Matthew J. Tandy

What source would a "historical consultant" look too to provide historically accurate or more accurate depictions (dress, weapons, every day items) of the Book of Mormon?

 

Archaeology, anthropology, paleobotany, etc. You pick a geographical area that best fits the text, then go from there. Alternatively, if you are going for a vague geography that does not promote one model or another, you take out anything that would not work in any model based on archaeology, etc, and anything that is not supported by the text, except for where creative license is needed and sensible. However, you wouldn't toss a Spanish Galleon into a story about 11th century Inuit people just because you like it, unless your film is not even attempting historical accuracy.

... and expect the reader to pull it all together for himself with effort and study.

 

And that is one of the key problems I suspect. I agree that their "one package" approach of politics, religion, and entertainment on a single topic has been effective.

Perhaps though we can do better on the compiling. Just like the church itself used to take the academic approach of saying "it's out there, we've published it before of those interested to search" but now is putting out easy to digest essays and other tools. The church is taking a multi-forked approach: Academically neutral material (Joseph Smith Papers), Maxwell Institute via BYU where they remain somewhat disinterested but touch on a broad range of topics, and Mormon Message and YouTube covering a broad arrange of easily digested info for the younger generation, and the new essays that compile info for the curious who don't want to review the larger corpus due to time/interest.

I think something more can be done.

 Well, that's condescending.

 

No, it's not. I am not aware of a great many things. That isn't condescension There was no questioning of Darin's intelligence. He wrote an excellent screenplay, and historical aspects aside, I support the feel and theme of his film. Darin clearly is not aware or has not actively engaged in dialogue with the corpus of academic research for the last century within the church. That has no bearing on his character, abilities, intent, etc.

Matthew, is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience? Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery? 

I ask that you please any errors in my reading of your posts. 

 

I will answer your questions, and this is my final warning. You have not addressed the questions of the topic. Unfortunately, your continued pursuance in asking your own questions at the expense of the topic forces me to answer or lose focus. If I see any more, you will not only be banned from this thread, but I will request your derailing posts to be removed.

1) Is it your position that ROJ, in it current state, is inaccurate according to apologetics, thus presents a viewpoint of limited audience?

A) It is my position that movies based on historical events and that seek to be true to the material and period should attempt to ensure historical accuracy. Apologetic is not the same as archaeology and historiography, though they may overlap at times. I view it to be inaccurate based on the evidence. 

2) Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would make ROJ more palatable to broader audience?

A) Stop with the "apologetic" viewpoints. You are clearly using it derisively. I am a historian. One who reads Hebrew and whose degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. While one can take artistic license in a film, there is a reason that major historical films has historical consultants for everything from dialect to hair style to clothing to architecture and fighting techniques. Whether or not Darin seeks for such rigor is part of the original question. Can one maintain a US Plains setting and yet decrease controversy by ensuring they are not wearing Roman armor (which Darin has already said they would not, so this is just a thought experiment)? Of course.

3) Is it your position that ROJ in its current state could lead to mockery of the Book of Mormon? Is it your position that incorporating apologetic viewpoints would lessen the likelyhood of mockery? 

A) Yes. Because I have former member friends and family who already mock on the same things. Would more rigor reduce it? Sure. Would it eliminate it? Not a chance.

Going back to the original topic, and I think the most critical one:

I don't blame Darin for not being aware. Let's face it: Meldrum uses questionable tactics and even more questionable and sometimes outright manipulative approaches, but.. he is currently several magnitudes better at getting his views out.

Why?

Part I suspect is how he basically tells people that his way is right, and that anyone who believes otherwise disagrees with the prophet and doesn't really believe the Book of Mormon. Suddenly, everyone who doesn't agree is a closet apostate or cafeteria Mormon, even if all the evidence doesn't support it.

Also, he is a single-tune kind of guy. HIs whole organization is built around one thing: proving the Heartland model. There is (thankfully) not equivalent for those who support the Mesoamerican model. Organizations like FAIR and Maxwell and Interpreter are focused on broad academic and archaeological and historiographical issues. They are focused on deepening understanding across a broad range, and thus lose thought ground on areas where a specific group puts all their time and effort. 

What is a way to help make all the research more approachable. We have videos on Youtube, but they don't get the same traction. There is no fervent group who pushes every single video out. Is there a way to increase organic discovery and sharing?

tonie,

If you keep up this derailing, I will have you banned form the thread. This thread is about a few specific questions you have yet to discuss.

