Sterling: Oh, I thought you were going to ask me to comment on Elder
Packer.
Jack: Oh, I wouldn't restrain you from doing that.
Sterling: I was kind of looking forward to the opportunity. Well, I
will just make a very short statement. I think he is a total disaster
to the LDS church.
from http://www.lds-mormon.com/newell_mcmurrin.shtml
That was true in 1993, and it is still true today. Kind of sad. Good thing we've got some fairly decent authorities among the twelve, though I haven't done enough research to have an opinion on all of them.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Response to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ essay
I was just wondering,
how do you justify the ending to your mostly decent essay regarding science and religion, in the section on naturalism and science? If cognitive faculties evolved to be completely unreliable, as the essay seems to imply, in what way could the mechanism of natural selection have been used to evolve them? Doesn't it make better sense to acknowledge the possibility that more accurate cognitive faculties, at least in certain areas of thought, have a more competitive advantage? One doesn't need to accept that all of our faculties evolved to be reliable, either. After all, scientific naturalism doesn't really come naturally to the common man. Personally, our cognitive faculties seem geared toward assimilating what we experience into what we believe is a consistent understanding of the world around us.
Not that much of the above matters, only I am a bit bugged that the argument at the end of your essay seems to be a weak misapplication of statistical reasoning in an attempt to demonstrate an imagined fault of naturalism in conjunction with evolution, as if that somehow buffets the logical support of theistic religion. Is there a reason you ended the essay this way? I hope it was not due to political considerations or personal theological views, but I can't imagine what else would have motivated such an unfair conclusion...
Sincerely,
~Jacob
how do you justify the ending to your mostly decent essay regarding science and religion, in the section on naturalism and science? If cognitive faculties evolved to be completely unreliable, as the essay seems to imply, in what way could the mechanism of natural selection have been used to evolve them? Doesn't it make better sense to acknowledge the possibility that more accurate cognitive faculties, at least in certain areas of thought, have a more competitive advantage? One doesn't need to accept that all of our faculties evolved to be reliable, either. After all, scientific naturalism doesn't really come naturally to the common man. Personally, our cognitive faculties seem geared toward assimilating what we experience into what we believe is a consistent understanding of the world around us.
Not that much of the above matters, only I am a bit bugged that the argument at the end of your essay seems to be a weak misapplication of statistical reasoning in an attempt to demonstrate an imagined fault of naturalism in conjunction with evolution, as if that somehow buffets the logical support of theistic religion. Is there a reason you ended the essay this way? I hope it was not due to political considerations or personal theological views, but I can't imagine what else would have motivated such an unfair conclusion...
Sincerely,
~Jacob
Sunday, October 16, 2011
continuation of second discussion on fairblog.org
Again from http://www.fairblog.org/2011/09/21/fair-issues-24-the-cure-for-in-an-intellectual-apostasy/
It looks like I've been officially blocked from fairblog.org:
It looks like I've been officially blocked from fairblog.org:
-
Jacob Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 16th, 2011 at 12:04 am looks like my reference to the dialogue magazine was flagged, so my last comment was moderated and will have to be viewed here. Thanks.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
second discussion on fairblog.org
one of my comments that is "awaiting moderation" for some reason. Full discussion here: http://www.fairblog.org/2011/09/21/fair-issues-24-the-cure-for-in-an-intellectual-apostasy
-
Jacob Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm Thank you, S. Goodman, for your honesty!
This is where our conclusions do indeed diverge, although we have in view the same problems and similar data. I am aware of the interesting historical data regarding prejudice against not only blacks but homosexuality as well, and many of our previous church leaders’ pseudo-scientific ideas, claims, and methodologies. None of that really was ever an issue for me.
However, the scriptures are our keystone witnesses to the gospel. Minor inconsistencies can be explained away, and I did so for a long time. My bigger issues were with the New Testament texts and the Book of Mormon, and this Isaiah stuff is just icing on the cake. I use words like “likely” because the evidence is strongest for the readings I gave, but it’s always possible one could be off. But not all of them.
It really hit me hard to see how non sequitur the apologists have been about the Book of Abraham. Consider Michael Rhodes’ classic look at the hypocephalus here. Some notes: the 3rd century demotic magical text referenced on page 6 can be found here. Notice that the magical word Abraham is part of a long line of nonsensical words, similar to those found elsewhere in the papyrus. Page 7, compare here, columns XII and XIII, although the translation isn’t as good as in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, if you have that. The “judgment” Abraham sees borrows from Egyptian judgment theology in general, and trying to connect it to the Book of the Dead 125 (either the A or B version) comes just short of utter nonsense.
The discussion of the Apocalypse of Abraham is interesting. Note that “[what] is in the heavens, on the earth and in the sea, in the abyss, and in the lower depths, in the garden of Eden and in its rivers, in the fullness of the universe” is the full phrase from the apocalypse. It’s hard to see how the words on the hypocephalus and these could possibly have been related. Is the “striking” similarity with the hypocephalus really that striking? Moreover, the four figures in Abraham 18 are a lion, a man, an ox, and an eagle, and how is that “clearly” a description of the four canopic figures in facsimile 2, figure 6, which are, as p. 11 states, the 4 sons of horus: a jackal, a baboon, a falcon, and a human? Moreover, read chapter 18 yourself and then read Ezekiel chapter 1 and tell me where the chapter’s imagery came from.
Anyway, you can continue in the same vane and read his words, check his sources, consider his arguments. Isn’t it obvious how non sequitur the conclusions are? It really, instead, demonstrates the lack of evidence supporting Joseph Smith’s interpretations, and the fact that he just got it wrong. Why else do apologists have to invent such arguments out of thin air? Why do they have to obscure simple truths and lie just to make a case for the Book of Abraham?
Hugh Nibley, by the way, in making his defenses, had to draw on materials spanning over 3000 years of Egyptian history, and treat them as if they all somehow corresponded to the subject at hand. You can check his sources the same way, and see how poorly his arguments pan out. One of his most honest admissions was preserved in CWHN 18: An Approach to the Book of Abraham, chapter 10: “I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago” (p. 494) – which includes a huge bulk of his works. He is basically admitting that much of his words on Abraham were utter nonsense, in case you didn’t want to check and discover that for yourself. Moreover, on page 495, he says, speaking of Facsimile 1, figure 3, “in this case I think it was Anubis”. What an admission! You look at the original papyri yourself and it seems pretty obvious to me that figure 3 was Anubis, and especially figure 1 was a Horus-headed hawk.
