So, is Doubleday going to lose money on printing a $25 hardbound copy of The Book of Mormon? This is the best place I could find to ask this question, as Hatrack has pretty knowledgable collection of Mormons and "Gentiles" when it comes to books.
Who would buy this book? Why would Doubleday want to print it? I can see Mormons going out and buying it out of curiosity and a sense of religious devotion, but I am not sure about others outside of libraries. This might not be a gamble per-say, but will its intended audience really exist? In fact, is there an intended audience? It just seems a rather superfluous printing.
[ July 13, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I think it is a sound investment. I don't think Mormons will buy the book, but as the church continues to grow and become more public, I think there will be an increased academic interest in the religion. I don't think it will be a best seller, but I do think it will do as well (and possibly better) as the Koran.
I think there will also be an increased interest in the religion as Homosexual marriage becomes more accepted. I am sure the polygamy will challange the current law and Mormonism will again become a national headline.
I liked this quote from your article.
quote: Then again, the $25 version comes with no strings attached. Two people with name tags will not follow you home from Barnes & Noble on their bikes and ask if you'd like to, you know, know more.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
When I first got interested in the church, I headed to Barnes and Noble to buy a copy of the BoM. They said they didn't have any, which I thought was strange. They had copies of every other religion's scriptures that I had ever searched for.
Maybe they're just trying to redress that lack, for completeness, or something. It is rather odd, to me, that they would not have them. However, I would think they could get a better deal just buying them from the church to stock on their shelves than printing a new version.
But maybe the church would rather distribute them the way they do now, and so don't print them for resale. In fact, I expect they don't. I bet if a large bookstore chain approached the church and wanted to place a big order for Books of Mormon to stock in their stores, the church might tell them no thanks.
But if anyone wants a free BoM with no missionary visits scheduled, they just have to say that. The church will still send them one. They will abide by people's wishes as regards missionary visits.
So the other question left in my mind is how can B&N possibly compete on price?
I think it's a good thing, though. Anyone who is interested can find the church one way or another. If they read the secular version of the BoM and the spirit speaks to them, then they will seek out contact with the church on their own.
[ July 13, 2004, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There is a link also on the front page of lds. org. It explains that Doubleday approached the church. Here Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
THis is my favorite sentence. I know why it is included, of course, but it makes me giggle.
quote:From the beginning, Church members have accepted it as scripture.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I heard about this from my dad, and he seemed to think it would sell well to collectors of Americana, not just purveyors of religious artifacts.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I know several non-LDS who own a copy of the Book of Mormon. Most of them are theologians to some degree or another, and like to verse themselves in all the religious offerings in order to understand them. Some people read it for curiousity, some read it for better insight, some read it to arm themselves against what they perceive as a "cult", etc. etc. There are a lot of reasons for non-Mormons to own a BOM. In fact, I have two in the bookcase headboard of my bed. One is a straight BOM, the other is the compilation with the Pearl of Great Price and D&C writings.
Farmgirl
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
In short:
I agree with Alexa. There is an increased interest in the academic world in Mormonism -- this will be the default text for academics and students.
The text is more appealing than the Church version because it doesn't include all the footnotes and won't be broken up with numbered verses -- it'll be more readable for those who want to simply read it. The footnotes and cross references are great for believers who use the Book of Mormon as a source of doctrine and want to tie it into the rest of the LDS canon, but all that material could be daunting or annoying for someone who is curious about the text itself and doesn't care about the other stuff.
The price point seems a little high -- I hope they also do a trade paperback in the $10-11 range. I would buy it.
ALSO: more coverage of this news available on A Motley Vision.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Oh...I do like the cover.
2.
quote:the Mormon intellectual crowd -- what better way to display that you've broken away from the institutional church but still maintain your status as a cultural Mormon than to carry the Doubleday edition around?
This is why Utah is crazy.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
[mini-tangent] For some reason, I pictured some hideous romance-novel-esque cover with some huge strapping lad with bulging muscles carrying plates around or something.
I'm glad the cover they used is better. [/mini-tangent]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
If you go to B&N, generally all you'll find in the tiny 'mormonism' section are antagonistic books such as 'Under the Banner of Heaven', 'Mormon America', 'One Nation Under Gods', and, if you're lucky, a copy of G.B. Hinckley's 'Standing for Something'. - whereas if you go to other faiths, you'll find copies of their scriptures, from Islam to Hindu to Judaism to Shinto to Orthodox Christian. It's about time TBOM got to share some shelf-space with a commercial edition, methinks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Out of curiosity, why don't bookstores stock the hardback version published by the Church?
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
What I like about the book of Mormon is it essentially says, "And Jesus ascended into the heavens... BUT NOT REALLY! He actually came to America first on a HUGE detour to show himself to the Indians. YAY!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*amused* Have you read it?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wait, Turgan, don't tell me. And now you're Jesus, right? It's so obvious. Turgan sounds like Surgeon who fight diseases which rhymes with Jesus.
No wait, I should have said,
1 And lo the Lord spoke 2"And he should note that Turgan is a man. 3And as Turgan is a man so too are surgeons men. 4And these Turgans and surgeons are one both in sound of voice and heart of hearts. 5But let not he forget that surgeons fight diseases 6as did my son, Jesus.
