Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Great points, this is true and I completely agree.  

This is also not how the vast majority of Mormons think or how the leaders of the faith speak or how the institution positions the missionary message.  Perhaps I shouldn't care what the leaders of the church think about historicity, or how the majority of the members in my ward and family think about the church, but unfortunately I do care.  

Leaders frequently warn about the kind of perspective that you just espoused, and find this perspective threatening and dangerous.  Some commenters in this very thread would not welcome this perspective being shared in a Sunday School setting.  

I on the other hand would be overjoyed to hear this shared in Sunday School!  :-) 

I would never bring it up in Sunday school because those there do not have the background to think it through and evaluate it.  But in the future, they will be raised with these ideas and see it instantly.  It takes a few hundred years for new paradigms to filter down to the man in the street.

But that's ok- they should not be expected to have that background.

The problem is that the view most members have is perfectly susceptible to the arguments of guys like Dawkins or others who believe that God cannot exist because he cannot be observed directly and objectively.   The argument that religion and science share the same way to verify "truth" would be the end of religion if it made sense- thankfully it doesn't. 

The way to handle it is to stress more the scriptures which show the relativistic view to be the correct way to see it- scriptures like Alma 32, D&C 93 and Moroni 10 among others, as well as D&C 131 which teaches that we are materialists.  The idea that God is a human teaches humanism- if God is human, humanism becomes theology.

The key is teaching that the way to truth is through testimony and direct religious experience coupled with the idea that others may get different answers because God has other lessons to teach them until they are ready for the full gospel

One could teach that the correspondence theory is the "milk" so that incomplete science as we know it today will one day show "true science" and that Alma 32 will eventually prevail and show that there can also be a science of spirituality.

No one seems to understand that Mormonism is based on contextual truth, but that is clear in D&C 93 AND in the other scriptures I cited.   No one examines the implications of those ideas.

[RevTestament]

I do not hide from "difficult" subjects but discuss them openly with my family. I do not do so at SS, however. I have voiced my disagreement a few times, but I do not believe SS is a time nor place to debate scriptural interpretation, GA positions, etc. I think if we allow that, SS could descend into an hour of argument, heated discussion, etc, which will chase away the spirit needed to bear witness to those things said. The times I have voiced my disagreement were not just based upon my personal opinion, but other scriptures.

If we all start voicing our personal opinions on church history, etc, I think that would destroy the atmosphere needed for learning in SS. 

I know when I have done it with my own family, they often respond in shock, and sometimes anger arises. Such is just not conducive to learning in SS. If you want to ask questions about Church history, doctrine etc, I believe boards such as this one provide ample opportunity. It is frequented by some of the best and most knowledgeable minds in the church. If one cannot get a "satisfactory" answer here, they are probably not going to do so by bringing up their questions in SS.

[Johnnie Cake]

How about just telling them the truth...

[Danzo]

FYI, tonight we had the missionaries over for dinner and we had a discussion about the mountain meadows massacre with them and our children. Our oldest (who is a high schooler) seemed interested, but I am afraid the younger ones didn't seem that interested. I guess we may have to repeat the discussion when they are older lest they accuse us of hiding history.

The Sisters didn't seem too shaken about it (they seemed to already know about it)

[cdowis]

On 12/5/2016 at 0:55 PM, lostindc said:

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters?  When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?

Tell them what I know,  and admit that there are thingsI don't know.  History is a jigsaw puzzle, often where important pieces are missing, or misplaced.  I will simply say, "Good question.  When I see Joseph Smith, I'll ask him."

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine?  Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

I personally find it useful because the enemies of the church are very happy to misquote, or to quote out of context.

It appears that bringing up sensitive subjects in Sunday school or sharing a text one encountered that is critical of something Church related is frowned upon.  How do we open this dialogue?

You don't.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by cdowis

[James Tunney]

22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

Who are these "enemies" and where have they misquoted or quoted out of context? My experience has been the opposite where the so-called "anti" is the one that can be trusted with the entire history and the so called "faithful" historian picks and chooses what to say in order to remain "faithful." Some truthful things definitely aren't useful to the faithful historian.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

How about just telling them the truth...

 

6 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Who are these "enemies" and where have they misquoted or quoted out of context? My experience has been the opposite where the so-called "anti" is the one that can be trusted with the entire history and the so called "faithful" historian picks and chooses what to say in order to remain "faithful." Some truthful things definitely aren't useful to the faithful historian.

As M. Bukowski has pointed out many times on this board, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder. One historian's version of history is different from another's. So the "truth" is dependent upon who you believe. This is quite evident when reviewing the history of the Roman Catholic Church for example. One version of Eusebius' history extolled Constantine's son Crispus, but after Constantine had him killed, Eusebius removed it in a later edition of his "history." 

The Roman Catholic version of "truth" is different from what I believe happened in the early church.

If your "truth" concerning LDS Church history comes from such "historians" which print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards, your quality of "truth" is likely to be very bad, and full of untruths.