Add the translations to the text of facsimile 3 to the mix, and what mystery is there left to understanding the nature of the Joseph Smith Papyri? Heck, even reading the Kirtland Papers in volume 18 as opposed to just taking Dr. Nibley’s arguments for granted should make it pretty clear how tied they really were to the translation of the book.
Anyway, food for thought. To me, there is a final and definitive answer, and you can know it now. I respect your stance, however, and you don’t need to respond to my arguments listed here — just, if you really are interested in the truth, we have enough evidence. Let me know if you do the readings I indicated and what you think. Are the LDS apologists really being completely honest with us? Why, or why not? Thank you again for your responses. I respect an honest, open mind, willing to give any truth the full benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Discussion on fairblog.org
full discussion here: http://www.fairblog.org/2011/08/17/fair-issues-21-book-of-mormon-in-ancient-setting-not-19th-century-work/
Here's a portion of what I wrote:
Here's a portion of what I wrote:
-
Jacob Says:
October 8th, 2011 at 1:49 am Steve,
This is a matter of eternal life. How can you not have time to go over this with me? Is not every soul precious in the sight of God? What about mine? If you are right, then you are condemning me to damnation by not helping me see.
Thanks for regurgitating the caricature that the only people that are willing to accept the idea of Deutero-Isaiah are people who obviously don’t believe in revelation, because of Isaiah’s naming of Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28. Actually, my conclusions derive from looking at the context and theme of Isaiah and asking what he’s writing about and why.
I accept the possibility of revelation about future things. But the data really has to show it. We can’t claim something and then refuse to examine our premise, or see how well our claim fits the known details.
You say you posted the links to demonstrate that there are responses people have made to certain issues. Yay. Every religious group posts responses to criticism about itself. But are the responses really sufficient?
Do you not really care that Nephi says, “for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they which do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.” (1 Ne 22:15, 1830 ed.), and “it is they which must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall” (1 Ne 22:23-24, 1830 ed.), and “Wherefore all they that are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble” (2 Ne 26:4, 1830 ed.), and “the day cometh that shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (2 Ne 26:6), and “But the Son of righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them” (2 Ne 26:9). And that Malachi said, “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts…But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” (Mal 4:1-2)
What “prophet” is Nephi quoting? What other prophet than Malachi used this kind of sun imagery when dealing with God and the destruction of the wicked (see also Mal 3:1-6)? If Malachi was quoting someone else in 4:1-2 (which he would have had to, if he and Nephi managed the same themes in the same order, and Nephi claimed to be quoting a prophet), then he’s also borrowing in 3:1-6, in which case, we need to extend how much he’s quoting to complete units of thought: 2:17-3:6, 3:16-4:1, and 4:2-3. 2:17 uses Malachi’s unique question-answer format, so if he’s quoting there, then perhaps the entire book is just quotes. But the theme of the book has to do with the Levirate priesthood in the second temple period, and so why would any earlier prophets have spoken these themes? Especially given the negativity about sun worship demonstrably present in earlier times: Ezekiel 8:16-18; Deut. 4:19, 17:2-5; 2 Kings 21:5, 23:11-12; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5
I too accepted for a long time the possibility that perhaps the Book of Mormon prophets just received the same things as later prophets by revelation. It is a necessary premise for believing in the Book of Mormon, with its 19th century Christianity 600 years before Christ. Read Alma 7, for instance, and you have to make that concession about revelation. But when a prophet is explicitly being quoted, who seems quite clearly the originator of the way he said something? Nephi was ahead of his time, for sure.
What about when the prophet’s words don’t have to do with revelation at all? For instance, 2 Peter 2:22 says, “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” You should notice that he is paraphrasing Proverbs 26:11, “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” Only, in the Proverb a pig is not mentioned, since Jews had nothing to do with pigs, being unclean animals. This is a clear infusion of Greek culture into the proverb. But wait! 3 Nephi 7:8 says, “And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire.” Why the heck would a prophet in the Book of Mormon use the new testament version of the proverb, with its clear Greek influence? Certainly, you don’t mean to ascertain that pigs were kept by the Nephites?
I guess you could call that another example of Joseph “choosing” to render a passage with its intent, using King James language. So did Mormon actually use the Old Testament version, and we’re getting a corrupted text here? How come almost every legitimate test I subject the Book of Mormon to, which would have made great examples of its being an authentic translation, utterly fails? What are you putting your faith in? (Speaking of Greek… why are the Greek version of the word Jonah and the Greek name Timothy at the top of the 12 disciple list in 3 Ne. 19:4? And speaking of the disciples, why was Nephi called to be a disciple, and one of the 12 that was promised that he’d live to be 72 and then brought “speedily” into Christ’s kingdom in 3 Ne 28:3, and in 4 Ne. 1:14 it claims to have happened… EXCEPT in 1:19 Nephi the disciple finally dies, 110 AD, at least 80 years old… food for thought.)
You notice that the more scrutiny the Book of Mormon comes under, the more its proponents have to draw back and make absurd assertions to keep the faith. Same with the Book of Abraham, for that matter. What data, then, does your testimony support? That the content of the Book of Mormon cannot be separated from 19th century language, culture and theology, and that our actual deeper Mormon doctrines have to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants? That a type of Monism in the Book of Mormon was suppressed by the Prophet himself when he made changes to 1 Nephi 11 in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was left in in Mosiah 15, Alma 11, Ether 4, for instance? That the 1830 Book of Commandments reads very differently from the later Doctrine and Covenants, that details about the Priesthood were amended like afterthoughts, and details about early magical practices like Joseph’s stone-in-hat translation method and Oliver Cowdery’s water-witching in D&C 8 were suppressed? What ever role does the Prophet’s Jupiter Talisman, found on his body after the martyrdom, play in your theology, I wonder?
