Seeking Simple Answers from Apologists on Tough LDS History Issues

125 Responses

1. No offense, dude; but, what exactly are you trying to do here? You could have just as easily filled out the table yourself with the common appologists’ response. We didn’t you?

2. No offense J. Stapley. But as one new to blogging, new to realizing these are legitimate questions to ask about the LDS church I am quite interested. They seem like key questions which could be the reason for causing people to leave the LDS church. If there are “apologetic” responses to these questions they should be put forward and discussed. If these responses help someone to see how they can remain within a religious tradition that is very important to them then it seems worthwhile to create this list.

   If the apologist responses seem oversimplified and try to skirt the real issues then it is also helpful to have these things posted. It can help individuals decide whether these issues are serious enough for them to leave a tradition which is very important to them. That could be an equally important process to go through.

   On the other hand perhaps none of these issues are important enough to cause people to make major life decisions. I guess my support of John’s post here is selfish. I want to know about some coping mechanisms for some of these issues which are intensely hard to swallow as a active member of the church. I also want to know if there are no real adequate or soul satisfying answers because I’d like to think I am honestly searching for truth. I know I don’t do that all the time and I probably seek for comfortable places more than I like to examine truth claims, but my ideal is the search for truth so there it is.

3. No problem, J. And my biggest concern was that people would question my motives here.

   What I’m doing is simply trying to address the biggest LDS historical issues in a really clear, direct way.

   I honestly can’t speak for apologists as for the answers. You may see the answers as commonly known, but I don’t think that the average person is clear on what the apologist would say. The purpose is to clearly and simply communicate to the average member as to what the apologist’s position is.

   Make sense? Nothing nefarious. Hopefully very straightforward.

4. I have no problem with posting about these things, S. It is just that all the information of what appologists think about these issues is readily available. I’m pretty sure John is familiar with all the standard responses. I am interested why he didn’t just include them and make some sort of cogent analysis or something.

5. Personally, I don’t believe at all that it is readily available in a concise manner. If it is, please share. I know of very long, detailed articles about each item individually–but not of an aggregated, simplified, concise statement for each item, targeted at the average member as an audience (not a PhD in antrhopology or whatever).

   If this does exist, please save us all the time/effort and point us to it.

6. P.S. I honestly and sincerely don’t feel qualified or capable to answer for the apologist. I’d like to see FAIR and/or notable apologists go on the record here. I think it would be a valuable exercise–focusing on high-level simplicity and clarity–something often lacking in these discussions.

   If you think these things are really easy/obvious, please do start the ball rolling and help me/us fill in the boxes. Maybe this will be a really fast thing if we get started now.

7. here we go AGAIN? can we all agree that “readily available” and its various derivatives is perhaps the most overused subjective description in the bloggernaclagetics?

   in lieu of a grid or spreadsheet, i want to have a voodoo doll. and everytime i see “readily available”, “everyone knows/knew that”, or “he was speaking as a man not a prophet.” i am going to stick burning needles into my midgley/peterson/joker voodoo doll. if dan could provide any feedback on the personal effects of being effigied in voodoo that would be fun for all.

   John,

   i am going to give you kudos for standing up for the average person who may not know something that is readily available to everyone. you are superman.

8. Hm…I don’t doubt that there are tons of people that don’t know about this stuff. John, I would suggest that you try filling it out and then ask your readers if it is correct.

   Part of the trouble is that not everything can be distilled into a few sentances. So sure, Joseph had 30 some-odd wifes. The answer to why and how isn’t so strait forward.

   And if you wanted to be truely the superman for Mayan Elephant, you would refer in your posts to the best appologetic sources for these issues. I don’t think that I am over estimating your capacity. If I am, many appologies.

9. J.,

   I honestly don’t have time to do all the research, and post the replies, and manage the threads. That’s one of the benefits of the internet. We can divide and conquer. Many hands make light work.

   I established the framework, and will edit the table. I’m looking for volunteers to fill in the boxes. I think that’s reasonable. Why don’t you take just one, and give it a try?

10. P.S. I’ll take 5 sentences, if 3 is too few. :)

11. I think another reason why it would be good to let folks from FAIR or other apologists fill out the table themselves is that they can not say that their view were misrepresented there. So I’d prefer to see those there first before writing anything in response. I do think that distilling the essence of each discussion to a few sentences is a useful exercise, whether or not the information is readily available elsewhere. Some of that other discussion is pretty hard to follow and laden with personal attacks on both sides, so perhaps a length limit for both sides will make folks stick to the subject at hand, rather than whether or not someone else is a butthead.

12. John,
    I don’t think that you intend it as such, but this comes across as grandstanding. You might want to wait on this until you have had your face to face with the apologists that you want a response from. At this point, I don’t think that they feel they will get a fair hearing in this forum and they don’t seem to be entirely convinced of your good will. I think that you may need to build better relationships with them before you can expect them to fill out that chart for you, especially when they have already attempted to answer many of these questions. Saying that you don’t have the time to do the research and summarize it yourself is hardly going to earn their respect and help either.

    I think your heart is in a good place, but I think that you are going about this in a wrong-headed manner.

13. HP,

    I see and respect your point, but don’t quite understand it. If you look at several posts on this blog, several apologists have been willing to spend hours and hours going into great depth on a number of issues–making literally hundreds of posts in the process.

    Why that, and not this? Is it too much to ask to say, “give me a shot, and if I fail you, don’t ever trust me again?”

    I’ve done 2 podcasts w/ FAIR folks, and I believe that my tone and integrity and respect was virtually spotless (just ask Greg and John). I even sent John and Greg kudo emails long after the podcast had been posted, to let them know how much people liked it.

    I have been critical of FAIR/FARMS in the past (for ad-hominem attacks), but have apologized for getting angry, and have had FAIR folks acknowledge to me that there was truth in my criticisms.

    So I just don’t quite understand the reluctance. But I will try to respect it, anyway.

14. HP. interesting thought. though i dont agree.

    what i find interesting is that the dan was very able to respond to questions, but he was selective in how he responded. thats natural for any debate and he is consistent in his style. the only thing that could possibly be considered at all direct in the grid is that it contains the debate and asks for yes/no answers. where, typically, the FARMS approach may be to answer questions about a hat or breastplate with responses about paper/onerock/scissors or paper/2rock/breastplate.

15. ME/HP,

    This is a major motivation for this project. FAIR has a wiki, and a bunch of articles, but they go very deep, are scattered abroad, and I would argue, are not written in a way that the average Mormon could understand/enjoy reading.

    Apologists and anti’s are willing to debate and engage in arguments, but how do we move beyond this, and come to an agreement on the basic facts, and provide a sound, direct justification and rebuttal…that doesn’t get lost in the noise of the debate.

    That’s what I’d love to do…and I really am surprised that people are struggling so hard w/ this. It seems really, really simple, straightforward, and valuable.

16. John, I think you’ve been beaten to the punch. There are a couple resources that already do this sort of thing here:

    https://www.fairlds.org/apol/

    and here

    https://www.fairwiki.org

    Although you might want to hand your list of claims over to the wiki people so they can make sure they have article stubs on it.

17. Frank,

    I’m totally aware of those sites, but they are the complete opposite of what I’m trying to do here.

    I’m looking for a high-level, aggregated list of topics…where the basic facts are stipulated up front, and very concise answers/justifications are given.

    For the average LDS person with a life to wade through the mountain of articles on both those sites would be unmanageable to many. A conslidated, high-level summary would be of immense value, in my opinion. Most importantly–written for the average member.

    And again…I’m totally fine w/ links to the more detailed articles for those who have time/ability to pursue.

18. Is “We don’t completely understand why yet, but we are working on understanding it better,” ever an acceptible for the explanation column?

    Or would that immediately be paraded around as triumph, victory, Game, Set, Match in the rebuttal column?

19. Doc,

    That’s a totally acceptable answer, and from my experience (and those with whom I speak) much more respectable and credible than an answer that really strains reason.

    I promise not to mock, and to fully support, answers like that. I respect them completely.

20. As an active member of the Church and an occasional visitor to the blogernacle, I would personally love to see a succinct apologetic take on the above issues.

    These are questions I’ve struggled with but have never heard an official ‘apologetic’ answer that addresses all of them. Thanks for putting this together, John. I look forward to reading the results.

21. “While the Book of Mormon tells of hundreds of thousands of soliders fighting battles with steel swords, shields and helmets, no one has ever found a sampling of any of these items in the Americas.”

    This is not my area, but I have never seen this passage to which you refer. Nephi refers to steel weapons, Jarom (his great-nephew) refers to using steel but not in weapons and certainly there were not hundreds of thousands of Nephites at that point. Also, there is one mention in Ether within a few generations of their arrival (well before anything like hundreds of thousands of people were among the Jaredites).

    So to what are you referring?

22. “I’m looking for a high-level, aggregated list of topics…where the basic facts are stipulated up front, and very concise answers/justifications are given.”

    This pretty much what the wiki does– short answers with references at the bottom.

23. “This pretty much what the wiki does– short answers with references at the bottom.”

    Ok, cool. So let’s do a test, Frank. Regarding the war/swords/shields question, can you find me the succinct answer up on Fairwiki? That would be a great test case for your assertion.

    I would love to discover it’s all there–easy to find and succinct. Please send a pointer if you find something.

24. John, these are my own thoughts, and done off the top of my head. (It’d be helpful for discussion if you numbered your points) Like others I do wonder a bit about the point. Still, as Frank mentioned, Fair has been trying to take care of these things via its wiki. Although clearly the wiki is very much a work in progress. (There’s no entry on money digging yet, for example)

    1. I think all apologists accept this historic fact. The typical explanation is probably best found in say Bushman where Joseph is weened off the trappings used to facilitate revelation. But as others said, even the U&T is basically a stone to convey information and the Liahona isn’t much different. It seems odd to attack Joseph for misunderstanding such things and trying to use them as technology rather than through faith a call upon God’s power. I think Joseph certainly learned that by the end. Does learning Joseph was a money digger and somewhat superstitious bother people? Certainly. Should it? I don’t think it does. I think it’s more an issue of the unfamiliar seeming shocking while we accept far more unusual and strange items simply because we’re familiar with them. Things like virgin births, annointing eyes with mud (found not only in the NT but in Egyptian magic), drawing lots to discern the spirit, and so forth. The folk traditions of the 19th century are simply unknown and thus seem odd to us while we accept our own, equally strange biases.