In fact by necessity, written history is always "incomplete."  I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth." Sometimes it is reasonably truthful, but incomplete. In other words they are telling the "truth" as they perceive it, but perhaps they have not considered all the alternatives. In other words what we think we "know" is not necessarily all there is to know about a subject. Sometimes later archaeology has uncovered additional "facts" which call for a change in "opinion" about "truth." For example later archaeology has covered sufficient evidence to challenge the traditionally held beliefs that there were no elephants and horses in the Americas during BoM times. This poses problems for those who believe the "traditional truth" that the such things "prove" the BoM is false.

Allowing someone to get up in SS and say the BoM is fictional because there were no elephants and horses in the Americas at the time, is really allowing a controversy to develop which is unprovable and just cannot be settled in SS. I believe archaeology has now uncovered sufficient evidence to hold these traditional positions in doubt, and to support the BoM. The same can be said of many other areas the BoM traditionally came under attack. So again, what is "truth" to you may be completely dismissed or proven false later on. SS is really not the time nor place to bring up such subjects which cannot really be settled with the current state of knowledge. As I perceive it though, some want to turn SS into a time to challenge the Church teachings, and even the scriptures with "personal opinions" based on the current "scholarly" knowledge. This I don't believe the Church should allow. These types of questions may arise more in investigator classes such as Gospel Principles, but otherwise SS is just not the time nor place to discuss every controversial topic. It will have the effect of derailing the lessons, and chasing away the spirit I believe. That is definitely seen on this board, and sometimes posters choose to leave for awhile because a spirit of contention arises, even though I believe the moderators are good at limiting this. I am not saying no one should challenge the Church, but SS is not usually the time nor place for it. Otherwise, it is likely wolves will enter the flock seeking to draw away members.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

How about just telling them the truth...

 

[sunstoned]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

As M. Bukowski has pointed out many times on this board, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder. One historian's version of history is different from another's. So the "truth" is dependent upon who you believe. This is quite evident when reviewing the history of the Roman Catholic Church for example. One version of Eusebius' history extolled Constantine's son Crispus, but after Constantine had him killed, Eusebius removed it in a later edition of his "history." 

The Roman Catholic version of "truth" is different from what I believe happened in the early church.

If your "truth" concerning LDS Church history comes from such "historians" which print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards, your quality of "truth" is likely to be very bad, and full of untruths.

In fact by necessity, written history is always "incomplete."  I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth." Sometimes it is reasonably truthful, but incomplete. In other words they are telling the "truth" as they perceive it, but perhaps they have not considered all the alternatives. In other words what we think we "know" is not necessarily all there is to know about a subject. Sometimes later archaeology has uncovered additional "facts" which call for a change in "opinion" about "truth." For example later archaeology has covered sufficient evidence to challenge the traditionally held beliefs that there were no elephants and horses in the Americas during BoM times. This poses problems for those who believe the "traditional truth" that the such things "prove" the BoM is false.

Allowing someone to get up in SS and say the BoM is fictional because there were no elephants and horses in the Americas at the time, is really allowing a controversy to develop which is unprovable and just cannot be settled in SS. I believe archaeology has now uncovered sufficient evidence to hold these traditional positions in doubt, and to support the BoM. The same can be said of many other areas the BoM traditionally came under attack. So again, what is "truth" to you may be completely dismissed or proven false later on. SS is really not the time nor place to bring up such subjects which cannot really be settled with the current state of knowledge. As I perceive it though, some want to turn SS into a time to challenge the Church teachings, and even the scriptures with "personal opinions" based on the current "scholarly" knowledge. This I don't believe the Church should allow. These types of questions may arise more in investigator classes such as Gospel Principles, but otherwise SS is just not the time nor place to discuss every controversial topic. It will have the effect of derailing the lessons, and chasing away the spirit I believe. That is definitely seen on this board, and sometimes posters choose to leave for awhile because a spirit of contention arises, even though I believe the moderators are good at limiting this. I am not saying no one should challenge the Church, but SS is not usually the time nor place for it. Otherwise, it is likely wolves will enter the flock seeking to draw away members.

I'm not sure I have run into many "non-member historians" who print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards.  Are you sure you are not confusing peer reviewed history journals with some religious fundie blog post?  Oh, and since we are discussing truth and who can be trusted to deliver it, CFR on "sufficient evidence" that horses and elephants existed during the BoM time frame.  Peer reviewed sources only please.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by sunstoned

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

As M. Bukowski has pointed out many times on this board, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder. One historian's version of history is different from another's. So the "truth" is dependent upon who you believe. This is quite evident when reviewing the history of the Roman Catholic Church for example. One version of Eusebius' history extolled Constantine's son Crispus, but after Constantine had him killed, Eusebius removed it in a later edition of his "history." 

The Roman Catholic version of "truth" is different from what I believe happened in the early church.

If your "truth" concerning LDS Church history comes from such "historians" which print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards, your quality of "truth" is likely to be very bad, and full of untruths.

