Not sure if this is the proper location, but here goes.

[MikeGlosterIII]

After reading a Mormon blog on Patheos, I have a strong feeling LDS and BYU , knowing they will be shown to be not an ancient book-based faith, have discouraged such studies. One would wonder how long they can keep the faithful in the dark.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigma...byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

 

[mmksparbud]

After reading a Mormon blog on Patheos, I have a strong feeling LDS and BYU , knowing they will be shown to be not an ancient book-based faith, have discouraged such studies. One would wonder how long they can keep the faithful in the dark.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigma...byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

this goes nowhere---can you recheck the link please.

 

[mmksparbud]

Found it---this si from that publication:


"As far as I can tell, this restriction represents an intentional policy by the BYU Religious Education administration. They don’t want the Book of Mormon studied contextually as an ancient historical document. They want it studied only as a theological and ethical document. "
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigma...byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

 

[fatboys]

After reading a Mormon blog on Patheos, I have a strong feeling LDS and BYU , knowing they will be shown to be not an ancient book-based faith, have discouraged such studies. One would wonder how long they can keep the faithful in the dark.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigma...byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

Here is the problem I see here. I like Hamberlin and have read some of his stuff. But many times scholars or those who do research on ancient Book of Mormon are just putting their own opinions as to what the information they gather really means. If it does not line up with exactly what tradition says people will say "oh no the church isn't true" and the anti Mormons will just go with on and on about how false the church is. On the other hand the results could line right up with traditions and the antis will claim that it was a hack job. There is not enough information to have any one say that this is what really happened. This erase arch is going on through fairs and other private groups.

 

[MikeGlosterIII]

Found it---this si from that publication:


"As far as I can tell, this restriction represents an intentional policy by the BYU Religious Education administration. They don’t want the Book of Mormon studied contextually as an ancient historical document. They want it studied only as a theological and ethical document. "
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigma...byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/

This is also my opinion. They know it can never stand up to serious study in an ancient context.

 

[withwonderingawe]

There is this struggle at BYU between trying to be academic and at the same time trying to be a religious school. If you want to be a Seminary teacher then there is a full on religious education but if you're going into another field then they want BYU to be accepted in that field and for future employers to understand that it's not some sort of crazy religious brainwashing institution.

He writes "More broadly, you must publish outside the “BYU Bubble”—that is, BYU or LDS sponsored publications"

If the outside world is going to accept BYU as an accredited collage then its professors need to be recognized in their fields.

 

[withwonderingawe]

This is also my opinion. They know it can never stand up to serious study in an ancient context.

Actually the opposite is true but these kinds of studies should be left in the realm of religion.

 

[Job8]

This is also my opinion. They know it can never stand up to serious study in an ancient context.

Mormonism was never meant to be an academic issue. Since the early Mormon leaders claimed to speak by Divine inspiration, they simply expected to have their words accepted or rejected, not researched. While there is much that lines up with the Bible, there is also much that does not.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Mormonism was never meant to be an academic issue. Since the early Mormon leaders claimed to speak by Divine inspiration, they simply expected to have their words accepted or rejected, not researched. While there is much that lines up with the Bible, there is also much that does not.

I think it's more we hope people will read the Book of Mormon and ask the Lord in sincere pray if it is from him. The Book of Mormon will never be proven any more than the Bible is proven to its skeptic.

 

[mmksparbud]

There have been a great deal of the bible that has been proven by archeology--various cities and peoples mentioned that once they thought never existed have been dug up. No one thought the Hittites existed--now they know all sorts of things about them. They no longer say the bible is just a bunch of made up stories about made up places, they now can only say the stories are made up! Nothing mentioned in the BOM have been found--

 

[smaneck]

Mormonism was never meant to be an academic issue. Since the early Mormon leaders claimed to speak by Divine inspiration, they simply expected to have their words accepted or rejected, not researched.

And this differs from standard Christianity how? Do you welcome the academic study of the Bible? Or do you insist it is the product of Divine inspiration to be accepted or rejected, not researched?

 

[smaneck]

No one thought the Hittites xisted--now they know all sorts of things about them.

Who exactly denied the existence of the Hittites? When?

They no longer say the bible is just a bunch of made up stories about made up places, they now can only say the stories are made up!

I'm not sure who you 'they' is, but I don't know of any scholar who held that the places were simply made up. At times there is confusion as to what was happening when. For instance, the Bible sometimes confuses the Philistines with the Phoenicians, putting the former in the region much earlier than we know they were there. As for the stories. some of them can be substantiated and some are impossible. What I notice Christians do entirely too often is use the fact that Biblical archaeology substantiates parts of the Bible as evidence it is all true. That's just silly. There was a time when people believed that Troy was just a legend, that is until they dug it up. That doesn't make the entire Iliad and Odyssey accurate, nor does it prove there was any such thing as a cyclops. The Bible is a primary source for events in antiquity, and it has to be utilized as any other primary source, just the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Mahabharata. It will tell us somethings about the past but the more fantastic the stories become the more likely they are not to be entirely historical.[/QUOTE]

 

[Job8]

And this differs from standard Christianity how? Do you welcome the academic study of the Bible? Or do you insist it is the product of Divine inspiration to be accepted or rejected, not researched?

Yes, essentially that is exactly what is boils down to.

And he said unto them,Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15,16).

 

[smaneck]

Yes, essentially that is exactly what is boils down to.

As I just pointed out in the thread on Taqlid, Baha'is are encouraged to investigate such matters for themselves.

 

[mmksparbud]

Biblical Background[edit]

Before the discoveries, the only source of information about Hittites had been the Old Testament (see Biblical Hittites). Francis William Newman expressed the critical view, common in the early 19th Century, that, if the Hittites existed at all, "no Hittite king could have compared in power to the King of Judah...".[7]

As archaeological discoveries revealed the scale of the Hittite kingdom in the second half of the 19th Century, Archibald Henry Sayce postulated, rather than to be compared to Judah, the Anatolian civilization "[was] worthy of comparison to the divided Kingdom of Egypt", and was "infinitely more powerful than that of Judah".[8] Sayce and other scholars also noted that Judah and the Hittites were never enemies in the Hebrew texts; in the Book of Kings, they supplied the Israelites with cedar, chariots, and horses, as well as being a friend and allied to Abraham in the Book of Genesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites

The Hittites were considered just another biblical fairy tale until archeology dug them up----ooops.

 

[smaneck]

The Hittites were considered just another biblical fairy tale until archeology dug them up----ooops.

You got one scholar at the beginning of the 19th century who has his doubts about the existence of the Hittites and suddenly that becomes the consensus. In any case, what really seems to be the common belief was that they were weaker than the kingdom of Judah!