quote:While this is anecdotal, I suspect that most Mormon apologetics are very reliant on FARMS-type studies.
I think you're probably having these conversations with a certain demographic within the Mormon community. Most church members, if asked about archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't even answer archaeologically. The would say that they don't know and don't particularly care where the ruins of Zarahemla can be found. The official church position is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual document and not a historical record to be proven by archaeologists.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I like FARMS just because if someone keeps insisting they have proof that the BoM can't be true for this that and the other reason (archelogically) and no amount of "I haven't looked into that yet and don't much care that such and such ruins didn't have such and such painting" will get them to stop bugging me I can refer them to FARMS. It may be just as meaningless as all the rationalization going on against the Church, but it's proof that you can rationalize from either side and it's probably not a good place to start the foundation of your testimony.
That's because such conversation are, in my opinion, not that much different from doctrinal discussions such as whether or not Christ said that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of god or if the sabbath day should be celebrated on Saturday or Sunday.
Each side has their script -- horses! DNA! -- and they go through it. Of course Mormons are going to use FARMS' work -- that's what apologetics is for.
And that's the whole problem with apologetics -- as well as with those who are amateur debunkers of the LDS.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At some point, Zal, we have to entertain the idea that we may not in fact be Napoleon, no matter how confident we are that Josephine has our cell phone number. Know what I mean?
Here are the relevant links from FARMS. Whether you like FARMS or not, these are the most knowledgeable scholars in the field. And be nice -- one of the articles is by my father, one of the most prominent LDS historians ever.
To be fair, I should mention that while engaged in collaborative goals, FARMS isn't a monolithic enterprise. FARMS authors vary in their tone and in the quality of their work.
That said, my points about apologetics stand. A useful critical tool, but *a* and not *the only* tool.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not going to say what I'm thinking, here. But will you admit that the LDS church has not, as a matter of historical record, been particularly kind to historians within its ranks -- especially ones who've challenged the conventional wisdom? *grin*
It takes more than challenging the conventional wisdom to get an historian in trouble with the Church. My own grandfather has looked into a lot of issues and come up with interesting takes on things that some members and leaders of the church would rather see left alone (eg, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision), and it has never landed him in a disciplinary council.
It isn't history or questions that the Church has a problem with. It's conclusions. If you draw the conclusion from your work (in whatever field, amateur or professional) that the Church's teachings are false, and if you publicize that conclusion, then the Church is quite right to ask, "Then why are you still a member?"
Unfortunately, certain historians (notably, D. Michael Quinn) who have drawn such conclusions have made their issue with the Church into a public debate about freedom of thought, as though they were just a few poor, persecuted scholars who dared merely to question the tyrannical authority of the big scary Church. They portray themselves as new Copernici (heh heh) and Galileos, when in truth, their story is no more grand and noble than that of any lay member who loses their faith.
People lose or abandon faith all the time. And oddly, in the case of this church, people also turn around and try to "expose" the Church they once believed in. Being an historian doesn't make anyone special in this regard. It just gives them a different podium to preach from.
Anyway, my point is, historians are not being singled out for special treatment. Rather, historians are offended because they are being treated exactly like everyone else. If you lose your faith and publically preach against the core doctrines of the Church, you get disfellowshipped. Being an historian doesn't transform your opinions about your faith into scientific findings worthy of extra credence and respect.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The official church position is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual document and not a historical record to be proven by archaeologists.
Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
Events like that involve things like new world Jewish cities, metal weapons, horses, chariots, mid-19th century middle class political thought, that sort of thing.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that we think the historical parts of the Book of Mormon isn't true. I'm just saying that that's not its purpose.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
It does? Where?
Its authors claim do several times to not be able to include even the hundredth part of the goings-on of the people. The Book of Mormon is intended to be more of a record of the teachings and the spiritual aspects of the civilization(s) within.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's a pretty standard anti-LDS litany. I recognize that you may find it compelling and don't find the apologetic responses convincing, but if dismissing the Book of Mormon on such grounds, you're really missing out on some good stuff -- whether it's historicity is valid or not.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the book, and I haven't read about 66% of the posts here, so I'm probably de-railing things by saying this, but here goes...
quote: In the book, Palmer argues that the faith's scripture, The Book of Mormon, reflects LDS founder Joseph Smith's own 19th-century environment, not ancient America as Mormons believe. He further suggests that Smith embellished his divine revelations to respond to critics and to stabilize the church.
If this is what he argues, he basically is arguing that the story of the golden plates are false, and as such, almost everything Joseph said was false. Looking at his credentials, he has absolutely no authoritative qualifications to examine the Book of Mormon or church history. He has a Master's in American history and has taught in the Church Education system for 34 years, with a single stint at the Church's New Zealand college. What this means is that his treatment of the subject isn't as reliable as it would be if he had been a doctor, and what seems to be his goal (As I looked at the description of the book on the publisher's website is actually a good thing. My guess is that he failed miserably by adding in some personal opinion, and basically just being a bad writer. I can see how his subject matter could easilly get out of hand for someone without a good deal of experience in writing books of a historical fashion. What's funny about the author is that he attempted a doctorate, but didn't complete it. One can only guess at why. I looked a little bit into his explaination of the book. He mentions "The Salamader Letter" written by Martin Harris, explaining his reasons for financing Joseph. However, he took the letter out of context and began questioning the things the church taught. If you do something like that in a historical study, you can get a false start, which will lead you to find false proof for a false theory (I'm just going to go aside here and give the example of Bean in Ender's Shadow). You can get really close to the truth, but something that isn't completely true is in great part false. I have a hard time accepting the work this guy did as a serious treatment of history, given his credentials, history, and slant. But that's just me, I guess. And for those who think the disfellowshipment is a bad thing, please realize that I know people who have been disfellowshipped for things as seemingly non-serious as heavy petting. The purpose of this is to help him examine his stand on history, maybe it will get him to go back and take an objective look at his work to see exactly where he screwed up.
posted
With all due respect to this site's host and the LDSers here...
I'm interested in this "anti-mormon" label.
Exactly what does it mean? I've had posts deleted in the past because they were called "anti", but from my perspective, I was just trying to ask about some of the more historically difficult aspects of the BOM.
Is the "anti" label applied to anything that questions the LDS faith, or only to intentional assaults on the faith?
In what context would it be acceptable for me to ask about, say, New World horses in the pre-contact period?
It seems to me that the "anti" label is a carte blanche to stifle questions; how far am I from the truth?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hrm. But the BOM does claim to be a historical document. It claims to be a factual record of past events.
Events like that involve things like new world Jewish cities, metal weapons, horses, chariots, mid-19th century middle class political thought, that sort of thing.
posted
Haha. I should have been more clear. When I wrote about having asked questions, I was thinking about previous threads.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It may be just as meaningless as all the rationalization going on against the Church, but it's proof that you can rationalize from either side and it's probably not a good place to start the foundation of your testimony. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
