Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[Not quite me]

But this is a big issue. How the book originated? It is one thing to make claims but it is quite another to prove them with sound evidence. As you can see on this thread the apologists have a pretty good take on it. True, they haven't proven it true, but the defense is sound. It is not up to Mormons to prove it true. This would only cloud the faith issue. But it is up to the countermo's to prove it false. And this they haven't done yet. And there is perhaps a good reason for this. Isn't it just a little difficult to say something is a fraud when there is no fraud proven? Hunches just don't work.

Actually, the proof rests with the apologists, and as I stated, what they have are interesting parallels and plausibilities, but nothing solid. So, I for one don't consider the defense sound.

If I'm going to believe in a book that came forward through supernatural means, I'd better have a good reason to believe it. So far, I'm not seeing it. It is most definitely up to the Mormons to prove it true.

[why me]

I very much doubt Hamblin et al. are talking about conversions here. FARMS functions, as far as I can see, as a generator of plausible parallels, for that's really what you have supporting the Book of Mormon. Nihm might be Nahom. Wadi Sayq might be Bountiful. The Olmecs might be Jaredites, etc. Nothing solid, just a lot of hints and parallels, which is fine enough if you're a believer. But it doesn't attract scholarly attention for pretty obvious reasons.

Of course the book's stated purpose is to bring people to Christ. And yes, I would think that the Book of Mormon should attract more theological study, though it's Christology and doctrines are not nearly as interesting from that perspective as the D&C and Book of Abraham, etc.

And yet, as we know the book of mormon is actually an abridgement of a much larger text. Grant it, this may be unfortunate but the purpose is important. To discover the historicity is problematic because of the book's religious impulse. The intent of the book becomes paramount. The intent was not to bring us closer to history but to bring us closer to god. Hence, the theological point of the book will need to be considered by scholars. The basic research question: Doe the book of mormon bring a person closer to god? may be worth addressing since this was the main purpose of the text and from where its truth is claimed.

Actually, the proof rests with the apologists, and as I stated, what they have are interesting parallels and plausibilities, but nothing solid. So, I for one don't consider the defense sound.

If I'm going to believe in a book that came forward through supernatural means, I'd better have a good reason to believe it. So far, I'm not seeing it. It is most definitely up to the Mormons to prove it true.

Actually, it is up to god to prove it true. Mormons will not prove it true...it is not possible. To have the book proven true would take away some aspects of free agency. And that is up to god. However, to prove it false would certainly destroy the church and that should be everyone's goal who claims that the faith is a fraud and JS a fraudster.

[Not quite me]

And yet, as we know the book of mormon is actually an abridgement of a much larger text. Grant it, this may be unfortunate but the purpose is important. To discover the historicity is problematic because of the book's religious impulse. The intent of the book becomes paramount. The intent was not to bring us closer to history but to bring us closer to god. Hence, the theological point of the book will need to be consider by scholars. The basic research question: Doe the book of mormon bring a person closer to god? may be worth addressing since this was the main purpose of the text and from where its truth is claimed.

So, we're supposed to overlook the book's many problems in favor of whether the book brings us closer to God?

Actually, it is up to god to prove it true. Mormons will not prove it true...it is not possible. To have the book proven true would take away some aspects of free agency. And that is up to god. However, to prove it false would certainly destroy the church and that should be everyone's goal who claims that the faith is a fraud and JS a fraudster.

As I said, I don't share that goal, although I do think the book is fraudulent.

[why me]

So, we're supposed to overlook the book's many problems in favor of whether the book brings us closer to God?

No...but to discuss the book's many problems would be important for a person such as yourself. This is why you should bring them up here. However, the basic premise of the book is: Does the Book of Mormon bring us closer to god? If not, then the book may be false. If yes, it may be true.

Then one can discuss the possible origins even though these origins have been discussed many times over. For example, Joseph wrote it, Ethan Smith wrote it, Sidney wrote it, Walter the Magician wrote it, The Golden Teapot influence, Spaulding influence and finally the influence of the Great Pumpkin. All could be debated in a scholarly fashion.

But the book is primarily a religious text.

[Not quite me]

No...but to discuss the book's many problems would be important for a person such as yourself. This is why you should bring them up here. However, the basic premise of the book is: Does the Book of Mormon bring us closer to god? If not, then the book may be false. If yes, it may be true.

