Nofear

A summary of the Nielson claims and counter claims I think would be very helpful.

Given the history of it, I personally doubt it. Granted it's a complex mess of history and maybe it's possible, but again, I personally doubt it. Coincidence of similar thinking seems more likely to me. There's another thread going on right now that is arguing for/against the possibility of coincidences.

Apparently Lars Nielson in his book describes Joseph as a pious fraud -- a knowing fraud but one with the best of intentions. But, as you point out, there were so very points of failure that this explanation is problematic too. The Kircher conspiracy theory does two things: 1) it is a tacit acceptance that prior explanatory models are insufficient and 2) makes the pious fraud conspiracy theory even less likely by introducing several more moving parts and additional actors. The Barrachius Nephi is an interesting data point. Nephi isn't exactly a common name.

Here's a link to the 1989 exhibition of Kircher's works: https://ia902905.us.archive.org/32/items/athanasiuskirche00merr/athanasiuskirche00merr.pdf Apparently part of the claim is that the Church acquired Kircher's works and Hugh Nibley or other promptly buried them/hid them away in the special collecions of the Harold B. Lee library. Note that special permission is required: https://archives.lib.byu.edu/repositories/byu-archives/archival_objects/ref106_biy Personally I find it more consistent with Occam's razor that the Church with its interest in reformation akin material in the 1600's and 1700's and interest in Egyptology provides a much more natural explanation for ies acquisition. Also one just doesn't hand delicate centuries old documents to any ol person lest damage occur. Consequently, labor to publish was started leading to publication of its collection later. The Church apparently still continues its acquisition of Kirtcher material (announcing when it gete something). https://scblog.lib.byu.edu/2016/09/13/athanasius-kircher-and-his-cabinet-of-curiosities/

A recent survey: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/04/18/is-church-attendance-declining/ The Church is about 2% of the US population, so ideally the number would be higher. Nonetheless, the Church does seem to have some positives going.

There are a couple of metrics I think, but sacrament attendance is the biggest factor to a ward's budget allotment. Just recently got increased a bit this year while stake budgets got cut. If a ward or stake doesn't use their budget by the end of the year, it's supposed to go back to the general fund (an exception was made for the pandemic years). Budget allotments are basically paper walls since all the budget comes out of the same pot. Some bishops will be fastidious in their divvying. Others will be much more laissez-faire only awakening if somebody goes a bit over board.

That's close to Dr. Peterson's academic work and I'm sure you could find some articles written by him on this.

Apparently this is one of the more "hot" or fresh items in the nay-sayer world is the book How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass by Lars Nielson. He also has a bunch of podcasts and a website. Don't really want to spend time listening to podcasts (not my preferred form of information consumption) so I looked for a summary from the website. From an objective design perspective, the website* is awful. Setting that aside, it also has no real information. There is a preview chapter of the book. It starts off with a discussion of a Catholic Priest born in 1601 who was enthralled by Egyptology and believed in magic. But how and why this all becomes a rational story of how The Book of Mormon came about ... I can't quite imagine. But I'm sure there is some way the author connected the dots. To understand that I'll need help. Can somebody give me the abbreviated version of this next fad in the long pedigree of failed attempts to explain away The Book of Mormon? * One will have to do a web search for it to get to it.

The FM groups can be good and some can be downright awful. The Church is most definitely not just shoveling money at extravagant meeting houses--at least not in all cases. Our small little ward has a building built on a template from the 80's that proved to be downright ornery for a number of reasons. Multiple bishops have tried to get the building expanded but we continue not to meet the internal criteria. The struggle will continue...

Ward clerk currently. Don't like it. Money stuff, don't like it. There is a reason I chose my profession to stay in the fantasy land of academia.