    2. I think everyone acknowledges that the translation was done via the spirit and not “with the text” in any normal way. I’ve never read anything in any LDS context asserting otherwise. I’m surprised anyone even sees this as an issue since clearly Joseph couldn’t read the script. The issue isn’t whether Joseph read the book (since he *couldn’t* read it) but whether there is a fundamental relation between the produced text and the book.

    3. Once again everyone agrees Joseph had multiple wives, with the debate just being over the exact number and which ones he had marital relations with. I’ve never heard anything else taught, although certainly given our uncomfort with polygamy we don’t focus on it.

    4. Once again I’ve never seen anyone object to this. I think everyone concedes that Joseph practiced polygamy in secret to avoid persecution for it and that this certainly involved lying about it. Given the nature of the persecution (and what the persecutors eventually did do) I don’t think many can assert this is too problematic – especially given that earlier polygamist, Abraham’s, own actions regarding his marital state.

    5. Everyone acknowledges polyandry although there are disputes about how many of the marriages were for time or instead for eternity and how many were intended to be practical marriages.

    6. Once again it would be silly to assert Joseph never slept with people he was married to. (After all the Utah polygamists did) One can argue that (as in Utah) some marriages weren’t practical ones and probably didn’t involve sex. But certainly many surely did – although there isn’t clear evidence on the issue.

    7. Regarding seeing the Book of Mormon and the spiritual eyes bit, that was Martin Harris’ statement. But it doesn’t imply others didn’t. Nor did Harris feel this wasn’t something real. Further it isn’t clear this is the *only* experience of Harris. (Harris also said he sat with the plates on his knee for an hour and a half)

    8. I’m not sure on the details about which blacks held the priesthood, but I believe that is right. I think the blacks and the priesthood issue probably involved some big mistakes and unfortunate probably wasn’t something Joseph clarified.

    9. The issue of swords is a difficult one. There are the Aztec swords but that doesn’t explain the metal issue. The main apologetic answer is that absence of find doesn’t imply non-existence. The claim is that they would have rusted. I recognize many might find this one unsatisfying. (I think it one of the few of your list that someone might find legitimately troubling)

    10. I think the DNA issue is misleading as you portray it. Apologists (long before the DNA issue) asserted it was a local influx into a large pre-existing body of people. So not finding Indians as primarily of Israelite descent shouldn’t be unexpected. Rather it is what we expected to find way back in the 80’s.

25. I’ve been visiting Mormon Stories almost from it’s inception and I’ve been a observer/poster at FAIR for even longer. My religious views are certainly “TBM” though I have problems with the approaches of both sides on many issues and it seems that the criticisms coming from either side are not without merit or foundation.

    I appreciate John for what he is trying to do here and so will be the first “apologist”–is it me or does this title seem to be taking on the smear of “fool” lately–to add a point for the chart:

    >Joseph Smith had somewhere between 27 and 33 wives

    – Yes

    – God commanded Joseph Smith to take plural wives.
    [It only takes one sentence]

    -[add your favorite rebuttal here, like “There isn’t a God,” or “Joseph Smith wasn’t a true prophet,” or “Joseph was a libertine seeking cover for his lustful connections,” etc.]

    I think I’ll venture a second contribution:

    >Joseph’s polygamy, denial of polygamy, and destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor were important factors in his eventual martyrdom

    – Yes

    – Yes
    [one word]

    – Yes

    I hope my terse answers aren’t taken as mockery of the endeavor, though it should be obvious that perhaps the first column may need editing in order to elicit more of what John might be looking for. However, it really comes down to a question of one’s faith as almost every row could be “Yes | Joseph was a true prophet and may have done this because… | Joseph was a false prophet and may have done this because….”

    —Me

    P.S. Do not confuse Me with the elephant in the room.

26. oops. I type too slow. I came in second.

27. Clark,

    I could kiss you. Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I’ve updated the table to try to take a 1st draft at your points. In some cases, I modified the fact/issue to more accurately reflect the issue. The 2 questions I have are:

    1) I didn’t find your answer to the Nauvoo Expositor/martyrdom question

    2) I don’t understand what’s misleading about the Lamanite DNA thing. Didn’t many apostles and prophets teach for over 100 years that American Indians were Lamanites? Isn’t it true that most American Indians are not likely to be Lamanites now? If you wanna restate the fact/row item to be more accurate, I’ll look at replacing it.

    Thanks again SOOO much for helping getting the ball rolling. Please tell me any place you’d like to see clarification/correction. I don’t want to misconstrue your answers.

28. Thanks Me.

    Updated to include your responses.

29. yeah me. I get confused by ME too.

30. John,

    not hard to find:

    https://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals#Steel

    also, there is a summary right below it if you want a really short answer. i think the project is still getting going so you should probably submit to them any unanswered questions or answers so they can fill it out.

31. Frank,

    The steel definitions are helpful, but they only attempt to answer part of the question. Why have none of the weapons been found? Shouldn’t there be hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of artifacts? An answer to that would be the direct answer to the question I’m posing, which I think represents what many ask about the Book of Mormon.

32. Yes, this is why I am still waiting for you to tell me where the Book of Mormon talks of hundreds of thousands of steel weapons. Many “artifacts” _have_ been found. But none of them will be modern steel if that is a mis-chaacterization of the word.

    So pony up :). Where does the Book of Mormon mention metal weapons in the quantities you purport?

33. 1 Ne. 16: 18
    18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine asteel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

    2 Ne. 5: 15
    15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

    Jarom 1: 8
    8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

    Ether 7: 9
    9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

    Ether 14: 4
    4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

    Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

    Mormon 6
    10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

    11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

    12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

    13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

    14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

    15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

    That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all.

34. 1 Ne. 16: 18
    18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

    2 Ne. 5: 15
    15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

    Jarom 1: 8
    8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

    Ether 7: 9
    9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

    Ether 14: 4
    4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

    Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

    Mormon 6
    10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

    11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

    12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

    13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

    14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

    15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

    That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all.

35. 1 Ne. 16: 18
    18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

    2 Ne. 5: 15
    15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

    Jarom 1: 8
    8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

    Ether 7: 9
    9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

    Ether 14: 4
    4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

    Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

    Mormon 6
    10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

    11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

    12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

    13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

    14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

    15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

    That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all. How do apologists account for the lack of weaponry and armory uncovered as artifacts?

36. 1 Ne. 16: 18
    18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

    2 Ne. 5: 15
    15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

    Jarom 1: 8
    8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

    Ether 7: 9
    9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

    Ether 14: 4
    4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

    Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

    Mormon 6
    10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

    11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

    12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

    13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

    14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

    15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

    That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all. How do apologists account for the lack of weaponry and armory and metals uncovered as artifacts?

37. Dan Peterson challenged this assertion over on the FAIR boards: “DNA evidence now shows that many, if not most of these Indians are more likely descendants of Asians, and not Israelis.”

    Anyone have an idea as to how/why?

38. “10. I think the DNA issue is misleading as you portray it. Apologists (long before the DNA issue) asserted it was a local influx into a large pre-existing body of people. So not finding Indians as primarily of Israelite descent shouldn’t be unexpected. Rather it is what we expected to find way back in the 80’s.”

    While I realize that this is technically true, the general populace of the church certainly believes, and was taught in seminary and church, that native inhabitants of the Americas are all literal descendants of Lehi’s band. I was recently taken to task rather strongly for daring to suggest otherwise in a Gospel Doctrine class. I was also assured that we believe Polynesians are Lamanites. I realize that’s just one teacher, but certainly no one in class seemed to think I had anything of merit to say. My two kids, 15, and 20, now say that they’ve been taught in seminary and church that all native americans are descendants of Lehi. I don’t think there’s anyway to make a good case that this wasn’t very common doctrine in the church for a very long time.

39. John,

    Let me just side with those pointing out the inanity of this project. Throwing out a dozen argumentative questions, and then asking for a three (or five) sentence reply, in the guise of helping the “common (wo)man” is just silly. Despite what Fox News and their ilk would have you believe, the world cannot always be explained by bulletpoints, or even a slick-looking power-point presentation. Unlike you, I trust that the “common man” has the intellectual wherewithal to read, say “Rough Stone Rolling,” if they are genuine interested in these issues. Most are not, for better or worse. But this highly unreadable, bite-sized, fleeting chart you threw together is not going to help anyone.

40. I appreciate what you are doing here. I’m an active member that finds it incredibly tedious to slog through FAIR’s typical responses to these issues and I feel that in the process that the answers that they provided get lost in reams of superfluous rhetoric. A simple “Yes” or “No” and a clear and succinct explanation is something that I have found lacking in any forum that I’ve been to. I can always continue into an in-depth study on any of the issues if I’m dissatisfied with the short answer.

41. #10. I think I can take a stab at this one as I was a biology major and know a little about population genetics.

    sentence 1
    DNA evidence does confirm most if not many native americans are of asiatic descent.

    sentence 2
    It is much, much more difficult to prove or disprove that a group of israelites could have come to Amereica, and interbred with the existing population over thousands of years.

    Sentence 3
    Their lineage still would include Israelite blood, but unique Israelite markers could easily have been lost if the founding group had a population of less than about 600 people.

    sentence 4
    A careful reading of the inferences regarding sizes of the Lamanite vs the Nephite populations and sudden growth in numbers strongly supports this view of the Book of Mormon.

    sentence 5
    In Joseph’s time, the idea of Israelite origin of all Native Americans was a wildly popular idea, and it seems evident that enthusiasm for this idea led to overstated and oversimplified claims about Native american and Polynesian origins, even though they may well have some ancestral lines that trace back to Lehi.