What I find most frustrating is that even though Darin graciously came on here, the writer of the screenplay itself, almost all engagement in the thread has instead been towards you and your tangents. While I disagree with Darin, he at least is engaging on some meaningful level. You are not.

As others have states, I in no place questioned Darin's testimony. It is unfortunate that he used a Meldrum tactic and questioned the testimony of those who believe otherwise. 

Reading the few quotes you pulled from mine does not give the impression that I question anyone's testimony. I do question whether failure to take into account current scholarship can lead to misconceptions and later be a contributing factor to shaken faith. This is a reasonable question, and can even be divorced from the actual topic of the Book of Mormon.

Further, Darin has demonstrated aptly one of the main thrusts of my OP. He is almost completely unaware of the leading scholarship. He uses Meldum's approach in essentially calling into question testimonies of those who have strong testimonies and such, but has stated he is too busy to engage in meaningful discussion on the Book of Mormon.

It is important to note that I also clearly said that I didn't think Darin would be "converted" to a model I believe is most likely (but I, in fact, still accept it could be eastern plains, I just don't see as strong of evidence for it), but that perhaps by dialogue his script could be slightly refined to remove areas that go beyond artistic license and would not be supported by either group.

Darin Southam here, writer of Reign of Judges: Title of Liberty, chiming in to clarify.

Darin, I appreciate you jumping on and sharing your views.

First off, the concept posters and images are NOT what will be portrayed the film... it was what we could do on a shoestring budget 

 

I like the poster. I like the planned style and feel. I think it has good potential. As a historian, my only concern is with things like clothing and weapon style, as well as geography. I think the actual story shows great promise. I hope you take my critique with that in mind. 

No one disagrees. Whether one believes the events took place in Mesoamerica or Heartland or elsewhere, everyone agrees on this point.

Alma 46:4 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some SEASONS of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate— NOT A TROPICAL CLIMATE among the Nephites in Moroni's time.

 

You are incorrect. Seasons and seasonal fevers both exist in tropical climates. Note also that the climate in Mesoamerica ranges wildly and in very very short distances from coastal lowland to mountains, from desert and arid lands to sub-tropic to tropical. Refer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Mesoamerica . 

Regarding horses... are we all reading the same book??

Enos 1:21 "And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also MANY HORSES." (among the Nephites)

 

Again, I suspect you may only be familiar with these topics as proposed by Meldrum and as Medlrum and company portray what others say, versus what is actually said. It's like asking a Democrat what Republican think on different topics. I suggest engaging with a few of us for a short time to get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Here's another whopper "The Lamanites were small, as portrayed in Apocolypto."

 

Mosiah 10:11 "Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. Yet they were a strong people, as to the strength of men.

 

Who said "The Lamanites were small, as portrayed in Apocolypto"? Not me. I tried a quick internet search, couldn't find it. While one may discuss bow many there were, we can get an idea of Nephite populations, and it wasn't small. As you pointed out, there were even more Lamanites. No one is disagreeing with that.

Health, diet, genetics, and climate, etc affect all of this. You can be short and strong. Ask King David. Christ, arguably a very obedient person (ok, not arguably, he was the most obedient person), was likely very short. I'm 5'5", and likely taller than he was by a small margin, based on the biblical texts. And that's fine, because he was a good height for his time. I suspect though he was much stronger, what with his carpentry skills, and if he was so inclined could whoop me (or whip me!). 

Regardless, I am not sure of your point there. Heights varied throughout the western hemisphere. Height is certainly an area where creative license should have full reign in the majority of cases. Make the Nephites all 6' tall or 5'2", and I see no problem with it. I support you. The only conversation about appearances was in terms of clothing, weapons, armor, transportation, and perhaps housing based on what we know from different areas and archaeology, regardless of Heartland or Mesoamerican or other models. There are some things that can be ruled out of all models, thus removing needless controversy and confusion.

As far as the Nephites, I know this may shock people (especially those of "progressive" thinking)...

