#Book of Mormon historical reliability

[mindfulldsliving]

Jarom 1:8, Steel, and Metallurgy: Debunking Claims About Ancient American Anachronisms

Claims about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, especially around Jarom 1:8 and references to steel and metallurgy, often stir debate. Michelle Grim has presented specific arguments suggesting these verses reflect historical inaccuracies, questioning the presence of steel swords and metallurgical practices in ancient America. This post confronts her claims directly by examining scriptural…

[specialagentartemis]

We talk a lot about reading comprehension and misinformation on this website, but learning how to slow down, assess sources, and fact-check is a skill. A skill a lot of us have not been called on to demonstrate since high school, but a skill that's vitally important in the modern world.

I'm in graduate school for the social sciences (anthropology) - critically assessing sources is part of the skillset we are taught. I've had people ask on my post about historical misinformation, "How can I only reblog things that are true? How can I tell?" And it's a good and important question!

A couple core questions to ask, about history, science, or current events, are:

Who is saying this?

Where are you seeing this information? Is it a legal scholar, a historian with a PhD, a museum curator, an on-the-ground activist, a rando twitter poster, a Mormon conspiracy theorist? For scholarly questions, look for people with PhDs and published articles; for questions of current events, look for what people who are actually there are saying and showing.

Who agrees with them?

Can you find articles from other sources corroborating this, or is it just one guy who is saying this? Conversely, do you see anyone disagreeing and correcting this information? Who?

Does this person have an ideological bias that might cause them to discount conflicting information?

Everyone has biases, of course, but some are obvious. A lot of revisionist American history is put out by Mormon groups to try to prove the literal truth of the Book of Mormon; ditto for history that seeks to prove various things in the Bible. It may be easy for us to laugh at that, but a lot of tumblr revisionist history involves inventing gay historical figures out of flimsy sources because we want it to be true. Is there a reason that the person making this claim might want this to be true? This doesn't necessarily make it false, but it does mean you have to require more robust claims.

What sources do they cite?

Do they cite well-documented research or well-provenienced archaeology? Do they have photographs of what they're claiming happened? Or do their claims rely on nameless, dateless, "I can't show you my sources yet" or "I swear I heard about a guy..." Do they cite any sources or is it "just trust me bro"? Are those sources that they do cite reliable, or are they circular? Do the sources they cite actually say what this person is claiming they say? Are they cutting out half of a quote, or ignoring conflicting evidence presented in the same source?

Is this conspiracy theory thinking?

Is this making claims that an individual or a group is secretly hiding information from the general public? Is it blaming one individual or group for widespread societal problems? Is it claiming that the only reason this isn't common knowledge is because Somebody is suppressing it? Is it claiming that the solution to a complicated political problem is actually simple and everybody knows it but people just don't want to do it for nefarious reasons? That's conspiracy thinking, and it's almost never as clean or easy as the claimant wants you to believe.

Just because someone is saying something confidently doesn't necessarily make it true, but also, just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily make it false. Ask these questions when you see a claim that makes you feel angry - or makes you feel righteous. Look for journalists, scientists, historians, legal scholars, who present their credentials and their sources. Look for multiple independently verified news reports or scientific articles. Determining The One Truth about things is not always easy and sometimes not possible, but asking these questions helps you assess what you're reading critically and evaluate claims.

[funkymbtifiction]

quick type thoughts

I started watching Under the Banner of Heaven this morning before work, and thought I'd share a few "quick" observations that jumped out at me in terms of noticing cognition while it's in-progress. Andrew Garfield's character shows himself as an FJ fairly early on, when after seeing a horrific murder scene, he walks out onto the porch where the distraught cop is sitting with his face in his hands, and urges him to stand up. "I don't think I can," the cop moans. Garfield's detective says, "Then do it for them."

Them being the murder victims. It's respectful to stand up, to honor them, is the implication. So why is this Fe? Two reasons. It's feeling driven because those people are dead. They don't know whether the cops "stood" up or not, and will never know. It doesn't "hurt" them, because they are dead. If you will remember, a thinker does not think this way -- as Sherlock said in one episode, how would being "emotional" about this help someone who is dead? Secondly, it shows us the character's automatic thinking process. He went in there, saw the same thing that cop did, felt overwhelmed by it, became emotional about it, and then he pulled himself together... FOR THEM. He thought about them, and doing right by them, and honoring them, and THAT is what keeps him "together" -- for their sake. That's Fe. "I am doing this for them/you. You/they are in my thoughts. I can center myself FOR YOU/them." It's the same as in my book on EFJ, where I talk about how sometimes an EFJ can only pull themselves out of an addiction by thinking about the affect it's having on their loved ones or the example they are setting for "them."

So, already, within 10 minutes of screen time, we know the main character is an FJ, and possibly an EFJ. By the end of the episode, we know two other things: he sees a bigger picture than his partner, and his partner is an STJ. There's a sharp contrast between the main character's willingness to buck "the rules" (don't notify the parents immediately; I want you to locate the rest of this guy's family first), and the STJ's "I have seen this before, and this is how it goes." So what does that tell us? That in all likelihood, the main character is far more likely an intuitive than a sensor -- an NFJ opposed to an SFJ. The rules are arbitrary and unimportant; "there is something much bigger going on here than is obvious" he says. "It's like the dry bones of our past are rooting themselves up out of the earth to confront us," or something along those lines. Descriptive abstract, symbolic thinking, compared to the hard-nosed, straightforward "what we see and what the evidence tells us is what's relevant; 99 times out of a 100, the husband did it in the wife's murder" STJ partner.

Si: past precedent is a reliable source of information that will lead us to the most likely outcome (if most of the time, the husband murdered the wife, we assume that is the case until the evidence disproves it); and Te (the fact are the facts, we abide by them)

Just from the family dynamics, I'm guessing the husband is an IFP (once he made up his mind about Mormonism by learning of its historical atrocities, it's now "dead to me" and he's militant about it), and the patriarch is an obvious ISTJ 1w2. I was discussing the other day how you would assume 1s would be the most forgiving of all the Enneagram types, because un-forgiveness is "wrong/sinful," but they actually are inclined to hold grudges, because sin deserves to be punished, and that person did "wrong." His speech about helping a neighbor he hates, even if he doesn't forgive him ("forgiveness is not mine to give," he says, by way of excusing himself), smacks of both the self-righteousness of an unhealthy 1 and the pride of a 2.

It will be interesting to see where it all goes, character-wise.

[theshedding]

Lil Nas X: Country Music, Christianity & Reclaiming HELL

I don’t typically bother myself to follow what Lil Nas X is doing from day to day, or even month to month but I do know that his “Old Town Road” hit became one of the biggest selling/streamed records in Country Music Business history (by a Black Country & Queer artist). “Black” is key because for 75+ years Country music has unsuspiciously evolved into a solidly White-identified genre (despite mixed and Indian & Black roots). Regrettably, Country music is also widely known for anti-black, misogynoir, reliably homophobic (Trans isn’t really a conversation yet), Christian and Hard Right sentiments on the political spectrum. Some other day I will venture into more; there is a whole analysis dying to be done on this exclusive practice in the music industry with its implications on ‘access’ to equity and opportunity for both Black/POC’s and Whites artists/songwriters alike. More commentary on this rigid homogeneous field is needed and how it prohibits certain talent(s) for the sake of perpetuating homogeneity (e.g. “social determinants” of diversity & viable artistic careers). I’ll refrain from discussing that fully here, though suffice it to say that for those reasons X’s “Old Town Road” was monumental and vindicating. 

As for Lil Nas X, I’m not particularly a big fan of his music; but I see him, what he’s doing, his impact on music + culture and I celebrate him using these moments to affirm his Black, Queer self, and lifting up others. Believe it or not, even in the 2020′s, being “out” in the music business is still a costly choice. As an artist it remains much easier to just “play straight”. And despite appearances, the business (particularly Country) has been dragged kicking and screaming into developing, promoting and advancing openly-affirming LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 artists in the board room or on-stage. Though things are ‘better’ we have not yet arrived at a place of equity or opportunity for queer artists; for the road of music biz history is littered with stunted careers, bodies and limitations on artists who had no option but to follow conventional ways, fail or never be heard of in the first place. With few exceptions, record labels, radio and press/media have successfully used fear, intimidation, innuendo and coercion to dilute, downplay or erase any hint of queer identity from its performers. This was true even for obvious talents like Little Richard.

