How True do you think the Book of Mormon is?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Yep. That's a balanced interpretation of things, Archy.

The Church does not provide much insight into its former leaders. They become mythic legends, unidentifiable as real human beings.

Perhaps the Church employs classicists in its archival division so that they can learn how the elevate hard-working human beings to demi-gods.

We either over positive or discuss it not at all. Most persons have many aspects to their character, and completely ignoring the less than perfect aspects makes that character unapproachable to me. Who wants to talk to a flawless human being who was never tempted.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Yep. That's a balanced interpretation of things, Archy.

It doesn't need to be balanced. It only needs to show that there are things the rank and file member doesn't usually hear, which is VERY true. We are more concerned with showing that the man was a prophet than that the prophet was a man.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

It doesn't need to be balanced. It only needs to show that there are things the rank and file member doesn't usually hear, which is VERY true. We are more concerned with showing that the man was a prophet than that the prophet was a man.

How old was each poster before he discovered JS practiced polyandry?

I was in my late twenties and discussed it with a research assistant for some BYU professors. He and I just went, "huh"? He was reading the actual diaries of the women whom Joseph approached and threatened them with damnation if they didn't marry him and conjugate. It was strange and still is strange.

If you could read the archives, which we as average members are not allowed, there is lots of interesting stuff, some mundanities and stuff that makes you go, "huh"? In short, it proves our spiritual forefathers were human first and foremost struggling to figure things out and that God doesn't spoon feed us, he lets us make lots of mistakes.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Yep. That's a balanced interpretation of things, Archy.

I think Arch's point was that we aren't normally exposed to those negatives, which I don't think he is all that surprised by.

Even then, given those additional negatives, Joseph Smith's production/translation/revelation of the BofM is even that more remarkable. I agree with Arch that there still has not been an adequate alternate explanation for its origins and events surrounding its production.

One thing that I feel very confident in saying is that the writer did not derive place names from insignificant towns and villages located within 500 miles of Palmyra. Shilom from Shiloh, NJ?!?!? Give me a break.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just think about what you taught as the First Vision and what's in the Pearl of Great Price.

It's a neatly shorn down version of his history.

Then compare with Bushman's and "Brodie's fiction".

Is there anything in their about his fascination with magic or treasure hunting?

Now the First Vision claims he was hated for having told people he had seen a vision. Closer inspection doesn't seem to bear that out.

Everything taught to the average member is completely laudatory and hagiographic. He was a giant among men, won all athletic contests, translated foreign languages without effort.

Do we talk about the sticking his head in a hat? Do we talk about his whistle or the fact his wife said, he couldn't even pen his own letters?

Mind you, I believe JS was a remarkable individual, who grew into his prophet's role. I don't know what to make of the polyandry, never have known, never will.

Yet the average member only sees him as super man against the world leaping small continents in a single bound.

I thought you were saying we had a sanitized version of the BoM. I agree we have a santized version of JS and early church history. Authorized bio's are always different than unauthorized bios. I imagine most of the scripture accounts we have are the authorized bio types. It's not something to be upset about.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I thought you were saying we had a sanitized version of the BoM. I agree we have a santized version of JS and early church history. Authorized bio's are always different than unauthorized bios. I imagine most of the scripture accounts we have are the authorized bio types. It's not something to be upset about.

Well, it causes lots of disillusionment for those who first discover the warts outside of the Church, those groups anxious to bring people from the fold. The Church should do a much better job of dispersing information which will be found in any event.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Church should do a much better job of dispersing information which will be found in any event.

I think it will let PBS do that tonight.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, it causes lots of disillusionment for those who first discover the warts outside of the Church, those groups anxious to bring people from the fold. The Church should do a much better job of dispersing information which will be found in any event.

The internet age has changed everything. Anyone who believes embarassing information can be safely and simply ignored is foolish.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How old was each poster before he discovered JS practiced polyandry?

I was in my late twenties and discussed it with a research assistant for some BYU professors. He and I just went, "huh"? He was reading the actual diaries of the women whom Joseph approached and threatened them with damnation if they didn't marry him and conjugate. It was strange and still is strange.

If you could read the archives, which we as average members are not allowed, there is lots of interesting stuff, some mundanities and stuff that makes you go, "huh"? In short, it proves our spiritual forefathers were human first and foremost struggling to figure things out and that God doesn't spoon feed us, he lets us make lots of mistakes.

Tangent Warning

This goes back to the BYU "academic freedom/teaches santized version of church history" issue.

Questions: Was Archy the only BYU grad student to have access to these journals? Was he the only BYU student to discuss with a BYU professor JS' polyandry? How many grad students at 1,000 other universities had similar findings or similar discussions with a professor? Would it actually be fair to say you'd be more likely to have these discussions at BYU than any other school?

Note: I had similar discussions with BYU professors at BYU, and I doubt Arch and I are that unique.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Tangent Warning

This goes back to the BYU "academic freedom/teaches santized version of church history" issue.

Questions: Was Archy the only BYU grad student to have access to these journals? Was he the only BYU student to discuss with a BYU professor JS' polyandry? How many grad students at 1,000 other universities had similar findings or similar discussions with a professor? Would it actually be fair to say you'd be more likely to have these discussions at BYU than any other school?

Note: I had similar discussions with BYU professors at BYU, and I doubt Arch and I are that unique.

We have more academic freedom, so long as we don't publish it in a negative light, taking the leadership to task. I have no intent of ever writing articles demeaning the Church or its leaders. I might express dismay over policies, but they are the leaders and I am not. Thankfully.