LDS

[Spindrift]

Small wonder that Shakespearean expert Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a "religious genius."

I'm not sure that's really a compliment.

 

[tsig]

I did not mean to criticize or otherwise demean Janadele when I made my comment. We are long-time cyberspace friends, and I admire and respect her.

I remain a faithful, lifelong Latter-day Saint even while acknowledging difficulties involving my faith's sacred works. If those difficulties did not exist, why would the Church find it expedient to mount a multi-faceted apologetic effort?

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA. The internal consistency of the BoM is, by itself, a marvel, virtually astonishing (and achieved without benefit of computerized word processing). Small wonder that Shakespearean expert Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a "religious genius."

One more thought to consider: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" --Ninth Article of Faith

If god still has things to tell us wouldn't it be better to wait til he tells us these things before joining any church? For all we know he might say that the Muslims are the only ones who got it right.

 

[halleyscomet]

If god still has things to tell us wouldn't it be better to wait til he tells us these things before joining any church? For all we know he might say that the Muslims are the only ones who got it right.

Muslims are pretty much saying exactly that by being Muslim. As I understand it, part of the idea is that God had Muhammad write a holy text that corrected the errors found in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Any Muslim worth his salt is going to assert the same kind of spiritual relevance and revelation is to be found in the Koran that skyrider44 asserts he / she finds in the Mormon texts. That's one of the problems with claiming "spiritual" or "moral" guidance as evidence for a holy text's accuracy. Everyone makes the same claim for the holy texts of their religion.

 

[skyrider44]

That insight is going to be highly personal. I never found any insight in any of the Mormon holy texts.

You can speak only for yourself.

: Sighting their spiritual value as a mitigating factor with regard to their dubious origins is not a useful defense unless one is speaking to the faithful. It's an apologetic argument that reassures Mormons, but is meaningless to non-Mormons or Mormons who are struggling with difficult questions.

There is truth in what you say. It would be refreshing, however, if critics were to recognize that Joseph Smith had some commendable qualities and accomplished some commendable things. Such an admission would enhance critics' credibility.

: What spiritual insights can you get from the Mormon holy texts you can't get from, for example, Buddhism Without Beliefs?

I am not familiar with the work you cite, but I doubt that it explains the three degrees of glory . . . ordinances performed in LDS temples for the dead . . .
Christ's visit to this hemisphere . . . the eternal destiny of children who die before the age of eight . . . the consecration of oil for use in administering to the sick . . . the continuation of the family unit post-mortality, etc.

: Not really, as the dominant theory on its authorship is not that it was compiled by numerous writers as implied by the text, but written completely by Smith himself.

A "dominant theory" is just that--a theory.

: Your mention of computerized word processing is perplexing, as you don't need a word processor to achieve internal consistency in a story.

If the story is extremely complex, if it involves references to dozens (and dozens) of places, persons, events, points of doctrine, and time periods, computerized word processsing would be invaluable.

: Clarity of thought, some proofreading and basic editing can achieve the same results. A few contradictions have crept through however.

In a short, uncomplicated composition, yes; in a work comparable to the BoM, no.

: Periodic editing and updated editions certainly helps maintain the illusion of internal consistency.

Oh, yes, the "3,000 changes" canard. Virtually all of the changes made in the BoM have involved punctuation and spelling. (As I recall, the Tanners finally admitted as much.) Note that spelling wasn't standardized in Joseph Smith's day.

: You might want to go back and read up on Bloom's "Praise" of Smith. Being called a better con artist than the existing Protestant denominations isn't exactly a compliment. His "praise" was part of a larger discussion regarding the various Protestant splinter groups that originated in the Americas. It was more rah-rah about American ingenuity than anything strictly complimentary about Smith.

None of which changes the fact that Bloom called Joseph Smith "a religious genius." To my knowledge, Bloom never retracted that statement. The diversionary information you present cannot change what Bloom said.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I remain a faithful, lifelong Latter-day Saint even while acknowledging difficulties involving my faith's sacred works. If those difficulties did not exist, why would the Church find it expedient to mount a multi-faceted apologetic effort?

Because they want to convince people, including themselves, that those difficulties are something other than indications of Joseph Smith's invention of Mormonism.

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA.

Such as? The Harry Potter series and the Lord Of The Rings trilogy have some inspiring themes regarding friendship, loyalty, and standing up for what is right whatever the cost. I don't think this makes the books any less likely to be works of fiction.

