The Marvels Of The Book Of Mormon

[Calm]

But Alma does not teach one substance/essence as creedal Christians do as part of their definition of the Trinity.

Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

What I find interesting about the Book of Mormon is the teaching of the Trinity in 556 BC one thousand years approximately before the claim the trinity was formulated in the 4th and 5th century. 2 Nephi 31:21 has the date 556 BC and it teaches three eternal persons separate and distinct yet ONE GOD

There are a couple of problems with your claim:  First, Nephi beholds the Holy Spirit ("the Spirit of the Lord") "in the form of a man" who could speak "as a man" (1 Nephi 11:11), and, second, God himself is spoken of in Ether as an anthropomorphic flesh and blood person (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19).  The traditional Christian trinity only allows one embodied being in the group, namely Jesus.

 

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

.............................................................................................

The Great Apostasy was indeed accompanied by heretical adoption of the official doctrine of the Trinity, along with a number of other heresies in creedal Christianity, but this adoption of the false Trinity was made from already existing concepts in pagan Egyptian religion.  The place was Alexandria, Egypt, and the doctrine was a syncretic reinterpretation of the ancient Egyptian belief that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one (especially as enunciated by Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]).  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.  See Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Cornell Univ. Press, 2001), 177-180,238-239.   These sorts of tri-unities could be found not only in Middle Kingdom Egypt, but also at Canaanite Ugarit (G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 57 and note 80).

 

Both the New Testament and Book of Mormon speak only of a social trinity.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Alma 11:44]

But Alma does not teach one substance/essence as creedal Christians do as part of their definition of the Trinity.

substance and essence are just synonyms for HODHEAD

Substantia or Essence

There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God."

and that exactly what the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith taught until 1835

[Calm]

Did you read the links I posted?

[tagriffy]

Yours is a prime example of the near infinite capacity of the human mind to be able to rationalize and explain away virtually anything.

 

One could just as easily say yours is a prime example of the near infinite capacity for human gullibility. But that wouldn't do anything to advance the discussion either.

 

 

And since you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, I'm wondering if you would be equally nonchalant if the Lord one day told you nothing about the book is true? That seems likely because you have already rejected the testimonies of the Book of Mormon prophets which are presented most solemnly as authentic heart-felt expressions of real men.

 

I may or may not be nonchalant, but it's not like I haven't had to completely rebuild by belief system before. I managed to work my way through it before and that would give hope that I will be able to do it again. So I certainly wouldn't despair over it.

 

 

So then, since you believe large portions of the Book of Mormon are already untrue, the whole of it becomes nothing more than literary shifting sands. Where does one draw the line on its truthfulness and untruthfulness when in the end it turns out to be little more than a moralizing fairy tale for adults?

 

 

You choose.

 

 

How God could allow the following passage to be included in the Book of Mormon, while knowing full-well it's a an outrageous lie, is beyond anything I can imagine a God of truth would allow:

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 31)

 

 

The same way the gospels could portray Christ saying things that are outrageous lies on its face. Telling stories. Calling himself a door. Saying wine is blood and bread flesh. See post #84. God reaches out to us and uses any means necessary to get us to understand. That's the remarkable thing.

 

 

P.S. I'm wondering if you believe a real-live resurrected John the Baptist in actuality and in reality appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the Aaronic Priesthood?

 

 

Define "in actuality and in reality." If we were able to go back in time and take a video of the event, do I think we'd capture John the Baptist on tape? Probably not. Would I care? Not really. You seem to be under the impression that a vision is inferior to physical experience. I'm not.

[tagriffy]

What I said.

 

 

Okay. I was under a different, obviously mistaken impression. Do you wish to clarify?

 

Here is your  problem:  You are gloriously unaware of the detailed matrix of short distances in the BofM, and therefore unable to see how unrealistic your overall assessment is.

 

 

I haven't made an overall assessment yet, so it is impossible for it to be unrealistic. See post #64 where I argue contra Mormonmaniac that having to making a sea voyage to another part of the land doesn't say much about the actual distance and a "narrow neck of land" could refer to practically any isthmus. Then again in post #69 where I argue "exceedingly great distance" may not mean all that much either considering we're talking about a mass migration involving "an exceedingly great many people" (Helaman 3:3-4). My official position on the size of the land is that I have no official position on the size of the land.

 

 

I might accept an actual discussion of the full range of "real world" considerations applied to the matrix of short distances in the Book of Mormon -- which have been developed for over a generation by scholars -- but you have chosen thus far to ignore that larger conversation in books and articles by anthropologists and other students of the BofM.

 

By all means, cite your sources and specify what it is in the published arguments which you find wanting or speculative.  I'd be open to actual arguments pro or con, but you have yet to present any.

