Terryl Givens Letter To A Doubter

[Helen47]

Is it possible to intellectually prove or disprove the LDS claims. ? Most of the scholars on MormonScholarsTestify were born in the LDS church. Do family ties make us dismiss evidence that might challenge our beliefs. As an outsider, former insider, I find LDS have a different Mormonspeak for those who leave and those who never have been members. Mormonism has become a side hobby for me now, something which I now and then try to keep up with. I have read Brodie, Bushman and Vogel. What puzzled me most was polygamy. How could there have been any chance of romantic love among all the wives? Did the wives achieve satisfaction in their physical relationship. Did the wives compare notes. Some women's physical needs are great than others. There were no LDS sex therapist's back then.

[Kevin Christensen]

In the Old Testament you have murder, rape, incest, adultary and ethnic cleansing. You have wisdom literature. You have Jonah actaully trying to change God's mind. You have people like David who seem to have so much promise ends up failing. The Book of Ruth is a story of seduction. Nothing in the Book of Mormon seems anything like the OT, which seems to me to point to it's 19th century origins.

The Old Testament as we have it was formed in response to two key upheavals. The first came in the reforms of Josiah and the Deuteronomists, which Lehi sees, and Jacob 4 talks about directly. The second came with the rise of Christianity, and the canon as we have it was selected and edited in response to the rise of Christianity. Margaret Barker has an excellent essay on this that ought to be read alongside 1 Nephi 13.

What is interesting then, is how and why the Book of Mormon is different from the Old Testament. I started delving into that here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6

Alyson Von Feldt explored the Pre-exilic Wisdom tradition here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=74

And of course, much of the Book of Mormon is a Mesoamerican record:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=27&num=5&id=526

Sorenson is has treated this topic at greater length elsewhere, and his forthcoming magnum opus deals with it.

And of course, there are all sorts of interesting ways to compare the Book of Mormon with what we have in the Old Testament, from quotation and variation, type scenes, poetic forms, prophetic call patterns, legal issues, E Source indications, and Northern Kingdom traditions, etc.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[TAO]

Is it possible to intellectually prove or disprove the LDS claims.

It's possible to provide evidence one way or the other, but most of the claims don't really conclude with proof or disproof, no. History, especially ancient history, just isn't a perfectly certain subject, I'm afraid to say.

Most of the scholars on MormonScholarsTestify were born in the LDS church.

MST is just to show there are Mormon Scholars. It's not to say 'you should agree with such because there is scholars'. It was a counter-claim to an implied criticism by some critics that reasoanble scholars were not Mormon. So we provided some.

Do family ties make us dismiss evidence that might challenge our beliefs.

Of course they do! But so does our social ties. And so do our philisophical ideas. And so does our conception of reality. Nearly everything effects our ability to deal with contrary evidence, in one way or another. Family just happens to be one of them. And, I must say, for apologists, it tends to be de-emphasized; we tend to look for other things instead.

As an outsider, former insider, I find LDS have a different Mormonspeak for those who leave and those who never have been members. Mormonism has become a side hobby for me now, something which I now and then try to keep up with. I have read Brodie, Bushman and Vogel. What puzzled me most was polygamy. How could there have been any chance of romantic love among all the wives?

That's pretty simple. Mind over matter. With enough willpower, you can make a good situation (or a bad one) out of pretty much anything. I'd suspect that some felt romantic love, others did not. And I suspect that wasn't really an issue of polygamy in specifics, rather an overall one.

Edited November 2, 2012 by TAO

[Calm]

It's possible to provide evidence one way or the other, but most of the claims don't really conclude with proof or disproof, no. History, especially ancient history, just isn't a perfectly certain subject, I'm afraid to say.

MST is just to show there are Mormon Scholars. It's not to say 'you should agree with such because there is scholars'. It was a counter-claim to an implied criticism by some critics that reasoanble scholars were not Mormon. So we provided some.