In fact by necessity, written history is always "incomplete."  I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth." Sometimes it is reasonably truthful, but incomplete. In other words they are telling the "truth" as they perceive it, but perhaps they have not considered all the alternatives. In other words what we think we "know" is not necessarily all there is to know about a subject. Sometimes later archaeology has uncovered additional "facts" which call for a change in "opinion" about "truth." For example later archaeology has covered sufficient evidence to challenge the traditionally held beliefs that there were no elephants and horses in the Americas during BoM times. This poses problems for those who believe the "traditional truth" that the such things "prove" the BoM is false.

Allowing someone to get up in SS and say the BoM is fictional because there were no elephants and horses in the Americas at the time, is really allowing a controversy to develop which is unprovable and just cannot be settled in SS. I believe archaeology has now uncovered sufficient evidence to hold these traditional positions in doubt, and to support the BoM. The same can be said of many other areas the BoM traditionally came under attack. So again, what is "truth" to you may be completely dismissed or proven false later on. SS is really not the time nor place to bring up such subjects which cannot really be settled with the current state of knowledge. As I perceive it though, some want to turn SS into a time to challenge the Church teachings, and even the scriptures with "personal opinions" based on the current "scholarly" knowledge. This I don't believe the Church should allow. These types of questions may arise more in investigator classes such as Gospel Principles, but otherwise SS is just not the time nor place to discuss every controversial topic. It will have the effect of derailing the lessons, and chasing away the spirit I believe. That is definitely seen on this board, and sometimes posters choose to leave for awhile because a spirit of contention arises, even though I believe the moderators are good at limiting this. I am not saying no one should challenge the Church, but SS is not usually the time nor place for it. Otherwise, it is likely wolves will enter the flock seeking to draw away members.

Do you have any specific people in mind when you say "I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth?" Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart, the Tanners, and Quinn were and are very meticulous in what they write. They have to be due to all of the emotion that is wrapped up in believing the official historical narrative that Bushman recently said was unsustainable, in a moment of candor. Unpleasant facts are usually treated with scorn and ridicule and "kill the messenger" seems to be human nature. Also, there is an army of unofficial apologists and official p.r. personnel to look at each word that is spoken in order to protect the narrative. Further, in my own experience, if one wants to point out discrepancies in the sugar coated narrative the church claims is the "truth," one better be armed with sufficient facts to be able to withstand the emotional response from the member.

So, where are the examples of these non-member historians you mentioned that can't be trusted and why?

 

[cdowis]

30 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Do you have any specific people in mind when you say "I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth?" Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart, the Tanners, and Quinn were and are very meticulous in what they write.

I assume that you understand the difference between relating details of history, and the interpretation of those details.  The issue of source control == which sources are credible in building a narrative and which ones have less credibility and can be dismissed.

Examples are very abundant in the award winning Dan Vogel books where he dismisses first hand statements of the eight witnesses to second and third hand accounts.  Based on my memory of my discussions with him on this very forum and elsewhere, he admits giving a narrative based on his own fantasy and imagination rather than verified historical facts. *

On the other hand he is indeed very "meticulous" in pointing out that there is no verifiable proof of the tree stump as shown in the paintings of the eight witnesses.  Somehow he sees this detail as very significant.

Another example is the Tanner's "Black Hole" argument regarding the lost 116 pages.  Their argument is a classic example of flawed logic == "there is only one explanation", etc.   They are indeed careful in relating details, but their interpretative skills are severely lacking.

* If you don't believe me, just ask him for his narrative of the eight witnesses, and what historical sources and details he used to build this narrative.

Edited December 7, 2016 by cdowis

[James Tunney]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

I assume that you understand the difference between relating details of history, and the interpretation of those details.  The issue of source control == which sources are credible in building a narrative and which ones have less credibility and can be dismissed.

Examples are very abundant in the award winning Dan Vogel books where he dismisses first hand statements f the eight witnesses to second and third hand accounts.  Based on my memory of my discussions with him on this very forum and elsewhere, he admits giving a narrative based on his own fantasy and imagination.  On the other hand he is indeed very "meticulous" in pointing out that there is no verifiable account of a tree stump as shown in the paintings of the eight witnesses.

I do understand there is a difference in interpretation of the facts and relation of the facts.  One can be meticulous in relating the facts and have an interpretation that is very different from yours.  But the question is about non-member historians who don't give all the facts in a misleading way, not interpreting those facts in a non-faithful way.  So, do you have any example of a historian who mislead by deliberately leaving out historical facts in order to denigrate the church?  I'm not aware of any but I could be mistaken.  Nevertheless, I bring up this point because it seems that a common defense is to create a lying and misleading historian straw-man in order to dissuade the uniformed from becoming familiar with the issues.  In an era of wanting to inoculate, this seems like a tired old defense.

Just tell the truth as Johnny Cake says.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

As M. Bukowski has pointed out many times on this board, "truth" is in the eye of the beholder. One historian's version of history is different from another's. So the "truth" is dependent upon who you believe. This is quite evident when reviewing the history of the Roman Catholic Church for example. One version of Eusebius' history extolled Constantine's son Crispus, but after Constantine had him killed, Eusebius removed it in a later edition of his "history." 

