Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Aristotle Smith]

Agreed. Brant is a great guy and very sincere. I don't find his arguments compelling for a number of reasons, but that's neither here nor there. In terms of his apologetics, I think he's done what you have to do with the Book of Mormon. Given the complete lack of external evidence for the book, you have to find ways to reduce the conflict between the archaeological record and what the book describes. That technique raises red flags with me, but I don't see that there's any other option.

Brant's book on translating the Book of Mormon

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Tr ... 1589581318

is for me an honest piece of scholarship. He actually deals with the evidence and makes an attempt at an answer. Like you I don't find it persuasive, but I give Brant big kudos for engaging the data and dealing with it honestly. And you are right, this kind of thing doesn't affect his theory on Book of Mormon translation.

[_Kishkumen]

Brant's book on translating the Book of Mormon

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Tr ... 1589581318

is for me an honest piece of scholarship. He actually deals with the evidence and makes an attempt at an answer. Like you I don't find it persuasive, but I give Brant big kudos for engaging the data and dealing with it honestly. And you are right, this kind of thing doesn't affect his theory on Book of Mormon translation.

I was writing specifically about his work on Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. I have heard good things about his work on Book of Mormon translation from people who are unconvinced by his work on the former. As I said, he is a decent and intelligent man. I think people who are seriously interested in Mormonism should read his work, even the stuff about Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Devoted and intelligent readers will draw one's attention to interesting things, even when their interpretation may be flawed.

[_Madison54]

I don't know. Some people have amazing recall. We don't know enough about Joseph Smith's exposure to the book. There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. I am not comfortable saying that he definitely had to have Hunt open next to him as he wrote his notes for his own manuscript.

I agree. I believe that Joseph Smith was very intelligent and he may have had a photographic memory.

I feel the Johnsons are going to run into difficulty when it comes to showing that Joseph Smith had any exposure to these books or that he'd read them. I think that's where the apologists are going to attack (at least as one of the areas of attack).

Now, I have not had a chance to read through this thread so this may have been discussed and discounted...but, everyone seems to assume that it had to be Joseph Smith who'd read these books and then wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. Couldn't it be that Sidney Rigdon read them or owned them? Or, Oliver Cowdery (who was a school teacher)?

I know Chris Johnson has shown some evidence of similarity between the Book of Mormon and other writings of Joseph Smith (Book Of Abraham, D&C, etc.)....but do we know for certainty that Joseph Smith didn't have help with those too? I don't believe he wrote all of the revelations that were attributed to him and I think (If I recall correctly), Sidney Rigdon wrote at least some of them, didn't he?

These may be really stupid thoughts and questions....but I am just wondering about them.

[_Runtu]

Brant's book on translating the Book of Mormon

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Tr ... 1589581318

is for me an honest piece of scholarship. He actually deals with the evidence and makes an attempt at an answer. Like you I don't find it persuasive, but I give Brant big kudos for engaging the data and dealing with it honestly. And you are right, this kind of thing doesn't affect his theory on Book of Mormon translation.

As far as I know, Brant is the only apologist who has attempted a comprehensive approach to situating the Nephites and Lamanites in America, and that deserves my respect. I don't think he's been entirely successful, but then I'm a hardened apostate with a seared conscience.

I hadn't realized that at least one person over on MDD fiercely opposes Brant's efforts.

[_lifelongguy]

Huge apologies if already pointed out, but it appears there is some reference to this book of sources.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aG-JAW ... on&f=false

[_Runtu]

I agree. I believe that Joseph Smith was very intelligent and he may have had a photographic memory.

I feel the Johnsons are going to run into difficulty when it comes to showing that Joseph Smith had any exposure to these books or that he'd read them. I think that's where the apologists are going to attack (at least as one of the areas of attack).

Now, I have not had a chance to read through this thread so this may have been discussed and discounted...but, everyone seems to assume that it had to be Joseph Smith who'd read these books and then wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. Couldn't it be that Sidney Rigdon read them or owned them? Or, Oliver Cowdery (who was a school teacher)?

I think it's reasonable to believe Oliver Cowdery would have been exposed to Hunt's book. Cowdery was a traveling schoolteacher, and Hunt's book was widely used as a school text in the 1820s.

I know Chris Johnson has shown some evidence of similarity between the Book of Mormon and other writings of Joseph Smith (Book Of Abraham, D&C, etc.)....but do we know for certainty that Joseph Smith didn't have help with those too? I don't believe he wrote all of the revelations that were attributed to him and I think (If I recall correctly), Sidney Rigdon wrote at least some of them, didn't he?

These may be really stupid thoughts and questions....but I am just wondering about them.

They're quite good and intelligent thoughts. It's entirely possible that Joseph's revelations were in some ways collaborative efforts; we know, for example, that many of them were extensively rewritten between the first attempted publication in the Book of Commandments and the later publication of the Doctrine and Covenants. But this is not an area I know that much about, so I'll defer to people who know what they're talking about.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I hadn't realized that at least one person over on MDD fiercely opposes Brant's efforts.

I'm surprised it's just one.

Brant is mostly alone in seeing the linguistic/Hebrew evidences for the Book of Mormon as unconvincing. Since the old FARMS built a cottage industry around finding and enumerating them, he was sure to be persona non grata in some parts. Though I understand he is on good terms with the old FARMS guard.

In a way, this whole thread vindicates Brant's approach to ignoring the linguistic evidence in favor of different approaches.

[_Runtu]

I'm surprised it's just one.

Brant is mostly alone in seeing the linguistic/Hebrew evidences for the Book of Mormon as unconvincing. Since the old FARMS built a cottage industry around finding and enumerating them, he was sure to be persona non grata in some parts. Though I understand he is on good terms with the old FARMS guard.

In a way, this whole thread vindicates Brant's approach to ignoring the linguistic evidence in favor of different approaches.

There's one guy over there who jumps all over Brant for his "arrogant" belief in a Mesoamerican LGT. It's just weird to see.

[_Fence Sitter]

There's one guy over there who jumps all over Brant for his "arrogant" belief in a Mesoamerican LGT. It's just weird to see.

Cdowis is clueless. One of the worst posters over there. Opinionated with out the ability to back it up. When Brant tries to explain methodology to him Cdowis merely sneers at Brant and retorts that something is wrong with Brant's scholarship if it takes a smart person to understand it.

[_Runtu]

Cdowis is clueless. One of the worst posters over there. Opinionated with out the ability to back it up. When Brant tries to explain methodology to him Cdowis merely sneers at Brant and retorts that something is wrong with Brant's scholarship if it takes a smart person to understand it.

I've known Charles for 17 years or so. I had kind of forgotten about him in the last 4 years away from there, but I didn't realize he was so adamantly against the Mesoamerican LGT.

There's a reason for the Mesoamerican setting: it's the only one in all of the Americas that is even remotely plausible. That said, it's still a terrible match for the civilizations the Book of Mormon describes. Italy works much better.