 

No insults needed. As a conservative, like most here (though I embrace my liberal friends in the Gospel!), denigration by calling us progressive in quotation marks seems to be waxing slightly political. Let me shed some light on something: not only are the majority of LDS conservative in the US, but most who hold to models outside of Hemispheric or Heartland models are also conservative. Just like those who hold to all models. And those who hold to a limited geographic view and base it in areas outside the heartlands do so because they are literalist/conservatives, weeding out traditions built up since the restoration and seeking clarity on what the text itself says. Some then see this fitting mainly in one model or another, and many happen to think of a specific one. From a US Constitutional analogy, it's the difference between judges and congressman who view it as "living" and who cares about the original intent, versus those (like me) who care deeply about understanding original context, setting, intent, etc. I love all in the church, even those who view the Book of Mormon as non-historical, but my intent here is to help you understand what lays at the heart of the approach of those who reject the Heartland model.

but they looked like Europeans, if you believe what Nephi said when he saw them that is: 1 Nephi 13:15 "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles (Europeans), and they did prosper and obtain the land (America) for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and BEAUTIFUL, like unto my people before they were slain." Not much room to argue there.

 

As a historian of the Ancient Near East, I can firmly say you are... somewhat right. There were very lightskinned, even ref haired Israelites at the time of Nephi. It was likely pretty diverse to a point. Were they white like European fair maiden white? No. But historically, white had a lot of connotations, including for skin color. It's a great discussion. However, if you want to make them white, go for it. I would personally prefer someone more tan. Can you get Dwayne Johnson? Because that would be awesome. ;-) 

Laban's sword was STEEL and Nephi replicated it in the Americas. We have not based our creative decisions on science and archaeology, while not completely ignoring them, we simply have chosen to put more focus on the record itself rather than relying on the arm of flesh (science and archaeology), which we feel the noble spirits of those within the Book of Mormon would want. 

 

The concern is that you appear to be reading things into the text based on cultural bias and tradition, not the text itself. Further, Nephi clearly taught that some things could not be understood without historical context, and Mormon was a Historian who thought it important to give interesting cultural details. 

Archaeology, for example, has "0" explanation for all of the indisputable evidence that has surfaced in the last 5-10 years in NORTH America of the Hopewell and Adena, which NOT incidentally, happen to have the exact same time frame as the Nephites. 

 

Both the text of the Book of Mormon and Archeology disagree with you. I am well aware of Meldrum's materials, videos, literature, etc. You appear once again to have only engaged this topic from one side.

We invite you all to support this movement. We need the Title of Liberty to come out of obscurity now. What we don't need is to all think we are experts or scholars on Ancient America and know somehow exactly how everything was. We are making the best informed decisions that we can. What a shame if we divide ourselves, squabbling over such seemingly trivial things, when such an epic story could potentially dawn upon the world.

 

Darin, morally, societally, and politcally, I agree of the importance of films like The Title of Liberty. Unfortunately, when I created a post about why the majority academic and historical view within the church is still unsuccessful at packaging AND distributing the last century+ of scholarship in a way that is easily digested for today's world and needs to ensure truth and accuracy are maintained, you came in and used divisive language, showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues, and then ask support so you can make a movie that appeals to a limited group within a limited group. I support you in doing as you wish. I support that your intent at heart is to make a movie with wide appeal that inspires both religiously and in terms of freedom and society. I struggle to support the direction you are taking though, as consulting a range of historians and scriptorians on a movie based on a scriptural text that I hold to be true, sacred, and historical seems prudent and yet you are not. Placing certain questionable elements in the film only serve to add fuel to the those who would make a mockery of the Book of Mormon. I support creative license in the life of Captain Moroni, in characters and events and battles.

What I ask is that you engage in dialog to see if some areas can be refined to at least reduce qualms on all sides, and thus ensure broader support for your film. 

I'll note tonie that your taking my intent out of context and focusing on one myopic part, then assigning intent to me is one of the reasons I largely gave up posting to message boards, engaging in far more productive conversation elsewhere. I noticed you didn't really address the questions I asked. Participate if you will, but focus on the thrust of the topic. 

I agree a person may entertain theories. I do not get the impress the op agrees though. The op appears to take the position that an opinion or theory about steel swords is inaccurate if that theory does not match the opinion or theory offered in a Fairmormon article. 

 

Incorrect. I said " It ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials" and "Steel swords, when taking both the text and the archaeology (any archaeology in the Western Hemisphere) would have been a rarity, something that Captain Moroni may have had, but not most soldiers" then pointed to a general article that links to more articles and actual literature in the realm of academia.

That the FAIR article happens to align with the evidence is nice. I am happy about that, and would be concerned otherwise. If you would like to debate archaeological evidence of steel swords in the proposed Heartland and/or MesoAmerica and/or the Western Hemisphere pre-Columbus, then please open a different thread or participate in the many previous ones on this very topic. 