(Note: I’m particularly speaking of artists in this regard, not so much the hairstylists, make-up artists, PA’s, etc.)

_____

Which is why...in regard to Lil Nas X, whether you like, hate or love his music, the young brother is a trailblazer. His very existence protests (at least) decades of inequity, oppression and erasure. X aptly critiques a Neo-Christian Fascist Heteropatriarchy; not just in American society but throughout the Music Business and with Black people. That is no small deal. His unapologetic outness holds a mirror up to Christianity at-large, as an institution, theology and practice. The problem is they just don’t like what they see in that mirror.

In actuality, “Call Me By Your Name”, Lil Nas X’s new video, is a twist on classic mythology and religious memes that are less reprehensible or vulgar than the Biblical narratives most of us grew up on vís-a-vís indoctrinating smiles of Sunday school teachers and family prior to the “age of reason”. Think about the narratives blithely describing Satan’s friendly wager with God regarding Job (42:1-6); the horrific “prophecies” in St. John’s Book of Revelation (i.e. skies will rain fire, angels will spit swords, mankind will be forced to retreat into caves for shelter, and we will be harassed by at least three terrifying dragons and beasts. Angels will sound seven trumpets of warning, and later on, seven plagues will be dumped on the world), or Jesus’s own clarifying words of violent intent in Matthew (re: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” 10:34). Whether literal or metaphor, these age old stories pale in comparison to a three minute allegorical rap video. Conservatives: say what you will, I’m pretty confident X doesn’t take himself as seriously as “The true and living God” from the book of Job.

A little known fact as it is, people have debunked the story and evolution of Satan and already offered compelling research showing [he] is more of a literary device than an actual entity or “spirit” (Spoiler: In the Bible, Satan does not take shape as an actual “bad” person until the New Testament). In fact, modern Christianity’s impression of the “Devil” is shaped by conflating Hellenized mythology with a literary tradition rooted in Dante’s Inferno and accompanying spooks and superstitions going back thousands of years. Whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Scientologist, Atheist or Agnostic, we’ve spent a lifetime with these predominant icons and clichés. (Resource: Prof. Bart D. Erhman, “Heaven & Hell”).

So Here’s THE PROBLEM: The current level of fear and outrage is: 

(1) Unjust, imposing and irrational. 

(2) Disproportionate when taken into account a lifetime of harmful Christian propaganda, anti-gay preaching and political advocacy.

(3) Historically inaccurate concerning the existence of “Hell” and who should be scared of going there. 

Think I’m overreacting? 

Examples: 

Institutionalized Homophobia (rhetoric + policy)

Anti-Gay Ministers In Life And Death: Bishop Eddie Long And Rev. Bernice King

Black, gay and Christian, Marylanders struggle with Conflicts

Harlem pastor: 'Obama has released the homo demons on the black man'

Joel Olsteen: Homosexuality is “Not God’s Best”

Bishop Brandon Porter: Gays “Perverted & Lost...The Church of God in Christ Convocation appears like a ‘coming out party’ for members of the gay community.”

Kim Burrell: “That perverted homosexual spirit is a spirit of delusion & confusion and has deceived many men & women, and it has caused a strain on the body of Christ”

Falwell Suggests Gays to Blame for 9-11 Attacks

Pope Francis Blames The Devil For Sexual Abuse By Catholic Church

Pope Francis: Gay People Not Welcome in Clergy

Pope Francis Blames The Devil For Sexual Abuse By Catholic Church

The Pope and Gay People: Nothing’s Changed

The Catholic church silently lobbied against a suicide prevention hotline in the US because it included LGBT resources

Mormon church prohibits Children of LGBT parents to be baptized

Catholic Charity Ends Adoptions Rather Than Place Kid With Same-Sex Couple

I Was a Religious Zealot That Hurt People-Coming Out as Gay: A Former Conversion Therapy Leader Is Apologizing to the LGBTQ Community

The above short list chronicles a consistent, literal, demonization of LGBTQ people, contempt for their gender presentation, objectification of their bodies/sexuality and a coordinated pollution of media and culture over the last 50+ years by clergy since integration and Civil Rights legislation. Basically terrorism. Popes, Bishops, Pastors, Evangelists, Politicians, Television hosts, US Presidents, Camp Leaders, Teachers, Singers & Entertainers, Coaches, Athletes and Christians of all types all around the world have confused and confounded these issues, suppressed dissent, and confidently lied about LGBT people-including fellow Queer Christians with impunity for generations (i.e. “thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor” Ex. 23:1-3). Christian majority viewpoints about “laws” and “nature” have run the table in discussions about LGBTQ people in society-so much that we collectively must first consider their religious views in all discussions and the specter of Christian approval -at best or Christian condescension -at worst. That is Christian (and straight) privilege. People are tired of this undue deference to religious opinions. 

That is what is so deliciously bothersome about Lil Nas X being loud, proud and “in your face” about his sexuality. If for just a moment, he not only disrupts the American hetero-patriarchy but specifically the Black hetero-patriarchy, the so-called “Black Church Industrial Complex”, Neo-Christian Fascism and a mostly uneducated (and/or miseducated) public concerning Ancient Near East and European history, superstitions-and (by extension) White Supremacy. To round up: people are losing their minds because the victim decided to speak out against his victimizer. 

Additionally, on some level I believe people are mad at him being just twenty years old, out and FREE as a self-assured, affirming & affirmed QUEER Black male entertainer with money and fame in the PRIME of his life. We’ve never, or rarely, seen that before in a Black man in the music business and popular culture. But that’s just too bad for them. With my own eyes I’ve watched straight people, friends, Christians, enjoy their sexuality from their elementary youth to adolescence, up and through college and later marriages, often times independently of their spouses (repeatedly). Meanwhile Queer/Gay/SGL/LGBTQ people are expected to put their lives on hold while the ‘blessed’ straight people run around exploring premarital/post-marital/extra-marital sex, love and affection, unbound & un-convicted by their “sin” or God...only to proudly rebrand themselves later in life as a good, moral “wholesome Christian” via the ‘sacred’ institution of marriage with no questions asked. 

Inequality defined.

For Lil Nas X, everything about the society we've created for him in the last 100+ years (re: links above) has explicitly been designed for his life not to be his own. According to these and other Christians (see above), his identity is essentially supposed to be an endless rat fuck of internal confusion, suicide-ideation, depression, long-suffering, faux masculinity, heterosexism, groveling towards heaven, respectability politics, failed prayer and supplication to a heteronormative earthly and celestial hierarchy unbothered in affording LGBT people like him a healthy, sane human development. It’s almost as if the Conservative establishment (Black included) needs Lil Nas X to be like others before him: “private”, mysteriously single, suicidal, suspiciously straight or worse, dead of HIV/AIDS ...anything but driving down the street enjoying his youth as a Black Queer artist and man. So they mad about that?

Well those days are over.  

