Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Here's a great column today from my longtime friend and Deseret News colleague Jerry Johnston on futile efforts over the years to torpedo the Book of Mormon.Incidentally, Ron Howard was set to direct a film based on Krakauer's book. It has been three years since that was publicized. I wonder how the project's going. Edited May 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Popular Post Nevo Posted May 1, 2014 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) . Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo 6
Bob Crockett Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Here's a great column today from my longtime friend and Deseret News columnist Jerry Johnston on futile efforts over the years to torpedo the Book of Mormon. Incidentally, Ron Howard was set to direct a film based on Krakauer's book. It has been three years since that was publicized. I wonder how the project's going.On Krakauer, I represented one of the Laffertys in connection with the capital phase. I was pretty mystified that Krakauer got the Lafferty story so wrong, by relying principally on one interview. And, as I recall, he relied upon an account of southern Utah murders committed by Indians which he pinned to Mormons, and his source had been so seriously discredited. And I liked Into Thin Air. But, I've quoted him in my publications. I wanted to do a review of Under but never got around to it. Edited May 1, 2014 by Bob Crockett 2
USU78 Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Incidentally, Ron Howard was set to direct a film based on Krakauer's book. It has been three years since that was publicized. I wonder how the project's going. IMDB has only this to say: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1998372/ Perhaps somebody else has the paid version.
mrmendoza Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I was surprised and dissapointed when a young friend of mine who recently graduated with a degree in history said he read that book and it gave him a very negitive view of the Church. As one who likes to study history also I had many discussions with him about how history is in the eye of the historian, and that the best way to study any historical subject (Strictly as an amature.) is to read and study the subject from many different authors because each writer has different points of view. That was before he told me about that book and the negitive impact it had on him. The shame is many people never bother to look at any other point of view after they've read that kind of trash!
Tacenda Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 IMDB has only this to say: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1998372/ Perhaps somebody else has the paid version.The screen writer for it would have been a Mormon, Dustin Lance Black, who is gay. He also worked on the documentary "Prop 8". I just happen to see it on wiki. Here's a c/p of part of it.... "In advance of the book's release, managing director of the Church History Department of the LDS Church Richard E. Turley argued that the book contained mistakes and incorrect assertions and accused Krakauer of "condemn[ing] religion generally."[6] In the 2004 paperback edition of the book, Krakauer responded to these allegations.[7]Further criticism from Mike Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the LDS Church, who condemned Krakauer's use of religious "zealots" to draw violent conclusions about all Mormons. Upon finishing the book, Otterson claims, "One could be forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day Saint, including your friendly Mormon neighbor, has a tendency to violence. And so Krakauer unwittingly puts himself in the same camp as those who believe every German is a Nazi, every Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist."[6]
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 The screen writer for it would have been a Mormon, Dustin Lance Black, who is gay. He also worked on the documentary "Prop 8". I just happen to see it on wiki. Here's a c/p of part of it.... "In advance of the book's release, managing director of the Church History Department of the LDS Church Richard E. Turley argued that the book contained mistakes and incorrect assertions and accused Krakauer of "condemn[ing] religion generally."[6] In the 2004 paperback edition of the book, Krakauer responded to these allegations.[7]Further criticism from Mike Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the LDS Church, who condemned Krakauer's use of religious "zealots" to draw violent conclusions about all Mormons. Upon finishing the book, Otterson claims, "One could be forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day Saint, including your friendly Mormon neighbor, has a tendency to violence. And so Krakauer unwittingly puts himself in the same camp as those who believe every German is a Nazi, every Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist."[6]This is about the book itself. I'm wondering about the status of the movie that is reportedly being made based on the book.