Of course they do! But so does our social ties. And so do our philisophical ideas. And so does our conception of reality. Nearly everything effects our ability to deal with contrary evidence, in one way or another. Family just happens to be one of them. And, I must say, for apologists, it tends to be de-emphasized; we tend to look for other things instead.

That's pretty simple. Mind over matter. With enough willpower, you can make a good situation (or a bad one) out of pretty much anything.

Well observed.

[Nemesis]

What puzzled me most was polygamy. How could there have been any chance of romantic love among all the wives? Did the wives achieve satisfaction in their physical relationship. Did the wives compare notes. Some women's physical needs are great than others. There were no LDS sex therapist's back then.

Do not turn this into a sex thread. We don't allow speculation on such things on this board.

Thanks,

Nemesis

[Bikeemikey]

The author fails to prove that the Book of Mormon either supports or refutes the teaching that Lamanites are or are not the

principal ancestors of the American Indians. Maybe the church had some other reason to remove it from the newer prints.

If someone has some concrete reason why it was removed, please let us know.

Regards,

Jim

It was removed because it should never have been there - seems simple enough.

[volgadon]

In the Old Testament you have murder, rape, incest, adultary and ethnic cleansing. You have wisdom literature. You have Jonah actaully trying to change God's mind. You have people like David who seem to have so much promise ends up failing. The Book of Ruth is a story of seduction. Nothing in the Book of Mormon seems anything like the OT, which seems to me to point to it's 19th century origins.

Based on this post, might I recommend that you reread both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon? Ruth, for example, is not really a story of seduction. It is a story of kinship and covenant.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Ruth, for example, is not really a story of seduction. It is a story of kinship and covenant.

One for which I have a new-found appreciation based on personal experience.

[noel00]

See Protected Texts. "uncovered his feet" means she had sex with Boaz

[Calm]

See Protected Texts. "uncovered his feet" means she had sex with Boaz

And so?

[DBMormon]

The author fails to prove that the Book of Mormon either supports or refutes the teaching that Lamanites are or are not the

principal ancestors of the American Indians. Maybe the church had some other reason to remove it from the newer prints.

If someone has some concrete reason why it was removed, please let us know.

Regards,

Jim

Seriously, you are unable to acknowledge here the obvious. People will continue to struggle in this church's history and theology as long as members hold onto incorrect doctrines, speculations, and gospel hobbies simply because Joseph Smith or another well meaning leader decided to announce or share something as Doctrine that in reality was completely..... Non-Doctrinal.

If we as a church are going to move forward we have to be able to widdle out incorrect things and not hold onto them out of allegiance to the the leaders of the church in instances where they mis-spoke.

All native americans are not Lamaintes, all samoans are not lamanites, all polynesians are not lamanites... it was a wrong, non-doctrinal, incorrect teaching.... we have to let it go... The church as a whole has though Elder Echo-Hawk seemed to imply that he holds the old view in his recent conference address though.

[Tacenda]

It was implied by Pres. Uchtdorf a couple months ago while he was speaking to some children, can't remember where now, and told them they were Lamanites. So it's still spoken of.

[DBMormon]

And it is used incorrectly. One can have all the faith in the world but the amount and differences in Langauges and the problem with populations makes the Book of Mormon unhistorical if we cling to old incorrect paradigms. Elder B.H. Roberts had the same problem.

Now there is a solution though unreasonable I think. That while there were multiple peoples and cultures here already when Lehi and his group arrived, the all indians are lamanites, is still plausible assuming that the Lamanites from 421 AD till now have interbred with every tribe and people asscociated with them and that in each tribe and people that DNA has mixed with every single one of them. But then we are back the the DNA problem being a real issue if we take this approach.

In my mind the First Presidentcy and Q12 would have one of their meetings. There would be a discussion and an agreement would be found that this teaching and all others will no longer be taught by them and that those down the line will be instructed to let this teaching go... obviously I live in a non-reality world where this is not feasible.

