Reader comments
Countering subversive attacks on Mormon scholarship

Page:
1
2
Next >

Hmmm. | 12:15 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Non-Biased LDS scholarship? By default it's biased. The rest of the article could be considered conspiracy theory. This is garbage.

Munk | 12:30 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Having read the full article, I find that for anyone to discredit Mormon scholarship on the bases of bias information fails to look at not only the contribution but the empirical evidence to the contrary. Now, from a view point as an Anthropologist, I will say that there are some that are going to be biased but that exists in all corners, especially if you are stepping into the storm that is biblical archaeology. Now, do I personally agree with some of Mormon colleagues ? Of course not, but that does not make them or me wrong but rather allows for educational discourse. Though not being LDS myself, I am so very grateful for what the church has done in many fields and if I may add, many Mormon academics that I know are some of the most intellectual and interesting people that I could be blessed to know. To me, I see colleagues and peers who I respect. They do not judge me by my faith and I do not judge them by theirs. Ok, Tirade off.

JM | 12:37 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Thanks Mike Ash, for your wonderful articles. I thought about your translation thoughts again, and how Nephi says that God reveals things to people in their own LANGUAGE and according to their UNDERSTANDING. It makes sense.
This article is also awesome.
It’s funny how they claim that LDS scholars aren’t real. I’ve noticed that when the haters comment on Mike’s articles, (and pretend to be LDS all over the Dnews, to stir up hatred for my wonderful people), that they have a really hard time. They have to forge references, lie about being LDS, create people to have a discussion with, just so they can seem to win, etc. It’s ok, I mean, everyone has their thing, theirs is, well, we all know, but I think that when they criticize LDS scholarship it’s mainly that we do things a little differently from the standard Professional anti-Mormon modus operandi….. : )
What do you think?

Comments continue below

JM | 12:51 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Dearest D-News Anti-Mormons,

We’ve created many memories together.
Remember when:

You claimed Mormons were empty handed on geography?

Then, on GoogleEarth we found that “narrow pass,” with the singular sea, on east and west, right by Joseph Allen and Co’s possible Nephite wall, with all those miraculous BoM details, that JS couldn’t have known?

Then you thought Cumorah should still have piles of bones and stainless steel, or fossils of Nephites : ).

You repeatedly claimed DNA soundly proved the BoM false. I showed the major Jewish connection to Native Americans, and gave lots of non-LDS evidence that Joseph married a “mongoloid” Asiatic named Asenath.

Falling, greatly, again, you repeated “absolutely no evidence” (overandover)

I referred you to mountains, and gave you new, detailed, Mayan/Biblical correlations.

You claimed Chinese, etc, carried them over Beringia, but that was maybe 10,000 years before Asians were in East Asia, or the Biblical symbolism even existed. : )

You could always make me laugh, with your antics, forging evidences, Princeton’s plagiarism, posing as: "Brother," "Bishop," anyone…trying to deceive, even Mike Ash (desperation?).

Loveya, but, should we part?

You could help someone, instead of hating and trying to destroy : )

Anonymous | 1:56 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

LDS scholarship is useless at times because Mormons won't acknowledge scholarship that doesn't bear out their long held beliefs, traditions, etc. An LDS archaeologist, Thomas Ferguson, began work in South and Central America with his New World Archaeological Foundation in the mid fifties. They worked for two decades and found nothing to indicate that a lost tribe of Israel inhabited those lands. LDS scholars have indicated that DNA is not showing that American Indians have a connection with Jewish people but rather with inhabitants of Asia. Some apologists want to twist this all around and present some oddball explanations. Non-LDS scholars in Egyptology who have spent their lives working in the field such as Klaus Baer and Robert Ritner have carefully examined the Joseph Smith papyri and the facsimilie and say there is no resemblance between what Joseph Smith translated and what the document says. Still there are apologists that have explanations why the two don't coincide other than the fact that Joseph Smith plain didn't know what he was talking about. Lot's of times LDS scholars who prove that things aren't as we've been taught, get axed.