The Roman Catholic version of "truth" is different from what I believe happened in the early church.

If your "truth" concerning LDS Church history comes from such "historians" which print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards, your quality of "truth" is likely to be very bad, and full of untruths.

In fact by necessity, written history is always "incomplete."  I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth." Sometimes it is reasonably truthful, but incomplete. In other words they are telling the "truth" as they perceive it, but perhaps they have not considered all the alternatives. In other words what we think we "know" is not necessarily all there is to know about a subject. Sometimes later archaeology has uncovered additional "facts" which call for a change in "opinion" about "truth." For example later archaeology has covered sufficient evidence to challenge the traditionally held beliefs that there were no elephants and horses in the Americas during BoM times. This poses problems for those who believe the "traditional truth" that the such things "prove" the BoM is false.

Allowing someone to get up in SS and say the BoM is fictional because there were no elephants and horses in the Americas at the time, is really allowing a controversy to develop which is unprovable and just cannot be settled in SS. I believe archaeology has now uncovered sufficient evidence to hold these traditional positions in doubt, and to support the BoM. The same can be said of many other areas the BoM traditionally came under attack. So again, what is "truth" to you may be completely dismissed or proven false later on. SS is really not the time nor place to bring up such subjects which cannot really be settled with the current state of knowledge. As I perceive it though, some want to turn SS into a time to challenge the Church teachings, and even the scriptures with "personal opinions" based on the current "scholarly" knowledge. This I don't believe the Church should allow. These types of questions may arise more in investigator classes such as Gospel Principles, but otherwise SS is just not the time nor place to discuss every controversial topic. It will have the effect of derailing the lessons, and chasing away the spirit I believe. That is definitely seen on this board, and sometimes posters choose to leave for awhile because a spirit of contention arises, even though I believe the moderators are good at limiting this. I am not saying no one should challenge the Church, but SS is not usually the time nor place for it. Otherwise, it is likely wolves will enter the flock seeking to draw away members.

As a young man preparing for my mission I was first introduced in my institute church history class at University to No Man Knows my History by Fawn Brodie.  It was touted by my institute instructor as a pack of lies, an anti Mormon trope written by an excommunicated member with an ax to grind.  While I admit that Brodie did take some liberties and did delve into a psycho analysis of Smith to make sense of Smith's behavior...the raw details of her work have been vindicated.  Brodie told a more honest and truthful version of Smith's history then the church did.  Much of what her ground breaking work uncovered is now being retrofitted by the church and has been admitted as truthful.  So when I say just tell the truth...this is what I am suggesting. Just tell the truth, let the consequences follow. 

Some 20 years after that institute class I finally got around to reading Brodie's book on Smith...it broke my heart to discover that her version of history was more truthful than the one I had been spoon fed by the church.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would never bring it up in Sunday school because those there do not have the background to think it through and evaluate it.  But in the future, they will be raised with these ideas and see it instantly.  It takes a few hundred years for new paradigms to filter down to the man in the street.

Why does it have to take 100s of years, this is not how the early church worked.  Joseph didn't wait for ideas to filter down, he upended and changed things with a few revelations and a sermon.  Jesus did the same.  What it takes is leadership, not hundreds of years, because over that length of time people could also become more fundamental and isolated just as easily as they could become more accepting of philosophical schools of thought.  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem is that the view most members have is perfectly susceptible to the arguments of guys like Dawkins or others who believe that God cannot exist because he cannot be observed directly and objectively.   The argument that religion and science share the same way to verify "truth" would be the end of religion if it made sense- thankfully it doesn't. 

I can't intelligently disagree with you here just because i haven't seriously considered any arguments from Dawkins or others like him.  However, I'm hesitant to just reject their perspectives without giving them some consideration.  My gut feel is that while I'm sure they are subject to flaws of reasoning (human condition and all) I'm also pretty sure that Dawkins and others have some legitimate points that should be considered and weighed in the balance.  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The key is teaching that the way to truth is through testimony and direct religious experience coupled with the idea that others may get different answers because God has other lessons to teach them until they are ready for the full gospel

Yes, agree with everything here except for the "full gospel" comment.  I like the idea of being whole, not the idea of being full, maybe its just semantics, but I don't like how Mormon culture misappropriates this "fullness of the gospel" concept to foster complacency and superiority.  In that sense fullness is a damnable doctrine.  

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One could teach that the correspondence theory is the "milk" so that incomplete science as we know it today will one day show "true science" and that Alma 32 will eventually prevail and show that there can also be a science of spirituality.

No one seems to understand that Mormonism is based on contextual truth, but that is clear in D&C 93 AND in the other scriptures I cited.   No one examines the implications of those ideas.