No bitterness here just hate to see the next generation have the same problems to work through.

[volgadon]

See Protected Texts. "uncovered his feet" means she had sex with Boaz

That is one interpretation. Another is that Ruth was hinting (though non too delicately) at Boaz's duty to her as her kinsman, a duty which he had neglected. I find this interpretation more convincing in light of the text and context.

The chapter is rife with sexual tension, and double entendres (used non-jocularly) which make more sense if sex hadn't occured. There is also verse 9, which is her petition to Boaz to wed her, as he is her goel, redeemer, a distinct term of kinship duty. What impresses Boaz most in the text is Ruth's devotion to the kinship ties that were hers by adoption into the covenant, as a result of marriage. He also has to overcome an obstacle in the shape of a nearer kin before he can make Ruth his.

Even were it the case that they had sex then and there, that doesn't make the story about seduction. Seduction certainly played a role, but the entire book of Ruth is built around the duties and devotion of kinship and covenant, especially the virtue of hesed, grace or acts of loving-kindness, defining the true adherent of a covenant.

[Calm]

All native americans are not Lamaintes, all samoans are not lamanites, all polynesians are not lamanites... it was a wrong, non-doctrinal, incorrect teaching.... we have to let it go... The church as a whole has though Elder Echo-Hawk seemed to imply that he holds the old view in his recent conference address though.

If all Europeans are likely to be descendants of Charlemagne, what is your reasoning for not all native americans...except perhaps some very isolated cases...not being descendants of Laman or of someone who was identified as a Lamanite during BoM times?

But then we are back the the DNA problem being a real issue if we take this approach.

Why? There is a study from Iceland that demonstrates conclusively that DNA from known ancestors of 300 years ago or so IIRC has been lost without a trace, so why can this not happen in the case of the Lehites? Edited November 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[noel00]

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/whadra/Page_7158/Elizabeth%20Peters,%20The%20Ruth-Narrative%20and%20the%20Redemption%20of%20the%20Role%20of%20Kinsman-Redeemer.pdf

Read pages 30-33

[volgadon]

http://www.hillsdale...an-Redeemer.pdf

Read pages 30-33

"The narrative allows for a double reading – either a literally sexual one or a suggestively sexual one. While this thesis adopts the premise that the author can do more rhetorically to demonstrate Boaz’s actions as a better expression of the go’el if the narrative be read merely suggestively, Ruth does appear quite willing at the threshing floor to turn the story into an explicit one. The text lays out the scene in a very sensual manner."

Although, I found quite a few howlers, such as Rabbi Yalkut Shimoni and Rabbi Zohar. I'm sure that they are every bit as knowledgable as their counterparts Revered Pilgrim's Progress and the Dalai Tibetan Book of the Dead.

[volgadon]

"The narrative allows for a double reading – either a literally sexual one or a suggestively sexual one. While this thesis adopts the premise that the author can do more rhetorically to demonstrate Boaz’s actions as a better expression of the go’el if the narrative be read merely suggestively, Ruth does appear quite willing at the threshing floor to turn the story into an explicit one. The text lays out the scene in a very sensual manner."

Although, I found quite a few howlers, such as Rabbi Yalkut Shimoni and Rabbi Zohar. I'm sure that they are every bit as knowledgable as their counterparts Revered Pilgrim's Progress and the Dalai Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Oops, should be Reverend, not Revered.

[Brade]

Be that as it may, and for various reasons (in addition to spiritual weakness), people can receive a negative answer. It is quite conceivable that God may think it best for certain individuals to travel for a time on an alternative spiritual path--a preparatory path that may eventual lead, when they are ready, to the fullness of his gospel, whether in this life or the next.

Do you believe it's possible that your devotion to Mormonism may be God setting you on an alternative spiritual path -- a preparatory path that may eventually lead, when you are ready, to the fullness of his gospel, whether in this life or the next, like, say, Scientology?

