Barter_Town

What an insightful response.. LOL.. so, have you read any of her books? Didn't think so.. Yes, a couple of Jefferson biographers (Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson, to be specific) did have problems with her book due to its speculation that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by one of his slaves (Sally Hemmings). Brodie and her publisher both knew that her book would be controversial, so it was hardly surprising that her arguments met stiff resistance from other Jefferson scholars. Nevertheless her book became a national bestseller, was the main spring selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and was a NY Times bestseller for thirteen weeks. Literary reviews were generally positive, while historians were generally critical due to her unsupported speculations on the nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. Funnily enough Brodie has had the last laugh, considering the fact that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation concluded that there is a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was indeed the father of Sally's son Easton, and possibly the father of all the Hemmings children listed in the Monticello records. Anyway thanks for proving my point -- most church members badmouth her biography of Joseph Smith without even having read it simply because she doesn't approach the subject as a true-believer. I guess that's just too much to fathom for some folks.

Of course; you approach the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record, and then a posteriori search for evidence to support your belief. The problem is that these simply aren't good evidences. If there really were Judeo-Christian civilizations in the Americas as recently as 421 AD (not long ago in archaeological terms), one would expect to find much stronger evidence than the sort you have presented, e.g. usage of the wheel, domestication of Old World animals, Old World crops, smelted iron and steel, usage of a Semitic / Egyptian language and script, presence of Semitic DNA in Native American populations, etc. etc. These are major, major things that any reasonable person would expect. That you ignore the fact that no such evidence exists in favor of place-name similarities and textual parallels shows how weak your position really is. Ignoring the many major "misses" in favor of a few seeming "hits" does not prove anything other than wishful thinking. They may qualify as evidence to you; to me they are standard apologetics. You see the same sorts of things on Muslim apologist websites. If one accepted their "evidences" on their own terms, the implications would be quite staggering (i.e. Muhammad truly was a prophet and Islam is the one true religion). A scholarly approach is far more rigorous and reasonable than this. Again, this is the a posteriori approach to research. If you begin with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (an ancient historical record of a lost civilization), then you can quite easily ignore the "misses" in favor of the seeming "hits" to support your conclusion. This is the backwards approach to scholarship, which is what makes it apologetics and not actual scholarship. The proper approach would be to decide ahead of time (propose a hypothesis) what sorts of things we should expect to find if there were a Judeo-Christian civilization in recent pre-Columbian America, e.g. archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. The fact that nothing of the sort has been found is why one can reasonably conclude that the Book of Mormon is, in all likelihood, a pretty successful hoax. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing; religion can bring structure and meaning into people's lives. It just means that Mormonism is a religion, like any other.

Please provide evidence to support your assertion. Where did you read that? Can you provide a link? FYI there are plenty of conservatives in Chicago. And what'll you bet the only people complaining about it in Chicago were conservatives. I'd put money on it.

I didn't feel the same way then because at least the Democratic congress had the common sense to criticize him AFTER he addressed the students, unlike conservatives who criticized Obama BEFORE they'd even heard the speech. Big difference. And there's likewise a big difference between being "booed", and being accused of being a liar.

Check out "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie, the seminal biography of Joseph Smith and still the best book about him, imo. Some LDS members don't like it because the author didn't approach its subject as a true believer, but I found it to be a fair and balanced treatment. Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives.

I guess you could call it a hoax, but it isn't any more a hoax than say, the Bible, or the Qur'an. They're all just religious texts. They all make extraordinary claims unsupported by evidence.

Sorry. LOLs have been removed.

Throwing the whining conservatives a bone by rewording a phrase does not = bestowing legitimacy on their silly concerns.

LOL.. No emotion needed to point out the obvious. And if there is anything we've learned over the last few months, whether it's "death panels", or disrupting town hall meetings, or "you lie!", or removing children from school over a presidential address, it's that conservatives are more than capable of irrational emotional outbursts.

Yep. Too bad Bush is no longer in office

If it's over something as innocuous as this, then, no.. I can't really respect anyone who would bar their kids from hearing from the democratically-elected leader of our country. Sorry but when parents' personal politics leads to censorship over the silliest of things, that's just sad. I can't respect foolishness and paranoia. Sure you might not agree with some of his policies, but he's still the leader of your country and was elected by the majority for a reason. People forcing their kids to stick their heads in the sand alongside themselves is just bad parenting, IMO. But the Dept. of Education didn't do what you accuse it of doing.. you've fashioned a straw man inside your own head to attack instead of what happened in reality. No one suggested students "read books about the president", or "talk about how he will inspire them", or to write a letter to the president. It was suggested that they write a letter to THEMSELVES about what they can do to help the president. And what is so wrong about that? You don't think awareness of involvement in civics is a good thing? Doesn't that sort of thing transcend partisan politics? But no, disgruntled conservatives made this a partisan issue and our kids are caught in the crossfire as a result. Very, very silly. The fact that some parents actually find something as harmless as that to be threatening is just, well, sad. The difference here is that their concern was over the ***content*** of the speech AFTER the fact, and whether it was appropriate to present it to students in school. But in this case, Republicans were whining about it over their own interpretation of some wording, and BEFORE the speech had even been given! In other words, the Democrats' concern was reasonable. The Republicans' concern was not. Michelle's father was a pump worker at the city water plant. Her mother was a secretary at a catalog store. Barack's mother did have a PhD... in anthropology. Not much money to be made in anthropology. Sounds pretty middle class to me. So.. not sure what you're getting this idea that they're "exaggerating" their humble beginnings. They have every right to say their beginnings were humble, because it's true. It isn't like they were born into wealth and political connections like, say, Bush Sr. and Jr.

If by "spiritual" you mean belief in the "spirit" or "spirit world", then I would say no, atheists are not "spiritual".

Typical conservative arrogance.

Last I checked it was the conservatives who objected to the wording and caused all the hubbub. Huh? I was pointing out how unfounded and ridiculous all this brewhaha has been. Conservatives threw a preemptive fit over nothing and ended up looking foolish in the process. Don't blame me for the way you look now, you did it to yourselves. Can you explain what you mean by "caught with their hand in the cookie jar"? Considering the fact that the Education Dept. did nothing wrong, I hardly see how they were "caught with their hand in the cookie jar." You are attacking your own straw man here, I'm afraid.

I have heard the term "ham-fisted" being tossed around about it and I will admit that it isn't beyond the bounds of reason to see it that way. Perhaps more thought could have been put into the wording of it. But it just doesn't seem to warrant the firestorm that's been created over it, imo. Honestly, if it were Pres. Bush addressing my kids, I really don't see myself having a problem with it. Obviously it would depend on the message he gave, but even if it was something I totally disagree with, I'd still look at it as an opportunity to discuss the issues over the dinner table with my kids. I think that anything that makes kids think is a good thing. And everybody enjoys a good argument

Maybe so. My response has more to do with my exasperation with certain quarters' criticism of the situation than with you in particular. Perhaps I unfairly lumped you in with them. My apologies.

Typical conservative rhetoric.

It wasn't an essay, it was one of many suggested ideas in a study guide, written by the Education Dept., in which students could write a letter asking themselves how they could help the president. Big deal! Really, who cares. Any answer to such a question would inevitably entail staying in school and not doing drugs. That conservatives have raised such a ruckus over this is really, really silly. Yep. All that ruckus over nothing. How many more times is conservative paranoia going to make mountains out of mole hills?