Mormonism ultimately is what people think it is.  Perception = reality.  If someone is a scriptural literalist and believes Mormonism exemplifies their paradigm, then thats what Mormonism is for them.  For you, Mormonism is contextual, and more power to you and I hope your ideas spread throughout the church, but at the end of the day Mormonism as a whole will follow the trajectory the church leaders take it, and i don't see them clearly teaching relativism and contextual truths from the pulpit.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Danzo said:

FYI, tonight we had the missionaries over for dinner and we had a discussion about the mountain meadows massacre with them and our children. Our oldest (who is a high schooler) seemed interested, but I am afraid the younger ones didn't seem that interested. I guess we may have to repeat the discussion when they are older lest they accuse us of hiding history.

The Sisters didn't seem too shaken about it (they seemed to already know about it)

Sounds like an Interesting conversation.  Were the missionaries aware of anything outside the really basic misinformed apologetics like Indians were a catalyst and Brigham Young had absolutely nothing to do with it?  

[James Tunney]

50 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I assume that you understand the difference between relating details of history, and the interpretation of those details.  The issue of source control == which sources are credible in building a narrative and which ones have less credibility and can be dismissed.

Examples are very abundant in the award winning Dan Vogel books where he dismisses first hand statements of the eight witnesses to second and third hand accounts.  Based on my memory of my discussions with him on this very forum and elsewhere, he admits giving a narrative based on his own fantasy and imagination rather than verified historical facts. *

On the other hand he is indeed very "meticulous" in pointing out that there is no verifiable proof of the tree stump as shown in the paintings of the eight witnesses.  Somehow he sees this detail as very significant.

Another example is the Tanner's "Black Hole" argument regarding the lost 116 pages.  Their argument is a classic example of flawed logic == "there is only one explanation", etc.   They are indeed careful in relating details, but their interpretative skills are severely lacking.

* If you don't believe me, just ask him for his narrative of the eight witnesses, and what historical sources and details he used to build this narrative.

So, you agree that it isn't that the non-member historians are leaving out facts, but that they aren't coming up with faithful conclusions?

Frankly, it has been the church that left out inconvenient facts, mixing fact and fantasy in its now unsustainable narrative, right?

Isn't that why there is a problem with dialogue between the non-member and member? It's tough and emotional dealing with finding out that the history upon which testimony is based is not quite as true as one thought. It is human nature to recoil and blame the non-member for pointing out that the church wasnt as faithful to relating the facts as the evil non-member historian. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I do understand there is a difference in interpretation of the facts and relation of the facts.  One can be meticulous in relating the facts and have an interpretation that is very different from yours.  But the question is about non-member historians who don't give all the facts in a misleading way, not interpreting those facts in a non-faithful way.  So, do you have any example of a historian who mislead by deliberately leaving out historical facts in order to denigrate the church? 

A more important issue is source control == where the historian chooses an inferior source relatie to a superior source to enhance his narrative.  He can then plead "innocence" of relating all of the details but deliberately arranges those details in a misleading way == not just "non-faithful" but misleading.

"Misleading" ==>> a nice way to say he is lying in a professional way.  I gave you Dan Vogel as an example.  He conflates the "spiritual eyes" citation from one of the Three Witnesses to also apply to the Eight Witnesses.  Among other things, he fails to take into account the second hand account for the first hand testimony, AND refuses to admit there is a significant different difference between a vision, and a physical experience with the plates, where they carefully look at the engravings, turning the pages and HEFT the plates.  I have discussed this with him and he adamently refuses to see any problem with his conflating these very different experiences.

Edited December 7, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Some 20 years after that institute class I finally got around to reading Brodie's book on Smith...it broke my heart to discover that her version of history was more truthful than the one I had been spoon fed by the church.

Jut curious.  Did you happen to read Nibley's "No Ma'm, that's not history"?

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

So, you agree that it isn't that the non-member historians are leaving out facts, but that they aren't coming up with faithful conclusions?

Frankly, it has been the church that left out inconvenient facts, mixing fact and fantasy in its now unsustainable narrative, right?

Isn't that why there is a problem with dialogue between the non-member and member? It's tough and emotional dealing with finding out that the history upon which testimony is based is not quite as true as one thought. It is human nature to recoil and blame the non-member for pointing out that the church wasnt as faithful to relating the facts as the evil non-member historian. 

I remember teaching a group of kids in Sunday school about the history of Mormon persecutions in Missouri - this was maybe 6 or 7 years ago. The stories in the manual were definitely light on history and heavy on propaganda. Hopefully new manuals will eventually correct it. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

 

“Sometimes . . . restitution is not possible in real terms, such as when one contributed to another’s loss of faith or virtue.

(Conference Report, Oct. 1991, 41; or Ensign, Nov. 1991, 31)

 

This quote is also found in Step 9 of the LDS Addiction Recovery Manual. I think there is definitely a cultural (if not doctrinal) concern about contributing to another's lack of faith. But I'm not really sure what this means. How would I contribute to another person's lack of faith? Encouraging them to break commandments? Introducing them to thorny historical/doctrinal issues that could impact their belief? Having an open conversation about personal faith struggles?

I'd love to hear thoughts about how person A can contribute to person B's loss of faith. Does not every conversation, every relationship, every idea contribute in one way or another to the way a person views the world and ultimately impact on belief?

