THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
Jeff Lindsay, Mormon Apologist.
| Jeff Lindsay Claims April 2005 National Geographic Confirms Book Of Mormon |
Friday, May 13, 2005, at 08:23 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: JEFF LINDSAY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Well, at least according to Jeff Lindsay it does (click here for all the details).
From his blog:
The April 2005 National Geographic provides at least two facts of interest to students of the LDS scriptures. Look at their Web page for the April 2005 issue. Notice especially the opening and closing sentences. Do you see the relevance? (he then quotes the following from the NG article)
andnbsp;"King Aha, "The Fighter," was not killed while unifying the Nile's two warringandnbsp;andnbsp;andnbsp; kingdoms...blablablabla..."
Did you notice? Aha! There it is, a Book of Mormon name in ancient Egypt. It's a name that is not found in the Bible (though critics have claimed he plagiarized it from phrases like "Ah!") or in any of the sources that Joseph theoretically had access to, as far as I know (even if Joseph had managed to secretly acquire the vast frontier library that his critics seem to imagine he had).
For the Egyptians, Aha was the name of a great king, also called "the Fighter." In the Book of Mormon, Aha was the name of another fighter, a Nephite military officer, son of the chief captain over the Nephite armies.
So there you have it.andnbsp; Aha proves the BoM.andnbsp;
All this word coincidence shit proves nothing.andnbsp; Like someone else posted here before,andnbsp;many babies sayandnbsp;said "Dada" before theyandnbsp;can walk.andnbsp; This is impressive evidence for reincarnation, asandnbsp;we can hardly expect a 6 month old baby to know about the art movement of the 1920s.andnbsp;
I hope for Jeff's sake his employers never stumble on this stuff.andnbsp;
But he doesn't stop there.andnbsp; Oh no.andnbsp;
He goes on to argue that Pharaoh Aha's tomb also had evidence of human sacrifice.andnbsp; So what you say?andnbsp; Well:
Did you notice the other thing relevant to LDS scriptures?
As mentioned in the National Geographic summary, there is growing evidence that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice, supporting the allegedly incredible claim in the Book of Abraham that a priest of the Egyptian religion had sacrificed children and attempted to sacrifice Abraham.
Add this to a large body of evidence from other ancient texts that there was an attempt to sacrifice Abraham for his refusal to worship idols, and we have an interesting case for the authenticity of the story reported in the Book of Abraham.
Far from being the weak underbelly of Mormon scripture, it is an increasingly impressive witness of the reality of Joseph Smith's divine calling as a prophet. The critics are unable to explain how Joseph could have made up so many details in the text that have recently become credible in light of other ancient accounts.
Maybe we don't waste out time trying to explain because we don't have to.andnbsp;
We have reliable eyewitness accounts that have Joseph bragging that Abraham wrote the papyri that we now know are ordinary funeral prayers.andnbsp; Game, set, match to the critics.andnbsp; Whatever details Joseph happened to get right mean nothing in the face of his primary text being shown to be other than what he claimed it to be.
| I have been waiting for several years for one of Jeff Lindsay's fellow apologists to point out a grave error, but I see that it is still there. Does this indicate ignorance or indifference?
This is the error. In 1984 John Sorenson and Robert Smith reported in a FARMS Update that two Egyptian shawabti figurines had been unearthed some years earlier on the Pacific coast of El Salvador, providing evidence of Egyptian influence in Central America. In 1992 this report was published by John Welch with a collection of other FARMS Updates. Jeff Lindsay incorporated this information in his Book of Mormon Nugget #1 as evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. That's where the matter remained until 1997, when John Gee investigated and determined that the figurines were modern fakes (Gosh, didn't this possibility occur to Sorenson in 1984?). In the same year, Sorenson conceded that Gee was probably right, and Welch acknowledged in 1999 that the figurines were forgeries. Didn't anyone send the memo to Lindsay?
Yup, pure fool's gold. Maybe Lindsay should start panning in a different stream.
| "Joseph smith gave his life as a final witness to the truthfulness of his prophetic mission, sealing his testimony with his blood. But there were others with him as a mob attacked him and his small group of helpless prisoners being held illegally in a jail, and Joseph successfully sought to save some of their lives, though he knew his would be taken. It is true that somebody had brought a small pistol to Joseph for self-defense, but his desperate efforts to save others hardly detracts from the fact that he gave his life, or that a mob of vile conspirators, stirred by some of the best anti-Mormon ministers of the day, deliberately murdered the prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum."
Let me put this in plain English.
Joseph Smith died with a gun in his hand. He was shooting at people. They managed to shoot him first. End of story.
Mormons still use this to stir up feelings of martyrdom today. While I was reading this, I couldn't help thinking that this is obvious propoganda. Red flag: it's way overdone.
| Jeff Lindsay:
The intellectual weakness of the standard anti-Mormon position has been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature.
Okay let's examine what Owen and Mosser actually wrote-
Owens and Mosser:
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
"Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205)
Owens and Mosser are talking about people who criticize the LDS church from an evangelical perspective. For some reason Jeff Lindsay says these scholars are criticizing the "standard anti-Mormon position".
Even for those who do not outright falsify their degrees or relationship to the Church, dressing up one's credentials is still fairly common among anti-Mormons. Most recently, Grant Palmer has palmed himself off as a high-placed "insider" in the Church, making much of his experience as a former "director" of the institutes of religion in the Church Educational System, which sounds impressive to those who don't know it just means an instructor in the Church's seminary program. Seminary teachers are hardly "insiders"--no more so than any other active member, in my opinion. He also boasts of having been a High Priest group instructor, which also sounds impressive to those who don't know that most adult males, when they get old enough, tend to end up in the local High Priests group, and that many of them will have a turn at being the instructor.
Grant Palmer specifically states that his book is not intended for "children or investigators" but for "other second-, third-, and fourth-generation Mormons" (page ix, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins)
So clearly his intent is not to deceive because his book is written for people who already know what the terms "high priest" and "institute director" mean. And what position do you have to hold to qualify as an insider within the church. Do you have to be part of some elite group?
Anti-Mormons are typically completely ignorant of Hugh Nibley's work. When forced to confront his writings, they rapidly dismiss him as irresponsible, biased, sloppy, deceitful, etc.
Well, I'm not ignorant of Nibley. I've read three of his books and found them a lot less convincing than anti-Mormon books that I've read.
In general, it seems that Jeff Lindsay is good at making strawman arguments. He picks out ignorant or dishonest people who have criticized the church and tries to make it seem as if anti-Mormons are like this in general.
| This evidence is so flimsy that you can't even look at it cross-eyed without it falling apart. |
Just a couple of examples:
Joe had a brother named Sam and access to an apocryphal Bible with the name Nephi in it. The KJV Bible contains the name Lehi and the name Lehigh was used in in the region where Joe grew up.
See Judges 15:9 -- "Then the Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi."
See the Second Book of Maccabees, Chapter 1, Verse 36: "And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi."
But Lindsay wants us all to breathlessly marvel at the similarity between the names Nafi and Nephi and Lihy and Lehi and then he wants us to join him in drawing the conclusion that it would have been impossible for Joe to have come up with such names if he had not actually been translating genuine golden plates bearing a genuine record of Lehi and Nephi.
Lindsay's standard approach is to (1) take loose parallels and speculate like a completely unhinged mad man about what the parallels could possibly indicate in a world where the Book of Mormon was a genuine ancient record, (2) treat all of his wild-eyed speculation as proven facts, and (3) draw conclusions based on steps (1) and (2) that support the Book of Mormon, but which only seem like reasonable conclusions if you are willing to ignore all of the groundless speculative nonsense that takes place in steps (1) and (2).
Another funny example of Lindsay Loony-Toons Apologetics:
Lindsay tells us: "The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that Nephi was a very successful missionary during his journey down from Jerusalem (DandC 33:7, 8)."
But then when we actually read DandC 33:7,8, we find that it says only: "7. Yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that the field is white already to harvest; wherefore, thrust in your sickles, and reap with all your might, mind, and strength.
8. Open your mouths and they shall be filled, and you shall become even as Nephi of old, who journeyed from Jerusalem in the wilderness."
Uhmmm... The DandC doesn't exactly tell us that Nephi was a successful missionary during his journey from Jerusalem. I guess an interpretation can be made that he was a good preacher or even an "exhorter" (and, surprise, surprise, Joe had been a good "exhorter" too at one point). However, the Book of Mormon itself only makes references to Nephi's exhortations to his brothers and the immediate family group he was traveling with. You'd kinda think that the conversion of an entire tribe would've been worth writing about, wouldn't you? I mean, Nephi could have dispensed with about three "and it came to pass" entries and instead could have mentioned: "Oh, by the way, I converted a tribe of people today to something, not to a church and not with any baptism, since we haven't been doing any of that, but I converted them nonetheless, and their hearts were softened because they were so impressed with the way I hacked off Laban's head." You know, in light of Lindsay's "theory", it would seem reasonable to expect at least a little reference in the Book of Mormon to Nephi's great missionary work aamong the tribes.
We should call Lindsay "Stretch" from now on. "Stretch" Lindsay--an apologetic superhero who has an amazing ability to stretch things to previously unimaginable lengths. ;o)
| Jeff Lindsay Should Be Nicer To Anti-Mormons; He Is One Himself |
Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, at 07:53 AM
Original Author(s): Asimov
Topic: JEFF LINDSAY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ ||
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119