A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

[Shulem]

The final straw was Smith instructing Hedlock to assassinate the character Anubis by removing the snout and assigning him as the court slave.

Good thing Joseph had that magic talisman and his protective undergarments when finally faced by an angry Anubis.

The bottom line is that grave goods should have never been sold to the Mormons in the first place. It's a tragedy that greedy adventurists such as Chandler hauled the human remainders of dead souls (mummies) in his traveling wagon looking for the highest bidder. The whole thing is creepy beyond description and shows a total lack of regard and respect and we see how Smith and his band of do-gooders fully embraced handling grave goods (to include human bodies) for their own creep shows that they displayed in Kirtland and Nauvoo. What the Mormons did was inexcusable in desecrating grave goods and remains -- using them as props to advance their outrageous claims. Slicing up the papyrus and assigning them ridiculous meaning is all the proof any sane person needs to know that Mormonism truly is a sick religion that preys on the minds of weak minded people who can't think for themselves.

Mormons today who defend Smith's handling of grave goods are scum and prove they lack character and any resemblance of honesty that is embraced by decent people who haven't fallen into the lying traps of Mormonism. The Church makes me think of poisonous bugs, spiders, cobwebs, and corpses such as the ones Smith locked up in the upper room of the Kirtland temple -- so creepy. The Mormons had no business purchasing Egyptian grave goods and bodies of the original owners who were dug up, shipped, and hauled about the USA for a quick profit. Joseph Smith got exactly what he deserved -- a bullet in his heart. The bastard deserved what he got. Mormons today who defend his actions are scum -- people I would not want to be around. It's so creepy when you think about it. The Interpreter is evil -- sinister -- as are those who write the criminal trash they publish.

[Kishkumen]

The Mopologists have always tried to define themselves by their commitment to doctrinal principles, the chief of those being the idea that the Book of Mormon is a real, authentic history. They've said over and over again that if that edifice falls, it will spell the absolute doom of the Church. So, that's them. They can't get away from it, because they've been doing it for decades, and abandoning that approach would basically end their existence. And yet, here they are: Terryl Givens is going against one of their core positions, which is that the Book of Abraham is actually what Joseph Smith said it was. I've said it before and will say it again: this is the terrible specter that continues to haunt Mopologetics. They have not ever been able to mount a successful defense of the Book of Abraham, and it has been devastating. What Givens is saying is honest, so you have to be very, very concerned when Dr. Peterson says, "I don't always agree with him" in the context of this latest "article."

Their idea of doctrine, however, is incredibly odd. So, let's imagine for the sake of argument that Jesus defined core doctrine as this: love God and love your fellow humans, and all else hangs on this. Where does a literally ancient Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham relate to this? Why even bother asking these questions. We should rather ask, "How does engaging in this disagreement with Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid live up to the two great commandments Jesus taught?" I think the answer is pretty clear: it doesn't.

[dastardly stem]

It should be apparent that a narrowing of effort and marginalizing or bracketing the possible antiquity of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham not only might confound the terminology of the text (as modern constructs are imposed on potentially ancient documents), but
[Page 48]
it may effectively silence any voices who may be “crying from the dust.” It negates any real authentic testimony of those who have seen, heard, felt, and written about Jesus Christ in antiquity. Further, it prevents any richness of meaning or greater understanding that can be gained from studying these texts in their claimed ancient provenance. If Latter-day Saint Americanists persist in hyper-contextualizing every revelation and translation of Joseph Smith into the 19th century, then the unique terminology and meaning any ancient records might hold will surely be distorted, and the miraculous claims of Joseph Smith must continue to be watered-down and explained away, as is becoming more prevalent. The plain language of the Latter-day Saint community will grow in complication until we can no longer understand our words.]

He concludes by complaining that Givens' take, along with Hauglid's, will undermine their attempts to muddy the picture enough to make it appear Joseph's revelation might have ancient connections? My god, they want to pretend the burden is on everyone else. I love it when they complain about a lack of balance. No one else can help it if their position can't be sustained. Why blame everyone else?

[Dr Moore]

Thompson owes Radio Free Mormon a citation for having beaten him to the punch with the Amazingly Subsersive Teryl Givens episode.

[Dr Moore]

Their idea of doctrine, however, is incredibly odd. So, let's imagine for the sake of argument that Jesus defined core doctrine as this: love God and love your fellow humans, and all else hangs on this. Where does a literally ancient Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham relate to this? Why even bother asking these questions. We should rather ask, "How does engaging in this disagreement with Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid live up to the two great commandments Jesus taught?" I think the answer is pretty clear: it doesn't.

The boundary condition they assert on all LDS-related scholarship is that Joseph's claimed miracles were in fact miraculous. Givens may be faithful in the sense that he remains loyal to the church, but his scholarship represents a possible fissure that must be cemented closed with prejudice. In a loving way, of course!

[Kishkumen]

He concludes by complaining that Givens' take, along with Hauglid's, will undermine their attempts to muddy the picture enough to make it appear Joseph's revelation might have ancient connections? My god, they want to pretend the burden is on everyone else. I love it when they complain about a lack of balance. No one else can help it if their position can't be sustained. Why blame everyone else?