The point that was being made wasn't about steel swords, but about how one particular view of a larger grouping of historical, textual, and archaeological topics that tend to run together one way or another is more prevalent among a certain group of people. This is also something you are welcome to debate, and would even be appropriate on this thread. 

Tonie,

Steel swords, when taking both the text and the archaeology (any archaeology in the Western Hemisphere) would have been a rarity, something that Captain Moroni may have had, but not most soldiers. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare/Swords

This gets back to the point about attempts for historical accuracy. Not that other films like Noah sought such a thing, but that was made by an atheist anyway, so not comparable.

Some of you may have heard of an upcoming film by some of the Ephraim's Rescue film guys. It's called Reign of Judges: Title of Liberty. You can watch the "teaser" trailer (not much there yet, but you get a faint feel for the direction they are heading) and get more info here: http://www.reignofjudgesmovie.com/ .

While on one level I think it's great we may get a well acted and filmed epic style movie set in the world of the Book of Mormon, having read through the first 17 pages of the script (which are free at the their website), and looking on their Facebook, it becomes apparent that the movie will have some sort of hybrid Native American meets Rome flair. It ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials. Horses a plenty (not just a few), everyone has a steel sword (not a macuahuitl or anything along those lines), and form fitting armor based on the poster. 

It hasn't been announced, but I get the feeling it's not just a Heartland setting, but perhaps a general North America setting.

And this leads to the questions:

1) In my observation, most Book of Mormon films (even those not released) by bigger name people seem to follow the same simplistic NA centric model. This could lead to a great number of people getting a very wrong view of the Book of Mormon lands and people. I'm not talking about just a Heartland versus Meso-American model, but essentially Romanizing everything. I blame much of this on those Book of Mormon paintings with Captain Helaman dressed Roman, and Samuel up on an epic Old World style wall. Does this matter to you?

2) Is an epic AND box-office successful movie (ie, wider audience interest) viable in a Meso-American setting? The last big one I remember was Apocalypto, which was OK (I saw an edited version, but either way wasn't impressed), and that was a long time ago. Most successful films set in the Western Hemisphere tend to be set in NA.  

3) I am constantly considering message and distribution of ideas. Perhaps it's because my degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and I am now a successful business man heading a Marketing and Business Development department. I often observe (not the first one to do so of course) that you could have all the facts on your side, all the data, and solid argumentation, but if you can't package that up and deliver it to the key movers and shakers in an appealing format, your reach will be limited. It is amplified because (and bear with me, because I am going to loosely relate academic thought to products) if the movers and shakers don't know of or understand or accept your product and go with a competitor, they will influence all those in their company the same way. In film, that means that young members everywhere receive a very different version, which can have ramifications down the road. 

- Do you think it could have any impact on future testimonies and "shaken faith" syndrome down the road?

- What are some ways that academics, historians, and apologists in the church can better present their message that is more interesting and broad reaching for the youth, general membership, and those who make films? A committee? A "for the media" representing group that reaches out to these people offering free consultation (within limits)?

Just some thoughts on a busy work day.

Matt Tandy 

I will be interviewing the new Sunday School general president tomorrow. I will entertain suggestions on what to ask him.

 

I suggest asking him about:

1) Where he sees the Sunday School focusing on for the next few years

2) How he will help those in the church who struggle in their faith from critical and easily available online sources 

3) What does he see as his role as Sunday School president?

4) What role does he believe local Sunday School presidents should play in strengthening the members.

I have also observed that many members are now voting with their feet. Their are often as many in the foyer during SS as there are in class. And when they are asked to go into SS they just point blank refuse!

 

Funny. I spent some time in wards like that, and it was usually a problem with members who had other issues, general desire to hang out where others gathered, or simply poor teachers. IN most of my wards however, including my last two, the only person in the hallways is usually myself as I am performing ward clerk duties. Our classes are interesting and varied. 

Been a while since I've participated, but thought I would jump in.

I read the "The Book of Mormon and the Late War: Direct Literary Dependence?" post on Patheos and found it interesting with a less than logical conclusion.

1) The vast majority of his "hits" on themes are generic to almost any piece on war, any literature that has lamentations, and any writing that is describing living in a blessed land one believes is prospered by the hand of God. The liberty phrases are typical of writings and phrases common in America, England, France, and elsewhere, not some descendancy link between LW and the Book of Mormon. Assuming the Nephite civilization did exist and did care about freedom, it is hard to see other words being used in a loose translation (or even moderately literal) of such a story. 

