Brant Gardner, Bill Hamblin: Intellect in Isolation

[_Themis]

Brant Gardner (taken from the board formily known as Madb)

We stop discussing actual data and begin tossing around assumptions about what should or should not happen.

I thought this was the problem Brant is having. He is making a lot of assumptions about what he thinks the text is saying or not saying as well as assumptions about the Maya as well. Methodology is important but it won't matter at all if the data one is putting in is not accurate.

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

[_MCB]

He is making a lot of assumptions about what he thinks the text is saying

But the text is so vague that anyone, not dismissing it out-of-hand (chloroform), can put whatever meaning they want into it.

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

Nothing fits 100%.

[_Themis]

But the text is so vague that anyone, not dismissing it out-of-hand (chloroform), can put whatever meaning they want into it.

I agree.

Nothing fits 100%.

Also agree, but was just wondering what this evidence for a loose translation is, which I understand would not be a word for word revelation given to Joseph.

[_Tchild]

I thought this was the problem Brant is having. He is making a lot of assumptions about what he thinks the text is saying or not saying as well as assumptions about the Maya as well. Methodology is important but it won't matter at all if the data one is putting in is not accurate.

The biggest problem is that the "translation" process is undefined, and any and all interpretations are loosy-goosy at best.

Brant needs to define the translation process definitively before he attempts to interpret what has been purported to be a text translated "by the power of God".

Brant Gardner doesn't speak for the LDS church or for God, so his "interpretation" is nothing more than his own.

[_Themis]

The biggest problem is that the "translation" process is undefined, and any and all interpretations are loosy-goosy at best.

To a degree. The evidence I am aware of suggests Joseph was receiving it word for word.

Brant needs to define the translation process definitively before he attempts to interpret what has been purported to be a text translated "by the power of God".

Agreed.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Collateral damage, I suppose.

I suppose it is a lonely mental place to be for Brant and others like him. Despite their protestations and assurances otherwise, imagine trying to reconcile what your mind is logically telling you with what you emotionally (and socially) want to be true. Every 'bull's eye' makes you momentarily giddy, until you then consider it in the larger context of known information.

[_Joey]

For years we've listened to Peterson and other Lds apologists attempt to coat-tail their arguments and/or acceptance of some work or theory on the academic credentials of others as a way for support or credibility. And there is nothing wrong w being a software salesman/consultant. But I do believe it is relevant to point out that Brant is just that. He is not a degreed archaeologist or academic in Mesoamerican studies. Yet he can discount the comments of world recognized expert such as Michael Coe when it comes to Coe's assement of lds "scholarship" in attempting to support the Book of Mormon historicity setting in mesoamerica. I'm quite confident we all have experience in seeing the likes of Peterson et al do the very same to others over the years in attempting to dismiss the opinions they don't agree with.

It