The internal consistency of the BoM is, by itself, a marvel, virtually astonishing (and achieved without benefit of computerized word processing).

How is it a virtually astonishing marvel? Wasn't it all written by the same author? The world of Middle Earth is extremely detailed and consistent, and Tolkien wrote it without benefit of electronic assistance.

Small wonder that Shakespearean expert Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a "religious genius."

By that he meant that Smith was a better inventor and promoter of doctrine than most of his his contemporaries. He wasn't saying that Smith was a real prophet. Many people referred to Richard J. Daley as a political genius, but it didn't necessarily mean that they liked him

One more thought to consider: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" --Ninth Article of Faith

That's actually a very common thing in many religions today. It's a way of avoiding evidence that points to one's beliefs being based on falsehoods.

"Our sacred translation of the ancient text of God's message of love to us may have been discovered to actually say, 'WARNING: Choking hazard - Small parts not for children under 3 years or any individuals who have a tendency to place inedible objects in their mouths', but the sacred translation of the other ancient text assures us that anything that makes our religion look fishy will eventually be explained to our satisfaction as long as we're patient and don't waver."

 

[Cleon]

I did not mean to criticize or otherwise demean Janadele when I made my comment. We are long-time cyberspace friends, and I admire and respect her.

I remain a faithful, lifelong Latter-day Saint even while acknowledging difficulties involving my faith's sacred works. If those difficulties did not exist, why would the Church find it expedient to mount a multi-faceted apologetic effort?

I didn't take it as a slight against Janadele. But while you accept the problems with the scripture, Janadele either ignores them, pretends they don't exist, or accuses people of repeating "anti-Mormon propaganda."

I think this could be a learning moment for her, if nothing else to improve her evangelizing skills.

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA.

Spiritual insight is in the eye of the beholder; it can be found anywhere, or nowhere. I mean, people find it in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, for crying out loud.

The internal consistency of the BoM is, by itself, a marvel, virtually astonishing (and achieved without benefit of computerized word processing).

That may be impressive to one who already believes, but to an outsider it's not a very compelling statement.

But let's accept the claim at face value, for the sake of argument. Let's suppose that the Book of Mormon is the most internally consistent piece of the pre-typewriter, pre-word-processor era. I would have to ask myself if that consistency outweighs the fact that the world it describes is unsupported and even contradicted by the archaeological, historical, and biological records.

I can only conclude that it's more likely that a man wrote a compelling book than it is that widespread steel-making technology and barley completely vanished from the archaeological record, or that an entire civilization's genetic markers disappeared completely from their descendants.

Repeating the exercise for the Book of Abraham, I'd have to ask myself if any wisdom to be found within outweighed all the evidence that it's a fraud. If you were in my shoes, what would you conclude?

One more thought to consider: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" --Ninth Article of Faith

That just seems like a fancy way of saying "we may change our beliefs later." Which is great; changing beliefs as new information comes along is a wonderful thing. However, I maintain that divine revelation through (flawed) human beings is a poor way to go about it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You can speak only for yourself.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he just said.

There is truth in what you say. It would be refreshing, however, if critics were to recognize that Joseph Smith had some commendable qualities and accomplished some commendable things. Such an admission would enhance critics' credibility.

Oh I'm sure Smith had some good qualities. He certainly was charismatic. But we aren't writing his biography here. We're addressing his claims. Just because he helped little old ladies across the street or helped his neighbor move doesn't mitigate the obviously spurious elements of his religious claims.

I am not familiar with the work you cite, but I doubt that it explains the three degrees of glory . . . ordinances performed in LDS temples for the dead . . .
Christ's visit to this hemisphere . . . the eternal destiny of children who die before the age of eight . . . the consecration of oil for use in administering to the sick . . . the continuation of the family unit post-mortality, etc.

How are those insightful? They sound just like all the other made-up platitudes in virtually every religion. Why would any non-Mormon look at those and conclude that they were special?

A "dominant theory" is just that--a theory.

You might want to go over the scholarly definition of that word. I could swear we already have, but it may have been someone else I'm thinking of.

If the story is extremely complex, if it involves references to dozens (and dozens) of places, persons, events, points of doctrine, and time periods, computerized word processsing would be invaluable.

Lord Of The Rings, Dune, John Carter Of Mars, War And Peace, À la recherche du temps perdu, The Man Without Qualities... Seriously, people have been writing complicated stories without benefit of digital media for many centuries.

In a short, uncomplicated composition, yes; in a work comparable to the BoM, no.

Yes.