Does it matter to you that Hugh Nibley was so reluctant to translate the text on Facsimile 2 that it wasn’t published in its entirety (Dr. Nibley’s translation, that is) in his collected works until the last volume, One Eternal Round? That text is very damaging, despite what people like Michael Rhodes try to say about it. Or that Hugh Nibley refused to ever translate the text in Facsimile 3? I’ve read all his works — he simply refuses. Makes sense, since the Prophet in figure 2 says “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”, whilst the characters above his head say, “The great Isis, mother of the god [Horus]“. Oops.
I do not wish to go in depth into any of that here; there are sources enough you can find on most of it, if you really care about basing your faith in what is true, and not simply what you wish is true.
Thanks for the note about wordprints. The comment here by Kevin Barney, a latter-day saint, seems to sum up pretty well how impressive-looking yet shoddy they can be. Is it any wonder that “wordprint” in Google gives you results that make it pretty clear that it’s Mormons toting this thing around as if it’s legitimate. “wordprint -mormon” returns nothing about wordprints. Interesting, no?
This is a fairly decent response to early wordprint analysis. How far have we come since then? The “experimental design” section is particularly important. I have the feeling that if we left out the “and it came to pass” portion, and stopped overfitting the data, we’d have greater alignment of the texts. From what I have found, and borrowing clues from Royal Skousen, there is a slight shift in language beginning in the Book of Ether and ending in Words of Mormon (imagine the Book of Mormon wrapping around… you are aware that the “small plates” were translated last, right?). The words of Jacob in 2 Ne. 9 and Jacob 2-5 might come out as being unique…but maybe not. I’ve read the Book of Mormon a couple dozen times and seems pretty consistent throughout… lengths of sentences, manner of speaking and correcting oneself, redundancies and flow of thought, etc.
Another question for you, Steve, or anyone else who cares to respond: you said you’re okay with “language from the KJV that was not true to the verbatim language used by the original authors”. Firstly, doesn’t that destroy the validity of any wordprint studies anyway? Shouldn’t they rather indicate the same author throughout, in that case? I have a feeling that this exact interpretation is what’s going to happen when say a PhD study comes out verifying the unity of the text. People have a way of saying, “either way, it supports my faith”. Isn’t faith amazing, that way? Secondly, why in the world would the original authors even have an intent that would lead to, say, most of 1 Corinthians 13:2-8,13 being repeated in Moroni 7:44-46, or especially Mormon 9:22-24, Ether 4:18, D&C 24:13-14, quoting Mark 16:15-18, where those concepts, and thus intent, were not originally part of the scriptures, and so Christ never had said nor should have repeated or sanctioned them. Does that make sense? Do you see why I can’t sanction explaining that some text’s intent matched a false scripture, and therefore it was okay to use that scripture?
By the way, it is almost universally acknowledged that Luke and Matthew were copying Mark and some other source. Matthew can be shown to have been the most liberal in rearranging texts to suit his needs. So again, why is Jesus quoting Matthew, when a more accurate sermon on the mount would have come from Luke 6? Follow your idea, that some people are working from sources. Use your Gospel Harmony in the Bible Dictionary and trace Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John out yourself. I have my scriptures fully concorded that way, so I know where a passage in one author can be found in the others. It will work wonders in your comprehension of the New Testament.
And if you really read that New Testament, and then look at the Book of Mormon again, how can you avoid seeing the major source for the Book of Mormon? How does the evidence really stack up? Can you keep justifying to yourself that somehow it works out? Can you really ask other people to have that kind of “faith”? I mean, that kind of faith would justify my acceptance of pretty much any religion.
But I want the truth. And I find the truth to be so compelling, so worth finding, that I do have time to debate and learn and question and really seek for answers. This is an eternal issue, and a matter of the soul. How can you not have time? Please examine your premises, and your data. Don’t be afraid to find more data. Believe it or not, there is only one set of truths, and one of us has to have more of it (in this field) than the other. If you really want truth, you have to be willing to throw out the opinions, the beliefs and the “responses” as you have eloquently called them, and just look at the data.
You don’t know how badly I have wished and in the past how strongly I believed the church was true. But I am an honest person, and I cannot justify lying or obscuring truth. I really did give our religion a thorough look, examined all the data apologists have to offer, the evidence from my faith, my life, the faith and lives of those around me. I drunk deeply of all the words of the prophets, both in general conference, sunday school and priesthood readings, and pretty much every book on our faith the BYU library and bookstore and Deseret book had to offer. I did so not because my faith was wavering, but because my faith was strong and I thoroughly believed, as you do now, that the evidence was strongly in favor of Mormonism. I wanted to learn it all, so I could defend our faith like it says in 1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”. It was through church materials that I lost my faith. Once I had seen most of the evidence, and gone through it all myself, I could no longer honestly say I believed these things. I came to terms with my faith and was compelled to leave it. I am well acquainted with apologist rhetoric. Unfortunately, it has such scant evidence behind it that I can’t justify standing behind it. The more I continue to learn (and continue to read all the LDS Standard Works!), the more satisfied I am with my decision. Yet, if I am wrong someone had better walk through the evidence with me and let me know what I’ve missed. For instance, I will keep in mind the wordprint studies and hopefully get my hands on the full datasets so I can go through them carefully. I consider my own detailed look at the Book of Mormon more convincing, however. I can almost count on my hands the evidences in behalf of the Book of Mormon, but I couldn’t count on 100 hands the evidence I have against it.
So please, don’t end the discussion. And please learn the field of textual criticism while you’re at it. You don’t expect to convert me to the gospel through a discussion of textual criticism. If you take an honest look at textual criticism, I expect I could convert you away from the gospel through it. There is enough data available to raise important questions and discover important results, as much as we’d like to claim that there isn’t enough evidence to decide either way.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Letter to Michael D. Rhodes
I hope to get a reply! [...] is used to hide original text.
Hi Brother Rhodes,
[...] While at BYU, I read some of John Gee's work on the Book of Abraham, and have since also digested all of Hugh Nibley's (and your joint work) material on it, as well as your own translation and commentary on the Hor Book of Breathings.
In the course of my studies I have found it impossible to reconcile my traditional LDS beliefs with the results of honest inquiry. For instance, I have taken my own look at the Kirtland Egyptian papers (including CWHN 18), and found solid connections that Dr. Nibley shrugged off as unimportant. Also, whenever I look at a copy of Joseph Smith Papyrus I, I can't help but notice the clear horus head on the hawk, and the dot pattern on the feathers of the wing that we keep trying to call a hand. I believe you have indicated as much, and I do not understand the variety of assertions that still vie for Joseph Smith's explanations being authoritative.
I don't feel the need to go on in any more details, of which you are far more aware than I. I also don't see how we can reconcile errors in the Textus Receptus being propagated in the Book of Mormon. When I took New Testament classes at BYU, I was thrilled with the field of textual criticism and the idea that we could potentially find variant readings that support the Mormon viewpoint. Unfortunately, the more I delved into the field, the less likely the authenticity of the Book of Mormon became. Why, for instance, would the spurious ending in Mark be quoted in Mormon 9:22-24, Ether 4:18, etc? Why the Comma Johanneum referenced in Ether 5:4? Why do problematic readings in Matthew get retained in 3 Nephi? Why, when an Old Testament scripture is referenced, does the New Testament version usually get repeated instead (Eg, 3 Ne 7:8 vs 2 Pet 2:22 vs Prov 26:11)?
In fact, the more and more I looked at it, the more and more it looked like a 19th century creation. It is too hard to live with the cognitive dissonance caused by chronological errors, internal inconsistencies, born again sermons (not quite LDS doctrine..), and sheer cultural nightmares when trying to view the text as authentic. I've read John Sorenson, and I've read Hugh Nibley -- their views on Nephite culture are quite dissonant. I've read BYU studies that have tried to find evidence for authenticity and I'm not convinced. It simply doesn't add up.
And this doesn't even begin to delve into matters like the dating and authorship of Isaiah, or Old Testament texts themselves, what Josiah actually did, etc. None of those issues were necessary to find myself quite convinced. The Book of Mormon speaks for itself. So does the Book of Abraham. They don't breathe authenticity.
I came to these conclusions independently, when I was 19 years old and on my mission (once I really converted to the Gospel at around 15, I was quite voracious in studying scriptures, church history, and words of the prophets). I chose to honorably fulfill that mission, come home and stay active in the church.
What are your reasons for staying active in the church? How do you honesty retain a believe in things for which most of the evidence seems to point against? I stay active for those around me, but I am conflicted by my choice. Is it right to deceive people when I really don't believe something? I feel betrayed somewhat, by yourself and teachers I had at BYU that certainly knew better (like Terry Ball using בתולה in Isaiah 7:14 when he darn well knew the word was עלמה), and by countless others in the world who seem to value their beliefs over intellectual honesty.
I have had to labor to buy original sources and read them to find out truths for myself. I am appalled by what we keep silent about. It feels to me like we're pushing our problems for future generations to solve, like people have done before us, and just look at the mess we're in today. Truth is truth. What right do I have to keep quiet about it? I can't accept not hurting others' feelings as an answer for much longer -- I worry about my own future children, and the world they'll be a part of. Surely ignoring truth just pushes conflict and pain onto their shoulders, simply because I couldn't bear to deal with it today.
I am quite interested in your thoughts. I respect your work and feel like you may have a far greater perspective than my own.
[...]
Hi Brother Rhodes,
[...] While at BYU, I read some of John Gee's work on the Book of Abraham, and have since also digested all of Hugh Nibley's (and your joint work) material on it, as well as your own translation and commentary on the Hor Book of Breathings.
In the course of my studies I have found it impossible to reconcile my traditional LDS beliefs with the results of honest inquiry. For instance, I have taken my own look at the Kirtland Egyptian papers (including CWHN 18), and found solid connections that Dr. Nibley shrugged off as unimportant. Also, whenever I look at a copy of Joseph Smith Papyrus I, I can't help but notice the clear horus head on the hawk, and the dot pattern on the feathers of the wing that we keep trying to call a hand. I believe you have indicated as much, and I do not understand the variety of assertions that still vie for Joseph Smith's explanations being authoritative.
I don't feel the need to go on in any more details, of which you are far more aware than I. I also don't see how we can reconcile errors in the Textus Receptus being propagated in the Book of Mormon. When I took New Testament classes at BYU, I was thrilled with the field of textual criticism and the idea that we could potentially find variant readings that support the Mormon viewpoint. Unfortunately, the more I delved into the field, the less likely the authenticity of the Book of Mormon became. Why, for instance, would the spurious ending in Mark be quoted in Mormon 9:22-24, Ether 4:18, etc? Why the Comma Johanneum referenced in Ether 5:4? Why do problematic readings in Matthew get retained in 3 Nephi? Why, when an Old Testament scripture is referenced, does the New Testament version usually get repeated instead (Eg, 3 Ne 7:8 vs 2 Pet 2:22 vs Prov 26:11)?
In fact, the more and more I looked at it, the more and more it looked like a 19th century creation. It is too hard to live with the cognitive dissonance caused by chronological errors, internal inconsistencies, born again sermons (not quite LDS doctrine..), and sheer cultural nightmares when trying to view the text as authentic. I've read John Sorenson, and I've read Hugh Nibley -- their views on Nephite culture are quite dissonant. I've read BYU studies that have tried to find evidence for authenticity and I'm not convinced. It simply doesn't add up.
And this doesn't even begin to delve into matters like the dating and authorship of Isaiah, or Old Testament texts themselves, what Josiah actually did, etc. None of those issues were necessary to find myself quite convinced. The Book of Mormon speaks for itself. So does the Book of Abraham. They don't breathe authenticity.
I came to these conclusions independently, when I was 19 years old and on my mission (once I really converted to the Gospel at around 15, I was quite voracious in studying scriptures, church history, and words of the prophets). I chose to honorably fulfill that mission, come home and stay active in the church.
What are your reasons for staying active in the church? How do you honesty retain a believe in things for which most of the evidence seems to point against? I stay active for those around me, but I am conflicted by my choice. Is it right to deceive people when I really don't believe something? I feel betrayed somewhat, by yourself and teachers I had at BYU that certainly knew better (like Terry Ball using בתולה in Isaiah 7:14 when he darn well knew the word was עלמה), and by countless others in the world who seem to value their beliefs over intellectual honesty.
