SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paraphrased: a Bloomberg Businessweek report that Nicole Antal, a librarian in Sharon, Vermont discovered that a Utah-based foundation had quietly purchased more than 900 acres of nearby farmland adjacent or close to the birthplace of Joseph Smith.
The mastermind of the purchases, a wealthy engineer named David Hall, made contact with Antal and was very forthcoming about his vision - sustainable, high-tech, high-density communities across the globe; with a trial run in Vermont based on the Plat of the City of Zion. While all that sounded a bit farfetched, Hall revealed that he already had more than 150 engineers working on technology and architecture for the project.
Vermont, famous for being fiercely proud, idealistic, and ornery (this guy being one of the more famous residents) were stirred into a frenzy, with the opposition concerned that Hall was attempting to start a cult.
Hall is a fourth-generation Mormon. "Joseph Smith was just the wildest guy out there," he says. "Lots of things he did were stupid, but in my view, he was a sage or a seer and didn't even understand what came to him." The more futuristic aspects of his plans include pedestrian communities which sustain individual privacy and views of nature. Rooftop farms will make use of advanced techniques drawn from marijuana cultivation, and box-shaped greenhouses will improve yields and prevent the spread of disease and insects. Ground-floor spaces will be occupied by businesses, all connected by enclosed walkways and space for moving "pods" that transport the sick and elderly.
The article is a bit long even for an adequate summary here, but there are many technological aspects of Hall's plans worth reading about, and it is refreshing to see that somebody is concentrating on the positive rather than the negative. What do you think?
(Score: 1) by lcall on Monday July 25 2016, @06:53PM
If you want to be really intellectual about it, you might find the writings of Daniel Peterson interesting (at fairmormon.org, or his column in desnews.com).
But really, it boils down to deciding what is the nature of the Book of Mormon: where did it come from (rigorously, not based on guess or rumor), and if it is what it says it is, what does that logically imply? If it is not what it says it is I have little basis for what I am saying. If you read it and evaluate it based on its own internals, then put it to the test as it says in its last chapter, then we have something more to talk about. :)
All best wishes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Monday July 25 2016, @07:33PM
It's well documented where the Book of Mormon came from. Someone tried to claim he was being divinely inspired as he dictated it to someone else. The someone else wasn't allowed to look, meanwhile the guy doing the divine inspiration bit was hiding and reading from something else. It's pretty much like how Islam started. Mohamed claimed to be illiterate but he was an accountant and had been taught by Jewish Rabis. That's why Islam is essentially recycled and watered-down Judaism with a bit of added Catholicism and then a bit of extra prophesising thrown in. You can read about it in peer-reviewed, verified historical studies. But you won't because it goes against your beliefs.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by lcall on Monday July 25 2016, @08:31PM
What you say has been discussed academically much more than we are going to cover here. From wikipedia: "Since its first publication and distribution, critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that it was fabricated by Smith[6][7][8] and that he drew material and ideas from various sources rather than translating an ancient record. Works that have been suggested as sources include the King James Bible,[34][35] The Wonders of Nature,[36][37] View of the Hebrews,[7][8][38] and an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding.[39][40][41] FairMormon maintains that all of these theories have been disproved and discredited, arguing that both Mormon and non-Mormon historians have found serious flaws in their research [42][43][44][45][46][47]".
The information required to "write" that book wasn't available to him personally; much of it wasn't available to academia in the US (like big structures in mesoamerica etc). A number of people felt and hefted the metal (gold) plates, and lived out their lives without denying it, and even though some became disaffected, they never denied their experiences with the Book of Mormon and the source plates. The Peterson reference from earlier are very interesting about the specifics of the history, and debunking many things. Then there are others like Nibley who wrote about 20+ books, the journals of many who knew Joseph Smith personally, etc.
There are the "fruits"/results of those beliefs in the lives of millions. The early Mormons were made refugees multiple times for their beliefs before landing in a place no one else wanted and where it said nothing could grow. My ancestors were there and I have been to the family reunions and read the journals and seen the effects in multiple generations of individuals' lives, of those beliefs (the best thing any of us have, frankly). And they built schools and homes etc etc. Tolstoy and Dickens saw & commented on those early people and their high character. (You can search if you want refs.)
