The Brant Gardner / Book of Mormon megathread

[_Daniel Peterson]

The plain fact is that God could easily provide proof, and doesn't.

God doesn't provide of anything, including his own existence, so why would anyone expect him to provide proof of this?

Maybe it's not so easy for him to provide proof?

If there is no God, then it might be hard for him.

If there is a God, and if God has the basic attributes universally attributed to God, it would be (at least) relatively easy for God to provide proof of God's existence.

[_harmony]

If there is no God, then it might be hard for him.

If there is a God, and if God has the basic attributes universally attributed to God, it would be (at least) relatively easy for God to provide proof of God's existence.

Yeah, well, that's a big "if". (not that I don't trust the guys who wrote, translated, and otherwise contributed to our body of works called scripture).

[_Joey]

Time to step back from the real ruse in the arguments and defense of Lds apologetics!!!

There are so many flaws in Peteson's arguments in defending Gardner and the works of other supposed Lds "scholars" and the methodology that Petrrson and Gardner use to create an apparent "lack of knowledge" by Coe and others who have offered very credible and damaging conclusion about the Book of Mormon historicity claims. At a minimum, we have Peterson questioning Coe's age and ability to understand some supposed plethora of Lds "scholarship" over some arbitrary 30 year period even though Coe's statements in his PBS interview make it quite clear he is knowledgable about "his friend" John Sorenson. Dan would never want us to think that "friends" ever exchange or read each others works. At not in this case where it is damaging to his claims. And while Petrrson would want us to focus on
Coe's lack of credentials to understand Lds "scholarship", he will never bring up Gardner's lack of credentials in Mesoamerican studies!! He, FARMS and the MI want to put Gardner at the same level of academic expertise and reputation with the likes of a Michael Coe!!!! (We should be impressed w a fireside hobbyist over someone like Coe!!!)

But here is the real ruse: Anyone is capable of reading the Book of Mormon!! It is not a difficult or lengthy read. It is only from that read that any comparison or analysis to a mesoamerican setting can be originated from to begin with. You don't need to be Lds to do this. But Peteson and Gardner must come up w such a non-sensical and irrelevant argument that if one is not completely familiar with every publication of every Lds person's opinion, mesoamerican scholar or not, they are not qualified to reach a professional conclusion!! The only relevant standard is ones credentials and knowledge of Mesoamerica study and the ability to read the Book of Mormon. After all, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be an exact translation of an original and historic record. But Peterson and Gardner want anyone who will listen to them to be convinced that only LDS can offer a correct understanding of what the Book of Mormon really says! They want to convince any who are naïve to listen and believe that the opinions of all these LDS fireside scholars are necessary to analyze the record of the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting!! It is completely ludicrous and irrelevant. They assume no one else has the ability to read!!! It is a defense without any intellect nor merit. But it is a consistent theme in their defense to re-direct the focus from the obvious problem with all this supposed "scholarship". It is completely irrelevant to attempting to show the Book of Mormon to a mesoamerican setting. Coe is very well read on the Book of Mormon contents. Unlike Gardner nor Peterson, he is a world respected and academically credentialed expert in mesoamerica!! He surely doesn't need Peterson nor Gardner to explain an original record to him. Nor do any other experts in this area, unless they have been proven to be illiterate!

There is a reason this supposed Lds "scholarship" remains isolated in Provo when it comes to establishing a historicity claim for the Book of Mormon. There is a reason that Peterson is correct when he says it remains ignored by the academic and professional community of historians and archaeologist in determining the claim of historicity to the Book of Mormon claim - it is completely irrelavant and not needed!

The Book of Mormon either is or isn't a historical document on what is stated in it's text. It doesn't need FARMS to explain it's content to those mesoamerican experts who can read and make their own conclusions based on their knowledge of mesoamerica (as opposed to their knowledge of computer software!!)

[_Doctor Scratch]

All we're saying is that Professor Coe, who is indeed retired, doesn't appear to have devoted himself very much to keeping up with the books and articles and journals and films that have poured forth from Latter-day Saints regarding the Book of Mormon over the past thirty years or so. (We're talking tens of thousands of pages.)

And none of these books and articles have made it into reputable journals on Mesoamerican archaeology?


Would you like to offer an explanation?

Imagine, just imagine, if they did make it, how that would influence all people every where to take the Book of Mormon more seriously as history.

That's a great point, Ray. It's probably akin to the tens of thousands of pages produces on paranormal phenomena---ghosts, bigfoot, leprechauns, and what have you---that fail to make it into the pages of, say, Nature. DCP is just engaging in his usual brand of character assassination, painting Coe as some doddering old putz whose opinion on the Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously.

[_Obiwan]

I like Brant and think he, unlike manly apologists, is honest.

Such a strange comment and to me shows your bias rather than reality.
I've been doing apologetics for years and have known Brant online for years, and there is nothing he has ever said that I don't agree with or support other than one scholarly point.

Thus, I don't see at all ANY evidence of him being truthful and the rest of us "lying".
We all say and believe the same things. We all may do things differently and have different styles and emphases, but we ALL are believing the same essential things.