2) Numerous of his thematic hits are in fact far reaches. Going to the actual sources of both makes you scratch your head and go "huh?" It's like bad footnoting to support a thesis.

3) The parallels are pulled from all over one book and located all over in another. For this to be descended, even tangentially after many years, would require an immense amount of effort. 

4) Which brings up his improbable conclusion: 

All of these factors suggest to me that the BoM’s literary dependence on the LW was not direct in the sense of having been strategically borrowed during the process of narrative construction, but that we should assume at least some temporal distance separating Joseph Smith’s exposure to the LW and his production of the BoM. There was a space that allowed him to mull over the content and think about it in relation to other information and life experiences, to begin the process of developing a new myth of Indian origins. The question of how much earlier is unclear. He may have read the book anytime between his early experiences in schooling (since it was marketed for use in schools) all the way up to the period of preparation for his translation work.

 

In sum, linguistic and narrative elements of the BoM are probably descended, at least in part, from Gilbert Hunt’s pseudo-biblical account of the War of 1812. The relationship between these two literary works is relatively strong, suggesting that the book had quite a memorable impact on Joseph Smith. But Smith did not borrow directly from the LW (at least for the majority of the narrative content) during the process of composing the BoM.

 

This is hogwash. He spends the majority of his post showing weak and scattered parallels. Then, in his conclusion, he says there was some temporal space that allowed Joseph to mull it over and develop a "new myth of Indian origins." But wait, it wasn't "direct in the sense of having been strategically borrowed during the process of narrative construction...". And still all these phrases that are hits are apparently borrowed from it. 

All in all, interesting, but not balanced. It only attempts to appear so. It does cover both sides in a sense, but the thrust of the blog post is in fact that the Book of Mormon has some direct descendency in actual content, not just language terms to the Late War. That is not neutral. That is a direct challenge against the Book of Mormon as an actual and literal historical account of an ancient civilization.

Weekend bump.

Heh, Darren, it's true I don't post much anymore. I figure two people from the same (former) ward is too much.;-) Since I got you to the board, I figure you are my proxy.:-D

Let me add some discussion on the church's app. While the Gospel Library for Android is decent and stable, I am constantly frustrated with it. There is no split window option. I cannot have a manual up on one side of my screen and a scripture on another. I can't even do tabs (which is good WITH split windows, but not as good AS split windows). There are no share functions, so I cannot send notes from my study by email or facebook, etc. I cannot double highlight (ie, highlight the first 3/4 of a verse with one note, the last 3/4 with another) without it created all sorts of bugs because it was not intended to be part of it. I cannot place a more comprehensive JST compilation (such as by Wayment) in a side window with auto scroll-matching. Forget Hebrew. And while the study aids such as maps and photos are improved, the Bible Dictionary is still woefully inadequate when it comes to historical issues (good on theology though). When I am at church using Gospel Library, I feel crippled, being used to a broad range of materials. And sadly, I don't see the church adding NRSV or other versions anytime soon either.

What I personally think would be a great use of church resources in technology is to create a partnership with Logos, Accordance, and Olive Tree to have our scriptures uploaded as an option, as well as our study notes, guides, etc. Probably would not happen due to certain prejudices against LDS, but hey, worth a shot.

I am looking for a great app for scripture study, especially one that has split-screen/side-by-side comparisons of versions. More specifically, it must have the BHS (biblia hebraica stuttgartensia) with full parsing ability, morphology, lexical data, etc. I just don't carry around my Zondervan's Reader's Hebrew bible much anymore because I don't carry any paper scriptures to church, and using a basic BHS is difficult due to rare words and word forms. So parsing is essential.

Currently, I am looking at two main choices: Logos for Android (http://www.logos.com/android), and Olive Tree Software (http://www.olivetree.com/). Bible Works does not seem to have an Android app, so is not in the running.

Olive Tree has an impressive array of features, a clean interface, an astounding amount of integrated study and note features, as well as just about every lexicon and bible version known to man. It seems to be an up and coming player. I am leaning towards this.

Logos is tried and true. I don't have a Logos account, so I am not worried about keeping licenses in place, but I did use it a fair amount at BYU. It's Android app I fear is somewhat underdeveloped, but it would be able to accomplish what I need. To be honest, I would be happy if my old DSS (Dead Sea Scroll) software from BYU had an android app, as having those tossed in for study and learning is always a plus.

Anyway, does anyone have experience with the Android versions of these? Anyone have recommendations?

* The Greek aspect is less important, I am just starting to dip my toe into biblical Greek.

Haven't posted for ages, but saw this and immediately went to my pet peeve in the Bible Dictionary to see if it was changed... it wasn't. They obviously only updated LDS theological, not academic historical points. Look up Baal, a rather important figure in the Old Testament. Note it says he was a sun god. He wasn't. It is at least a century out of date. As an OT academic, it drives me nuts.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baal?lang=eng&letter=b

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

The other changes look good. I just wish the academic historical elements would be updated. They give a lot of bad info and that leads to misinformed church talks and classes. And yes, I have sat through a class about how Baal was a sun god, and people chose the false light versus the light of Christ.:-)

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Was Bro. Beck ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood? Does he hold the office of at least Elder? Was it by God and the laying on of hands? Is he not thus, as all priesthood holders, required to speak up in the defense and advocation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Regardless, he was referring to the general concept of calling. That was apparent in the episode, and if you knew the least bit about him outside of your sound bytes, you would know he frequently refers to trying to understand and seek his calling in the sense of God's purpose for him at any given moment. But your desire to bash Bro. Beck by implying he is is in violation of God's directions since he claims a calling he apparently didn't receive in the method you posted shows the depth of your desire to disparage him. You sound exactly like those who will protest Harry Reid because he is a liberal and not liked by conservatives, EVEN when Bro. Reid is set to speak about the gospel, not politics. It never ceases to amaze me how little spiritual credit is given to someone in the spotlight due to their temporal political stance.

Cursor:

You have violated several rules of this thread, the board, and several other aspects of common decency. Look to the mote in your own eye.

Back on Topic:

Beck's polygamy answer was unfortunate. The answer he provided has been heard many times, but is not accurate, or at least not the founding cause to our knowledge. Could it have been a factor in God's foresight? Possibly, but D&C 132 provides better context of the purpose. Still, he handled it well, and the show as a whole went well. For those saying why they should care, go back and read my original post that started the thread. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. A very large and vocal segment of a traditionally anti-Mormon group do like him. And what he says has ripples among their congregants.

As for "his calling", I think it is fantastic he is open about it. I don't get nervous at all about it. Put yourself in his shoes: He is by all accounts a faithful and active temple-worthy member who is charitable, loves God, his family, and his country. Who cares that politically he sees things differently? Whatever the way he got to where he is, he has a pretty big microphone now. And he just used that microphone to further the work of God. For that hour he didn't spread politics. He talked God. And the restored Gospel. To more people than the church has members. That is pretty big. Good on him for following the promptings of the spirit as he understands it.

IMPORTANT: Any attempts to derail this thread by discussing Beck's politics, your personal distaste for him, etc is not acceptable for this thread. Take it elsewhere or be removed from it. This is purely about:

I just saw this and thought it might be of interest on several levels. I know it's more news than discussion right now, but I ask that it remain in this forum for now. I expect the results will become discussion worthy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-invites-you-to-submit-questions-for-tonights-blazetv-episode-on-the-mormon-faith/

This will be interesting for several reasons:

1) Glenn Beck is a convert of roughly a decade. It will be good to hear his testimony.

2) Beck used to, and may still, have a rudimentary understanding of issues such as Book of Mormon geography, translation, polygamy, and more. In the past he helped promote the Heartland symposiums. Since then though he has been to Jerusalem, read more, studied more, etc. It will be interesting to see his answers.

3) No matter his answers, he is a bit of a missionary to conservatives. Many conservative Baptists, evangelics, Catholics, etc have GREATLY softened their views of Mormons in general and become more involved in cross-faith efforts because of Beck and his example of service and inclusion of other Christians and Jews. How he handles tonight can have a lasting effect on how others perceive us in those communities.

4) Beck rarely discusses specifics of the Church in historical terms, just in terms of living the gospel of Christ. This will be a first for his viewing audience.

5) I doubt he knows about the Spaulding theories, scriptural disputes, polyandry, etc. I could be wrong. I like him and think he is at heart a great guy. But considering how busy he is, I just don't see this. On the plus side, his friend and co-host Pat is I believe a life-long member and is who brought Glenn into the church, so Pat may have more experience handling those issues. Nonetheless, this may be an event where Glenn is confronted with issues he is not currently aware of, thus leading to the possibility of shaken faith syndrome. I doubt it, but it's something to follow.

Don,

I loved your story two years ago, I love it now. I would love you as a brother in or out of the church, but I rejoice at your return and the great blessings the Lord has blessed you with in these last two years. Thank you for sharing.

Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessing,

That's my belief today. Many gospel principles are symbolic and help us to understand complex and abstract concepts. Just like written language.

Mine too. Always has been. While I've been taught the symbolism of it, I have never heard of the oil containing mystical properties. It's simply made sacred by setting it aside for a holy purpose, ie, helping others.

It also makes some great blueberry muffins when you forget to label it... not that I have any experience with that or anything... um... yeah... *cough cough*

I don't know that there is much to make of it. Dana Pike, Richard Holzapfel, and David Seely wish to state publicly that none of them were ever called into the Dean and/or Department Chair's office to discuss concerns over mentioning such issues as the Documentary Hypothesis and the lack of Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch in a Deseret Book publication.

While I didn't comment on that particular post of yours, It occurs to me now I was a student of Dana's when he and others were finishing up the final draft for publication of that book. Dan McLellin (sp?) was handling a lot of the photos at the time. I remember talking about inclusion of things like the DH, among other items. I don't recall any comments about recanting them or having any problems with it other than a few random people questioning putting it in a book where inexperienced people would read it. But it was more of a "word it well" kind of thought. And I only heard Dana and a few others talk about the book a couple of times.

I really like that book by the way, and its New Testament Counterpart. They are an easy and visually beautiful way to softly introduce members to a larger world of scripture study.

Ok, but I'm curious how they taught it Matt. Because I believe that while now sometimes these, as well as issues in higher criticism for the NT, are addressed in certain classes, I have it on good authority that they are most often done so in order to refute scholarly theories.

Would you mind sharing what were the "other possible views" you were taught?

No prob David. At least my group was taught the Documentary Hypothesis as being pretty much the only accepted view. I don't recall any professor ever teaching it was false. The "other possible views" is more in relation to modifications of the view. JEPD, JEPDR, J and E actually being the same, Single Redactor/Compiler school versus actual JEPD amalgamation over time, additions of other influences such as Davidic loyalists, etc. Essentially, not a single person ever taught or accepted in academic papers the view that the Tanakh was what it stated it was. One of my better received papers was on the additions of various monarchic fall stories in Kings and the complete impossibility of reconciliation, while showing how R tried.

There was also some upcoming thesis work by someone Dana knew (this was two or three years ago) that had at that time shown a lot of promise according to what Dana had seen, regarding overturning a lot of JEPD views, while of course still holding to a general concept of the documentary hypothesis. So.. you know.. standard academic journal and thesis back and forth on various details. The stuff that some believe never happens in academia, only between factions of Mormons.:-)

It should be noted they are fairly adept at sticking together and avoiding too much conflict with a very few personalities at BYU in the Religion Department. They've adopted a "live and let live" stance in most areas. Not always, but they are pretty smart cookies.

As a side note, various texts we read were along the likes of The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith, all the main books on historicity that rip the Tanakh to shreds, etc. Good classes, good times. I am certain that some religion professors I had, if they walked into any of our classes, would have had a heart attack and made a major fuss. We kept to ourselves pretty well. My last near-outing run-in was with a Pearl of Great Price instructor in the Religion Department. Having been trained in analyzing text, and needing to write a simple ten page essay, I thought I would write about how I believed the text of Moses 1 does not support Divine Investiture of Authority as posited by recent people. I meticulously traced the erroneous belief of God not personally appearing to man except Joseph Smith through a series of documents and lazy revisements of views dating back to a more neutral church document from I believe 1910 or there around, and that Moses 1 clearly had Christ and God the Father present at various times, as also the Holy Ghost. A full and powerful second endowment kind of setting. Anyway, I was essentially branded as opposing the prophets, leaning on the wisdom of man, etc. He used lots of circular logic, and I was in constant arguments with him on many topics (I have never been a quiet student). When I talked to Dana about it, he agreed with my right for the paper following well within guidelines and plausibility, but this particular professor told me in the end that if I turned it in as a final, he would fail me on it. Lovely stuff. Fortunately the ANES professors were great early on at helping myself and others fully understand that some people just don't get it, and those who don't get it feel the same way about us.