-Rogiérs is a writer, international recording artist, performer and indie label manager with 25+ years in the music industry. He also directs Black Nonbelievers of DC, a non-profit org affiliated with the AHA supporting Black skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics & Humanists. He holds a B.A. in Music Business & Mgmt and a M.A. in Global Entertainment & Music Business from Berklee College of Music and Berklee Valencia, Spain. www.FibbyMusic.net Twitter/IG: @Rogiers1

[bosooka]

Hi I just wanted to say regarding No Mercy Left For God that Mormons aren't Christian, they're their own thing? It's kinda under debate but the majority of Christians don't like them being called Christian and they have their own new stuff and all, and I don't know if the use of Christian there was about the Catholic character but I wanted to make sure? In case you didn't know? Sorry I'm just Christian and there's a Big Difference even though areas overlap.

i was expecting this ask, and i want to preface my answer with two things: 1) i am slightly but humorously offended that you’re assuming i haven’t come across this question while i was drowning in joseph smith and company, and 2) i am catholic. a queer, lapsed catholic that would get excommunicated if brought before a bishop, but a catholic all the same.

here’s the short answer: it is my policy--and it should be everyone’s--to refer to people the way they wish to be referred. mormons identify as christian and believe in jesus christ, so i call them christian.

long answer: what exactly makes a christian, in your opinion? is it belief in Christ as a savior, who is seated at the right hand of his Father, the God of Abraham? if so, i will direct you to the first [Article of Faith]: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” and also the fourth Article of Faith: “We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; [...].”

i dunno, dude. sounds pretty christian to me. but perhaps what makes a christian is belief in the New Testament as the word of God. some people are under the impression that mormons don’t believe in the Bible. short answer: no. long answer, from our good friend the eighth Article of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” emphasis mine. so if believing in the New Testament is what makes a christian, mormons are. still christian.

if belief in the trinity is what makes a church christian, allow me to point you to: pentecostals, unitarian universalists, jehovah’s witnesses. i know, the last one is also in a murky “are they christian” territory, but if you genuinely believe pentecostals aren’t christians because they’re weird and don’t believe in the trinity i just. am going to roll over and die.

if we can stop beating around the bush here, though: i do know why many christians believe mormons aren’t christian. it’s true that mormon beliefs differ from mainstream christianity in many big ways (i will not call it “new” stuff because latter day-saints do not believe this stuff is new, but rather that it was lost for many years).

here are a few things that are exclusive to the mormon movement: mormons believe they have both an eternal father and an eternal mother (these are the Heavenly Parents you might have heard mormons talk about); they do not believe that all humans are born responsible for the original sin; they believe the book of mormon to be the word of God (clearly).

it’s also true that historically mormons had especially unusual beliefs that were actively contrarian to the beliefs of other branches of christianity, eg. polygamy. except polygamy is disavowed by the modern LDS and has been for over a century now. the only groups who still practice polygamy are mormon cults like the FLDS, who are highly disapproved of by mainstream mormons (that’s mormon for “hated with a burning passion”).

here’s the issue: not agreeing with/believing in mormonism doesn’t make them any less christian. disapproving of the church’s past behavior doesn’t make the church any less christian. mormons being “weird” and “having new stuff” doesn’t make them less christian, because ultimately, the only reliable metric for christianity is belief in jesus christ as the savior.

i think pentecostals and evangelicals are weird and i disagree with their interpretation of scripture. that doesn’t make them not christian. as a catholic, i do not believe in adult baptism, something that is very important to many protestant sects + mormonism. that doesn’t make the sects that practice that not christian (although some hardline catholics would disagree with me, and they, like you, are wrong). disavowing mormons for ‘not being christian’ is ultimately just a way to establish your moral and religious superiority over them bc you don’t agree with them.

i want you to think long and hard about why you’re so offended by mormons being christian. perhaps you should pray on it. :)

[nerdygaymormon]

Gospel Topic Essays

In 2013 & 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a series of essays that address a number of question and criticisms. These essays have been approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles. The stated reason for the essays is gathering accurate information and making it available.

I added a few thoughts in italics

Are Mormons Christian - Members of the Church believe in and teach of Christ, but they don’t believe in the post-New Testament Creeds, and have scriptures in addition to the Bible. The LDS Church also is not a direct descendant of an existing Christian church.

What Mormons mean by the word “Christian” is different than the rest of Christianity. Mormons are Christian in that they believe Jesus was the Messiah and redeemer of the world.

Becoming Like God -  Since people are the spirit children of God, we have the potential to develop and grow to become like God. The essay includes some Bible verses to support this teaching, but most of the world interprets them differently.

The essay leaves out Bible verses that would seem to contradict this teaching. The Bible, at best, is mixed. There aren’t any verses from the Book of Mormon included because this concept is absent from that book.  

God was once like humans are now. And people can become gods. We teach God is married, so there are godly roles for both men & women. Does this make us polytheists? Yes, in that there are many gods, but really no because we only worship our Heavenly Father and will continue doing so even when we become gods ourselves.

How does someone become like God? It’s the covenant path we hear so much about. Baptism, Melchizedek Priesthood (if you’re male), temple endowment, sealed to a spouse, obey temple covenants.

Sounds pretty good, except...

What about if your spouse or children are unworthy? If you’re gay? If you get divorced? A widowed husband gets married & sealed to a 2nd wife, what if the 1st wife isn’t into polygamy?

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies - The purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical. There’s no DNA evidence to confirm that Middle Eastern people came to the Americas prior to Christopher Columbus. This essay goes through many possible excuses for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

The introduction page to the Book of Mormon used to say that the Jaredites & Nephites were destroyed, leaving the Lamanites who are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” DNA evidence forced a change, it now says, Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the American Indians.

Book of Mormon Translation - Joseph placed either the interpreters (Urim & Thummim) or his seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out light, and read aloud the English words that appeared. He dictated the words, not punctuation, to the scribes. The scribes wrote their own punctuation and that is what was printed. Most changes in the Book of Mormon have involved punctuation and creating verses & chapters.

It’s not a “translation” in the usual sense of that word. An examination of the characters on the plate wasn’t typically involved (despite much of the artwork that suggests otherwise), in fact, the plates often weren’t visible. There’s no way to test the accuracy of the translation.

Also, some other changes beyond punctuation and creating chapters/verses has taken place, like having some of the more racist language toned down.

First Vision Accounts - Joseph had a vision (not necessarily an actual visitation) in which 2 heavenly beings appeared to him.

Joseph published 2 accounts of this vision during his lifetime. Two additional accounts (from his autobiography and from a journal) have been found and published in the 1960′s. There are also 5 descriptions of Joseph Smith’s vision recorded by others who heard Joseph speak about the vision.

That makes 9 different accounts, and there are some differences between them. The essay explains that different accounts emphasize different details. Memories fade over time and things get remembered differently.

There is a generally consistent theme across the different versions, but the first written account comes many years after the vision is supposed to have occurred, which makes me wonder how accurate or reliable it is.

Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple and Women - During the 19th century, women frequently blessed the sick by a prayer of faith, and many women received priesthood blessings promising that they would have the gift of healing. In reference to these healing blessings, Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, "Women can administer in the name of JESUS, but not by virtue of the Priesthood."

That’s because the priesthood was new & fresh, but understanding changed as Joseph Smith received more revelations. 

I think they stuck to Joseph Smith’s teachings so they wouldn’t have to go into the misogynistic teachings of Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball. At the time of Joseph’s death, women were still doing healings & had control of the Relief Society.

Priesthood power is given to women in the temple as part of the endowment ceremony. When a couple is sealed in the temple, together they enter into an order of the priesthood. Women can officiate in the priesthood in ordinances for other women. Women can officiate when only women are getting the ordinance, when it is for men & women then the men are in charge.

Women and the Priesthood today - well, they still can do stuff in the temple.

Mother in Heaven - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, and the godly potential of men and women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

According to things taught through most of church history, this essay could have been titled Mothers in Heaven. We each have a mother & father in heaven, we each have the same father but there could be many different mothers in heaven. Good old polygamy, interwoven into our theology.

6 paragraphs, that’s all? Shouldn’t we know more? What is heaven like for women?

Peace in Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints - The Latter-day Saints were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs. Several incidents are discussed.

Well, to be accurate, it was more for their actions than their beliefs. We weren’t exactly great neighbors to non-members of the church.

And, tragically, some Church members participated in deplorable violence against people they perceived to be their enemies. Joseph Smith had the Danites, and a stake president ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham Young taught that some sins were serious enough that the person should be killed as part of forgiveness process (blood atonement).

The early Mormons had many threats and violence done against them, and they also did the same to others. It was a rough time.

Imagine all the things said & done against the LGBTQ+ community by the Church--denying they exist, electro-shock therapy, advocating for laws to limit & take away their rights. In a real sense the church isn’t a good neighbor to this group. In an earlier time, this might get settled via guns and violence.

 Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo - God commanded people in ancient Israel to have polygamous marriages. As part of the restoration of all things, God commanded Joseph Smith to introduce polygamy.

The verses cited just indicate that polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times, not that God commanded anyone to have such marriages. 

Joseph really didn’t want to do it (or worried about how his wife Emma would react), so God had to send an angel 3 times between 1834 and 1842 to command him to proceed with plural marriage. During the final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully. 

The concept of polygamy was part of the revelation on eternal marriage and is how to be exalted with God.

The essay says there wasn’t much instruction on how to do polygamy, I think this is meant to suggest that mistakes happened because people didn’t know better. D&C 132 does have a number of instructions, some of which were ignored. Such as the 1st wife had to give permission for any additional wife, and the additional wives each have to be virgins. 

Joseph kept most of his marriages secret from Emma, and he married other men’s wives who most assuredly weren’t virgins. 

Joseph had 30-40 wives. His oldest wife was 56 and the youngest was 14. 

Polygamy was illegal. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. Also important for married women to keep it a secret from their first husband. Rumors spread and so “carefully worded denials” were issued in which they’d switch one word, or change the meaning of a word. Basically it looks like they were lying because it would mean trouble.

Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto in 1890 which led to the end of polygamy (eventually...it took a second manifesto in 1904 to end it officially). 

A form of polygamy still survives. Men who remarry may be sealed to their additional wives. People can do temple work to seal women who were married to more than one man during their lifetimes but not sealed to them. Only men are allowed to be sealed to more than one person whilst alive.  

Plural Marriage and Families in early Utah -  Church members do not understand the purposes for instituting the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The essay heavily suggests that having a lot of children was a primary purpose. 

Footnote 6 says “Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives except the first.” In all likelihood, polygamy led to fewer children than probably would have been born in a monogamous society

Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands. Virtually all of those practicing it in the earliest years had to overcome their own prejudice against plural marriage and adjust to life in polygamous families. 

Few would have entered into plural marriages if leaders didn’t emphasize that polygamy was required for a man’s highest exaltation in the life to come, and women who refused plural marriage could find themselves single & a servant in heaven. Polygamous wives were so unhappy that Brigham Young eventually gave an ultimatum, 2 weeks to freely leave the territory or stop whining and fully live their religion. 

Plural marriage was an illegal practice and members engaged in civil disobedience against such laws. In direct violation of the 12th Article of Faith

The essay shows Mormon polygamy in a very favorable light.

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage - Polygamous marriage was illegal in the United States and the LDS Church fled to Mexico but the United States took the territory they were fleeing to. The Church felt that polygamy was protected under the Constitution’s freedom of religion but the Supreme Court disagreed. 

Given the importance polygamy to the church’s beliefs about heaven, the members were encouraged to disregard the law and obey God. After 2 decades of increasing troubles, many polygamous families headed to Canada or Mexico to escape US justice (nevermind polygamy was just as illegal in those countries).

When the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of confiscating church property, this could mean that temple ordinances would end when those buildings are seized. Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto to ban polygamy in 1890. This calmed things with the US government and within 3 years Utah was admitted as a state. 

Members continued entering into new plural marriages for about 15 more years, but in declining numbers. In 1899 the newly-elected senator from Utah was not allowed to take his seat in Congress because he had 3 wives, including one he married after the manifesto. When an apostle was elected in 1903, he also was not allowed to take his seat as an investigation took place into the church & polygamy, even church president Joseph F. Smith testified before Congress. 

President Smith testified that the Manifesto removed God’s commandment on the church to practice polygamy, but didn’t forbid individuals from choosing to continue to be polygamous.  He issued a Second Manifest at the April General Conference forbidding members from entering new polygamous marriages. 

Race and the Priesthood -  The Church was established in 1830, many people of African descent in the United States lived in slavery, and racial prejudice were believed by most white Americans. 

From the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

This is true, but one would hope a church which claims revelation through prophets would be able to overcome cultural norms that aren’t in line with the gospel. 

Church leaders taught many things to explain the ban, and today, all of that is rejected by the church and considered error. These weren’t just teachings, they were doctrines. And the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were used to justify bigotry, such as stating that the curse of Cain was a dark skin.

International expansion of the church, especially in Brazil, forced the church into difficult situations. The Church in the USA was also under heavy pressure for the priesthood restrictions. 

Church president Spencer W. Kimball spent many hours praying for revelation to undo the priesthood ban. The essay makes it sound like some big revelation was received, but it wasn’t that way. It was a process, a statement drafted and changes made to it and voted on. 

Today, the Church disavows all teachings that teach any race or ethnicity if inferior in any way, or that mixed-race marriages are wrong. Church leaders unequivocally condemn all racism.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in this article other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for black people. There’s a big lesson in that. 

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham -  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.

A traveling salesman sold several Egyptian papyri and mummies to Joseph Smith. He was excited to learn one papyrus was scripture from Abraham and set to translating it. 

After the church left Nauvoo, Joseph’s family sold the Egyptian artifacts and they eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. In 1967, the museum transferred these fragments to the Church.

Discovery of the papyri allowed an examination of Joseph Smith’s translation.  Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham. 

Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

The essay mostly tries to explain how it is possible for Joseph Smith to have called the process for bringing forth the book of Abraham a "translation" when it is obvious that it was not a translation of the Egyptian papyri in his possession

[faithfulnews]

Is the text of the Bible we have today different from the originals?

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson: let’s take a look at the facts

I thought it might be a good idea to write something about whether the Bible is generally reliable as a historical document. Lots of people like to nitpick about things that are difficult to verify, but the strange thing is that even skeptical historians accept many of the core narratives found in the Bible. Let’s start with a Christian historian, then go to a non-Christian one.

First, let’s introduce New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace:

Daniel B. Wallace Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies

BA, Biola University, 1975; ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979; PhD, 1995.

Dr. Wallace… is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Society of Papyrologists, and the Evangelical Theological Society (of which he was president in 2016). He has been a consultant for several Bible translations. He has written, edited, or contributed to more than three dozen books, and has published articles in New Testament Studies, Novum Testamentum, Biblica, Westminster Theological Journal, Bulletin of Biblical Review, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and several other peer-reviewed journals. His Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is the standard intermediate Greek grammar and has been translated into more than a half-dozen languages.

Here is an article by Dr. Wallace that corrects misconceptions about the transmission and translation of the Testament.

He lists five in particular:

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Myth 2: Words in red indicate the exact words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.

Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.

Myth 4: Orthodox scribes have severely corrupted the text.

Myth 5: The deity of Christ was invented by emperor Constantine.

Let’s look at #4 in particular, where the argument is that the text of the New Testament is so riddled with errors that we can’t get back to the original text.

It says:

Myth 4: Orthodox scribes have severely corrupted the text.

This is the opposite of myth #3. It finds its most scholarly affirmation in the writings of Dr. Bart Ehrman, chiefly The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Misquoting Jesus. Others have followed in his train, but they have gone far beyond what even he claims. For example, a very popular book among British Muslims (The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments by M. M. Al-Azami) makes this claim:

The Orthodox Church, being the sect which eventually established supremacy over all the others, stood in fervent opposition to various ideas ([a.k.a.] ‘heresies’) which were in circulation. These included Adoptionism (the notion that Jesus was not God, but a man); Docetism (the opposite view, that he was God and not man); and Separationism (that the divine and human elements of Jesus Christ were two separate beings). In each case this sect, the one that would rise to become the Orthodox Church, deliberately corrupted the Scriptures so as to reflect its own theological visions of Christ, while demolishing that of all rival sects.”

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Even Ehrman admitted in the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” The extent to which, the reasons for which, and the nature of which the orthodox scribes corrupted the New Testament has been overblown. And the fact that such readings can be detected by comparison with the readings of other ancient manuscripts indicates that the fingerprints of the original text are still to be seen in the extant manuscripts.

Here is the full quote from the appendix of Misquoting Jesus:

“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

Finally, I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows us that religious texts don’t change as much as we think they do over time.

Look:

The Dead Sea Scrolls play a crucial role in assessing the accurate preservation of the Old Testament. With its hundreds of manuscripts from every book except Esther, detailed comparisons can be made with more recent texts.

The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and 950 gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935.{5}

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now had manuscripts that predated the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years. Scholars were anxious to see how the Dead Sea documents would match up with the Masoretic Text. If a significant amount of differences were found, we could conclude that our Old Testament Text had not been well preserved. Critics, along with religious groups such as Muslims and Mormons, often make the claim that the present day Old Testament has been corrupted and is not well preserved. According to these religious groups, this would explain the contradictions between the Old Testament and their religious teachings.

After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'”{6}

A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.

One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”{7}

Despite the thousand year gap, scholars found the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls to be nearly identical. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable evidence that the Old Testament had been accurately and carefully preserved.

I hope that this post will help those who think that we can’t get back to the text of the original New Testament documents.

Go to the article

[christsbride]

When An Angel Teaches A Different Gospel

Since the foundation of the Church, there have been many claims of supposed truth that has come down from heaven after what Jesus, and The Apostles of Jesus have made known in scripture.  Three most notable is what founded Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses.  All of these claim an Angel revealed something to their founders, different from the gospel that was proclaimed in scripture; either attempting to correct or add to it.  But, interestingly, The Holy Spirit knew this would happen and thus specifically said something about it. Galatians 1:6-9

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" 

Papyrus 46 is the oldest manuscript of Galatians currently discovered.  It is dated around the end of the 2nd century.  It contains significant portions of Galatians.  With it is Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and possibly others.  The reliability of this is unquestionable.  It is important to note the date and relation Galatians has with the other scriptures discovered with it.  Though the original was written before this manuscript, the date of this specific manuscript is only two of three generations from Jesus himself. Secondly, it is also in agreement with all that which is revealed in the other letters discovered with it.  This is important later. People, at the time of this writing, were 'deserting' the true gospel message preached by the Apostles to a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel.  The source of the 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospels came either from men or even spirits.  The Holy Spirit, through Paul, declares that even if the Apostles themselves begin distorting the original gospel preached, they are wrong.  Even if an Angel from heaven came and taught a distorted gospel, they are also wrong.  In other words, there is no other gospel no matter the source; natural (men) or supernatural (spirits) besides the original gospel that was first proclaimed. The True Gospel This is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ which includes the person and work of Jesus.  Jesus, The Son of God and God Himself, willingly, humbly, and voluntarily came down from heaven, to be born of a virgin, lived a perfect sinless life, and was the perfect sacrificial lamb to once and for all atone for the sins of all those who believe.  He then rose from the dead three days later validating his power over death and the power as the source of eternal life.  This is The Gospel message proclaimed by Jesus and The Apostles.   But, as time went on, human nature lead some to teaching something different, distorted, and contrary to this. Gnosticism This is a general term given to different early teachings.  Some of these early ideas are still apparent in cults and other religions today.  There are similar ideas in all these teachings.  They deny the foundational aspects of The Gospel message: The sufficiency of scripture, the incarnation of God as The Son and the sufficiency of Jesus death on the cross.  Some even deny the death of Jesus on the cross all together.  These Gnostics claimed that the source for their teachings came from divine sources and heightened states of spiritual awareness.  When people fail to understand and believe Galatians 1:6-9, their hearts and minds are open to just about any claim. Islam Around 610AD Mohammed, in a cave on Mt. Hira, hears the an angel who he believes to be Gabriel tell him that Allah is the only true God.  Right off the bat, this conflicts with what The Holy Spirit made known 500 years earlier (Galatians 1:8).  This belief system is different and contrary to what which was made known by Jesus and the Apostles.  It denies that Jesus was the Son of God and God in the flesh.  It denies that Jesus even died on the cross.  It denies Jesus' sufficient atoning death for sin and denies the sufficiency of scripture.  In 746AD John of Damascus wrote about the claims of Islam where he said that Mohammad's ideas of what Christianity believed derived from an Arian monk; of which Arianism is a distortion of the The Gospel as well.  Not only would Mohammad's understanding of Christianity be influenced by a distorted gospel to begin with, but he then created his own system from there.  Regardless, at the premise, the birth of Islam conflicts with Galatians 1:8.  Either Galatians is false, or Muhammad's teaching of a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel is false, both can not be true. Mormonism On Sept. 21, 1823 an angel revealed to Joseph Smith of the location of golden tablets and told him that he had been chosen to translate the book of Mormon.  The book of Mormon created an entire new system of religious beliefs that splintered off from Christianity.  A basic problem of the book of Mormon is that there are no archeological evidences to support any of its extreme historical claims.  Mormonism denies that Jesus is the One Triune God, in fact, Mormonism teaches that there is more than one god.  They deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the sufficiency of his death to forgive all sins once and for all.  They also deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and require other divine writings to aid in 'correctly' interpreting scripture.  Just like in Muhammad's situation, Either Galatians is false, or Mormonism's teaching of a 'different', 'distorted', and 'contrary' gospel is false, both can not be true. The Easy Way Out When an unverifiable person jumps up and declares that he has been given a vision or told by an angel to write a divine writing; it is then easy for them to explain away any true contradictions with scripture.  In the case with Galatians, it is then easy to say something like "God isn't talk about me, but others after me".  Or, even, claim that Galatians is a corruption of the original.  And people have no choice but to accept this unverifiable claim.  The major difference between Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and others who make this argument is that God never actually verified their claim for others to see.  Muhammad never performed any miracles and his prophecies failed.  Joseph Smith never performed any visible verifiable miracles.  The prophecies of the Jehovha's Witnesses are continually failed and have been re-explained and failed again.  The Apostles were healing the blind and crippled and raising the dead to life.  Aside from the biblical recorded accounts, early church teacher, Papias, validated this as he knew of people who were raised from the dead in his day.  Membership growth and wining Wars do not validate someone's spiritual truth claim.  Atheist church membership is growing and atheists have caused and won many wars.  Declaring "I will raise myself from the dead three days after I die" and then doing just that is validation. Declaring that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, then raising people from the dead is validating the source of power.  Anyone can claim that Galatians is wrong.  A 12 year old can just make that sort of claim just to reject the authority and justify themselves, but again, that does not make is so.  Its easy to make any claim, deny facts, and avoid being verifiable. Not a Forgery  So how do we know that Galatians is not a later forgery with the name of Paul as the author later inserted?  Well, its quite simple actually.  We just compare the vocabulary, writing style, theological point of view, cultural first hand knowledge, and presupposed historical situation to all the other Pauline writings.  Clement of Rome (and other early ancient church teachers) quoted from Romans and he wrote around 90 AD.  So we have outside sources to validate Paul's Letter to the Romans.  When comparing such validated letters we see the commonalities of the letters from one author style.  Such is with Galatians, it is the same in vocabulary, writing style, theological point of view, and presupposed historical situation as the other validated Pauline writings.  Now of course no one now saw Paul pen the letters first hand; just like all other ancient writings, yet, given the evidences, we can be certain that this letter is in fact from Paul.  Even in Islam, Muhammad never wrote anything;  Joseph Smith never showed the supposed Gold Tablets to anyone; Jehovah's Witnesses only have the unverifiable claims (and failed prophecies) of their founders. This is a major problem for Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They are forced to claim that the words in Galatians are not of Paul but must be later insertions and corruptions.  They are forced to go against the certainty of evidence support for the authenticity of Galatians.  Because if they admit the truth of Galatians, they are then exposed to the truth stated by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9.  So, of course, they take the easy way out and just flat out deny it. Conclusion Sense we can be certain that Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ validated by the other Apostles (Galatians 1:18-19, 2:9; Acts 9:26-29), wrote Galatians and a copy exists from the 2nd century we can conclude that his statement in Galatians 1:6-9 is from an Apostle of Jesus Christ validated by the other Apostles.  Therefore, the Apostolic statement must be true.  That if anyone and even an angel preaches a different gospel message, it is wrong.  Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses do just that, preach a different gospel from other angels.  But unlike them, he is validated by Apostolic support and miracles through preaching the true gospel and declaring Jesus as Christ and eternal Son of God.  Sense Galatians 1:6-9 is true, the claims of Islam, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses can not be. If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2zQWvGL

[free-mormons-blog]

Do Religion and History Conflict? -- Temple and Cosmos Beyond this Ignorant Present -- HUGH NIBLEY 1992

Do Religion and History Conflict?

A true philosopher can no more pass by the open door of a free discussion than an alcoholic can pass by the open door of a saloon. Since my hosts have been kind enough to invite me to say what I think, the highest compliment I can pay to their tolerance and liberality will be to do just that. This is not going to be a debate. I would be the most unteachable of mortals if at this stage of life I still believed that one could get anywhere arguing with a dialectician. One might as well attempt to pacify or intimidate a walrus by tossing sardines at him as to bate a philosopher with arguments. I have accepted your kind invitation because I think the subject is worth discussing.

“Do Religion and History Conflict?” Only a philosopher would word a question so strangely. If history and religion are different things, as the question implies, isn’t comparing them like comparing a rose and a submarine, or might we not ask as well whether free trade and tapdancing conflict? All things—whether ideas or concrete objects—compete for our attention, but that is plainly not the kind of conflict our questioner has in mind. Nor are we asked whether the laws of history and religion conflict. Such laws as we have in history—fundamental principles such as propounded by Thucydides or Buckle or Spengler—are simply generalizations based on insight and analogy: there is nothing rigorous or binding about them. Furthermore, your religion may conflict with my history and my religion with your history; but for that matter your religion and mine probably conflict, as do your history and mine.

Still, I think we can agree that the idea behind the question is clear: does the story of man’s life as taken from the documents, that is, his history, resemble the life story of the race as taught by revelation, i.e., in holy scriptures? The question is valid for all Christian sects and for non-Christian religions as well. The alternative to the general question is a chaos of special problems. Every church comes before the world with certain basic historic propositions peculiar to itself. Every church may be judged by those propositions when they are clearly stated: if a group announces that the end of the world is going to come on a certain day or, like Prudentius, predicts victory in a particular battle as proof of its divine leadership, or claims like the Mormons that there once was a prophet named Lehi who did such and such, we can hold that church to account. Incidentally, it will not do to project those accepted propositions into inferences and corollaries of your own, and then criticize their supporters in the light of those inferences and corollaries. We must be very careful to determine exactly what is claimed, by exactly what particular group, and then to determine exactly what happened and is happening. At this point the discussion breaks up into thousands of special topics, none of which could be handled here tonight.

The religions of the world take their stand on history to a far greater extent than is commonly realized. Christianity is by nature apocalyptic—a definite concept of world history is implicit in its teachings, its scriptures are at least half history, and it rests its whole case in the last analysis on the fulfillment of prophecy. My own church by its very name takes a definite historical stand: these are the “last days,” not the end of the world, but a time of continual crisis and mounting world conflict accompanying the “wasting away of the nations.” I would like to spend all the time in an historical vindication of my religion: but no general conclusions can be drawn from one personal case. Something more general is indicated.

In civilized societies it is customary for educated people to carry around in their heads two images of the past, present, and future world—the one religious, the other secular. Here we have two drawings of the same landscape: are they identical, is there a general resemblance between them, or are they in hopeless conflict? If one has attended a liberal Sunday School, the two pictures will tend to coincide because they have, conscientiously, been made to coicide; the same is true if one has been trained in a fundamentalist school or college. It is apparent that both pictures are highly adjustable—there is an orthodoxy and a heresy in history as well as religion. History is as much what a man believes as his religion is. History vindicates the proposition that God loves the Jews; with equal force, if you want it that way, it vindicates the proposition that he hates them. History has long been taken as a superbly convincing illustration of the working out of the principle of evolution in human affairs; today some scholars see in it a smashing refutation of any such idea. History is the story of man’s progress or his frustration, depending on how you want to read it.

If we are to judge our two pictures on the basis of artistic merit, that is, of subjective appeal, we are under no obligation to declare either one the better picture, nor, on artistic grounds, is there any reason why they should look alike. If, on the other hand, we are judging for accuracy (and that is what is here clearly implied), there is no point in comparing the pictures with each other; we must instead compare both with the original model. At once the nature of tonight’s loaded question becomes apparent. For the obvious intent of the question is to test religion’s claims in the light of historical discovery, or as the newspaper phrased the question, “Can religion face its own history without flinching?” There is no hint that history might flinch in the face of religion (as some historians have): the question proposes a beauty contest in which one of the contestants has already been awarded the prize, a litigation in which the prosecuting attorney happens to be the judge. History is above the storm; the only question is, Can religion take it?

That won’t do. We cannot assume at the outset that either picture is perfect. We have no right to treat “history” as the true and accurate image of things. Like science and religion, history must argue its case on evidence. This body is like a jury: every member must do his own thinking and make up his own mind (that is the beauty of these meetings, we have been told), but only after viewing all the evidence. This is a staggering assignment, but no one can evade it and still form an intelligent opinion. Professor W. S. McCulloch, the authority on the mechanics of the brain at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written: “[Man’s] brain corrupts the revelation of his senses. His output of information is but one part in a million of his input. He is a sink rather than a source of information. The creative flights of his imagination are but distortions of a fraction of his data.”1 In other words, we all receive information much better than we report it; so much so, that however bad the evidence may be, it is always better than any man’s report of it. Every juryman must examine and, if you will, distort the data for himself, whether we are dealing with special or general problems of history. The prospect is terrifying—and it is the historian, not the prophet, who flinches.

What we are up against may be illustrated by the case of a speaker in this series who maintained that there can be no true religious knowledge because one can never produce reliable evidence for it. He was such a ferocious stickler for evidence (and in that I enthusiastically agreed with him) that when he said three or four times that the Egyptians in 5,000 years produced nothing but the sheerest nonsense in religion and insisted on using that supposed fact as evidence for his most questionable claim (i.e., that religious teachings need not be true to be valuable), I could not help asking myself on what evidence he could possibly rest such a statement? Five thousand years is no small slice of history, and the Egyptians have left us a very respectable heap of documents. I remembered that a severe and exacting Egyptologist, T. E. Peet, had written:

As long as our ignorance is so great, our attitude towards criticism of these ancient literatures must be one of extreme humility. . . . Put an Egyptian [or Babylonian] story before a layman, even in a good translation. He is at once in a strange land. The similes are pointless and even grotesque for him, the characters are strangers, the background, the allusions, instead of delighting, only mystify and annoy. He lays it aside in disgust.2

Our speaker was properly disgusted with the Egyptians, but to charge them with uttering nothing but nonsense for 5,000 years really calls for a bit of proof.

At the first opportunity I hastened to the stacks of your excellent library, hoping to find treasures indeed, and there discovered just one Egyptian book—a religious work, incidentally, which I value very highly. I looked for other Oriental treasures, the heritage of great world civilizations—and found nothing! Surely, I thought, we can’t talk about history intelligently and leave all that stuff out. But that is precisely what we do! And that raises the all-important question for the student of history: Is there not some way of obtaining a reliable impression of the past, or of building a plausible structure of history without having to examine all the evidence? The problem that concerns our historians today is that of reducing the bulk of evidence without reducing its value. The futility of the quest is a corollary of the oft-proved proposition that the quality of history is a function of its quantity: the more information we have, the better our picture, and the rule is in no wise vitiated by the fact that some information is more valuable than other information.

The historian’s problem was correctly formulated by the scholars of the Renaissance and Reformation. These men suddenly had an enormous heap of documents dumped in their laps. They were tremendously excited about the new treasure and saw immediately that the whole pile would have to be gone through piece by piece and word by word: there could be no question of priority or selectivity or elimination, because there is no divination by which one can tell what is in a document before one has read it. This is a lesson which modern scholars have forgotten. The only legitimate question is: “By what method can one properly examine the greatest possible amount of material in a single lifetime?” The challenge has small appeal to a hurried and impatient generation like our own. We look for easier and quicker solutions, as did the Sophists of old. And like them we find those solutions in the endless discussions and expensive eyewash of the university. Consider what goes on in the history business.

1.  First, the academic mind wants neatness, tidiness, simplicity, order. It is impatient to impress an order upon nature without waiting for the real order of nature to become apparent. Historical events occur in an atmosphere of perplexity. Whether we are dealing with unique events or characteristic and repeated ones, as in culture-history, we are given no respite from the unexpected: we never know what hit us. The historian must always step in and impose order after the event. He is like a general who, having all but lost his shirt in a campaign, blandly announces when it is all over: “We planned it that way!” History is all hindsight; it is a sizing up, a way of looking at things. It is not what happened or how things really were, but an evaluation, an inference from what one happens to have seen of a few scanty bits of evidence preserved quite by accident. There is no such thing as a short, concise history of England, any more than there is an authentic three-minute version of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. One might construct such a thing, and it might be a work of art in its own right, but it could only be a parody of the real thing—a pure fiction.

As I read the journal of Samuel Sewall, the letters of Cicero, the memoirs of Joinville or Froissart or Xenophon or Ibn Battuta, I cannot but feel myself getting involved in exciting and vivid situations that will forever be as much a part of my experience as, say, the invasion of Normandy (I still remember what I read in Normandy as vividly as what I saw there). But if I read a paragraph or a sentence or two about each of the above in a college textbook, I have really had no experience at all. Yet it is not in those great neglected writers that the most valuable evidence is found, but rather in such completely neglected trivia as letters, diaries, notebooks, ledgers, etc., which few historians and no others ever care to look at.

2.  The modern college teaches us, if nothing else, to accept history on authority. Yet at the end of his life the great Eduard Meyer (who wrote a history of the Mormons, incidentally), marveled that he had always been most wrong where he thought he was most right, and vice versa. No man of our time had a broader view of world history than Professor Breasted, or was ever more dogmatically sure of himself or, in the light of subsequent discoveries, more completely wrong. To be open-minded in history one must be working constantly at one’s own structure of history, not passively accepting any secondhand solution or textbook opinion that floats down from the shining heights, as crabs and mollusks in the depths gratefully receive the dead and predigested matter that descends to them from luminous realms above. Everybody knows some history, nobody knows very much. Your strengwissenschaftliche Geschichte (“strictly scientific history”) is nowhere to be found. Ranke tried for it, but I believe with the historian Frowde that our best historian was Shakespeare.

3.  The insights of men like Taine, Mommsen, or Bury are not to be despised. Do not for a moment think that the only reliable evidence comes from brass instruments. But insight offers no escape from evidence. Insight requires in fact to be properly checked by the most exhaustive evidence of all—that which comes only by constant, intimate, lifelong familiarity with the sources. There is no more merit in armchair humanities than there is in armchair science: the learner must come to grips with the real thing at first hand; he must run the evidence to ground as in a laboratory, and never be content with the fourth-hand hearsay of a textbook or the private evaluations of a translator.

4.  The most popular attempt to grasp history at a gulp is the Cook’s Tour, for which Mr. Toynbee’s lumbering and laboring rubberneck bus is at present in great demand—though no one really seems to enjoy riding in it. Here the interest is in the monumental, the routine, the conventional, the accepted. The student is a tourist, a spectator, always detached, never allowing himself to become emotionally involved except at the prescribed stations where the guidebook instructs him to swoon. At best our college humanities are a sentimental journey, a scenic-postcard world of the obvious and theatrical: the Great Books, the Hundred Best Poems, the Greatest Works of the Greatest Minds, etc. What makes the study of history possible today I call the Gas Law of Learning, namely, that any amount of information, no matter how small, will fill any intellectual void no matter how large. It is as easy to write a history of the world after you have read ten books as after you have read a thousand—far easier, in fact. This is the historian’s dilemma: if his view is sweeping enough to be significant, it is bound to be inadequately documented; if it is adequately documented it is bound to be trivial in scope. It is a cozy and reassuring thing for student and teacher alike to have our neat authoritarian College Outline Series Syllabi of Western Civilization, Surveys of Great Minds, and what not, to fall back on. But please don’t point to these pedestrian exercises in skimming and sampling and try to tell me that they are a valid refutation of the prophets!

5.  To handle problems requiring data beyond the capacity of students and educators impatient to shine, the ancient Sophists devised certain very effective discussion techniques. In these, the most important skill was that of presenting evidence by implication or inference only. Since it is quite impossible in a public discourse (or in print, for that matter) to put all one’s evidence on display, one must be allowed on occasions to present one’s knowledge merely by inference. The Sophists seized upon this welcome path of escape from drudgery, and by the arts of rhetoric made of it a broad highway to successful teaching careers. A limited use of jargon is indispensable in any field: having solved for “x,” we do not have to derive “x” every time it is mentioned, but simply to indicate it by a symbol, such as those useful keywords commonly used to power historical discussions: the Medieval Mind, Sturm und Drang, the Frontier, Hellenism, the Enlightenment, Puritanism, the Primitive, Relativity, etc., each of which is supposed to set a whole chorus of bells chiming in our heads—the echoes of deep and thorough reading. But by a familiar process these labels are no mere labels any more; they have become the whole substance of our knowledge. The student today has never solved for that “x” about which he talks so glibly—he has got its value from an answerbook; the cue word is not just a cue; it is now the whole play. The stock charge against the philosophers in every age has been that they have made themselves experts in the manipulation of labels to the point where they live in a world of words. The art of implying the possession of certain knowledge without actually claiming it has become one of the great humanistic skills of our time, in Europe as well as America. Without it the teaching of history would be almost impossible.

My own self-confidence in sounding off on historical matters need not reflect any solid knowledge at all, but may well be the product of a careful grooming, a calculated window dressing. Today the typical academic historian does most of his training before a mirror. The modern world, like the ancient, is a world peopled largely by zombies. Occasions like this one tonight are not meant to teach but to impress. If it was knowledge we were after, we would all at this time be perusing the evidence, not listening to me.

The confusion of discussion-born ideas with evidence is the root of much trouble in education today. People wishing to be liberal demand that their ideas be given the authority of evidence with the general public and in the classroom. If we refuse to accept those ideas, however hackneyed and unobjectionable they may be, as legal tender in an economy where only evidence passes as such, they complain that their ideas are being held in contempt and that they are being persecuted—which is not true at all.

6. What about those great historical systems which the giants have erected from time to time—do not such give a faithful picture of the world? Alas, system is the death of history! The great historians have all been random readers. Werner Jaeger has said, “It must never be forgotten that it was the Greeks who created and elaborated not only the general ethical and political culture in which we have traced the origin of our own humanistic culture, but also what is called practical education and is sometimes a competitor, sometimes an opponent of humanistic culture.”3 One builds systems by excluding as well as including. When you choose to build one structure rather than another you are not merely rearranging materials in new combinations, you are emphasizing some things at the expense of others. Excluding or suppressing evidence is dangerous business, and what makes it doubly dangerous is the way in which systems of history by their very exclusiveness convey a powerful and perfectly false sense of all-inclusiveness. The product of the System is the closed mind, the student who has taken the course and knows the answers, who has been systematically bereft of the most priceless possession of the inquiring mind—the sense of possibilities.

“The Bible excels in its suggestion of infinitude,” said Whitehead and, as a friend describes it, “suddenly he stood and spoke with passionate intensity, ‘Here we are with our finite beings and physical senses in the presence of a universe whose possibilities are infinite, and even though we may not apprehend them, those infinite possibilities are actualities.‘ ” Later he added, “I doubt if we get very far by the intellect alone. I doubt if intellect carries us very far.”4 The study of history in the schools today, with its “intellectual” orientation, effectively stifles that very sense of possibilities which it is the duty of history before all else to foster. For every door it opens, our modern education closes a thousand. We cannot insist too emphatically on the endless mass, variety, detail, and scope of historical evidence; every page of every text is a compact mass of a thousand clues, and every reading full of new and surprising discoveries. That is the essence of history, and the modern academic presentation completely effaces it. The modern scholar is eager to reach his conclusion, get his degree, and stop his investigations before there is any danger of running into contradictions. From a safe and settled position he wants only to discuss and discuss and discuss. The via scholastica is well marked: first one takes a sampling, merely a sampling, of the evidence; then as soon as possible one forms a theory (the less the evidence the more brilliant the theory); from then on the scholar spends his days defending his theory and mechanically fitting all subsequent evidence into the bed of Procrustes.

7.  But surely there is a general overall picture of history, or some really basic points, upon which a massive consensus exists. Surely the verdict can be imparted to students in a few lessons, and it must be fairly reliable. There is a charming study by the Swede Olaf Linton on the basic certitudes of church history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—what he calls the Consensus with a capital “C.” Mr. Linton shows us how the consensus changes with time and circumstances just as completely and just as surely as the fashions in women’s hats. The Homeric question furnishes us with a good illustration of present-day consensus. What we call higher criticism is the application to the Bible of methods of textual criticism developed in the study of the Homeric problem. That problem is really far simpler than the biblical (there is hardly a book in the Bible that is not as mysterious as Homer), yet after 200 years of intensive investigation where do we stand? Listen to Professor Wade-Gery of Oxford: “Homer, who wrote the Iliad as I believe sometime in the eighth century . . . lived (as I believe) in Chios, and knew the Eighth City of Troy. He was (as I also believe) a man of exceptional genius. . . . I feel sure that almost all which makes the Iliad a great poem is the poet’s own creation.”5 And listen to Professor Whatmough of Harvard in the same issue of the same journal:

Nothing is, or could be, more puerile than the notion that the Iliad could possibly have been composed by one man. . . . The complex descent (rather than “origin”) of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey is as certain as anything can be in this very uncertain world. . . . I know [of] no competent linguist . . . whose knowledge of Greek and Greek dialects I respect enough to quote his name, who holds any other opinion. . . . To use the term author or authorship . . . is simply to sin against the light.6

Note it well: “As certain as anything can be.” Yet a host of big names are quite convinced of the opposite! The consensus has its fads and fashions like everything else.

As for the scientific consensus, with all its vaunted objectivity, let us hear Whitehead again:

In those years from the 1880s to the first war, who ever dreamed that the ideas and institutions which then looked so stable would be impermanent? . . . Fifty-seven years ago . . . I was a young man in the University of Cambridge. I was taught science and mathematics by brilliant men and I did well in them; since the turn of the century I have lived to see every one of the basic assumptions of both set aside; not, indeed, discarded, but of use as qualifying clauses instead of as major propositions; and all this in one life-span, the most fundamental assumptions of supposedly exact sciences set aside. And yet, in the face of that, the discoverers of the new hypotheses in science are declaring, “Now at last, we have certitude“—when some of the assumptions which we have seen upset had endured for more than twenty centuries.7

And but a few months ago Professor McCulloch wrote:

At last we are learning to admit ignorance, suspend judgment, and forego the explicatio ignoti per ignotius—”God”—which has proved as futile as it is profane. . . . So long as we, like good empiricists, remember that it is an act of faith to believe our senses, . . . and that our most respectable hypotheses are but guesses open to refutation, so long may we “rest assured that God has not given us over to thraldom under that mystery of iniquity, of sinful man aspiring into the place of God.”8

I can answer the question, “Do religion and history conflict?” for myself, but not for anyone else. At present, my religion and history do not conflict, as once they did. Well, you say, of course they agree because you make them agree. That is not entirely true. There are controls. Within the last three or four years leading Jewish and Christian scholars have been forced to relinquish a concept of history which they had painfully built up through the decades to an almost perfect consensus. Some of them put up a magnificent fight, but in the end the evidence was too strong, and one by one they gave in. It is a healthy sign when religion and history conflict: it means that they are not being bent wilfully to force them into agreement. In most historical fields the difficulty of the languages in which the sources are written is enough in itself to guarantee the minimum of intellectual integrity in the researcher: the documents simply refuse to speak unless one approaches them with a really open mind and is willing to swallow his pride and suppress self-will. In much the same way the rigorous demands of mathematics guarantee a measure of honesty in any scientist who is equipped to work in a field.

But unfortunately there are no such controls in those more socialized fields of learning which, for that very reason, have completely banished the older disciplines from our secondary schools and supplanted them at the university by pretentious techniques of discussion and pseudo-scientific “quantification of the obvious.” In such an atmosphere it is futile to attempt a serious discussion of history.

I believe my history and religion agree in a way that is objective enough to justify my conviction that the agreement is not entirely the result of my own manipulating. But whether this agreement is significant or not must be decided by everyone for himself, on his own examination of the evidence. As to the general question, “When do we flinch?” the answer is: Wait until history comes up with all the answers, or with any answer we can be entirely sure of—then we will know whether to flinch or not. Meantime, it is the historian’s duty (for it is he who appeals to an uncompromising objectivity) to flinch every time an answer of his proves defective—which is, roughly, on the hour every hour.

Does life on the moon resemble life on Mars? It is a good question, but premature. When I was a little boy we used to sit in a tent on hot summer afternoons and debate loudly and foolishly on just such lofty themes as this one. I think we all felt vaguely uncomfortable about the whole thing, and that made us all the more excitable, dogmatic, and short-tempered. The trouble was that we were not yet ready; we did not have the necessary knowledge. But when would we be ready? Are we ready yet? If not, we should stop playing this game of naughty boys behind the barn, smoking cornsilk and saying damn and hell to show how emancipated we are. It is much too easy to be a “swearing elder”: knowledge is not so cheaply bought. We are not free to discuss any imaginable question simply because we say we are. I am not permitted to discuss botany with anybody, at any time or place; it is not the jealousy of a reactionary society or the dictates of a narrow church that cramp my style—I just don’t happen to know anything about botany. Prejudice, says Haldane, consists in having an opinion before examining all the evidence. If anyone draws any conclusions but one here tonight, they must needs be prejudiced conclusions. If we have gathered here to read lectures to each other or to the Mormon Church, we might as well spare our breath; or if you are looking for a stick to beat the Church with, my advice is, leave history out of it—it will come apart in your hands. For our knowledge of the past is too trivial to serve as an effective instrument in real situations—that is why it is often appealed to but never actually used.

What do we have then? Well, I have a testimony: I may be ignorant, but I am not lost. Socrates counted a life well spent that ended only with the discovery that he knew nothing. That was not a figure of speech or a clever paradox: that was his solemn testimony delivered in the hour of his death. And if the most profitable activity of the mind is that which leads to the discovery of its own ignorance and ineptitude, we can all take heart in the thought that we have not entirely wasted our time in coming here tonight. At this point we can begin the study of the gospel; there is no further need for waiting around until “history” can make up its mind.

Notes

1.

 W. S. McCulloch, “Mysterium Iniquitatis of Sinful Man Aspiring in the Place of God,”

Scientific Monthly

80 (1955): 39.

2.  T. E. Peet, A Comparative Study of the Literatures of Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia (London: Schweich Lectures, 1931), 6, 12-13.

3.  Werner Jaeger, Paidea, 3 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1945), 1:317.

4.  Lucien Price, “To Live without Certitude, Dialogue of Whitehead,” Atlantic Monthly 193 (March 1954): 58-59.

5.  H. T. Wade-Gery, “What Happened in Pylos?” American Journal of Archaeology 52 (1948): 115-16.

6.  Joshua Whatmough, “Hosper Homeros Phesi,” American Journal of Archaeology 52 (1948): 45-46.

7.  Price, “To Live without Certitude,” 58; cf. Lucien Price, “Visit and Search, Dialogues of Whitehead,” Atlantic Monthly 193 (May 1954): 53: “I had a good classical education, and when I went up to Cambridge early in the 1880’s my mathematical training was continued under good teachers. Now nearly everything was supposed to be known about physics that could be known—except a few spots, such as electromagnetic phenomena which remained (or so it was thought) to be coordinated with the Newtonian principles. But, for the rest, physics was supposed to be nearly a closed subject. Those investigations to coordinate went on through the next dozen years. By the middle of the 1890’s there were a few tremors, a slight shiver as of all not being quite secure, but no one sensed what was coming. By 1900 the Newtonian physics were demolished, done for! Still speaking personally, it had a profound effect on me; I have been fooled once, and I’ll be damned if I’ll be fooled again!”

8.  McCulloch, “Mysterium Iniquitatis of Sinful Man,” 36, 39.