Critics are NOT justified, so says Mormon scholar

[_Philo Sofee]

From John Gee's blog:

John Sorenson is not a polemicist. But he has carefully and systematically sifted through immense amounts of material. Therefore, his careful assessment carries some weight with those who know him. I was thus intrigued by the following quote from his new book:
Critics have their own justifications for denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but rarely are their doubts based on reliable facts. (John Sorenson, Mormon's Codex [2013], 6.)

But facts change, such as we (at least I did) recently learned about Pianchi, which was being read wrong! It ends up as not being a valid Book of Mormon name.

As Psymmachus posted:

One reference on the complications of the name "Piankhi" vs. Piye on the so-called "Victory Stele of Piye" is a 2006 article by Karola Zibelius-Chen ("Zur Problematik der Lesung des Königsnamens Pi(anch)i") in Der Antike Sudan 17:127-33.

As I understand it, other epigraphic evidence give his name is Piye but on the "Victory Stele" it had been read as Piankhi. If it occurs elsewhere, I invite the Egyptologists here to correct me. You can see documents from Piye's reign in Ritner's anthology The Libyan Anarchy (a preview available here), which even provides a transliteration so you can see the name for yourself.

The facts of DNA most certainly have affected how Mormonism looks and acts like with the now living "Lamanites" compared to how the former prophet Spencer with. Kimball talked and taught about them. Today we hear nary a word, and see nothing prophecy fulfilling wise about the Lamanites taking things over or turning white and delightsome. We never hear any conference talks on them or read much about them anymore nor do we care. It came, had its day, probably produced several converts, and now the gig is somewhere else with something else.
But the one fact that solidly gives critics fundamental ground is that there is no facts in favor of the Book of Mormon. Arti-facts that is. This was demonstrated with the Jenkins/Hamblin debate where Hamblin could not produce anything of substance of either an ancient Lamanite or Nephite product that is clearly identifiable and agreed upon by all scholars, such as there exist for say the ancient Assyrians, or Sumerians, or Egyptians, or Mayans, or Incas.
In that case, the entire Sorenson project rests on dubious "facts" if such can be called. They are analogy only, not actual facts of ancient Nephites or Lamanites that were specifically spoken of in the Book of Mormon. We have nothing to go on. And that, is the only fact that plays significance in our day. Faith does not change that fact that there are no facts of their existence. Only evidence, or rather the lack of facts gives critics the best fact of all, there is no reason to begin to believe... yet.

[_Gadianton]

Since I am not an expert in archaeology, I'll take Sorenson seriously when his work is published in National Geographic. Until then, I rightfully assume his work is a crock.

[_Philo Sofee]

Since I am not an expert in archaeology, I'll take Sorenson seriously when his work is published in National Geographic. Until then, I rightfully assume his work is a crock.

If he could actually convince a couple of genuine non-LDS Mayan or Mesoamerican archaeologists who decided to get baptized and help him spread the good news would be a magnificent move forward for him... until then, he is talking to the Mo Tab Choir only... but hey, some of them believe! So I suppose there is that.

[_Kishkumen]

The basic methodological issue is this: on whom does the burden of supporting a claim fall? Apologists mistakenly believe that Joseph Smith's claims and Mormons' faith place the burden on others. That is completely backwards. Those who assert a claim must support it, and others are open to test their attempts to do so. Thus far the apologists' attempts to support the antiquity of Joseph Smith's "ancient" scriptures have come up woefully short. This is not the fault of detractors, and it may instead be a message to those making the claim. Perhaps Mormon claims about the antiquity of Smith's "ancient" scriptures are based on mistaken assumptions and incorrect models. If a claim cannot be supported, perhaps it is time to revise the claim.

[_Philo Sofee]

The basic methodological issue is this: on whom does the burden of supporting a claim fall? Apologists mistakenly believe that Joseph Smith's claims and Mormons' faith place the burden on others. That is completely backwards. Those who assert a claim must support it, and others are open to test their attempts to do so. Thus far the apologists' attempts to support the antiquity of Joseph Smith's "ancient" scriptures have come up woefully short. This is not the fault of detractors, and it may instead be a message to those making the claim. Perhaps Mormon claims about the antiquity of Smith's "ancient" scriptures are based on mistaken assumptions and incorrect models. If a claim cannot be supported, perhaps it is time to revise the claim.

Um, that's so sensible that it will fly right over their heads.

[_Dr Exiled]

The basic methodological issue is this: on whom does the burden of supporting a claim fall? Apologists mistakenly believe that Joseph Smith's claims and Mormons' faith place the burden on others. That is completely backwards. Those who assert a claim must support it, and others are open to test their attempts to do so. Thus far the apologists' attempts to support the antiquity of Joseph Smith's "ancient" scriptures have come up woefully short. This is not the fault of detractors, and it may instead be a message to those making the claim. Perhaps Mormon claims about the antiquity of Smith's "ancient" scriptures are based on mistaken assumptions and incorrect models. If a claim cannot be supported, perhaps it is time to revise the claim.

Um, that's so sensible that it will fly right over their heads.

Their authority is so tied to historicity that it is impossible to embrace a change in their model without the huge danger of losing many more members than they already do like happened to the community of christ. Maybe once enough leave, there will be a sense that they have nothing to lose, and then the change will happen?

[_Philo Sofee]

Exiled
Their authority is so tied to historicity that it is impossible to embrace a change in their model without the huge danger of losing many more members than they already do like happened to the community of Christ. Maybe once enough leave, there will be a sense that they have nothing to lose, and then the change will happen?

