"Others" in the BoM: Michael Ash and MormonTimes

[juliann]

You have made it quite clear all of the things you can't do in connection with these articles. Are you saying that you can't do anything to make your acticles more fair an balanced? Surely you can afford one paragraph to provide better context and balance. If you think that that is an impossible task, then although I have no right to, I would suggest Cinepro write 1 paragraph that could provided better context and balance to the "others" article. I only suggest someone else do it as I am a bit of a chicken and just have no qualifications but I will try if I have to I just think Cinepro could do a better job. If the whole suggestion of this excercise is disrespectful, then I do apologize and retract the suggestion. I am in no way qualified to tell you how to do your job. I know this but its a discussion board and I do think i represent a typical reader (or at least the ones really struggline, not the strong ones) MAsh you do a nice job with the aritcles but I keep getting the impression that it is this impossible task to provide more persepctive and balance to the articles and I just don't see how that is possible.

Mike's qualification is research. How much more hypocritical can you get? Stop whining, start doing the research that you think everyone else should be engaged in and go get yourself a column.

[volgadon]

If you want him to treat readers like idiots, why don't you just say so?

[juliann]

Dallin Oaks speaks to this in his recent address to the Harvard Law School http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school

My disappointment with these findings is only slightly reduced by Lawrence

[MAsh]

Are you saying that you can't do anything to make your acticles more fair an balanced?

Fair and balance are subjective. I try to be as fair and as balanced as I possibly can. Should I give equal space and weight to all contra-LDS positions? No, I don't think so. Very few books or articles do, so why should I? Like all authors, I have a point of view and a bias. If you can't understand that, you need to do a little more homework on bias. I hate to break it to you, but an article written by Cinepro would not be any more balanced that what I've written.

From one side of your mouth you complain that I've brought up unusual topics such as Joseph's stone in the hat, and out of the other side of your mouth you complain that I'm not offering a balanced approach. If you are correct that some members will find that some of the things I write are new to them (and I suspect that a number of members will be surprised) then I can hardly be accused of not giving fair time to things that sit out of the comfort zone of most members.

Part of my reason for writing this series is to introduce members to the more sophisticated issues that they don't get in Sunday School. In past issues I've pointed out the challenges presented by critics and how I see that these challenges are resolved. I'll continue to do this.

I understand you're struggling with your religious convictions and I'm sorry you don't seem to find my articles helpful. Perhaps you should read Shaken Faith Syndrome (you might find a copy at a local library if you don't want to buy one). I've tried to show-- in progressive fashion-- why I don't think that contra-LDS arguments should necessarily cause a believer's testimony to falter. My book (and I tried to cover this to a small degree in the early issues in my MT series) points out that one of the biggest problems a believer has as a potential detriment to their own testimony are unrealistic expectations, and fundamentalist and naive assumptions. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but I see such things in your writings and can understand why you are struggling. The primary issues you need to deal with-- before you can come to grasps with issues such as BoM geography or seer stones-- are your own personal unexamined (and I believe faulty) paradigms.

[cdowis]

Ultimately, as with so many other issues, it does come down to "science" vs. "Church teachings". Many people are comfortable discarding Church teachings in favor of science, but it seems there is still a large contingent who will favor the claims made in Church publications over those made by "science".

Well, for those who are interested.

I have two techniques dealing with the science vs church teaching. The first I call the christmas tree. I place ornaments on the tree as appropriate, but the ornaments do not cover the tree. I can comfortable accept evolution in an academic setting, hang it on my christmas tree as an ornament, but with the understanding that there is an entire tree which is still uncovered. (does that make sense?) I don't get upset over the Adam vs humans living millions of years ago. I can ignore one side or the other, depending on what part of the tree I am looking at.