I have had to labor to buy original sources and read them to find out truths for myself. I am appalled by what we keep silent about. It feels to me like we're pushing our problems for future generations to solve, like people have done before us, and just look at the mess we're in today. Truth is truth. What right do I have to keep quiet about it? I can't accept not hurting others' feelings as an answer for much longer -- I worry about my own future children, and the world they'll be a part of. Surely ignoring truth just pushes conflict and pain onto their shoulders, simply because I couldn't bear to deal with it today.
I am quite interested in your thoughts. I respect your work and feel like you may have a far greater perspective than my own.
[...]
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Honesty over loyalty
If you look at the rise of fundamentalism in the last century and a half, you see the rise of dishonesty in behalf of 'traditional' faith, which has recently been on my mind. Science is good and trusted, and people shape their beliefs to match the truth, in the full assurance that their faith will eventually converge with the science. People like William George Jordan and our own James Talmage personify this way of thought.
Unfortunately, as the science progresses, it completely contradicts the tenderly held faith. In order to save their faith, people make their beliefs the unchangeable truths and fit the science around their tenets. Pretty soon you have a divide that is hard to cross, because people are willing to piously lie in behalf of their beliefs, instead of accepting honesty and evidence as their credo.
Fundamentalism is born of intentionally turning away from honest examination of evidence. Sometimes I feel like our forebears, 100 years ago, failed us by refusing to recognize truth, as if that would make the truth go away. And now today we live in a nation of hypocrisy.
There are many people, including myself, who justify themselves in keeping up a façade so as to not 'hurt' others who don't want to see reality, but we're just pushing the problem onto future generations. In the meantime, it's the honest among us that are the most hurt.
I think the time may soon be upon us, what with the resources now at our disposal, that the honest will need to make a stand. Many already have, and I am impressed by the candidness and bravery exhibited. It means more hurt and more pain in the short run, but it will save our children and their children from having to go through it themselves. I believe the way has and is being carved by the suffrage, anti-apartheid, civil rights, and gay rights movements.
All this to say, perhaps things would have been different if our forebears valued honesty above loyalty. Unfortunately, loyalty seems to be built in. Maybe we can save the next generation the same trouble, if we have an honesty over loyalty movement.
A good credo that would get on people's nerves could be, "I believe that the God of this universe values my honesty over my devotion". Can you really argue with that? Why else would loyalty give us the crusades and honesty the microwave oven?
Unfortunately, as the science progresses, it completely contradicts the tenderly held faith. In order to save their faith, people make their beliefs the unchangeable truths and fit the science around their tenets. Pretty soon you have a divide that is hard to cross, because people are willing to piously lie in behalf of their beliefs, instead of accepting honesty and evidence as their credo.
Fundamentalism is born of intentionally turning away from honest examination of evidence. Sometimes I feel like our forebears, 100 years ago, failed us by refusing to recognize truth, as if that would make the truth go away. And now today we live in a nation of hypocrisy.
There are many people, including myself, who justify themselves in keeping up a façade so as to not 'hurt' others who don't want to see reality, but we're just pushing the problem onto future generations. In the meantime, it's the honest among us that are the most hurt.
I think the time may soon be upon us, what with the resources now at our disposal, that the honest will need to make a stand. Many already have, and I am impressed by the candidness and bravery exhibited. It means more hurt and more pain in the short run, but it will save our children and their children from having to go through it themselves. I believe the way has and is being carved by the suffrage, anti-apartheid, civil rights, and gay rights movements.
All this to say, perhaps things would have been different if our forebears valued honesty above loyalty. Unfortunately, loyalty seems to be built in. Maybe we can save the next generation the same trouble, if we have an honesty over loyalty movement.
A good credo that would get on people's nerves could be, "I believe that the God of this universe values my honesty over my devotion". Can you really argue with that? Why else would loyalty give us the crusades and honesty the microwave oven?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Prelude
As a modest first step, I would like to put the Book of Mormon in its context. It is a beautiful context that has sprung a beautiful movement, but one that is highly misunderstood and needs more explaining. Similar to almost anything else, I guess, like Christianity itself.
As a prelude, I suppose illustrating what the Book of Mormon is not will help us get on the right footing. It is not an ancient record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. It believes that it is, however.
That may be the crux of the whole issue. The Book of Mormon is a sincere revelation of a magnificent worldview about Christ and his imminent return in the 19th century, the establishment of Zion and restoration of the Chosen race(s), and the eradication of wickedness on the earth. It contains the certainty of an impending world-wide crisis, and the blueprint for successfully navigating that crisis.
Before we can really get involved with what the Book of Mormon has to say about the universe, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is not what claims to be, that it is not a translation of an ancient record, but that it came from a brilliant, sincere, 19th-century mind. Also, it is not what mainstream latter-day saints claim it is, or even faithful LDS scholars. I'll try to make it as short and straightforward as possible, by relating some of the most blatant and hopefully least controversial contradictory internal and scriptural evidence that can be gathered from it.
1) 1 Nephi 1:4 - Zedekiah began his reign in 597 BCE, not 600 BCE. If we follow Matthew's chronology (Matt. 2), then Jesus was born before Herod died. Herod is well known to have died in 4 BCE, so most scholars place Jesus' birth at around 5 BCE. If we account that the Jews followed a lunar calendar before they were scattered by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, then 600 lunar years is about 591 1/2 years. That works pretty well, only if we throw out Luke 2, because he mentions Cyrenius (or Quirinius), who called a census in 6 AD, which is when Luke places the birth of Jesus. So really no one is certain when he was born, and this chronological problem therefore is merely an academic exercise.
2) 1 Nephi 3:19 indicates that Lehis family needed the brass plates so they could preserve the language of their fathers. So in Mormon 9:32-33, Moroni indicates that they still know Hebrew, but they write in "reformed Egyptian". Well, Mosiah 1:3-4 indicates that the brass plates, which is a record of the Jews, are written in Egyptian. How they retained their old Phoenician-style Hebrew without even a large record like the brass plates is never mentioned. Or how a Jewish record in Jerusalem ends up being written in Egyptian.
