TA DA!!! My Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica website

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Here is some more from Wright, when he was published in the FARMS Review (then known as Review of Books on the Book of Mormon) :

That the Book of Mormon has a style which involves parallelism and repetition is not Brown's imposition upon the text. And he does not go too far in trying to see these structures throughout the entire book. They are really there. Before becoming acquainted with Brown's book, I began my own study of Book of Mormon narrative. Part of this work involved ascertaining in detail the rhetorical or literary structure of certain chapters in the book. All the chapters studied displayed structures of repetition or other definable structures (see below). This is not to say the Book of Mormon is somehow unique in having discernable literary forms. Every product of speech--be it literary, religious, scientific, journalistic, or whatever--has a formal logic and stylistic features. Form is inherent in the conventions of speech and is begotten the minute we open our mouths or pick up the pen. But this investigation showed that the Book of Mormon had its own concentrated and intelligent style that required description. When Brown's book appeared, I was happy to see that someone had attempted to perform this analysis for the entire Book of Mormon.

The structuring in each of these four examples is like that found in Brown's and thus indicates the utility of Brown's work. It aids in the quick perception of structures. These examples also show that the Book of Mormon is formally rich. This richness involves much more than parallelism, contra Brown. While the structures in the last three examples are parallelistic, they are significantly different from one another. And the example of embedding does not fit under the category of parallelism. This diversity indicates that we must go beyond the category of parallelism, particularly that inspired by biblical studies, in analyzing the structural character of the Book of Mormon. The diversity in form also indicates that the Book of Mormon has its own unique literary character and alerts us to a methodological priority. As we analyze the book from a literary perspective, we should first do so in terms of its own literary character. Just as in general comparative studies phenomena must be examined and understood in their own cultural contexts before comparison takes place, so we must examine the literary character of the Book of Mormon in its own context before turning to comparison with other literatures, modern or ancient. This way we avoid imposing outside categories on the Book of Mormon text which brings skewed descriptions of the literature. (My emphasis)


http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... eview&id=5

If Wright is to be taken seriously, then the Book of Mormon is more than a "cheap imitation" of the Bible.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Trevor wrote:
Ray A wrote:If beastie intends to reply to FARMS she will have a lot of reading to do:


Why anyone would want to respond the utter nonsense over there completely escapes me.


More to digest from Mosser and Owen:

The Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs. This paper does not discuss the full range of defensive and offensive scholarship by Latter-day Saints. Instead, we will focus our discussion upon those disciplines that fall under the broad categories of biblical studies and church history. We choose these two categories because of the importance they play in understanding Christian origins and the nature of early Christianity. Both Mormonism and evangelicalism claim to be the Church which Christ founded. Both claim to be the heirs of New Testament Christianity. Both cannot be correct. It is then appropriate to focus on these disciplines because knowing what the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians were and whether or not the Church which Christ founded apostatized is the central issue of contention. We realize that what we say will not be welcomed by all, especially by some in the counter-cult movement. Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on our fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it. But this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. It is our deep hope that this paper will, in some small way, serve to awaken members of the evangelical community to the important task at hand.




And a point for beastie:

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.(3) In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.


http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/m ... .html#_1_2

Jeff Lindsay (the much derided apologist who once defended exmos!):

Have Anti-Mormons Won the War?
It is a common myth that anti-Mormon attacks have completely overwhelmed the intellectual position of Latter-day Saints, leaving us with nothing but blind faith in our "warm feelings" about the Church. The portrayal of Mormons as idiots without any intellectual foundation in our religion is a common caricature based on deceptive marketing. With the flood of anti-Mormon arguments, books, pamphlets, movies, and Web sites, it is easy to think that Mormonism would be completely devastated if a tiny fraction of the things said against us were true......


Again for beastie:

The intellectual weakness of the standard anti-Mormon position has been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far We In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few critics have done: they have actually read a wide variety of LDS scholarly writings. As a result, they came to the following five conclusions:


The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex....


Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.
st Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature. Their article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205), is one of the most intriguing non-LDS articles I've ever encountered from critics of the Church.


http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/06/h ... n-war.html

This why I'm saying that unless beastie goes beyond Mesoamerica, and looks at internal evidences as well, and interacts with Mormon scholars, and actually reads what they have written, she will not be taken seriously - except by admirers on this board, some quite fawning, too.
_aussieguy55
_Emeritus
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:22 pm

Mesoamerica

Post by _aussieguy55 »

I don't get your point Ray. Beastie is dealing with one area concerning the Book of Mormon is the geography and history of the Mayan , the area some LDS suggest mightbe the area the Book of Mormon events took place. She in my opinion raised some good points about the horse and the substitute argument. Surley if the Tapir was used as Sorenson and others suggest there would be some iconography showing that. I think your raising the issues raised by Mosser and Owen's are irrelvant to what Beastie has done. Now things may hit the fan on the other board. Perhaps Gardener will join us here.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
_Ray A

Re: Mesoamerica

Post by _Ray A »

aussieguy55 wrote:I don't get your point Ray. Beastie is dealing with one area concerning the Book of Mormon is the geography and history of the Mayan , the area some LDS suggest mightbe the area the Book of Mormon events took place. She in my opinion raised some good points about the horse and the substitute argument. Surley if the Tapir was used as Sorenson and others suggest there would be some iconography showing that. I think your raising the issues raised by Mosser and Owen's are irrelvant to what Beastie has done. Now things may hit the fan on the other board. Perhaps Gardener will join us here.


First point, Noel. Mosser and Owen are not irrelevant to this subject. Their main point is that the first requirement is to be well-informed about Mormon apologetics, and to interact with Mormon scholars. I know beastie has done this with John Clark, and with Brant on FAIR, and Brant wanted her to remain there and debate him, because he felt she raised good points. I'm not convinced that either of them "won" this debate. Maybe beastie feels she did. What beastie should do is devote a whole section to her exchanges with Clark. I doubt anyone here is familiar with that. She needs to let us assess the merits, or demerits of the debate. I, for one, would like to see this full correspondence published on beastie's website (with Clark's permission, and maybe even an invitation for him to respond), not facitious quotes from Shermer about why people believe weird things. Let me do my own thinking, and let me read both viewpoints.

As far as I know, beastie has interacted with exactly two Mormon scholars - Brant, and John Clark (and she can correct me on this). I don't think she ever interacted with, for example, Larry Poulsen, who also posts on FAIR/MAD. Maybe she did, and I missed it.

I'm not saying she has to interact with every Mormon scholar to make a point, but two soldiers don't make an army. The other point is whether beastie wants her site to be propaganda, or one where people can make informed decisions by reading pro and con materials. I think it has a lot of potential for debate, if that's where she wants it to go. This could take far more work and effort than she is willing to devote, but in the absence of opposing viewpoints, her site will ring hollow to most informed people. She's going to have to be critical not only of Mormon scholars, but of her own sources, and acknowledge where they are weak.

Beastie's site can become one of two things - a reinforcement for confirmed doubters/disbelievers, or a genuine forum for open debate. I hope it evolves into the latter, and if it does I will take very much interest in it. She should easily be able to dismantle any bogus argument, without quoting Shermer, or Eric Hoffer.
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

Coggins7 wrote:Here's how you can fix it: Close the whole reeking pile of steaming horse nuggets down, repent of your pride and rebellion against your Father in Heaven, Cease with the intellectual straw grasping and hand wringing over ambiguous historical issues, and return to the Church.


I thought you'd apologized to everyone and cleaned up your act? No?

Typical apologistic (read : Mormon) response. Stop trying to figure it out. Stop looking where you shouldn't. Get back to the Cult. Get back to paying, praying and obeying - and then all will be better. See?

So Coggins, instead of simply attacking him by what he has written, you completely avoid it all with the all too typical "GO BACK TO CHURCH" crap.

How about you start unraveling some of the "steaming horse nuggets" and lets discuss where he has grasped at straws, where he is hand wringing and where he has ambiguous historical issues. I'm especially interested in seeing how you shoot down his section where DCP states horses were actually tapirs.

Just like Mormons in my past, it is easier to attack the critic rather than look objectively at the material.
_Maxrep
_Emeritus
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:29 am

Post by _Maxrep »

Beastie,

Great job - I'll be spending some time at your sight.

I've been working my through "Horsies". A lot of good information. I was surprised at the number of references to the horse in the Book of Mormon. They were all about the horse and chariot. The mention of horses in the Book of Mormon are numerous and given in such an off the cuff manner that it indicates, to me at least, that Joseph had no ambiguity about the label he was using, unlike a curelom. The references to the horse were purpose specific.
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
_sunstoned
_Emeritus
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:12 am

Post by _sunstoned »

beastie wrote:Ok, I made lots of changes. I combined home, intro and Table of contents into "home". Then I did the div tag on the harder to read pages. Some of the pages had such light backgrounds I didn't think it necessary, and it was a real pain in the butt, so I didn't bother on those pages. I also changed the font to ariel, 12 pt.

The only bug still left is the home page is off center for some reason, against the background, and for the life of me I can't figure out how to fix it.

Does it look better?


Beastie,

I love your new website. I came into this tread late, so I did not see the earlier iterations of your work, but as of this posting, I think your site looks very good. The backgrounds work for me. I know it was a ton of work.

Font page uses tables quite a bit, and your main page is a large table. The reason your home page text is off to the left is that it is in one of the table columns so that the "center" alignment in the paragraph (<p align="center">) will center the text within that column only. The table itself is left aligned. A quick way to change this is to center align your whole table. This can be done by editing the table tag:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="644" height="543">

Add a center alignment tag to this string like:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="543" width="644" align="center">

This will make your text look center aligned. You can also change the width of the the text by making you table wider, which in turn would widen your columns. If you want your text to be full screen, change the "width" tag to be 100% (width=100%). For 3/4 of a page, you can go (width=75%) which might look okay. So you finished table tag would look like this:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="543" width=75% align="center">

Don't listen to Ray, he likes to argue. The content of your site is very interesting and informative. I have bookmarked it for further reference.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Sunstoned - THANKS! It worked, and I would have never figured that out. I don't really understand coding, the only reason I could do this is because frontpage does the coding for you, so when something funky happened, I'm clueless. It looks much better now!

And thanks to all for the support. Your suggestions were valuable and extremely helpful, even if, in the end, I kept my funky backgrounds. I just couldn't give up my glyphs and jaguar paws!!
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Ray,

I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. My intent is not to take on the entire apologetic team of FARMs in regards to every claim they make for the Book of Mormon. I am interested in one particular facet - whether or not the setting of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is feasible. I have no idea why you think quoting statements from EV authors is pertinent. I"m not interested in the "internal evidences" of the Book of Mormon, which is usually code for some sort of perceived Hebraic connection, like chiasmus. Like many exmormons, I am familiar with many of those claims, and the few I've bothered to investigate fall apart in the end, just like chiasmus. Joseph Smith came from a culture that was immersed in the Bible, and was from a religiously obsessed family that attended many religious functions, some of which would have been held by very schooled individuals. Who the heck knows what tidbits of information he could have picked up here and there? That's why I view these "evidences" as not particularly interesting. Now if I were naturally more interested in ancient Hebrew culture or nineteenth century culture, I'd be inclined to take those on as well. Others have already done as much. But that is not my natural area of interest. I'm not going to devote tons of time to an area unless I have a pre-existing interest in it in the first place. So I'll let others, who are actually interested in those arenas address those topics. I think it really is silly to suggest that unless I take on that, as well, I can't be taken seriously. Even apologists usually focus on one element that coincides with either their background or interest. Ben is solely interested in the "internal evidences" or Hebraic connections, while Brant is solely interested in the Mesoamerican side of the equation. Neither feels compelled to address the other area, because it's outside their background or interest. Are you going to suggest that they ought not to be taken seriously, either?

I do intend to share my exchange with Dr. Clark, and reference some of my exchanges with Brant. Dr. Clark gave me his permission to share his email, so there's no problem with that. However, FAIR has that copyright issue, so I don't feel I can simply copy and paste entire arguments. Of course, I feel free to use my own posts as I wish, but I don't feel able to copy and paste Brant's. That is a handicap, so I will be forced to paraphrase his assertions and provide links instead. I definitely view my conversations with Brant as worthwhile information, and frankly, think he's the only apologist worth dealing with on the matter. Larry came to MAD after I left, so we never directly addressed each other, but I have read his website. Unless he has updated it very recently, there's just not enough content there on this particular topic for me to tackle. I view him as just starting out. As he expands, I will likely address any new points he may make.

Yes, I have read many of the FARMs essays that relate directly to the Book of Mormon, and I think the content of my essays demonstrates that I understand their arguments well.

What I hope for, and intend to invite readers to do on the future blog section, is to address the actual content of my essays. Am I mistaken, somewhere, in the assertions I've made about Mesoamerica? Have I misrepresented the Book of Mormon? That sort of thing.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Ray...

That's fine. I'm just pointing out the weaknesses to those who think you can take on FARMS, like TD.


I feel absolutely certain Beastie could take on FARMS, if that was her goal. ;-) Of course it is not.

This however is not what I meant when I suggested a possible link to reponses...

Over the years there have been some great online discussions responding to various points an apologist has brought up. Beastie has shared a lot of information that is otherwise unknown by the majority of us (or at least me... smile), and her research has been very helpful to me personally. I think others would also find these discussions interesting and informative.

Beastie... it is looking great! Good job!

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post Reply