The other technique is the shelf. I remember years ago when the so-called salamander letter came out. I thought, "if I were really intellectually honest, this would kill any hope that JS was a prophet." Well, I made a decision. I put the salamander letter on the shelf, along with several other items. From time to time, I take something off the shelf to see if there is any new information or insight to solve the problem. Of course, in this case, it was discovered that this was a forgery. Unfortunately some may have left the church over the issue, and when the truth came out, it was too late for them. They had already left the church and nothing would bring them back.

Don't know if anyone understands what I am talking about, but this has been useful for me.

[cinepro]

The other technique is the shelf.

On the plus side, the "Shelf Technique" is a valuable and effective methodology for preserving true beliefs from spurious attacks.

Sadly, it is also a highly effective technique for protecting false beliefs from valid questioning.

As long as you are 100% sure that the belief you're protecting is 100% true and not subject to questioning or revision, I heartily endorse its use.

But if the belief you're protecting in any way contradicts any of my beliefs, or has anything to do with Scientology, I recommend a more pliable faith-preservation methodology.

[Lloyd Dobler]

From one side of your mouth you complain that I've brought up unusual topics such as Joseph's stone in the hat, and out of the other side of your mouth you complain that I'm not offering a balanced approach. If you are correct that some members will find that some of the things I write are new to them (and I suspect that a number of members will be surprised) then I can hardly be accused of not giving fair time to things that sit out of the comfort zone of most members.

Part of my reason for writing this series is to introduce members to the more sophisticated issues that they don't get in Sunday School. In past issues I've pointed out the challenges presented by critics and how I see that these challenges are resolved. I'll continue to do this.

By ignoring balance and perspective as to why people have problems with these issues or why they are even issues in the first place, you are essentially "jumping the shark" with each issue. You are hitting the reset button on over 150 years of teaching inside and outside Sunday School and you are doing it each week in 800 words or less. The point of the thread is valid. If you want to ignore the other side of issues be cause these articles are your perspective, then that is certainly your right as author. However, with each article, ignoring the perspective for members as to why each of these topic are in your words "challenges" in the first place is just to convenient and weakens the stregnth of your articles. I believe that believing and struggling members would greatly benefit from both perspectives and at the very least the latter perspective.

Clearly, these are big issues for the church to manage in this day and age with their members within the context of the age of the internet. And clearly, you are trying to move the boat in the right direction. However, I am baffled as to why I am getting totally stonewalled here unless you just don't think your articles would be improved by in some way incorporating in a better way fairness and balance on these issues. Fair enough. I bet you could write a 4 sentence paragraph at the beginning of the "others" article that you really sum up Cinepros original general point and give a fair and healthy perspective for the reader. Since I know it't not an impossible task, you must find it therefore pointless or of no value to the reader. For me, this is where we disagree. Disparage my testimony if you want or as you have already. I am ok with that. It would suprise you with how active etc I have been in the church my entire life. I have been researching this stuff on my own for over 3 years now. However, non of that matters does it. You simply don't think I have a valid point and so be it. I wish you luck in your continuing articles. I have already begun reading your articles from the beginning and will read the shaken faith book.

There are reasons why as a church we are in position we are now with regard to disclosing fundamentally important facts regarding church history and doctrine. To me you are treating the symptoms but not the cause and maybe that is why I don't seem to be satified with your replies (which i really appreciate). We can try to hit the reset button on all of these issues but in the long run I just don't think it's going to fix the problem of honesty and disclosure from the Church to the regular member. People on this board can take this response and parse it and rip me all they want but it won't change the fact for me that this is a real problem for members. People may be able to expertly explain why members should not feel lied to regarding these issues, it just does not change the reality that they do feel lied to. There are legitamate reasons why members think nobody was around before the jardites and lehi. There are legitamat reasons as to why most members don't know about the rock and hat and all the other issues.(cue the guy who is now going to ask me to provide the data to back up such an outrageous statement).

MAsh, keep fighting the good fight. However, I think you are making a mistake by discounting the point I am trying to make.

[MAsh]

By ignoring balance and perspective as to why people have problems with these issues or why they are even issues in the first place, you are essentially "jumping the shark" with each issue....