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Jut curious.  Did you happen to read Nibley's "No Ma'm, that's not history"?

No I did not...I merely accepted Nibley at his word...and dismissed Brodie...until I actually read  her book and discovered by painful cross reference with FARMS that her version of history was more credible than Nibley's dismissal of her work

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure I have run into many "non-member historians" who print every rumor like the Smith's were illiterate drunkards.  Are you sure you are not confusing peer reviewed history journals with some religious fundie blog post?  Oh, and since we are discussing truth and who can be trusted to deliver it, CFR on "sufficient evidence" that horses and elephants existed during the BoM time frame.  Peer reviewed sources only please.  

I am referring to an early "self-appointed" historian,  Pomeroy Tucker, who called the Smiths illiterate and whiskey drinkers. Yet, he goes on to say that Smith liked to peruse periodicals and somehow found the city of Moroni in books or periodicals talking about the Camoros Islands which no one else has been able to find. I don't know how one can conclude the "illiterate" Joseph Smith could find such an obscure name in periodicals or books, much less all the other supposed names like Nahom in Saudi Arabia, but this guy does. No one else reports whiskey drinking on the part of the Smiths either. The early non-member "historians" of the Church, are all pretty much of the same vein.

archaeology has continued to provide fresh evidence challenging the old notions that elephants went extinct 30,000 years ago in the Americas. In the Colombia site of Valle del Magdalena, a Stegomastodon fossil has been dated as recently as 4000 BC. (Rodríguez-Flórez, Carlos David; Ernesto León Rodríguez-Flórez y Carlos Armando Rodríguez (2009). "Revision of Pleistocenic Gomphotheriidae Fauna in Colombia and case report in the Department of Valle Del Cauca" (PDF). Scientific Bulletin (Museum Center - Natural History Museum) 13 (2): 78–85.)  An earlier radiocarbon dating of mastadon remains in the the Great Lakes region also dated to 4000 BC,(Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., Report for 1974 (New York, 1975)). An even more recent finding has pushed up the date more. In an Alaskan cave on St Paul Island the remains of a mammoth were found which have been carbon dated to 3750 BC. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248289948_Phylogeographic_analysis_of_the_mid-Holocene_Mammoth_from_Qagnax_Cave_St._Paul_Island_Alaska   Mastadon remains in the Mississippi Valley have been dated to around 3300 BC, although it was in the early years of the science of radio-carbon dating. (Steven Williams, “The Island 35 Mastodon: Its Bearing on the Age of Archaic Cultures in the East,” American Antiquity 22/4 (April 1957): 359–72.) Those are four carbon-14 dates quite close to the 2200 BC presentation in the Book of Mormon, and we have learned that often the last animals found in the record do not represent the last of the species from DNA evidence in Alaska.
This trend has continued with other Elephantidae species thought to have gone extinct when they seemed to disappear from the fossil record 30,000 years ago. Gramphotheres are a type of 4 tusked elephant creature. In 2011, remains dating between 8,000 - 10,000 BC were found in the El Fin del Mundo (End of the World) site of  Sonora, Mexico among "Clovis" spear heads. ("Finding would reveal contact between humans and gomphotheres in North America", Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 24 January 2011.) In July 2014, it was announced that the "position and proximity of Clovis weapon fragments relative to the gomphothere bones at the site suggest that humans did in fact kill the two animals there. Of the seven Clovis points found at the site, four were in place among the bones, including one with bone and teeth fragments above and below. The other three points had clearly eroded away from the bone bed and were found scattered nearby." Such creatures are probably the cureloms or cumoms mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Late populations of mammoths are another possibility.   

Based on several studies one study concluded “low terminal [C-14] dates for the mastodon indicate . . . lingering survival in isolated areas.” (Jim J. Hester, “Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating,” American Antiquity 26/1 (1 July 1960): 74. See also Jim J. Hester, “Agency of Man in Animal Extinction,” in “Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause,” ed. Paul S. Martin and H. E. Wright Jr., Proceedings of the International Association for Quaternary Research, VII Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), 6:185.) 

It has been found that the fossil record is a poor indicator of when or whether a species has gone extinct. Species thought to have gone extinct because of an apparent disappearance from the fossil record have been discovered to still exist. New methods have shown continued survival of small populations of a species even where they disappeared from the fossil record. For example horse DNA has been found in Alaskan soils above layers where their last fossils are found, indicating they lived in the area for thousands of years after the fossil record alone would seem to indicate.

