They probably mean giant bison.
The letter can be found in many locations on the internet. When I went to www.google.com, and typed in: “Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology,” I got 20 hits. Unfortunately, none were official Smithsonian websites.
Yes, the letter is genuine. You can see a scanned copy of the letter here. It should be pointed out that the letter from the Smithsonian arose because of a persistent 1980s urban legend in Mormon circles that the Smithsonian was using the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide to find archaeological sites and so forth. This was the form letter that they sent out in response to inquiries between 1996-1998. Now they send out a much shorter letter without the specific refutations of the Book of Mormon.
It’s also important to point out that a letter from a scientist at the Smithsonian doesn’t disprove the Book of Mormon. It is the totality of all our scientific knowledge (archaeological, linguistic, genetic) that rules out the events of the Book of Mormon.
Then you got screwed, I got 282 in .72 sec. One of which led me here.
As a for instance, this is one of the reasons I choose not to go into deep foray’s regarding such issues. All of these points of inflammatory rhetoric have been answered ad nauseam and are freely available to anyone. Of course one has to be willing to have an open mind to look to see what the other side has to say.
Don’t get me wrong. One should look to potential faith systems with skepticism. A question regarding ‘x’ is interesting, bothersome, troubling, whatever. It makes no sense to go to a malcontent or someone who has a bizarre hobby like bashing another faith to get a reasoned response. I wouldn’t go to a carpenter for advice on my major plumbing issues, neither would I go to a Roman Catholic Hater to find answers on Catholicism. Maybe, call me crazy, a Priest or Elder would be a good source?
It is true, just as in any religion, there is a high inactive rate amoungst those who join a faith after two weeks. Same thing applies to any faith. That doesn’t mean one should stop proselytizing. It took me about 8 years to join the Church. That is one of the reasons it takes a year (minimum) to get a Temple Recommend.
It should be noted that the President of the church is accepted as a profit in the LDS religion, thus he has the power and the ability to change doctrine through “divine revelation”
These changes may be to address unknown areas of their beliefs or to overturn existing ones, they do both all the time and not only when in the sights of the US Cavalry.
As a 4th Generation Gentile raised in the land of Zion I have witnessed what I would call main-lining of several of these beliefs in my own life time (about 40 years).
This is not contentious in their belief structure and although it is official and may seem odd to most Christians it is not uncommon in other faiths and some other christian denominations too.
Even those who claim that Continuous revelation antithetical to their doctrine such as the Catholics occasionally do, like the removal of limbo for babies in Catholicism.
As a non-theist it seems that the LDS revelations tend to have a lot lower chance of inducing a crisis of faith vs. huge changes like Vatican II.
That being said, like you other Christians who are posting , they are also typically too busy with worship and life to spend much time in serious study of their faith. Thus they may not be familiar with the esoteric portions of the faith.
Many of the points made in GD over the past week on why the Book of Mormon is heretical also apply to books you accept like Deuteronomy, I would almost say the LDS church is more consistent with the history of Abraham religions in that fashion.
And as most people who grow up as a religious minority in a small community would know, that is a lot coming from a 4th generation zionic gentile. (although I am a relation of the most famous Danite)
Obviously Erdosain stated he is an ex-mormon and an atheist, should have quoted others for that part of my reply.
Limbo is not, and has never been, an official Catholic doctrine. It’s merely a theory posited by some theologians to explain the possible fate of infants who die before baptism.
“The removal” in that sentence was not intended to infer it was official doctrine, but that limbo denounced as heretical. Limbo was a common held view by those who couldn’t accept that babies would not be eligible for “beatific vision”
This is a wonderful article at Catholic Answers Magazine suggesting to me that while Limbo may not have been officially defined by the RC, it was de facto, being a place where unbaptized infants would go, either outright hell (as per Aquinas, II Sent. , d.33, q.2, a.2 or a non-hell but also none partaker of the Beatific Vision .
Sounds suspiciously like the RC is becoming pc.
I clicked on your link and found an interesting effort to refute the Smithsonian Letter. There were plenty of footnotes, but the links were to “experts,” publications, and even publishing houses I had never heard of. I doubt that many Mormons reading that essay come close to understanding it. Nevertheless, they feel that the person writing it is very intelligent and well informed, so what he says must be true.
The Smithsonian letter is easy to understand. It is presented by a well known and international authority I trust. Anyone who is thinking about becoming a Mormon, and anyone who is wavering in the faith should read it. Actually, I should have some copies printed out to hand to the next pair of Mormon missionaries who knock on my door.
Many people are irritated by Mormon missionaries. I like them and enjoy talking to them. Nevertheless, I seem to know more about their religion than they do. When I ask them about The Book of Abraham they usually do not know what I am talking about. When I explain The Book of Abraham, they smile politely, but do not indicate that they understand what I am talking about.
An excellent video on The Book of Abraham can be found here:
An assertion like that should be documented with a link to a credible source.
When I was nineteen years old two Mormon missionaries proselytized me for six months. I wanted to become a Mormon. However, when I learned about The Book of Abraham I knew that Joseph Smith was a religious charlatan.
If Mitt Romney is nominated by the Republican Party, or worse yet, if he is elected President I hope there is a vigorous effort to expose the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Once on the internet I read an essay by a man who had converted to Mormonism. Later he left the faith for the same reasons I never entered it. He said that conversion to Mormonism is like buying an impressive Victorian home one has admired for years without examining the foundations. Finally, when one goes down to the basement for the first time and turns on the lights one sees what one does not want to.
No offense, New Deal Democrat, but you really don’t understand devout Mormons. A 15-year-old letter from a guy at the Smithsonian isn’t going to cause anyone to give up their religion. The fact that you think it would makes me wonder how much you understand people or human nature.
Missionaries are indeed aware of the Book of Abraham, as it is included in their scriptures. They aren’t aware of the problems with the Book of Abraham, which is probably why they politely smiled and nodded when you started your verbal wall-of-text at them.
I don’t want to pick on New Deal Democrat, but a lot of non-Mormons seem to be suffering from the delusion that if they point of the errors of Mormonism, believers will suddenly blink twice, rub their necks, and snap out of a hypnotic trance. “Wow, thank you! I can’t believe I believed THAT! Thanks for saving me!” It’s not going to happen. Religious belief is often deeply entrenched and extremely difficult to reason people out of. It’s a waste of time. You have to put out factual, unbiased information, and let people come to it on their own. It is almost impossible to push someone out of their beliefs. Human nature dictates that we’ll fight back harder than before.
I will share that the problems with the Book of Abraham are what finally convinced me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Mormonism was false. But I would never have been open to it if someone was trying to shove it down my throat.
Amen!
I used to debate the “antiMormon” guys on the Salt Lake Tribune’s comment boards. But I stubbornly refused to let anything shake my faith. But then after a few days on my own studying the correct interpretation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, everything made sense. The Book of Abraham proves beyond all doubt that Joseph Smith does not have a divine gift to translate ancient Egyptian (or reformed Egyptian) scripture.
I am thoroughly aware of how impossible it is to reason with someone who wants desperately to believe something that flies in the face of facts and reason. I would not begin an argument with a Mormon on the Book of Abraham, but when Mormon missionaries initiate the discussion I feel that it is appropriate for me to explain what I know about it, as long as I can do so politely.
Many people are angered when they are approached by Mormon missionaries. Many others simply do not want to bother with them. I enjoy talking to them. It is they, rather than I, who terminate the conversations.
Really? Seriously? You say there is no rational behind xyz, yet this guy makes the effort to show, using literally dozens of highly respected non-LDS PhDs in their field, sourcing professional journals and yet your proclaiming this to be a type of ad authoritatum argument? Then you make an ad hominem by ‘doubting that many Mormans reading that essay come close to understanding it’. That seems to infer you do? Can’t win for losing. See, what I did was I went to the University of California, Berkeley Library and looked up the Journals I was referenced to, some of which are in this list. I did my due diligence, found there to be enough ‘professional’ debate on the subject to warrant following the testimony I was given. Not exactly faith inspiring way to go about it, but there you have it. Perhaps if some of the folks here were to have said to themselves, “hmmm, anti-mormon genre. Sure, I risk making an ad hominem attack against the genre, but after all…let’s look to see if there is a more professional way to look at the subject…”, done the research, they would have, perhaps, thought second.
Sure, except they don’t give out that script any more and haven’t for close to 20 years. That’s why it is not on their web sight.
Ok, you know more about someone’s religion than they do themselves. Gee. All these kids know is they (supposedly) prayed about their religion, received a testimony of Jesus as the Christ, and preach it. Do they know about the anti-literature as well as you? Are you kidding? I went on my mission in the 80s. I doubt a day went by I wasn’t given some type of anti-mormon feedback. From the thousands of RMs I have talked to, I would say my case was not unique. Who ever said the missionaries were being polite was most likely right on the money. However, let’s say you happened to stumble across two young guys who have not heard of what ever inflammatory rhetoric you threw at them, and all they had was a witness of the Holy Spirit of the Truth they were teaching. That is all that is asked of them. They are not trained debaters, nor trained theologians, nor graduates of a Deep Schools of Thought (though many are), they are simply witnesses of the Gospel.
One more point, strange that my link was changed. Just in case the link gets changed again, here is where it was supposed to take you, “http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml”.
Yep, I have done that myself. I developed a particular loathing the the person who presumed to teach me my own religion through the prism of their own mind.
Short missionary story. I was invited into the home of a Dominee (a Nederland Gereformeerde Kirk [sp], Dutch Reformed Church, minister with 8+ years of University) in Pietermaritzburg. After a short discussion, he became very hostile. Literally threatening me if I did not stop preaching to his congregation. My response was, “Cool, your going to beat me up if I don’t stop?” He said nothing for a moment than said, “The Book of Mormon is a violation of the Book of Revelation, last verses saying not to add to or take away from…[etc].”
I asked him if he was serious or just testing me. He hrumpphed and said he was very serious. I then told him he was either very ignorant of the Bible or a liar. He got really red in the face and asked me what I meant. I told him it was my understanding the Book of Revelation was written after other books in the Bible, John 2 and 3 specifically, and that if that were true, he would need to tear those books out of his Bible as being false to. He got REALLY mad and invited us to leave. So, you see not all teachers of the word are as knowledgeable as you and I. Certainly you have never used that particular ‘trick’, have you?
Zedd, I have a serious question for you. Is English your first language? I’m not trying to score some point off of you, it’s just that sometimes your posts can be a little difficult to follow and this would explain a lot to me.
Secondly, this:
It is a fact that many people critical of Mormonism know tons more than the missionaries. As you said, the only knowledge requirement for these 19-year-olds (well, except you, old man) is that they pray about it and feel good. Most of them don’t know a thing. I grew up in the Church, went to Early Morning Seminary every day, and I didn’t know a tenth of what I know now. Familiar with anti literature? Of course not. They’re not supposed to read it! Just because you collected it on your mission doesn’t mean that missionaries know it or understand it. I collected some anti literature too, but I didn’t investigate it, analyze it. I dismissed it out of hand and made fun of it with the other missionaries.
Don’t make missionaries out to be experts on Mormonism. They aren’t. In fact, they’re probably some of the least knowledgeable people about Mormonism who are Mormon. Arguing with them, like New Deal Democrat apparently does, is a waste of time. All he’s doing is giving them some persecution stories that missionaries are so fond of.
Just a postscript, since I really couldn’t follow your post about the Smithsonian letter, Jeff Lindsay is kind of a joke, even in believing Mormon circles. He is extremely sincere and seemed like a nice enough guy when I interacted with him, but his apologetic work is very amateurish. Good intentions, but not great execution. Of course, he doesn’t have a lot to work with, but still. 
First language, born and bred. Supposedly some Niitsitapi (Blackfoot from an errr…, excursion a great grandpa had a couple generations back). On the other hand I am known for being kinda different and have a bad habit of writing the way I think. I try to say as much in as few words as possible. I’ll try to be more clear.
You are correct re missionaries not being all that knowledgeable about non-LDS criticisms of the Church. They are, after all, only 19 or so. I know very few kids that age who have anything more than a passing interest outside of their social life. I am sure the Church does not teach responses to these criticisms.
As for collecting persecution stories, my best one was being attacked by a guy at his door, literally. He punched my companion in the face and started screaming in Afrikaans about not serving in the Defense Force. I got him in a head lock while my companion collected his spilled backpacks contents, the whole time yelling back at the guy about me being ex-Navy. Turned out he thought we were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Oh well. Can’t say he invited us back for a Castle Lager. oh yeah, he spit on me to. I figure that was for the headlock thing.
As for Jeff Lindsey, I find his writings to be at least well documented. I don’t know anyone who even knows who he is. None in my circle of friends delve into the deep secrets of anti-mormon literature. I had one friend who asked me if there were decent answers to a list of questions a baptist had given him. I told him yes and if he wanted to get my take I’d be free to go over it with him. He said he didn’t really care and that he trusted me that there were responses to the questions. Frankly, I found his lack of interest in such serious questions (one of which said that the consummation of a temple sealing was witnessed by others, obviously not true) more disturbing than the questions.
Hey, no problems. I just got a little lost in post #115. That’s all.
Yep, I totally agree here.
I actually really like this story. You were persecuted for being a JW! I was hit with a rock once, but that was probably more to do with being American than being a missionary.
A lack of curiosity among believing Mormons is pretty common in my experience. As long as they are assured that there are answers out there, they’re okay with not knowing the nitty gritty. And really, I’m going to be totally honest with you, that’s the best way to stay Mormon. If you keep digging, you’re just going to find more and more disturbing stuff you have to explain, excuse, and rationalize. Now, I’m not saying that everyone who knows this stuff will stop believing, but it sure makes it a hell of a lot harder. I couldn’t do it.
You don’t want to know how sausage is made. Or Mormonism.
If he had stuck to these sources then his arguments may have carried some weight. As it is he also relies on a number of non-LDS PhDs who carry little or no respect in their fields—they’re regarded by their colleagues as sloppy or controversial at best, or outright kooks at worst.