KLD | 3:46 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I enjoyed this article. Every researcher has some bias...even as hard as they try to not have a bias. It's impossible not to be affected by one's background, beliefs, University policy, funding source, etc. Of course LDS scholars are biased, but that doesn't mean they're not scholars.

Fair? | 5:55 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, none of this stuff (ie, religious views, etc.) can be proven conclusively, either to be true or false--it's a matter of belief on the part of the person believing or the person who chooses not to believe. Expressions of certainty on either part are disingenuous. One problem I have is the character attack on people who take opposing views--called "ad hominem" attack. For example, many believing Mormons will "slander" a person (author, critic, etc.) who takes a position that Mormonism is not "true"--they are an "apostate" or perhaps they imply that they are some kind of "sinner"--so what, if the position they take is backed by solid evidence then neither type of attack is relevant. Bill Clinton, for example, was a serial philanderer by most accounts but as President he was able to keep America out of war, balanced the budget and during his tenure in office America prospered--who wouldn't want a return to that? My point is this, Mr. Ash and many of his colleagues at FARMS/FAIR use ad hominem attacks on Mormon critics, instead of attacking the arguments they attack the attacker.

JoeBlow | 5:55 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

The problem with LDS "Scholars" is that they refuse to even consider the obvious.

They "know" how the story ends and only look at ways to support their known conclusion.

And in doing so, the logic used is so twisted that it is unaccepted by non-believers.

Example. The concept of multiple Hill Cumorahs. I have little doubt that if someone suggested to Joseph Smith that the New York Hill Cumorah was not where "the battle" took place he would have laughed at them.

There is only one reason to look elsewhere for a Hill Cumorah. The logical answer (at a minimum) would be that the BOM is not a historical record.

But for LDS Scholars that is not even an option. They "know" this took place. So why doesn't the archeology support what the faithful KNOW?

So, far-fetched reasoning is used. Lets search elsewhere for another Cumorah.

Totally illogical. LDS Scholars refuse to even consider the most likely solution.

Sorry folks, that's not scholarship.

Ed | 6:16 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Aren't we the fastest growing religion in the world which should prove to everyone that doctrine is valid and accepted by all.

Trust, but there are bounds | 6:42 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

LDS are real scholars within certain confines. No faithful LDS would dare venture out of bounds understood by them that would put their employment in danger (if they work for the LDS church) or put their membership on thin ice.

Such bounds do exist and if an LDS scholar is writing on such subjects, the quality of their scholarship is not to be trusted.

If they are writing on other subjects, LDS scholars are as good as anyone else.

This is sad, because as I view it, the prophesy by Joseph Smith that the LDS church would go for nobly and independently is not being fulfilled. It is going forth, afraid of its own tail.

Just a Dad | 6:47 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Wow... I guess people can never just say anything nice.

James | 7:03 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

It is easy for both sides to be suspect of the other side. Not all criticism is biased. Each side seems so determined to prove the other side wrong...the WIN the argument. Why? It is impossible for Mormons to convert everybody, and most LDS folks don't even consider scholarship from non-LDS writers and researchers. Stubornness on either side will just result in more jabs and punches until both sides are bruised and unable to find common ground. Thus, liberal education and theocracy will always be combative.

JoeBlow to JM | 7:26 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Yes JM, you provide high level information.

And all who disagree with you are Antis.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but many of those who disagree with your version (mayan/biblical correlations) are firmly in the faithful LDS camp.

So, dont make it sound like you are posting universal truths for all LDS. Many of the faithful totally disagree with you.

Its all theory until you can prove it scientifically.

And you would have never considered a Mayan connection if it weren't for the lack of "piles of Bones and stainless steel , or fossils of Nephites"

Seasoned Member | 8:33 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I am trying to find the most convincing works of LDS scholarship in the areas of geography, history. athropology or archaeogy in supporting the existance of the history in the Book Of Mormon.