3) 1 Nephi 18:7, 2 Nephi 2:1 indicate that (using our 600 BCE for Zedekiah chronology to make calculations easier) Jacob was born somewhere around 593-591 BCE. Enos 1:25 indicates that Jacobs son Enos "began" to be old around 421 BCE. Enos' son Jarom lived to at least 362 BCE. Now lets put this in a modern context. If Jacob was born around the time of Joseph Smith, 1805, then his son Enos lived to see at least the year 1975, and Jacob's grandson would still be around today, and alive even 20 years from now. And yet especial attention was never drawn to these centenarians.
4) Mosiah 11:5 indicates that King Noah got rid of all the righteous priests of his father and set up his own instead. Later, in Mosiah 18:13, Alma, who was one of those priests of Noah (Mosiah 17:1-2), who had only repented of his sins (Mosiah 18:1), somehow now had the authority to baptize an entire congregation - and himself! (Mosiah 18:14)
5) Alma 2 - the Amlicites presumably began their existence with Amlici. They were "Nehors" (Alma 1). This was around 87 BCE. The book of Alma takes us through a time warp when it mentions the events surrounding the sons of Mosiah, in Alma 17-27. However, beginning in Alma 21:2, you hear about the Amlicites building cities and firmly established in the land of the Lamanites - around 90 BCE. This detail is missed because original Book of Mormon manuscripts had various ways to spell "Amlicite", including Amalekite, which is how it is currently spelled in the latter parts of Alma. No wonder... even though their origin is never explained if we accept the Book of Mormon as it is right now, it would be even weirder to try and explain their time travel if we change their name back to Amlicites.
6) Alma 3:5 indicates that the Lamanites wore skins about their loins, and armor. This is somewhere around 87 BCE. But in Alma 43:19-21, around 74 BCE, the Lamanites no longer wear armor!
7) Alma 33:2 -- have you ever wondered how Alma expects a lower-class, illiterate group of people to search the scriptures on their own? Especially Egyptian scriptures!
8) Alma 53:8-23 indicates that the army of Helaman was formed in the 27th year of the reign of the judges, and Alma 52:18-19 indicates it was possibly in the 28th year. However, in Alma 56:9 Helaman himself indicates it was in the 26th year!
9) Helaman 8:20 - "Ezias" and "Isaiah" are put right next to each other as if they are different prophets. See Matthew 3:3 for an example of where Isaiah (this time, Isa. 40:3) is quoted as "Esaias", due to the "ah" ending being feminine in Greek. Just like how "Yeshua" = "Joshua" becomes "Jesus" in the Greek. (Of course, that's not how Joseph Smith saw it, at least in the beginning. See D&C 84:11-13 for his placement of the prophet "Esaias").
10) Helaman 9:18 indicates that the five men who saw the chief judge murdered in the judgment seat were liberated on the day of burial, before Nephi was taken and questioned. But Helaman 9:38 indicates that the five men were kept prisoner until after the trial and conviction of Seantum.
11) Helaman 14:20 indicates that Christ will be dead for three days before he rises again, although Mosiah 3:10 indicates he will rise the third day. Of course, the Gospels have the same kind of problem. Jesus dies on a Friday and is resurrected at dawn on a Sunday, but Matthew claims (Matt 12:40) that Jesus would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights (compare Matt 12:39-41 to the more reasonable earlier version of the saying in Luke 11:29-32).
12) 3 Nephi 19:4 mentions two curious Nephite names: Timothy, which is Greek, Jonas, which is the Greek perversion of the name Jonah
13) 3 Nephi 20:30-33 prophesies that the Jews will believe in Christ, and then be gathered to Jerusalem. Hmm... how come the "physical" gathering happened without the "spiritual" one?
14) 3 Nephi 28:3 indicates that 9 of the 12 disciples would live to be 72, and then be translated and taken to paradise. Remember that in 3 Nephi 19:4, Nephi is one of those 12. According to 4 Nephi 1:14, by 100 AD all the 9 had gone to paradise, but in 4 Nephi 1:19 the same Nephi from the 12 finally dies in 110 AD (almost 80 years after Christ came), and you know he was one of the 12... (3 Nephi 23:7)... but apparently not one of the 3 permitted to tarry. What's going on here?
15) Mormon 9:22-24 quotes Mark 16:15-18. This is a serious problem because this ending in Mark, evidenced here, is highly disputed. It looks like some early Christian decided to amalgamate references to Luke and Acts together in order for the book to end more smoothly. How did this late 1st or early 2nd century fraud end up in the Book of Mormon? It gets further sanction in D&C 24:13. Furthermore, Mark 16:16 is one of the strongest "evidences" that a person has to be baptized to be saved.
16) Ether 5:4 presents a strong predicament. It says, "and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shewn forth the power of God, and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost beareth record" (1830 edition). The problem is that this paraphrases 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost". This is the well-known Johannine Comma, which is almost certainly a late addition to the original text. What's it doing in the Book of Mormon?
I have a quite thorough list I have been making of biblical references within the Book of Mormon, which will be quite useful in driving home the point that the Book of Mormon is full of King James Version New Testament language and (as understood from the early 19th century frontier) ideology. That will have to be reserved for a further post.
For a single example, 3 Nephi 7:8 references a pig wallowing in the mire. Jews didn't keep pigs, and wouldn't understand the reference. This would have been a nice reference to Proverbs 26:11, which is what Peter quotes in 2 Peter 2:22, except Peter added the part about pigs. So we have a clear New Testament quotation casually made in the Book of Mormon that is completely out of context with anything you'd expect out of Judaism or the early Americas, for that matter. You will find plenty more as you read the text carefully.
In summary, the Book of Mormon is a very human book. It gives itself away both in its narrative, and in the assumptions it makes. However, it is a brilliant book that still merits close attention.
As a prelude, I suppose illustrating what the Book of Mormon is not will help us get on the right footing. It is not an ancient record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. It believes that it is, however.