Yep. Now don't get me wrong when I say historicity is fine, but it's now why the records were kept anciently. Sure there is some historical memory of something and someone or other living in their time, but the reasons for writing what they did was not primarily history. This has an entirely new feel for me without apologetic mode operating, and I think there is some new growth in it for me here... I am rather getting excited about it. I mean, yes, the Bible is a rather dumb and boring book if all you want is history out of it. But there is so much more to it than that. It is a world GREAT literature for a reason, and history has never been that reason. Now that the light is dawning on me, I can appreciate it so much more now.

[_sock puppet]

The basic methodological issue is this: on whom does the burden of supporting a claim fall? Apologists mistakenly believe that Joseph Smith's claims and Mormons' faith place the burden on others. That is completely backwards. Those who assert a claim must support it, and others are open to test their attempts to do so. Thus far the apologists' attempts to support the antiquity of Joseph Smith's "ancient" scriptures have come up woefully short. This is not the fault of detractors, and it may instead be a message to those making the claim. Perhaps Mormon claims about the antiquity of Smith's "ancient" scriptures are based on mistaken assumptions and incorrect models. If a claim cannot be supported, perhaps it is time to revise the claim.

Um, that's so sensible that it will fly right over their heads.

Their authority is so tied to historicity that it is impossible to embrace a change in their model without the huge danger of losing many more members than they already do like happened to the community of christ. Maybe once enough leave, there will be a sense that they have nothing to lose, and then the change will happen?

As highly developed and ingrained as the LDS hierarchy is, it will be far passed the normal tipping point before the FP/12, whomever they may then be, will come to sense that they have nothing to lose. One of the currents in whom the cog dis is so obvious is the Dodo (Holland). I'll bet he had to change his garments before the second session of GC, Oct 2012, given how giddy and losing all composure he was and did during the press conference after the first session when it was announced that they were lowering the eligibility ages for full-time missionary service. He boasted that there would be 100,000 as the base line of missionaries active by 2020. Now the numbers are settling in. The hemorrhaging of young male BICs that are not going on missions has to be considered a crisis at Headquarters. The next shoe is dropping. Supplanting the Varsity Scout program on 1/1/2018 with what will be no doubt a correlated indoctrination program.

Yet Holland doesn't get it. None of the current ding dongs get it.

Facts speak louder than myths. We are, duh, in the information age after all. They sell myths. The market space for their product has shrunken precipitously.

[_Kishkumen]

If one wants to understand the relationship between memory, myth, and history in Mormonism, it is helpful to consider the Jewish example. It is most likely the case that much of Jewish "history" as written in the Bible is legend/myth. It is highly doubtful that there was an Exodus. It is most likely the case that many of the patriarchs and heroes are fictional characters. And yet, all of those stories have become central to the memory of Israel's past that Jewish people today celebrate and relive through their rituals, festivals, and synagogue gatherings. The Mormon people are very much the same, just much younger, and somewhat derivative from different sources than the Jewish people were pulling from.

I would recommend that anyone interested in these issues watch a lecture the eminent historian Jan Assman presented on Jewish memory and identity:

https://vimeo.com/54446888

[_kairos]

But facts change, such as we (at least I did) recently learned about Pianchi, which was being read wrong! It ends up as not being a valid Book of Mormon name.

As Psymmachus posted:

One reference on the complications of the name "Piankhi" vs. Piye on the so-called "Victory Stele of Piye" is a 2006 article by Karola Zibelius-Chen ("Zur Problematik der Lesung des Königsnamens Pi(anch)i") in Der Antike Sudan 17:127-33.

As I understand it, other epigraphic evidence give his name is Piye but on the "Victory Stele" it had been read as Piankhi. If it occurs elsewhere, I invite the Egyptologists here to correct me. You can see documents from Piye's reign in Ritner's anthology The Libyan Anarchy (a preview available here), which even provides a transliteration so you can see the name for yourself.

The facts of DNA most certainly have affected how Mormonism looks and acts like with the now living "Lamanites" compared to how the former prophet Spencer with. Kimball talked and taught about them. Today we hear nary a word, and see nothing prophecy fulfilling wise about the Lamanites taking things over or turning white and delightsome. We never hear any conference talks on them or read much about them anymore nor do we care. It came, had its day, probably produced several converts, and now the gig is somewhere else with something else.
But the one fact that solidly gives critics fundamental ground is that there is no facts in favor of the Book of Mormon. Arti-facts that is. This was demonstrated with the Jenkins/Hamblin debate where Hamblin could not produce anything of substance of either an ancient Lamanite or Nephite product that is clearly identifiable and agreed upon by all scholars, such as there exist for say the ancient Assyrians, or Sumerians, or Egyptians, or Mayans, or Incas.
In that case, the entire Sorenson project rests on dubious "facts" if such can be called. They are analogy only, not actual facts of ancient Nephites or Lamanites that were specifically spoken of in the Book of Mormon. We have nothing to go on. And that, is the only fact that plays significance in our day. Faith does not change that fact that there are no facts of their existence. Only evidence, or rather the lack of facts gives critics the best fact of all, there is no reason to begin to believe... yet.[/quote]

beg your pardon but it seems every time a temple is opened in south/central america or the islands, the apostle in the dedicatory prayer calls out the sons and daughters of father lehi are standing here reaping blessings- what a con.
k