For example, Nibley's analyses of the book's reflections of ancient near eastern culture, and of the cultures of the asian steppes, is fascinating, and shows the book has cultural connections that were frankly contrary to what academia thought at the time, but academic sources have learned much more since, that help it all fit together. It's comparable to walls of Jericho being discovered by archaeologists, when people thought those parts of the Bible were fictional. There is so much more, and over my small lifetime of personal study, it just keeps getting better and better.
But most importantly, and regardless of anything in the above being proven true or false, or anything: I have read the Book of Mormon itself, studied and tested it personally. It's amazing. We could debate endlessly and not convince each other, because it seems we want different things, so we will weigh and quote things differently ad nauseam. That's OK I guess.
You can read it and test it, too, and you will find it is nothing like the shallow work described by those who prefer to tear down than to build. I have read the book, tried it, and I know what I know. It helps me get through many things, and I am grateful! It's amazing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 26 2016, @04:09AM
You can read it and test it, too, and you will find it is nothing like the shallow work described by those who prefer to tear down than to build.
Been there, done that, and it came to pass. The Book of Mormon is obviously fake. I especially liked the "Whore of Babylon" references, rather thinly disguised attacks on Catholicism. But the cake is the "Pearl of Great Price", allegedly translated by the illiterate Joseph Smith from some papyrus scraps he managed to purchase from some antiquities dealer. Of course, even better are the Salamander Letters, kind of a first draft of the Book, where a white salamander speaks to Joe instead of the Angle Moron. I suspect mushrooms.
I hope you reach the point where you can stand on your own and are not threatened by others pointing out that you are an obvious victim of a multi-generational con.
(Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:34PM
I disagree, but those things have also been covered elsewhere in the sources I mentioned. I'm sorry your own reading experience was so different than mine. Each person can see and decide for themselves.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:06PM
But none is so blind, as those who will not see! Yes, everyone can decide what they want, but some of them will be deciding wrong. As someone said not too long ago, you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The truth is one.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday July 25 2016, @08:04PM
Doing a bit of googling, I found this [exmormon.org].
The section headed "What the Missionaries Will Not Tell You" is very informative.
So, a con man, no less! There's plenty more. Sounds like a false prophet to me.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by lcall on Monday July 25 2016, @09:02PM
People said very many false things be cause they felt threatened. People continue to say many things, on both sides. Wikipedia has a more balanced treatment, in what I've seen at least, and is full of references. The main thing is to find out for oneself as described in my other post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:21AM
Wikipedia has a more balanced treatment, in what I've seen at least,
Well, of course, my dear Elder! Anyone can edit the Wikipedia entry, and no doubt the Elect have assigned a crack unit of Mormon Internet Missionaries to the task. But, this does not fool anyone, you know. I, for one, am personally aware that Joseph Smith once had carnal knowledge of a horse, because an Angel with a flaming sword forced him to. True story! Look for it soon on Wikipedia!
(Oh, Kolab? Not a real planet. Oh, Jesus? Son of God, so God. Satan? Angel, a creature of God, so not a God. President of the Church of the Latter Day Saints? Just Late, latter as in late, as in slow, as in retarded. Maybe you should consider Scientology? )
(Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:39PM
Wkp can be useful as a way to refer to further references without having to rewrite them all myself, which is the use I had in mind here. It's easy to mock. The information is available for anyone whose purpose is to learn. I know what I have experienced and learned for myself over many years. Thanks for the discussion and best wishes.
(ps, off-topic: I provide source code for my AGPL personal organizer at https://github.com/onemodel/onemodel [github.com] , tutorials & FAQs etc are at http://onemodel.org [onemodel.org] . Like emacs org mode today in some ways, but stores info in postgres for present & big future capabilities that I missed there, like an easier UI, treating data like adhoc-modeled OO, and (hopefully this year or next) structured sharing between instances.)