Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

[baker]

It's been a while since I've posted here and I can see that the design of the board has changed - so I hope this makes it through!!!

I've had a chance to pop in from time to time and see some of the posts and it seems that the posts of factual history and actual documented historical records of what mormon prophets and apostles actually said have been abandoned by the lds posters in favor of the more "theoretical" or "plausibilty" issues of mormon history.

After thinking about it for a while, it began to dawn on me that most mormons I've ecountered have a tendency to avoid the actual documented history that exists and try and pursue a theoretical history for which there is no physical evidence outside of there own self proclaimed acadamiens at FARMS, FAIR or Jeff Lindsay etc. Or they prefer to avoid the actual documented history with a personal testimony of "I know the church is true" but would prefer not to talk about the actual documented history.

I noticed that when the topics turned to such areas as J. Smith's practice of polygamy, it's conflicts/contradictions within the lds own standard works, the temple practice and it's exclusionary nature within families, it's origin within either mormon or other christian scripture, the temple reccommend questions, and many other areas of "real history", there seems to be a race to change the subject or distance themselves and the current lds church from such history.

Yet there seems to be a real passion for establishing an actual ancient history for the book of mormon in spite of a complete realistic view of such a claim. It's as if if we can get a couple of lds acadamiens to get degrees and some "Phd." credentials then it all becomes palatable and that by throwing such names and credentials around we have demonstrated an actual history for the book of mormon. For all of this, there seems to be one obvious question:

Who have all these mormon acadamiens convinced?

My point is this: Where is any of this great scholarly work taught or accepted as actual history? I wonder if even such place as Brigham Young University teaches this "history" as a history class? I have not been able to identify one educational institution that teaches this history as actual history, anywhere, in the world!!!!

So for all those lds posters trying to demonstrate that the book of mormon is actual history, can one of you explain why such great work from those who you cited as credible experts is not compelling enough to be taught in any of out educational systems - anywhere - in the world?

Our biblical history is taught from a historical perspective even in our elemenary schools both today and yesterday!! It is not a question of religious beliefs, it is a question of acceptable evidence.

The irony of mormon history is just that:

The history that does exist, through their own documented church records, publications, newspapers etc. is the history that it seems they try and distance themselves from through modern day rationalization. Yet the history they want desparately to exist, cannot not be accepted by the various channels of those most responsible and capable of teaching history.

 

[fatboys]

It's been a while since I've posted here and I can see that the design of the board has changed - so I hope this makes it through!!!

I've had a chance to pop in from time to time and see some of the posts and it seems that the posts of factual history and actual documented historical records of what mormon prophets and apostles actually said have been abandoned by the lds posters in favor of the more "theoretical" or "plausibilty" issues of mormon history.

After thinking about it for a while, it began to dawn on me that most mormons I've ecountered have a tendency to avoid the actual documented history that exists and try and pursue a theoretical history for which there is no physical evidence outside of there own self proclaimed acadamiens at FARMS, FAIR or Jeff Lindsay etc. Or they prefer to avoid the actual documented history with a personal testimony of "I know the church is true" but would prefer not to talk about the actual documented history.

I noticed that when the topics turned to such areas as J. Smith's practice of polygamy, it's conflicts/contradictions within the lds own standard works, the temple practice and it's exclusionary nature within families, it's origin within either mormon or other christian scripture, the temple reccommend questions, and many other areas of "real history", there seems to be a race to change the subject or distance themselves and the current lds church from such history.

Yet there seems to be a real passion for establishing an actual ancient history for the book of mormon in spite of a complete realistic view of such a claim. It's as if if we can get a couple of lds acadamiens to get degrees and some "Phd." credentials then it all becomes palatable and that by throwing such names and credentials around we have demonstrated an actual history for the book of mormon. For all of this, there seems to be one obvious question:

Who have all these mormon acadamiens convinced?

My point is this: Where is any of this great scholarly work taught or accepted as actual history? I wonder if even such place as Brigham Young University teaches this "history" as a history class? I have not been able to identify one educational institution that teaches this history as actual history, anywhere, in the world!!!!