I have seen reference to works by LDS authors who seem extreamely well credentialed and qualified to speak and address such ares of academic research and field work.

But my question, for my own needs is: has any of their works convinced the a academic world outside of what we might read in Ensign and other church sponsored publications?

My need would be to respond to this question I get from the very basic thinkers outside the church who seem to ask the obvious.

Seeing reference to all the great credentials we obviously have within the church in these area of study, I just wanted to know if, and which ones, have been accepted and or even acknowledged as evidence for our ancient history claim?

Just being a real member here. But acknowledging not from Utah in advance, again!

LDS Shcolars VS RLDS | 8:45 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Scholars. The RLDS Scholars are better. They do not accept the P.of G.P. as a standard work. Example 1: The Book of Moses contains the Latin word Meridian(meridies) in several places, extracted from the JST of Genesis. Joseph Smith could not read Greek, let alone revise the KJV translation.
(Hebrews 9:26 JST)...the 'meridian'of time; hath he appeared..."
(Hebrews 9:26 Greek N.T.)...at[the]'Completion'(sunteleia 4930)of the ages..."
Another reason the LDS do not have a Modern English translation.

Go back into your mole hole | 8:52 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

To JM

WHO IS "WE"!? You are no scholar, so why are you trying to act like one?

AK Beefed Up | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I’m fascinated by the machinations of the church. It’s a business, it’s a religion, it’s a political player and it’s relatively young. For now, it has a lock on the state legislature and gets looks at any legislation it wants. It’s a lobbying force and it’s deferred to constantly by municipalities as well as other religions in the region. Plus, it was founded by a character. And its followers defend him as though he was superhuman. I don’t think this has always been the case. In the early days of the church, many of the founders bailed out, largely due to differences with each other and Joseph Smith. Over time, the church has chosen to play up the good stuff about Smith and downplay the crazier stuff. But that crazy is deep in the DNA of the church.

The church is writing its history and creating an iconography in near real-time. It has changed itself ever so gradually with the times, albeit slowly and usually twenty to forty years behind mass U.S.

anon | 9:12 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I have personally encountered several LDS scholars who were so enveloped in LDS society that they couldn't express their inner beliefs without destroying their lives, losing family, friends, social standing, employment. I have also met a few who did express their beliefs and lost same.

Religion is about love but there sure is a lot of hatred and resentment involved if people don't agree on what they believe. It seems to be just human politics with a mask.

Janet | 9:13 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

If we could excavate, uncover bones, connect the DNA to Middle-Eastern DNA, and -- why not? -- find a piece of metal with ancient Egyptian writing on it, right here the the U.S., it would relieve us of the onerous task of reading the Book of Mormon, praying about it, and gaining a spiritual testimony. But the doubters and haters would still be doubters and haters. "When ye have received these things, I would exhort you [to ask the premier scholars of your day?].... Faith is faith. Any scientist will tell you that water can't be turned into wine, the dead cannot be raised, and so forth.

me | 9:17 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

True. I completely agree with this article.

Realist | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

The Church should come out and say to the Polynesians and American Indians, 'There's no evidence to support your Israelite ancestry,' I don't have any problem with anyone believing what's in the Book of Mormon. Just don't make it look like science is backing it all up.

Salem, Oregon | 9:20 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Why does anyone in the Church listen to anything that FARMS or FAIR or any other apologists says? None of these organizations represents the Church. These theories and "evidences" are just their own opinions and do not hold any weight.

Also, frequently, the apologists disagree with one another on several issues and doctrine. This is not good for the Church. Follow the prophet and ignore the rest.

Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

All scholarship is biased. When will the pro and anti crowds acknowledge that much of this is merely a matter of personal faith? You can't prove the Gospel and Church history are true, and you can't prove they are not. I think it was intended to be this way.

re: Hmmm. 12:15 a.m. | 9:30 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Please show me a "scholar" who isn't biased. Research by it's very nature is trying to prove, or at least disprove, something. How can a researcher be passionate about their work if they could care less what the outcome is?

