truth dancer wrote:I am fairly certain she would be VERY well received. Virtually everyone I have ever met at Sunstone has been respectful and kind.
I think most of the folks who attend Sunstone know most of the "issues" but some may be confused on the Mesoamerican information because of the misleading statements from some apologists.
There would be only one problem... who would they get to respond to her paper? ;-)
~td~
I have no doubt they would be kind and respectful to her personally. It's not like they're FAIR. I wonder how they would receive her ideas, though. At least, I wonder how the apologists who attend would receive them.
Maybe they could coax Brant to respond?
I'd pay to see good money to see that!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Well, so far, I see noise and no substance from the defenders of the faith.
That's been the only perception about Mormons for over 165 years. So what else is new? There is nothing we can ever do that will change that perception, because that is the conclusion one wants, no matter what LDS scholars presents, even if it is totally contrary to the negative conclusion.
JustMe, the real problem is that the LDS church is a manmade organization, just like every single other church out there in the world. It's not literally "true". The founders really did make it up as they went along, and not a single one of them ever actually talked to, or received information from, any all-powerful deity that might exist. This being the case, you guys are stuck defending the indefensible, and justifying the unjustifiable. If it seems to you to be a hard row to hoe, well, that's because it really is an impossible task. You can't make Joseph Smith a true prophet by wishing it, nor cause actual Lehites to have come over from Israel on a real wooden boat ~600BC. The Egyptian funeral documents really aren't the story of Abraham, written by Abraham, by his own hand, upon papyrus.
Try as you might, you can't unscrew Fanny Alger. You can't uncheat on Emma. You can't uncommit adultery with the other mens' wives. You can't go back and let Henry Jacobs and Zina live out their lives with their own children together, unmolested by usurpers.
The LDS have such a hard time defending the "Truth" of the LDS church for one reason only, and that is that it really isn't True. All else is just details.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Well, so far, I see noise and no substance from the defenders of the faith.
That's been the only perception about Mormons for over 165 years. So what else is new? There is nothing we can ever do that will change that perception, because that is the conclusion one wants, no matter what LDS scholars presents, even if it is totally contrary to the negative conclusion.
I am interested in some response to Beastie's points.
Why not respond to her points rather than tell us why you won't respond.
Or if someone has addressed them please show us where. :-)
And just to be clear, I think there are many things the LDS church could do that would change the perception of non-believers and even change their conclusions. I know there are most certainly things that would alter my perception of the church. I doubt any of them would convince me of the truth claims of the church nevertheless I would definitely have a different opinion of the church and its leaders and defenders.
in my opinion, I think there have been many issues that have been addressed by apologists (Beastie's points are not some of them), however, just because they are addressed doesn't mean they actually make sense. :-)
~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
I have zero interest in trying to publish my essays in a magazine, or presenting my analysis at a conference. I have many family members who are still active LDS, and although I was careful, in my essays, not to judge or even comment on viewing the Book of Mormon as “the word of God”, (I limited my comments to the historicity issue – in fact, if I were ever to become a theist again, I would probably view the Book of Mormon as the word of God in some way, due to my own spiritual witness of that, but not as an ancient historical document). I still fear that it would upset my family. In addition, my interest in the topic is waning a bit. The main reason I put up my website and the blog is out of a sense of social obligation in that I had information that I know many people may find useful in weighing the feasibility of the Book of Mormon being an ancient Mesoamerican document. Most people are just not interested enough in ancient Mesoamerica to take time to study it. I want them to find the information if they are looking for it. I do not want to “force”, so to speak, people to confront this issue if they have no desire to do so, and that particularly includes my LDS family.
Brant has engaged in this topic with me in the past, and his normal response is that I’m misreading the Book of Mormon. He normally does not protest that I misunderstand the scholarly view of ancient Mesoamerica. But what is odd, to me, about this DVD is that it seems to contradict some of the things Brant has said. Normally he tries to avoid presenting the Nephite polity as some significant, powerful force to be reckoned with, so to speak, in ancient Mesoamerica, because he knows that the inevitable “cost” of presenting the Nephites in such a manner is that one would reasonably expect to find evidence of this powerful Judeo-Christian polity’s influence, and there is none.