From the book of Lawyer, verses 1-6.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Bob, where can I find a Book of Lawyer? I've looked all over and can't seem to locate one.
space opera
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
kat: The LDS Church would have to provide inventory for bookstores to be able to stock it. My guess is that the Church has chosen not to do that -- probably because they'd prefer that people who want a copy talk to the missionaries, but also because it would require someone on their end to handle the distribution -- taking orders, packing, shipping, etc -- as well as the strange situation of making a profit of a work of scripture that you claim is important enough that you give it out for free.
That's why you can find copies of the Book of Mormon (in various editions -- but most often the blue soft-cover version that missionaries give out) in used bookstores, but rarely in standard bookstores -- it's all a matter of distribution.
That's why this Doubleday deal makes a certain amount of sense -- it's a new, different edition. Doubleday was willing to work with the Church on what it should be (so it's not some rogue edition or one that comes bundled with anti-Mormon materials) but it doesn't have to deal with the printing, distribution and marketing side of things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That makes sense, Zal. I wondered about how to handle selling a book that in most cases is give out for free. I think the DoubleDay edition is fine.
As another curiosity question, must DoubleDay cooperate with the church when it comes to rights? After 170 years, wouldn't the BoM have entered the public domain?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
From Doubleday's site:
quote:
About the Author
JOSEPH SMITH, Jr., is the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the translator of THE BOOK OF MORMON, which was first published in Palmyra, New York, in 1830.
I like that. They called him the translator and not the author. Doubleday has gone up another notch in my estimation of how they've handled this so far.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Kat: Yes. But that only applies to the first few editions. The current edition of the Book of Mormon -- the one that the Church uses -- is still under copyright. Doubleday wants to use that edition because this is supposed to be a 'current' edition and not a historical reprinting.
As to differences between editions, I'm not enough of an expert to know actual textual differences. But, for instance, the chapter breaks, versing, chapter summaries, footnotes, and estimated timeline (the notes on the bottom of the page that say things like "about 73 bc") are all still under copyright. Doubleday wants to use those (but not the footnotes and versing system) -- printing a version of the Book of Mormon that has already entered the public domain (such as the first one) is a different venture altogether with a different target market.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That makes sense.
When I was in Ann Arbor, we went and saw the 1830 BoM that the University of Michigan had in their Special Collections in the library. It was printed without chapter and verse breaks, and there were some grammatical differences. I don't remember what they were, but we flipped to 3 Nephi 11 and wigged out a little bit.
[ July 13, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
Yeah. I read it. I got "attacked" by two mormon women while walking my dog and they gave me a free copy of it. The story is as follows. Joe Smith was confused about with religion he should follow. Well.. not so much religion as denomination. Methodists.. Babtists... catholics.... all were weird to him. They confused him. So he set out to walk in an orang grove to think it over. And i don't remember if he fell asleep or what.. but he had a vision and it told him to dig a hole in this certain spot. So he did it and found a box full of golden tablets that were written in some language he couldn't understand. So God sent him down a pair of Magic Glasses and he deciphered it. It essentially talks about the Americas and what happened during Jesus's life HERE. It's actually really interesting.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
*is highly amused at his inaccurate summation of the introduction*
[ July 13, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That explanation was like saying, I read the introduction of Enders Game, and know the rest is about a boy geneous who destroyed a planet and then tried to write a book about that planet. Of course, that isn't even half the story.
By the way, it shows yet again what Hugh Nibley constantly proved. It doesn't matter if the First Vision and the Vision of Moroni are two seperate and distinct events; those who are the most critical are the most likely to conflate them into one silly occurance.
[ July 13, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I'm quite fond of the orange grove detail. Oh, and the "Magic Glasses"
<---pictures Joseph Smith in over-sized, sequined Elton John glasses asleep under an orange tree.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Notes of some Book of Mormon versions of interest. Some are still available:
Heritage copy of the 1830 first edition. This is my favorite to sit down and read without worry of intense religious study.
Official LDS addition, with footnotes, etc.
RLDS (Community of Christ) edition, with different versification.
Restored Covenant edition by Zarahemla Research Foundation. One of the many poetic structured texts.
Wade Brown, The Word of God edition, broken into parallelisms and other Hebrew poetry.
Donald W. Parry, The Book of Mormon Parallelistic edition, similar to above.
Readers Edition, that brings it back to paragraph form with a few footnotes and a few bits of poetry.
Then there is the FARMS critical reprint of the Original Manuscript (one third extant) and the Printer's Manuscript sources. Anyone want to buy me these for 200 dollars? No? Darn!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ah, they worked with the first presidency. That's really great. And I am proud of them for how they handle the description. This is one of the best secular descriptions of Mormon things I've ever seen.
It seems that most everyone else sort of casually without realizing how insulting they are being, insults the religion and the people and the entire history of the faith.
For instance, in that writeup of the hymnbook that belonged to Brigham Young that was being sold on eBay that Tom linked us to that time. They obviously wanted to sell the book, and could assume that Mormons would be high on the list of interested buyers, yet their summation in the writeup was extremely insulting bordering on offensive to the LDS faith, and LDS people. Obviously they didn't realize it was, or not if they didn't want to alienate most of their potential customers. It was just strange. But that's pretty typical of what I've seen in print. I'm so glad Doubleday did better than that.
[ July 13, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I agree that the Doubleday publication is a GREAT idea, for all of the above stated reasons.