 

 

What I find wanting or speculative is placing any Book of Mormon location on a map without first digging up its location. Don't get me wrong here. The Mesoamerican model probably is the most plausible model that's been proposed. But if somebody does dig up Zarahemla and it turns out it was in present day Ohio, all that discussion and development will be instantly overturned in one stroke. And if Helam is then discovered in present day Florida, so much for "the detailed matrix of short distances" as well. It's not that I've ignored the conversation; it's that I recognize it for what it is--an educated guess based on what information is available.

[longview]

One could just as easily say yours is a prime example of the near infinite capacity for human gullibility. But that wouldn't do anything to advance the discussion either.

 

 

I may or may not be nonchalant, but it's not like I haven't had to completely rebuild by belief system before. I managed to work my way through it before and that would give hope that I will be able to do it again. So I certainly wouldn't despair over it.

 

 

You choose.

 

 

The same way the gospels could portray Christ saying things that are outrageous lies on its face. Telling stories. Calling himself a door. Saying wine is blood and bread flesh. See post #84. God reaches out to us and uses any means necessary to get us to understand. That's the remarkable thing.

 

 

Define "in actuality and in reality." If we were able to go back in time and take a video of the event, do I think we'd capture John the Baptist on tape? Probably not. Would I care? Not really. You seem to be under the impression that a vision is inferior to physical experience. I'm not.

I am amazed by the incoherency of your statements.  Only YOU can decide if you are nonchalant.  You have had to completely rebuild your belief system.  Now you are saying you probably will undergo another complete rebuild?  Do you know whether you are coming or going?  

[mfbukowski]

substance and essence are just synonyms for HODHEADSubstantia or EssenceThere were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God."and that exactly what the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith taught until 1835

Substance means being. Oh yeah. Perfectly clear

[Alma 11:44]

Substance means being. Oh yeah. Perfectly clear

You forgot to add GODHEAD to that mix was that intentional ?

[tagriffy]

I am amazed by the incoherency of your statements.  Only YOU can decide if you are nonchalant.  You have had to completely rebuild your belief system.  Now you are saying you probably will undergo another complete rebuild?  Do you know whether you are coming or going?  

 

I never said that. What I said was whatever my reaction, I'm not going to despair. Since I've had to completely rebuild my belief system before, I have hope I'll be able to do it again if it became necessary. That was in response to a question about what would happen if it became necessary.

[longview]

I never said that. What I said was whatever my reaction, I'm not going to despair. Since I've had to completely rebuild my belief system before, I have hope I'll be able to do it again if it became necessary. That was in response to a question about what would happen if it became necessary.

That is a relief.  Proceed with all deliberation!   

[Alma 11:44]

What I noticed about the Book of Mormon is all the Creedal statements reaffirming these Creeds, and I haven't found any disagreement with these ctreeds

2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

3 Nephi 11:17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.

Moroni 7:22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting , behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

2 Nephi 27:23

For behold, I am god; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.

2 Nephi 29:9

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever , and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Mormon 9:19

And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchanging Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.”

Hebrews 12: 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

2 Nephi 19:9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 7:22

For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

2 Nephi 25:29

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

Mosiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

3 Nephi 19:

18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.

Mosiah 5:15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

2 Nephi 11:6-7. "And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that save Christ should come all men must perish. For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time."

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.

Mosiah 4: 9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

"And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God" (1 Nephi 11:32, 1830 ed)

[Alma 11:44]

[tagriffy]

No problem.

 

It took me most of a lifetime.

 

I've decided to move a discussion of the deflationary theory to another topic to keep this thread from being derailed.

[Kevin Christensen]

What I noticed about the Book of Mormon is all the Creedal statements reaffirming these Creeds, and I haven't found any disagreement with these ctreeds

SNIP

The issue, of course, is what you don't notice and the relevant contexts that you don't provide.

The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths

Reviewed by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen

See http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

Several years ago, I also read the long version of this essay.

And they wrote this:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2271&index=10

And there is issue of what various divine titles meant in Ancient Israel.

For instance, you quote 3 Nephi 11:17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.

It helps to under stand that the Hebrew for Most High Go is El Elyon, and the Dead Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 makes it clear that Yahweh is a son of El Elyon. In the New Testament, Jesus is always described as the Son of God Most High, never as the Son of Yahweh. Indeed, the whole point of Barker's detailed study, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, is to show how and why the Christians identified Jesus as Yahweh, Son of God Most High.

For a shorter preview of the argument published in a British Jesuit journal, see:

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

She also discusses that "the Name" is a reference to the visible manifestation of God, and the Son is the one who has been seen in human form.

