that there is nothing explicitly theological about any of these practices; any Christian who took his or her own tradition seriously could pull this off too. But these Mormon practices leading to strong marriages and healthy families grow out of theological convictions, cultural coherence, and social solidarity. The rest of us have a lot to learn from Mormons on living out marriage and family life. It's easy for me to see why many Christians strongly deny Mormon theological claims; it is very difficult for me to understand why so many Christians look at Mormons with such hostility and disdain, given the kind of people who tend to be faithful Mormons. To call Mormonism a "cult" is polemical, spiteful, and simply inaccurate. Still, as a matter of life in the public square, Mormons ought to be welcomed, because I look at their lives and works and see people with whom I might disagree strongly, but who also, in the way they live out their faith, strengthen American life. Rod Dreher is a Senior Editor for the American Conservative. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