I thus find your comment "lying".... Or my accurately, bearing false witness.

What strikes me as odd is that his "interpretation" of the Book of Mormon is NOTHING like the actual text.

He has expanded the paradigm so far that his belief doesn't even resemble the Book of Mormon narrative.

some other guy: True. This is done by going with the loose translation which is not supported by the evidence. Even Skousen I believe supports a tight translation. This essentially allows one to interpret the text in almost anyway they need. Now I don't think he is doing this intentionally, but this is why smart people can end up believing dumb things. So I would expect him to find plenty of things which fit his interpretation of the text, which most LDS would not do. I like to call this the parallelism game, and the only tactic available to the apologists with the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. I think Beastie has talked about the problems here fairly well. I hope maybe she has time to comment.

There is no "either/or"..... There is both a tight and loose translation. Any translator knows that you have to "adapt" language for the translation, that there are going to be parts that are more tight/direct and others that are looser, because there is no word for word translation. You forget also that the translation is being done through a mortal and by vision, thus there are always going to be limitations and nuances. But, despite those things, those of us who have actually studied FULLY understand that there is plenty of evidence otherwise, despite human transmission.

[_Obiwan]

And, putting on my theological hat for a moment, I suspect that that is just about where things are supposed to be.

You seem to be saying that only the faithful can see the evidence. If the intent of the restoration was/is to spread the gospel throughout the world, this sort of test would seem counterproductive to the goal.

I won't comment on what his point was, but your statement is actually true.
Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences. It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to believe in the Church, but it does me you must have faith in the process, that the "answers" are there. And if they aren't, you won't find them, but only after you've done the proper work. If you haven't done the proper work, they you won't find the answers.

[Guest]

You seem to be saying that only the faithful can see the evidence. If the intent of the restoration was/is to spread the gospel throughout the world, this sort of test would seem counterproductive to the goal.

I won't comment on what his point was, but your statement is actually true.
Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences. It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to believe in the Church, but it does me you must have faith in the process, that the "answers" are there. And if they aren't, you won't find them, but only after you've done the proper work. If you haven't done the proper work, they you won't find the answers.

If only the faithful can see evidence, then it is not evidence at all.

evidence:

1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Relying on evidence means that a person relies on verifiable data to reach a conclusion. What you have said above is the opposite of this process: that people should form a belief, and then look for ways to confirm it.

"Only the 'faithful' CAN see the evidences." You are praising confirmation bias.

[_harmony]

DCP is just engaging in his usual brand of character assassination, painting Coe as some doddering old putz whose opinion on the Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously.

That's not what he's saying, Scratch.

[_Fence Sitter]

I won't comment on what his point was, but your statement is actually true.
Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences. It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to believe in the Church, but it does me you must have faith in the process, that the "answers" are there. And if they aren't, you won't find them, but only after you've done the proper work. If you haven't done the proper work, they you won't find the answers.

I think I understand. If I look at the archeological evidence knowing the Book of Mormon is true I will clearly see the evidence to back up what I already know, just as if I look at the archeological evidence knowing the Book of Mormon is false I will clearly see there is no evidence for it. It makes sense now.

Thanks

Oh just one question. What would one see if they looked at the archeological evidence knowing nothing about the Book of Mormon at all?

[_Themis]

There is no "either/or"..... There is both a tight and loose translation. Any translator knows that you have to "adapt" language for the translation, that there are going to be parts that are more tight/direct and others that are looser, because there is no word for word translation. You forget also that the translation is being done through a mortal and by vision, thus there are always going to be limitations and nuances. But, despite those things, those of us who have actually studied FULLY understand that there is plenty of evidence otherwise, despite human transmission.

Umm No. Tight and loose translation is an LDS apologetic invention to try and protect the Book of Mormon. They have particular meanings as well. A tight translation is Joseph receiving the translation/revelation(not to be confused with secular translation) word for word, repeating those words to his scribe who copies it down. Loose translation is Joseph receiving inspiration, visions or such with no words attached and he has to put that inspiration into his own words. I am not aware of much evidence for a loose translation other then an apologetic need, while I am aware of very good evidence for a tight translation such that even some apologists like Skousen accepts it.The problem of course is that much of the Book of Mormon has to be tight but some has to be rejected due to the problems it presents to apologists so loose translation is invented to try and fix this problem. Now I can't see any evidence for a loose translation nor why it would be logical for God to do so when a tight translation would be the best.

Only the "faithful" CAN see the evidences.

If only the faithful can see the evidences then the evidences are very weak if not incorrect. I don't care whether it's with the LDS, Scientology, Muslim, JW, etc.

It takes faith to take the time, to be objective in thought, to experience the things the Church offers etc. in order to LEARN the evidences and make accurate judgements. If you have no faith you wouldn't do anything.

LOL you have got to be kidding, and by the way most of us were very active believers in every way. We had plenty of faith and we were biased in favor of the Church. Faith does not produce objectivity, but lessens it. This is why only the faithful in Scientology can see the evidences. Learning false evidences will never help one to make more accurate judgments.