Lloyd, I'm sorry to say, you are misreading my posts here is badly as my articles. As I've already stated, I'm the one bringing up these issues. I'm trying to be as balanced as possible but like every other human, I have a bias and perspective.

If you want to ignore the other side of issues be cause these articles are your perspective, then that is certainly your right as author.

How can I be ignoring them if _I'm_ the one bringing it up. I bring up those issues which I believe have validity.

However, I am baffled as to why I am getting totally stonewalled here unless you just don't think your articles would be improved by in some way incorporating in a better way fairness and balance on these issues.

I think my articles are already as fair as they should/can be for the type of publication, etc. They are not meant to be mere catalogues of challenging issues. You've obviously missed the entire point of the articles and it seems that you really don't care to understand it. And, quite frankly, I think that your suggestions would not "improve" the articles.

Disparage my testimony if you want or as you have already.

Please show me where I've done this.

You simply don't think I have a valid point and so be it.

You're right, I don't. Sorry, we disagree.

[rameumptom]

I think Mike's articles are fair and balanced. He does bring up the issues at hand. While he does not discuss in detail the arguments for a Hemispheric Model for the Book of Mormon, he assumes that most LDS already are aware of at least the key concepts of that model. It isn't necessary to give everyone a 1st grade education on the issues. It is enough for him to note that there are issues, and then share his viewpoints on the issues.

After all, there are many of websites and books available for those interested in reading the other POVs in greater detail.

He notes the assumption: why doesn't the Book of Mormon mention lots of people already in the Americas? Then he answers it, according to his research and viewpoint. All within 800 words or less.

As I research, checking out papers and books both online and in print, I find that many authors skip lightly over the points of their critics. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are some papers created as surveys, which do exactly as some want Mike to do: just give an overview of each possible solution. Then there are papers that push a viewpoint, and show evidence that support it. This is what Mike is doing (and very aptly, I may add).

If some of the critics here wish, they are more than welcome to start their own paper, or get on one, where they can do a survey of the various views. Good luck in keeping within their required word count. This is why I am doing my OT Gospel Doctrine lessons on my own blog. I can do 13 pages worth (as I did on the last one), if I wish. I do not have to review every viewpoint, nor cover every angle, unless I wish to do so. I can bring up issues no one else is doing (I tend to hit the lessons heavily from other related ancient texts, such as the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls). Others are welcome to do their own version of the Gospel Doctrine lessons. But they do it on their own blogs, etc.

Rameumptom

joelsmonastery.blogspot.com

[Lloyd Dobler]

Lloyd, I'm sorry to say, you are misreading my posts here is badly as my articles. As I've already stated, I'm the one bringing up these issues. I'm trying to be as balanced as possible but like every other human, I have a bias and perspective.

To do an article on the "others" without acknowledging in any way why we as members mostly think that nobody was there before the Book of Mormon peoples represents a zero effort in "trying to be as balanced as possible". Cinepro's original post showed some of the "other side" of this issue. Am I asking that you explain the entire "other side" and all the other "other sides" for each of your articles? No. I am asking for something along the lines of the bare minimum. In the interest of balance and context, I am asking that you at least acknowledge that there is an "other side". A few sentences that gives the reader context for the last 150 years of the "other side". But you won't do it. You won't get within 10 feet of it. Your article is as fair and balance as possible. For me, this is stunning.

How can I be ignoring them if _I'm_ the one bringing it up. I bring up those issues which I believe have validity.

You are systematically bringing up the key historical issues that the church has either ignored, hid or conveniently forgot over the past 150 years that are negatively affecting testimonies and causing people to rethink their membership in the Church. You are applying your bias and perspective as an opiate to the masses. You are giving them shorthand answers without giving them any context from which to think.

