 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Serpthia...
Posts:175
 | | 06/19/2008 4:02 AM |
 Alert | If you don't mind answering I have a couple of questions for you.
1). Do Mormons believe in more than one true God?
2). Do they believe God was once a man?
Thank you,
Serp. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 06/19/2008 6:15 PM |
Alert | This is a must watch video, putting the Bible and Book of Mormon to test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08 SYNOPSIS:
The Book of Mormon claims to be "a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible." Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon declare themselves to be ancient, historical, and reliable rules of faith--the very word of God.
These claims have historically been taken on faith. But is there any evidence to support them one way or the other? Is it even possible to "test" a rule of faith? More to the point, is there any basis for placing one's faith in the Bible or the Book of Mormon?
It's an important question. It's an eternal question. This presentation puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon to the same tests. History, archaeology, textual criticism, and other disciplines combine to shed light on what is true...and what is false.
Truth never fears investigation. Faith need not--and should not--be blind. Discover for yourself which of these books is worthy of being called "scripture" and which is worth of your trust. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | Serpthia...
Posts:175
| | 06/19/2008 7:53 PM |
Alert | Thanks for the link.
I watched it and it was an excellent video. It presented a cogent analysis that was easy to follow and understand. I definitely would recommend it.
Serp. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/20/2008 10:45 AM |
Alert | Arguments such as the "Bible vs. the Book of Mormon" video that EEE linked to are exactly why it is necessary for believers to respond and provide evidences. Some readers may remember the email I posted on another thread from Living Hope Ministries (the maker of the video) announcing a new project that deals with problems in Bible archaeology. It has been pointed out to them that many experts they employed for their Book of Mormon documentary actually question their fundamentalist view of Bible archaeology; hence their perceived need to bolster their claim that Bible archaeology does not face some of the same issues that Book of Mormon archaeology does.
Some specifics of this are pointed out in Brant Gardner's response to "Bible vs. the Book of Mormon:"
http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html
The "Bible vs. the Book of Mormon" video EEE linked to will be useful in light of Book of Mormon evidences I will post in this thread. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/20/2008 10:53 AM |
Alert | Posted By Serpthia... on 06/19/2008 4:02 AM If you don't mind answering I have a couple of questions for you.
1). Do Mormons believe in more than one true God?
2). Do they believe God was once a man?
Thank you,
Serp. 1. Mormons believe in the one true God. Critics hasten to point out that we believe that there are other Gods (God had a father, and his father had a father, eternally; Jesus, who is God, has a Father, etc.), but this is of no concern to us. Just being aware of other Gods as a concept does not equate worship, and we worship our Father in Heaven through His Son Jesus Christ. Critics who are driven nuts by this have clearly never had an in-depth religious discussion with a devout Muslim or an orthodox Jew, both of whom sharply criticize Trinitarian Christians for claiming to be "monotheistic." Trinitarian explanations of how the three persons are all God, not three Gods, but one, are of no help in helping these people understand Trinitarian Christianity as "monotheistic." 2. Yes, we believe that God lived as a man on an earth. While Mormons have different views on what, exactly, God's experience on earth entailed, Joseph Smith taught that the Father had also been a Savior on an earth (hence Jesus' statement that He could only do that which He had seen the Father do), and I personally think this was the case. But non-Mormon Christians admittedly believe that Jesus (Immannuel, God with us) lived on our earth. If God creates other worlds after this one, would it not be a true statement that God had lived on an earth, grown from infancy to adulthood, etc.? Hope that helps! | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/20/2008 3:14 PM |
Alert | Posted By JAG on 06/19/2008 2:48 AM
Ahh interesting, I thought the underwear thing was a urban myth, but hey I think its admirable. Does it represent chasity? Or is it a form of mortification? It's simply a reminder to people of the covenants they have made, with sacred symbolic significance. | | | |
|
|  | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 06/20/2008 4:42 PM |
Alert | Serpthia
I suggest you do some research on your own. I am not sure where your religious beliefs lay, but at this point, I feel like I need to step in here for a moment. LDS say they believe "in the one true God" however, this is not the god of the Bible. It is a god who was once a man, who then became a god. This is contrary to what the Bible says and is therefore not biblical. They do not believe in the Trinity as the Bible says it is. The beliefs about a great many important Bibllical truths vary greatly from that of what the Bible teaches. LDS looks a lot like Christianity, but don't be fooled Serpethia, it is not Christian. It is false and I would caution you in this. moinmoin, I would have this same discussion with any other religion saying that they believe in the Biblical God, but whose basic tenents are far from Biblical views. I will say it here, as I said it in the other thread, we support scripture WITH scripture, not with other books. You said "this is of no concern to you" well it is of GREAT concern to Christians, and in part, the reason why mainstream Christianity does not support LDS as a Christian religion.
This whole thread started because you said you had some evidence. EEE presented The Bible vs the Book of Mormon as a resource. I am still waiting for you to present what you have. Tell us what you got. | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:530
| | 06/20/2008 6:32 PM |
Alert | MM, Thanks for the explanation. You got some of mortification acts, but for the large majority of Catholics its usually just fasting and such. | | | |
|
| | Serpthia...
Posts:175
| | 06/21/2008 10:02 AM |
Alert | Moinmoin,
Thank you for your response. Whether you have a natural inclination, autodidactic, or have been formally schooled, you definitely have a very formidable debate style. Though there’re a number of logical fallacies in your writings, even in your answer to me. Out of respect for your generosity for giving my questions your attention I don’t want to point them out at this time. If you have an interest in me doing so, I most definitely will.
I read most of the Brant Gardner’s rebuttal, and frankly, it was a rather verbose, weak response to a very compelling video.
Respectfully,
Serp. | | | |
|
| | Serpthia...
Posts:175
| | 06/21/2008 10:03 AM |
Alert | itsadryheat,
Thank you for looking out for me. You're a peach. I assure you I’m in no danger of being duped in any fashion, but your thoughtfulness was greatly appreciated.
Warmly,
Serp.
| | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 06/21/2008 10:26 AM |
Alert | Posted By Serpthia... on 06/21/2008 10:02 AM
I read most of the Brant Gardner’s rebuttal, and frankly, it was a rather verbose, weak response to a very compelling video.
Respectfully,
Serp.
I thought the same thing about the rebuttal. It was mostly filled with ad hominem attacks instead of giving an actually rebuttal on the content, very disappointing. Just because there are a lot of words, doesn't mean there is any stubstance, much like many of the post we've read here the past couple of months (and probably in the next couple of days). I'm glad people are able to see through that. 
Soli Deo Gloria! | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 06/21/2008 2:43 PM |
Alert | Quotes taken directly from the document called, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion" by Brant A. Gardner
While the church clearly has no official position, that does not mean that "they don't know where it is."
"Many scholars currently see northern Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) as the most likely location of the Book of Mormon lands. However, such views are private and do not represent an official position of the Church."
Latter-day Saint scholars have been homing in on Mesoamerica for over one hundred and fifty years. Certainly the last thirty to forty years have seen a significant refinement of this position.
Gosh, this document has a lot of words. I just pulled these quotes from the first part of the document. And my question is, if the LDS have such firm and unrefuteable proof that these places and peoples existed, then where is it? Why keep it a secret? Why keep it hidden? Wouldn’t sharing these discoveries with the world put LDS religion on the way to proving that it is legitimate? I’m still trying to sift through all the language and lingo…but these were my initial thoughts on the parts of the document I could get through. You certainly have to read some of this stuff twice to really get to what it is trying to say (or not saying at all). | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/21/2008 3:18 PM |
Alert | Posted By Serpthia... on 06/21/2008 10:02 AM Though there’re a number of logical fallacies in your writings, even in your answer to me. Out of respect for your generosity for giving my questions your attention I don’t want to point them out at this time. If you have an interest in me doing so, I most definitely will. I do have interest. I certainly don't want to commit any logical fallacies if I can help it.  You may use the Latin terms, but please specify wherein you see me committing them. And, I have a thick skin (and the anonymity of the internet). So, no worries about hurting my feelings. I read most of the Brant Gardner’s rebuttal, and frankly, it was a rather verbose, weak response to a very compelling video. Can you give specific examples from his response that you feel were weak? In what way?