[TAO]

Do you believe it's possible that your devotion to Mormonism may be God setting you on an alternative spiritual path -- a preparatory path that may eventually lead, when you are ready, to the fullness of his gospel, whether in this life or the next, like, say, Scientology?

Of course it could. But until it does, I'm going to keep believing what I do. There is a point where you have to say 'forget the possibilities, let's work on our experiences now'.

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . . though Elder Echo-Hawk seemed to imply that he holds the old view in his recent conference address though.

Everyone hears what he wants to hear>

I particularly liked Elder Larry Echo Hawk's description of his special encounter with a fearsome Drill Instructor while in USMC Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. The DI showed him tremendous respect and handled his Book of Mormon with great care and reverence.

Elder L. Tom Perry was also a Marine, and he talked during the last Conference about an experience he had.

Pres. Monson even told a Marine story at Conference last Spring.

The US Marine Corps birthday is coming up on Nov 10. Semper fi and hoo-ra!!

[Robert F. Smith]

If all Europeans are likely to be descendants of Charlemagne, what is your reasoning for not all native americans...except perhaps some very isolated cases...not being descendants of Laman or of someone who was identified as a Lamanite during BoM times?

Why? There is a study from Iceland that demonstrates conclusively that DNA from known ancestors of 300 years ago or so IIRC has been lost without a trace, so why can this not happen in the case of the Lehites?

In the case of the Icelanders, we are dealing with a relatively homogeneous modern population descended from an Old Norse population. The fact that various disasters killed off many families, doesn't mean that the basic Norse genetic pattern is lost. Only that some particular lineages have no descendants.

One sees this also among the Maori of New Zealand:

Genome sequences taken from Maori buried 700 years ago reveals that three of the four individuals examined had mtDNA unrelated to any living Maori. This means that it is possible for some matrilineages to completely disappear over a span of just a few centuries. You can read about it at:

http://www.scienceda...21022162552.htm

http://www.eurekaler...o-cmg101912.php

Edited November 6, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

In the case of the Icelanders, we are dealing with a relatively homogeneous modern population descended from an Old Norse population. The fact that various disasters killed off many families, doesn't mean that the basic Norse genetic pattern is lost. Only that some particular lineages have no descendants.

One sees this also among the Maori of New Zealand:

Genome sequences taken from Maori buried 700 years ago reveals that three of the four individuals examined had mtDNA unrelated to any living Maori. This means that it is possible for some matrilineages to completely disappear over a span of just a few centuries. You can read about it at:

http://www.scienceda...21022162552.htm

http://www.eurekaler...o-cmg101912.php

Would not the Icelander study apply to one family's line among many others, as would be the case if the Lehites entered a populated land?

And just to be clear, when you said "no descendants" you mean "no genetic descendants", right?.... that there may be known actual blood descendants of these individuals but the genetic DNA line has been lost, they don't share DNA markers with their descendants.

Edited November 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Brade]

There is a point where you have to say 'forget the possibilities, let's work on our experiences now'.

+1, and that's basically why I'm not an active Mormon anymore.

[Robert F. Smith]

In the Old Testament you have murder, rape, incest, adultary and ethnic cleansing. You have wisdom literature. You have Jonah actaully trying to change God's mind. You have people like David who seem to have so much promise ends up failing. The Book of Ruth is a story of seduction. Nothing in the Book of Mormon seems anything like the OT, which seems to me to point to it's 19th century origins.

You couldn't be more wrong, Helen,

In his translation-commentary on Ruth for the Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1975), for example, Edward F. Campbell emphasized the key-word knit of covenant terms throughout the book, while Yehuda Radday displayed the microchiastic sub-structures and overall macrochiastic structure for Ruth in his chapter of John Welch’s Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981/reprint Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1999), which focuses on Ruth 3:1-3, which Radday says is the turning point and raison d’être of the book. Indeed, at that very central turning point, one finds an ABCDCBA microchiasm at 3:1-5, which focuses on the following sequence, which can be compared with other esoteric biblical passages:

Wash thyself . . ., and anoint thee, and put on thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down (go up LXX) to the [threshing] floor:

One finds nearly the same sequence in 2 Samuel 12:20, Exodus 29:4-7, Leviticus 8:6-13, and in many other biblical texts.