I think my articles are already as fair as they should/can be for the type of publication, etc. They are not meant to be mere catalogues of challenging issues. You've obviously missed the entire point of the articles and it seems that you really don't care to understand it. And, quite frankly, I think that your suggestions would not "improve" the articles.

No, you are missing the entire point of what I am trying to say and you do not care to understand my viewpoint. You are basically saying that the point of this thread (rather the points I am trying to make) can in no way contribute to improve your articles in any way whatsoever. Obviously, nobody is jumping on my bandwagon on this topic and so be it. On this board I am the one who is off base and wrong or whatever. I believe there are a lot of people leaving the church over the history issues. I believe there are a lot of people who are changing their type of activity because of these issues. I want your articles to better help these people. The main reason why these people are having problems is not because they are naive and lazy or don't do their own research. They have been told a simplistic one sided story as found in all of the manauls of the church for their entire lives. You are jamming in your words your "bias and persepctive" down a one way street to thousands of members and you won't acknowledge in any way how you could be more fair and balanced or at least provide a context and perspective that is greater than your own as a backdrop from which to begin your articles. So for me you are repeating the same simplistic one sided strategy to the members who read your articles. The problem is this problem does not address the root of the problem. You can pass off your article as some small 800 word bias and perspective piece however it is going to thousands of members every week. In the absence of General Authority treatment of these issues, your articles will become the latest Church speak regarding these issues. I think your articles have an enormous amount of influence. I guess all those members are really lucky you believe you can't make them more fair or have a more complete context or perspective. Lucky indeed.

Please show me where I've done this.

My book (and I tried to cover this to a small degree in the early issues in my MT series) points out that one of the biggest problems a believer has as a potential detriment to their own testimony are unrealistic expectations, and fundamentalist and naive assumptions. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but I see such things in your writings and can understand why you are struggling. The primary issues you need to deal with-- before you can come to grasps with issues such as BoM geography or seer stones-- are your own personal unexamined (and I believe faulty) paradigms

One (the first three bold statements) + Two (the final bold statements) = Three (Presumptuously disparaging my testimony or maybe my credibility. I guess it does not matter.

You're right, I don't. Sorry, we disagree.

I am sorry as well. My voice on this issue to those on this board who have followed this thread is either not respected or not heard at all. I find this incredible and I don't think it's valuable. I may not be a great or succint communicator and I may not have the esteemed credentials of those on this board but I am telling you I am not nearly alone on feeling this way. Ignoring or not even really acknowleding any value benefit from increased fairness and perspective on an 800 word bias and perspective piece that goes out to thousands of members every week and addresses the biggest historical issues that are affecting their testimonies is a problem.

[MAsh]

I am sorry as well. My voice on this issue to those on this board who have followed this thread is either not respected or not heard at all. ... Ignoring or not even really acknowleding any value benefit from increased fairness and perspective on an 800 word bias and perspective piece that goes out to thousands of members every week and addresses the biggest historical issues that are affecting their testimonies is a problem.

Lloyd, what you see as the problem is not the problem. The problem is not "ignoring... any value.. from increased fairness..." The problem is with your view of fairness. I've tried to explain it. Other have tried to explain it. You fail to grasp that my articles are both fair and accurate and that there is no such thing as complete "fairness". You also have failed to understand that there is a difference between articles in columns and books. Your expectations are unrealistic, unachievable, and, quite frankly, naive to the complexity of the actual situation. It's no wonder you are disappointed.

[Lloyd Dobler]

He notes the assumption: why doesn't the Book of Mormon mention lots of people already in the Americas? Then he answers it, according to his research and viewpoint. All within 800 words or less.

I think you raise a great point. The assumption. Half of the problem as to why these issues are affecting testimonies is because of the assumption. It's the faulty assumption that makes us feel stupid, naive, lied to etc. It's the faulty assumption that made my tough sister cry when she learned about the rock/hat deal. She is a BYU grad full on strong and active and learning this was devastating to her. She had no idea. She just assumed a reality that was shockingly not accurate. There are reasons for her to have these assumptions. Her assumption regarding the translation of the BofM is a perspective that a ton of active and less active members have. This is the case for each of MAsh articles.