Thanks! | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/21/2008 3:34 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 06/21/2008 10:26 AM It was mostly filled with ad hominem attacks instead of giving an actually rebuttal on the content, very disappointing. In my experience, allegations that one has engaged in ad hominem attacks often abuse or misuse the meaning of the ad hominem fallacy. That is, often when ad hominem attacks are alleged, they actually weren't ad hominem. It's easy to say that this or that is lame or great or whatever, but the details are what counts. I suspect that much of what you consider to be ad hominem is actually very relevant to the matter at hand. Murphy and Wilson, whom the video heavily rely upon, feel the same way about the divinity of Christ, miraculous things in the Bible, etc. that they do about the Book of Mormon (i.e., they don't believe them). Pointing this out isn't ad hominem, it's completely relevant. They are, after all, the video's star witnesses about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and Living Hope Ministries isn't going to disclose that they characterize most of what believers hold dear about the Bible in much the same way. The seletive and hypcritical use of science is the same way. Critics often gleefully cite scientists who say that the horse was extinct in the Americas until the Spaniards reintroduced them, but these same critics hold that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, so they don't accept the scientists' time-frame for the existence of the horse in the Americas (i.e., millions and millions of year ago). That is, they selectively embrace scientists' views that horses weren't in the Americas during Book of Mormon times, but they don't apply these same scientists' views on the age of the earth, geology, paleontology, etc. to their interpretation of the Bible. Is this objectice, fair, or intellectually honest? But pointing this out is probably an "ad hominem" attack on my part . . . | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/21/2008 3:46 PM |
Alert | (itsadryheat) : This whole thread started because you said you had some evidence. EEE presented The Bible vs the Book of Mormon as a resource. I am still waiting for you to present what you have. Tell us what you got. Gosh, this document has a lot of words . . . I’m still trying to sift through all the language and lingo…but these were my initial thoughts on the parts of the document I could get through. Patience, itsa, patience! I'm going slowly on this because I want to avoid the thread going "ADHD" like so many "Mormon" threads, with charges shot out rapid fire, shotgun style. By the same token, I don't want to dump "the whole load of hay" of evidence on you, as if to stifle discussion.
And don't worry --- there will be some images and pictures of things, if I can figure out how to post them. ChimneyDuck is the only one who commented on the three principles I think are fundamental to this discussion; what do you, EEE, Serpthia, and others think about these?
Thanks! | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/21/2008 3:55 PM |
Alert | Posted By JAG on 06/20/2008 6:32 PM MM, Thanks for the explanation. You got some of mortification acts, but for the large majority of Catholics its usually just fasting and such. The Law of Chastity, as we understand it, is that one may have sexual relations only with one's husband or wife, to whom one is legally married. This includes pre-marital sex (fornication), marital infidelity (adultery), or "anything like unto it" (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). We are to be true to our spouses in thought and word as well as action. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 06/21/2008 5:28 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 06/21/2008 3:46 PM
And don't worry --- there will be some images and pictures of things, if I can figure out how to post them. ChimneyDuck is the only one who commented on the three principles I think are fundamental to this discussion; what do you, EEE, Serpthia, and others think about these?
Thanks!
I don't know about your principles, but I just beat Metal Gear Solid 4 and that is officially the greatest game ever!
Lol, but seriously, the only absolute truth is the Bible, so if any other source claims a truth that doesn't match up with the Bible it's a fraud and the Book of Mormon is a fraud. The only way you could sway me, is to prove to me that the bible is either 1) a fake, or 2) that it is so corrupted that it we can't trust it. I've already done years of research on 2 and I am convince that what we have today is very reliable. I know you don't believe in 1), so where do we go from here I'm interested on what you are going to present. I don't doubt that the book of mormon came from Joseph Smith. I reject the content in the book because it didn't come from God. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 06/21/2008 7:43 PM |
Alert | Patience, itsa, patience! I'm going slowly on this because I want to avoid the thread going "ADHD" like so many "Mormon" threads, with charges shot out rapid fire, shotgun style. By the same token, I don't want to dump "the whole load of hay" of evidence on you, as if to stifle discussion.
Just keep it concise. Whatever it is. Use too many words and whatever and I will just shut it off.
I'm interested on what you are going to present. I don't doubt that the book of mormon came from Joseph Smith. I reject the content in the book because it didn't come from God.