My two cents: A friend of mine had the Herald Publishing House 1830 facsimile version and I thought it would be a neat thing to own, for three reasons: (1) there is a certain pleasure I have in reading older editions of books, because of the old typeface, layout, etc; (2) it would be cool to hold in my hands a replica of the same thing that Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, Dinah Kirkham, and other faithful church pioneers read and in the process felt the spirit testify of its truth; and (3) you can always be benefitted by a text by looking at it presented in a different way than you are used to, much like Shakespeare takes on a different meaning when you read it as full sentences rather than lines of blank verse.
Anyway, it is for the 3rd reason that I would be interested in buying the Doubleday version, though 25 bucks seems a bit pricey.
- - - - - - p.s. the Dinah Kirkham thing was a joke. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Yeah. I read it. I got "attacked" by two mormon women while walking my dog and they gave me a free copy of it. The story is as follows. Joe Smith was confused about with religion he should follow. Well.. not so much religion as denomination. Methodists.. Babtists... catholics.... all were weird to him. They confused him. So he set out to walk in an orang grove to think it over. And i don't remember if he fell asleep or what.. but he had a vision and it told him to dig a hole in this certain spot. So he did it and found a box full of golden tablets that were written in some language he couldn't understand. So God sent him down a pair of Magic Glasses and he deciphered it. It essentially talks about the Americas and what happened during Jesus's life HERE. It's actually really interesting.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, you can think someone else's religion is completely nutty. You can secretly hold them in contempt and muse at the fact that no one is as savvy as you are or has half the ability to reason.
But once you sign on to a place like Hatrack and decide to articulate these feelings, getting all anecdotal in the process, you stop getting to indulge your wants and you start putting some freaking thought into your freaking posts. Wrapping it up with, "It's actually really interesting" does nothing to cushion your post.
I'm not LDS. But if someone decided to post anything nearly that disrespectful and had the nerve to tell me what I believe despite protestations, they would pretty much have taken up permanent residence in China Town. To which, of course, they had been takin' down.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I'm not mistaken, Ralphie, you probably get told what you believe all the time. . .
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
And I suppose a non-Christian might paraphrase the gospels this way:
"There was this guy, Jesus, whose mom wasn't married when she got pregnant. He grew up and stuff, talked to the Devil and did tricks. One time, he got mad at a tree and killed it. Another time, the party he was at ran out of wine, so he made more. Then he got some people mad at him and was killed. Supposedly, he came back to life with holes in his hands and went to heaven."
Strictly speaking, all this is true to the story. But, anything can sound ridiculous when you write about it with a contemptuous tone. One could easily describe ANY story that has meaning for someone else, in the same flippant manner.
Especially given the fact that a large number of posters here are LDS (as are the hosts of this site) one would at least try to speak of their beliefs/stories with the same respect that they themselves would wish their beliefs to be treated. Even if you thought it was completely false
Golden Rule and all, you know?
(ps: I'm not LDS either)
Ian
(btw: I was going to mention Dinah Kirkham wasn't real. )
[ August 25, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: If I'm not mistaken, Ralphie, you probably get told what you believe all the time. . .
Like, seriously man.
Okay, now I kind of feel bad for going off on the kid (especially since I suspect he didn't even read it), but - apparently - that sorta thing makes me loopy.
Amongst other things.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
:bumpity:
Release date is tomorrow. Don't plan on buying it soon; but that is a function of being broke rather than lack of desire to own it. Eventually, when I have more money in my account than money going out, I will purchase it.
Edit: p.s. Though the link takes you to Barnes and Noble, amazon is about 3 bucks cheaper
[ November 15, 2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Man. Now I want to participate in this thread, but it feels so tacky to quote posts that were posted three months ago.
*sigh*
[ November 16, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
I read it at Paris Island and after in Korea, and I noticed one thing, it seems to be a perfect bridge reconciling the old and new testaments. Then I read some of the correction to the old testement that J Smith made and I realized that it was too perfect a reconcilliation. Truth is messy, events happen with no meaning, that is what gives the old testement its varacity, many of the things done by the good guys are appalling, Lot pimps his virgin daughters to help some VIP's, Moses takes sex slaves, Abraham pimps Sara to Pharoh...You get the idea.
Have you ever played a card game called bullshit? Each hand has to be higher then the one before, so if a guy says a pair, and then the next guy says two pair and the next says three of a kind you can tell it is bullshit because it is the next better hand. It is too perfect to feel true. That was my experience with the book of Mormon. However it seems to have created a hell of a nice bunch of people, I really wish I could belong but I would not like to sell myself as something I am not.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: There was this guy, Jesus, whose mom wasn't married when she got pregnant. He grew up and stuff, talked to the Devil and did tricks. One time, he got mad at a tree and killed it. Another time, the party he was at ran out of wine, so he made more. Then he got some people mad at him and was killed. Supposedly, he came back to life with holes in his hands and went to heaven."
even as a Christian, I find this description rather amusing. Though, perhaps living with an athiest has given me thicker skin. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone doubt the veracity of the BoM because it's too 'perfect.'
My contrarian nature is pushing me to say, 'Nuh-uh! It's not THAT perfect!' But I'll just be quiet and nod.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Of course, even if I had $72 to spend, I would find something else to spend it on. But it's lovely. (Sigh) It never occurred to me to want something like this, but many people have a family Bible, so why not a family BoM? The other problem is that, of course, I would also want The Doctrine and Covenants Family Heritage Edition and a family Bible to go with it.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
When I went to Salt Lake city, I ended up buying a second hand copy of the Book of Mormon, because I wanted to read it but it wasn't in the bookshop. I could have just asked someone, but I was only nine years old and very shy. I wish I could have got a newer copy, though. Guess I still could, since I'm no longer nine or shy.
I think that most people interested in the religion are often too worried about what they're getting into to contact the Church directly, so this would be the perfect solution. After all, many people come to Islam or Judaism, not through direct contact with members of those religions but through reading their scriptures and finding that they see the truth in them.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I'm reading the Heritage edition at the moment. It's fascinating for the reason that it's in the form that Brigham Young and others would have experienced it. Also, because it's "warts and all" in the sense of printing mistakes, grammatical errors, spelling variations ('Cumorah' is spelled 'Camorah' consistently), but the power of the story and its message comes through uneffected by those imperfections. If anything, they are actually thrown into greater emphasis by the mistakes. The effect of contrast, I guess. Difficult to see how such a powerful and intense story with so many layers and such a wonderfully consistent message could have been made up by a farm boy (especially one who was prone to napping under orange trees!).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Difficult to see how such a powerful and intense story with so many layers and such a wonderfully consistent message could have been made up by a farm boy...."
Well, in all fairness, he did have the opportunity to make several revisions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still the same farm boy. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just be quiet and nod, kat. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know -- and I know this might sound insulting, so forgive me -- I find it really amusing that Mormons often say, "Joseph Smith was just an ignorant farm boy; how could he have written this long, generally consistent take on the Bible?" but never ask in the same breath, "Joseph Smith was just an ignorant farm boy, and hardly the first person out there to ask God for more information; why the heck would God have decided to talk to him?"
Either he was something special or he wasn't. And if he was special enough to be the first person in two millennia to be guided by God, surely it's not hard to imagine that he was special enough to write a decent novel. That kind of incredulity suggests that it's easier to believe that someone might receive divine communication than to believe that it's possible for people educated in farm communities to write coherently.
[ November 16, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's not insulting, and it gets asked all the time.
There are a dozen places says that the qualifications for discipleship and his spirit are faith, humility, and a willingness to follow him. The inspiration, the words, and the revelation the Lord can and does provide.
Jesus picked fisherman to follow him.
Added: The restoration was the Lord's timing, and while Joseph Smith was foreordained for his role, it wasn't inevitable. He could have chosen otherwise. Instead of the Lord saving the restoration for the perfect proto-prophet to be born, when the time was right for it, a farm boy with faith was chosen.
[ November 16, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, absolutely. But surely you are not suggesting that Joseph Smith was the first person in two thousand years to meet that criteria to a sufficient degree that God would take notice? If so, surely that in itself is infinitely more special and unlikely than extraordinary writing skill?
On one hand, you are saying "It would take a really remarkable person to write a book this good." And on the other hand, you are saying, "So we prefer to believe that God decided to make this person His chosen prophet."
[ November 16, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
God didn't pick Joseph because he was great - because of Joseph's willingness to follow the Lord, the Lord made him something great.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, again, in two thousand years of human history, is it more likely that Joseph was the first person willing to let himself be so completely led by God, or that he was an uncommonly good author?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I really believe that - the Lord wasn't kidding when he said that if you lose your life, you will gain it. I was talking about this with Amira the other day - she was talking how emulating virtues meticulously eventually changes the self-definition.
Joseph had to have started out with some diligence and intelligence, but what he became and accomplished all came from the Lord.
quote:is it more likely that Joseph was the first person willing to let himself be so completely led by God, or that he was an uncommonly good author?
It was neither - it happened on the Lord's timetable. If the same vision and directive had come to someone in Spain during the inquisition or in Mexico right before the conquistadors came, re-establishing the church wouldn't have been possible. There was lots of preparation for the vision, and only a small bit of it had to do with Joseph.
[ November 16, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Why wouldn't God use an ignorant farm boy? Most of the Old Testament stories are about flawed people who did things they couldn't possibly have done because they relied on God. It's kind of a theme.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, I'm not questioning that. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Joseph started out pretty ordinary and got better as he went along.
What I find amusing is the idea that it is more unbelievable and remarkable that someone could write a good book than become the chosen messenger of the Lord. In other words, the statement, "a simple farm boy couldn't've written a book this good" would seem to apply a higher standard to writing a good book than to being chosen by God to build His renewed temple.
[ November 16, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a very remarkable book. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* It's okay. I imagine it's probably better in the original language. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... You're humoring me.
[ November 16, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote: Either he was something special or he wasn't (Tom)
See you can't have it both ways. Anti-Mormons took the tack for years that he was an illiterate bumpkin who could barely speak coherent English, let alone write it. Now Joseph Smith is regarded by some non-Mormon scholars as a legitimate religious genius (whatever that is). So when I call him a farm boy it's a reference to the usual anti take on him. Of course he was special. Just not from the standard world's criteria, on the surface at least. Very few biblical prophets are special in that way, but have special qualities that make them useful to God.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:two thousand years of human history
There may have been a need for that history.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
And, anyway, he wsn't chosen because he was capable (or not) of "writing a good book". He didn't write it. He translated it. And he wasn't chosen because he was a good translator. He was chosen (in generally accepted opinion, mine anyway), because he had the spiritual qualities necessary, the physical and mental and emotional strength to deal with the stresses of the rest of his life, and because he was foreordained to do this, and so was sent to be born specifically at that time and place, into that family. It wasn't a random, "Well, what about him, he might work. Shall we vote?" decision. It had been set from the beginning of time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As doesn't surprise me, it seems most people are missing your point, Tom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No fugu, they're not. There's just more to the story.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, they are.