The real assumption in this cas is not "why doesn't the Book of Mormon mention lots of people already in the Americas?". The real assumptions are "I was taught the jaredits and lehi were the first ones in this land" or "why have I not heard about this before" or "how could I be a members for this long and have no idea". I am only submitting that these are the real kinds of assumptions members have. Is it really so hard to agree with? These are the kinds of assumptions and perspectives that cause people to struggle with their testimony. It is the reason for these articles in the first place and why this level of dailogue is now being brought carefully to the front door of every member. To simply "assume the sale" on this issue mutes the effectiveness of the article and does not do much to encourage critical thinking. To ignore the real assumptions is akin to saying "today I am going to give you the solution to a problem that is causing people testimonies to waver, except I am not going to provide any context as to why this issue is causing problems or why it would need to be addressed in the first place. Think of it as getting an answer to a problem that does not exist". Each article addresses an issue. Each issue has it's specific "real assumptions" that should be given acknowledgment and perspective by the writer for the benefit of the reader. Would it not greatly benefit members for MAsh to begin the "others" addressing this perspective?

If part of the problem is these members not engaging in their own research or critical thought, why would we give them an article that really that encourages neither? Members did not need a simplified and sacharine version of the translation of the BofM or anything else. They don't need more 800 word answers, they need to ask better questions. Members should do more research, prayerfully even. If MAsh wants to give an 800 word answer, then so be it. They are great answers. But to ignore adding context and perspective that would cause members to ask good critical quetions is simply another excersice in repeating the same information dicemination tactics the Church has used over the past 150 years that have produced this problem in the first place. The articles simply give members the latest opinion to have and the latest rationalizations to put the issue back on the shelf.

Look, on this thread i have gone from being pinned down and saying that MAsh is deceiving members all the way to asking anyone to support the idea that these articles could be improved by beginning with a short pass at providing better perspective, context and fairness. To at least acknowledge some of the real assumptions that the readers are bringing to the table, to acknowledge more of the real reason for the treatment of the issue in the first place, to at least state that there are many ways of looking at the issue (as in the general point from Cinepros original post) in this case the "others".

The whole reason this board exists is because of the issues MAsh is addressing. This is a massive problem and MAsh is one of the very few people that have been give credibility to engage the general membership of the Church on the issues we care and debate about. He has this audience on a weekly basis. Cinepro started a really good car with the first post of this thread. I am trying to drive it somewhere productive. Why does it seem the message is to just leave the car idling in one place. Could the car not be parked in a better parking spot? Maybe under a nice shade tree? If anything, the members of this board should really be holding MAsh's feet to the fire because he has been give a great responsibility.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Lloyd, what you see as the problem is not the problem. The problem is not "ignoring... any value.. from increased fairness..." The problem is with your view of fairness. I've tried to explain it. Other have tried to explain it. You fail to grasp that my articles are both fair and accurate and that there is no such thing as complete "fairness". You also have failed to understand that there is a difference between articles in columns and books. Your expectations are unrealistic, unachievable, and, quite frankly, naive to the complexity of the actual situation. It's no wonder you are disappointed.

Your response is classic. Well done. Your first response to a criticism of one of your terrific articles was this, "Cinepro, after all the years you've spent on this board I'm amazed that you still haven't got a clue" That is pure class. You also have earlier alluded to me being a fundamentalist with faulty paradigms. Now I have unrealistic expectations in large part because I am naive and cannot grasp the complextiy of this "situation". As the naive one, should it not be me who is resorting to name calling? Such a person as you have described me can only in this case be dismissed an hopeless and incapable of contributing anything of value. How convenient for you. It should not suprise me. With each article you can dismiss and then replace decades of mormon thinking and assumptions and you can do it all in less than 800 words. Congradulations. Therefore, it also does not suprise me that you can dismiss me with just a few sentences. Which is funny, because at this point all I am asking you for is a few sentences. Alas, it is not to be because your aricles are great just how they are which is again very convenient for you.