Clearly, you opinion on this article is less than scholarly.

LDS Scholars vs RLDS | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Scholars. The RLDS Scholars are better. They do not accept the P. of G.P as a standard work: In Joseph Smith History, verses, 1:17,18. Joseph Smith sees two personages or, "If God is a Spirit,why did Moses say he saw God face to face?

(Hebrews 11:27 Greek N.T.)" By faith he(Moses) left left Egypt,not fearing the King's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is 'invisable"(aoratos 517)." also see (1Tim 1:17)"invisable"

Anonymous | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I am fascinated by those who don't believe in the LDS Church, but put so much effort in to attempting to disprove it.

I am a researcher by profession. I can tell you that all researchers start with a bias. We call it A Priori expectation. What you expect to find, and what might it look like when you find it. Having that expectation is not a problem, unless you ignore anything that does not fit it.

Do LDS Scholars ever do that? Of course they do at times... Do those whose purpose is to discredit the Church also do it? Of course they do.

For one group to accuse the other of having A Priori expectations, while claiming the don't is, of course ridiculous.

All scholars and researchers, on any side of an argument, are looking for evidence to support their position.

The question is... are the researchers on one side of the argument more or less honest than those on the other? We could argue that all day.

I think both are honest in the scholarly approach, they just have different expectations.

Trying to prove that the other side is dishonest is a little pointless.

to "LDS Shcolars VS RLDS" | 9:39 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

What a stupid argument. The word "Meridian" was a little more commonly used in Joseph Smith's time - like a lot of Latin words and phrases - enough so that using that particular phrase when translating would have been just as well understood by the audience as any nearly-equivalent English word would have been. English is a mongrel language, and it and all modern languages borrow from one another. The whole idea of translation is getting the idea across the best way possible for a new audience to understand by using the words and phrases that will be understood but that are also as close to the ideas in the original as possible.

I would direct you to several classic works that were translated to English from other tongues - French, etc. - that still retain some Latin phrases entirely untranslated in the translated versions, for the simple reason that the English audience at the time of translation would still have understood those phrases.

Juice | 9:40 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Dr. James White has this to say about FARMS,

"Let any person pick up the most popular F.A.R.M.S. materials and ask themselves a question: would the argumentation presented herein carry weight with me if I was not already committed to the LDS perspective? The current situation in the world of archaeology clearly indicates the answer, for F.A.R.M.S. has yet to convince the scholarly world -- including Christian scholars who believe in the supernatural -- that the BoM has anything at all to do with the early history of this hemisphere. The same scholars who will readily admit that the Bible has a great deal to do with the history of Palestine find no reason to believe Joseph Smith's story."
(James White, "A Study in F.A.R.M.S. Behavior" printed Internet document, page 12)

Abby | 9:40 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I think it's true that Mormon scholars are sometimes unfairly discredited by critics, but many of the allegations in this article (biased, unqualified, etc.) are also true. One cannot deny that in many instances, Mormon scientists are bound to a conclusion no matter the evidence against it. Otherwise, they would no longer be called Mormon scholars, they would be called excommunicated Mormon scholars.

RE: REALIST | 9:41 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Good point and comment, and I completely agree with you, and It didn't take you two hundred words to say what appears to be the truth. Thank you.

Anonymous | 9:52 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Bicker bicker. And what else is knew? If some of you don't believe than please leave and don't let the door hit you on the back side. No one needs those around who have a difference in opinion, so get on your way.

Anonymous | 9:59 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Fawn Brodie comes to mind. She was Mormon and her research on the history of Joseph Smith got her excommunicated from the LDS Church. Brodie's paternal uncle was David O. McKay.

Nice try, the horse left the barn years a go.

Andy | 10:12 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

A scholar of fiction is not the same as a detective of truth.

