I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_Sethbag]

Beastie does make a point. There has consistently arisen in apologist/critic arguments this theme that God would not allow something, say the Book of Mormon, to be proven with direct, unmistakeable evidence, because then that would lessen the need for "faith" without knowledge. And somehow the willingness to believe in something which cannot be proven, or even has evidence against it, is really awesome in God's eyes. It's way better than believing in something having verified it through demonstrable facts.

I'm not saying that everyone says that, and that they say it all the time, but it is certainly a theme that has come up many times, as an apologetic rationalization for the lack of proof of some particular thing or other.

[_degaston]

As time progresses the quality of data from archaelogical finds are improving. That's because technology tools and scientific advances (such as DNA sequencing) is making it easier to get more data with greater accuracy. If the Book of Mormon is based on a true historical setting then the evidences that support it will be a lot easier to scrutinize.

The PR problem for the apologists is that they come across to the world looking like the OJ defense team rather than a think tank of scientists. When examining an issue its important to NOT selectively ignore any of the facts. The apologists put difficult things "on the shelf" and this backfires on them. Putting anything "on the shelf" is a recipe for disaster in taking things out of context.

One big problem that has backfired is when some leaders/teachers will overzealously caution the youth in the church to NOT look at the Book of Mormon as being a history book. Sure the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is as a spiritual guide. What they omit is that the Book of Mormon can ONLY be true if its setting is based in true history of people who actually existed in the Americas circa 600 BC to 400 AD. Its very important IMHO for the apologists to clarify this situation.

And the biggest PR problem for the Mormon apologists is about WHO comes out to speak for them. Either put Daniel Peterson in the First Presidency or start getting the First Presidency in front of the microphone to answer some questions. When is the last time anyone has heard President Monson address the Lamanite/DNA issue, the Book of Abraham controversies, the Masonic plagiarism accusations regarding temple ceremonies and the various unsettled questions on the history of plural marriage in LDS church history? Oh and by the way that little stunt of Lance Wickman telling the media to not call the FLDS'ers "Mormon" was a very bad PR move. As long as the FLDS'ers read the Book of Mormon they'll be called Mormons by the rest of the USA. Its their freedom of religion.

[_Joey]

Its very simple. LDS supposed scholars who have published works on the supposed evidence on Book of Mormon historicity are, for lack of better term, laughed at by their professional peers in their attempts.

People like Peterson who carry out their mission for the LDS Church, and spend most of their breathing life posting on Mormon related boards, defending the ridiculous works of Clark and Sorenson in Book of Mormon historicity do so because the authors themselves are embarrassed to do so in or with their profession.

Can anyone find an academic or scholarly institution or organization that gives these works any consideration??? NO.

Face it, the Book of Mormon is avery quick read. Mormon history, for that matter is a very quick study. The excuses that the likes of Perterson posts on these boards are have as much merit as the works of Clark and Sorenson, on Book of Mormon historicity, have in academic and peer acceptance..

But some things will always sell in Provo!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ta dum ta dum ta dum me and my drum.

- Joey

Its very simple. LDS supposed scholars who have published works on the supposed evidence on Book of Mormon historicity are, for lack of better term, laughed at by their professional peers in their attempts.

CFR.

People like Peterson who carry out their mission for the LDS Church, and spend most of their breathing life posting on Mormon related boards, defending the ridiculous works of Clark and Sorenson in Book of Mormon historicity do so because the authors themselves are embarrassed to do so in or with their profession.

CFR.

Can anyone find an academic or scholarly institution or organization that gives these works any consideration???

Oxford University Press.

NO.

See above.

Face it, the Book of Mormon is avery quick read.

Not all have found it so.

Mormon history, for that matter is a very quick study.

Huh?

The excuses that the likes of Perterson posts on these boards are have as much merit as the works of Clark and Sorenson, on Book of Mormon historicity, have in academic and peer acceptance..

Truth as beauty- or popularity contest.

Joey's one contribution.

Ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum. Joey and his drum.

But some things will always sell in Provo!

Especially on the east bench of the town, known as "Oxford."

[_Joey]

What works of Clark/Sorenson, on Book of Mormon hisroricity, whether paid to be published by "Oxford" or not, can we find being used in any academic institution as a history course text??

What acreditted history course, taught anywhere on the globe mentions any of the people, places or cultures from the Book of Mormon now that Clark/Sorenson have added so much "scholarly" research and support?

Peterson, please, you embarrass yourself.

Go on and pitch for FARMS if you must, but where outside of Provo does it sell? Orem?

You are the good soldier though! So was Custer!

[_Daniel Peterson]

While still beating his drum, Joey moves the goalposts.

Peterson, please, you embarrass yourself.

That's rich.

Go on and pitch for FARMS if you must, but where outside of Provo does it sell? Orem?

Central Europe. Australia. New Zealand. Mexico. Brazil. The UK. Japan.

All subdivisions of Provo.

You are the good soldier though! So was Custer!

So was Mehmet the Conqueror.

Ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum you and your drum.

[_Joey]

Peterson, you are such the putz. As with FARMS, only answer the questions that make you look good. Just like FARMS, avoid the meat and try to "breast feed" the mostly naïve reader you pander to on FARMS milk!!

Now, can you please answer (for the first time in your life) where we can find in any academic institution on this planet, where the supposedly scholarly works of Clark/Sorenson ON Book of Mormon HISTORICITY have any accreditted history program teaching the people, places or cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Simply pathetic.

[_bcspace]

I'm fine with this. The day the Smithsonian Institute accepts the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document, I'll believe it is real history, I'll defer to their expert judgement.

Oh Oh! I hear a tornado...no, it's not a tornado, but the apologists all bent out of shape, desperate to tell me that the Smithsonian doesn't have the requisite Book of Mormon specific knowledge to pass judgement either.

That's fine. The nature of science, like LDS doctrine, is such that one can believe there were no pre-Columbian horses today and with new evidence one can believe the opposite tomorrow.

However, I wouldn't wait for the Smithsonian. Musty old museums usually don't have enough in the budget to change the labels on the exhibits.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Peterson, you are such the putz.

Your most devastating argument to date.

As with FARMS, only answer the questions that make you look good. Just like FARMS, avoid the meat and try to "breast feed" the mostly naïve reader you pander to on FARMS milk!!

As you would know if you actually read FARMS or Maxwell Institute materials, we routinely deal with challenges and with challenging issues.

Now, can you please answer (for the first time in your life) where we can find in any academic institution on this planet, where the supposedly scholarly works of Clark/Sorenson ON Book of Mormon HISTORICITY have any accreditted history program teaching the people, places or cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

From the Brigham Young University course catalog for the Department of Anthropology:

280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0)
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

Simply pathetic.

There's no need to sign your notes. Your name already appears, automatically.

[_Inconceivable]

Joey wrote:
Now, can you please answer (for the first time in your life) where we can find in any academic institution on this planet, where the supposedly scholarly works of Clark/Sorenson ON Book of Mormon HISTORICITY have any accreditted history program teaching the people, places or cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

DCP:
From the Brigham Young University course catalog for the Department of Anthropology:

280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0)
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

Joey,

I suppose Peterson finally answered the question. The only place on earth where there is an accredited history program that colors fiction with historicity - BYU.

Peterson,

Your fly is open.