There is both eye witness testimony and scientific evidence for horses in America pre-Colombus. I will provide some professional references:
 

There is some evidence of pre-Columbian horses in Mesoamerica. However, horses didn't evolve there and did not live there when introduced there by the Spaniards. In 1895, Henry Mercer explored 29 hill caves in the Yucatán Peninsula looking for evidence of prehistoric habitation. In the Loltún Caves of the Yucatán he found the bones of many ancient animals, including non-fossilized horse bones and horse teeth, but no fossils.3 Between this early dig and 1977, ancient horse bones were found in the Huechil Grotto of this same cave system. Exactly how they got there is unknown, but it is probable that they were brought in by early inhabitants, since it is believed that early man hunted native horses.4 Because these bones are not fossilized,5 there is a limit to how old they might be. A tantalizing (but rarely mentioned) sidenote is that the horse remains in some caves were found alongside potsherds and other human artifacts. Clayton E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian Horses From Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy vol. 38 no. 2 (May 1957), p. 278. Prof Edward Cope examined the bones, and felt they were not modern horse but are the Mexican horse which is supposed to be extinct; 

In addition to Mercer's finds, other caves have yielded similar remains. Horse teeth were found in Cenote Ch'en Mul at Mayapán(area also referred to as Sonote chinmul), a major Postclassic site on the Yucatan Peninsula. Like the earlier examples, they were found along with pottery fragments, and judging by their stratigraphic location and degree of mineralization, are thought to be pre-Columbian as well. This information was published in the 1957 Journal of Mammology. These horse remains are now at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Mass. Based on the degree of mineralization, they are reported as being from a pre-Mayan time. Experts had to admit that there were indeed pre-Columbian horses in the Yucatán, but did not wish to imply that they were known among the Maya, vaguely stating that the remains must be from a pre-Mayan time. Oddly enough, this seemingly revolutionary information was relegated to one page of the General Notes section near the end of the Journal of Mammalogy. Clayton E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian Horses From Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy vol. 38 no. 2 (May 1957), p. 278. 

Perhaps the strongest scientific evidence for pre-Columbian horse comes from additional excavations of the Latun caves called El Tunel and El Toro which consisted of 16 levels. The 7-8 level has been radiocarbon dated to 1805 BC +/- 150 yrs; Dr Peter Schmidt says 44 horse bone fragments were recovered from levels 7 to level 2 which would extend the existence of horses through the ceramic era (Alba Gonzalez Jacome, "Origens del hombre americano" Mexico, 1987.) 

Dr Steven Jones & Wade Miller used AMS(Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating) on about 6 samples of horse bone left out of 44 they found in N. America - in other words 38 had insufficient collagen for testing. They obtained several results:
Pratt Cave, El Paso, Texas horse bone dated to 6020-5890 BC;
Horsethief Cave, Wyoming dated horse to 1100 BC;
Thermoluminesence dating dated a horse bone in the Wolf Spider Cave of Colorado at 1260 - 1400 AD.
Jones also cites "The Wyoming Archaeologist 38: 55-68," for a horse bone found in Wyoming dated to 1426 - 1481 AD. However, radiocarbon dating of this horse remain had more than one range, and some were post-Columbus. The Wyoming Archaeologist publication can be read online (the report is in two parts).
http://www.wyomingarchaeology.org/images/Wy_Ar_38_3-4_1994_part_2.pdf ; 
http://www.wyomingarchaeology.org/images/Wy_Ar_38_3-4_1994_part_3.pdf]
Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient American, 16 #95 (June 2012), 2-3. 

It seems science has finally provided solid evidence for the existence of the horse in the Americas during Book of Mormon times,

50 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Do you have any specific people in mind when you say "I have not seen many non-member historians which can be trusted with telling all the facts or "truth?" Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart, the Tanners, and Quinn were and are very meticulous in what they write. They have to be due to all of the emotion that is wrapped up in believing the official historical narrative that Bushman recently said was unsustainable, in a moment of candor. Unpleasant facts are usually treated with scorn and ridicule and "kill the messenger" seems to be human nature. Also, there is an army of unofficial apologists and official p.r. personnel to look at each word that is spoken in order to protect the narrative. Further, in my own experience, if one wants to point out discrepancies in the sugar coated narrative the church claims is the "truth," one better be armed with sufficient facts to be able to withstand the emotional response from the member.

So, where are the examples of these non-member historians you mentioned that can't be trusted and why?

Let's start with the very first:   Eber D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. Even Fawn Brodie questions the reliability of the witness statements in this book. When the Spalding manuscript does eventually turn up, it seems to meet most of the particulars in the witness statements as to setting of the story etc, but shows their memory of the manuscript to be quite faulty, and  often just plain wrong. The premise of the whole book - that the BoM is based upon a manuscript stolen from Spalding - falls apart using a careful analysis of the available facts as they unfolded. I don't believe any good modern historian would give this book much historical weight. 

As for the Tanners as fair or "honest" historians they are basically a joke - taking quotes with large edits which end up changing the context of the quote is just bad scholarship. While the quote may be "technically" accurate usually if one looks up what they omitted with those ellipses, their argument becomes weak or just plain falls apart. They have a penchant for this. At one time they strenuously argued that JS was a womanizer - talk about tactics of "kill the messenger" - but this too has kind of fallen apart as modern DNA tests have shown Joseph Smith did not have children by the wives of other men. So their "nose" for the truth doesn't seem to have a very good track record.