So for all those lds posters trying to demonstrate that the book of mormon is actual history, can one of you explain why such great work from those who you cited as credible experts is not compelling enough to be taught in any of out educational systems - anywhere - in the world?

Our biblical history is taught from a historical perspective even in our elemenary schools both today and yesterday!! It is not a question of religious beliefs, it is a question of acceptable evidence.

The irony of mormon history is just that:

The history that does exist, through their own documented church records, publications, newspapers etc. is the history that it seems they try and distance themselves from through modern day rationalization. Yet the history they want desparately to exist, cannot not be accepted by the various channels of those most responsible and capable of teaching history.

FB: Oh great another anti mormon....opps, anti LDST. Can I say that I find it remarkable a that anti, or what ever you want to be called that opposes the LDS church, anyway why are you so sure that the negatives are always the truth? That every person who had to say anything negative about Joseph Smith is automatically believed. You know I don't automatically believe the good. I believe that there are bad thrown in there. I am sad that you only dwell on the bad, and believe that the negative has not been blown up as is factual.

 

[Doc T]

For all of this, there seems to be one obvious question:
Who have all these mormon acadamiens convinced?

Doc: Hey Baker, long time no talk. I don't see it as a matter of convinced vs. not convinced. I see it as acceptable scholarship vs. unacceptable scholarship or acceptable academics vs. unacceptable academics. The article published by Paul Owen and Carl Mosser, two Evangelical scholars entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" It was published in the Trinity Journal 19/2 (1998): 179-205. I highly recommend that you read it if you have not. Now don't get me wrong, Owen and Mosser don't for a minute agree with what the LDS scholars are writing, but their conclusions are the quality of LDS scholarship defending the LDS Church is good. They go through a long list of the accomplishments of LDS scholars and then they make this comment:

"We hope by this point to have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder. . . .The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will needlessly lose the battle without ever knowing it.

Another good article I would suggest you read is "Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship" by John A. Tvedtnes. It can be read at:http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001TveJ.html

You see LDS scholars are well accepted in their fields and non-LDS scholars are taking what they say very seriously and are even participating in the research with the LDS scholars. It would appear that the only ones who don't take the LDS scholars serious are the counter-cult groups who, for the most part, lack any academic credentials themselves.

So to me your wondering why the BofM is not taught as actual history while the Bible is taught as such is, to me, a rather silly question. The Bible has been with us for over 1500 years now. The BofM as been with us, less than 175 years. Bible archaeology has been going on for nearly as long as the BofM has been around. New World Archaeology, around 50 years. My point is, is that you are comparing apples with oranges

Don't know if this is what you had in mind with your question, but it reminded me of something that I had been thinking of some time ago. It probably can be boiled down to one question. When are Evangelical Christians (I know you are not one monolithic mind) going to recognize scholarly research and what it is telling us about the Bible and those players involved?

 

[solar_mirth]

please explain what you mean by "what it is telling us about the Bible and those players involved." i'm unsure of what you mean by that.

 

[Philo]

FB: Oh great another anti mormon....opps, anti LDST. Can I say that I find it remarkable a that anti, or what ever you want to be called that opposes the LDS church, anyway why are you so sure that the negatives are always the truth? That every person who had to say anything negative about Joseph Smith is automatically believed. You know I don't automatically believe the good. I believe that there are bad thrown in there. I am sad that you only dwell on the bad, and believe that the negative has not been blown up as is factual.

You realize you just made the exact point Baker was trying to make, right?

You understand the idea of a "propoderance of evidence?"

 

[fatboys]

You realize you just made the exact point Baker was trying to make, right?

You understand the idea of a "propoderance of evidence?"

FB: So Christ was not the Messiah?

 

[JVAC]

First all fatboys has accomplished in this thread is to rant about LDS people always bein put down by the man, how we only have bad things to say about Joseph Smith. Then tries to prove some point by questioning the obvious. Fatboys you have a talent for getting off topic quick. It is not a vehement attack on the LDS church, just a request for LDS membership to prove the history the BOM teaches is true.

In response to Doc T, I don't understand how the Bible and the BOM are apples and oranges. Aren't they both supposed to be testaments of Jesus Christ? Aren't they both supposed to be Holy Spirit inspired? Aren't they both foundation stones of the LDS church? I really don't see how they can be viewed as being different kinds! It seems to me they are both of the same kind. It should only be right, being they true, that they have the same place and tell the same story.

So, seeing that biblical teaching can be regarded by secular authorities to be true history, then why can't the BOM be viewed by secular authorities in the same light? Might I suggest because there is no proof that the BOM is a true historical account, whereas for the bible there is plenty. Not only is there little or no proof, but scholars seem to find contrary things, such as: American Indians being from asia rather than Palestine, no evidence of a hebrew nation, no linguistic proof of hebrew origins, no remnants of structures or weapons (there should be plenty if that epic last battle of the Nephites is true).

Any historical evidence for the BOM? I would love to see it.

 

[Philo]

FB: So Christ was not the Messiah?

It could be argued that secular history points more to the fact that Jesus is the messiah than not (see Josephus' account of the Christ, for instance). It certainly is very clear that Jesus Christ was a real living person two millenia ago. No one would ever argue that he wasn't.

And if someone proved through archeology and history that the Bible was very very wrong about a very great many things, I would probably have to err on the side of caution and reconsider what foundation I had built my faith upon.

 

[Doc T]

In response to Doc T, I don't understand how the Bible and the BOM are apples and oranges. Aren't they both supposed to be testaments of Jesus Christ? Aren't they both supposed to be Holy Spirit inspired? Aren't they both foundation stones of the LDS church? I really don't see how they can be viewed as being different kinds! It seems to me they are both of the same kind. It should only be right, being they true, that they have the same place and tell the same story.

Doc: You are correct. Both the BofM and the Bible are both scripture, testaments of Christ and are both standard works in the LDS church. Where they differ is how much secular research as gone into both. You cannot, for example, compare the state of Old World archaeology with the state of New World archaeology. That was the point I was trying to make.

So, seeing that biblical teaching can be regarded by secular authorities to be true history, then why can't the BOM be viewed by secular authorities in the same light?

Doc: They can.

Might I suggest because there is no proof that the BOM is a true historical account, whereas for the bible there is plenty.

Doc: While you can certainly suggest such, it would only demonstrate that you are not well read on the subject.

Not only is there little or no proof, but scholars seem to find contrary things, such as: American Indians being from asia rather than Palestine, no evidence of a hebrew nation, no linguistic proof of hebrew origins, no remnants of structures or weapons (there should be plenty if that epic last battle of the Nephites is true).

Any historical evidence for the BOM? I would love to see it.

Doc: It is true that current DNA research shows Amerindians as being from Asia, what has not been demonstrated is how this discredits what the BofM text claims for itself.

As far as the evidence you are looking for, may I suggest the following journals and books.

1. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volumes 1-12

2. Reexploring the Book of Mormon, Edited by John W. Welch, 1992

3. Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, Edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, 1999

4. Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, Edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, 1991

5. Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, Edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, 2003

6. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson, 1985.

After you have read the above, then we can discuss the evidence or lack thereof.


~

 

[baker]

Doc (or any other lds posters),

I wanted to revist this thread and, in particular, this issue of supporting evidence for the HISTORY (not theology) contained in the bom.

While you can certainly suggest such, it would only demonstrate that you are not well read on the subject.

Doc,

With all due respect here, there is a difference between being "well read" and something being "well written". Is it possible that the literature produced within FARMS, with respect to the bom claim of history, is not well written?

I believe that non-lds would probably prefer to be "well read" with literature that is "well written". See Below

Doc: It is true that current DNA research shows Amerindians as being from Asia, what has not been demonstrated is how this discredits what the BofM text claims for itself.

As far as the evidence you are looking for, may I suggest the following journals and books.

1. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volumes 1-12

2. Reexploring the Book of Mormon, Edited by John W. Welch, 1992

3. Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, Edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, 1999

4. Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, Edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, 1991

5. Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, Edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, 2003

6. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson, 1985.

After you have read the above, then we can discuss the evidence or lack thereof.

For Doc and any other lds posters:

Have any of the above FARMS materials been accepted or "well received" in any "HISTORY" or "ARCHAEOLOGY" academic circles outside of FARMS or the mormon community?

In checking the BYU online list of history or archaeology course this week I find no classes teaching this history. If these guys at FARMS cant convince the churches own academians that this is deserving of being taught, why use this literature to convince anyone else. To me it seems very hypocritical asking those here to accept it as credible scholarship, when the lds church won't.

By the way, if you will check the history classes being taught at BYU, they teach course on the ancient middle east history that is contained in the bible.

Can any lds poster explain why this bom history is not taught anywhere in high schools and universities while the history of the bible is taught virtually everywhere? The science and tools of archaeology has existed just as long on this continent as it has in the middle east!

In as much as the lds posters claim that the bom history is true, actually existed, or can be reasonably demonstrated - could you respond to the above?

 

[Doc T]

With all due respect here, there is a difference between being "well read" and something being "well written". Is it possible that the literature produced within FARMS, with respect to the bom claim of history, is not well written?

I believe that non-lds would probably prefer to be "well read" with literature that is "well written".

Doc: I presume that you are having to ask this question because you have not read any of the literature yourself? I would suggest that you read at least one or two of them yourself. Then instead of having to wonder about possibilities, we can actually discuss content.

Have any of the above FARMS materials been accepted or "well received" in any "HISTORY" or "ARCHAEOLOGY" academic circles outside of FARMS or the mormon community?

Doc: While most of the books I listed above are for the lay public, there have been several articles that are published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that have also been published in other scholarly journals. I might suggest that you read John Tvedtnes' article "Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship" it can be found at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001TveJ.html

In checking the BYU online list of history or archaeology course this week I find no classes teaching this history. If these guys at FARMS cant convince the churches own academians that this is deserving of being taught, why use this literature to convince anyone else. To me it seems very hypocritical asking those here to accept it as credible scholarship, when the lds church won't.

By the way, if you will check the history classes being taught at BYU, they teach course on the ancient middle east history that is contained in the bible.

Can any lds poster explain why this bom history is not taught anywhere in high schools and universities while the history of the bible is taught virtually everywhere? The science and tools of archaeology has existed just as long on this continent as it has in the middle east!

In as much as the lds posters claim that the bom history is true, actually existed, or can be reasonably demonstrated - could you respond to the above?

Doc: Since I have never attended BYU, I will resist comment and suggest that you send me a PM and I will give you the email address of a couple of BYU professor friends of mine that can better answer your questions.


~

 

[baker]

Doc: I presume that you are having to ask this question because you have not read any of the literature yourself? I would suggest that you read at least one or two of them yourself. Then instead of having to wonder about possibilities, we can actually discuss content.

Doc,

With all due respect again, your presumptions are wrong. While I have read much of their (FARMS) literature, I find it without substantiantion in the real world of academics. I simply see no merit debating something that First: hasn't been compelling for me; and Second, hasn't been accepted by any respectable organization in the rest of our academic scociety. Common sense tells me that this literature is simply put out for the benifit of the members of the lds church who choose not to think for themselves. Like I mentioned before, if FARMS gives comfort to you and other members of your church, I suppose they have served their purpose and for that you should be proud!

But before I labor into discussions of their work, let me see where their work has been accepted by non lds academiens in the fields of history and archaeology. Why is this so hard for you to support!!! (Perhaps you and I really know this answer!!!)

Doc: While most of the books I listed above are for the lay public, there have been several articles that are published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that have also been published in other scholarly journals. I might suggest that you read John Tvedtnes' article "Scholarship in Mormonism and Mormonism in Scholarship" it can be found at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001TveJ.html

Doc, please, don't hide behind all this great work, blossom from it. Tell us what other scholarly journals JT's work was published in if it had to do with history or archaeology of the bom (I'm assuming that it was not other lds related journals !)

Come on Doc, show this board your knowledge and conviction, don't keep referring us to some FARMS site, speak for yourself and answer the question directly.

WHY DOESN'T BYU TEACH A HISTORY CLASS ON THE BOOK OF MORMON. (claiming that you didn't go to BYU is a cop out, their course ciriculum is on-line. I know cause I checked)

Doc: Since I have never attended BYU, I will resist comment and suggest that you send me a PM and I will give you the email address of a couple of BYU professor friends of mine that can better answer your questions.

Doc,

You simply amaze me here. Are you telling us that you don't know the answer to why BYU or any other educational system won't teach the supposed history contained within the BOM? Have you ever asked yourself this question or am I the first to ask you?

Let me suggest a path of direction for you. If you don't know (as I don't), simply ask those at BYU. If you think there are those at BYU who could enlighten me in private, ask them to post their response on this board. What could they possibly tell me in private that they would not want to share in public here? My god, why should this be such a great secret for all those great scholars at BYU to discuss!!! Better yet, get the boys from FARMS and the prof's from BYU to enlighten us all here on this board. (you and Twhite have called in the calvary before!!) Surely they must have addressed this somewhere before in public - right? Tell me they have, please tell me!!! Better yet, show me, I like Missourians!!

Doc, don't let us down after all your braggin on the scholarship about the boys at FARMS.

Thanks (an behalf of all the bean counters I know!!)

Oh, by the way, if I'm being unreasonable, let me know why!!

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I noticed that when the topics turned to such areas as J. Smith's practice of polygamy, it's conflicts/contradictions within the lds own standard works, the temple practice and it's exclusionary nature within families, it's origin within either mormon or other christian scripture, the temple reccommend questions, and many other areas of "real history", there seems to be a race to change the subject or distance themselves and the current lds church from such history.

Oh so true. I am a living, breathing result of "embarressing" LDS history. I was a 7 generation Mormon, my ancestors were converted to Mormonism in 1852 and very soon after left everything they owned in Denmark to travel accross sea and live with "the saints" in Zion. Polygamy was a big part of my ancestors lives and I have read the journal entries of those poor women (my ancestors) that lived that life. The loneliness, heartache, sadness and missery that they went through to live that "new and everlasting covenant" is more than I can even fathem. My family now however, will not even discuss "that" part of the family history except to say, "isn't it wonderful how strong their testimonies were that they were willing to go through all that for the true church?" Other than that, the completely avoid talking about how controlling, unkind, neglectful and selfish the male polygamist husbands were to their wives.

I have to admit though, I do laugh silently to my self at memory of my aunts and grandma sitting around talking about how my ggg grandfather and ggg grandmother were married by BY himself...I laugh because to hear them talk about it, you would think that BY was some kind of NOble prize winner or famous movie star. Oh, and lets not forget that my ggg grandfather (or was it gg grandfather, heck who knows) and Martin Harris were such close friends that when Martin died my grandfather made his casket. whoo hoo, good times! I remember asking my grandma once, "grandma why is it good that Martin Harris and ggg grandpa were friends, didn't Martin Harris leave the church?" Grandma's mouth dropped to the floor and she said something to the affect of, "ssssshhhh, we don't talk about that, besides I am sure he has embraced the gospel again on the 'other-side' ".

I could give you countless recorded (written in journals) stories of my family history from the "deniable" days of Mormonism that would just make you sick to your stomach but I won't because they are "secret, not sacred" and to tell you the truth, I am ashamed that I had family that participated in such things so I will just leave it at what I have said so far.

God Bless,
Grace

 

[dabum2004]

Baker, be not angered by us lds posters. We seek answers also. The reason why historical accounts of the Book of Mormon are not accepted as true history, is because, the rest of the world views it as a product of a false religion/apostasy. The bible is accepted amongst a much greater majority of the world. The church is only, I think it was, ten percent of the Christian population. So, only ten percent of those that believe in Christ support it.

Also, concerning "The science and tools of archaeology has existed just as long on this continent as it has in the middle east!", This continent was "discovered" in the 15th century. It has not been filled from coast to coast until the 18th century. The middle east has been populated since biblical times. The records have been overlooked, and watched after, by people for thousands of years. The records of the "Amerindians" were watched over too, and the new colonists took over. Thus, the sciences of man was not used quite as long here as there was across seas in the Middle east, (as Doc T had replied.

Actually, there is much evidence of it's historical truth. Although there are extensive studies and books concerning this, the majority of the world will not accept it as historical truth. So, promotion of it would be futile outside of the church. Within the Church boundaries, it is accepted as truth. Now BYU, I do not know about. I have never attended there.

 

[dabum2004]

Why do you need to prove to yourself in public? Why do you need to attack someone else's character? Why do you need to resort to anger?

God is not a God of contention. The Spirit flees before contention.

Also: read Matthew 5.

 

[dabum2004]

Sorry Baker. I let myself criticize you. I am sorry. I should not have done that. Please don't be mad at me.

 

[RhetorTheo]

When I saw the title of the OP, I thought this was going to be about Creationism. That is, the irony of those who use logic, science and history to debunk Mormonism, but then use the same kinds of arguments the Mormons use to defend Creationism.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Actually, there is much evidence of it's historical truth. Although there are extensive studies and books concerning this, the majority of the world will not accept it as historical truth. So, promotion of it would be futile outside of the church. Within the Church boundaries, it is accepted as truth. Now BYU, I do not know about. I have never attended there.

Why do atheists and agnostics accept much of the Bible as being historically true, but reject the historical contentions of the Book of Mormon? Are the scientists so certain that Mormonism is the true religion that they falsify all of the scientific evidence and their beliefs in order to protect all non-Mormonism? Do they check with the BoM before announcing any historical data, and hide the data if it might corroborate the claims of the BoM?

If scientists are so biased that they will only believe what they want to believe, how do scientific theories change, such as the belief in creationism giving way to evolution? Do you distrust all scientists, or only those who give results that contradict the BoM?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Baker, be not angered by us lds posters. We seek answers also. The reason why historical accounts of the Book of Mormon are not accepted as true history, is because, the rest of the world views it as a product of a false religion/apostasy. The bible is accepted amongst a much greater majority of the world. The church is only, I think it was, ten percent of the Christian population. So, only ten percent of those that believe in Christ support it.

Also, concerning "The science and tools of archaeology has existed just as long on this continent as it has in the middle east!", This continent was "discovered" in the 15th century. It has not been filled from coast to coast until the 18th century. The middle east has been populated since biblical times. The records have been overlooked, and watched after, by people for thousands of years. The records of the "Amerindians" were watched over too, and the new colonists took over. Thus, the sciences of man was not used quite as long here as there was across seas in the Middle east, (as Doc T had replied.

Actually, there is much evidence of it's historical truth. Although there are extensive studies and books concerning this, the majority of the world will not accept it as historical truth. So, promotion of it would be futile outside of the church. Within the Church boundaries, it is accepted as truth. Now BYU, I do not know about. I have never attended there.

dabum, I appreciate your kindness in your posts but I have to point out to you that it doesn't matter whether or not the BofM is widely accepted as religous truth, if the scientific and archeological facts really existed, then the scientific community would count is a archeological fact and it would be taught as such.

Grace

 

[Wrigley]

FB: Oh great another anti mormon....opps, anti LDST. Can I say that I find it remarkable a that anti, or what ever you want to be called that opposes the LDS church, anyway why are you so sure that the negatives are always the truth? That every person who had to say anything negative about Joseph Smith is automatically believed. You know I don't automatically believe the good. I believe that there are bad thrown in there. I am sad that you only dwell on the bad, and believe that the negative has not been blown up as is factual.

Why post to a Christian forum? Do you expect Christians to support mormonism?