Oh, yes, the "3,000 changes" canard. Virtually all of the changes made in the BoM have involved punctuation and spelling. (As I recall, the Tanners finally admitted as much.) Note that spelling wasn't standardized in Joseph Smith's day.

Which of the changes weren't for grammar and spelling?

None of which changes the fact that Bloom called Joseph Smith "a religious genius." To my knowledge, Bloom never retracted that statement. The diversionary information you present cannot change what Bloom said.

Who's trying to change what he said? Calling him a "religious genius" specifically implies that he was the source of Mormonism, rather than a humble messenger of God's choosing.

 

[RandFan]

I did not mean to criticize or otherwise demean Janadele when I made my comment. We are long-time cyberspace friends, and I admire and respect her.

I remain a faithful, lifelong Latter-day Saint even while acknowledging difficulties involving my faith's sacred works. If those difficulties did not exist, why would the Church find it expedient to mount a multi-faceted apologetic effort?

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA. The internal consistency of the BoM is, by itself, a marvel, virtually astonishing (and achieved without benefit of computerized word processing). Small wonder that Shakespearean expert Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a "religious genius."

One more thought to consider: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" --Ninth Article of Faith

Hey Skyrider,

Let's grant the premise with a slight modification. How about spiritual/transcendent/numinous/moral/philosophical insight? My definition of "spiritual" is likely a bit different than yours. As a monist I don't subscribe to souls or spirits. Though I often have what the religious might call spiritual/transcendent/numinous experiences.

Your argument, even if we grant the premise, would seem to non-Mormons ad hoc. Many of us have heard the same about the Koran, the Gita's the Biblical apochrapha, etc.. I've read the Koran and some of the Apocrypha and selections of the Bhagavad Gita, writings of the Buddha and other sacred texts. I won't disparage the BoM at this time but I will say I don't find anything particularly novel or numinous. Christ's visit to the New World is probably the work that moved me the most. In part because I saw the dramatic movie and panorama at the SLC Temple Visitor Center (BTW, IRC, the movie took artistic license to add drama, the darkness had lifted before Christs appearance, I could be wrong). Beyond that, some of the stories are interesting but not, IMO, great works of literature. And, FTR, when it comes to philosophy, the NT is not particularly novel either. The Jesus Seminar has established that most of the words attributed to Christ predate his purported birth.

If humans are capable of writing novels like; To Kill A Mockingbird, Slaughter House Five, 1984, Animal Farm, The Sun Also Rises, the works of Plato... I could list dozens of works that I have personally read that I think are as poetic and/or insightful, if not more so than either Western or Eastern sacred texts. In fact, if one assumes a divine origin behind these famous religious texts then they are somewhat disappointing.

What kind of merciful being would order the suffering and/or death of humans? When I was a believer I came to find much of the Bible and parts of the BoM downright disturbing. God could have made a copy of the Brass Plates of Laban without having to kill Laban.

I hate to say it but I honestly don't think that the BoM has contributed much novel wisdom or insight to the world outside of Mormonism. The Bible was not always novel but it did provide a historical narrative (even if many of the facts behind that narrative were false) and it helped spread Western philosophy throughout the world though it also contributed to the sentiments that destroyed the Library at Alexandria and helped push us into a period of static social, technological and moral progress (the Dark Ages).

Could you provide some insight from the BoM that you think pertinent?

 

[Foster Zygote]

But let's accept the claim at face value, for the sake of argument. Let's suppose that the Book of Mormon is the most internally consistent piece of the pre-typewriter, pre-word-processor era.

I wonder how word processing is supposed to reduce plot holes and internal inconsistencies in modern writing? It's not like people were only writing short works until Joseph Smith came along and everyone was rendered dumbstruck by the unprecedented length of the BoM, only to succeed in writing works of comparable length and complexity with the advent of modern word processing. And it's not like computers are to the point where the annoying paper clip pops up and says "I noticed that you wrote some present tense dialog for Bob Martin, whom you killed off six chapters ago...".

 

[halleyscomet]

There is truth in what you say. It would be refreshing, however, if critics were to recognize that Joseph Smith had some commendable qualities and accomplished some commendable things. Such an admission would enhance critics' credibility.

Requiring an explicit admission that the faithful find meaning in a religion is fairly absurd. Of COURSE you find meaning in your faith, be it religious, social or cultural. If you didn't, why would you follow it? Of COURSE you don't think Smith was a con artist who invented a fake religion so he could marry multiple underage girls. You would reject his teachings if you did.