As for a "sugar coated" history, I have not denied the church has tended to promote a "faith promoting" version of its history. That in no wise makes the Church "untrue." But those throwing the rocks such as the Southern Baptists often have major skeletons in the closet like their own promotion of slavery in the past, while trying to say the church policy on blacks in the priesthood was "racist." The church never said blacks could never hold the priesthood. In fact quite the opposite - that the time would come when they could. It is kind of hard to maintain this was a racist policy. I personally never liked it, but the criticism seems unfair.

[Johnnie Cake]

Just need to say this:  If what is True is so squishy and malleable then what's the point of this thread?  If not even we the enlightened posters of this thread can agree on what is true...how in the heck can anyone have a discussion based on truth with a member or non.  It seems that there is no path forward that we could ever agree upon.  This is why I find discussions on Mormonism so freaking frustrating we can't even agree on what is true.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I assume that you understand the difference between relating details of history, and the interpretation of those details.  The issue of source control == which sources are credible in building a narrative and which ones have less credibility and can be dismissed.

Examples are very abundant in the award winning Dan Vogel books where he dismisses first hand statements of the eight witnesses to second and third hand accounts.  Based on my memory of my discussions with him on this very forum and elsewhere, he admits giving a narrative based on his own fantasy and imagination rather than verified historical facts. *

On the other hand he is indeed very "meticulous" in pointing out that there is no verifiable proof of the tree stump as shown in the paintings of the eight witnesses.  Somehow he sees this detail as very significant.

Another example is the Tanner's "Black Hole" argument regarding the lost 116 pages.  Their argument is a classic example of flawed logic == "there is only one explanation", etc.   They are indeed careful in relating details, but their interpretative skills are severely lacking.

* If you don't believe me, just ask him for his narrative of the eight witnesses, and what historical sources and details he used to build this narrative.

On the quality of the Tanners' work regarding (that is, in virulent opposition to) Mormonism, I think the following critique by Dr. Lawrence Foster is noteworthy:

Quote

In general, the primary goal of the historians has been to understand and appreciate the remarkably complex and multi-faceted movement that constitutes Mormonism.  Toward that end. Mormon historians, like historians in all fields, seek to sift through all pertinent evidence in order to reconstruct the fullest possible picture of past and its significance for the present.  Both positive and negative factors are candidly considered in trying to come to a realistic understanding of Mormon development.

By contrast, the Tanners sound like high-school debaters.  Every bid of evidence, even if it could be most plausibly presented in a positive way, is represented as yet another nail in the coffin being prepared for the Mormon Church.  There is no spectrum of colors, only blacks and whites, good guys and villains in the Tanners' published writings.  Even when the Tanners backhandedly praise objective Mormon historical scholarship, they do so primarily as a means of twisting that scholarship for use as yet another debater's ploy to attack the remaining - and in their eyes insurmountable - Mormon deficiencies.

All too often, the Tanners' work thus simply provides a mirror image of the very Mormonism that it is attacking.  The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standards of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs.  Whereas the Mormon Church, for example, has frequently argued that the end (supporting Mormonism) justifies the means (withholding or suppressing evidence), the Tanners have, in effect, simply reversed the argument while continuing to use the same true-false framework.  They argue that the end (destroying Mormonism) justifies the means (publishing anything which they believe could prove damaging to Mormonism).

-Lawrence Foster, "Career Apostates:Reflections on the Works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17:2 (Summer 1984): 45–46.

I contrast this assessment with this glowing review of the Tanners provided by Mr. Tunney: " Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart, the Tanners, and Quinn were and are very meticulous in what they write. They have to be..."

Of these two mutually incompatible critiques, I think Dr. Foster's is more accurate.

D. Michael Quinn, on the other hand, is rather a mixed bag.  My sense is that he has made some very substantive and valuable contributions to scholarship about Mormonism, but his writings also some contain some profound flaws, including egregious misuse/distortion of sources (rather a big no-no for historians, I would say). See, e.g., the following:

• A FairMormon Analysis of: Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
• A FairMormon Analysis of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
• A FairMormon Analysis of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
• A FairMormon Analysis of: Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like an Interesting conversation.  Were the missionaries aware of anything outside the really basic misinformed apologetics like Indians were a catalyst and Brigham Young had absolutely nothing to do with it?  

We didn't go into what they already knew or didn't know, The primary audience was my children, who were asking about it.  (the conversation came about when we were talking about some of the potential negative things said about the church by the relatives of one of the investigators).

I explained that the short answer was that a bunch of Mormon settlers shot a and killed every man, woman and child above eight years of age in an ambush.   After the missionaries left we discussed some more of the details to my children (the missionaries had an appointment they had to get to).

We talked about how some of the primary motivation for the massacre seems to have been motivated by trying to cover up things.  About how the settlers didn't wait for instruction from the church leaders. I also went over briefly some of the details about the Utah war, etc.  How one member was executed and that there were probably several others that deserved to be, but weren't.

It was a good opportunity to teach the children about how covering up for one bad decision can lead to more bad decisions and tragedies like this one. 

My approach to discussing bad things from the past in or out of the church tries to follow the advise of Moroni

" Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been. "