Re: LDS vs RLDS 9:39 | 10:19 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

"nearly equivalent English word would have been"(Okay)no.
Bruce R. McKonie,"While acting under the spirit of revelation the prophet, corrected,revised,altered,added to,and deleted from the KJV. (Mormon Doctrine)[no french German or Latin words,English only}and you know, he could not read Greek.
(Hebrews 9;26 JST) "in the 'Meridian'of time"
(Hebrews 9:26 Greek NT)"[the]'compeletion'(sunteleia 4930)of the ages."
If he was going to use nearly equivalent Latin for English,the Latin translation of (Hebrews (9:26)is very close to 'completeness' not Meridian.
again RLDS scholars are better than LDS scholars.

Amelia | 10:34 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I find the title of this article itself to be quite revealing. Apparently any critcism of Mormon "scholarhsip" is to be considered subversive.

Leonardo da Vinci and Gallileo were considered subversive in their times too. Funny thing, they were right.

Does Mr. Ash belong to the Flat Earth Society?

Anonymous | 10:44 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

True, there are some great fiction writers who believe their malarkey.

Mike | 10:52 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

As always, I say, WHO CARES!!!! I don't have to have archeological evidence to believe in the Book of Mormon. As for the Bible being totally accurate, where is Mt. Sinai? We all think it is in the Sinai Peninsula. Is it? The current Mr. Sinai is named that more by tradition. So what? How about where Jesus was baptized? We know it is in the Jordan River, but where? Scholars can't even agree on where in Bethlehem Christ was born. It's all based on tradition. No archeological fact.

I liken this arguement to the so called "Global Warming" argument. We are finding that most of the science for global warming is in fact, made up and definately shows the bias toward so called "climate change" that the Left is so enamored with. It is a politicaln agenda they are pushing.

I did just read a very facinating book that makes a great case, using archeological evidence that most of the Book of Mormon narrative took place in and around Peru/Bolivia. I don't take it as Gospel Truth but it is a facinating read. Same with other books that say it happened in Central America.

Which kind of evidence | 11:00 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Part of the problem of scholarship is that Mormon and Non-Mormon folks often are talking a "different language". Mormons tend to talk about "evidence" when they are actually referring to parallel evidences. Non-mormons tend to talk about direct evidences. Mormon scholars can show, for example, that the Book of Mormon has certain characteristics of Hebrew literature. They can show that ancient Americans built temples of stone during the same time-period of the Book of Mormon people. Those evidences, though, are parallel evidences, and parallel evidences don't prove anything. Yes, stone temples exist in Mesoamerica, but those temples weren't necessarily built by descendants of immigrants from Jerusalem. They could have been built by other people. Mormon scholars can be "scholarly" in their investigations, but as long as they rely on parallel evidences, they aren't being scholarly. I'm an active LDS and a believer in the Book of Mormon, but I recognize that no direct evidence exists for the Book of Mormon. I realize that LDS scholars who rely on parallel evidence aren't being true scholars. Will direct evidence be discovered for the Book of Mormon. I think so, but not yet.

@Mike 10:52 | 11:08 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Biblical archaeology has positivily identified hundreds of cities mentioned in the Bible. Further, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Biblical archaeological finds which support the historicity of the Bible.

In contrast, over 200 years of archaeological findings, there has not been one single archaeological finding to support the BOM. There has not been one BOM city that has been positively identified. Even LDS scholars have different competeing theories of where the BOM took place. Still much much confusion and no evidence for the BOM.

JM | 11:56 a.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Dear Anti-Mormon, I hope you don’t mind if I interrupt your repeating ("no evidence") strawman conversation with yourself, but (along with the evidence I've given already), I wanted to point out that there are always some scholars who disagree about every site, even the Temple Mount and Jerusalem are questioned by some Biblical Scholars.