That may be the crux of the whole issue. The Book of Mormon is a sincere revelation of a magnificent worldview about Christ and his imminent return in the 19th century, the establishment of Zion and restoration of the Chosen race(s), and the eradication of wickedness on the earth. It contains the certainty of an impending world-wide crisis, and the blueprint for successfully navigating that crisis.
Before we can really get involved with what the Book of Mormon has to say about the universe, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is not what claims to be, that it is not a translation of an ancient record, but that it came from a brilliant, sincere, 19th-century mind. Also, it is not what mainstream latter-day saints claim it is, or even faithful LDS scholars. I'll try to make it as short and straightforward as possible, by relating some of the most blatant and hopefully least controversial contradictory internal and scriptural evidence that can be gathered from it.
1) 1 Nephi 1:4 - Zedekiah began his reign in 597 BCE, not 600 BCE. If we follow Matthew's chronology (Matt. 2), then Jesus was born before Herod died. Herod is well known to have died in 4 BCE, so most scholars place Jesus' birth at around 5 BCE. If we account that the Jews followed a lunar calendar before they were scattered by the Babylonians in 587 BCE, then 600 lunar years is about 591 1/2 years. That works pretty well, only if we throw out Luke 2, because he mentions Cyrenius (or Quirinius), who called a census in 6 AD, which is when Luke places the birth of Jesus. So really no one is certain when he was born, and this chronological problem therefore is merely an academic exercise.
2) 1 Nephi 3:19 indicates that Lehis family needed the brass plates so they could preserve the language of their fathers. So in Mormon 9:32-33, Moroni indicates that they still know Hebrew, but they write in "reformed Egyptian". Well, Mosiah 1:3-4 indicates that the brass plates, which is a record of the Jews, are written in Egyptian. How they retained their old Phoenician-style Hebrew without even a large record like the brass plates is never mentioned. Or how a Jewish record in Jerusalem ends up being written in Egyptian.
3) 1 Nephi 18:7, 2 Nephi 2:1 indicate that (using our 600 BCE for Zedekiah chronology to make calculations easier) Jacob was born somewhere around 593-591 BCE. Enos 1:25 indicates that Jacobs son Enos "began" to be old around 421 BCE. Enos' son Jarom lived to at least 362 BCE. Now lets put this in a modern context. If Jacob was born around the time of Joseph Smith, 1805, then his son Enos lived to see at least the year 1975, and Jacob's grandson would still be around today, and alive even 20 years from now. And yet especial attention was never drawn to these centenarians.
4) Mosiah 11:5 indicates that King Noah got rid of all the righteous priests of his father and set up his own instead. Later, in Mosiah 18:13, Alma, who was one of those priests of Noah (Mosiah 17:1-2), who had only repented of his sins (Mosiah 18:1), somehow now had the authority to baptize an entire congregation - and himself! (Mosiah 18:14)
5) Alma 2 - the Amlicites presumably began their existence with Amlici. They were "Nehors" (Alma 1). This was around 87 BCE. The book of Alma takes us through a time warp when it mentions the events surrounding the sons of Mosiah, in Alma 17-27. However, beginning in Alma 21:2, you hear about the Amlicites building cities and firmly established in the land of the Lamanites - around 90 BCE. This detail is missed because original Book of Mormon manuscripts had various ways to spell "Amlicite", including Amalekite, which is how it is currently spelled in the latter parts of Alma. No wonder... even though their origin is never explained if we accept the Book of Mormon as it is right now, it would be even weirder to try and explain their time travel if we change their name back to Amlicites.
6) Alma 3:5 indicates that the Lamanites wore skins about their loins, and armor. This is somewhere around 87 BCE. But in Alma 43:19-21, around 74 BCE, the Lamanites no longer wear armor!
7) Alma 33:2 -- have you ever wondered how Alma expects a lower-class, illiterate group of people to search the scriptures on their own? Especially Egyptian scriptures!
8) Alma 53:8-23 indicates that the army of Helaman was formed in the 27th year of the reign of the judges, and Alma 52:18-19 indicates it was possibly in the 28th year. However, in Alma 56:9 Helaman himself indicates it was in the 26th year!
9) Helaman 8:20 - "Ezias" and "Isaiah" are put right next to each other as if they are different prophets. See Matthew 3:3 for an example of where Isaiah (this time, Isa. 40:3) is quoted as "Esaias", due to the "ah" ending being feminine in Greek. Just like how "Yeshua" = "Joshua" becomes "Jesus" in the Greek. (Of course, that's not how Joseph Smith saw it, at least in the beginning. See D&C 84:11-13 for his placement of the prophet "Esaias").
10) Helaman 9:18 indicates that the five men who saw the chief judge murdered in the judgment seat were liberated on the day of burial, before Nephi was taken and questioned. But Helaman 9:38 indicates that the five men were kept prisoner until after the trial and conviction of Seantum.
11) Helaman 14:20 indicates that Christ will be dead for three days before he rises again, although Mosiah 3:10 indicates he will rise the third day. Of course, the Gospels have the same kind of problem. Jesus dies on a Friday and is resurrected at dawn on a Sunday, but Matthew claims (Matt 12:40) that Jesus would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights (compare Matt 12:39-41 to the more reasonable earlier version of the saying in Luke 11:29-32).
12) 3 Nephi 19:4 mentions two curious Nephite names: Timothy, which is Greek, Jonas, which is the Greek perversion of the name Jonah
13) 3 Nephi 20:30-33 prophesies that the Jews will believe in Christ, and then be gathered to Jerusalem. Hmm... how come the "physical" gathering happened without the "spiritual" one?
14) 3 Nephi 28:3 indicates that 9 of the 12 disciples would live to be 72, and then be translated and taken to paradise. Remember that in 3 Nephi 19:4, Nephi is one of those 12. According to 4 Nephi 1:14, by 100 AD all the 9 had gone to paradise, but in 4 Nephi 1:19 the same Nephi from the 12 finally dies in 110 AD (almost 80 years after Christ came), and you know he was one of the 12... (3 Nephi 23:7)... but apparently not one of the 3 permitted to tarry. What's going on here?