Half of the priest quorum from my youth in a very active ward don't go to church anymore. Of the say 15 guys 8 don't go and 5 you could say dont' go because of the history stuff. Two of my mission companions don't go to church anymore because of this stuff. One has an advanced degree from an ivy league school, the other only an MBA from BYU. Where I work, I know three guys who have major problems with the history. They all still go because of their family but they are pretty much done. In my own ward, there are a few people who are having similar problems I am. Two of which simply quite going to church. I could go on a bit further but you get my point.

And what do we get for our troubles born out of our own naivete and fundamentalism? We get you, every week for 800 words. Good thing you are not the one who is being naive or fundamentalist in any way with respect to your approach to these articles. Of course, if someone thought that you were, you would not even bother to listen.

I suppose this ends my involvement in this thread. MAsh I thank you for the face time you did give me. I likely did not deserve it. As you know there are no winners when it comes to working through these issues, just people trying to navigate life with their testimonies intact.

[volgadon]

If part of the problem is these members not engaging in their own research or critical thought, why would we give them an article that really that encourages neither?

The rest of us aren't assuming that the members are idiots, are sheep, who have to be led everywhere.

[MAsh]

You also have earlier alluded to me being a fundamentalist with faulty paradigms. Now I have unrealistic expectations in large part because I am naive and cannot grasp the complextiy of this "situation".

They are not different problems, but one in the same.

As the naive one, should it not be me who is resorting to name calling?

Sorry you see this as name calling. I'm simply stating that, based on your comments on this board, you have taken a very black and white approach to complex issues and seem to be bothered when this is pointed out.

Such a person as you have described me can only in this case be dismissed an hopeless and incapable of contributing anything of value.

You intentionally or unintentionally continue to misread what I've written (such as your claim that I denegrated your testimony). I've said nothing of the sort negatively about your testimony or your hopelessness or your incapacity to contribute anything of value (to this discussion or anything else).

With each article you can dismiss and then replace decades of mormon thinking and assumptions and you can do it all in less than 800 words.

Comments like this don't help strengthen your case and only verify what I've written earlier. I really feel badly that you are struggling with your testimony. I've tried to explain that these are complex issues and have directed you to links and books that may provide some answers. You seem to want bumper-sticker answers and have-- for reasons I have a hard time understanding-- the precept that the world of religion has never changed until I started writing my MT articles. In my articles I've frequently noted examples where these things have been discussed for decades among Church leaders and scholars. I know you don't like to hear this but it's frankly true that the problems you have with "history" and other LDS issues are actually rooted in your preception that we can't learn knew things about gospel issues, that all things must be set in stone, and that prophets are infallible. The issue is not LDS "history" but your view of how scriptures, prophets, and revelation _should_ behave, compared to how we realistically see how such things behave. When I say that you need a paradigm adjustment, I'm not trying to be mean or put you down, I'm trying to help you.

Half of the priest quorum from my youth in a very active ward don't go to church anymore. Of the say 15 guys 8 don't go and 5 you could say dont' go because of the history stuff. Two of my mission companions don't go to church anymore because of this stuff. One has an advanced degree from an ivy league school, the other only an MBA from BYU. Where I work, I know three guys who have major problems with the history. They all still go because of their family but they are pretty much done. In my own ward, there are a few people who are having similar problems I am. Two of which simply quite going to church. I could go on a bit further but you get my point.

I get the point that you seem to think truth is a popularity contest. Was nuclear physics true in the twelth century although nobody believed it or knew about it? If you think the Church might not be true because 1/2 of your former/current church associates have problems with it, then statistically it might be argued that the church is true because 1/2 of your former/current church associates actually believe it.

And what do we get for our troubles born out of our own naivete and fundamentalism? We get you, every week for 800 words.

