Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
However:Throughout his life Albright was honored with awards, honorary doctorates, and medals, and was proclaimed "Yakir Yerushalayim" (Worthy Citizen of Jerusalem)—the first time that title had been awarded to a non-Jew.[27][28] He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1956.[29] After his death on September 19, 1971, his legacy continued through the many scholars inspired by his work, who specialized in the fields pioneered by Albright.
The formula is simple, what Albright did for the Bible, Nibley could do for the Book of Mormon.From the 1930s until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the acknowledged founder of the biblical archaeology movement. Coming from his background in German biblical criticism of the historicity of the biblical accounts, Albright, through his seminal work in archaeology (and his development of the standard pottery typology for Palestine and the Holy Land) concluded that the biblical accounts of Israelite history were, contrary to the dominant German biblical criticism of the day, largely accurate.
Mopologetics had a brief window to ride the tailwinds of a movement that would never have accepted them but that they could point to and mimic and enjoy at least the pretense of legitimacy. The world moved on. There is no such thing as serious scholarship anymore that is "faithful" in the way they want it to be.[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology
For example. The arrogance of the title " No, Ma'am, That's Not History". Or the relentless use of parallelism from John Sorenson. I think they thought they had critics on their heals and then came the digital revolution.drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:21 amIt’s a bad time to be a Mormon apologist. I imagine in the 60s and 70s they thought the church would win all of the arguments, find all of the evidence, and gather hundreds of millions into the fold.
If you showed them back then what apologetics would become today: Midnight Mormons, or NNL, or Boyland, it would bring them to tears.
You have to be reliant on the 'church' for something (money, income, job, status, career, deep family involvement, etc.) in order to be aware of this stuff, yet, attempt to justify, explain or defend it with some embarrassing mental gymnastics. BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 7:30 pmTreasure Hunting (scrying, necromancing, divining rods)
Money digging
Magic/The Occult
Fraud
Obsession with ancient civilizations
Storytelling
Polygamy/adultery/financial shenanigans
Seer stones/rock in a hat
Book of Mormon is born
Running from the law
Vigilante/Outlaw
Incarcerations
Doctrine & Covenants is born
Traveling artifacts peddler (Michael Chandler)
Mummies
Egyptian Scrolls
Book of Abraham is born
Is there really a need to debate the legitimacy of what Smith created???