QB 1 - the great “not” controversy - a "facile" explanation


I do agree that putting the Red Sea in Galilee is an enormous “mystery”, unless one reaches the only reasonable conclusion, namely that Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon useless as history, useless as geography, and useless as a source of true Christian doctrine. Yes, it must be quite a mystery for you mormons to understand why Jacob wrote that it was hard to write, instead of writing “plain and precious” gospel truths. And it is another mystery why God himself would have done the deed of founding, being the founder and foundation of, kingdoms of idols. Another mystery, having people say they have enough Greek books, they don’t need any more Greek books, yes, quite a mormon mystery. How mysterious, to shield oneself from his vitals, how might he do that? It’s a mystery, as you say. And a great mystery lies in an innocent man being stabbed by a garb. I do agree, Questing, these are mysteries, these mysterious ramblings. A bit too much of the brown jug, perhaps. And yes, I agree, too, that they are a matter of faith. Because no impartial person could believe them based on any solid evidence or clear reasoning.
"facilely"That's about as clear as donkey doo. But it only seems to work, when you make an outdated, no longer official, error-ridden edition do the work for you. In straining at a gnat, one might say a straw gnat, you have missed the forest for the acorn. (see below)I said they may not be stunning to polytheistic, materialistic mormons, so I understand your coma.

But thank you for showing people here an example of how "facilely" the absurdities in the BoM can be "explained". If this is a facile explanation, I would hate to see one that is not facile. The degree of facility of explanation probably bears on the issue of whether or not the general population of mormons see things this way, or whether they are just dumbfounded and pass over it hoping it will go away. So let's see. How facile is this. Is this something I might hear in a Sunday School class? In the Investigators' class (whatever it's called now)? In the normal course of Aaronic Priesthood classes? In your regular Melchizedek priesthood class? In a typical High Council meeting? In the first year of seminary? In the fourth? At Institute? Or is this something that most mormons would hardly understand what you are talking about. Are these references to a dozen different editions of the Book of Mormon something that only some mormon "scholars" would care about, look into, understand, and attempt to use to argue that absurdities in the book of mormon are in fact simply typographical errors, errors of judgment, results of being tired, casual proofing of the first or second gallery of a sacred text?

(This is "below".) You should maybe read links when they are provided, and review the full context of a Bible passage instead of a single verse, and then try and fail to make gospel out of it. Besides, whatever the 1830 edition said, it has been corrected, officially, by the Mormon Church. The official reading today (see http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng) is, “And the mean man boweth NOT down, and the great man humbleth himself NOT, therefore, forgive him not.” If you don't like it, you could start another church that relies on the 1830 edition, as some have done, and some of those accept all its errors. In fact, it is because there are so many errrors and problems with the Book of Mormon, that many want-to-be-believers are forced to search for an edition that suits their understanding. You seem to have settled on the 1830 edition, as have others. Some accept later editions. Some "modernize" the English. These are all desperate attempts to make an inconsistent, often silly, forgery fit an artificed garb of common sense. (They fail.) You have made another straw man to play with by running back to the 1830 edition, which the Church DOES NOT USE. Officially, I mean; of course they use it historically, and mopologists are forced to use it to defend certain ineptitudes (such as 2 N 12 vs. Isaiah 2). I do confess, the church has indeed made so many changes, and so many contradictory statements, that it is often possible to defend a doctrine or policy, if one just uses the “right” edition of the BM, DC, general conference talk, etc. A single book or verse or conference talk exists in different texts, and those texts do contradict themselves stunningly, such as saying one place that men, both mean and great, are evil for bowing to idols ( Isaiah ), and in another place, they are evil for NOT bowing to idols ( 2 Nephi ).”

People in Isaiah's time were bowing down and worshipping idols. I don’t expect the average mormon to know that, since they are probably busy reading dozens of variant editions of the book of mormon to justify the odd-ball statements in the current edition. The problem of bowing to idols included the mean man ("’adam", average man) as well as the great man ("ish", good, great, exceptional). God, according to Isaiah, had commanded that those men, mean as well as great, were not to be forgiven. The mean man was not to be forgiven; the great man (the one who humbled himself before idols) was not to be forgiven. Nobody! The mean man was doing the same thing as the great man. A person needs to read the entire chapter, not a lone verse singled (cherry-picked) out of context.


For some reason Smith added the word "not" to the passage, completely altering the meaning. "For some reason." Isn't that reason important? Perhaps he was acting on revelation and commandment from God, another "mystery of the faith". Perhaps who found a way to snooker people even more? Perhaps he couldn't believe people could be so gullible, so he was determined ever to make them laugh harder than they ever had, or to go ahead and be fools and believe it. Maybe he added it because he himself, being "an uneducated youth", did not understand the Bible passage in the first place, and was making do as best he could with his limited understanding and unlimited audacity.

In Smith's version, a hopeless contradiction exists. The passage begins by stating that the people were worshipping their idols, but ends saying that they were not bowing down (to them). Therefore they were not to be forgiven. Smith's version is a senseless mess, no doubt owing to his lack of comprehension of the passage in the Bible. This is to be expected, since he was, according to Mormon legend, "an uneducated boy".

c. Abinadi the Prophet, 600 B.C.
With due apology for any "mistakes of men" and "errors whereof I know not none" that may have been carefully engraved into gold or impressed into electrons, in the writing of this plain and precious record. Wherefore, condemn me not, lest ye be found unspotless on the great and terrible day of Joseph Smith's dethroning.

_________________
"Everyone has to find his own path." - Ip-Man