Requiring such an admission of Smith's critics is like demeaning a chemist first admit water is wet before debating fluoridation with her.

I am not familiar with the work you cite, but I doubt that it explains the three degrees of glory . . . ordinances performed in LDS temples for the dead . . .
Christ's visit to this hemisphere . . . the eternal destiny of children who die before the age of eight . . . the consecration of oil for use in administering to the sick . . . the continuation of the family unit post-mortality, etc.

Are you trying to deny that people with different beliefs derive meaning from their faith just as strongly as you derive meaning from yours?

People with other beliefs find equal meaning in their own rituals.

Have you ever considered becoming a Freemason? If you find the Mormon rituals so moving, then you'd gain a similar benefit from Freemason rituals, seeing as how Smith plagiarized a lot of them.

If the story is extremely complex, if it involves references to dozens (and dozens) of places, persons, events, points of doctrine, and time periods, computerized word processsing would be invaluable.

Valuable but not necessary.

In a short, uncomplicated composition, yes; in a work comparable to the BoM, no.

Nonsense. That's an absurd assertion with no basis in reality. It may very well be the single most absurd claim I've read in this entire thread. Mention has already been made of the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, both of which were written by one man without the aid of computers. Your claim that no one could write a book as complex and allegedly contradiction free as the BoM without a computer is a bald faced lie.

The BoM is about 268,163 words. Moby Dick is 212,758. Are you going to assert that Moby Dick must be of divine origin? It's far more historically accurate than the Book of Mormon. There's actual evidence to support the book's description of how whaling was conducted. It's internally consistent.

Or is the 55,405 word difference the tipping point between needing a computer and not needing a computer?

None of which changes the fact that Bloom called Joseph Smith "a religious genius." To my knowledge, Bloom never retracted that statement. The diversionary information you present cannot change what Bloom said.

No, but the information I provided demonstrates he didn't mean it as a compliment. I don't know why you cling so dogmatically to the words of a man who considers you a fool and a dupe because of your religion. He admired Smith's skill as a religious con man, just as he admired the skill of the founders of the Jehovah's Witness cult. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

 

[deaman]

the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA.

Would you please list three remarkable spiritual insights found in the BoM?

Thank you.

 

[Pup]

I am not familiar with the work you cite, but I doubt that it explains the three degrees of glory . . . ordinances performed in LDS temples for the dead . . .
Christ's visit to this hemisphere . . . the eternal destiny of children who die before the age of eight . . . the consecration of oil for use in administering to the sick . . . the continuation of the family unit post-mortality, etc.

If you're claiming that those things are true and other religions/writers have missed them, that's circular reasoning, of course. Every religion has its own unique beliefs which it claims are true and missing from other religions.

While the LDS religion needs its own unique beliefs to set it apart from others, I don't see that that in itself makes it better than other religions, just different, like all religions are different from each other. If they weren't, people would just join an already-existing one rather than start their own.

If the story is extremely complex, if it involves references to dozens (and dozens) of places, persons, events, points of doctrine, and time periods, computerized word processsing would be invaluable.

I think that's the kind of thing that would make someone call Smith a genius, in addition to his ability to stick with the religion, gain converts, keep himself in power, and create a religion that not only survived his death but grew.

I don't see though that a "religious genius" or any similar use of the word "genius" is necessarily good or bad for the world. A "marketing genius," for example, can sell a lot of widgets but it doesn't mean that people benefit from spending their money on those widgets. It just means someone is really good at what they do.

None of which changes the fact that Bloom called Joseph Smith "a religious genius." To my knowledge, Bloom never retracted that statement. The diversionary information you present cannot change what Bloom said.

Almost by definition, anyone who founds a major religion is a religious genius. I'm not sure why that's such a compliment that it needs to be desperately clung too. In hindsight, it's easy to look back to iconically successful people and call them X geniuses. Henry Ford was an industrial genius. Louis Pasteur was a medical genius. Elvis Presley was a musical genius. Thomas Jefferson was a political genius. (note careful avoidance of Godwinning the thread). I'd say that Mary Baker Eddy, Mother Ann Lee, Swedenborg, Wesley, etc. were religious geniuses too.

 

[deaman]

I remember when I believed the book of Mormon to be true. In wanting to convert others I wanted to show them the historical record of the peoples in the BofM.

I decided to look up Nephites and Laminites in history, assuming of course they would be easy to find, after all I believed they were real.

Nope. No mention of any such people, anywhere I looked.

I enquired with someone who was an expert in historical South America .

Nope, no mention of any such people. Never heard of any such people. No records at all.

Hmm.........

 

[Kopji]

The 'infallible Prophet' angle is a little more slippery than that. Consider that if the Pope puts on mismatched socks it doesn't call into question the entire Catholic Church. (At least, it does not get much traction among believers).

So no, while it might seem obvious to unbelievers, believers don't really think like this. Mormonism tends to see a prophetic ability as something that is a potential within everyone. The 'Prophet' of the church perhaps is infallible as a leader of the church, but not always when speaking or acting in other contexts. Also, (and I'm reaching a little here because there are definite differences between the LDS sects) - a Prophet might speak only to a certain people, time, and place - not universally. What was said then might not apply now.

For Utah LDS, an example of this might be allowing blacks into the Priesthood, for RLDS, it might mean that proxy baptism (aka 'baptism for the dead') is not practiced even though it is accepted that it was a tenet of the Church in Joseph Smiths time. Also, there is a non-canonical 'revelation' generally known as the 'Civil War Prophecy'. Worth reading in the sense that it was wrong - the US Civil War did not precipitate the end of the world.

A productive tack might be to look at the 'anti-banking' scandal in Kirtland during 1837. The church essentially created a bank to print money for itself. If such a fiasco were indeed the result of a 'revelation', that would be a false prophet type of evidence with more weight.

 

[skyrider44]

Requiring such an admission of Smith's critics is like demeaning a chemist first admit water is wet before debating fluoridation with her.

". . . demeaning a chemist . . . ."? I assume you meant to say "demanding."
That aside, I have demanded nothing of Smith's critics except that they employ at least a measure of fairness and balance in evaluating him. Is that asking too much?

: Are you trying to deny that people with different beliefs derive meaning from their faith just as strongly as you derive meaning from yours?

That's a remarkably creative--and remarkably erroneous--interpretation.

: People with other beliefs find equal meaning in their own rituals.

You have stated a revelation of the obvious.

" Have you ever considered becoming a Freemason? If you find the Mormon rituals so moving, then you'd gain a similar benefit from Freemason rituals, seeing as how Smith plagiarized a lot of them.

It's true that Joseph Smith was a 32-degree Mason. Was he influenced by Freemasonry? Probably. Your use of the phrase "plagiarized a lot of them" is, however, less than responsible.

: Nonsense. That's an absurd assertion with no basis in reality. It may very well be the single most absurd claim I've read in this entire thread. Mention has already been made of the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, both of which were written by one man without the aid of computers.

J. R. R. Tolkien was born 87 years after Joseph Smith and lived until 1973. He was well educated, serving as professor of Anglo-Saxon and, later, as professor of English Language and Literature, both at Oxford, for a total of 34 years. He had access to what was probably one of the finest libraries in the world. What resources did Joseph Smith have? What academic background did he have? Where did he live (rural environment). Here you accuse me of making what "very well [may] be the single most absurd claim [you've] read in this entire thread," while you claim that Tolkien and Smith were on an equal playing field. Moreover, how long did it take Tolkien to write The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? How long did it take J. S. to translate the BoM?

: Your claim that no one could write a book as complex and allegedly contradiction free as the BoM without a computer is a bald faced lie.

I don't recall saying that "no one" could do it. Whether I did or not, I am not given to telling lies. You might consider being more circumspect.

: The BoM is about 268,163 words. Moby Dick is 212,758. Are you going to assert that Moby Dick must be of divine origin?

Is it your practice to ask absurd questions?

: Or is the 55,405 word difference the tipping point between needing a computer and not needing a computer?

Apparently, it is your practice to ask absurd questions.

: No, but the information I provided demonstrates he didn't mean it as a compliment. I don't know why you cling so dogmatically to the words of a man who considers you a fool and a dupe because of your religion.

I haven't had the honor of meeting Harold Bloom (too late now).

: He admired Smith's skill as a religious con man, just as he admired the skill of the founders of the Jehovah's Witness cult.

That may well be, but Bloom didn't call J.S. a "religious con man"; he called him a "religious genius."

 

[Olowkow]

Harold Bloom is 83 according to Wiki.

He warned of Romney's intent concerning a Mormon theocracy before the election in a Deseret News article.

"Had I been a nineteenth-century American and not Jewish I would probably have become a Mormon . . . "

Mormons are somewhat fond of quoting Yale professor Harold Bloom when he refers to the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an "authentic religious genius."

....
But Mormons are not as likely to quote Bloom's opinion piece in the New York Times on Saturday titled, "Will This Election Be the Mormon Breakthrough?" where he calls the LDS Church a "knowledge-hungry religious zealotry" and its leaders "plutocratic oligarchs."

Bloom, from the NYT piece linked above:

Though I read Christopher Hitchens with pleasure, his characterization of Joseph Smith as “a fraud and conjuror” is inadequate. A superb trickster and protean personality, Smith was a religious genius, uniquely able to craft a story capable of turning a self-invented faith into a people now as numerous as the Jews, in America and abroad.

 

[Olowkow]

In the event that the Mormon believers in this thread may have missed the point, the link that related the quote by Bloom calling Smith a "religious genius", was to an LDS site. The following quotes are from that site:

As Moroni prophesied, Joseph Smith’s name has been spoken of for both good and ill. Today, some outside the Church are beginning to look at the Prophet in new light.

As prophesied by Moroni, the Prophet’s name has indeed been had for good and evil. For decades his detractors have played the same themes over and over, and they will undoubtedly continue to do so. But in recent years there have been some scholars who have attempted to more fairly weigh Joseph Smith and his work.

Thus Harold Bloom, a Yale humanities professor, looked at what Joseph Smith accomplished and called him, in a 1993 book, an “authentic religious genius.”

Given the fact that Bloom continued his "praise" of Smith with the words "protean, and trickster", and that he suggested that Hitchens' characterization of Smith as a fraud was "inadequate", were I a believer, I would feel that I had been lied to in the article on the Mormon site. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Pixel42]

Producers of rubbish plays and films have been known to take a word or two from a scathing review and quote it out of context to give the impression the critic liked it. So "It's amazing how bad this film is" becomes ""Amazing" - The Times" on the billboard. Looks like Mormon apologists also know that trick.

Still waiting for a single example of spiritual insight from the BoM.

 

[Pixel42]

Incidentally I hope this ...

I am not familiar with the work you cite, but I doubt that it explains the three degrees of glory . . . ordinances performed in LDS temples for the dead . . .
Christ's visit to this hemisphere . . . the eternal destiny of children who die before the age of eight . . . the consecration of oil for use in administering to the sick . . . the continuation of the family unit post-mortality, etc.

... isn't supposed to be examples of spiritual insight from the BoM. Examples of stuff made up to make the church more appealing to potential converts would be a better description. Some of it is certainly very effective at doing so - the idea that Jesus visited America was a masterstroke - though not all. The baptism of the dead into a church they would never have chosen in life has infuriated millions of people and is one of the main reasons (along with the inbuilt racism and sexism) that the LDS is held in such contempt by so many people.

 

[Olowkow]

Another example of what I would call deception comes from the same LDS piece I mentioned earlier. “Good and Evil Spoken Of by Edwin O. Haroldsen.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/08/good-and-evil-spoken-of?lang=eng#pop_001-95908_000_004

Douglas F. Tobler, a professor of European history at BYU, points out that over the past several years some scholars in Europe, too, have begun to examine the teachings of Joseph Smith objectively. The late Ernst Wilhelm Benz, for example, a longtime professor of church history and dogma at the University of Marburg in Germany, told his fellow scholars that it was high time for theologians to give up traditional prejudices and begin to take American theology and theologians—including Joseph Smith—seriously. 11

It turns out that Herr Benz has been "late" for the last 35 years, and he had joined the Nazi Party in 1937. Why would anyone care what he had to say about religion in 2013 America? This is a Google translation of a German Wiki article on Ernst Wilhelm Benz.

It is obvious that this LDS writer merely digs for quotes by anyone who says anything remotely interpretable as flattering to the Mormon cause, and then massages it, sycophantically paring it to attract the approval of his pretty much servile, uncritical audience. To my mind, "over the past several years" does not line up semantically with "dead for 35 years"--a nice way of saying prevarication. Frankly, it's just flat out dishonest writing.

This is the sort of infuriating drivel that a lot of politicians, religious dogmatists, or apologists like the "creation science folks", spew out just to gain and keep followers, which, upon subsequent exposure by their "enemies", often becomes just another rallying point for crying foul.

They insult their own readers by assuming that they are either just too dull or lacking in skeptical thinking skills to bother checking the author's claims. It's not even necessary to engage in quoting "anti Mormon" literature to defeat these people--truth is their enemy.




http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/08/good-and-evil-spoken-of?lang=eng#footnote11-95908_000_004