42. Paula, the danger with anecdotes is that they are just that. I don’t deny in the least that many members have odd views of their own theology and history. That’s true of most religions where (frankly) most members don’t really do much research of their own beliefs. (For instance the average mainstream Christian when asked about God describes modalism, a heresy, and not trinitarianism) I could count of hundreds of false things I’ve heard in church. But formally the church doesn’t teach this.

    John is right that some GAs have taught this and believed it. But that ultimately is irrelevant. Mormons don’t believe in inerrancy and GA speculation is not the equivalent of Mohammed channelling God word for word.

43. Correction sentence 4
    Careful reading of the Book of Mormon and inferences made regarding the sudden jumps in populations of Lamanites and Nephites strongly supports this view.

44. I do understand about the use of anecdotes, but short of a survey of the general population that’s the best I can do. But of the many people I’ve discussed this with, most of them believe that current native americans are literal descendants of
    Lehi and his children. Just saying that the apologists didn’t believe this doesn’t really address the issue here.

45. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, and I realize that we don’t claim that every statement ever made by a leader is prophetic. However, this one is referred to by the CES manual for B of M. I’m not sure how recent that manual is, since I don’t have a copy. Perhaps we need something like the concept of Ex Cathedra statements, to settle what we should believe or not?

    Robert L. Simpson
    Now, young people, as I bear my testimony to you this morning, I want to relate some very intimate happenings. I want to tell you some things that have been important in my life, things that have been main structural supports in my testimony, and I want to tell them to you in all humility. I hope you will not misconstrue these remarks. I want you to be sure and realize that I tell them to you not in a boasting way. I tell them to you just because they are a part of my life and so much a part of my life that I do not know how to separate myself from them. I give them to you in hopes that you might be able to at least remember the spirit of what I say and perhaps make it a small part of your testimony, too.

    “I would like, in making reference to these wonderful people from New Zealand-especially the Maori folks here today-to turn to Alma 53:5Alma 53:6Alma 53:7Alma 53:8Alma 63:5-8, and read a very significant quotation. It talks about a man called Hagoth, a man who set sail from these Americas many centuries ago. (quotes Alma 63:5-8).

    “I would like to tell you young people that in a great gathering of Polynesians held right in Salt Lake City just prior to 1915, a prophet of the Lord, President Joseph F. Smith, addressing a group of Polynesians who had come to Salt Lake City to participate in their temple endowment work, made the statement that without a doubt this man Hagoth and his company were the progenitors of the Polynesian races, and that this migration was the beginning of the Polynesian population in the South Pacific.

    “Now up until very recently men of science have said, no, the Polynesians have come from the Malay States, they have come from the African, from the Asian side, and they have migrated from a westerly direction to the Polynesian islands-not from the Americas. This has been popular thinking until about 1940, when a very bold scholar by the name of Thor Heyerdahl made the observation that indeed these people must be from the Americas. He set out to prove this by building some balsa rafts on which he set himself adrift off the shores of South and Central America. He and his companions drifted for about one hundred days, and depending only on the prevailing tides and winds of that area, they found themselves cast upon the shores of these South Pacific islands, not far from Tahiti. It seems rather significant that all of a sudden scientific opinion began to change and Thor Heyerdahl, since that day, has presented additional evidences that have further made it a very important consideration-that the Polynesians did originate from the Americas.

    “Now the Maoris themselves have something to say about this theory. They all have the same answer to the questions, ‘Where did your people come from? Where did you originate?’ The answer is always the same: ‘I haere mai matou i tawhiti nui, i tawhiti roe, i tawhiti pamamau i te hono i te wai e rua.’ (‘We came from a great distance, from a still greater distance, from a very, very great distance, from the joining place of two great waters.‘)

    “Perhaps by the narrow neck of land that separated the two great seas, the narrow neck of land which led into the land northward. This is Maori tradition and I want to tell you that those who have joined the Church believe without reservation, that these things I have told you are part and parcel of Mormon doctrine. (BYU Speeches of the Year, April 4, 1962, p. 6.)

46. Paula, all depends upon what the issue is. I’ve said it many times, say it in Sunday School and priesthood all the time, and will continue to say it. What the average Mormon believes is a bad choice for deciding what the average Mormon ought believe.

    The problem is that many folks, especially those who’ve become disaffected, lambast the church for what the typical Mormon believes. This was a point made in the other (neverending) thread. Yet religion is ultimately a very personal question. It is the individual’s responsibility to search out answers and there are no shortage of books from faithful Mormons that address all these issues. It’s just that most Mormons never read them. (Well, many have a bunch of Nibley books, typically unread, on the shelves)

    Criticizing the church for ignorance of its populace, while true, is ultimately pointless. Further it’s simply the typical state of individuals. I can point out that the typical American knows almost nothing about their government, about science, or about a myriad of important things they ought know. I think knowing about more esoteric religious history is arguably less significant if one has had a spiritual conversion. (I’m not in the least devaluing such research, I love it myself, simply pointing out that I have a hard time criticizing those who don’t study that hard – religion is largely about practice and not scholarship)

47. I thought that I’d note that the introduction to the BOM, about as official a source that one could ask for, the assertion is still made that the Lamanites are “the principal ancestors of the American Indian.”

48. Notice it states that the people of Lehi “separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites.”
    A Nation is a political group, not necessarily a blood related group. It implies a societal organization.
    Throughout the Book of Mormon, Lamanites vastly outnumber Nephites, even early on. This seems to indicate that this group consisted of particularly large numbers of former inhabitants. This group then could still well be the “principle ancestors of the American Indians.”

49. Of course, the introduction is a later added preface, not part of the original text, more of a simplified overview of the book. I do not see any strong reason why it may not change in the future.

50. John,

    It seems to me that the refutation would be pretty simple. None of the scriptures specify that large groups of people had metal swords. The few mentions of metal weapons are with small, very early, groups. The only mention of many people dying by sword does not say they the swords were metal. Thus any sharp edged lever would probably qualify, such as the weapons we do observe in ruins.

51. Doc Said:
    “Of course, the introduction is a later added preface, not part of the original text, more of a simplified overview of the book. I do not see any strong reason why it may not change in the future.”

    Be that as it may, its inclusion in the official printing of the BOM does give it a great level of legitimacy. I state this for the sake of those who seem to be asserting that it just one of those strange pseudo-doctrines that is perpetuated by the folk beliefs of a few SS teachers.

52. John asked for an answer to the polygamy/Expositor question. My short answer:

    The Expositor focused on two main complaints: (1) that Joseph Smith had too much power and (2) that he was secretly engaged in the immoral practice of polygamy. The Expositor was published to “expose” (hence the name) Joseph as a despotic tyrant, and it did so using some of the most defamatory language possible. Joseph (as mayor) and the city council declared it a public nusance and ordered its destruction. Some have argued that action was legal based on the city charter and the pre-14th Amendment interpretation of the 1st Amendment. But right or wrong, the destruction of that press enflamed the already-angry surrounding populace and lead directly to Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths.

    There — 5 sentences.

53. I know of no archeological evidence that an independent scientific group would verify as being connected to the Book of Mormon. There are some fascinating correlations here and there, but nothing irrefutable. Science proceeds by peer review, and there is no peer reviewed Book of Mormon science.

    Let’s face it: the Book of Mormon is a book of spiritual insights, not scientific ones. To those who disagree, where is the independent scientific literature on the Book of Mormon? None exists because thus far peer scientists have been unimpressed with the “scientific” claims of Book of Mormon theologians.

    Personally, I hope the tide will shift. To me, the Book of Mormon is one of the greatest books of all time. Yet, too often I hear in Church from the uninformed that Mayans were Lamanites, etc.

    The spiritual validity of the Book of Mormon is best preserved by accurately reporting its current scientific status to both members and non-members.

    Well-intentioned apologists may be actually damaging the Church by making imprecise claims or by failing to recognize essential scientific facts.

54. “the world cannot always be explained by bulletpoints, or even a slick-looking power-point presentation. Unlike you, I trust that the “common man” has the intellectual wherewithal to read, say “Rough Stone Rolling,” if they are genuine interested in these issues. Most are not, for better or worse. But this highly unreadable, bite-sized, fleeting chart you threw together is not going to help anyone.”

    Thanks Sandy.

    yeah, bulletpoints and bulletholes sometimes do about the same thing. but, in this case i think it could be a good reference point. i would like to see it completed.

    as for summary information. if you think this is a brief synopsis. i heard once that all you needed to know about the church could be summarized in six little presentations. and those presentations had lots of bulletpoints and little anecdotes and metaphors to help convey the spear-it. in fact, the first discussion adresses everything in this chart in only, woooo hoooo, are you ready….4 pages. isnt that special? and, thats ALL one needs to know, along with a little bit of real intentia, of course.

    as for rough stone rolling. i say b.s. there are many threads about rsr, you can go all over the place and get your counter arguments on that one. first, he is just a dude writing a book, if it was the be-all end-all, then let the whiteshirts endorse it. more, the preface itself is a crock of shame. he says right there at the start that if you dont believe or if you disagree its cuz you have the spirit of contention or whatever (i am paraphrasing). what a clownish history presentation to start like that. and then, he forgets a few things, like, helen mar kimball for example. oooooops. so, i dont suppose thats a good book to read after saying damn or hell or drinking a diet coke during the day, cuz the spirit will be gone and none of it will make sense.

    now for your big huge blanket slam of the day. “intellectual wherewithal ???????????????” are you kidding me? you have that wherewithal and you happen to also have the measuring stick for who else does or does not? and it all comes down to reading and subscribing to bushman and his ilk? you have got to be joking, right? shall we add “lack of intellectual wherewithal” to slothful and ignorant? and everyone who arrives at the point of shock to learn of these topics is simply short of intellect. wow.

    now, when should one read rsr? before the mission? before baptism?

    and, what about the folks that do read RSR and are shocked by what they read? then what, they had the intellectual wherewithal, but lost it on page 41, paragraph 5?

    enough from me. thats a longwinded rant that can be summarized as – I are idiot and i stopped reading rsr mid book and i look forward to a few bullets from the apologist camp and the slothful, idiot, ignorant satan camp.

