response to an anti-mormon

[Guest saintish]

I had a conversation recently with someone, who claims to be a "mormon scholar" but in reality is an anti-mormon, he made the following claim about mormons believing the book of mormon. How would you respond? I will share mine later.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

[Vort]

Why would anyone bother responding to such an absurd statement? It's like responding to the faked-moon-landing conspiracy theorists. The best response is to walk away.

[Palerider]

Why would anyone bother responding to such an absurd statement? It's like responding to the faked-moon-landing conspiracy theorists. The best response is to walk away.

I agree.....he is entitled to believe what he wants..

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I'll bet a horeshoe against a huckleberry that he doesn't have a PhD to be diagnosing psychosis. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Guest saintish]

All of the above may be true, however I find it both entertaining and a good way to practice rhetorical skills. In any case I respect those who choose not to engage with anti(s)

[LDSJewess]

Good grief!!! My guess is this "scholar" is throwing around a bunch of big words he may not even understand to try and impress you into thinking his is as brilliant as he thinks he is.

Yep I think I would walk away from this one too.

[LDSJewess]

All of the above may be true, however I find it both entertaining and a good way to practice rhetorical skills. In any case I respect those who choose not to engage with anti(s)

Saintish, actually I do engage in conversation with anti's- Jehovah's witnesses, Catholics, athiests, Jews, Muslem's and whoeve,r BUT the difference is that I will engage when the other person is honest as to what they are and what their agenda is.

Someone saying they are a "Mormon scholar" and then coming up with crazy comments like this doesn't even make sense.

I agree that it can be entertaining and challenging to use our rhetorical skills in debates, but the debate has to have some rational basis on both sides or else you are just trying to get across ideas to someone that is just raving on.

But hey if you are actually getting entertainment value from that, well who am I to say.

[beefche]

So, are Hindus or Wiccans psychotic?

[slamjet]

Mormon scholars are not hung up on the Bible being the only source. Anyone who would have said that to me would have received the following response: "I see that you claim to be a Mormon Scholar. However, your claims are the same, tired, old rhetoric that I've heard from every other anti-Mormon out there. If you come up with something original, coherent, contextualized and sourced from Mormon materials then maybe it will be worth listening and responding to. Otherwise, I have absolutely nothing to say nor do I want to waste my time with you."

My position is that there is no need to be tactful to anyone who is attempting to deride anyone's decision on what denomination to follow.

[prophetofdoom]

Wow, so in his mind... all people who believe in religion are at risk of "psychosis." LOL

[JamesKnightwell]

I would respond that anyone who doesn't see evidence of the Book of Mormon hasn't done their research very well. There are way too many things to list but their are a lot of books on the subject available through Deseret and other places. Pretty much all the beliefs that are unique to us as well can be found in one branch or another of early christian church pre council of nicea. Plenty of evidence out there if you open your heart to receive it. Evidence of course does not convert though, the spirit does that.

[Just_A_Guy]

I had a conversation recently with someone, who claims to be a "mormon scholar" but in reality is an anti-mormon, he made the following claim about mormons believing the book of mormon. How would you respond? I will share mine later.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

First off, I fully agree regarding the futility of debating antis.

But, as a rhetorical exercise . . . here's my thought:

So mainline Christians can place the Bible in a verifiable historical context. Big whoopee. We can do the same thing with the Doctrine and Covenants--the VAST majority of the historical background to the D&C is historically and archaeologically documented. We can prove the Saints were in Missouri in such and such a time, that Joseph Smith was in a particular jail at a particular point in history, that Samuel Smith served a mission, that a group of Mormons marched from Kirtland to Missouri . . . ad infinitum.

By your friend's reasoning, he himself is bound to accept the Doctrine and Covenants for being what it purports to be--in toto. So, logically, he must accept all that the D&C asserts--including its statements regarding the Book of Mormon, the Church, Joseph Smith, the Priesthood, and (here's where you can have some real fun with your friend) polygamy.

The icing on the cake is that your "scholar" friend probably doesn't know the first thing about the D&C.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[RipplecutBuddha]

First off, I fully agree regarding the futility of debating antis.

But, as a rhetorical exercise . . . here's my thought:

So mainline Christians can place the Bible in a verifiable historical context. Big whoopee. We can do the same thing with the Doctrine and Covenants--the VAST majority of the historical background to the D&C is historically and archaeologically documented. We can prove the Saints were in Missouri in such and such a time, that Joseph Smith was in a particular jail at a particular point in history, that Samuel Smith served a mission, that a group of Mormons marched from Kirtland to Missouri . . . ad infinitum.

By your friend's reasoning, he himself is bound to accept the Doctrine and Covenants for being what it purports to be--in toto. So, logically, he must accept all that the D&C asserts--including its statements regarding the Book of Mormon, the Church, Joseph Smith, the Priesthood, and (here's where you can have some real fun with your friend) polygamy.

The icing on the cake is that your "scholar" friend probably doesn't know the first thing about the D&C.

Much less the Book of Mormon. I have found that the non-member who honestly studies the Book of Mormon for what it is, doing their own research, examining it from several angles, usually come away from the experience realizing that the book is far more complex an issue than what they first thought.

The Book of Mormon is packed with historically accurate information, styles of writing, etc. that nobody knew during Joseph Smith's lifetime. To explain how Joseph Smith got so much information correct that simply was not available requires conclusions that critically-minded people aren't always comfortable accepting.

