What's new
By:

So I want to talk about the Mormons

Stoked said:
Why does a Mormon have to be Momorn and an African American an African America. Can't they just be Americans and that's it?
Click to expand...

The ability to change belongs to the people empowered by the social structure. Calling yourself an American doesn't stop people from checking you for horns. Calling yourself an American doesn't stop police from pulling you over based on skin color. When it happens a few times, you can shrug it off. When it's a daily thing, it's a problem with society.
 
One Brow said:
The ability to change belongs to the people empowered by the social structure. Calling yourself an American doesn't stop people from checking you for horns. Calling yourself an American doesn't stop police from pulling you over based on skin color. When it happens a few times, you can shrug it off. When it's a daily thing, it's a problem with society.
Click to expand...

It is a societal problem but adding to it does not help. We are all still responsible for or own actions and choices. If you choose to act in a way that is counter productive then that is on you.
 
colton said:
I don't know what other books you should compare it to, but if imitating Hebrew idioms is something that would happen "automatically", then surely you can find at least one. No?
Click to expand...

Even today, among religious people whose only book is the KJV, I hear anachronisms like "thee" and "thou" when they are trying to evoke Scriptural authority or make paraphrases of Scripture. Since the KJV was the only widely published Bible (AFAIK) in the US at the time, it would have been what Smith thought of as religious literature. When dictating religious literature, it's usage is what he would have gone to. This is true whether his translations (you just said he had significant personal flexibility in the translation process) were real, hallucinatory, or faked; he used what he thought of as religious language. I'm not sure why you think this is controversial.

colton said:
As to what I am claiming, I said that in my earlier post: when taken as a whole, the nature and extent of Hebrew idioms, language structures, and poetry, are pretty convincing evidence to me of the Hebrew nature of the source text. I'm not saying that it will be convincing evidence to everyone, so it doesn't surprise me at all that it's not convincing to you. But it is to me.
Click to expand...

No problem. It seems to me a lot like The Bible Code, but I certainly don't expect you to see it that way.

colton said:
Sure, lds.org is the official LDS church website. Should be reliable. And actually, surprisingly enough you've stumbled across a part of the website I didn't even realize existed (history.lds.org).
Click to expand...

Happy to offer a positive contribution.

colton said:
No need to get snippy.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I'm take it the LDS today think divining rods are nothing but superstition?
 
Stoked said:
It is a societal problem but adding to it does not help. We are all still responsible for or own actions and choices. If you choose to act in a way that is counter productive then that is on you.
Click to expand...

Many people find it more productive than counter-productive.
 
One Brow said:
When I'm wrong, I learn something. That is fun.

If mellow says he has a certain skin color, I'm not going to say he's lying. Why would he bother?
Click to expand...

His skin color has nothing to do with who is in his life and who is important to him. In my family there are blacks, whites, hispanics and an asian. Me being white had no effect on that.
 
Stoked said:
His skin color has nothing to do with who is in his life and who is important to him. In my family there are blacks, whites, hispanics and an asian. Me being white had no effect on that.
Click to expand...

You really think your skin color has no effect on how others see you? It's affected everything, right from the start, including your ability to deny it has any effect.

Stoked said:
Because it accomplishes want they want. They want seperation.
Click to expand...

That's an odd way to spell "recognition".
 
One Brow said:
Even today, among religious people whose only book is the KJV, I hear anachronisms like "thee" and "thou" when they are trying to evoke Scriptural authority or make paraphrases of Scripture. Since the KJV was the only widely published Bible (AFAIK) in the US at the time, it would have been what Smith thought of as religious literature. When dictating religious literature, it's usage is what he would have gone to. This is true whether his translations (you just said he had significant personal flexibility in the translation process) were real, hallucinatory, or faked; he used what he thought of as religious language. I'm not sure why you think this is controversial.
Click to expand...

Several points:
(a) not all of the items I listed are found in the KJV.
(b) some of those are found, but were not recognized until well after Smith. Chiasmus is probably the most cited example of this.
(c) there's a wide gulf between simple word substitutions like thee/thou and being able to properly using idioms, especially ones that you don't even consciously know about. I'm fairly fluent in German, having lived 7 years of my life in Germany and Austria, but even though I could easily write a book in English using periodic German vocabulary words properly, I don't think there's any way I could write a book in English that contains dozens of properly-used Germanic idioms.
(d) many people in Joseph Smith's day pointed to these idioms as evidence the book was NOT from God, because of all of the English language errors they created. So it wasn't apparent to those people (who would have had the same background as Smith) that this was "automatically proper scriptural language".

Sorry. I'm take it the LDS today think divining rods are nothing but superstition?
Click to expand...

Safe bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top