I agree with EEE. I will not be swayed, but I want to see what you will present. My concern is that people who are "peeking" in on this thread, might become confused as to what is the Truth and what is not. I pray that this doesn't happen and I know that God's truth will be seen.
Psalms 43:3 Send forth your light and your truth,
let them guide me;
let them bring me to your holy mountain,
to the place where you dwell.
Psalms 119:105 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
John 1:5 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.II Corinthians 4:6 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 06/29/2008 6:09 PM |
Alert | | (Serpthia) [“The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon”] was an excellent video. It presented a cogent analysis that was easy to follow and understand . . . I read most of the Brant Gardner’s rebuttal, and frankly, it was a rather verbose, weak response to a very compelling video. (EEE) This is a must watch video, putting the Bible and Book of Mormon to test . . . [Gardner’s response to “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon”] was mostly filled with ad hominem attacks instead of giving an actually rebuttal on the content, very disappointing. Just because there are a lot of words, doesn't mean there is any substance . . . I'm glad people are able to see through that. (itsadryheat) Gosh, [Gardner’s response to “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon”] has a lot of words . . . And my question is, if the LDS have such firm and irrefutable proof that these places and peoples existed, then where is it? Why keep it a secret? Why keep it hidden? Wouldn’t sharing these discoveries with the world put LDS religion on the way to proving that it is legitimate? . . . You certainly have to read some of this stuff twice to really get to what it is trying to say (or not saying at all).
These replies are very telling. I don’t think any of you three read Brant Gardner’s response very carefully, if you really read much of it at all. EEE, please cite several examples of ad hominem attacks from the response (which should be easy to do, as you confidently assured us that “it was mostly filled with ad hominem attacks instead of giving an actually rebuttal on the content”). I would settle for even one example. For those who may not know what an ad hominem attack is, it is when someone refuses to deal with someone’s claims or arguments and attacks the person himself as the sole response. Examples from the Bible would be Nathanael’s initial reaction to news of Jesus’ message (“And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”) This is arguing through name-calling only, similar to when the people scorned Jesus, saying, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” In other words, the merits or demerits of Jesus’ teaching weren’t engaged at all; merely the fact that he was from Nazareth or was (falsely) accused of being a Samaritan was enough to convince certain people that it wasn’t necessary to hear Jesus’ arguments.
Keep this in mind when critics actually do use the ad hominem fallacy in dismissing Mormon arguments with a wave of the hand and without addressing the details of their responses. Can there any good thing come out of BYU?
This is why it is necessary to go slowly on this thread and to painstakingly point out what those above have so superficially dismissed. Brant Gardner actually addressed many items that itsadryheat insists haven’t been addressed, it gave 'an actual rebuttal on the content.' Here is my summary of his paper for ease of discussion. I encourage anyone and everyone to compare it to the paper itself, of course.
1. Gardner points out that the video “tak[es] a very critical view of the Book of Mormon, while presenting the Bible as though it generated no controversy at all. This approach is a fundamental misrepresentation of the scholarly climate for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon . . . By ignoring the questions that are currently asked of the Bible, the film creates the illusion that the Bible is unassaulted and unassailable but that the Book of Mormon suffers from questions on every front. The reality is that the Bible must also stand before modern scholarship and answer serious questions. In that respect, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are quite comparable. Hard questions [are] asked of each . . . In this film, the viewer never even sees the questions directed at the Bible. For the Book of Mormon, they never see the answers.”
By giving the impression that there are no questions asked of the Bible, and that there are no answers for questions asked of the Book of Mormon, the video gives an intentionally false impression. It is deceptive and misleading (details to follow in support of this claim).
2. Gardner observes that, contrary to basic principles of persuasive techniques and scholarship, the video completely refuses to acknowledge and treat scholarship that addresses the claims made in the video. The “body of [Book of Mormon] scholarship, which has been growing in volume and sophistication of method and detail for . . . the last forty years (and presaged for . . . one hundred years before that), is completely ignored in the film. In exactly those places in which a scholarly presentation would discuss the best contrary evidence, this film opts for the propaganda technique of ignoring anything that does not support its thesis.”
