DiscussMormonism.com

Sweet god on Kolob, how can this be real?!?!?

MAsh wrote:[W]hen examining the Book of Mormon, we must begin by assuming that it was really written by ancient authors.

moar

Lemme know when a Mike Ash entry is up on memegenerator.net, huh? Thanks in advance.

This was is an argument Brant Gardner is fond of. He presents the only alternative is assuming the document is a forgery. You don't need to assume either. You just ask yourself, "Hypothetically, if this document were ancient, what would my expectations for how the world should be look like?"

EAllusion wrote:This was is an argument Brant Gardner is fond of. He presents the only alternative is assuming the document is a forgery. You don't need to assume either. You just ask yourself, "Hypothetically, if this document were ancient, what would my expectations for how the world should be look like?"

Yeah, and oddly enough, those expectations do not resemble anything like the Book of Mormon.

I just don't get it. On any level. What, aside from a testimony, would ever lead anyone to consider the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient as a serious option?

Ignorance? Credulousness? What?

It is not ancient. That's all there is to it.

Kishkumen wrote:I just don't get it. On any level. What, aside from a testimony, would ever lead anyone to consider the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient as a serious option?

Ignorance? Credulousness? What?

Tradition. And an unquestioning worldview.

From the 'article'
As Brant Gardner has often explained, a superior methodology is to look for “Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon.”

Isn't deciding the location and then making it fit like putting the cart before the horse, oops I mean tapir?

You could equally say that a superior methodology is to look for Madagascar in the Book of Mormon - guess what, it fits better in Madagascar!

Ash's articles have only one aim, that is consistent throughout all of them - to show that absence of evidence may not possibly perhaps show evidence of absence.
Infamous content from Ash:
North doesn't mean North.
Horse means tapir.
Because the Book of Mormon doesn't mention any other population and states that the Lord kept the land free from any other people, doesn't mean that there weren't millions of locals that absorbed the Nephites and Lamanites removing all traces of them.

Good grief...

I will however follow one piece of advice from the Ashticle:
“You must begin … by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it.”

Remind me again who was listed as the 'Author' when the Book of Mormon was first published...

This is so disingenuous it makes me doubt the sincerity of Ash's "beliefs".

I seriously can't even read Ash any more. I'm a little sad that he doesn't think through the points he wants to make.

When you read Ash you read nothing more than a bunch of compiled ideas bounced back and forth on message boards. Not very original.


I now ask Mr. Ash, what apologetics in his texts are original?

Step 1: Assume it's all true
Step 2: Set aside any evidence against
Step 3: Grasp at any similarities between the book and reality you can find, no matter how tenuous
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!

Kishkumen wrote:Yeah, and oddly enough, those expectations do not resemble anything like the Book of Mormon.

I just don't get it. On any level. What, aside from a testimony, would ever lead anyone to consider the idea that the Book of Mormon is ancient as a serious option?

Ignorance? Credulousness? What?

It is not ancient. That's all there is to it.

Margaret Barker, as many of you most likely know, is not in anyway LDS but did present a paper at the Library of Congress in 2005 addressing whether the text can seriously be considered an ancient source in relation to the era and place in which it proportedly came. She documented specifics of what would lead someone, logically, to conclude it came from that place and time.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-mar ... -talk.html

There's more than nothing or guesswork in this assumption.