As I said earlier, I did engage Brant directly about one of his Meridian essays due to the fact that he suggested that Nephi became the leader of Kaminaljuyu due to sharing some new technology with the natives – like smelting. This is the same basic message of the DVD in the part The City of Nephi. It is so misleading, because Kaminaljuyu became powerful not only centuries before Nephi, but due to its obsidian trade. There is no doubt about this because they can trace the origin of obsidian artifacts (I think through isotopes, If I recall correctly). Obsidian manufacture is hardly a skill that Nephi would possess. In addition, there is no evidence of any Old World technology having been transplanted to Mesoamerica.
Anyway, I’ll try to find the link tonight and post it. I just haven’t had time to search for it yet.
In regards to the horse issue, he’s also discussed that with me as well. He does not deny that there is no evidence for the horse in that time period that others scholars accept as genuine. As I stated to justme, this is exactly why the apologists have attempted to create other possible theories, such as the tapir. Frankly, I suspect that Brant would be embarrassed by such an egregious error. But I may be wrong. Perhaps, when the goal is saving belief, these misleading statements don’t bother him. I suspect some apologists believe that, one day, the evidence will come, anyway, so it’s ok to be a little bit misleading in the meantime. But that is just my suspicion, in trying to figure out why they would be OK with some of this stuff.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:In regards to the horse issue, he’s also discussed that with me as well. He does not deny that there is no evidence for the horse in that time period that others scholars accept as genuine. As I stated to justme, this is exactly why the apologists have attempted to create other possible theories, such as the tapir. Frankly, I suspect that Brant would be embarrassed by such an egregious error. But I may be wrong. Perhaps, when the goal is saving belief, these misleading statements don’t bother him. I suspect some apologists believe that, one day, the evidence will come, anyway, so it’s ok to be a little bit misleading in the meantime. But that is just my suspicion, in trying to figure out why they would be OK with some of this stuff.
I had some discussions with Brant (on FAIR) about the horse, too, an idea I also held for a long time, but you've persuaded me to look at it more skeptically. Brant does feel that evidence is "pending", but he mentioned the effort it would take to do actual tests in deeper layers, and that no one has ever attempted it. That's my recollection. I do agree, though, it's misleading to suggest that the horse existed in Book of Mormon times, even with the expectation that evidence "will be forthcoming".
JustMe, the real problem is that the LDS church is a manmade organization, just like every single other church out there in the world. It's not literally "true". The founders really did make it up as they went along, and not a single one of them ever actually talked to, or received information from, any all-powerful deity that might exist.
I have many family members who are still active LDS, and although I was careful, in my essays, not to judge or even comment on viewing the Book of Mormon as “the word of God”, (I limited my comments to the historicity issue – in fact, if I were ever to become a theist again, I would probably view the Book of Mormon as the word of God in some way, due to my own spiritual witness of that, but not as an ancient historical document). I still fear that it would upset my family.
I have many wonderful family members who are not Mormon. Although I am careful to not judge them personally, or argue with them and strive with them causing many hurt feelings, I still find it upsets them because I am at least truthful with them about my research into the Book of Mormon as being authentic. Rather than hiding it, and living, as it were, in a lie about my beliefs, I share them honestly, but tell them they don't have to believe in my way of thinking. When I defend the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, I take it in the teeth from them. They accuse me of all sorts of lies like I am trying to force them to believe, etc., etc. I force no one, but I sure don't hide the fact that what I research is supportive of the scriptures, and I share that information with others, no matter what their own beliefs. Interestingly, it is they who always bring up the subject so they can accuse me of being in a cult, being brainwashed, etc.
JustMe wrote:Interestingly, it is they who always bring up the subject so they can accuse me of being in a cult, being brainwashed, etc.
Uhuh, and of course there's no way that you could in fact be under a delusion about your religious beliefs, because, of course, you'd know, wouldn't you? Just like all the other people under the delusion that their various churches are true can all see clearly just how wrong they are. But, of course, there's no chance this could happen to you, now is there? No, no chance at all.
I think there's a pretty good chance someday you're going to snap out of this inflated perception of your own cleverness and conviction, take a good look around you, and feel pretty damn sheepish. When this happens to you, don't sweat it too hard, bro. Just remember, it happened to the rest of us too.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen