GAs = paid propagandists

[Hagoth]

We had a member of the 1st Council of the Seventy as our speaker for stake conference today. I can't remember his name but he was an excellent speaker and very likable down-to-earth kind of guy. But his talk was weirdly disturbing to me.

It was about how how essential the Book of Mormon is in our lives and how need to be obeying the prophet and reading it EVERY DAY. He started with Pres. Monson's critical need statement and then gave a rapid-fire summary of Elder Callister's conference talk (uneducated farm boy, 65 days...), praising it a work of genius that cuts through the fog of deception.

Then he took it up a notch and started talking about all of the research he has done into the archaeological, internal, and scientific evidences that prove the Book of Mormon as undeniably authentic. He repeated the old claim that people have been trying to disprove the book of Mormon for over a hundred years and continue to make fools of themselves in the vain attempt. He said that if you really want to understand how strongly science supports the BoM you need to start by reading a 850 page book from BYU that just begins to scratch the surface of the mountains of solid scientific evidence. "It is undeniably and unquestionably proven true by science and archaeology. Of this there is not the least particle of doubt." (or something very similar). And this went on and on, interspersed with what seemed to be sincere and powerful testimony about how it doesn't even matter that there's so much evidence because the evidence of the spirit is even greater.

And of course the audience was lapping it up and wiping their eyes. A true messenger is saying it, so it must be true.

It was a very powerful and convincing talk, assuming you don't know anything the actual evidence/lack of evidence, and given with such conviction and sincerity. But it was NOT TRUE. I wanted to jump up and yell "give us JUST ONE piece of scientific evidence that proves ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon!" It was Fake News, and what the church calls Satan's half-lies, but delivered with such conviction. And that's what really bothered me. This man was selling a deception with such perfect salesmanship and, I have no doubt, believing it himself.

Then I remembered the interview I heard recently with the guys from MormonLeaks, and what they said about 70s having a $120/year salary plus expenses, plus per-child stipends, plus all the perks, and I realized that this guy is really a paid propagandist. And he's good at it. Everyone here sees a humble servant of the Lord who has sacrificed his life to share the truth, but I also saw a well-paid motivational speaker who is sent out to close the deal, and who knows how to push the right emotional buttons. I can't bring myself to call it intentional dishonesty, but maybe something like highly motivated self-deception. Maybe it wouldn't have bothered me if he didn't keep speaking the name of science in vain.

Not really sure what I hope to achieve from this but I had to dump it somewhere.

[Anon70]

Book from BYU? But....they closed down Book of Mormon antiquity fields of study....

Thank you for the review. Sometimes I wonder if we want to believe they're not intentionally dishonest. You clearly listed all the reasons why it really could be. None of us wants to believe that we were manipulated and deceived. But...what if we were?

[Emower]

He said that if you really want to understand how strongly science supports the BoM you need to start by reading a 850 page book from BYU that just begins to scratch the surface of the mountains of solid scientific evidence. "It is undeniably and unquestionably proven true by science and archaeology. Of this there is not the least particle of doubt." (or something very similar).

Wow. Its maddening that they point to a big book and say "look, there is a huge book on it published by deseret book, and it says it is true." They know darn well that nobody is going to go and read something of that magnitude.

[moksha]

Sales are what salesmen do. It's not like he was selling the existing customer base anything new. Think of it as a top of the line Ford salesman giving his pitch for the Edsel knowing that Chevrolet would be coming out with the Chevy II sometime in the near future - pointing out that the Edsel is the truest automobile made and that it is ideal for the Man of the 1960's. It comes with the new automatic transmission everyone's read about and genuine Naugahyde seats! It would take an 850-page book to define such elegance. So keep buying those sumptuous Fords!!!

[EternityIsNow]

. Maybe it wouldn't have bothered me if he didn't keep speaking the name of science in vain.

That is a memorable phrase! Using science in vain, for certain that is rapidly becoming the LDS propagandist creed.

I wonder if this current 'BoM is scientific fact' push is ring-led by Holland. Can't think of anyone else in the Q15 who has pushed that angle lately (but then I don't track it much anymore). Your 70 was probably just following orders.

The church members need serious education in what constitutes science, and the scientific rules of evidence. I remember as a teenager reading a book about Science and Mormonism and getting the idea that science would eventually prove the church's truth claims, how could it be otherwise? Now I just want to create a list of all the church's truth claims that have been disproved scientifically... That would be fun.

[Palerider]

Isn't that Sorenson's book that doesn't actually have even ONE verifiable scientific proof in it? The way I understand it it's like the guy's lifetime's work and all it contains is cultural similarities that if viewed through the Mormon lens could possibly, perhaps, maybe, show some oddball connections to semitic ways of viewing the world? Can't remember for sure.

I asked one of the BYU boys from Mormon dialogue if there was any actual and independently supported "evidence" in the thing and he begrudgingly said no but it can sure make it look like there might be some.

I said great....get back to me when you've really got something...

Here's the deal:

In the early church, missionaries and apostles used to fearlessly do public debates all the time and they used to get some good numbers of converts with that venue. There was very little evidence widely known at the time to contradict their claims.
Nowadays we know A LOT more about how Joseph came up with the BoM and we know a great deal more about Native Americans and their origins.

Frankly I think a current church leader or apostle would be sweating bullets if he had to face an opponent who was well informed in an open forum. It's easy to be brave when you're jabbing at a punching bag. Let's see how well these chickens do against a heavy hitter.

Remember, "I am not a dodo."

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Just wait for when Elder Robert C. Gay comes to stake conference. His stories make Elder Holland's retracted stories sound totally solid and truthful.

[didyoumythme]

Nothing gets me fired up more than things like this! I can maybe let it slide if they cite good feelings and talk about serving others and so on, but when they actually claim solid real-world evidence, I get upset. Where is this evidence? Why hasn't a single prophet found the time to mention this ever? Why are there only vague references by good speakers like this that refuse to discuss anything specific? Let along the mountains of contradicting evidence that cannot be overcome by supporting evidence (is there even any). Callister says crap like, "if they can't prove it isn't what we say it is, then it is obviously what we say it is!"

Unfortunately Mr. Callister, you are the one making the bold claims, so you must be the one to provide the evidence. Otherwise, we have no obligation to accept your wild claims or to provide answers to the mysteries of the universe. By that logic, I can claim that a magical, miniature rhino lives in my ear and is the savior of mankind. If you can't disprove it Cali boy, then I guess you have to accept the obvious truth of it! What a joke. I am just waiting (dreading) for the time a TBM family member brings up callister's talk with me.

[StarbucksMom]

I would like to know what the name lf this 850 page book is and where one could purchase/read it? If this contains all the evidence we need to know the BOM is true, then why isn't the church sending their official emails about it? Why isn't it on lds.org, LDS Living, etc?

Or.......is this like the Swedish Rescue and the "document" in Tom Perry's briefcase?? As in, it doesn't exist.

[deacon blues]

My first thought is to refer to the 9th commandment about bearing false witness.
My second thought is, stake conference is like general conference, and like I imagine Amway conventions- preaching to the choir. they know no one is going to call them out.
My third thought is, you're absolutely right Hagoth, its just propaganda.

I like Pale Rider's metaphor: its like he's punching a punching bag. No contest.

[Corsair]

One of my favorite articles about Book of Mormon archaeology comes from Dr. William Hamblin, BYU professor of history and staunch LDS apologist. He wrote an unintentionally delightful article titled How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies.

Hagoth's visiting GA seems unaware that Dr. Hamblin wrote:

Currently, there are only two courses that BYU students can take on the Book of Mormon: REL A 121: The Book of Mormon (first half), and REL A 122 : The Book of Mormon (second half). Both are introductory courses, and are only two hours long, making a total of only four hours. Even if a student wants to do more in depth study of the Book of Mormon, it is impossible to do so anywhere at BYU or in the church.

The BYU curriculum passively admits that there is nothing of substance to Book of Mormon historicity. No LDS anthropologist or Mesoamerican scholar wants anything to do with damaging their academic career by being a champion of Book of Mormon historicity. Certainly there are a few who try, like Dr. Dan Peterson. But his expertise is the Middle East, and his apologetic work generally takes a back seat to his public, scholarly work.

Perhaps Hagoth's new favorite GA is a fan of Rod Meldrum and his strong belief in the Heartland model of the Book of Mormon. One of the best web pages for FairMormon shows up when they use surprisingly good critical thinking about Meldrum's fringe archaeology.

I realize that this kind of stake conference address will be used to emotionally and spiritually abuse many people in their area. If this was my stake conference, my dear and believing wife would not bring it up with me, much like general conference came and went and no church discussions showed up in my house. We have a religious armistice in our marriage and we are both happier that way. But the messages coming from LDS headquarters simply cannot stick with that kind of consideration.

[Rob4Hope]

I'm going to read the rest of this thread more carefully in a moment. Where is this big 800+ page book?.....and specifics?

Apologies if someone mentioned it and I missed it. Between tasks and saw this thread.

[Hagoth]

I'm going to read the rest of this thread more carefully in a moment. Where is this big 800+ page book?.....and specifics?

Apologies if someone mentioned it and I missed it. Between tasks and saw this thread.

I don't believe he mentioned either the title or the author of the book, just said it came out of BYU. My guess is that he's talking about one of Sorenson's books and he exaggerated the number of pages. He held up his thumb and forefinger to show how thick it is and it looked like about a 400-pager to me. My best guess is Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. People need to read the introduction to that book to understand what Sorensen. He states that he has never doubted that the Book of Mormon is historical, therefore it has to have happened somewhere, so he started sifting through all of the data to find evidences that would make it work in Mesoamerica, where he already believed it to have happened. There are wild leaps of logic throughout the book.

Take silk for example. It was prized among the Nephites but was nonexistent in Mesoamerica. Sorenson decides that Nephite silk must really be fabric spun from agave fibers. Agave and yucca fibers were commonly used to make cloth in Mesoamerica and Central Mexico. The problem is that they were nothing like silk, but were cruder and stiffer than cotton. In Aztec society commoners were allowed to only wear these cruder fabrics. Cotton was the highly prized fabric that was reserved solely for elites. In fact, cotton was so prized that it was used as currency. Now, if the BoM talked about wealthy, prideful people wearing cotton, that would be something to take interest in, especially if it talked about trading it for the other ancient American valuables: jade, cacao, and exotic feathers. But nope, those things aren't mentioned in the BoM. Nephites prized the same things as 19th century New Englanders: things like gold and silk.

So what does Sorenson use to back up his silk assumptions? He falls back to his old standby, "but the Spaniards mentioned silk." Same way tapirs become horses. We can be pretty certain that any Spaniard who talked about silk was most likely talking the impression that was made by the truly exquisite cotton garments of Mesoamerican elites.

Sorenson picks out these little things while totally ignoring hundreds of pages of the Spanish chronicles that describe people, flora, fauna and customs that bear absolutely no resemblance to the BoM.

Whether or not the 850 page book was one of Sorenson's you can be certain it contains the same kind of "science."

[Rob4Hope]

I'm going to read the rest of this thread more carefully in a moment. Where is this big 800+ page book?.....and specifics?

Apologies if someone mentioned it and I missed it. Between tasks and saw this thread.

I don't believe he mentioned either the title or the author of the book, just said it came out of BYU. My guess is that he's talking about one of Sorenson's books and he exaggerated the number of pages. He held up his thumb and forefinger to show how thick it is and it looked like about a 400-pager to me. My best guess is Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. People need to read the introduction to that book to understand what Sorensen. He states that he has never doubted that the Book of Mormon is historical, therefore it has to have happened somewhere, so he started sifting through all of the data to find evidences that would make it work in Mesoamerica, where he already believed it to have happened. There are wild leaps of logic throughout the book.

Take silk for example. It was prized among the Nephites but was nonexistent in Mesoamerica. Sorenson decides that Nephite silk must really be fabric spun from agave fibers. Agave and yucca fibers were commonly used to make cloth in Mesoamerica and Central Mexico. The problem is that they were nothing like silk, but were cruder and stiffer than cotton. In Aztec society commoners were allowed to only wear these cruder fabrics. Cotton was the highly prized fabric that was reserved solely for elites. In fact, cotton was so prized that it was used as currency. Now, if the BoM talked about wealthy, prideful people wearing cotton, that would be something to take interest in, especially if it talked about trading it for the other ancient American valuables: jade, cacao, and exotic feathers. But nope, those things aren't mentioned in the BoM. Nephites prized the same things as 19th century New Englanders: things like gold and silk.

So what does Sorenson use to back up his silk assumptions? He falls back to his old standby, "but the Spaniards mentioned silk." Same way tapirs become horses. We can be pretty certain that any Spaniard who talked about silk was most likely talking the impression that was made by the truly exquisite cotton garments of Mesoamerican elites.

Sorenson picks out these little things while totally ignoring hundreds of pages of the Spanish chronicles that describe people, flora, fauna and customs that bear absolutely no resemblance to the BoM.

Whether or not the 850 page book was one of Sorenson's you can be certain it contains the same kind of "science."

Yeh...OK....so what your saying is there ain't no book. He mentioned a book from BYU, used that as his "proof", without naming the book, possibly exaggerating the length, and also it being a book that is not peer reviewed or otherwise put through some form of rigor.

Is that what your saying?...

This guy used typical apologetics 101. Your right; most people won't read a book that size, they will take at face value what the GA said about it, and they will buy it hook line and sinker...