55. Ok…I’ve updated based on the comments thus far. This is really coming together. More soon!

56. #7
    While all these things fanned the flames of anti-Mormon sentiment, he was very nearly lynched/martyred/illegally esecuted in 1838 in Missouri prior to any of these occurrences.

    Granted, we have a tendency to demonize the other side when looking at events from their side can make their fear much more comprehensible, but I just don’t can’t envision a lynch mob comprising the best, brightest and most upstanding of its concerned citizens.

57. I think the explanations in your current table are still too verbose for what you are trying to achieve.

    For example, you could boil down the treasure digging explanation into one or two sentences:

    “Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration.”

    If your aim is to collect the criticisms and defenses succinctly in one place, then less is more.

    You may want to add columns for apologetic and polemic references as well.

58. Clark, I realize that all religious belief eventually has to come down to a spiritual witness, but one needs to keep one’s brain working too. And if the spiritual witness is so important,why does FAIR even bother? The main idea in this particular issue, #10, is that, correctly or not, a major belief, of many members of the church and its leaders, was that the modern day native Americans were literal descendants of Lehi. It’s not on the level of whether or not your garments protect you from harm, or some other folk belief. So if FAIR wants to make a clear rebuttal to the claims that DNA evidence proves that native Americans are not literal descendants of Israel, FAIR needs to deal with that very widely held belief, not just say that we never really taught that. The statement that I quote above is just one of many and I used that because I happened to have it on my computer, but googling I happened to find a site from the perpective of a sincere believing Mormon who thinks that the whole limited geography idea is a heresy (the reaction of the folks in my ward). The quotes here that he’s assembled are good evidence of church leaders’ teachings over the years. Now I also realize that you’re probably going to say that the Journal of Discourses isn’t doctrinal. How about the Ensign? So what sources can one trust?

    https://snipurl.com/u91z

59. Clark wrote above:

    Does learning Joseph was a money digger and somewhat superstitious bother people? Certainly. Should it? I don’t think it does. I think it’s more an issue of the unfamiliar seeming shocking while we accept far more unusual and strange items simply because we’re familiar with them. Things like virgin births, annointing eyes with mud (found not only in the NT but in Egyptian magic), drawing lots to discern the spirit, and so forth. The folk traditions of the 19th century are simply unknown and thus seem odd to us while we accept our own, equally strange biases.

    I wanted briefly, to follow up on Clark’s observation here, which I think is exactly right. The fact is that many in the Prophet Joseph’s day were into the occult and superstition. Bushman points this out in RSR where he chronicles the earliest attempts to steal the plates from Joseph.

    The Smith’s efforts to keep the plates secret were of not avail. The day after Joseph left for Madecon, his father learned that ten or twelve men working with Willard Chase were conspiring to find the plates, and had sent for a conjuror sixty miles away whom they believed could discover the hiding place. Brigham Young said the conjuror traveled the sixty miles three times that season. “The man I refer to was a fortune-teller”, Young said, “a necromance, an astrologer, a soothsayer, and possessed as much talent as any man that walked on the American soil, and was one of the wickedest men I ever saw.” The next morning Joseph Sr. Walked over the hill east of the Smith farm to the Lawrence place and found Willard Chase, Samuel Lawrence, the conjuror, and a group of others laying plans.

    Bushman, RSR p. 60.

    Not only were regular folk very much into the occult and superstition, so were the religious leaders of the day.

    Brigham Young went on to say, “When Joseph obtained the treasure, the priests, the deacons, and religionists of every grade, went hand in hand with the fortune-teller, and with every wicked person, to get it out of his hands, and to accomplish this, a part of them came out and persecuted him.”

    Bushman, RSR, note 9 page 576 quoting Journal of Discourses, 2:180-81 (Feb. 18, 1852).

    Not only did Joseph utilize the seerstone in the translation, he also used it to protect the plates from those earliest fanatics who literally tried to steal the plates from his very home:

    Willard Chase’s gang, for one, was still plotting to get possession. According to Lucy, Joseph kept the seerstone on his person to keep track of the plates. Alerted to an approaching danger, Joseph took up hearthstones in the west room and buried the box of plates there. The had scarcely replaced the stones when a collection of armed men rushed up to the house.

    Bushman RSR p. 61.

    Bushman even noted attempts to using diving rods and a green glass using the occult to locate the plates:

    One of them, Samuel Lawrence, allied with Alva Beaman, a “rodsman” from Livonia, came to the Smith house to try to persuade Joseph to give them a share . . . “they Proposed to go hares with im and tried every way to Bargain with im. But Could not.” Whereupon Beaman held up his rods (sticks like dousing rods) until they pointed to the hearth where the plates were hidden.

    To elude Chase and Lawrence, Joseph moved the plates from the hearth to the cooper’s shop in the yard where Joseph Sr. Carried on his trade. He buried the box under a floor board and hid the plates themselves in a pile of flax in the shop loft. That night Willard Chase and his sister Sally Chase with her green glass came with their friends to search.

    Bushman RSR p. 61.

    While it seems strange to us today to utilize things like green looking glasses or divining rods or fortune tellers or even seerstones to locate things, or otherwise provide some type of knowledge, it was apparently quite common in Joseph’s time.

    Frankly I find it amusing that many of today’s critics of Joseph use the seerstone as something with which to hammer Joseph. Yet, in Joseph’s day the critics used the supernatural and the occult to try to steal the very plates so many critics now don’t even believe existed. There certainly were several in Joseph’s day, while critics, who nevertheless believed that he had the plates. Of course actual physical plates do present a problem don’t they?

60. Ok. I’m replacing this, “The typical explanation is probably best found in say Bushman where Joseph is weened off the trappings used to facilitate revelation. But as others said, even the U&T is basically a stone to convey information and the Liahona isn’t much different. It seems odd to attack Joseph for misunderstanding such things and trying to use them as technology rather than through faith a call upon God’s power. I think Joseph certainly learned that by the end. Does learning Joseph was a money digger and somewhat superstitious bother people? Certainly. Should it? I don’t think it does. I think it’s more an issue of the unfamiliar seeming shocking while we accept far more unusual and strange items simply because we’re familiar with them. Things like virgin births, annointing eyes with mud (found not only in the NT but in Egyptian magic), drawing lots to discern the spirit, and so forth. The folk traditions of the 19th century are simply unknown and thus seem odd to us while we accept our own, equally strange biases.”

    with this

    “Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration.”

    Thanks, Paul!

61. DP said this on the FAIR boards, “And I reject the assertion that “Some of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon claimed later in their life that they didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but instead with their spiritual eyes.” This seems to me to do a gross injustice to what they actually said.”

    Anyone want to help me revise either the fact/issue, or the response?

62. I remember a FARMS article from ’99 that dealt with ancient Meso-American weapons. Spanish conquistador encountered what the indigenous peoples called a macuahuitl. They said that this weapon was just as serviceable as their steel swords and could seperate a limb from a body, such as an arm, with little to no problem. Essentially the macuahuitl is reminiscent of a cricket bat with sharpened obsidian on the edges. But as per steel, you got me.

63. Clark,

    When Michael Quinn came out with his book on Mormonism and early magic, what was the response from FARMS, or from apologists, or even from GA’s? Do we know? Was his history called into question? Was he praised by the faithful for providing proper context?

    Or was he demonized and villanized? I actually don’t know the answers…but I suspect that the rest of us have come around to believing what Quinn wrote early on.

    If he was brutalized for his research, isn’t it interesting how minds can change in only a few years?

64. Paula, I honestly think for most apologists they seek to understand. That is, having a spiritual witness, they still seek to understand the details. The details might not ultimately matter. (Does it really matter what a Nephite sword looked like?) But they are terribly interesting even if they don’t necessarily make one a better Christian. Further some people have weak testimony. Having answers for how it is possible to believe and be rational is important. Without the spirit I agree there is no rational reason to be a Mormon. However it is quite possible to be a rational and honest Mormon. But the spirit is always prime.

    As for FARMS and FAIR and widely held beliefs, they do address them. My point is that critics who address Mormonism by an appeal to the masses miss the whole point of what is at debate. I fully admit that the average religious person of any religion is woefully ignorant of their religion. I don’t think that is ultimately a problem because religion is primarily about changing ones way of living not about archaeological facts. (Which isn’t to say religions don’t make assertions with archaeological implications) To say that the average Mormon ought know their history extremely well seems to miss the point of religion. (IMO)

    As for what sources one can trust: God. That’s ultimately it. The prime problem among critics (and frankly often among believing Saints) is that they seek for a bunch of statements that they can build a religion around. That’s the way Evangelical use the Bible, for instance. But it just isn’t a part of Mormonism, even though lots of Mormon prophets have engaged in proof-texting. We simply have as our doctrines a basis of direct revelation and the rejection of anything akin to a doctrine of inerrancy. That’s not to say we don’t have texts that are more authoritative than others. But what people want to use to make Mormonism intelligible just isn’t a part of Mormonism. We have people who use that sort of exegesis. (Bruce R. McConkie for instance) But even Elder McConkie was quick to back off doctrines he got wrong, which in my eyes says a lot about his humility towards the method.

65. John, Quinn’s Magic book was a terribly problematic book. The second edition was no better. One could accept some of the basic claims about a magic world view without necessarily accepting that it was a good book. I think it a tremendously important book but it is a mess methadologically and tends to adopt a scattershot approach to a lot. (I’ll be the first to admit Nibley did this frequently as well – but Quinn’s writing in a more professional era and most of Nibley’s worst weren’t scholarly publications but articles for Church magazines or firesides)

    Also Quinn just never stays on any parallel long enough to clarify exactly what the nature is. I’ve written on this a lot since I ended up spending a lot of the time since Quinn’s book came out researching a lot of his claims. Some are intriguing, many are important, but few are well argued for. He is right sometimes, but in spite of his work.

    Having said that though I stick with my claim that it is an important work, just as I think Nibley’s works are tremendously important even though there are only few that are of modern relevance to contemporary apologetics. (IMO) Nibley has the excuse of being dated though. It’s ironic that Quinn’s most important and influential work is also his worst.

    As for FARMS reviews, I think most were fairly dead on in their criticisms. That doesn’t mean Quinn’s claims were necessarily wrong. But certainly in terms of what was argued they were typical (but not always) weak. Once again though it’s a large book with hundreds upon hundreds of claims. (It’s primary problem: a lack of focus) So one shouldn’t be surprised that many parallels are significant in spite of his writing.

    It reminds me of Lance Owens articles on Joseph Smith and Kabbalah. It’s not that someone couldn’t write a good article on this. It’s not that there aren’t some interesting and even significant parallels. It’s that Owens didn’t write such a book. One can’t defend an author in terms of what could have been written but rather in terms of what was written. Bringing up the idea isn’t enough.

    And I’m equal opportunity in that criticism. I think that some apologists have brought up important parallels and ideas but have argued horrendously for them. It is up to later apologists to take up these ideas and think through them more carefully.

66. “Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration.”

    I’d probably add in the line, “just as he spoke to previous generations in terms of their understanding.”

    One can’t read the OT without realizing that there were a lot of cultural trappings that God made use of that were alien to us. NT as well, as my mud on the eyes example by Christ demonstrates. (It was, as many have noted, simply a technique of healers and magicians of the era)

67. Clark,

    Done. I’ve added your amendment.

68. John,

    Sorry…I didn’t mean to get your thread shut down on Fair.

69. Johnny,

    Thanks for the support over there. Frankly, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.

70. John, i just the fair thread. sorry mate. i wish i could have posted there.

    and completely off topic – is there a thread on here where i could post a question about the relationship sunstone and dialogue have had with signature books, now or historically? was there was any affiliation at all?

71. John,

    Why isn’t the Book of Abraham issue mentioned in your table? In my estimation, this is one of the most, if not the most devastating evidences against the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith.

72. Clark Goble wrote:

    I disagree. True, the Spirit is what confirms the truthfulness of the Gospel, however, living a Mormon lifestyle has many benefits (physical health – obeying the word of wisdom, strengthens families- against immorality, provides opportunities for people to serve others and sacrifice for God, teaches Christ-centered principles, etc) Deciding to live an LDS lifestyle definitely seems to be a rational choice.

    But I also wanted to thank you for your comment:

    That seems to be important to remember in this discussion with so much emphasis on making historical issues. However “fun” it may be to get to the bottom of these issues (and I truly have enjoyed following this discussion), I think the core questions we all must ask ourselves are

    1. What is my relationship with God?
    (

    2. “What is my testimony based on?”

    If it is based on historical facts, then, as a house with a sandy foundation, it will not stand very long amidst so many questions that have arisen regarding the history of the church.

    I appreciate John’s efforts to bring a simple explanation of these hard to understand historical points to the many Latter-day Saints with similar doubts and questions.

73. Sorry, first time commenting here…
    That should be:
    Clark Goble wrote
    “Without the spirit I agree there is no rational reason to be a Mormon”

74. And then the second quote:
    “To say that the average Mormon ought know their history extremely well seems to miss the point of religion. “

75. Note what Lynbee quotes wasn’t from me. I’m not sure who it was from.

    I’d probably quibble about a Mormon lifestyle being that rational independent of a testimony. It’s hard to see what’s rational about not say drinking tea or coffee or even alcohol in moderation without the notion of a covenant given through God asking us not to do this. There are lots of other elements as well. But that’s just me. I’ve never been able to understand active cultural Mormons. Of course if someone without a testimony wants to come to church I definitely want them to come. Much more of a chance of them obtaining a testimony. So I’m always somewhat worried when I express my inability to understand those who associate with the church without believing in it.

76. “So I’m always somewhat worried when I express my inability to understand those who associate with the church without believing in it.”

    clark, i admire that you even acknowledge that such a person, meaning one that attends church but lacks a “testimony”, even exists. really. as much as i disagree with much of what you say, i admire this point.

    there are lots of those sorts of folks. some are independently trying to find their way or forge their own path. some are simply following a tradition. and some are going just to keep the peace at home.

    thanks clark. i hope you arent willing to heap the ‘idiot, slothful, ignorant’ label on those same folks. they are probably the same ones that sift through much of the information we have been discussing here. some dig deep and others may just want the 6 lesson discussion bullets of apologetics.

    ciao man.

77. Clark,
    All of what I posted was my own words…there should be quotes by you inserted after “Clark Goble wrote” and “But I also wanted to thank you for your comment”, but they didn’t appear (this is my first time commenting here, and i guess i got a little confused), so I added your direct quotes in separate comments, right below.
    Sorry for the confusion and for taking up so much unneeded space.

78. We might ask ourselves: why do we need apologetics? Are there apologetics for “gravity”? Or atheism?

79. On the military unit size, you do know that most Roman Centuries actually had 40 to 60 men in them (even though a century means a military unit of 100) and when a legion was in extremis and on the pointo f collapse, the number could be even lower?

    When it speaks of “X and his ten thousand” the term “ten thousand” probably means the same as saying “X and his legion” not “X and his fully staffed to an actual operating strength of ten thousand.”

    Just FYI.

    Archeological evidence is fun, especially as we have a number of toy chariots that have been recovered. But it doesn’t lead too far.

80. “Are there apologetics for ‘gravity’?”–Ryan

    Never read Galileo, eh? There are beautiful, moving passages in his Dialogue that are about what you would get from a fireside speaker sharing his testimony of his topic.

81. John, to the question that “Some of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon claimed later in their life that they didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but instead with their spiritual eyes.”

    I would read the Richard Lloyd Anderson paper linked to on the FAIR thread. Taking a small number of second-hand sources (I think it was only like 2 or 3), some of which are from individuals clearly hostile to the Prophet, and turning it into an issue is, . . . well . . . it’s a non-issue to me, considering the weight of evidence to the contrary. I think the 8 said they actually handled and examined the plates. So I would concur with DP on this point.

82. Clark, back in the post which you started with “Paula”, (and John, we really need numbered posts) you kind of missed my question. Let’s assume that a member of the church honestly is trying to figure out what sources he or she should listen to. Of course God is the ultimate answer, but then does that mean that each of us is just supposed to rely on whatever answers God gives us individually? We’re not supposed to rely on the many sources that the church provides? But if we are supposed to read those and learn from them, which ones are trustworthy? Larry King interviews with Pres. Hinckley? The Ensign? Deseret Books? The Journal of Discourses? FAIR documents? ( Not an official church source I realize). My point is that your statement, that apologists knew in the 80s that the BofM had to be based on a limited geography, really avoids the whole issue here. Are members now supposed to ignore the many, many statements of church leaders in the past, as well as the introduction to the book itself, and listen to FAIR? Am I stupid to have listened to my institute teacher in 1985 rather than the apologists? What other widely taught church doctrines am I naive to be trusting? I’m not trying to be anti-Mormon or argumentative, just trying to make very clear what the problem is here. I think that the FAIR responses I’ve read to this just totally ignore the real questions that many people have about this. That article I linked to was a very good example of what I mean.

83. Guy Murray said:
    “Of course actual physical plates do present a problem don’t they?”

    Why? James Strang had actual physical plates. Does that prove that he translated the Book of the Law of the Lord by the gift and power of God, as he claimed? He even had witnesses. And many of the same folks who followed Jospeh followed Strang, including some of Joseph’s witnesses and members of the Smith family.

    That Joseph may have had actual plates and that some people may have seen said plates does not tell us anything about whether those plates actually were of ancient origin or whether those plates were written by the hands of ancient prophets or whether Joseph’s English translation of what may or may not have been written on the plates was an accurate representation of the meaning of the ancient text.

    We have the actual text (at least a substantial portion of it) of the Book of Abraham–and we know Joseph’s translation is not even close to what is on the scrolls. And yet some people still believe that the Book of Abraham was translated from a scroll written by the hand of Abraham. I imagine even if we had the plates, there would be those who believed and those who didn’t.

    Of course, that makes me wonder: why would God take the plates back (or have them placed in the magic cave under the hill Cumorah)? And why didn’t God send Moroni down to pick up the Abraham papyri and the Kinderhook plates while he was at it?

84. I think the table was a good idea. Clark and others did a god job in answering. I would like to see BoA addressed as well. Though I’m unsure how concise the answer can be as the whole issue is somewhat complex and aplogists don’t seem to agree on any one answer.

    If you can indulge an idea. FARMS/ FAIR and other organization also offer many evidences of the autheniticity of the BoM, BoA, church history, etc. Perhaps a similar table outlining these evidences and refutations by our non-believing friends can be offered. I’d be interested in seeing that. Immediately the Civil war prophesy and plausible locations for bountiful in the middle east come to mind.

    Thanks

85. Yes, please give us an oppotunity to expose your readers to why the Civil War prophecy, possible Nahom and Bountiful locations, and chiasms in the BoM is not as impressive as the apologists would have the members believe. While we are at it, can we also show why the Book of Abraham parallels with ancient texts are also not evidence that the Book of Abraham is true.