Tom's point isn't as to which did or did not happen, but as to which requires a greater amount of belief.
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
Wasn't joseph taught for 4 to 5 years berfore he was allowed to take the plates a way from the hill commaroah?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, do you really think that people don't know that?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Since Tom doesn't believe Joseph Smith was chosen by God or that the Book of Mormon is anything other than "(shrugs)it's okay", his point isn't really worth answering.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Cashew pretty evidently missed it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
IMHO it'd be harder to write a book like that, without God's help, having to fulfil all the conditions it fulfils, than be chosen by God. He chooses people all the time, in all walks of life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Cashew didn't miss it - there's a different dynamic here.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I had the same objection as Tom when I first read the Book of Mormon. It seemed just as possible that a farm boy could have written a pseudo-scripture and call it divinely inspired as for that farm boy to have been in direct communication with God. What helped to convince me were the testaments of other people.
First of all contrary to the literary genius theory we have his wife stating several times that Joseph wasn't particularly literate or even particularly articulate (I'll try to find the exact quote), and his wife was not a supporter of the church after Joseph's death, but she continued to support her original claim that he was divinely inspired.
In addition, the Book of Mormon is internally consistent, and even the best of authors, take Card for example, often make little slips or inconsistencies, even the Bible finds these inconsistencies the biggest one is reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament.
Next we have to account for the golden plates. At least twelve people saw these plates and testified of their existance. It seems highly unlikely to me that they were all in conspiracy together to decieve people into believing a religion that regardless of its truthfullness, is at least harmless, some would say beneficial, and offered them no monetary gain. In fact they lost quite a bit supporting this truth when it would have been easier many times to just give in and say they'd made it up.
Supposing that the plates weren't real, where would Joseph have gotten the materials, as a very poor man, to mimic them to the degree that he'd be able to convince these other people of their existence.
To me this summarizes the other potential sources of the Book of Mormon, he might have made it up himself, but according to those close to him he lacked the ability. Other people, who later left the church but also maintained their testimonies that the plates existed, saw these golden plates whose existance is very improbable, and I can think of no other reason for them to have existed unless God provided them.
These are all rationalizations for a critical mind, and they were necessary for me in order to accept the Book of Mormon. The reason why I even bothered to look for them though is that when you read the Book of Mormon, you might not have any clue who these people are or what they are doing, but some parts of it just seemed right to me, and obviously to many other people as well.
Maybe you still think that my explanations are going for the more 'divine' over some simple and mundane explanation, but I hope it at least gives you an idea of what sort of thinking goes into rationalizing divinity, whether you agree or not with how I did it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with your line of logic, Audeo, is that if we accept Smith's wife's opinion of his literary skills, we then have to open up similar testimonies regarding the possibility of whether or not he was indeed a chosen messenger of God. And given that there are several people out there claiming that THEY know what God wants, and that God doesn't want people to be Mormon, that leaves us a bit of a pickle. In other words, is it more likely that Joseph Smith's first wife got things wrong and he found a dozen people to lie or fool, or is it more likely that the Pope is lying about being able to commune with God? What about all the Baptists on this board who say they've felt the presence of God in their lives? Is their testimony to that effect less credible than Smith's wife?
And that's the difficulty I have with any attempt to say, "Well, it doesn't seem likely that this couldn't've happened, so this unlikely thing had to happen instead." Unless we've got some other standard of proof -- which, mind you, many Mormons and others believe they have -- it makes no more sense than saying, "There's no way you got home from work so quickly! You must have acquired superpowers!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What did happen to the golden plates?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Unless we've got some other standard of proof -- which, mind you, many Mormons and others believe they have
That's what I was referring to when I was talking to fugu - there's more evidence and considerations here than are encompassed in the scope of this thread.
Dag: After the translation was complete, the angel Moroni took them back.
[ November 16, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Kat.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
quote: In other words, is it more likely that Joseph Smith's first wife got things wrong and he found a dozen people to lie or fool, or is it more likely that the Pope is lying about being able to commune with God? What about all the Baptists on this board who say they've felt the presence of God in their lives? Is their testimony to that effect less credible than Smith's wife?
Well, first of all, I don't think that Joseph Smith being chosen to be the prophet of God, excludes anyone else from any sort of revelation from God. I would however say that the Pope is mistaken, perhaps only in the degree to which he gets revelation, and as an ex-Catholic I have many reasons which I shan't post here for that belief. This doesn't make him a bad person, or any other Catholic, I should add.
I have certainly felt the presence of God in my life, long before I'd ever even heard of mormonism, so I don't exclude the Baptists from God's care, I just disagree sometimes with their interpretations. It seems to me that there are only a few options, the first is that someone is absolutely correct and the rest shall burn in hell, the second that some are closer to the truth than others, but no one knows it all yet, and the third, that religion is just something we've made up as an opiate to the masses. I'm a firm supporter of the second, and it's my opinion that LDS is closer to the truth than anything else I've heard.