Again, this a surprising and very myopic view of complex issues. Is it really so hard to understand (especially since I point this out in my series) that my articles are brief introductions into issues that have a lot more ink behind them? There are entire books that deal just with single issues that are discussed in my MT series. Obviously, such works provide more information than I can include in a brief series. But instead of recognizing this painfully obvious fact you are content to claim that all you (and the rest of those who struggle with testimony) get, is my weekly 800 words. That's it. They get nothing else. They are not allowed to read any books, search websites, go to intellecutal conferences and symposiums. They are denied these things because my articles say it all and that's the end of it. Riiight...

I suppose this ends my involvement in this thread. MAsh I thank you for the face time you did give me. I likely did not deserve it. As you know there are no winners when it comes to working through these issues, just people trying to navigate life with their testimonies intact.

I honestly feel badly that you think I've done you a disservice. Unfortunately I don't think there's anything I could have said (other than the things you wanted to hear) that could have resulted in any different feelings toward me. And there are most certainly winners in working through these issues-- the winners are they who put their faith in Christ and receive a personal witnesses to the truth of his teachings. Among the winners are those who are willing to recognize and set aside their pride; that they don't know all things and are willing to open their minds and hearts to the fact that men are weak and fallible but that God works through imperfect leaders just as he can work through our imperfections.

I wish you the best in your sincere search for comfort and answers.

[rameumptom]

Mike,

Sadly, we find even in the Church that most members want all the information fed to them in neat little packages. It is like the science test essay that states: "In two pages, explain in depth the Grand Unifying Theory. Give 10 brief examples of each sub-theory. Be brief, but in depth, but brief."

The Ensign magazine is actually caving into the Internet view of information. No longer will you see a series of in-depth articles. Rather, you will find a bunch of 1 page, brief notes that barely cover a topic. It is as the comparison of the American and Japanese math school programs. The Americans study everything, but only an inch deep. The Japanese study fewer issues, but at great depth. Guess who is way ahead in mathematics in the world? Not Americans.

Reality does not allow you to be in-depth on issues. At best, you can give key issues and a couple example of each. That does not allow for more information. I just cannot fathom someone wanting to squeeze your brain for everything, when they could do what you have done: buy the books, read the books, attend seminars, discuss for years with other scholars, etc.

I wish I could play the piano like Mozart. Of course, I want the quick and easy method, not one that will take actual hard work. Either we need to learn to play for ourselves, or sit back quietly and enjoy whatever music the pianist chooses to play for us.

[MAsh]

Mike,

Sadly, we find even in the Church that most members want all the information fed to them in neat little packages. It is like the science test essay that states: "In two pages, explain in depth the Grand Unifying Theory. Give 10 brief examples of each sub-theory. Be brief, but in depth, but brief."

Spot on.

[rameumptom]

As for why members are shocked when they find out things, like the "rock in the hat" that caused LLoyd's sister to cry: why? It has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the gospel. The Church leaders' responsibility is to teach us the core doctrines of the Church and work for our salvation. Does it matter to our salvation how Joseph Smith received a revelation? Of course not.

If the Holy Ghost witnessed to a person that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, then why should any strange or awkward thing in our history change that? Didn't the sister who cried realize that billions on earth do not believe the Church for one reason or another, including parts of our history?

Would she have cried had she realized that prophets and Jesus in the Bible used superstitious acts to do things? Jacob used straked rods to change the stripes on sheep and goats. Moses' staff competed with the staffs of Egyptian clerics. Abraham went to sacrifice his son Isaac to Jehovah, just as many in the area sacrificed their first born sons to their gods. And Jesus used clay to heal a man's eyes, just as many magicians/healers of the day would do. If God used strange methods in the past, why should it be any different in our day?

Prophets are not perfect. It is an issue of God's authority, not perfect 100% knowledge of truth and light. Otherwise, we would not need continuing revelation and prophets.