So there are all sorts of technical things going on in the contexts of these passages that the scattergun proof-texting approach completely overlooks.

See, for instance, Welch and Szinc, "King Benjamin's Sermon in the Context of Ancient Israelite Festivals" and pay close attention to what they show about expanded titles like Lord God Omnipotent.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=8

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Hagoth]

Sorry, I'm late to this discussion and I'm not going to insert myself into it except to address the OP's final statement.

 

Joseph Smith did not die for the Book of Mormon. It had absolutely nothing to do with his death and he did not give his life as a sacrifice to seal his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He was in all kinds of legal and financial trouble. He was arrested after he had a printing press destroyed for publishing sensitive information about him and he went down fighting, pistol in hand.

 

I think he was a remarkable man who was brave enough to attempt all kinds of things few people would even dream of, but if you visited him in Carthage jail and asked him if he came there to lay down his life to seal his testimony of the Book of Mormon I think he'd say, "Hell no! Is that gun loaded?"
 

[PeterPear]

Sorry, I'm late to this discussion and I'm not going to insert myself into it except to address the OP's final statement.

 

Joseph Smith did not die for the Book of Mormon. It had absolutely nothing to do with his death and he did not give his life as a sacrifice to seal his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He was in all kinds of legal and financial trouble. He was arrested after he had a printing press destroyed for publishing sensitive information about him and he went down fighting, pistol in hand.

 

I think he was a remarkable man who was brave enough to attempt all kinds of things few people would even dream of, but if you visited him in Carthage jail and asked him if he came there to lay down his life to seal his testimony of the Book of Mormon I think he'd say, "Hell no! Is that gun loaded?"

The scriptures disagree with you. Have you studied them?

[canard78]

The scriptures disagree with you. Have you studied them?

CFR

[PeterPear]

CFR

D&C 135

"D&C" is an abbreviation for "Doctrine and Covenants"

"135" refers to a section within the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Doctrine and Covenants is canonized scripture for the LDS Church.

"LDS Church" is an abbreviation for the full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

The word "sealed" in relation to Joseph Smith's death is mentioned three times in D&C 135.

Thank for answering my question about if Hagoth, you or anyone here study the scriptures.

Edited July 4, 2015 by PeterPear

[canard78]

D&C 135

"D&C" is an abbreviation for "Doctrine and Covenants"

"135" refers to a section within the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Doctrine and Covenants is canonized scripture for the LDS Church.

"LDS Church" is an abbreviation for the full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

The word "sealed" in relation to Joseph Smith's death is mentioned three times in D&C 135.

Thank for answering my question about if Hagoth, you or anyone here study the scriptures.

I'm glad you quoted exactly what I expected you to quote.

135 assigns a posthumous seal to Joseph's death. No-where does it say in that section that Joseph died with the intention of sealing his testimony of the BoM. Instead it says: "To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch."

So "we" collectively (the church leadership of the day presumably) assign the sealing significance to his death. There's no evidence in your source that this was Joseph's intention when he made the fateful journey to Carthage. So CFR remains. Show me a reference (canonised or not) that Joseph went to his death to seal his testimony of the BoM.

[Hagoth]

Thank for answering my question about if Hagoth, you or anyone here study the scriptures.

 

Sure I do, but you have to factor history in there somewhere too, right?

 

Men who Joseph Shot while sealing his testimony: John Willis, William Voras, William Gallaher and possible one other, a man named Allen. John Taylor claimed that three of these men died from Joseph's shots but that may be wishful thinking on his part.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Hagoth

[canard78]

Sure I do, but you have to factor history in there somewhere too, right?

Men who Joseph Shot while sealing his testimony: John Willis, William Voras, William Gallaher and possible one other, a man named Allen. John Taylor claimed that three of these men died from Joseph's shots but that may be wishful thinking on his part.

I unfairly called PeterPear a troll recently. I think his consistency is convincing me he's genuine. Instead it's probably fairer to say he's a scriptural literalist. If it contradicts the scriptures, it must be wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

D&C 135

"D&C" is an abbreviation for "Doctrine and Covenants"

"135" refers to a section within the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Doctrine and Covenants is canonized scripture for the LDS Church.

"LDS Church" is an abbreviation for the full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

The word "sealed" in relation to Joseph Smith's death is mentioned three times in D&C 135.

Thank for answering my question about if Hagoth, you or anyone here study the scriptures.

This kind of childish response is wholly inappropriate, Pete.  You should have given your source at the outset, and explained why you thought it relevant.  You should also have mentioned and evaluated Joseph's own words before he went to Carthage Jail.  Finally,  you should have taken account of the book which tells us that the killing of Joseph was not a mob lynching, but a carefully planned political assassination:  Robert S. Wicks and Fred R. Foister, Junius and Joseph: Presidential Politics and the Assassination of the First Mormon Prophet (Logan: Utah State Univ., 2005).