3. Gardner notes that William Wilson, an anthropologist at Northern Arizona University, is portrayed inaccurately in the video as a Mormon scholar. In fact, he is not a Mormon, and when the video came out, his identity could not be verified. Living Hope Ministries admitted: “The first duplication run of the video incorrectly named the LDS anthropologist from Northern Arizona University (NAU) as ‘Wil West.’ The name Wil West is a nickname of sorts that we mistakenly used instead of his legal name, which is William E. Wilson.” The names have been corrected in subsequent copies of the video since this has been pointed out.
4. An important point by Gardner: the video consistently gives the impression that Mormons are completely befuddled as to where the Book of Mormon took place, but throughout, the video tries to undermine a Mesoamerican setting (southern Mexico/northern Central America), notably including lots of footage of Mesoamerica. The video’s producers are therefore very aware of where most Mormons think the Book of Mormon took place, and tries to argue against this setting, even while striving to give the impression that Mormons have no idea.
“The only reason that the Book of Mormon appears incomparable to the Bible in geography is that the producers have not shared [this] information with their viewers. As with any illusion, the important thing is not what you see but what you are not allowed to see.
Is it possible that the authors of the film were simply unaware of the major focus of Latter-day Saint scholarly work on Book of Mormon geography for the last thirty years? It stretches one's credulity to believe that, particularly since the film spends so much time discussing Mesoamerica and uses Murphy (who has written about this geographic position) as an expert witness . . . Ignorance did not keep this information from the viewers but rather a choice made by the film's producers, who decided to keep [this] information from the audience. One would suspect that if the producers had had a good answer to geographical issues, they would have made it part of the film.”
5. “The Old World evidence is presented by showing impressive archaeological remains. For the Book of Mormon, the narrator begins by discussing the Jaredites: ‘The Jaredites are promised that they will become the greatest nation on earth.’ As this statement is read, the film pans to a countryside that is empty of any identifiable human influence. The film's expert, Murphy, then declares that ‘no traces of it’ can be found.”
Gardner’s reply to this is that New Mexico, where he lives, “has large tracts of empty countryside. Filming that while suggesting that Albuquerque did not exist would . . . obviously be incorrect.” The video refuses to recognize that the great Olmec culture corresponds closely in time and place with the Jaredites, choosing instead to show empty landscapes while solemnly declaring that there is no trace of them. This is propaganda, not a rigorous treatment of whether the Olmec civilization could have encompassed the Jaredite civilization. Not quite the “no traces of it can be found” that the video presents, is it?
6. Tom Murphy (the video’s main expert) correctly points out that the high-point of Mesoamerican culture was after Book of Mormon times. Gardner points out that the video refused to ask the more pertinent scholarly question of whether Mesoamerican culture during Book of Mormon times matches up with information in the Book of Mormon.
7. Gardner next makes a crucially important point: New World archaeology and Old World archaeology are very different on a number of levels, one of the most important of which is the availability of texts.
“The problem is not that no remains have survived from the right place and time but rather that no texts have survived! Very few texts of any kind from Book of Mormon times are in existence. Even those few that date to the right time do not originate from locations that had any known correspondence with cities in the area where the Book of Mormon likely took place . . . The Jaredites do not appear in texts. The Olmec leave no texts. The New World can only envy the text-rich Old World. In spite of the lack of texts, however, the cultures did exist. Not only did the cultures exist, but members of those civilizations wrote. Evidence of early writing survives, but not texts. The problem with the New World is not that the cultures were illiterate but that they wrote on perishable materials.
The claim that different cultures leave differing types of remains is certainly true. Mesoamerican archaeologists are quite aware of this and have traced a number of different cultural complexes through time and space. The issue is not whether different peoples can be identified but whether we are able to place familiar names to the remains of these identified peoples.”
Gardner then cites a concrete example from Bible archaeology where archaeologists tried to distinguish between Canannite and Israelite dwellings. While this could not be conclusively done, researchers did find enough correspondence with biblical detail to conclude that the remains plausibly confirm the Bible account.