Then one can discuss the possible origins even though these origins have been discussed many times over. For example, Joseph wrote it, Ethan Smith wrote it, Sidney wrote it, Walter the Magician wrote it, The Golden Teapot influence, Spaulding influence and finally the influence of the Great Pumpkin. All could be debated in a scholarly fashion.

But the book is primarily a religious text.

I'm not really sure about that. I'd say it purports to be a religious history. It's not a book of detached psalms or proverbs. The religious teachings are welded to a historical narrative, so you really can't discuss either one in isolation.

[Brant Gardner]

I understand the argument to be that scholars outside Provo consider the claims to be so far removed from the facts that the "evidence" is not worth looking at. Big difference.

That may be the claim, but there is no evidence that supports it. The counterclaim, if you will, is that there is a mounting body of evidence that has not been considered. Big difference.

Years ago I took a Latin American history class from George Addy at BYU (a delightful old guy). The first day of class, he told us we would be learning about the history of the peoples of the Americas from earliest history to the Spanish conquest.

Two important facts. You are correct that it was "years ago." Much, and I mean much, has changed since then. Secondly, I wouldn't want a class in Latin American history to deal with the Book of Mormon. They are separate issues and should be discussed in separate venues.

He cautioned us not to expect any discussion of Book of Mormon peoples, as nothing that we knew about native peoples supported the Lehi story.

Here is where the "years ago" comes into play. I would have said the same thing in the early 70's. I have been convinced otherwise.

In asking for scholarly interest in Book of Mormon stories, you're essentially asking scholars to set aside everything they know to look at the evidence for a "history" that is supported primarily by a spiritual witness. Not going to happen.

Not at all. I fully expect that when the best case is presented to non-LDS archaeologists they will say "I can see how you read it that way." Of course, anything more would require their conversion <grin> and I don't expect that.

The problem with the discussions on this thread is that they are full of general statements and completely lacking in specifics. That is why a BYU professor could have been correct years ago - or might be correct today (depending upon the context) and still not be relevant to the current research on the Book of Mormon.

[Not quite me]

That may be the claim, but there is no evidence that supports it. The counterclaim, if you will, is that there is a mounting body of evidence that has not been considered. Big difference.

Two important facts. You are correct that it was "years ago." Much, and I mean much, has changed since then. Secondly, I wouldn't want a class in Latin American history to deal with the Book of Mormon. They are separate issues and should be discussed in separate venues.

Here is where the "years ago" comes into play. I would have said the same thing in the early 70's. I have been convinced otherwise.

Not at all. I fully expect that when the best case is presented to non-LDS archaeologists they will say "I can see how you read it that way." Of course, anything more would require their conversion <grin> and I don't expect that.

The problem with the discussions on this thread is that they are full of general statements and completely lacking in specifics. That is why a BYU professor could have been correct years ago - or might be correct today (depending upon the context) and still not be relevant to the current research on the Book of Mormon.

Exactly. We've been teetering on the edge of "is too/is not" for too long.

The important statement you make here is is that there is a venue for studying the Book of Mormon, and why me is correct in saying that it's primarily a religious discussion., which is probably the main reason scholars don't pay attention to the book's historicity.

[Brant Gardner]

Actually, the proof rests with the apologists, and as I stated, what they have are interesting parallels and plausibilities, but nothing solid. So, I for one don't consider the defense sound.

Of course you are welcome to your opinion. I happen to believe quite the opposite. There is solid data.

Now the question is what data have we both seen? I have no idea what data you have considered or what your background is that allows you to handle the data, so I can't comment on the quality of your opinion.

If I'm going to believe in a book that came forward through supernatural means, I'd better have a good reason to believe it. So far, I'm not seeing it. It is most definitely up to the Mormons to prove it true.

Prove it? I don't think there are many things proven about religion save that it is virtually universal. Past that, proof isn't part of the domain.

However, there is little proof in most of the soft sciences either. History doesn't prove, it builds cases with evidence. I do believe that can be done. Of course, I don't know what you have seen or how well equipped you are to evaluate it. I admit that I am hesitant to accept your opinion if you use "prove" and religion in the same sentence.

[Not quite me]

Of course you are welcome to your opinion. I happen to believe quite the opposite. There is solid data.

Now the question is what data have we both seen? I have no idea what data you have considered or what your background is that allows you to handle the data, so I can't comment on the quality of your opinion.

Prove it? I don't think there are many things proven about religion save that it is virtually universal. Past that, proof isn't part of the domain.