    Are there hypothectial, apologetic reconstructions of the issues in your chart that can save Joseph’s image? Yes, if one is willing to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a number of years. I was not dogmatic (despite Mike Parker’s assertion). I made several adjustments to my beliefs as I learned things. I found a way to become ok with the fact that Joseph hid some of his marriages from Emma. I found a way to become ok with the peepstone – I saw it as a training device to help Joseph focus on his inner feelings. I found a way to become ok with lying for the Lord and Blood Atonement and discounted all the negative things people who knew Joseph wrote about him.

    I thought I had become ok with the Book of Abraham, but all I knew about the problems with the BoA, I got from pro-Mormon apologetic sources. I thought that was all there was. But, then I read “By His Own Hands Upon Papyrus”. Larson did an excellant job cutting through all the popular apologetic arguments at the time and showing why they cannot possibly be true. He made maybe one mistake that was inconsequential because he is able to show that the opening he left by his mistake, he is able to shut down by several other ways. (Note: the pro-Christian stuff that is in his book was added by the publisher).

    Anyway, I spent over six months studying every detail of the Book of Abraham (both pro and con). I read Ritner’s translation of the Breathing Permit for Horus, I got a copy of Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer, I read about the anachronisms and possible source material for the Book of Abraham text (Thomas Dick’s “Philosophy of a Future State” which Joseph owned). After studying everything, I realized that the case is rock solid. There is no way, because there is no ambiguity left, that any future apologist or prophet will ever being able to offer an alternative explanation for all the evidence that condemns the Book of Abraham. And once that truth is in place, one realizes that Joseph is not worthy of the benefit of the doubt in any other controversial issue. Everything falls with the Book of Abraham.

    John, you really need an entire thread on this issue. 5 sentences won’t do it. Anyone out there who is struggling with some of the issues in John’s table should thoroughly investigate the Book of Abraham. Read the apologetic stuff, but then read “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” by Charles Larson. There is an online version here: https://www.irr.org/MIT/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html , but I would suggest getting the book because the online version does not have the figures and graphics and a color copy of the papyri. Also read Kevin Mathie’s online book, “Examining the Book of Abraham”: https://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_TOC.html , much of it covers the same things in Larson’s book, but the last chapter is different in that it focuses on the text itself. Get a copy of Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer (only certain apologists can get a color copy, but you can purchase a poor quality copy made from microfilm that was smuggled out from the archives from here): https://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/josephsmithsegyptianalphabet_ub010.htm .

    And, you can read a real English translation of the papyrus that the KEP implies was the source for the BoA here: https://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

86. “(only certain apologists can get a color copy,”

    Hmm, why is that? You mean the church has in its possession the only extant autograph from a biblical figure, who is also the father of three of the world’s religions, and they keep it hidden? I thought DCP said the church doesn’t really hide stuff. Oh, wait, he’s one of those apologists who gets to look at stuff the rest of us can’t see. I forgot. And it’s funny how DCP never really answered the charge that the church hides documents. He simply argued that many archives limit access to rare documents. Of course, there is a difference between limited access and NO access, but that distinction seems to be lost on Brother DCP.

87. Equality,

    Larson’s book has a color copy of the papyri fragments.

    When I said only “certain apologists have access to a color copy” I was referring to Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer, which is a notebook Joseph’s scribes kept. Although most of this notebook is in the handwriting of Joseph’s scribes, some of it is in Joseph’s own handwriting. That is important because it dispels the old Nibley argument that “Joseph’s scribes did it” without the knowledge of or input of Joseph.

88. Here is a color copy of some of the fragments. Regrettably, it is small. The book, “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” has a much better fold out copy including many more fragments.

    For those who want the skinny on the Book of Abraham problems, but do not have the time to read all that I have linked to, here is a short summary: https://trialsofascension.net/mormon/abraham.html

    There you will also find links to many other issues with Mormonism. I love this site because its tone is very calm and rational.

89. Sorry, I forgot the link to the copy of the fragments: https://www.irr.org/MIT/boapapyr.html

90. I wonder if anyone can point me towards statements by church leaders which promote a limited geography view of the Book of Mormon?

91. It has been my experience that the general authorities emphasize that the reason we have the Book of Mormon is to promote faith and draw us nearer to God and that to use it as a geography text is to use it differently than intended.

    Believing interpretation- The spiritual proof is much more important, convincing and lasting than any “scholarly proof.”

    Nonbelieving interpretation- We know the Book’s a fraud and that generations of church leaders before us have exposed themselves with such statements, so don’t go probing to holes.

    So I guess again that it really boils down to a matter of faith.

92. paula,

    Check out the following article by Dallin H. Oaks

    
    The Historicity of the Book of Mormon

    The article is not specifically about LGT, but his remarks refer to it quite favorably. Here is a brief quote from the article:

    In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

93. from 2 – I think everyone acknowledges
    from 3 – I don’t think many can assert this is too problematic
    from 4 – I think everyone concedes
    from 5 – Everyone acknowledges polyandry

    Perhaps I am a wee bit sensitive. but i find the “everyone knew that” response so insulting as to be beyond the pale. mostly because its not true. not everyone knew anything. there is always an exception. and more, so what if everyone but one person knew something, there still remains the possibility that the outlier was right. and more, if most people knew something, and they failed to share the big secret, why is the deprived person at fault?

    so john, perhaps we could edit the apologists response, i hate to offer them that constructive advice though. leaving “everyones” is sort self disqualifying in a fun sorta way.

94. John I’ll second the request for number posts since these topics tend to generate a lot of posts. I usually only check once a day so a lot of comments come between what I wish to reply to and the location of my reply.

    Paula, the issue of what sources someone should listen to is different from what sources are authoritative. Myself I tend to read most things I find informative. I have quite a few books on my shelves by authors at best unsympathetic to the church and in some cases hostile.

    The issue of “trustworthy” is a different question as well from what is authoritative and what someone should listen to. Indeed it is the conflating of these issues by people both inside and outside of the church that I find problematic. If you are asking, what writings should I read that don’t contain speculation, interpretation, or error, then my answer is you shouldn’t read. All do, including the scriptures. That’s why you have to always read with the spirit. Leave that out and you’ll always end up eventually going astray.

    So to me the question you ask illustrates what I take to be the problem. The safest best, if you want something along those lines, is to stick to the scriptures and recent conference talks.

    My personal feeling though is that CES materials generally are quite poor and shouldn’t be appealed to as too helpful. (They are often, in my opinion, misleading)

    Beyond that one should always read with what some call the heremeneutics of suspicion. That is one shouldn’t consider the text trustworthy but suspicious. That applies equally to apologetic writings in my view. I find them valuable but clearly they are just speculations combined with the best reasoning of the author. But even among apologists there are quite a few disagreements.

95. “Mayan Elephant: “. . . but i find the ‘everyone knew that’ response so insulting as to be beyond the pale.”

    I was referring to the position of apologists. Which was what John was inquiring about. It’s obviously my opinion, but I’ve not found any apologists ill informed on these matters.

96. oh, thanks for the clarification clark.

    though, i still it should be removed from the table, out of context it implies that EVERYBODY knows.

    :) when you said-“stick to the scriptures and recent conference talks,” you were referring to 1974 issues of the improvement era, right? and nothing more recent, no? :) just joshin with ya there clark.

97. ME, the questions you are demanding the Church promote seem to me to be primarily scholarly issues and not religious ones. I personally don’t mind the occasional article in the Ensign on scholarship but I think the focus should be on living our religion and not such matters. That’s not to say such questions can’t be important. Just that I don’t think there are really relevant for Church or Church magazines. There are plenty of places to read about them so it’s not as if they are being hidden.

98. Clark Goble:

    The problem I have with people relying on the Spirit is that the Spirit has a rather nasty habit of confirming whatever one hopes is true and has some expextation that it could actually be true. In other words, it only works with what you are already familiar with.

    Ask any faithful, spiritually in tune member of this church that is not yet familiar with the BoA problems to re-read the Book of Abraham and ask God if it is what it purports to be, the translation of ancient papyri that Abraham wrote with his own hand, that it contains the true story of what happened to Abraham and the true astronomy of the Universe. I bet 9 times out of 10, the Spirit with powerfully, movingly confirm that it is true. I am very confident that I can show that it is not true, but is a fraud. The Spirit only confirms what the person believes they are supposed to believe.

    And people of all sorts of churches and religions feel God convey to them that their religion is true. Yet, they cannot all be right for they contradict each other.

    Those feelings are deceptive and cannot be trusted. The Spirit is nothing more than elevation and is not a reliable source of truth.

    I love that the Church encourages people to pray about the myths it tells. Because after they receive a witness and then find out the story they were told isn’t true, their faith in the Spirit is undermined and they can then free themselves from being deceived by their own feelings. I love that the church is falsifiable.

99. Yeah, we have been over that Clark.

    Its too trivial for the ensign, too trivial for conference, too trivial for a manual, too trivial for the scriptures, too trivial for revelation, too trivial for general authorities, and yet, you have to answer the joseph smith question in a temple recommend interview. and those plentiful places, does that include just FAIR, or by plentiful are you also including the evil DAMU?

100. Reality is reliably constructed to make the truth difficult to believe. We are here to be tested and tried. We are God’s children. It children can hack their way into a video game and find find Easter Eggs, one can imagine that the greatests minds of Humanity could crack anything easy without any difficulty whatsoever.

     Science, through observation, has thus far discerned the nature of Light, Time, Space, Matter, Energy, Life, Thought and Social Dynamics. Carefully and meticulously have brilliant men recorded their observations throughout history.

     We are here to walk by Faith. Faith is an essential component of the Divine. God does not need OUR faith but WE need our Faith to become like him. Through Faith all things in the world and reality are achieved. We understand, yet we do not truly understand. We have a rudimentary understanding that our observation has a tangible effect upon the world around us, yet we do not accept the logical conclusion that the concept can extend into other areas as well.

     There will be another Star. I, for one, wait in eager anticipation of that day, in hopes that those who currently reject the Truth can be warned of the inevitable decline and disassociation with it.

     There is no proof, no miracle, no occurance in which the masterful reality created by God will not begin to disolve, disollute, decay and disemble. That *IS* the nature of our reality.