This is required training for bishoprics to regularly review. Financial dishonesty is actually a pretty quick way to have one's membership withdrawn. It probably still happens once in awhile but mechanisms are in place to identify and correct them. Comparison of 1989 and 2023 report language. "Based on our review of the system of financial controls within the Church, together with continuing discussions with personnel of the Finance and Records and the Auditing departments, we are of the opinion that budgeting, accounting, and auditing controls are adequate for Church needs and purposes, and that in all material respects the general funds of the Church received and expended during the year ended December 31, 1989, have been controlled and accounted for in accordance with established Church policy and procedures." "Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2023 have been recorded and administered in accordance with Church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies." Apparently the language of materiality has specific accounting meaning: "Information is material if omitting, misstating or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions that the primary users of general purpose financial statements make on the basis of those financial statements, which provide financial information about a specific reporting entity." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiality_(auditing)). That is to say, there doesn't appear to be anything of the level that would change how those in charge of Church finances would use the Church's funds. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/sacred-funds-sacred-responsibilities?lang=eng

Teancum and Analytics have declared it so, so let it be so!

Oh, I don't have anything really of substance to add that smac97 hasn't already added several times over. You keep treating it as if it's about the money. "While tithing is paid with money, more importantly it is paid with faith." --Gordon B. Hinckley

It's good to know that the Church is being a good steward of the funds I donate to it when it in turn donates some of it to other organizations!

Well, obviously it goes to the fancy yachts, lavish parties, five star hotels as they world hop, and extravagant sports cars that the General Authorities and Officers of the Church universally enjoy with their "living wage". I'm like, why am I not invited at least to the parties!? I pay my tithing!

I maintain by long standing position that we are told nothing about spirit children and spirit procreation perhaps because it would rather offend our sensibilities. I am convinced viviparous is not how Heavenly Mother beget probably trillions of children. Though, if one wants to extend teddyaware's idea that many, many, many spirit bodies are in her womb, viviparous birth of those many, many, many spirits would most definitely offend our sensibilities for it implies giving birth in much the same way we squeeze toothpaste out a tube. I don't "see" it. Not even going to try. I don't believe it. I don't think it is anything at all like that. Don't know what the right answer is. I'll content myself with this mystery.

I agree with Calm. For human justice, innocent until proven guilty. For science and such, "guilty" (not true) until proven "innocent" (true).

Indeed, sometimes government interventions has their place. Reasonable people will have variant but still rational opinions on when/how much.

Sometimes we look to government to fix things (though, obviously 1. is a government thing) when social mores, conventions, and expectations are much more effective. Indeed, sometimes when government tries to fight the tide of social change it turns out badly.

Opinions (like mine) are cheap. Data and research are more valuable. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mobility-and-money-in-u-s-states-the-marriage-effect/ “We find that a state’s share of married parenthood is one of the best predictors of upward mobility for lower-income children; better, in fact, than the state’s racial composition or the college-educated share of its adult population.”

I find it strange that those that have high education, decent income, and other temporal stability will say "ooh, marriage is good for me", but individuals from that very same demographic will then turn around to around to others and say, I know this is good for me but it won't be good for the "under educated, low income, etc.", that marriage is often bad for them. Finding this position "strange" is perhaps a bit of an understatement. I actually find it among the highest levels of social hypocrisy that is extant in society today. Not that you are saying that (but I have heard it before). I think the moral response would be to find out why it almost universally benefits one social demographic and identify failure points in other social demographics and then one can work on to bring the good more successfully to other groups. That doesn't mean discouraging marriage though until all the conditions are met. Even in less than ideal scenarios, the benefits often far out-weigh the cons.

Agreed. Social dynamics are notoriously difficult to isolate and pin down as "this one thing" is the "cause". Nonetheless, it remains that married marital status seems to correlate with quite a few different positive things. Sure, the positive things could be achieved without marriage but at a societal level they are more likely to be found among the married. Same thing with membership in the Church. The Church excels in quite few positive things for people. Sure, the positive things could be achieved without being a faithful, practicing member of the Church, it seems to up the probability of the positive outcomes by non-trivial amounts. But, I don't want to derail or change the current topic of discussion in this thread. The societal and individual benefits of marriage or church membership could easily be its own thread.

Can't divorce if one doesn't marry in the first place. Apparently that is the strategy society is employing with its declining marriage rate. Yet marriage remains the one of the highest predictors of happiness, fiscal security, and general well being. https://archive.is/pD7FM

More statistics. Article references two recent surveys. https://www.axios.com/2024/03/27/church-religious-services-american-attendance-drop One of them: "A separate Gallup survey published this week found that Latter-day Saints are the only religious group wherein a majority say they attend services weekly, at 54%."

You didn't know you could say, "I don't self identify as Jewish"?