Seems like recently we've been hearing a lot about the richness in ancient Mormon history and the credibility of the Book of Mormon historicity!!
But what happens if we look below the surface to those promoting such "richness" and "credibility" in these efforts??
When Mormon Times publishes articles, what should we assume?? Should we assume the articles title is something of accurate relevance and will provide factual back-up and evidence to it's claim? Or should one automatically assume the article is directed to an ignorant audience that is not expected to exercise intellectual judgement in really reading the article and just go along with the emotional testimony it's author is targeting???
I think the answer is really quite clear when you look at a recent article by Dan Peterson in the Mormon Times. The title of the article is:
"Mormonism Relies on Historical EVENTS"
http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1975 ... cal-events
Yet when he gets into his article the term "historical event"'for Mormonism can't be found!! Like most in "spin"'it goes to "claims"!!
From the article:
Dan Peterson:
"Like early Christianity, though, Mormonism rests on historical claims about people and events, not on theological speculations. It rises or falls on whether certain things happened. Deductions from those events are secondary. The reality of the events is primary."
Yet the article provides not one single historical EVENT as evidence of the authors claim in his title!!! Perhaps just a phenomenon in Provo publishing, but obviously why the only place such an article could be published is within "Mormon Times"!!!! But who would ever subject the author to be accountable to his claim when published there??
And what about the pride and richness in "ancient Mormon history" when it comes to the very parties who should be most avid in it's teachings???
Dan Peterson wrote:I love history. I love ancient history. I'm passionate about them. But I don't think that Church classes are historical seminars. (I think I've said that before, but it bears repeating.)
I think Mr Peterson recognizes the death nail that attempting to teach "ancient Mormon history" would be to BYU accreditation, and would rather not discuss such on a public message board.
I'm sure BYU, or any academic institution, would never risk respectability nor accreditation in attempting to offer any "History" class on "ancient" Mormon history!!! Peterson and others at BYU know there is no Mormon history prior to the life of Joseph Smith. And for BYU to attempt to teach such as "history" would likely be loss of accredidation for BYU and credibility for the Mormon church leaders as they would then expose themselves to accountability for answers! And I suspect they have long recognized the "Milllet" response does not work with adults.
I believe most here can see the absurdity to the rationale provided by certain Provo proclamations when it comes to serious discussion of "ancient Mormon history" as an acceptable nor serious "history" discussion in academic circles.
I think it's fairly consistent to the Mormon Times article, referred to above, where the title is geared to naïve minds and has no substance relative to the content of the article.
But I acknowledge the need to keep such discussion alive in isolation in Provo!! The reality is that such discussions would never happen in an academic setting, nor would those with prophetic abilities ever weigh in!!!
Seems to me that "testimonial training" may be
the way forward for the MI in this area!
Without insults!ng