101. Yeah! Another thread passes the 100 post mark. And absolutely no threadjacking involved.

     John, may I suggest that if you at all want this to be a permanent feature of MS that you provide a permanent right-side link, so that it doesn’t get buried by other posts.

102. Dave S,

     Relax man! I come in peace :).

     The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?

103. John Scherer –

     I have no illusion of every changing the mind of any apologist on here. My goal is help the people sitting on the fence to think.

     Not that my opinion has changed on anything during this thread, but I have always conceded that if one desires to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt then there are ways to look at the evidence that can save his reputation in all areas of controversy except one: the Book of Abraham.

     I do not see apologists as evil, but I do see some of them, as well as some anti’s, as extraordinarily mean spirited. I feel that I do understand where the apologists are coming from; I used to be on their side and familiar with their publications.

104. “The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?”

     excellent point and question.

     i dont expect to ever change the apologists either. nor do i expect they will ever stop apologizing and i do not expect the church to change.

     what i would like to see happen as a result of shared dialogue is probably overly optimistic, admittedly. i would like to see the following:

     -some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional.

     -some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant.

     -increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them.

     -stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family.

     -honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material.

105. Mayan wrote:

     -some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional.

     I’m not an apologist (don’t really have the academic qualifications) but, I consider myself an “active” LDS member. So, my responses reflect only this active LDS member’s experience. I will acknowledge this (based on your assertion that it is so); however, I will also observe that when I left the Church for well over 10 years, the transition was not difficult and/or emotional for me in any way, shape, or form. I just left (and I left it alone). That said, I realize everyone is different and will have different experiences, which is why I will acknowldge your experience. Are you willing to acknowledge mine?

     -some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant.

     So acknowledged–but I really don’t think anyone is really making that claim, Mayan. (No, I don’t believe Bro. Peterson did either–despite your take on his comments).

     -increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them.

     So acknowledged. But the last part of your sentence here (IMO) is hyperbole (and not really helpful to any meaningful discussion).

     -stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family.

     I’ll be honest–I don’t really know what this means. From personal experience I can say I never experienced the need for any special consideration by anyone in my family or friends when I was outside the Church. Strong families come from unconditional love for each other. It has nothing to do with what some person’s perception is about what the Church teaches or doesn’t teach, etc. etc.

     -honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material.

     Again, I’m not sure what you mean here. I was taught as were you all the things you reference here on this and other boards. My experience is profoundly different from yours. There was no shock and awe. And, I don’t really accept your spin on the experience–though you’re certainly entitiled to your point of view. Just as I, and other active LDS are entitled to ours, and entitled to teach our own children and families as we see fit. You, and others are just as entitled to teach your own children as you see fit. So, I guess I don’t agree everyone needs to conform to how YOU or others want to teach my children or my family. Just as I am not entitled to impose my views on how you should teach yours.

106. ME,

     I’m no apologist, but I can offer the following as an active convert.

     –some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional. I acknowlege this as I have seen the pain this causes, especially considering the additional pain brought from prideful members who view this as a blow to their own testimony.

     -some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant. I acknowlege this. However, most of my family isn’t LDS. I think this attitude is evident in some and is ridiculous( See my wrestling comment :) .

     -increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them. I consider this as a goal as well whenever my calling requires I contact disaffected members. I hope you are successful in this.

     –stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family. Agreed that this should happen both ways. I know many members who also make these considerations for their non-believing children and other family. Keep this quiet, but I spent last sunday at the beach with my in laws and took the day off from church. All in name of family relationships :).

     -honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material. I converted three years ago and feel I was given way more honesty and clarity from the LDS than from the anti’s that my previous church sent into my home to apparetly firghten my children :). It is my goal to be completely honest in raising my children LDS and think I’m doing well thusfar, so good luck.

     P.S. I probably butchered the italicizing, please bear with me.

107. John,
     Why do you and the others feel you need to preface all your research and work by stating that you are faithful believers and these things shouldn’t be construed as a smoking gun? Do you fear being exed? This isn’t to poke fun…but genuine concern.
     To stay a member of the church would require me to have MORE faith in Joseph Smith than in Jesus Christ. Where in the bible does the Lord condone polyandry? (women already married) How about how he married them…in secret without husbands permission!
     Secrets and lies are the tools of satan not God. But Joseph smith used these tools well and when he was caught he sought to destroy the printing press which was publishing the TRUTH.
     Why does the church teach us to stay way from tarot cards and other divinations–because they are satans tool—but for joseph smith they were tools of God?
     What about plagarism of Temple Ordinances?
     The Book of Mormon itself is problematic. Historicity, book of hebrews, huge chunk is from bible…
     Where in the bible are prophets chosen just because that outlived another man?

     Many questions…

108. yeah john, you massacred the quoting and formatting. recoginise, repair and abandon wordpress my friend.

     Thanks for your comments.

     Guy,

     some of my brothers have left the church. some left in their youth and another after a temple marriage. they didnt blink twice. they couldnt give two [somethings] about the church. so, agreed, its not the same for everyone.

     its nice of you to stick up for peterson/midgley. however, they could not be more clear or direct in their comments. not knowing about the items in dehlin’s grid is, in their opinion as expressed in this blog, the result of ignorance and slothfulness. true, it was another commenter that added the intellectually diminished camp which has not been refuted in the slightest.

     guy, you didnt understand the lightning comments? does this help:

     I see a little silhouetto of a man,
     Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
     Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
     Galileo,galileo,
     Galileo galileo
     Galileo figaro-magnifico-
     But Im just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
     Hes just a poor boy from a poor family-
     Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
     Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
     Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
     Bismillah! we will not let you go-let him go
     Bismillah! we will not let you go-let me go
     Will not let you go-let me go
     Will not let you go let me go
     No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
     Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
     Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-

     That should clear it all up for you. but if not, it goes like this, anecdotally: “oh mayan, we love you so much, and we want you to know that we will love you, but also, you have turned your life over to satan and we fear the consequences on your children for doing that. we love you. now go back to church right this minute.”

     or, here is another: “oh molly, we are so sorry your husband and our son has succombed to satan and stopped believing in the book of mormon. if you choose to leave him because of this, we will help you. we love you and understand that you would leave him, and take the children, so they would have the spirit and the priesthood in their home.”

     oh. fyi. those stories are not fiction in the slightest, as you know.

     and as for the shock and awe that were not your experience, and that you consider to be spin. THAT, is exactly my point. too many folks dont believe it exists – but it does. we can debate the reasons for it and whether its the fault of the shocker or the awed, but, there is not debating guy, IT HAPPENS. and i wish more people understood that it happens, and showed sympathy rather than dismissing it as “[not] the real life, [is this] just fantasy”.

109. Mayan,

     As I’ve said on another blog and another thread: You and I are unlikely to agree, ever, on very much regarding the Church. This I continue to believe.

     Regardless–I wish you well, and hope for nothing but God’s blessings to be with you and your family as you trod down life’s path.

110. “Strong families come from unconditional love for each other.” Careful, Guy, you are straying toward the outer perimeter of the Lord’s doctrinal campsite here. Elder Nelson says “unconditional love” is a false doctrine. The true church teaches that God’s love is conditional and, by extension, parents should emulate God so their love also should be conditional. So, methinks you should repent of this notion of unconditional love and embrace LDS orthodoxy.

111. Equality,

     I wish only the best in God’s blessings for you too, and your family as you trod the paths you have chosen.

112. Thanks, Guy. This is turning into a love fest. May the god or goddess of your choice bless you and yours as well.

113. Equality you are intentionally misrepresenting his point and playing on an equivocation of the term. (i.e. switching from the sense where God’s love definitely is unequivocal to the sense where it isn’t) It behooves you if you are going to critique apologists for what you see as deceptive to not be deceptive yourself.

     Honestly, the comments here starts to read more like the FAIR forums every day.

114. John,

     What we have here is a failure to communicate.

     There are no simple apologetic answers to the warts that cover mormon history. It’s like buying a car that you know was totaled in a head on collision, then rebuilt and now the used car sales man is trying to answer your question of “Was this car totaled?”

     The bell of mormon history does not ring when struck with the hammer of investigation. It merely goes “thud”.

     Take for polygamy for example. Some will tell you it was a commandment from god, and he was FORCED by god to disobey the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law, lie to his wife, the public, and the general body of his followers and even his friends.

     How on earth can you get a simple answer from the question, “Did Joseph Smith cheat on his wife, and lie about it?”, from a mormon apologist whose entire work is to defend the sale of the totaled car at all costs?

115. There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

     Some things that are true are not very useful.

116. Porter, it seems like this is true of Christianity in general. Take Abraham. The question is merely how recent the history one deals with is. If one is going to raise these sorts of questions one will find they are there with any religious system.

     Now I don’t mean this in the sense of saying “we’re no worse than those other guys” as a kind of justification. Far from it. Rather (as the figure of Abraham demonstrates) religion, especially Christian and Jewish religion, is about faith. There has to be that challenge. If you demand from religion no challenges, that it be as easy to believe as what is firmly established in science, with no work on the individual’s part then you’ll always be disappointed.

     I think that Joseph Smith and the early Saints were challenged by God. And I think individuals as they read the history will be challenged as well. There are two ways to react to that challenge. One can turn to God, who will give partial answers and demand an exercise of faith, or one can simply reject it all.

     Contrary to what some have asserted, I think all apologists recognize that this is a difficult challenge and that some will simply reject it. I think some will reject it and then still accept Christianity or an other religion which to me ultimately ends up being problematic. (I’ll avoid stronger terms) I think what makes Mormonism so interesting is that the fact it has the divine within history so recently is that it forces this conversation. It forces us to grapple with issues that perhaps religions with a more distant encounter with the problematic divine don’t. (Although some do – I think Catholics, for instance, force a similar choice – although perhaps in a slightly different fashion from Mormons)

     What I see critics demanding of apologists is that they make religion easy. Not necessarily in the performance, but in the belief. But religion is not easy to believe and should never be. So what the critics are demanding is precisely what religion denies.