Tacenda Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) This is about the book itself. I'm wondering about the status of the movie that is reportedly being made based on the book.http://www.dustinlanceblack.com/date/2012/03 I have too much time on my hands, I'm reading through Dustin's blog to see if he says anything. When I first read "Under the Banner of Heaven", I was one of those that didn't stop to think that some of the details could be wrong or it was sensationalism, only thought I for sure belonged to a cult. I'm a lot less upset nowadays, but when heard it was going to be a film, was sort of glad because I wanted others to see what I thought I saw. But this is the first time I knew about the screenwriter and that he was LDS, not a practicing one I'm sure. But it makes sense it would be him, he also wrote for "Big Love" also. I also remember Tom Hanks saying that Mormonism was anti American once because of our views on gay marriage. ETA: I'm not hoping for it to be a film now, I can't imagine it onscreen, to horrific, and that was a long time ago that I was thinking craziness. ETA again: Here is what his projects look like currently. http://www.dustinlanceblack.com/menu/development I believe he could be labeled a the fox in the henhouse, I don't think the movie if made, will be a big hit, but you never know. But it's clear he's against the churches views gay marriage. Edited May 1, 2014 by Tacenda
bluebell Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 http://www.dustinlanceblack.com/date/2012/03 I have too much time on my hands, I'm reading through Dustin's blog to see if he says anything. When I first read "Under the Banner of Heaven", I was one of those that didn't stop to think that some of the details could be wrong or it was sensationalism, only thought I for sure belonged to a cult. I'm a lot less upset nowadays, but when heard it was going to be a film, was sort of glad because I wanted others to see what I thought I saw. But this is the first time I knew about the screenwriter and that he was LDS, not a practicing one I'm sure. But it makes sense it would be him, he also wrote for "Big Love" also. I also remember Tom Hanks saying that Mormonism was anti American once because of our views on gay marriage. ETA: I'm not hoping for it to be a film now, I can't imagine it onscreen, to horrific, and that was a long time ago that I was thinking craziness. ETA again: Here is what his projects look like currently. http://www.dustinlanceblack.com/menu/development I believe he could be labeled a the fox in the henhouse, I don't think the movie if made, will be a big hit, but you never know. But it's clear he's against the churches views gay marriage. I like Krakaur's books in general, but once i read Under the Banner.. and saw how loose a lot of his conclusions were, and how he clearly did not get some very basic things right, it really made me doubt his other books. Now i wonder what he got wrong in those as well. Authors that you can't quite trust are really difficult. 2
cdowis Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) The last attack against the BOM was the DNA argument. It was new, original and looked legitimate, but when you looked under the hood it was based on flawed assumptions. Later on it was shown to be based on bad science. The evidence simply did not support the conclusions, so they are now back to the old, "no horses before Columbus", etc arguments. Edited May 2, 2014 by cdowis 1
Anijen Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 ...study the subject from many different authors because each writer has different points of view. This is the correct method. When studying history always ask (and try to answer) who is the authors audience and what is the authors objective. Bluebell; I like Krakaur's books in general, but once i read Under the Banner.. and saw how loose a lot of his conclusions were, and how he clearly did not get some very basic things right, it really made me doubt his other books. Now i wonder what he got wrong in those as well. Authors that you can't quite trust are really difficult. True. When I read papers, journals etc. one of my OCD like impulses is to check out sources that are used. I once traced a Brant Gardner source to John Sorenson who used it (the source) by the Christian Science Monitor who used it from two books. It turned out to be a very reliable source and satisfied my tendency to check out the credibility of the article. I have did this so much it sometimes is distracting to my professors or to those I have promised papers to to only be way late, past dead lines etc. I highly suggest this practice to those who subscribe to a heartland model and check out any of Wayne Mays or Rodney Meldrum's sources and the results will honestly surprise you. You will find fake diplomas, racist bigots, Socialist/Marxist editors and much more. After reading Krakauer I came away with the exact same conclusion as Bluebell. The family of Christopher Mcandless (from Into the Wild fame)shares my views on Krakouer as well.. Journalist are sometimes good historians and sometimes not and their agenda comes through rather than the history they are writing on. A good journalist in my opinion is Erik Larson his books and mainly his sources pass my test and I find his history books very well written. 2
