Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
-
_Fence Sitter
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8862
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
I hope I am not causing you a lot of work with that request Harmony, if so my apologies.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Fence Sitter wrote:I hope I am not causing you a lot of work with that request Harmony, if so my apologies.
Okay, I'm going to attempt this. Please do not complain too loudly if I don't split it like where y'all think it shoud be split.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
-
_Simon Belmont
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Infymus wrote:This question gets asked a lot - and yet, those on MAD continue to post the same things.
The answer is yes. Yes they do. It helps them reaffirm with group think.
Look in the mirror, Infymus. The members here post the same things over and over again (How many times has Joseph posted the same five questions?). Group-think is alive and well on MDB, and in anti-Mormon circles in which you hang out.
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Okay, the pertinent discussion has been moved to Celestial. I'm now going to attempt to merge the various threads. Please bear with me; I've never merged before.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
-
_Mike Reed
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Runtu wrote:Mike Reed wrote:Say what you will of polemisists Pahoran and Bill Hamblin... but I think you are being unfair to Brant.
I would never put Brant in the same category as those two. (Full disclosure: I've had multiple unpleasant experiences with Pahoran and Bill Hamblin, so I'm not speaking from nothing.)
Brant is a good man with good intentions, and has presented as reasonable a case as can be made for the Book of Mormon. That said, I don't find any of these arguments compelling because it just doesn't fit. The people and cultures I studied in college don't bear much of a resemblance at all to Nephites and Lamanites.
Oops. I guess I should have indicated that I was responding to the opening post. I think Joey's jab at Brant for being a computer salesman is unfair, and quite frankly, ridiculous.
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Mike Reed wrote:Oops. I guess I should have indicated that I was responding to the opening post. I think Joey's jab at Brant for being a computer salesman is unfair, and quite frankly, ridiculous.
I agree
42
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
I appreciate Brants loyalty to his beliefs, I really do. I've read through all of them in this thread. I get concerned when he makes his own definitions and assumptions to fit, in my opinion, the outcome he desires. I have to question whether his first loyalty is to his testimony in the LDS Church as opposed to objective scholarship. I have no doubt he has quite a hobby and interest in mesoamerican history.
But I offer these words from one who is world recognized and has a bit more than a passing interest in mesoamerican archaeology and interest. His credentials are as follows:
"Michael Coe is the Charles J. MacCurdy professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University and curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the school's Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place."
His comments, based on an experience of a bit more than a hobby with respect to this issue:
"There's a lot of biblical archaeology, of course, and everybody who is a believing Jew or Christian is always hoping that hard evidence is going to show up for one thing or the other. And there is a lot of evidence that events in the Bible really did happen. I mean, there really is a Jericho; there really is Jerusalem to be excavated. And of course the Romans did know about Christ; there's no doubt about that. ...
In the case of the Book of Mormon, you've got a much bigger problem. You really do. We have another part of the world where the archaeology is really very well known now; we know a lot about people like the Maya and their predecessors. So to try to find unlikely evidence in an unlikely spot, you've got a problem. And of course none of the finds that biblical archaeologists are rightly proud about, no finds on that level have ever come up for Mormon archaeologists, which makes it a big problem.
How do they cope with this? I'll be the first to admit I don't know; I really don't. I don't really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn't shown up -- how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There's simply no way to bring them together. ..." (PBS Interview w Michael Coe)
But I offer these words from one who is world recognized and has a bit more than a passing interest in mesoamerican archaeology and interest. His credentials are as follows:
"Michael Coe is the Charles J. MacCurdy professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University and curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the school's Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place."
His comments, based on an experience of a bit more than a hobby with respect to this issue:
"There's a lot of biblical archaeology, of course, and everybody who is a believing Jew or Christian is always hoping that hard evidence is going to show up for one thing or the other. And there is a lot of evidence that events in the Bible really did happen. I mean, there really is a Jericho; there really is Jerusalem to be excavated. And of course the Romans did know about Christ; there's no doubt about that. ...
In the case of the Book of Mormon, you've got a much bigger problem. You really do. We have another part of the world where the archaeology is really very well known now; we know a lot about people like the Maya and their predecessors. So to try to find unlikely evidence in an unlikely spot, you've got a problem. And of course none of the finds that biblical archaeologists are rightly proud about, no finds on that level have ever come up for Mormon archaeologists, which makes it a big problem.
How do they cope with this? I'll be the first to admit I don't know; I really don't. I don't really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn't shown up -- how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There's simply no way to bring them together. ..." (PBS Interview w Michael Coe)
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Mike Reed wrote:Oops. I guess I should have indicated that I was responding to the opening post. I think Joey's jab at Brant for being a computer salesman is unfair, and quite frankly, ridiculous.
I think Joey is turning the tables on the Mopologists in reaction to John Gee's characterization of Charles Larson as "prison guard Charles Larson."
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Mike Reed
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
Dr. Shades wrote:Mike Reed wrote:Oops. I guess I should have indicated that I was responding to the opening post. I think Joey's jab at Brant for being a computer salesman is unfair, and quite frankly, ridiculous.
I think Joey is turning the tables on the Mopologists in reaction to John Gee's characterization of Charles Larson as "prison guard Charles Larson."
If so, it would be a good point. It is just seems unfortunate to me that Brant's name gets drug through the mud in the process.
Re: Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation
When I started this thread I had a couple of motivational factors: To see if this message board was significant to the likes of Mormon apologists like Gardner and Hamblin in commenting on their supposed "scholarship". Much like the ego of DCP, I knew they would have to respond and engage if this board had any merit or impact with LDS viewers! It does! Be proud Shades!!!
But more to the point, I wanted to see how Gardner would respond and interact to questions submitted in a non controlled environment. No one can question Brandt's testimony to the LDS church, that is for certain. But as he has now withdrawn from serious questions in his new re-named thead in the Celestial Forum, one has to wonder how this scholarship really measures up outside of BYU, Provo, or the "Olivewood Bookstore"! Several quotes by world recognized mesoamerican scholar, Michael Coe seemed to deflate his bantor on his "scholarship". But more telling is his decision to leave the conversation after very few tough question!!! Not lke MADB, the Maxwell Inst. or even an isolated Provo fireside!
But more to the point, I wanted to see how Gardner would respond and interact to questions submitted in a non controlled environment. No one can question Brandt's testimony to the LDS church, that is for certain. But as he has now withdrawn from serious questions in his new re-named thead in the Celestial Forum, one has to wonder how this scholarship really measures up outside of BYU, Provo, or the "Olivewood Bookstore"! Several quotes by world recognized mesoamerican scholar, Michael Coe seemed to deflate his bantor on his "scholarship". But more telling is his decision to leave the conversation after very few tough question!!! Not lke MADB, the Maxwell Inst. or even an isolated Provo fireside!
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]