     So feel free to make the cynical asides. But I strongly feel there is something fundamental in life that you are missing. It is very easy to believe in things after scientists struggle to make it manifest. It is much harder to grapple with reality directly and make it manifest yourself.

117. To add, all apologists I’ve read constantly say the same thing. They can’t prove the gospel. They always point to the spirit and a testimony. All they can do is try to show how one can rationally believe. If you demand more than that from the apologist you’re simply missing what the discussion is about.

118. Some thoughts –

     First, apologists generally respond to something – and just about anything can be seen as apologetic. There has been an ongoing scholarly discussion, for example, on the two views of King David as revealed in the Old Testament. One side sees the OT account as being somewhat historically accurate. The other side sees it as being apologetic. These two views are contradictory (and only fairly recently have there been any real attempts to harmonize them). On the one side we have the glowing example of a man (with a few faults – Bathsheba, the census, etc.) On the other hand, we have a murderous schemer. The text seems to go out of its way to disassociate David from the deaths of Abner and Ishbaal, from which he benefited – is this because David had no involvement and the author wanted to make it clear, or is it a response to a prevalent public belief that he was involved (and the conclusion is that based on the strenous effort in the apology, he probably was involved).

     Apologetics is often unsatisfying. In a way, apologists favor things like systematic theology (which is difficult to have in Mormonism). They like to find ways to include everything, they like to elimante conflict, increase harmony. And the responses are often unsatisfying in every way – because the issue isn’t to create something satisfying. Often in internet dicsussions, an apologist will invoke multiple arguments for his point of view – often oblivious to the fact that these arguments are mutually exclusive. (This is true of the pro-mormon as well as the anti-mormon – after all, Vogel’s view of Joseph Smith’s authorship really isn’t compatible with the Spaulding related theories).

     I am viewed as something of an apologist (at least thats the label I get a lot). I would rather see myself as a theologian. My views are not always popular, but they are often (at least I hope they are) provocative. And I try to avoid simply putting up an argument to “win” the debate.

     But apologists come from both sides of the fence. Take the comment above about “spiritual eyes”. Palmer (who I know you like John), talks a lot about the idea that the “eyes of our understanding” is equivalent to “second sight”. It is an apologetic argument. If we take the time (and I have) to go back through early 19th century and late 18th century literature, we get the phrase “eyes of our understanding” used quite a bit (it is, after all, Biblical), and some of the other phrases used by early LDS – and they are not used in a way which is compatible with Palmer’s notion of “second sight”. So Palmer’s argument hinges around this idea that all of these LDS were part of a community within the community – they all shared a common magic world view. And then, once we have defined this community, we can redefine their language, making it different from the larger community in which this small group existed. But there isn’t any evidence for this, and Palmer really doesn’t justify how he decides who is in and who is out. But it does suit the purposes of the argument, and so it is apologetic in nature.

     Much like the LDS community using Jacob 2:30 to defend polygamy. It was never invoked until quite some time after the practice was started – and only after charges were made in print that claimed that the Book of Mormon called polygamy an abomination. The Book of Mormon text supports the practice of polygamy only in the most general sense – and never directly, and the defenses which have been made (the apologies) have created a meaning for the BoM text which will persist, and which (at least in my studied opinion) has nothing to do with the intentions of the author. In fact, it seems likely that Jacob, who is trying to dismantle the practice, would be somewhat dismayed to see it used to defend it.

     Now, let me admit also that I get a fair share of grief over the idea that I like to obscure the issue, to cloud it, to introduce a great deal of meaningless discussion to hide the real problem. My objective is to understand the issues as best I can (of course, I also have spent a great deal of time thinking about how I think). I view myself as a postmodernist. I tend to view interpretation as being more about difference. We know better what something doesn’t mean than what it does.

     And of course, 3 to 5 sentances is rather useless – except to create an easy target (apologetics does this a lot quite frankly). Because 3 to 5 sentances cannot really address any of these issues.

     One of my favorite topics is the horse in the Book of Mormon. (But this is applicable to the concept of swords that you bring up above). A discussion of what the horse always stems from a previously assumed position of 19th century translation of an ancient text or 19th century authorship. And if a translation, we have to talk about what that means – what sort of a translation is it, how much of the translator is included, what can be said about the original source from the translation, and how do we distinguish from issues in the text related to the translation as opposed to issues which may have existed in the source. And so on. And of course we cloud the issue. But the reality is, despite what Marco Polo wrote, we know that he encountered a rhinoceros in Java and not a unicorn (as he calls it). Even though his text says unicorn, and is always translated as unicorn (when translated into English) and so on. So, we find the known real world isn’t reducible to the same sorts of simple answers we want either.

     Having said all of that, let me comment on a few of your statements John, starting with number 3:

     Joseph Smith publicly denied he was practicing polygamy

     Clinton clarified his position by suggesting that it depends on the definition of the word “is” (an interesting point really, because syntactically, the notion of being comes in three distinct meanings which are generally merged into one or two distinct words in most languages – but in different groupings). When we suggest that Joseph Smith was denying his polygamy, are we suggesting that he believed that he was engaged in the polygamy that he was denying? Or did he mean something else by polygamy, perhaps referring to the status of state recognized marriages to multiple women? Or even to common law marriage?

     This isn’t to suggest that he wasn’t attempting to mislead, but rather, as Clinton, that perhaps he was splitting hairs with his language – maybe even as a way of dealing with his own qualms of lying.

     Part of the issue with your statement (2) is the idea of the Anthon transcript. No matter whether or not Joseph was looking at the Gold Plates as he translated it, he prepared a translation of some specific characters allegedly from off of the gold plates, and presented a translation as specifically being a translation of these characters. So for us to say that the plates were not used is to belie the fact that they were presented as being intimately connected. Further, the whole Anthon episode must be dealt with when dealing with this issue. We cannot simply suggest that these characters were not copied directly from the plates but were reproduced by Joseph with his face buried in the hat. So while the plates were not apprently in direct use for most of the translation, I don’t think this can be said for all of it with any degree of certainty.

     For number 7, the answer is yes. But the real question is were they any more of an issue than Joseph’s publication of the Book of Mormon, than Joseph’s starting a new faith, than Joseph’s declaration of political intentions, and so on. The issue being was the two you bring up any more significant than any number of other factors, because this would seem to be the gist of your question.

     For number 8, I can’t help but think, in your comments, that you have been influenced by Palmer’s unwarranted assertion that this is a reference to second sight.

     In simply answering these issues (and answers been filled in), it leaves me wondering about these other points. Do we, in simply answering the issue come across as accepting your perspective of the “problem”? Instead, I would rather focus on the questions before I want explore responses. Inevitably we are going to learn a lot about ourselves in the process.

     Ben

119. I haven’t had a chance to read all of the posts on this thread so please excuse if this comment has already been made.

     I think there are a few mistaken assumptions with the request and expectation for “the apologists” to give a single, simple response:

     1. “Apologists” do not have homogenous views of the same issue. Yes, hard to believe but it is true.

     2. As far as I understand, it is not FAIR’s mission to provide content for other websites, provide “on demand” responses, etc. IIUC, FAIRs mission has something to do with providing a variety of apologetic responses to critical questions on *their* web site, in addition to publishing a limited amount of documents, and putting on their annual conference.

     3. FAIR isn’t a monolithic entity. It is a loose association of many volunteers that work on FAIR efforts and priorities (e.g., the wiki and getting their online articles translated on non-English FAIR sites) on an ad lib basis when they have time. If someone that is associated with FAIR decides to respond – fine – but they will be doing so representing only themselves and not FAIR.

     John, I hope that may provide some understanding as to the lack of an “official” FAIR response here . I hope you see that not all apologist hold a single position on any particular issue. You will see a range of perspectives. Additionally, usually one will not be able to provide a “simple” question to a complex issue (even tho it may be presented in a simple manner). For these reasons, you may have unrealistic expectations of FAIR, FARMS, and apologists in replying to this request (and others) that you may have.

120. [Comment by Devin — August 1, 2006 :] “I appreciate what you are doing here. I’m an active member that finds it incredibly tedious to slog through FAIR’s typical responses to these issues and I feel that in the process that the answers that they provided get lost in reams of superfluous rhetoric . . .”

     Devin,

     It seems to me by your comments above that you may be confusing “FAIR” with the message board that is *hosted* by FAIR – but that does not necessarily represent FAIR positions.

121. It seems to me by your comments above that you may be confusing “FAIR” with the message board that is *hosted* by FAIR – but that does not necessarily represent FAIR positions.

     As my mother said when Pete Rose was kicked out of baseball: “When you run with skunks, you end up smelling.”

122. Gee, that’s nice about your mom, Ann, but it totally misses the point of Devin’s post and my reply.

     Devin, please refer to the FAIR topical guide if you’d like to read apologetic essays without the “noise.”

     See: https://www.fairlds.org/apol/

123. Regarding LDS polyandry, I want to know if in the existing marriages Smith or other men joined, if the women were barren, had sickly children or thier 1st husbands were away on missions, etc? In short was this an attempt to maximize successful reproduction? That would seem consistant with the practical aspects of polygamy and akin to a woman going to a sperm bank today or a woman choosing different men to father and raise children (stud and sap). Or did Smith in effect steal wives solely out of lust?

124. Steve, while it definitely has some biases and places where there are disagreement over interpretations and sometimes facts, Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness does a good job going through the polyandrous relationships. I don’t think one could argue in the least it was about reproduction. I think Compton’s theory of dynastic marriages makes a lot of sense. But I think ultimately one can’t really say.

125. John, this kind of table needs to be provided on a Mormon wiki with a sort of word limit for every answer. This would be immensely helpful to both Mormons and non-Mormons.