Tiki Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) This is the correct method. When studying history always ask (and try to answer) who is the authors audience and what is the authors objective. True. When I read papers, journals etc. one of my OCD like impulses is to check out sources that are used. I once traced a Brant Gardner source to John Sorenson who used it (the source) by the Christian Science Monitor who used it from two books. It turned out to be a very reliable source and satisfied my tendency to check out the credibility of the article. I have did this so much it sometimes is distracting to my professors or to those I have promised papers to to only be way late, past dead lines etc.I highly suggest this practice to those who subscribe to a heartland model and check out any of Wayne Mays or Rodney Meldrum's sources and the results will honestly surprise you. You will find fake diplomas, racist bigots, Socialist/Marxist editors and much more.After reading Krakauer I came away with the exact same conclusion as Bluebell. The family of Christopher Mcandless (from Into the Wild fame)shares my views on Krakouer as well.. Journalist are sometimes good historians and sometimes not and their agenda comes through rather than the history they are writing on. A good journalist in my opinion is Erik Larson his books and mainly his sources pass my test and I find his history books very well written.Cute. Guilt by association with Krakauer and playing the Race and Commie Cards.Sorenson's sources for his Mesoamerica 'artifacts' may laudable, but that doesn't make his theory or premise accurate.Morphing Israelites into some Pseudo-Maya isn't convincing. It smacks of desperation and pandering to critics like Krakauer. In fact Sorenson even stated he based his theory on appeasing the critics who claimed Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon based on his personal experiences, so he moved its geographical location to Mesoamerica to negate that false claim. Edited May 2, 2014 by Tiki
Calm Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 "In fact Sorenson even stated he based his theory on appeasing the critics who claimed Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon based on his personal experiences, so he moved its geographical location to Mesoamerica to negate that false claim. "CFR please 1
Pahoran Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Cute. Guilt by association with Krakauer and playing the Race and Commie Cards. Sorenson's sources for his Mesoamerica 'artifacts' may laudable, but that doesn't make his theory or premise accurate. Morphing Israelites into some Pseudo-Maya isn't convincing. It smacks of desperation and pandering to critics like Krakauer. In fact Sorenson even stated he based his theory on appeasing the critics who claimed Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon based on his personal experiences, so he moved its geographical location to Mesoamerica to negate that false claim. CFR for that last claim, please. Just FYI, some sort of limited geography has been the bog standard view among faithful scholars for at least the last half century. The distances and populations in the Book of Mormon just don't stack up to a continental geography. But Sorenson, IIRC, focused on Mesoamerica because it fits the book's internal geography. In fact, I believe he started with a conceptual map based on the internal geography and went looking for a real world match. Which the big open prairies, southward-flowing rivers and annual snowfall of the "heartland" doesn't provide. Regards, Pahoran 2
Tiki Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) CFR for that last claim, please.Just FYI, some sort of limited geography has been the bog standard view among faithful scholars for at least the last half century. The distances and populations in the Book of Mormon just don't stack up to a continental geography.But Sorenson, IIRC, focused on Mesoamerica because it fits the book's internal geography. In fact, I believe he started with a conceptual map based on the internal geography and went looking for a real world match.Which the big open prairies, southward-flowing rivers and annual snowfall of the "heartland" doesn't provide.Regards,PahoranCFR? You bet. Dr. Sorenson wrote this in this article on the MI How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?There is a corollary to this point. The statements in the Book of Mormon describe a land of limited extent (a few hundred miles long) that had certain specific physical features (in configuration, topography, bodies of water, climate, and geology). Analyses of the text of the scripture in the last six decades have made this clear. Those characteristics fit remarkably well with the geography of Mesoamerica. Yet later statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed that the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites. In other words, his personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates. If we were to suppose, with many of Smith's critics, that he somehow wrote the Book of Mormon out of his own mind and knowledge, it is difficult to see how he would have interpreted this aspect of his "own literary work" inconsistently. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=9 underlines and bold add for emphasis You may think Dr. Sorenson based his theory solely on geographical attributes, but he also sided with the critics to pump up his theory.This entire article is laced with it - his point as to how could Joseph Smith have written so accurately about a civilization he knew nothing about until given a copy of John Lloyd Stephens book.Well then! So much for the crtics claiming Joseph Smith wrote the book based on his knowledge! My Theory not only fits the geography but destroys Joseph Smith's critics as well. In other words, Dr. Sorenson claims Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about - just like his critics claim. If there's any Kraukauer movie which includes criticizing the Church, its producer would be wise to run this statement - marquee style - at the beginning:"Joseph Smith's personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates" Edited May 2, 2014 by Tiki
canard78 Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 The last attack against the BOM was the DNA argument. It was new, original and looked legitimate, but when you looked under the hood it was based on flawed assumptions. Later on it was shown to be based on bad science. The evidence simply did not support the conclusions, so they are now back to the old, "no horses before Columbus", etc arguments. Wouldn't the recent "Late War" and word count claims be the most recent attack on the Book of Mormon? I know word counts have been done before, but the Late War was new news to me.