Close enough that I believe it is the true religion on Earth, however there is still more revelation to come. If I'm wrong, then what do I lose? I still have a supportive church family, I live a life that fits in with ethics that I believe in and that maintain a dignity in humanity, and I get to donate a part of my income to those in need among many other things. Granted I don't require a church, or even a belief in God to do these things, but it helps sometimes to have a little prodding knowing that someone is overseeing your life.
So I've looked at the arguments and have seen that to me it is simply too disturbing to believe that religion is a mass delusion, particularly when I may have had some of those delusions myself. So I looked for the most likely argument, and I've heard a few, and found the one that fit best with my own values and was the most internally consistent. This doesn't mean that it's right, just that it seems so to me, and I'd never claim infallability.
My mother thinks that all churches are 'right' to the degree that God organized all of them in order for there to be something for everyone so to speak. I don't agree with that, I'm sure that one of them is right, or that at least there are varying degrees of 'rightness'. But your argument seems to be that since each of them claim to be the one and only true church, that they must all be wrong, or that it is futile to join any of them since there is no way to determine which one is correct with the information given. And that's fine, I just figured that I may as well take a guess, because there's a good chance that they're right to, and if they are then I stand to gain something, and I won't hold it against anyone if they've decided differently.
I realize that this is a bit far from your original question of whether it wasn't just as likely (if not more) that Joseph Smith was simply a literary genius as that he was inspired by God. To answer that I'll concede, it's just as probable that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, lied or conspired with at least twelve others to promote it as truth, and later was killed for his conviction, perhaps because he didn't want to look like an idiot and recant, as that a fourteen year old farm boy was in the right place at the right time with the right question to find these ancient plates that had been secreted only a couple miles from his home with a testimony of a group of Jewish refugees who set up kingdoms on the American continent and who were later visited by a man who died thousands of miles away and several days earlier and supposedly spent his life healing the sick and helping the poor as well as claiming to be the literal son of God. And since neither of these scenarios could be proven with hard fact at this date, it comes down to which you find more likely, or perhaps, which you'd rather believe. Given the information that I have, I choose to believe the latter, others may have other information or interpret the information differently and so believe differently. That's their prerogative and as I said before I wouldn't hold it against them.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:What about all the Baptists on this board who say they've felt the presence of God in their lives?
Absolutely believe 'em. We don't claim to have a monopoly on God's presence, or Truth.
...just more of it Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The problem with the question is that TomD. has asked it, and therefore any answer is useless. He has already made up his mind that religion is dangerous -- of any kind -- and therefore only seeks to attack. I could come up with the most perfect, logical, and sure answer and he would still find some kind of hole in it just to point a scornful finger. He is a troll, and nothing more.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No, he isn't a troll. He's searching for truth, as he's said.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I disagree, Occassional. Highly, actually.
EDIT: What Mack said
[ November 16, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Why a simple farm boy? Because God chooses the weakest of the world to confound the wise. Why did God wait almost two thousand years to bring the Gospel back? Because time is of little value to God, with one thousand years as one day and one day as a thousand years. As far as the Gospel is conserned in LDS theology -- If God for some unknown reason decided to wait a million years to bring back the Church, everyone in that time period would still have the same opportunities as if it was brought back Ten years after the original Apostles death. The biggest difference would be that much more work that would have to be done.
Now for the really simple answer to the question at hand. Ask God. He is the only one who really knows the answers.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I, of course, have never believed he was ever anything other than a troll. I will continue to treat him as such for that is what he is, no matter who believes otherwise. The only thing he is looking for is to be a pain in the ass and pick fights.
[ November 16, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Your loss.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Taalcon -- except when those feelings from God say their Church is the correct church?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, its my gain as I find him a tremendously detestable human being hardly worthy of my attention. As such, ignoring him makes my life that much better not having to deal with his vindictiveness and flippant arrogance. The only reason I even answered the question was it was an interesting one.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Somehow, an inability to accept an intellectual challenge to your belief and instead portray it as an attack, get defensive and then close off...I don't know, it seems beliefs have to withstand challenge. Those that can't... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
. . . teach?
No, wait . . .
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
...run away rather than take a stand?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If it was a "challenge" that showed some kind of respect, I am all for that. Its not, after all, like I didn't answer the question. The problem is that TomD. has shown a consistant disrespect in his questions. There is such a thing as having a good conversation with many interesting pionts and counterpoints. Then there is hitting your head against a brick wall (or in this context a hardened heart).
[ November 16, 2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And being hard headed and so defensive that any questioning becomes an attack, not matter how it's asked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occasional, you're wrong this time. And your rudeness is completely appalling. I can only hope that it isn't taken as representative.
I do think this is one area where Tom's native courtesy breaks down a little. That's okay - everyone has their quirks. He is sincere, though.
[ November 16, 2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Taalcon -- except when those feelings from God say their Church is the correct church?
I was referring to feeling the presence of God. When it comes to interpretation and conclusions based on the feelings, that's where there can be a difference.
I'm someone who'se experienced both sides of the fence.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
There's nothing wrong with a serious, intellectual challenge to one's beliefs. It makes for an enjoyable an intellectually stimulating discussion. The problem is, Mormons are so used to vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry that there's a conditioned reflex action. Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted. Where's the discussion of evidence of Near Eastern settings for the first part of the B/M, the presence in it of long, complex and elegant literary devices foreign to western literature and unknown amongst scholars until relatively recently, the many other small bricks that over the last 20-odd years have been carefully built into a wall of evidence for the Book of Mormon to at the very least be taken seriously? Instead we have to put up with snide and smirking attacks that come from a background of very little desire to get involved in genuine intellectual discussion. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that what's been said in this thread falls under that category. But comments that Mormons should not react in a particular way to intellectual challenges to their beliefs when we are desperate to have some serious challenges that we can discuss intellectually rather than the usual claptrap are frustrating at least. (If this is a little garbled it's because I'm rushing, because I have a meeting to get ready for. Sorry. )
[ November 17, 2004, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted."
While I certainly agree, I should point out that most Mormons aren't inclined to argue scholarship, either. FARMS, for example, is hardly a scholarly organization -- notice the lack of anything resembling independent peer review -- but is often cited as the pre-eminent source of Mormon scholarship. If FARMS exposed their papers to non-Mormon scholars, I think their claims would be considered more credible.
[ November 17, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
FARMS, of course, isn't going to do that because they are mainly interested in apologetics despite any noises they make to the contrary.
Don't get me wrong. Some of there work can be valuable -- but only in the context of apologetics.
Of course, we're really talking about two different types of discourse here -- apologetics -- which is intended to combat the claims made by attacks on Mormonism from other people of faith -- and scholarship -- which seeks to find truths via the foudational assertions and methods of the various disciplines.
Scholarship -- or at least the kind that can be peer reviewed -- is always going to fall short in the minds of most Mormons because it can't (and, imo, probably shouldn't) accept the "supernatural" claims of Mormonsim i.e. those that require extra-sensory experiences (via the Holy Spirit).
I do see positive signs, however, that at the very least Mormonism is becoming a valid (meaning of interest, import and treated seriously) field of study in some parts of academia. Claremont is leading the way in this effort.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Tom, surely the fact that FARMS papers are out there to be read by anyone, scholar or no, means that they are exposed to peer review. The problem is that non-Mormon scholars who appear to take Mormon scholarship seriously enough to repsond to it on an academic (as opposed to dismissive) level are in danger of academic suicide, so little if any peer review takes place.
[ November 17, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Zalmoxis, you're right regarding the 'supernatural' aspects of Mormonism, and that's part of the problem. But the concrete thing that can and should be tested, and has been totally ignored by non-Mormon scholars for most of its history, is the Book of Mormon. That book is meant to have its 'genuineness' confirmed spiritually, because that's the nature of it's message. However, it is the concrete manifestation of what Joseph Smith claimed, and so is available to be tested and weighed. It's not FARMS' (or Latter-day Saints in general) fault that they've been the only ones willing to hold the Book of Mormon up to the standards of scholarship. For most converted Mormons, scholarly discussion will add little to their understanding of their faith, as that is based on faith, spiritual feeling, and so on. So for that reason, Mormons don't fear unfavourable scholarly findings. Scholarship and knowledge evolve, and what we knew 100 years ago has moved on, and will continue to, so Mormons are quite happy to wait for new discoveries to catch up with what we already know to be true.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The problem is, Mormons are so used to vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry that there's a conditioned reflex action. Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to argue scholarship, largely because they don't actually do any, but resort to long-discredited arguments, recycled over and over, even after they've been thoroughly refuted.
This type of argument makes me furious. While I have no doubt that there are small, very vocal groups of people that truly hate Mormons, most people feel quite indifferent. There are many, many sources that list factual information about Mormons that is not always positive. While there is no way to undoubtedly prove that a religion is false, there is a great deal of valid, factual information that can discourage people from joining the Mormon faith. This is not "vindictive, hate-filled attacks based on prjudice, laziness, lies and flat out bigotry", it's valid information that raises valid questions about the Mormon faith. I've never been to FARMS, but I frequent fairlds.org to give me a different perspective on information that seems negative about the Mormon faith. I think that such sites provide decent explanations about how the factual information can be true and the Mormon faith can be true. In other words, I think that both sides can use reason and logic to present their cases. What it all comes down to is what Zalmoxis said- faith.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Cashew: That's not how "peer review" is generally understood.
I'm not going to say that the peer review process is infallible or un-biased and depoliticized, but I do think that on the whole Mormon Studies could benefit from more peer review.
Your point about the lack of academics willing or able to provide such review is important.
However, I think that another key to the problem -- one that folks in the field can actually control to a certain extent -- is that too little self-policing has done to help improve credibility. Of course, I completely understand that many Mormon fora are going to engage in politics and polemics for/or against the Church/doctrine/culture/leadership.
I don't know a minority group that doesn't have the same problem. All I'm saying is that Mormon scholars haven't always acted in the interests of the field. And again -- things are starting to change (for the better) in my opinion.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Amancer:
quote:it's valid information that raises valid questions about the Mormon faith
I'm not calling you out on this so don't feel obligated to respond, but I'd be genuinely interested on what these sources are. From what I know [which granted isn't exhaustive -- my interests in Mormon-related scholarship is in creative works -- not in history and theology], there are *very* few people compiling such information or rasing such questions that don't have a dog in the fight.