“Could archaeological remains distinguish between Jaredite and Nephite civilizations? They might, if we knew what belonged to each. Archaeologists can certainly distinguish between Olmec and Maya, which are cultures from periods and regions appropriate to the Book of Mormon. If the Jaredites followed Olmec culture and the Nephites followed Maya culture, then we have already distinguished between the two. Note the problem that Dever discusses in attempting to find archaeological evidence of early Israel . . . Dever is, of course, trying to find evidence of early Israel in Canaan. He finds archaeological remains that are different. How does he determine that they are early Israelite? Nothing specifically identifies them as such. They are simply farming villages. He determines that they were Israelite because they are in the right place and seem to match descriptions in the biblical text. text. Is finding Book of Mormon lands or cultures comparable to this kind of real-world archaeology? We can perform exactly the same kind of analysis that Dever and Stager did in comparing the dwellings with the text. Starting with the text, we can match the features of the text to a Mesoamerican dwelling compound just as did Dever and Stager . . . In the case of Dever and Stager, they began with an accepted text against which they matched discovered remains. In the case of the Book of Mormon we know the remains and must then match them to the text. In both cases we have text and dwellings, but for each a different piece of data becomes the measuring device. Nevertheless, the comparison is the same. We have to match actual dates, geography, and features with the dates, geography, and features noted in the text. Same problem, same solution: compare the archaeology and the text.”
8. “Murphy notes that the Nephites built machines” and portrays this as a ridiculous blunder. Gardner points out that “Murphy allows a viewer's modern perceptions to color the way the word machinery is read. Our modern world is so full of machines that we automatically equate that word with the kinds of machines with which we are familiar. Nevertheless, the fundamental definition of machinery (from Webster's 1828 dictionary) is ‘a complicated work, or combination of mechanical powers in a work, designed to increase, regulate or apply motion and force.’ A lever is a machine. It cannot be known exactly what machinery is meant in the Nephite record, but it need not be the modern equipment that Murphy seems to imply.”
9. The video dwells at length on how many place names in biblical areas have the same name recorded in the Bible, while emphasizing that Mesoamerican place names do not correspond to Book of Mormon place names. Gardner points out, again, that Mesoamerica presents very different and unique challenges that Old World archaeology doesn’t face: the extreme volitility and change in language. Gardner corrects the video’s expert, Hector Escobedo, who said that “because of the advances in epigraphy, we are now able to read the ancient names of most of the sites.”
[Note the glaring lack of an ad hominem attack here. Gardner treats Escobedo’s comment, but does not dismiss him out of religious, ethnic, or other reasons] “Most of Escobedo's statement is accurate. The advances in epigraphy have yielded the ancient names of some of the sites. The difference is that he uses the word most, which is certainly an exaggeration. I do not impute any deception to Escobedo. I do not know the context in which he said most or whether he would willingly alter that word if he had the opportunity. The fact is that names have been identified for some sites. The first problem with Escobedo's unfortunate choice of the word most is that the original name can only be determined when texts are extant, and texts in stone tend to relate only to the Classic period, which covers the time from AD 250 to 800. For the greatest part of Book of Mormon history, we cannot identify the original names of sites because no texts remain to tell us the names. Unlike the Old World, in which the persistence of place-names has been recently demonstrated, such a continuation of place-names did not happen in the New World. The name Zarahemla may not have survived for the same reason that all but a handful of ancient names have not survived. Original names were lost and in most cases were replaced by the names the Aztecs used to refer to the locations, not what the natives of the area used earlier . . . The second problem with the use of most is that there are really a fairly limited number of known city names . . . Peter Mathews wrote the seminal article on the analysis of these . . . He lists thirty-five emblem glyphs for known sites and three more that refer to sites that have not yet been identified. Of the thousands of archaeological sites in Guatemala alone, thirty-eight can hardly be called most, even if every one of those could be read for the ancient name. Undoubtedly, more have been discovered since Mathews's article, but those fortunate advances will still not yield the effect that the editors have intended, which is to suggest that we know all the city names and that Book of Mormon names are not found among them. The facts are that few names are known and that those are for the latest part of the Book of Mormon at best and from areas that are not generally considered to be part of Nephite territory. The film's comments about Mesoamerican place-names are pure illusion. The facts contradict them.”
10. As with Tom Murphy, who claims that Mormons don’t know where the Book of Mormon happened but has published several articles arguing against Mormon arguments in favor of a Mesoamerican location, Gardner points out that William Wilson ignores John Sorenson’s important work identifying the Santa Rosa site with Zarahemla when he claims that Mormons have no proposed site for it.
