Anti-Mormonism; Built On A Shifting Foundation? E. D. Howe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While surfing the net, I found this Wiki article on Anti-Mormonism, a term that on some boards will get you banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism

I was looking for something else and found it to be a good read. Some posters on this board are quoted. Anyway it was educational and I was reminded of the first Anti-Mormon book ever written. This book and other early works are the foundation upon which Anti-Mormonism is built. If the foundation is corrupt, how long can the building stand?

Everyday it seems, a new theory about the origins of the BoM is created. Each time a theory is debunked a new one rises up to take it’s place. If nothing else you can read and find out about Mormons in politics, “The Anti-Mormonism Party” is Illinois

Follow the links…you will learn much.

Does anyone know the primary author of this Wiki page?

Enjoy.

[Zakuska]

While surfing the net, I found this Wiki article on Anti-Mormonism, a term that on some boards will get you banned.

http://en.wikipedia..../Anti-Mormonism

I was looking for something else and found it to be a good read. Some posters on this board are quoted. Anyway it was educational and I was reminded of the first Anti-Mormon book ever written. This book and other early works are the foundation upon which Anti-Mormonism is built. If the foundation is corrupt, how long can the building stand?

Everyday it seems, a new theory about the origins of the BoM is created. Each time a theory is debunked a new one rises up to take it’s place. If nothing else you can read and find out about Mormons in politics, “The Anti-Mormonism Party” is Illinois

Follow the links…you will learn much.

Does anyone know the primary author of this Wiki page?

Enjoy.

I've found that many of the "new theories" just encorporate/regurgitate the same old cud hoping it will stick, as if it were something new.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've found that many of the "new theories" just encorporate/regurgitate the same old cud hoping it will stick, as if it were something new.

Down here in the South we call it “throwing spaghetti at the wall”. When it sticks it is done, they just can’t make it stick. In reading this is accrued to me why people would move across the country, the Tanner’s and Decker’s have moved on so they want to take their place.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100621175659AAkBv1G

[Bond...James Bond]

Groundbreaking. A link to wikipedia.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Groundbreaking. A link to wikipedia.

There was a hundred links in that article...and this is your drive by?

[Bond...James Bond]

There was a hundred links in that article...and this is your drive by?

Believe it or not some people have heard of wikipedia before. If you found any links from the wiki page you found profound you should have cited them specifically.

[Bond...James Bond]

A lot of the citations revert back to FAIR/FARMS/SHIELDS and other apologetic work anyway.

[cinepro]

Everyday it seems, a new theory about the origins of the BoM is created. Each time a theory is debunked a new one rises up to take it’s place. If nothing else you can read and find out about Mormons in politics, “The Anti-Mormonism Party” is Illinois

Depending on how specific you want to get, I'm only aware of three theories about the origin of the Book of Mormon:

1. Joseph Smith translated it from gold plates by the power of God.

2. Joseph Smith dictated the book without the power of God, and without significant input from any other person.

3. A person or group of people other than Joseph Smith wrote the book in some form, and Joseph used what they had written as inspiration.

If you made a list of all specific theories, including those expressed by believing LDS, I doubt you could find more than 10.

Considering that there have been 66,645 days between April 6, 1830 and today, you would appear to be off by a significant factor in your estimation.

And when it comes to your complaint about the number of theories, and their evolving nature, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Are you saying that ideally an anti-mormon in 1830 would have expressed a theory and that single theory should have become the immutable anti-mormon argument for the next 500 years, regardless of any new information that would come to light over the decades? Or are you saying that no theories should be expressed until enough time has passed that all anti-mormons can meet together and agree on a single theory?

Considering the varied perspectives of anti-mormons (secular, non-Mormon Christian, ex-Mormon etc.) and the nebulous nature of our information about the translation process, I'm not sure why we would expect a single line of thought.

[Tarski]

that single theory should .... become ... immutable

I think I know why this might seem natural to people of faith.

[Pahoran]

I think I know why this might seem natural to people of faith.

Then there are those "people of faith" who fervently believe that the definitive "naturalistic" explanation for the Book of Mormon will be forthcoming someday; and whose faith in this as yet unwritten just-so story refuses to be shaken by the fact that every anti-Mormon theory of Book of Mormon origins so far produced has failed to provide what they are looking for.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Evergrow]

I've found that many of the "new theories" just encorporate/regurgitate the same old cud hoping it will stick, as if it were something new.

Indeed. Just like with the "new" DNA argument. All it is is a re-hash of the same arguments against the Church that existed for years in relation to Body-Typing studies. Anti-mormons used the same arguments and claims then as they do with DNA. It's just using DNA as the new whipping boy, thus creating a whole new strawman, same arguments, just a different subject. The only thing new is that they misrepresent this new science (omitting important facts) to make their claims.

[LDSToronto]

Then there are those "people of faith" who fervently believe that the definitive "naturalistic" explanation for the Book of Mormon will be forthcoming someday; and whose faith in this as yet unwritten just-so story refuses to be shaken by the fact that every anti-Mormon theory of Book of Mormon origins so far produced has failed to provide what they are looking for.

Pahoran, do you believe that it is possible for evidence to surface that unequivocally shows The Book of Mormon is not divine, not a historical record? If that evidence existed, would you want to know about it, and would you accept it as true or deny it's truth?

H.