 

In other words, you could have placed the matter in historical context.

[tagriffy]

It might depend on the type of truth claim being made.  If someone claims that Jesus died for our sins as the very Son of God, does it matter at all?

 

That's for you to decide.

[smac97]

Canard,

 

> Read the early sections of the D&C, many written before or around the time of the Book of Mormon's publication.

==Written and recorded under inspiration, by the same nominally literate man.

> If they are in his own language and as much his words as God's then the Book of Mormon can be considered in a similar context.

==It can? There's no difference between A) the translation process of an ancient text, written in an ancient and foreign language, authored by multiple persons over centuries, and abridged by Mormon and Moroni, and B) the process of receiving first-hand, direct revelation from God? That seems like a rather significant, and unproved, and perhaps unprovable, assumption.

> What you're describing is another "God of the gaps" approach that seems all that's left for religion.

==Well, no. The LDS Church does not have 85,000 missionaries out in the world inviting people to read The Book of Mormon and accept the truth claims of the Restored Gospel based on a "God of the gaps" or "The BOM is true because Joseph Smith couldn't have written it" theory. The LDS Church invites people to study the book and pray to God and seek spiritual confirmation of its origins and authenticity. Confirmation of the Holy Spirit. That is what is "left for religion" (ours, anyway).

> You're saying "I can't see or imagine how Joseph Smith produced the BoM so therefore the only explanation must be divine intervention."

==Which is an interesting, but very derivative and subordinate, argument for evaluating the merits of The Book of Mormon.

> Must that be the explanation for all prodigies?

==So Joseph Smith was a prodigy? Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin have both repeatedly noted the schizophrenic approach to Joseph Smith taken by secular and sectarian critics alike. William Hamblin has referred to this as the "Idiot Savant" theory.  See also here, here, here on page 172-173, as follows (in the context of discussing the hemispheric model):

 

This issue poses an interesting dilemma for critics of the Book of Mormon. We are expected to believe that, on the one hand, Joseph consciously forged the Book of Mormon, while, on the other hand, he personally identified the hill in which the golden plates were buried as the Hill Cumorah-the only hill in the world in which the Book of Mormon explicitly states the plates were not buried! This is another manifestation of what I call the "Idiot Savant" theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon. Anti-Mormons typically hold that Joseph was an incompetent country bumpkin who was so illiterate regarding the Bible that he was unaware that Christ was born in Bethlehem, and yet at the same time he is supposed to be capable of forging a complex document exhibiting hundreds of intricate and significant parallels with the ancient Near East and Mesoamerica.  Critics of the Book of Mormon simply can't have it both ways.  They must be able to construct a consistent model which can explain all of the known data concerning the origin and text of the Book of Mormon. It is not sufficient simply to invent a haphazard collection of contradictory and inconsistent explanations for individual features of the text. As has been demonstrated in detail, the Book of Mormon is completely consistent internally in presenting a limited geography.44 Such a discontinuity between what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says and what Joseph personally may have believed about the geography and antiquities of the Book of Mormon is very illuminating. If Joseph Smith is the originator of, or a believer in, the Hemispheric Geography Model as the anti-Mormons claim, he could not consistently be the author of the Book of Mormon. 

 

> I can't imagine how some of the composers of the past produced the works they did, often at a very young age but that doesn't mean the only explanation for it is a divine influence.

 

==Mozart did not claim to have obtained his skill at writing music from God, or from ancient records translated by the gift and power of God.  And then there are the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses regarding the plates.  And then there is the absence of a coherent alternative explanation for the origin of The Book of Mormon (it is a product of Joseph Smith's idiocy/insanity according to some critics, a product of his genius/connivance according to others, a product of a unidentified author or cabal, etc.).  I am reminded of the following excerpt of a letter written by Dale Morgan to Juanita Brooks (emphasis added):

 

[i am aware of] a fatal defect in my objectivity. It is an objectivity on one side only of a philosophical Great Divide. With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church. You in your turn will always be on the other side of that Great Divide.

 

And check out this analysis by Jeff Bennion (same link):

 

Note the direction the conclusion and evidence flow. Morgan has a single organizing principle (God cannot exist) and he arranges the evidence and documentation around that. Historians like to pretend that they gather the evidence and sources, make objective judgments about how to weigh these, and see what falls out. That is not what Brodie did (though she pretended she did), and that is not what Bushman did (he admits he did not at the beginning of the book). It is impossible to entirely escape our biases, and it is dishonest to pretend we don’t have them.

 

Apt analysis, I think.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2015 by smac97