However, there is little proof in most of the soft sciences either. History doesn't prove, it builds cases with evidence. I do believe that can be done. Of course, I don't know what you have seen or how well equipped you are to evaluate it. I admit that I am hesitant to accept your opinion if you use "prove" and religion in the same sentence.

Of course I recognize it will never be proven. I used that word in response to why me's similarly unreasonable demand that the critics "prove" it to be untrue.

I've been in and around apologetics for 15 years or so. I used to agree with you on the validity of the evidence.

[why me]

I admit that I am hesitant to accept your opinion if you use "prove" and religion in the same sentence.

And this is why there should be a discussion on whether the book brings a person closer to god. It would be a thankless discussion but since the debate would continue for years, it may be claimed that the book has major religious significance as its theology is looked into very closely in an academic setting within theology departments.

Of course I recognize it will never be proven. I used that word in response to why me's similarly unreasonable demand that the critics "prove" it to be untrue.

Why is this so unreasonable? You see, the poor lds community is under a constant barage of nerve gas for the simple reason that the critics cannot prove it untrue. Maybe it in now time for critics to leave the lds alone and just say, well, 'I know that the book is false even though I have no proof'. That may not make sense, but at least it is a true statement.

[Not quite me]

And this is why there should be a discussion on whether the book brings a person closer to god. It would be a thankless discussion but since the debate would continue for years, it may be claimed that the book has major religious significance as its theology is looked into very closely in an academic setting within theology departments.

Why is this so unreasonable? You see, the poor lds community is under a constant barage of nerve gas for the simple reason that the critics cannot prove it untrue. Maybe it in now time for critics to leave the lds alone and just say, well, 'I know that the book is false even though I have no proof'. That may not make sense, but at least it is a true statement.

It's unreasonable because the book cannot be proven one way or the other. To demand the impossible from us while exempting yourself from the same requirement doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to discuss issues reasonably.

I'm happy to leave the LDS alone. I came here because I thought (and still think) that Mormonism is fascinating. But maybe you're right. I should just head somewhere more productive. Ciao.

[Brant Gardner]

I used to agree with you on the validity of the evidence.

Fascinating. I used to agree with those who said there was no solid evidence for it. I know what changed my mind. What changed yours? What evidence have you evaluated to come to your conclusion?

[Ref]

That may be the claim, but there is no evidence that supports it. The counterclaim, if you will, is that there is a mounting body of evidence that has not been considered.

Where is this evidence "mounting"? Is it just in the halls of FARMS? If the same few authors publish more and more articles that are not generating any interest from their "non testimony bearing" peer group, what is the impact of more volume on the same non-interest generating scholarship? All they really do is end up referencing each other's work. So is this evidence mounting by nothing more than the "weight" of circular referencing, or quality scholarship that can generate outside academic interest?

If, as Prof. Perterson stated, there is no desire by he and the other Provo scholars to engage the outside scholarly and academic community as to the merit of all this "mounting evidence", what confidence do they really have in such works?

Please tell us, at what point do you believe this supposed volume of mounting evidence translates to interest, acceptance and/or respect by those who don't have a spiritual witness?

[Daniel Peterson]

All they really do is end up referencing each other's work.

Not true, as even a casual look at the actual articles and books would demonstrate.

If, as Prof. Perterson [sic] stated, there is no desire by he and the other Provo scholars to engage the outside scholarly and academic community as to the merit of all this "mounting evidence", what confidence do they really have in such works?

Of course, Prof. Peterson stated no such thing.

I would appreciate it, "Ref," if you would refrain from misrepresenting what I say.

[why me]

Fascinating. I used to agree with those who said there was no solid evidence for it. I know what changed my mind. What changed yours? What evidence have you evaluated to come to your conclusion?

I have asked the poster this question often but never got an answer. I suppose that it will remain a mystery.

It's unreasonable because the book cannot be proven one way or the other. To demand the impossible from us while exempting yourself from the same requirement doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to discuss issues reasonably.

When we are active and believe, the book is based on faith. When we leave the church, we need proof. Difficult to understand this logic. The rules don't change, people do.

For the lds, the book is based on faith, period. That is the rule. Since the actives have not changed the rules, it is up to you to provide the proof. I can understand that you cannot do this. No one at this moment can do it. Such is the way it is.

I have not changed the rules, neither have the lds on this board .

[cdowis]

>Actually, the proof rests with the apologists,

Let me put this into another context:

"I will not believe in the Book of Mormon until you apologists prove it to my satisfaction."

I know I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. Each of us will be held responsible for our decision regarding the BOM, and I suggest that you take this responsibility seriously....or not.

That is your decision.

[Ref]

If, as Prof. Perterson [sic] stated, there is no desire by he and the other Provo scholars to engage the outside scholarly and academic community as to the merit of all this "mounting evidence", what confidence do they really have in such works?

Of course, Prof. Peterson stated no such thing.

My apologies if I misunderstood your statement above:

And don't assume that Peterson, Hamblin, Clark, and Sorenson typically speak about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism to their non-LDS academic audiences. We don't â??

Is there any interest or desire by your group of Lds scholars to engage the interest of the non-Lds peer group of scholars as to the merit of this BOM historicity â??scholarshipâ?. If so, when, where and how do you see it? If not, why?

Is there any evidence that such â??scholarshipâ? is generating any interest and acceptance outside of Provo or the Lds community? I have not seen any but would welcome your evidence if such exists.

[cdowis]

>what area, outside of the ability to read, does one need to have an â??expertiseâ? in to be able to evaluate the â??historicityâ? claim of the BOM?

Well, let's put it this way. I have read the BOM over 35 times, and spent a lifetime studying its text.

Now, tell me about your background in the study of the BOM.

For example, I have done an intensive study of Jacob chapter 5. It is rather complex but has an underlying structure that only one who has carefully studied this chapter can appreciate.

Tell us the results of your study of this chapter, or, for that matter, any other chapter in the BOM. Tell us what you have done besides a casual reading of the text.

Have you completely read this book? Have you done the basics, much less a detailed study of the text?

Hopefully that gives an answer to your question.

[why me]

I'm happy to leave the LDS alone. I came here because I thought (and still think) that Mormonism is fascinating. But maybe you're right. I should just head somewhere more productive. Ciao.

We have only asked for your evidence. Nothing more. You came across as a sincere person, but your evidence would have been appreciated.

On this thread we have many individuals asking for a sign that the Book of Mormon is true. And yet, by asking for a sign, they are on their way to proving it true. I find this so strange that some people actually fulfill revelation and yet, do not know it.

[Brant Gardner]

Where is this evidence "mounting"? Is it just in the halls of FARMS?

In other words, you really don't know the literature and are simply repeating what you think is the best argument you have seen. You are quite keen on dismissing an entire body of work simply based on the supposed affiliation of those who are producing it.

That is about as completely unacademic a position as I can imagine.

Please tell me where it is acceptable to dismiss someone's work because you disagree with their religion or philosophy? J. Eric S. Thompson actually did that to Yuri Knorozov's work (because Knorozov was a Communist). Still, Knorozov was right in spite of being a Communist. That little fact wasn't discovered until people dealt with the evidence rather than the insinuation.

Are you really suggesting that we should never have known anything about the Maya glyphs because we could assume that Knorozov had to be wrong because we didn't agree with his politics?

[Gervin]

Brant: What you are missing is that people like Clark and Sorenson are quoting the very sources that you think should be reviewing their work. They are using the very same chronologies. They are using the very same archaeological data. They are using the same reconstructions (and some of them Clark has been responsible for in the non-LDS arena). Everything they are doing is solidly based in evidence that is available in non-LDS works.

They find support in the very places you don't see it. Strange. How hard have you looked?

Yes, we have this wonderful conundrum. The non-LDS ignore the LDS scholarship - but you claim that the LDS position can't be scholarly because it is ignored. Quite the fascinating argument. You complain about Dr. Peterson's statement, but your entire position is based on it (though it makes a very sandy foundation for the edifice you build on it).

Here's my hypothesis: LDS scholarship is ignored because LDS scholars want it to be ignored. For instance, I googled mesoamerica and conference and got this on the first page:

Southeast Conference on Mesoamerican Archeology and Ethnohistory

Check out the Meeting Program - the diversity in papers presented and the universities represented. My question is - where are the LDS scholars and their papers? To what degree are all the wonderful Book of Mormon discoveries vetted in the academic community? I think it's safe to infer that LDS scholars are confident in their claims for a mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon to the degree that they present their findings to academic audiences. If Brant was right that the LDS scholars

"are using the very same chronologies. They are using the very same archaeological data. They are using the same reconstructions (and some of them Clark has been responsible for in the non-LDS arena). Everything they are doing is solidly based in evidence that is available in non-LDS works"

then they should be able to engage the academic community in thoughtful discourse. Hmm, maybe their not really using "the very same." How could we know? We could check all the footnotes and go back and cross-check sources. LDS scholars could also intersect the academic community and present their findings - the academic community should be able to recognize and affirm their assumptions and how they are used. Wouldn't this begin to give the LDS scholarship some credibility?

Ever been to a conference? People like to debate, critique, discuss, and even endorse their favorite positions. What keeps the LDS from reporting out their findings and claims in the TECO Room of the College of Education at the University of South Florida, Tampa? A lack of findings. An unwillingness to stand behind their claims outside of the safe confines of the church. By choice you're either a part of the dialogue or your not. LDS is not a part of the dialogue. Don't blame folks like those who showed up in Tampa in February '05.

[Brant Gardner]

Here's my hypothesis: LDS scholarship is ignored because LDS scholars want it to be ignored.

So much for that hypothesis. I haven't seen or heard anything of the sort. What information do you have to which I am not privy?

To what degree are all the wonderful Book of Mormon discoveries vetted in the academic community?

You appear to be unacquainted with much of what the current Book of Mormon scholarship is all about. There are no Book of Mormon discoveries that tell us anything different about Mesoamerica. There is information about Mesoamerica that tells us a lot about the Book of Mormon. What would we have to offer such a conference if we are using their information to understand the Book of Mormon. Unless they are interested in the Book of Mormon, we are repeating what they know.

Now, what they know certainly effects the nature of the historical arguments for the Book of Mormon - but they don't alter the historical arguments for the Maya or the Olmec.

I think it's safe to infer that LDS scholars are confident in their claims for a mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon to the degree that they present their findings to academic audiences.

Hardly. Icorrect inference.

Then they should be able to engage the academic community in thoughtful discourse. Maybe their really not using "the very same" - I mean, the academic community should be able to recognize this and affirm it - we don't need Brant making this claim in his bb vacuum.

Let's define it this way. If I were to present a hypothesis to a group of archaeologists and ethnohistorians that used the very best and latest data, used the best chronologies, and I were to use all of that information to authenticate a document discovered in the Yucatan, what would be their reaction? If the document shows conformity with the right time and place and particularly if it demonstrates an understanding of the know cultural movements of that time and place, what would be their reaction?

When you have answered that question for a non-religious document, then you can try to explain why it would be different for a religious one.

[Gervin]

There are no Book of Mormon discoveries that tell us anything different about Mesoamerica.

Your statement assumes that there are Book of Mormon discoveries. You must have a definition of â??discoveriesâ? that mean something other than archeological or tangible evidence. If not, please share these discoveries. Then we can discuss how these discoveries inform us with knowledge of Mesoamerica. Once that is established you can show us how this informing results in a status quo condition with regard to Mesoamerican knowledge.

There is information about Mesoamerica that tells us a lot about the Book of Mormon.

Correctly put, the LDS use information about Mesoamerica in an attempt to place the Book of Mormon in a real cultural, geographical, and historical setting. Whether or not the use of that information is credible is one reason why LDS scholars should engage the authors of that information.

What would we have to offer such a conference if we are using their information to understand the Book of Mormon. Unless they are interested in the Book of Mormon, we are repeating what they know.

Mesoamerican geography, culture, plants, animals, political systems, warfare, etc are not apparent to most people who study the Book of Mormon. Why do you think that information about a Hebrew class of people, the religious practices described in the book, the accounts of wars, and the varied things described â?? city names, movements of people, etc., would be of no interest to the academic world? How in the world would your use of Mesoamerican knowledge overlain with Book of Mormon textual proofs be â??repeating what they know?â?

Now, what they know certainly effects the nature of the historical arguments for the Book of Mormon - but they don't alter the historical arguments for the Maya or the Olmec.

What a strange statement. Until you offer some proof to the academic community you really canâ??t make that claim (with a straight face). Again, LDS scholars appear to be confident in their claims for a mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon to the extent they present their findings to academic audiences. As any lay person who reviewed the synopsis of papers presented at that UCF conference in â??05, Mesoamerica is a robust field of study, many varied interests and topics, vigorous publishing and settings to present findings. My guess is that the LDS will have no choice but to continue to isolate themselves academically from any correlation between Mesoamerican and the Book of Mormon, notwithstanding their own in-house analysis and publishing.

[Brant Gardner]

Your statement assumes that there are Book of Mormon discoveries. You must have a definition of â??discoveriesâ? that mean something other than archeological or tangible evidence.