[mfbukowski]

Pahoran, do you believe that it is possible for evidence to surface that unequivocally shows The Book of Mormon is not divine, not a historical record? If that evidence existed, would you want to know about it, and would you accept it as true or deny it's truth?

H.

I certainly don't need to answer for Pahoran but I do have a comment on your question.

If somehow it were proven a total hoax (not sure that is possible) I would start a new religion tomorrow based on all the same principles, and I bet there would be a lot of followers by next Wednesday.

Just as a philosophy, Mormonism works very well in my opinion.

[The Nehor]

I certainly don't need to answer for Pahoran but I do have a comment on your question.

If somehow it were proven a total hoax (not sure that is possible) I would start a new religion tomorrow based on all the same principles, and I bet there would be a lot of followers by next Wednesday.

Just as a philosophy, Mormonism works very well in my opinion.

Count me out. I'll be too busy figuring out who or what was beaming messages into my brain about the Book of Mormon being the word of God and who has been giving me all these revelations.

I don't care how well a philosophy works. I want the truth whether it's helpful or not.

[Chris Smith]

Does anyone know the primary author of this Wiki page?

I wrote most of the "origins" and "forms" sections of that article a few years back.

Upon re-reading the article now, however, I'm struck by the absence of references to some of the major academic works on the subject, such as Terryl Givens's A Viper on the Hearth and the more recent works by Patrick Mason and James Bennett. I haven't read these works closely or recently enough to correct the deficiency, but perhaps someone else should give it a try.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

Count me out. I'll be too busy figuring out who or what was beaming messages into my brain about the Book of Mormon being the word of God and who has been giving me all these revelations.

I don't care how well a philosophy works. I want the truth whether it's helpful or not.

Good for you. I was trying to figure out how to pull off that part!

[Evergrow]

I wrote most of the "origins" and "forms" sections of that article a few years back.

Upon re-reading the article now, however, I'm struck by the absence of references to some of the major academic works on the subject, such as Terryl Givens's A Viper on the Hearth and the more recent works by Patrick Mason and James Bennett. I haven't read these works closely or recently enough to correct the deficiency, but perhaps someone else should give it a try.

Evidence that it is true that anti-mormons and critics of the Church write many of the Wiki-pedia articles and why LDS have such a problem posting and adding their views there.

[Bond...James Bond]

Evidence that it is true that anti-mormons and critics of the Church write many of the Wiki-pedia articles and why LDS have such a problem posting and adding their views there.

If you want a faith promoting wikipedia I recommend the FAIRwiki.

[Okrahomer]

If you want a faith promoting wikipedia I recommend the FAIRwiki.

Your recommendation is revealing. Is your Wikipedia screen name John Foxe by chance?

https://secure.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html?pg=2

Edited March 28, 2012 by Okrahomer

[Chris Smith]

Evidence that it is true that anti-mormons and critics of the Church write many of the Wiki-pedia articles and why LDS have such a problem posting and adding their views there.

Geez. You just can't win with some people. I don't know how I could have been any more sympathetic. I drew heavily on apologetic sources, and I think I included some pretty damning stuff about a number of anti-Mormon writers, not to mention anti-Mormon terrorist activity. Pa Pa apparently found the article not only well-written but actually faith-promoting. I certainly didn't prevent any LDS people from posting or adding their views.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Chris Smith

[why me]

I've found that many of the "new theories" just encorporate/regurgitate the same old cud hoping it will stick, as if it were something new.

This is true. Even if we go back to the 1830's, we would find the same theories that antimormons spew out today. It hasn't changed. However, the Internet has given the antimormons a lot of play and much fodder to damage. Thus, we have more and more sites being created with the same old message of antimormonism. It is becoming overkill for sure.

[why me]

A lot of the citations revert back to FAIR/FARMS/SHIELDS and other apologetic work anyway.

That would be the case. Not many nonmembers would take an interest in antimormonism. It is usually a battle royal between exmormons and members with the exmormons attempting to get more members in their ranks. .

[mfbukowski]

Geez. You just can't win with some people. I don't know how I could have been any more sympathetic. I drew heavily on apologetic sources, and I think I included some pretty damning stuff about a number of anti-Mormon writers, not to mention anti-Mormon terrorist activity. Pa Pa apparently found the article not only well-written but actually faith-promoting. I certainly didn't prevent any LDS people from posting or adding their views.

One think I know about Chris is that he is intellectually honest and argues in good faith.

I think he presents both sides fairly even if he is wrong 99% of the time

Nah, make that 100.

Edited March 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tarski]

Then there are those "people of faith" who fervently believe that the definitive "naturalistic" explanation for the Book of Mormon will be forthcoming someday; and whose faith in this as yet unwritten just-so story refuses to be shaken by the fact that every anti-Mormon theory of Book of Mormon origins so far produced has failed to provide what they are looking for.

Regards,

Pahoran

We don't need a definitive naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon anymore than we need one for the revelations of James Strang or O Milagre do Sol.

A wealth of mundane plausibilities is enough.

Of course, I routinely move on even when I can't think of any explanations--for example after a David Copperfield show.

[Chris Smith]

One thing I know about Chris is that he is intellectually honest and argues in good faith.

I think he presents both sides fairly even if he is wrong 99% of the time.

Nah, make that 100%.

Haha! Thanks, I guess.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Chris Smith