Please explain how "study hard, stay in school" means something different under the Obama administration. And.. uncommon = bad? Well that is your own perception and interpretation. Some of us do not equate "study hard, stay in school" with communist propaganda. Sorry but you are only proving my point, that this has far more to do with the unfounded fears and personal politics of adults who should know better than with the message itself. My goodness, what cynicism. Do you really think that's what this is all about? Ratings? He's the democratically-elected president, not a TV station. It hasn't occurred to you that he may simply be bearing a message of personal responsibility with the future of our country? Isn't that just as likely? Not sure what you're getting at here. I see a lot of foolish hubbub coming from conservative quarters these days. It seems to me that they're just looking for Obama to make the tiniest slip-up, so that they can point the finger and blow their horns and whine as loudly as possible. First Obama was "racist", then he's trying to murder our seniors under "death panels", now he's trying to brainwash our children. Who is this guy, the boogey-man? It takes me back to the election, when conservatives were labeling him a "communist" and a "radical", or questioning his citizenship, or asserting that he was Muslim. Such foolishness! And it's always something new, every week. Conservatives have really made themselves out to be fools these last few months. You are correct. If a Republican president wanted to address my children directly and encourage them to stay in school, I'd say more power to him. We need more messages like that in the public sphere. As president, he has a responsibility to address the youth of the nation that voted him into the position he holds. Regardless of party affiliation, any president can address my children anytime. Well they're the only ones I hear complaining about it. Did I need to? There you go again characterizing the most innocuous and useful of messages ("study hard, stay in school") as some kind of propagandistic rally cry ("excite the sleeping oppressed"). Sorry, I just don't buy it. And..? He's the president. He's doing what he was voted into office to do -- make some much needed changes. If that means more whining from conservatives and, consequently, more media exposure, then so be it. That doesn't mean he shouldn't take a minute to address our nation's students. I don't recall him ever making that claim. To my mind, the more support our children have, the better. Again with the comparing of the democratically-elected president of the United States to a dictator. Please. Well there you go. Instead of comparing what "appears" to "look" similar in your own mind and fanning the flames of fear and irrationality, try evaluating the message itself -- "study hard, stay in school." The message speaks for itself. You may not agree with some of his policies, but the fact that you allow your own personal politics to highjack, in this case, such a harmless, positive message to our students does no one any good at all.

Thanks for confirming that, for you, this is really all about partisan politics, and not the message itself. I feel bad for the kids who are in the middle of all this. It's too bad that the message (and an important one, at that) has been highjacked by parents who really ought to know better. And no one is saying we shouldn't question the president; some of us are just pointing out how foolish all this hubbub has been over the most innocuous of things. "Work hard, stay in school"? Is that really all that controversial to you? "Loyal opposition" is all fine and dandy, but think about what you're opposing. Do you know how many children need to hear this message, particularly inner-city children, from our nation's first black president? Here is a guy who worked his way from the bottom to the top, didn't have any privileges, wasn't born into wealth or politics. His story is quintessentially American, and I would think his counsel will carry far more resonance for some than would, say, an identical message from George W. Bush. Heaven forbid we encourage our youth to work hard and stay in school, they're only the future of our country. The fact that certain quarters can't see past their own political ideologies enough to see the wisdom and expediency of the message he gives, even going so far as to compare him to Kim Jong Il (!!!), well that's just sad.

I don't get why people are so up in arms over this. It's just embarrassing. It makes them look really bad. I would think the president asking for input from our youth is a GOOD thing. It's just wierd to me how this has been spun into some kind of draconian plan to brainwash and indoctrinate children. That's not the intent at all and anyone with half a brain could see that. All this hubub over nothing! People acting like lemmings running off the cliff into the sea are getting all riled up over their own paranoia. Maybe I'm too "radical" or whatever but I think anything that encourages kids to think for themselves and be involved in civics is a GOOD thing. "What you can you do to help the president" is the most harmless, innocuous question. "Help" is the key word here people! Heaven forbid we let our children have time for introspection! Anyone who wants to censor and shield their children from something as harmless as that is the REAL dictator.. think about it..

Well it's too bad this company is ripping off its customers, but I can't say I'm surprised that it's apparently gone under. There just isn't a large enough clientele base to support this sort of thing.

Well considering that LDS missionaries won't be proselyting in Jerusalem anytime soon, I guess we can assume this won't be happening in the near future. Although, I'd wager that this prophecy could be easily fulfilled at least in part, if two LDS apostles were to go tracting in some areas of Jerusalem today. LOL

Well given the embarrassing nature of these documents (had they been authentic), I would expect the church to have said as little as possible. They certainly paid a good amount of money to acquire them, though. Turley's book seems to be the least reputable of the books on the Hofmann case, given its apologetic tone and constant diversions into defending the LDS faith as a whole. It is basically the church's side of the story, and as such, does not take the most balanced approach. Did you read the more evenhanded "Salamander" or "The Poet and the Murderer"? Or, "The Mormon Murders"?

Maybe so, which is all the more tragic that he chose to waste it in common apologetics. Sorry, but I have to question the intellectual honesty of someone who proclaimed Mark Hofmann's forgery of the Anthon transcript as authentic. Any other scholar of ancient manuscripts would have known it was a fraud within minutes. The fact the Nibley hailed it as "absolutely translatable" and "as good a test as we'll ever get of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" seriously undermines his credibility and objectivity as a scholar. Like I said, he was an apologist first and foremost.