15) Mormon 9:22-24 quotes Mark 16:15-18. This is a serious problem because this ending in Mark, evidenced here, is highly disputed. It looks like some early Christian decided to amalgamate references to Luke and Acts together in order for the book to end more smoothly. How did this late 1st or early 2nd century fraud end up in the Book of Mormon? It gets further sanction in D&C 24:13. Furthermore, Mark 16:16 is one of the strongest "evidences" that a person has to be baptized to be saved.
16) Ether 5:4 presents a strong predicament. It says, "and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shewn forth the power of God, and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost beareth record" (1830 edition). The problem is that this paraphrases 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost". This is the well-known Johannine Comma, which is almost certainly a late addition to the original text. What's it doing in the Book of Mormon?
I have a quite thorough list I have been making of biblical references within the Book of Mormon, which will be quite useful in driving home the point that the Book of Mormon is full of King James Version New Testament language and (as understood from the early 19th century frontier) ideology. That will have to be reserved for a further post.
For a single example, 3 Nephi 7:8 references a pig wallowing in the mire. Jews didn't keep pigs, and wouldn't understand the reference. This would have been a nice reference to Proverbs 26:11, which is what Peter quotes in 2 Peter 2:22, except Peter added the part about pigs. So we have a clear New Testament quotation casually made in the Book of Mormon that is completely out of context with anything you'd expect out of Judaism or the early Americas, for that matter. You will find plenty more as you read the text carefully.
In summary, the Book of Mormon is a very human book. It gives itself away both in its narrative, and in the assumptions it makes. However, it is a brilliant book that still merits close attention.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Between the Lines
The remarkable thing to me about the Book of Mormon is that almost everything you would want to know about early Mormonism and Joseph Smith's understanding of himself and the world around him is printed in abundance, on and between the lines of all 521 pages of the book he dictated. I hope, through this blog, to show exactly what I mean, by revealing the doctrines and culture "hidden in plain sight" in the Book of Mormon.
My only credentials, for those interested, are:
1) growing up an active Mormon, attending BYU, and serving a full-time mission for the church
2) having read the Book of Mormon carefully above 25 times, and the rest of the Standard Works several times, careful to cross-reference through digital search and by hand, phrases, sequences, and thoughts that overlap between them, as well as scrutinized, word by word, copies of the original Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments with our modern versions
3) having read well above a dozen different commentaries and studies on the Book of Mormon, (including, for better or worse, almost every Hugh Nibley book), and several more on the rest of the standard works, including works by well recognized scholars in the field of biblical studies
4) having taken classes on early church history, and personally reading not only the lengthy official histories, but also several of the more in-depth books and studies written on various subtopics related to both early Mormon and early Christian history
Lists, dates, and comments are available on request. My study and research is always on-going, though I delve into several random other topics as well in the course of my studies.
My only credentials, for those interested, are:
1) growing up an active Mormon, attending BYU, and serving a full-time mission for the church
2) having read the Book of Mormon carefully above 25 times, and the rest of the Standard Works several times, careful to cross-reference through digital search and by hand, phrases, sequences, and thoughts that overlap between them, as well as scrutinized, word by word, copies of the original Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments with our modern versions
3) having read well above a dozen different commentaries and studies on the Book of Mormon, (including, for better or worse, almost every Hugh Nibley book), and several more on the rest of the standard works, including works by well recognized scholars in the field of biblical studies
4) having taken classes on early church history, and personally reading not only the lengthy official histories, but also several of the more in-depth books and studies written on various subtopics related to both early Mormon and early Christian history
Lists, dates, and comments are available on request. My study and research is always on-going, though I delve into several random other topics as well in the course of my studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
October 15th, 2011 at 11:59 pm =) sounds good. We will discuss more in private.
Minor note: I’m guessing you believe I dropped out or quit because of my saying “leaving” rather than “graduating” BYU. I simply transferred schools upon finishing my mission, because I felt I had acquired about all I could there and needed a change of scenery.
This place is proper to bring up problems with LDS scholarship, because so many LDS are hoodwinked into thinking that somehow all the apologist material adds up to something substantial. The truth is that it doesn’t. I thought here would be a good place to comment, because if an LDS apologist such as Brother Ash reads it, perhaps they could be inclined to steer me right if I am wrong. I feel that they will not comment, because engaging in an honest discussion with me will force them to admit the weakness of their position on many points, including those I have previously mentioned.
To quote John L. Sorenson, a respected LDS archaeologist, “As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic.” We really need to stop the drivel. Strides have definitely been made since the sixties when this quote was given, but there is really no excuse for the mountains of hogwash that still get peddled as scholarship.
Debates don’t solve anything, but they sure do a good job at pointing out holes in logic or scholarship that many on the other side are unaware of. It helps both sides. My reasons for not believing the church are academic. This site had ought to be academic, and as such, should allow for debate. If the church is true, a serious debate and discussion of the available evidence will do nothing but bolster its claims. That the apologists aren’t willing to engage fairly and openly should be reason enough realize the need for a critical evaluation of the evidence.
Most people who leave the church actually just leave it. That’s the end of things. I know that is the way for many people from my former wards and stakes. To claim that people who leave it can’t leave it alone is to make an awfully big deal out of the church that really has no statistical significance. Everyone has a somewhat different response to a change in beliefs. I’ve left the church alone for a long time, without really any hubbub, believing in general the church to be a decent organization that improves people’s lives, and that conversion for an individual can mean everything to them, and bring about much good.
But with thought and time I’ve come to see how dangerous it is to persist in false beliefs. Beliefs shape attitudes, which shape behaviors, which shape our world. Falsehood may be locally soothing, but globally destructive. And as painful as it may be to realize that your cherished beliefs aren’t quite as genuine as you once thought them, the longer we wait to change course, the more destructive and painful our decision to uncritically accept our belief systems will be. Maybe not for you and me, but what about our children and their children?
What a divided future they have ahead of them! I happen to be somewhat specialized in general Mormon studies, though I am branching further and further out into biblical research, with a focus on archaeology and textual criticism. Thus, I would like to speak up in behalf of honest representation of the current state of the scholarship, and help end the endless rehashes that refuse to engage all the current material and thus don’t get us anywhere. I am a voice for the future.