The casual reader of these parallel texts probably misses the main points: Campbell says outright, however, that the 12th century B.C. goren “threshing-floor” and granary at Tell Gezer (where I excavated with Joe Seger in the Spring of 1970) is on the highest point of the Tell in the acropolis, on the west side, so that the LXX “go up” in Ruth 3:3 is of some significance, whatever the reality in the ancient Bethlehem of Ruth and Boaz. R. J. Clifford goes further, saying that the goren was sacred in Canaanite religion, Canaanite Dan’el judging there on the goren at the city gate (Ugaritic 2 Aqht:V:4-8, text A = CT 17.5.6-8 ). Moreover, the “gate” of a city as a place of public meeting and judicial process must not be overlooked elsewhere in the Bible (cf. I Kings 22, Jeremiah 15:7). The Massoretic consonantal text at Ruth 3:2 has hsʿrym, which can be read either “the barley” or “the gates,” with “house” in parallel to “gates” in both Hebrew and Ugaritic (Psalm 122:1-2; ʿAnat:II:3-4; UT 1007:5-6) – the “threshing-floor” of Araunah/Ornan being the location on which David built an altar (II Samuel 24:11-25, I Chronicles 21:15-29), and on which Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, “the entrance gates of many Israelite cities” were the locus for sacred bamot (“high places”; bama “high place”), as at Tell Dan. Indeed, the name “Boaz” itself (the hero in the book of Ruth) is that of one of the twin pillars at the entrance to the first room of the Solomonic Temple (whose tri-megaron style and distylos in antis motifs are common to temples throughout much of the ancient Near East). In the book of Ruth, Boaz sleeps like Adam in the garden of abundance and awakes to find his “Eve” (Ruth), offering herself as his mate. Campbell notes that Boaz even takes the part of God (Ruth 2:12/3:9, and 2:10,13, “my lord”), and gives “grace” as if he were God (i.e., YHWH’s grace is seen in the grace of Boaz & Ruth). This clearly reflects an ancient pageant or esoteric & dramatic reenactment.

Even the Clothing sequences at Ruth 3:3,15, Job 1:20, Leviticus 8:7,13, and Exodus 29:7, can be interpreted in light of Richard Medina’s observation that “[t]he wearing of garments are also part of divine protection (Gen 2:25; 3:7; 3:21); hence the removing of them means loss of it.” (in Die Welt des Orients, 38:204)

Finally, the reversal of oath formulae in Ruth 1:17 ∥3:13 calls attention to what Jan de Waard and William A. Smalley say about Amos 6:8: the formula therein reflects the ancient rite of touching one’s throat during oath-taking (citing examples from Mari). The Jerusalem Bible likewise notes the same slit-the-throat or other, similar blood-oath signum as applied in such places as I Kings 19:2. The late anti-Mormon Rev. Wesley P. Walters stated long ago that Genesis 15:17-18 and Jeremiah 34:18 imply an imprecatory oath by their “covenant between the pieces” of a slaughtered animal that “may it happen to me if I don’t keep the covenant!” This is the standard interpretation in biblical studies. Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman, for example, claim that to “make (cut) a covenant” (Hosea 2:20, Genesis 15, Jeremiah 34) refers to precisely this as “part of a sacrificial or oath-taking ritual that went with covenant-making.” Indeed, this sort of ritual continues today among the Arabs, and (during the Iraq war) local American military commanders found themselves frequently partaking of a sheep sacrifice to solemnize agreements made in certain localities in Iraq.

Please note that none of the individuals named above are Mormons.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Robert F. Smith