Not at all. I simply have a very different perspective. I come at the question from the document side, not the artifact side. Just as I would have to judge the authenticity of the Leyenda de los Soles, or the Histoire du Mechique, there are ways in which documents are judged against artifacts and against history. There is an uneasy juncture between the two because they deal with inherently different stories. The texts don't repeat the story from the dirt and the dirt doesn't reveal the precise stories from the texts. Nevertheless, there are ways to correlate the two. That is what I term a Book of Mormon "discovery."

The entire story of the Olmec is written from artifacts rather than text. It begins with the misattribution of the name Olmec and continues with the assumption of certain information based on our better understanding of later manifestations of similar iconography. If we had an Olmec mythic text, it would not precisely fit our understanding of the Olmec archaeology - but the archaeology ought to inform our understanding of the authenticity and applicability of the text.

Correctly put, the LDS use information about Mesoamerica in an attempt to place the Book of Mormon in a real cultural, geographical, and historical setting. Whether or not the use of that information is credible is one reason why LDS scholars should engage the authors of that information.

Are you suggesting that the Mesoamerican information is not credible? If you are suggesting that the use of the information to elucidate the Book of Mormon is not credible we are in the realm of evidence, and it would be wonderful if we could engage on that level rather than these generalities that really don't mean much.

There are arguments made. They are based on the best information about Mesoamerica, and to my knowledge, don't distort any of that information. The Mesoamerican side of the argument shouldn't be questionable (with some of the authors - we still have some who don't handle the data well). I agree that the question is whether or not that information is accurately applied to the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, that requires expertise in the Book of Mormon, not Mesoamerica, because the Mesoamerican evidence is used just as published and understood.

Mesoamerican geography, culture, plants, animals, political systems, warfare, etc are not apparent to most people who study the Book of Mormon.

Quite the generality. Without knowing who the "most people" are, I can say that the ones I am familiar with who are doing the best current work would disagree with your statement. I do agree with animals and plants, but geography, culture, political systems and warfare are not only apparent, but remarkably accurate to not only the place, but to the changes over time -- that is, the Book of Mormon demonstrates changes in those features at the same time as the archaeology indicates changes in those features.

Why do you think that information about a Hebrew class of people, the religious practices described in the book, the accounts of wars, and the varied things described â?? city names, movements of people, etc., would be of no interest to the academic world?

Why do you think that there would be a "Hebrew class of people"? I would assume, based on human history, that the direction of cultural assimilation would be such that the material culture would be Mesoamerican, not Hebrew. Can you explain why I would be wrong?

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's my hypothesis: LDS scholarship is ignored because LDS scholars want it to be ignored.

I can assure you that that isn't so in my case, and I have no reason whatever to suppose it to be true of the relevant Latter-day Saint scholars whom I know. (And I know all or most of them.)

I think you misconceive the approach and character of contemporary Book of Mormon scholarship. Given my own understanding of that approach and that character, bringing up explicitly Mormon subjects or advocating expressly Mormon beliefs at a secular academic conference would, under most circumstances, be (and would quite justly be resented as) a grossly inappropriate intrusion of religious sectarianism into a setting where such intrusions seldom if ever occur and are never welcome unless specifically invited -- which is quite rare.

However, if you're interested in attending the Mormon-scripture-related sessions at this year's annual joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, that meeting will be held this year in Washington DC on the Saturday-Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving. And I will be attending a session of the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, to be held in Washington DC just prior to the AAR/SBL, in which an essay of mine on the concept of the "divine council" will be critiqued. Feel free to join me there. (For those dying to know: It now turns out that, at his invitation, I will be there as a personal guest of a past president of the ETS.) The AAR/SBL is, by light years, the largest gathering of scholars of religious studies (of all kinds), biblical archaeology, and etc., anywhere in the world. By participating there, we hide ourselves brilliantly, don't you think? (For a number of years, in fact, we had a large booth at the huge AAR/SBL book exhibit, where, under deep cover, we actually sold our materials. We're no longer doing that right now, for various reasons, but it was, I think you'll agree, an exceedingly cunning way of concealing our publications.)

In the meantime, if you wish to read some of the recent books published by FARMS (on, for example, the Book of Abraham) you can order them from the University of Chicago Press. (That's where we've been hiding them -- in the University of Chicago Press catalog -- so that non-LDS scholars won't see them.)