Lost Cities of the Amazon

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, a learned person just knows it's not historic. You go to the Middle East Paroah's construction projects still stand, there are people who call themselves Egyptians, Jews and Syrians, we see Greek ruins.

SU, this is a pretty specious argument. Have you ever thought that the BofM is the history of a civilization akin to the Hatfields and McCoys? Or even of a people living among other peoples? The fact that they didn't reach the architectural or historical heights of the Egyptians says nothing about whether they existed.

You seem to acknowledge your speciousness by going to the book itself, which is where you're more grounded.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Absolutely. We've gone for days without speaking. Have you seen the collectors edition? They have one set up at our gaming store. It's 3-D and costs four hundred dollars. The owner said they've actually sold two of them. wow. I mean, I like the game, but jeez.

Haven't seen the collector's edition, but it sounds like the ore should have diamond hidden in it, and instead of wheat, maybe corn futures. But I wouldn't put it past my parents to buy it. They have a custom-made card holder for all the different resources, and they bought cases of altoids to get just the right color of tin to match the different colored pieces. They also have hats, shirts, etc. Their best friends are all empty nesters and they probably play at least three times a week. Some have bridge and bingo, others have Settlers, I guess.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

SU, this is a pretty specious argument. Have you ever thought that the BofM is the history of a civilization akin to the Hatfields and McCoys? Or even of a people living among other peoples? The fact that they didn't reach the architectural or historical heights of the Egyptians says nothing about whether they existed.

You seem to acknowledge your speciousness by going to the book itself, which is where you're more grounded.

I don't need to go this far. There's nothing about the B of M that does seem credible to me, in terms of its claims. I don't even think it's a subject worthy of extensive debate, and academia agrees with me. You might as well be asking me how can I know the earth isn't 6,000 years old. Historicity of the Book of Mormon and creationism are qualitatively the same. The only way to defend either is on intangible grounds, such as the seemingly otherworldy power of myth.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't need to go this far. There's nothing about the B of M that does seem credible to me, in terms of its claims. I don't even think it's a subject worthy of extensive debate, and academia agrees with me. You might as well be asking me how can I know the earth isn't 6,000 years old. Historicity of the Book of Mormon and creationism are qualitatively the same. The only way to defend either is on intangible grounds, such as the seemingly otherworldy power of myth.

Here is your conundrum: and it is based on your use of the word "otherwordly."

On the one hand, you dismiss "otherworlds" from a religious point of view, but I don't think you can "otherworlds" from a scientific point of view.

Here we are on the brink of colonizing and terraforming Mars, and we are to believe that intelligent life could not have had anything to do with Earth?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Here is your conundrum: and it is based on your use of the word "otherwordly."

On the one hand, you dismiss "otherworlds" from a religious point of view, but I don't think you can "otherworlds" from a scientific point of view.

Here we are on the brink of colonizing and terraforming Mars, and we are to believe that intelligent life could not have had anything to do with Earth?

I read an interesting analogy recently. Humans are like insects crawling on the page of a book. They think the black shapes and white paper is all there is. But no, I don't believe in angels and gold books; to paraphrase Dr. McMurrin, it seems clear to me that the world available to us does not work that way. I think we make up stories to explain those funny shapes on the page. But the stories would only accidently correlate with what is actually said by the printed words over which we insects are crawling. What we do is pick the stories that suit us best. The Book of Mormon, the First Vision, etc. are not stories that suit me.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I read an interesting analogy recently. Humans are like insects crawling on the page of a book. They think the black shapes and white paper is all there is. But no, I don't believe in angels and gold books; to paraphrase Dr. McMurrin, it seems clear to me that the world available to us does not work that way. I think we make up stories to explain those funny shapes on the page. But the stories would only accidently correlate with what is actually said by the printed words over which we insects are crawling. What we do is pick the stories that suit us best. The Book of Mormon, the First Vision, etc. are not stories that suit me.

suit you or haunt you?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

suit you or haunt you?

Of course they haunt me. All my fathers' tales do. But I think the B of M stories are less in my veins than many others. For one thing, they are pale imitations and not as aesthetically satisfying as others.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Of course they haunt me. All my fathers' tales do. But I think the B of M stories are less in my veins than many others. For one thing, they are pale imitations and not as aesthetically satisfying as others.

So why do you think that in the 4th chapter of the first book, the protagonist commits murder?

That's long interested me.

Also why is the protagonist at the beginning so annoying and sanctimonious?

That's interested me as well.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So why do you think that in the 4th chapter of the first book, the protagonist commits murder?

That's long interested me.

Also why is the protagonist at the beginning so annoying and sanctimonious?

That's interested me as well.

Who knows the full range of Joseph's influences. At that time, during the second great awakening and as the Enlightenment was beginning to transition into a Romantic period, ancient myths and legends were thick in the atmosphere and Joseph apparently absorebed them like a plant does sunshine.

The most obvious influence that comes to mind is the story of the murders God committed, including of children, to facilitate the liberation and evacuation of the "children of Israel" from Egypt.

I think first person narrative is extremely hard to do well; the voice is the thing you're after and it's elusive; who knows where it comes from where it's nailed, as in Huckleberry Finn. Personally, I am not a big fan of first person; the narrative has to be a work of near genius or genius for me to not be put off in ways not unlike Nephi puts you off. Is there another example of first person scripture?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Who knows the full range of Joseph's influences. At that time, during the second great awakening and as the Enlightenment was beginning to transition into a Romantic period, ancient myths and legends were thick in the atmosphere and Joseph apparently absorebed them like a plant does sunshine.

The most obvious influence that comes to mind is the story of the murders God committed, including of children, to facilitate the liberation and evacuation of the "children of Israel" from Egypt.

I think first person narrative is extremely hard to do well; the voice is the thing you're after and it's elusive; who knows where it comes from where it's nailed, as in Huckleberry Finn. Personally, I am not a big fan of first person; the narrative has to be a work of near genius or genius for me to not be put off in ways not unlike Nephi puts you off. Is there another example of first person scripture?

aren't many of the epistles first person?

also many of the psalms.