The Brant Gardner / Book of Mormon megathread

[_MCB]

Also does anyone know what this credible evidence is for a loose translation?

There is no credible evidence for a loose translation. The only reason for claiming a loose translation is that nothing fits 100%.

[_Mortal Man]

Joseph Smith said somewhere that the Lehites landed on the coast of Chile. Where is that?

Right here:

[Guest]

I wouldn't underestimate Brant, or the other LDS scholars who produce apologetics. Speaking for myself, I find that I am intimidated by the learning and intelligence of some of them. The primary reason I jumped into this thread was not to ridicule, but to point out that the larger academic community's failure to engage the Book of Mormon as an ancient text is really not simply due to prejudice. I disagree with Brant when he appears to imply as much.

Mormonism is a serious subject for scholarly inquiry. At the same time, the best of non-LDS scholars will be fair but practical in how they approach LDS claims. In looking at the Book of Mormon, it immediately becomes apparent that the miraculous provenance of the text and the lack of contextual historical and archaeological data make it almost impossible to comment productively on the text's antiquity. As someone who accepts LDS claims on faith, Brant has, consciously or not, chosen to overlook these problems in pursuing his hypothesis. I think this is absolutely fine for those who understand the nature of the enterprise.

Those who do not accept these claims on face value do so for very understandable reasons, and I don't think Mormons should feel put upon because this is the case.

[_MCB]

Joseph Smith said somewhere that the Lehites landed on the coast of Chile. Where is that?

Right here:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/chapter1.htm#universalist

Thanks. I am reading the whole book. I don't have it on my bib, don't think I have read it, yet I see multiple points of congruence. <confused>

[_Kishkumen]

Shouldn't we have a well-accepted translation theory that holds water before we start pointing out translation errors?

Yes, shouldn't we? Good luck.

[_Inconceivable]

So the Mormon god destroyed all the evidence, including horses? Good one. That gets to the Great Lakes theory of that woman who was Meldrum's predecessor.

Actually, Vine DeLoria researched massive natural disasters in pre-Conquest times, and found nothing within the appropriate window of time. He even looked at Vygotsky's research.

Here is what I have:

Chapter 21: 14-18 explains the absence of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles, except they repent: for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots, and I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds;and I will cut off witchcarfts out of thy hand, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hand;  and I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities. 

The Mormon god destroyed it all, including horses and chariots, in the great tragedy of the Mormon Jesus entering the New World. There is no evidence of any such massive natural disaster in the New World in the past three thousand years, other than the epidemics, which were caused by the ignorance of man.

So if I understand you correctly, someone already used the horses were destroyed too excuse but stretched the tale even further to include that the mo-Jesus went made the evidence invisible afterwards?

[_MCB]

So if I understand you correctly, someone already used the horses were destroyed too excuse but stretched the tale even further to include that the mo-Jesus went made the evidence invisible afterwards?

Goes down the rabbit-hole. <smiley eyes open in amazement the Red Queen>

[_Quasimodo]

So if I understand you correctly, someone already used the horses were destroyed too excuse but stretched the tale even further to include that the mo-Jesus went made the evidence invisible afterwards?

Goes down the rabbit-hole. <smiley eyes open in amazement the Red Queen>

So, if the above theory is true (and I'm sure it must be because it ties up loose ends so well) and you add to that the fact that Satan placed fossils in the ground to confuse the faithful, everything is explained.

Except maybe Noah putting all those animals in one boat. People were wicked, but I'm a little fuzzy on what all those poor animals did to deserve a drowning. There must have been a lot of wicked animals back then too. And, I'm thinking that if some of the animals were really good at treading water, it would explain the vast number of species that couldn't fit on the boat.

Oh, I forgot to mention that someone else on this board pointed out that the water level in Noah's flood would have to be at about 30,000 feet above current sea levels to cover the entire earth. I can't think of a way for anyone to survive at 30,000 feet for forty days without oxygen canisters, so we'll just gloss over that one (God's will). Everything is explained.

Why all the debate?

[_keithb]

My apologies for the derail, but... what "current work" is being done on the Book of Mormon? And who is doing it? Where is the work being done? Who is funding it?

Sadly, from my point of view, there isn't much on the New World front. We are seeing some good work on the geography from Lawrence Poulsen. The BMAF organization is getting more active. Mark Wright and I are probably publishing more. Frankly, I wish there were more.

As for funding--there is none. Those who are doing the research are doing it for the love of it (certainly not the profit).

(Brant) "I can assure you that anyone attempting to construct the history of the Maya based on what was known 30 years ago will not pass current scholars review."
What scholars? Mesoamerican scholars? or Book of Mormon scholars?

Mesoamerican scholars would not look favorably on anyone using information that was over 30 years old to create a history of the Maya. Too much has happened since then.

This is an incredibly interesting assertion that you make, one seemingly unsupported by references or even common sense.

Do you have any evidence that Coe is using 30 year old evidence to formulate his Mayan world view?

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is an incredibly interesting assertion that you make, one seemingly unsupported by references or even common sense.

Do you have any evidence that Coe is using 30 year old evidence to formulate his Mayan world view?

I'm not Brant Gardner -- being of sound mind and good judgment, he has bowed out of this discussion --but I suspect that what he means is that Dr. Coe is thirty years behind with regard to Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon. And, from my limited observation of Dr. Coe, I suspect that that might well be true.

Thirty years ago, FARMS had just barely been established and had published virtually nothing. David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah was published that year. John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was still several years off (to say nothing of his numerous subsequent books and articles). And so forth.

The Mormon studies landscape has changed considerably since 1981.