Add to that the relatively new science of wordprinting. subconciously, we have our own individual method of writing, patterns and phrases that are unique to each of us. By use of this new sicence it has been determined that there are at least seven separately identified authors in the Book of Mormon. It has also been identified that none of them match Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Samuel Spaulding, nor any other contemporary of Joseph Smith. Wordprints cannot be faked any more than fingerprints can be, and since this science was not around in the 19th century, it's unlikely that anyone surrounding the BoM would have thought to even attempt it.

None of this proves anything, of course, but it does keep the door open that so many 'Mormon Scholars' seek to keep closed.

[Jamie123]

What he's really saying is that the Bible has some linkage with independent secular history and therefore has some definite basis in fact, whereas the Book of Mormon does not and could therefore (for all we know) be a complete fantasy - on a par with Tolkien's Silmarillion.

I'd challenge him to produce "external evidence" of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, the sojourn in Egypt, Moses' burning bush, the crossing of the "Red Sea", the Battle of Jericho...in fact anything major and unambiguous up to the time of the Captivity in Babylon. Then ask him about the 2 contradicting geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke, and ask him if one...or indeed both...mightn't be the result of what he calls "psychosis". He'll have an answer to this I'm sure, but I'll bet my last penny it'll rely on some speculative (or "psychotic"?) proposition.

I'd agree the geography of the Bible Lands (with a few exceptions like the "Red Sea" - which must in reality have been a papyrus lagoon) is identifiable, but then again so is the geography of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae - a book very like the Old Testament, but which everyone now agrees is mostly made-up. So many of the OT stories are conceivably "just legends", I don't think there's much less "blind faith" (or "psychosis") required to believe them literally true.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Jamie123

[Backroads]

It's so easy to throw vocabulary at things you don't like.

[The_Phoenix]

I had a conversation recently with someone, who claims to be a "mormon scholar" but in reality is an anti-mormon, he made the following claim about mormons believing the book of mormon. How would you respond? I will share mine later.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

Without a doubt, Not, a Mormon Scholar!

[Blocky]

You can accept or reject the miracles of the Bible without any knowledge of external evidence. The external evidence isn't what makes the Bible the word of God. The same is true of the Book of Mormon.

Also, faith and psychosis aren't the same thing.

[slamjet]

I had a guy demand that I prove the Book of Mormon was true. I asked him if he believed in God. He said no, that he was an atheist. I then told him to first, go find God then we would have something to talk about. Until then, talking about the Book of Mormon would be useless. I suspect it's close to the same thing in this case.

[rameumptom]

There is as much evidence against the Bible's "historicity" as there is against the Book of Mormon.

Science considers the Bible's view of a 6000 year old earth to be nonsense. There was no global flood within the last 6000 years. Jericho's walls did not come down at the time of Joshua, but was destroyed centuries earlier. Shall I go on?

Both books have some evidence regarding historicity, but none for miracles. That both have issues regarding ancient history makes it an issue of faith, not history or archaeology. The psychosis he attributes to BoM believers is just as real for Bible believers.

In fact, it may be that the evidence for the BoM is stronger than that for the Bible. We know of less than half the locations mentioned in the Bible, even though it has always been within man's history. The Book of Mormon, however, has a different criteria: any city or location mentioned in it that is found becomes evidence of its truthfulness. So, when Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful are found only in the last 2 decades, it becomes real evidence for the Book of Mormon, whereas knowing Jerusalem was in the Bible means nothing. That recently discovered ancient locations in Mesoamerica include Lamanai, which is a name that fits perfectly in with the Book of Mormon is again real evidence. That requires no psychosis.

What would be psychotic is to think that because the Bible mentions Jerusalem and there is a city Jerusalem that therefore the miracles in the Bible are true. Why? Because it is a non-sequitur. The evidence does not follow, as it does for the Book of Mormon, which appeared prior to the evidences we now have for it.

[rameumptom]

Funny, Korihor also claimed the believers in his day to have a "frenzied mind" or psychosis. Perhaps you should introduce your friend to Korihor?

[The_Phoenix]

Funny, Korihor also claimed the believers in his day to have a "frenzied mind" or psychosis. Perhaps you should introduce your friend to Korihor?

Good idea.

[spamlds]

Just refer him to the S.P.A.M. web site and we'll give him enough stuff to read that he won't bother sending you e-mails for a while.

[Saldrin]

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

Personally I would have said.. what?

[Blackmarch]

I had a conversation recently with someone, who claims to be a "mormon scholar" but in reality is an anti-mormon, he made the following claim about mormons believing the book of mormon. How would you respond? I will share mine later.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

If thats the first comment off the chopping block,

my response would be "What the heck are you talking about?????"

[Traveler]

I had a conversation recently with someone, who claims to be a "mormon scholar" but in reality is an anti-mormon, he made the following claim about mormons believing the book of mormon. How would you respond? I will share mine later.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

I agree and disagree with a lot that has been said. I would respond by saying that to accuse an entire class of people that they do not even know as psychotics is one thing but to initiate that thought towards me and accuse that of me to my face is a strong indication of a psychopath. I would then inform them that our conversations have ended - for the obvious reason - and walk away.

The Traveler