[GoodBoy]

Science uses experiments that have controls and replications and ways to avoid biases. So here is my proposed experiment.

Have 100 people without any religion read the book of Mormon, and ask God if it is true, and look at the scientific evidence that validates it's historicity. Have them give us a probability (0-100) that the Book of Mormon came from God and Mormonism is real.

Have the same people read the Quoran, ask God if it is true, and look at the scientific evidence that validates its historicity. Have them also give a probability that the Quoran is from God and that Islam is real.

I don't like Islam. I think it is abusive and a terrible religion. But I'm afraid that we'd see significant differences in the above experiment with Islam winning the "supportable-by-historical-evidence" contest. It also would probably win the "amazing-book-that-sounds-like-it-is-from-God-and-benefits-my-life" contest. Heaven knows that there are more than 100 Muslims in this world for every 1 Mormon. So God is either not able to help everyone else know the truth, or he just doesn't care.

[Palerider]

Yeh...OK....so what your saying is there ain't no book. He mentioned a book from BYU, used that as his "proof", without naming the book, possibly exaggerating the length, and also it being a book that is not peer reviewed or otherwise put through some form of rigor.

Is that what your saying?...

This guy used typical apologetics 101. Your right; most people won't read a book that size, they will take at face value what the GA said about it, and they will buy it hook line and sinker...

I think he's saying there is such a book and as I understand it, it is actually 800 + - pages long, but it certainly isn't what the GA said it was.

[Rob4Hope]

Yeh...OK....so what your saying is there ain't no book. He mentioned a book from BYU, used that as his "proof", without naming the book, possibly exaggerating the length, and also it being a book that is not peer reviewed or otherwise put through some form of rigor.

Is that what your saying?...

This guy used typical apologetics 101. Your right; most people won't read a book that size, they will take at face value what the GA said about it, and they will buy it hook line and sinker...

I think he's saying there is such a book and as I understand it, it is actually 800 + - pages long, but it certainly isn't what the GA said it was.

Gotcha. I doubt he read it either.

[Corsair]

I'm going to read the rest of this thread more carefully in a moment. Where is this big 800+ page book?.....and specifics?

Apologies if someone mentioned it and I missed it. Between tasks and saw this thread.

Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book Hardcover by John L. Sorenson an emeritus professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University and the author of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon as well as many other books and articles on the Book of Mormon and archaeology. Sorenson first did archaeological work in Mesoamerica while pursuing a master's degree at BYU. From January until June 1953 he was involved in the New World Archaeological Foundation's initial fieldwork (under the direction of Pedro Armillas) in the state of Tabasco in Mexico.

I have two different friends who read "Mormon's Codex" and they came to radically different conclusions. One became more firm in his testimony of the Book of Mormon. The other came to the conclusion that if this was "the best" archaeological basis for the Book of Mormon then the whole thing was complete baloney. I have not read this book and I am clearly more interested in too many other engaging subjects to dedicate more time to the Book of Mormon

[Rob4Hope]

I got into this guy here:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/sol ... of-mormon/

Interesting read. I can't speak to it because I haven't listened to GC in like 5 years. But, if its true (any of it), then its fascinating because it may indicate a shift in thinking at high levels to protect the sinking ship from going down faster.

[Mormorrisey]

I have two different friends who read "Mormon's Codex" and they came to radically different conclusions. One became more firm in his testimony of the Book of Mormon. The other came to the conclusion that if this was "the best" archaeological basis for the Book of Mormon then the whole thing was complete baloney. I have not read this book and I am clearly more interested in too many other engaging subjects to dedicate more time to the Book of Mormon

I have a friend who moved recently, and while he was clearing out his bookcase, offered Mormon's Codex to me to keep. I said sure, I love to read. One Sunday to make Sis M happy, instead of watching TV after church which tends to upset her, I pulled it out and began to read. I got as far as the introduction and the first chapter. That was all I could stand. I have read lots of academic tomes, and have never seen such a liberal use of the words "perhaps" and "this leads to the hypothesis" and "one can surmise," etc. Not to stereotype too much, but having been in academe for a while, it read like the latest book from a tenured prof who didn't feel a need to research his subject, but spent his last remaining research funding at the bar, dreaming of the retired life. Not to accuse Sorenson of being a closet drunk, but clearly this book is strangely devoid of what I would deem "evidence." I can't for the life of me understand why people think this guy is brilliant, other than they didn't understand the book and are just glad someone's doing the apologia. A lot of Stretch Armstrong-ing going on there.