People need to stop living in a vacuum. This information has been available for a long time in books, and now the Internet. LDS scholars were writing about Joseph's seer stone longer than I've been alive, and I'm 50 years old.

[cinepro]

Mike,

Sadly, we find even in the Church that most members want all the information fed to them in neat little packages.

What do you mean "even in the Church"?

If the Correlation Committee is correct, it would be more properly phrased "especially in the Church". The Church Manuals and magazines are designed and intended to be the educational equivalent of Pop Tarts. If the scriptures were cows, the Church lessons and magazines would be bullion cubes.

And the guidelines on "sticking to the manuals" indicate this is intended.

[cinepro]

On the subject of "Others" in the Book of Mormon, here's an interesting question (perhaps even a question that merits 800 words of consideration).

If we focus solely on the text of the Book of Mormon, what can we know about the "Others"? Meaning, what are the conditions and characteristics demanded by the Book of Mormon for the presence of other people in the New World? What does the text say about the requirements for anyone who lives in the lands of the Book of Mormon (even if they aren't specifically mentioned)?

For example, do they need to be monotheistic? Do they need to follow the Mosaic law, or worship God and Jesus? Does the Book of Mormon tell us anything along these lines?

[cdowis]

For example, do they need to be monotheistic? Do they need to follow the Mosaic law, or worship God and Jesus? Does the Book of Mormon tell us anything along these lines?

Look at the known peoples in the BOM, and that should answer your question. Did the Lamanites follow the Mosiac law? The apostate Nephites? The BOM does not talk about the apostate beliefs of the Nephites, e.g. monotheism.

[Calm]

Sadly, we find even in the Church that most members want all the information fed to them in neat little packages.

What do you mean "even in the Church"?

Think Sesame Street for starters....

Unfortunately some individuals never seem to have made the effort to grow out of this style of learning.

[cinepro]

Look at the known peoples in the BOM, and that should answer your question. Did the Lamanites follow the Mosiac law? The apostate Nephites? The BOM does not talk about the apostate beliefs of the Nephites, e.g. monotheism.

But it does talk about the conditions and promises for those who would inhabit the Promised Land. There are numerous descriptions of the condition of the land and its people, right up to Columbus:

2 Nephi 1

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord

[rameumptom]

What do you mean "even in the Church"?

If the Correlation Committee is correct, it would be more properly phrased "especially in the Church". The Church Manuals and magazines are designed and intended to be the educational equivalent of Pop Tarts. If the scriptures were cows, the Church lessons and magazines would be bullion cubes.

And the guidelines on "sticking to the manuals" indicate this is intended.

I do not fault the Church. Its purpose is not to teach the things you can find online, in books, etc. Its purpose is to prepare a people to receive temple covenants and be exalted. For that purpose, it doesn't matter what the history of the Church is about, whether the Nephites were local or hemispheric, or whether Brother Brigham was right/wrong about Adam-God.

Early on, some Church leaders attempted to be the scholars members needed on a variety of issues (Joseph F, Joseph Fielding, BH Roberts, James Talmage, and even Bruce R. McConkie come to mind). But the GAs now focus on their expertise: spiritual authority and salvation. It is left to the other scholars to discuss such issues as Mike brings up in his MT articles. There is a place for Mike's short articles. The hope is to whet the appetite of readers, so they will crack open the books and study things in greater detail.

For those who do not, at least it gives them a little more breadth to their understanding of such things.

[cdowis]

What is the theory here? Laman and Lemuel stayed behind when Nephi left and became rulers over a group of natives (intermarrying and causing their skin to darken), and Nephi went off and became ruler over another group of natives (converting them to pre-christianity in the process). Then, Laman and/or Lemuel whip up their newfound civilization into a frenzy over Nephi leaving? And 400 years later, they're still talking about Nephi when the bulk of their ancestors didn't know him?

Can you think of a modern example of a similar feud that has lasted several thousands of years? Your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.