Again, I’m no scholar,(we meant LDS) but I know that many BoM scholars agree on several sites (some more than others), maybe you (Princeton Graduate etc) can enlighten me with learnedness using BoM verses showing why these possible BoM places aren't discovered:

Jerusalem (Old World)
Shazer (Old World)
Bountiful (Old World)
Bountiful (New World, the South one)
Grijalva/Usamacinta as Sidon
Santa Rosa area as Land of Zarahemla

Once again, if you can prove these are wrong from the BoM, let me know, and I’ll look elsewhere, like I said God has revealed to me that the BoM is true, but not where it took place.

If you can’t, let me know by the usual (call me stupid, mock etc, or plagiarize from the ex-files…) loveya

P.S. I thought you weren’t raging against Mormons anymore?

Jim | 12:00 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I don't pretend to be a LSD person because I am, and I was born into the church. Also, I don't appreciate JM. I believe JM is an impostor who enjoys stirring up trouble and pretending at the same time to be LDS. It is quite evident that the constant, continuous, contentious slurs, and slander coming from JM, that this person is most definitely a ANTI who thrives on hatred and creating problems with all posts. I agree, JM is in know way a scholarly person or a true member of the LDS church. Just because someone knows a bit about church history doesn't mean they are a member or a scholar.

re -- JM | 11:56 a.m | 12:17 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

["like I said God has revealed to me that the BoM is true"]

please explain how this actually occurred. or is it like the BOM - fun to read but didn't really happen...

or are you again going to say it is a secret?

cults keep secrets. true religions don't.

Lie Detectors | 12:30 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

I would love to hook up some of these apologist scientists to a lie detector and ask them directly exactly what they believe about the church. Sometimes they make arguments that I don't think they, themselves even believe. If one could pass such a test, that would go a long way toward me considering them as legitimate scholars and as truly honest people. As it stands now, I'm suspicious of their sincerity.

dan | 12:44 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

The Lord will not allow overwhelming evidence that the LDS church and the Book of Mormon are true. He won't do that because it would nullify the mortal test we enter when we are born. To perfectly prove that the Book of Mormon is true through whatever source would not make choosing important. We all have to be backed up against the wall of faith and trust the Lord. Those who have and have believed and trusted, have had that verified by the Holy Ghost, those who won't believe until they see, will never know.

Could the Lord have left the gold plates on earth for us to use for today? Of course, but He didn't. Could He have saved Joseph Smith in Carthage jail and killed the carthage greys in a miraculous manner? Of course, but He didn't. He will always leave room for doubt, so we are forced to make choices based on faith. That is the test. We will all know truth someday in the next life, but until then, we have come to this earth to exercise our agency and faith to choose.

Anonymous | 12:47 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Many LDS scholars are well aware with the warts the church has but they spend their time trying to explain it all away to keep the authorized teachings of the church protected. I hope this begins to change and that the leaders come out and say, "We have a problem.

Jerry W | 12:53 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Why all the controversy? After all don't some people have to have something to hate, whatever that something might be.

re: dan | 1:01 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

"The Lord will not allow overwhelming evidence that the LDS church and the Book of Mormon are true."

But why does he allow such overwhelming evidence that it is not true? At some point, it is no longer a test of faith, but a test of common sense or lack thereof.

If his expectation for salvation is that people exercise faith not merely in the unseen, but in things that seem to be wrong and dishonest, then maybe he isn't even a benevolent God. If he wants us to call good evil and evil good in the name of faith, then perhaps we should question his motives a little bit.

Anonymous | 1:01 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

There is quite a difference between an LDS scholar who works say in engineering, physics, etc. LDS scholars who work on BOM issues? Different animal entriely. Reading fair and farms is not too different from reading JM's posts here. I would like to believe he was an imposter but anyone searching the internet for BOM 'proofs' can find countless people like JM.... fair and farms included.

Anonymous | 1:03 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Love to see the apologists take a lie detector? No offense, but I can think of 15-70 or so people who I'd rather question with said machine.

Anonymous | 1:08 p.m. Feb. 8, 2010

Truth has always been, and always will be the most subversive thing out there.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.