The Restoration stands up to history | Deseret News

[_The Mormon Report]

For your consideration:

The Restoration stands up to history | Deseret News

[_brade]

Allow me to summarize the argument Dr. Peterson offers for the title of his article:

Premise 1: The claims of the restoration stand up to historical examination.
Conclusion: Therefore, the claims of the restoration stand up to historical examination.

[_Stormy Waters]

How would these levels work with a real example? I'll try to use Joseph Smiths' martial status.

Level A - Joseph Smith was married to Emma.

Level B - Joseph Smith was married to multiple women. Some of which were already married. Some of which were done without the consent of Emma.

Level C - It's okay because Joseph Smith was God's servant, and he was threatened by a angel with a flaming sword.

What's most troubling about this is that it's openly conceding that 'sunday school' members are not being told things, but that's okay because we wouldn't want to lose people on level B. How is this different than a used car dealership that doesn't disclose problems with the car so they can make a sale?

[_Fence Sitter]

I believe the choir gave him a standing ovation.

His point seems to be that why bother getting to C if A is the same. Obviously he is talking to chapel Mormons here trying to assure them that all is well and there is no need to examine any historical problems.

[_Darth J]

Nowhere in this pep rally in print does Daniel C. Peterson demonstrate that the (alleged) Restoration stands up to history.

And when you get something like this:

(Given my own background in philosophy, I might have chosen Hegel's terminology instead: "thesis," "antithesis" and "synthesis.")

given the demographics of the Deseret News' intended audience (conservative TBM's), you have to wonder how many of them think that the first name of the Hegel to whom he alludes is "Katherine." "Wow, she's really smart! And she's LDS, too!"

Anyway, without explaining how this pertains to the truth claims of the LDS Church standing up to scrutiny, we get "Level A," "Level B," and "Level C" versions of Church history. Or, per the star of 27 Dresses and Life as We Know It, the smarter-sounding "thesis" (foregone conclusion), "anithesis" (failure to accept the foregone conclusion at face value), and "synthesis" (deciding that the foregone conclusion was right all along).

One of those extremists who has an ax to grind against BS and fairy tales might label the three levels of history more like this:

1. The faith-promoting propaganda taught by the LDS Church;
2. Actual history;
3. The bastardized pseudo-Mormonism invented by FAIR and the Maxwell Institute that is a "synthesis" of 1 and 2 in the same beautiful, viable way that Jeff Goldblum's character was a synthesis of a human being and a housefly.

Eliza Snow was a good choice to quote about this issue, though. Maybe in his next column, Brother Peterson can tell us more about her marital relationships.

I wonder why, as Brother Peterson concedes, most Latter-day Saints aren't particularly interested in Church history outside the confines of Sunday school. Whatever the reason is, I'm sure it's not because the Church actively fosters that attitude.

But charity and context are all-important. Life would be much easier if we could find a church composed of perfect leaders and flawless members. Unfortunately, at least in my case, the glaringly obvious problem is that such a church would never admit me to membership.

This is irrelevant to the truth claims of the LDS Church.

The claims of the Restoration do, in fact, stand up to historical examination,

In support of the title of this article, we are proud to present: an unsupported, conclusory statement!

Thank you, brothers and sisters! Goodnight! Elvis has left the building!

although (very likely by divine design) their truth is neither so blazingly obvious nor so indisputable as to compel acceptance — least of all from people disinclined to accept them.

I find the ad hoc hypothesis that God is playing three-card Monte with our eternal destiny to be particularly compelling.

I also liked the caption to go along with this article:

Ancient prophets who lived on the American continent wrote the records of their people on plates of ore.

It is quite an accomplishment for them to have written on plates of ore. I would appreciate someone with a greater knowledge of metallurgy than mine offering an opinion, but my understanding is that you have to take ore and smelt it into a usable form of metal before you could make plates out of it.

I'm sure the smelting process used to make steel weapons and gold history books between 600 B.C. and circa 421 A.D. (and the Jaredites before that), as described in the Book of Mormon, is one of those claims that doubtlessly stands up to history.

[_Fence Sitter]

given the demographics of the Deseret News' intended audience (conservative TBM's), you have to wonder how many of them think that the first name of the Hegel to whom he alludes is "Katherine." "Wow, she's really smart! And she's LDS, too!"

.

I lol'd

And Darth, he didn't present any evidence in the article because his audience consists of type 'A'.

[_Chap]

I also liked the caption to go along with this article:

Ancient prophets who lived on the American continent wrote the records of their people on plates of ore.

It is quite an accomplishment for them to have written on plates of ore. I would appreciate someone with a greater knowledge of metallurgy than mine offering an opinion, but my understanding is that you have to take ore and smelt it into a usable form of metal before you could make plates out of it.

I agree it sounds bizarre today to use 'ore' as if it means 'metal'. It may just be a sign that Joseph Smith did not know much about metallurgy. But if we look at Webster's 1828 dictionary, which is attempting to record usage in Joseph Smith's day, it seems that someone might then have used 'ore' to mean 'metal':

ORE, n. [L. as, aris, brass.

1. The compound of a metal and some other substance, as oxygen, sulphur or carbon, called its mineralizer, by which its properties are disguised or lost. Metals found free from such combination and exhibiting naturally their appropriate character, are not called ores, but native metals.

2. Metal; as the liquid ore.

I'd like to see some examples of this usage from outside the Book of Mormon to clinch the point that the second sense was really possible, however.

[_moksha]

I think of Dr. Peterson's article as either a landmark or a very good trial balloon. He is telling the Chapel Mormons that all which they have learned in Sunday School is not so rosy and that behind the legend lies a much messier version of the real story.

Dr. Peterson's suggestion is right on, especially in light of Elder Jensen recently admitting that many members are leaving the Church because they have learned of the messier version. Dr. Peterson suggests forgiving leaders and their actions as perceived in connection to particular events and the altered after-story.

But charity and context are all-important. Life would be much easier if we could find a church composed of perfect leaders and flawless members. Unfortunately, at least in my case, the glaringly obvious problem is that such a church would never admit me to membership.

There is an essential truth to the statement that we all screw up, and any candor that can help lead us away from the American Tobacco Association's method of total denial and cover-up is worthy of praise. The implications that honesty is the best policy are undeniable.

[_Darth J]

I agree it sounds bizarre today to use 'ore' as if it means 'metal'. It may just be a sign that Joseph Smith did not know much about metallurgy. But if we look at Webster's 1828 dictionary, which is attempting to record usage in Joseph Smith's day, it seems that someone might then have used 'ore' to mean 'metal':

While I can see your point, I would suggest that the article and its accompanying caption are intended for a modern-day audience. The caption is not from the Book of Mormon; it is "1997 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc."

I cannot say with absolute certainty that there may not be some of Joseph Smith's contemporaries who are still around and have not converted to the LDS Church by now. Maybe this article will be what finally convinces them.

[_EAllusion]

I remember when A,B, and C history was a standard apologetic trope on message boards. Then it faded. We hardly knew ye, A, B, and C history.

There's a famous quote from Francis Bacon that goes, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

DCP is saying essentially the same thing about Mormonism. "A little history inclineth man's mind to apostasy, but depth in history bringeth men's minds about to Mormonism."

Proposing a "B" level is a way of trying to rhetorically seize the high ground. He's calling y'all sophomoric.