I am sitting here wondering why there is a perception of a burden at all. I don't need someone else to tell me that the Book of Mormon is ancient or not ancient. I have the Book of Mormon. It either speaks to me spiritually or it does not. What someone says about its antiquity is immaterial and has, for the most part, always been immaterial. I had no concept of antiquity, really, when I obtained a witness of the Book of Mormon, and coming to understand something about antiquity just did not relate to the Book of Mormon for me. If the Book of Mormon does not work for you, great. Ignore it. If it does work for you, embrace it by all means.

But the argument over antiquity is really unimportant. Antiquity meant something in terms of the genre Joseph Smith wrote in; it does not mean anything in terms of date. Thanks to the Middle Platonist Celsus, we can imagine two ways of talking about a valuable tradition. There is the palaios logos (ancient word) and the alethes logos (true word). The ancient word was never simply ancient; more often than not, it was in the ancient tradition but very much of the present. The true word is what is taken to be the perennial truth that lies hidden in all of the traditions of the world waiting for the philosopher to find it and interpret it correctly. The true word hides in ancient words. The true word is a philosophical reading of the material at hand, and the Book of Mormon was one author's attempt to find the true word in the ancient word he saw in the world around him.

We can take Plutarch's On Isis and Osiris as a Middle Platonic example of this exercise. Plutarch saw wisdom in the culture of the Egyptians which he felt that he, as a Platonic philosopher and Hellenic priest, had special keys of understanding to unlock. When we read Plutarch's take on Isis and Osiris, it is his take. It is not an Egyptian's perspective. The Book of Mormon is less explicit in doing exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith looks at the Native American situation, and he reads it through the eyes of a European Christian. As in the case of Plutarch, there is an engagement with the other culture, but it is the interpreter's own culture that becomes the special key to unlock the hidden mysteries of the native culture.

It is our own illiteracy and refusal to see what is before us that causes us to trip up on silly things like the archaeological search for the Book of Mormon. When Mormon scholars went to Central America to find baptismal fonts, they might as well have been ancient Greeks bringing home the bones of Orestes. I am not saying it was a meaningless exercise for all involved, but the Greeks never found what a scientist through his tools would be able to recognize as Orestes' bones, and the question of who Orestes is beyond what he meant to the Greeks who went looking for him is crucial to grapple with.

The past in this light is really a distorted mirror that allows people in the present to think about themselves in a new light. Being incapable of understanding others as they are, they make others into another version of themselves and try to get a handle on that first. The Book of Mormon is not really about Native Americans; it is about European Americans looking to Native Americans to provide them a way to deal with their new situation in an unfamiliar environment. If you don't know the past, if you can't find it, or see it, you have to make it. Joseph Smith made a new past for people who were thirsting for a semi-new way of seeing the world (without losing their bearings entirely). He gave them something they could hold onto, but it was not ancient America in its factual, historical past.

[Philo Sofee]

Ironically he built his entire career on doing just that! From Tryke to Metcalfe to and including Dehlin and now Hauglid.

Very true, Philo. I notice that, lately, Professor Peterson has been beating on his favorite drum: i.e., the one where he argues that religious societies are better than atheist societies because atheist regimes have killed more people overall. (Sidenote: isn't this a "presentist" argument? I.e., if you "adjust for inflation" vis-a-vis history, don't the "death counts" for religious societies need to be ratcheted up? I've never seen the Mopologists argue this point using statistical methods. I wonder why?)

My position is: *both* of these viewpoints have apparently resulted in unacceptable levels of bloodshed and death. So why should I support either of them?

i
I argued once with Bill Hamblin about this and his stance was religions were SOOOOO much better than atheist regimes because religious regimes ONLY killed tens of thousands, as opposed to millions by the atheists... I responded that that metric certainly does make them more spiritually enlightened and likely for God Father Holiness to condescend to bless their efforts. He didn't appreciate the sarcasm, which means the point went sailing right over his head. It still does with Peterson...... When you decide to kill, kill a few less than atheists and God is kosher with your handy work...

[Dr Moore]

Religious regimes eh? How convenient. Why narrow the argument that way, if not to tilt things in the religionist’s favor. Look at killing done in the name of any god, by any person or group of persons, vs killing done by avowed atheists, and I bet the atheists edge out a slight victory.

[dastardly stem]

The dichotomy is silly--religious regimes vs atheist ones. Hitler saw himself as conducting God's work. Stalinist Russia was run on the same type of dogma that religion is. On the other hand, Peterson should feel lucky atheists often promote a secular humanist approach. he benefits from the progress. If there were nothing but religious regimes we'd find ourselves in a bigger mess. Jeez. Should I head back over to sic et non and teach that old man a lesson again? I don't' know if I can stomach it.

[Dr Exiled]

The dichotomy is silly--religious regimes vs atheist ones. Hitler saw himself as conducting God's work. Stalinist Russia was run on the same type of dogma that religion is. On the other hand, Peterson should feel lucky atheists often promote a secular humanist approach. he benefits from the progress. If there were nothing but religious regimes we'd find ourselves in a bigger mess. Jeez. Should I head back over to sic et non and teach that old man a lesson again? I don't' know if I can stomach it.

I and I assume others would love it if you did. However, Dr. P is too lost in cognitive dissonance world to learn anything. Others reading your taking him to task certainly would benefit though.