canard78 Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Here's a great column today from my longtime friend and Deseret News columnist Jerry Johnston on futile efforts over the years to torpedo the Book of Mormon. Was there anything of substance in this? It just seemed a "yaa-boo, we're still here" piece. I wasn't sure what else his point was.
Pahoran Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) CFR? You bet. Dr. Sorenson wrote this in this article on the MI How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization? There is a corollary to this point. The statements in the Book of Mormon describe a land of limited extent (a few hundred miles long) that had certain specific physical features (in configuration, topography, bodies of water, climate, and geology). Analyses of the text of the scripture in the last six decades have made this clear. Those characteristics fit remarkably well with the geography of Mesoamerica. Yet later statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed that the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites. In other words, his personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates. If we were to suppose, with many of Smith's critics, that he somehow wrote the Book of Mormon out of his own mind and knowledge, it is difficult to see how he would have interpreted this aspect of his "own literary work" inconsistently. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=9Right. So Sorenson said what I said he said, and not what you attributed to him. I remind you that your original claim was: In fact Sorenson even stated he based his theory on appeasing the critics who claimed Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon based on his personal experiences, so he moved its geographical location to Mesoamerica to negate that false claim.Except that Sorenson made no such statement. His theory doesn't "appease" Joseph's critics at all. It refutes them. So what you claim he said "in fact" is merely your own rather heavy-handed spin, isn't it? In fact, one could even say that you made it up. You can't accuse someone of saying black is white, then quote them saying black is not white, then wave your hand at it and shout, "See? See? In other words he says it right there!" Because he said no such thing. You may think Dr. Sorenson based his theory solely on geographical attributes, but he also sided with the critics to pump up his theory. This entire article is laced with it - his point as to how could Joseph Smith have written so accurately about a civilization he knew nothing about until given a copy of John Lloyd Stephens book. Well then! So much for the crtics claiming Joseph Smith wrote the book based on his knowledge! My Theory not only fits the geography but destroys Joseph Smith's critics as well. In other words, Dr. Sorenson claims Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about - just like his critics claim.underlines and bold added for emphasis. In case you haven't noticed, Tiki, those "other words" are yours, not Sorenson's. He did not say any such thing. But then again, you Meldrumites aren't really that good at reading. If you were, you'd realise that the Book of Mormon hasn't got any stars and stripes in it. Anywhere. And the Father of Waters flows in exactly the opposite direction of the Book of Mormon Sidon. If there's any Kraukauer movie which includes criticizing the Church, its producer would be wise to run this statement - marquee style - at the beginning: "Joseph Smith's personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates"While that might qualify as a "criticism" in the minds of some, thoughtful people will realise that it raises serious, even unanswerable, questions about naturalistic assumptions of Joseph Smith's authorship. And, just BTW: Kraksmoker knows even less about the Book of Mormon than you do. His contribution to Mormon letters is an absurd conspiracy-theory tale about how Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadow Massacre. And that movie's already been done. Regards, Pahoran Edited May 2, 2014 by Pahoran 3
Bikeemikey Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 CFR? You bet. Dr. Sorenson wrote this in this article on the MIHow Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?There is a corollary to this point. The statements in the Book of Mormon describe a land of limited extent (a few hundred miles long) that had certain specific physical features (in configuration, topography, bodies of water, climate, and geology). Analyses of the text of the scripture in the last six decades have made this clear. Those characteristics fit remarkably well with the geography of Mesoamerica. Yet later statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed that the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites. In other words, his personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates. If we were to suppose, with many of Smith's critics, that he somehow wrote the Book of Mormon out of his own mind and knowledge, it is difficult to see how he would have interpreted this aspect of his "own literary work" inconsistently. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=9underlines and bold add for emphasisYou may think Dr. Sorenson based his theory solely on geographical attributes, but he also sided with the critics to pump up his theory.This entire article is laced with it - his point as to how could Joseph Smith have written so accurately about a civilization he knew nothing about until given a copy of John Lloyd Stephens book.Well then! So much for the crtics claiming Joseph Smith wrote the book based on his knowledge! My Theory not only fits the geography but destroys Joseph Smith's critics as well.In other words, Dr. Sorenson claims Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about - just like his critics claim.Given that your last couple of posts show you lack basic reading comprehension skills I'm gojng to go with sorensons multi-decade thoroughly researched and well sourced theory over yours.The degree to which you misrepresent and misunderstand what Sorensen said in order to arrive at your claim that he came up with the meso-american setting to appease critics who claimed JS was just writing about his surroundings is embarrassing. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Was there anything of substance in this? It just seemed a "yaa-boo, we're still here" piece. I wasn't sure what else his point was.The Book of Mormon having withstood vigorous attacks across many generations, each in its turn having been expected to annihilate the book's credibility, <is> a substantive point, in my view. This thread has already sparked a number of thoughtful posts and shows no sign of dying yet. But you are welcome to ignore this or anything else I post. I will care not one whit. Edited May 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
why me Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't go so far as to say that the critics' efforts to discredit the Book of Mormon have been completely ineffectual—I think there have been some palpable hits over the years (and even in recent months)—but, in my view, the Book of Mormon continues to hold up remarkably well as an text.There have been some palpable hits against the bible too. Religious books will take hits. It comes with faith and a lack of evidence that such a book confirms the existence of god. Interestingly, the book of mormon is rather violent. And yet, the historical people that are portrayed in the book were a violent people in reality, in fact extremely violent. So, the violence in the book holds up very well against the historical facts. Edited May 2, 2014 by why me
Bob Crockett Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 The Book of Mormon having withstood vigorous attacks across many generations, each in its turn having been expected to annihilate the book's credibility, <is> a substantive point, in my view. This thread has already sparked a number of thoughtful posts and shows no sign of dying yet.But you are welcome to ignore this or anything else I post. I will care not one whit.It seems to be Joseph Smith would have needed major help to falsify the Book of Mormon. But nobody ever came forward. Even John Whitmer, who recanted on his 8 witnesses testimony, was rather compelling. He complained he couldn't read the script on the plates he turned, so how could he really tell if it was ancient or not.
why me Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 It seems to be Joseph Smith would have needed major help to falsify the Book of Mormon. But nobody ever came forward. Even John Whitmer, who recanted on his 8 witnesses testimony, was rather compelling. He complained he couldn't read the script on the plates he turned, so how could he really tell if it was ancient or not.Did John Whitmer recant? i don't think so. http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_whitmer_john_testimony.html It seems that he remained faithful to the end.
Tacenda Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) It doesn't matter if the BoM is from gold plates, just as the Bible might not have factual information everywhere in it. And just as the Bible is written by various prophets, apostles and other individuals, so is the BoM written by prophets in the latter days, IMO. Isn't a prophet one who gets revelation? JS and those that may have helped such as the scribes could be prophetic. And if both are disproven, which they will never be, it won't matter because truth can be in individuals that learn from inspired books. There should always be Christians and LDS Christians, as long as there is good in them, therefore both canons of scripture should live on. I think that's how the ball rolls, but maybe I'm not faithful enough. Edited May 2, 2014 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts