LDS

[Belz...]

Yes, but perhaps not why one might think. In his book, The Community of Mind, Marvin Minsky argues that the mind is hodge podge of mental modules. Susan Blackmore argues that we think of as our conscience is an illusion, not that it doesn't exist, but that it isn't what we think it is. There is lots of empirical evidence but to date the Split Brain experiments remain, IMO, the most compelling.

Oh, I'm very well aware of this, and I find it absolutely fascinating. What we are is in reality a collection of interconnected minds who don't even agree with each other. Truly remarkable.

 

[Wolrab]

That has nothing to do with evaluating the BoM on its merits as literature.

Mark Twain pegged it 140 years ago.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason"

 

[Empress]

Mark Twain pegged it 140 years ago.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

Precisely. It's a badly-written Bible fanfic. Perhaps the writing isn't as bad as it might have been, considering the age and ignorance of it's author, but that doesn't make it good.

First skyrider tells us their are insights in it, regardless of the (lack of) factual nature; now he's changed that to simply trying to discuss it as literature, since he doesn't care to tell us what those insights are, and no one else can identify them.

I've read it, I think three times. I was required to as a child. I found it boring then, and I find it laughable now. The book is factually incorrect on so many levels that to consider it useful as an sort of history is preposterous. Yet as literature it is derivative, dull, and uninspired. Many great books have been lost to time, and deserve to be rediscovered and widely-read as the wonderful literature that they are. The Book of Mormon should be forgotten. Quickly.

 

[deaman]

And yet the LDS have the audacity to call it, The Most Perfect Book.

OMG! (No pun intended.)

 

[pakeha]

Dunno, deamon.
After all, the BoM has elephants.

 

[bruto]

Mark Twain pegged it 140 years ago.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

Yea verily.

Editing to add: if we're simply to look at it as literature, we're in the wrong forum here. Let's go over to History, Literature and the Arts if our job here is done.

 

[RandFan]

And yet the LDS have the audacity to call it, The Most Perfect Book.

OMG! (No pun intended.)

Having been an active Mormon for, IIRC, 30 years, who served a mission and graduated seminary, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Most perfect in what way? Certainly not in structure, style or grammar. It contains few if any of the ostensible "saving principles of the restored church".

I think this is what is known in Advertising and Marketing Law as "puffery".

Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally.[1] Puffery serves to "puff up" an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials.

If anyone knows what this statement is supposed to mean literally I'd love to know.

 

[jsfisher]

Having been an active Mormon for, IIRC, 30 years, who served a mission and graduated seminary, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Most perfect in what way? Certainly not in structure, style or grammar. It contains few if any of the ostensible "saving principles of the restored church".

Didn't Joseph Smith describe the Book of Mormon as the most correct book (not most perfect) in comparison to the Bible and whatever other scriptures he was comparing it to?

 

[deaman]

Didn't Joseph Smith describe the Book of Mormon as the most correct book (not most perfect) in comparison to the Bible and whatever other scriptures he was comparing it to?

Ah! You may be right, and if so I apologize.

The phrase may be, "The Most Correct Book".

Let me do a little Googling and I'll be right back.

 

[deaman]

I stand corrected. I apologize.

Here is the beginning of the statement from a Mormon site:

Joseph Smith's well-known statement: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.....

Still, I think they were playing a little "loose" on that one.

 

[Empress]

Regardless, "most correct" or "most perfect" it is clear, it is neither one. To believe either is to believe nonsense.

To expect others to believe it's the "most correct" or "the most perfect" book is to believe a fantasy only embraced by the most ignorant.

 

[jsfisher]

Regardless, "most correct" or "most perfect" it is clear, it is neither one. To believe either is to believe nonsense.

To expect others to believe it's the "most correct" or "the most perfect" book is to believe a fantasy only embraced by the most ignorant.

It must be the most correct. Why else would it get revised so often?

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Presumably it's "Most Perfect" in the manner of "it's perfect, stop asking awkward questions".

 

[skyrider44]

No, you can't avoid the difficult questions yet again by suddenly responding to a post made a month ago in the middle of a side conversation from which the thread has long moved on.

But it's OK for you to "suddenly" make an obtuse reference to Hitler that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

 

[halleyscomet]

So wait a minute. We're now supposed to forget about veracity and look at the Book of Mormon as literature? Wo, wo, surely thou jesteth.

From a literary standpoint, the Book of Mormon is an abortion. I's poorly written in a shoddy pseudo-Shakespearean English, full of long, repetitive passages that add nothing to the narrative or theme of the stories. Its metaphors and symbolism are delivered crudely, often with extensive, unnecessary repetition. The author clearly did little to no research into the plausibility of the historical claims made in the book, marching it straight out of the "alternative history" category into straight up fantasy.

The ONLY excuse for setting it in the Americas was because the author was too lazy or inept to create a fantasy world from scratch or latch onto an existing fantasy world.

The we get into the obvious stupidity and incompetence of the characters depicted. None of the "heroes" are particularly intelligent or competent. Nephi for example, forgets the plates that are allegedly the family's most valuable possession, lucks into an opportunity to murder a drunk king, and then sneaks past guards who must have been as drunk as the king Nephi just murdered. Nephi is such an inept leader devoid of respect, that his brothers and sisters lash him to the mast of a sailing vessel so they can dance. Think about that scene for a second.

When they finally get to the new land, Nephi takes what was apparently a pagan ceremonial or ritual bow, whose real intention he would have known, and proceeds to break it while trying to use it for hunting. Does he then make a new bow so he can resume hunting? No. Lacking the wildness survival skills of the average boy scout, he and his family go hungry.

A movie adaptation of Nephi's life could justifiably have Nephi portrayed by Jim Carry performing the role as something between Ace Ventura Pet Detective and The Mask, but lacking any element of the competency, intelligence or self-respect possessed by either character.

There's a lot of good reasons Smith had to self-publish the book, and it's not just because he intended to use it to found a religion. If the volume is viewed as literature it's reduced to a footnote. It's a shoddy, derivative fantasy story based loosely upon Christian and Pagan mythology, notable largely for its obvious role as an inspiration behind the more absurd cosmology aspects of Scientology.

 

[Foster Zygote]

But it's OK for you to "suddenly" make an obtuse reference to Hitler that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

It was a metaphor for, "using theoretical impossibilities to explore issues".

May I ask a question? Why do you keep returning to this thread if you are unwilling to discuss the severe problems associated with the claim that Mormonism represents a correct metaphysical statement? It is clear that you are searching for tangential topics and statements and attempting to spin the focus of discussion toward them in order that you might evade such issues as the evidence of fraud regarding the Book Of Abraham, or the complete failure of the Book Of Mormon to correspond with archaeology, paleontology or genetics.

 

[Foster Zygote]

From a literary standpoint, the Book of Mormon is an abortion. I's poorly written in a shoddy pseudo-Shakespearean English, full of long, repetitive passages that add nothing to the narrative or theme of the stories. Its metaphors and symbolism are delivered crudely, often with extensive, unnecessary repetition. The author clearly did little to no research into the plausibility of the historical claims made in the book, marching it straight out of the "alternative history" category into straight up fantasy.

The ONLY excuse for setting it in the Americas was because the author was too lazy or inept to create a fantasy world from scratch or latch onto an existing fantasy world.

The we get into the obvious stupidity and incompetence of the characters depicted. None of the "heroes" are particularly intelligent or competent. Nephi for example, forgets the plates that are allegedly the family's most valuable possession, lucks into an opportunity to murder a drunk king, and then sneaks past guards who must have been as drunk as the king Nephi just murdered. Nephi is such an inept leader devoid of respect, that his brothers and sisters lash him to the mast of a sailing vessel so they can dance. Think about that scene for a second.

When they finally get to the new land, Nephi takes what was apparently a pagan ceremonial or ritual bow, whose real intention he would have known, and proceeds to break it while trying to use it for hunting. Does he then make a new bow so he can resume hunting? No. Lacking the wildness survival skills of the average boy scout, he and his family go hungry.

A movie adaptation of Nephi's life could justifiably have Nephi portrayed by Jim Carry performing the role as something between Ace Ventura Pet Detective and The Mask, but lacking any element of the competency, intelligence or self-respect possessed by either character.

There's a lot of good reasons Smith had to self-publish the book, and it's not just because he intended to use it to found a religion. If the volume is viewed as literature it's reduced to a footnote. It's a shoddy, derivative fantasy story based loosely upon Christian and Pagan mythology, notable largely for its obvious role as an inspiration behind the more absurd cosmology aspects of Scientology.

The Book Of Armaments was much better.

 

[Olowkow]

But it's OK for you to "suddenly" make an obtuse reference to Hitler that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

True, Hitler has nothing to do with the topic. It could have been just as easily the example of going back in time and "killing one's grandfather" as a thought experiment.

The reference to Hitler was merely an example, quite often used to illustrate the ramifications of a time machine in fiction, of the poster's willingness to discuss hypothetical issues, and was not "obtuse" to me. I dare say anyone who has read any science fiction would understand this as a purely rhetorical device.

 

[dafydd]

I once worked with a Mormon who tried to inveigle me into the cult. He gave me a copy of the BOM and being a voracious reader, I read it. It is the most boring book of fiction in the world. There are some funny bits and the mock-Shakespearean style is amusing, but Mark Twain was right. The 'hid up to the Lord' bit is such a giveaway. Angels with a frontier gibberish vocabulary.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But it's OK for you to "suddenly" make an obtuse reference to Hitler that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

How precious.

Of course, Pixel's reference was not a Godwin, nor particularly obscure--a reference to furthering discussions even with theoretical impossibilities.

I would still appreciate it if you would explain how your sect's superstitions about eschatology are going to repair the blatant deficiencies of the BoM and the BoA.

Some substantive engagement would be refreshing...

ETA: ninja-ed by Foster Zygote (again) and Olowkow!