Which isn't to say that all such sources are completely *invalid* or the questions raised aren't good questions -- but the overall frame of inquiry tends to be either apologetic or adversarial (even when it bears a scholarly imprint).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's not FARMS' (or Latter-day Saints in general) fault that they've been the only ones willing to hold the Book of Mormon up to the standards of scholarship."
This is not quite true -- especially if you concede that FARMS does not in fact hold up the Book of Mormon to the standards of scholarship, but rather in its own mission statement declares their faith in its authenticity. There have been numerous non-Mormon scholarly studies of the historical claims in the Book of Mormon (and even more that would seek to obliquely address those claims, like studies of Western societies on the American continent), and none of them seem to bear out any of its unique assertions. Whether this is because God is deliberately hiding evidence of the BoM's truth from anyone who hasn't already accepted the faith, or whether it is for some other reason, the simple fact is that the Book of Mormon has failed to stand up -- as far as I am aware -- to every single bit of independent research done on its historicity and/or authenticity.
That there have not been enormously long lines of non-Mormon scholars queuing up to spend years guessing what Smith might have really meant by the word "horse" is not evidence of scientific disinterest.
[ November 17, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: there are *very* few people compiling such information or rasing such questions that don't have a dog in the fight.
I'm sure you're right on this, but when both sides agree about the facts of an issue, but come to different conclusions, it seems fair to believe the facts. About a month or two ago, I decided to start researching Mormon theology and history. I did this mainly through internet searches and then compared findings with imformation on fairlds.org. To my suprise, FAIR addressed just about all of the issues that I could find. I don't know how you would define scholarly, but since they both use the same facts and then use different reasoning to come to different conclusions, the facts don't seem to be in question. And several of those facts do raise questions. For example, the Book of Mormon clearly refers to wheels, horses, iron, and elephants being in the Americas. A good deal of scholarly research has discovered none of these. That certainly does not disprove that it's true, and sites like FAIR have suggested several possible reasons as to why there is a lack of evidence. All the same, it is understandable how somebody could look at this information, and with no malice in their hearts, believe it constitutes proof against the Mormon faith. Again, I think the issue comes back to faith. I was simply angered by the sentiment that all things that question the Mormon church were hate filled and had no bearing in reality.
Zalmoxis, I don't want to continue this on the forum, because I think that many good people would be offended. If you want me to e-mail you the specific sites and issues that I'm referring to, please let me know and I'll e-mail them to you.
*Edit* In addition to fairlds.org, I also appreciated JeffLindsay.com. I think both do an excellent job of addressing the factual concerns that non-mormons have with the faith.
[ November 17, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
it's not the sources of valid information that may be unfaviurable i was referring to in my post, it was rabid anti-Mormons, which is what I said.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
A-cer:
Thanks for responding. My e-mail address is in my profile. I'd be interested in looking at where your doing your research.
Although -- honestly, I find the Book of Mormon historicity debates rather uninteresting.
I believe in the text as a believer. But I also regard the Book of Mormon as a translation and expect to find the same issues that one would find in any translation (even one aided by divine authority).
[Note: obviously this doesn't explain or explain away the historical issues you raise -- I just think that the debates that center around apologetics tend to capture what's least interesting about Mormonism as a theology and a historical movement].
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Just saw your edit: as I believe I've mentioned before on Hatrack, what I like about Jeff Lindsay is that he actually has a sense of humour (something rare in apologetics, in my experience). I honestly haven't read much of his stuff -- just skimmed through his site and generally take a look at this blog posts -- but his writing style is a cut above most apologetists, I think.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote: the simple fact is that the Book of Mormon has failed to stand up -- as far as I am aware -- to every single bit of independent research done on its historicity and/or authenticity
A major reason for that (accepting that it's true) is that those studies have assumed it was a product of the Western frontier of 1830. If you're going to test something you have to measure it against the background it claims for itself, and the only ones that have been doing that have been Mormon scholars.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you're going to test something you have to measure it against the background it claims for itself..."
I'm not sure why the existence of horses in meso-American society relies on "background."
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Not to get back on the original topic or anything, but I picked up the Doubleday edition today. It's actually quite attractive, and looks nice on my shelf.
It includes the same introductory notes as the Church edition (as well as the reports of the witnesses and Title Page, of course). The text is typeset in a different font, but the chapter and section headings remain - but since the footnotes were all removes, the approximate date footers now follow the chapter headings.
The appendeces are arranged differently, and isn't as exhaustive, I think, as the Church edition. Apart from the same pronunciation guide, it has a few special headings in the index for JESUS CHRIST, DOCTRINES, PEOPLE, and PLACES AND EVENTS.
I like this arrangement, and think that for non-members interested in a quick-find, this is a great decision. Heck, even members could find it useful, and a little less cumbersome than the Church Edition Index.
Doubleday has produced a fine work, and I'm interested in seeing if this has any effect on nationwide awareness and readership.
[ November 17, 2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Thanks for the report Taalcon.
Question: how gold is the cover? Is it shiny? I hope not. It didn't look that way from the cover image released, but I read a news story that suggested that it was gold gold.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Nah, it's not reflective shiny, it's quite muted. It looks nice.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Did you guys see the missionary edition of the B/M that came out in the early 80s. It was a representation of the gold plates with the characters on them. SHINY gold, very tacky looking, a bit embarrasing really.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)