“Perhaps Wilson is unaware of Sorenson's work. However, how expert is a person who is unfamiliar with the recent scholarship on the subject on which he is expressing an opinion?” Gardner points out, however, that Wilson is demonstrably very familiar with Sorenson’s work, as he directly engages many of Sorenson’s arguments. Wilson (and the Living Hope Ministries video) try to portray Mormons as having no proposed sites but refuse to deal with the sites that Mormon experts have proposed.
11. Gardner points out that the video, ignoring or unaware of the scholarly climate for the Bible, imposes difficulties on the Book of Mormon that the Bible faces as well.
“Is the Bible really as different from the Book of Mormon as is suggested? Not according to archaeologist Donald B. Redford. He notes that camels are integral to the story of Gideon and appear throughout the early period of the Bible. Nevertheless, camels ‘do not appear in the Near East as domesticated beasts of burden until the ninth century B.C.’ [Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), 277.] The Bible and the Book of Mormon both must answer questions. As noted earlier, it is the answers that are important. The film continues to avoid questions about the Bible and answers for the Book of Mormon.”
12. Gardner points out that the video’s star exhibit dealing with horses is a scripture that is actually a quotation of a verse from Isaiah, and is therefore not really an anachronism. As the video zooms in on the text of the quotation from Isaiah 2:7 in the Book of Mormon, Gardner notes that the passage is “in the Book of Mormon, but it refers to the Old World. Since the heading of the chapter clearly indicates that it comes from Isaiah, I cannot imagine how the editors could have made the mistake of assuming that this referred to the New World. If they were close enough to take the picture they used, they were close enough to see that this verse was a quotation from Isaiah. The only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive. Ironically, then, the most damning passage about horses they could find in the Book of Mormon is from Isaiah.” (OUCH)!
13. Gardner points out that the Bible faces the same scrutiny for its mention of steel that the Book of Mormon does. While more recent translation of the Bible render steel as “brass” or “copper,” critics refuse to allow the Book of Mormon the same privilege [Note: I don’t hold steel to be anachronistic in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but that’s another issue for another time]. Gardner refers to the well-known fact that many Mesoamerican languages had words for “iron,”even though no remains of iron have been found.
Gardner also points out that the video claims that the Book of Mormon mentions coins, when in fact the Book of Mormon text itself does not mention coins at all, but a system of weights that corresponds exactly to the Egyptian system of units of 1, 2, 4, and 7, which has been described as the most efficient system possible. Gardner compares this with the fact that the mention of coins in 1 Samuel is seen by Bible archaeologists “as one of the ‘blatant anachronisms’ ” in the Bible [Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 305]. There is therefore the video’s false anachronism in the Book of Mormon compared with the exact same issue being a real potential anachronism in the Bible.
14. Gardner points out that the glyphic writing system, first recorded in stone and later (after Book of Mormon times) on other media, was obviously not the first and only writing system in Mesoamerica.
“However, no Mesoamerican scholar believes that writing was invented at the same time the Maya began carving glyphs in stone. The writing on stone came late, but the writing system must have developed earlier. Yet the evidence is lost because the materials the Mesoamericans wrote on have disappeared. John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman have recently proposed a translation of an epi-Olmec stela that appears to have glyph forms that pre-date the Maya glyphs.Joyce Marcus, professor of anthropology and curator of Latin American Archaeology at the University of Michigan, declares: ‘It is now clear that writing began in Mesoamerica among pre-state societies. Those societies [date] to the period 700-400 B.C.’
The film's experts now have a problem. Secular Mesoamericanists declare that writing did exist in the time period of the Book of Mormon and that evidence of writing exists even though texts have not been preserved. The real experts of the New World have demonstrated that the film's Old World experts do not have the correct information with regard to the New World, though doubtless all but Murphy were unaware of this.
What then of Murphy's [argument]? Murphy is either ignorant of important texts on Mesoamerican history or is intentionally misrepresenting the effect of a lack of textual history. As one who is presented as an expert on Mesoamerica, we may expect him to be familiar with the important texts for Mesoamerican history.”
Regarding “reformed Egyptian,” which the video ridicules, I will present some items in this thread at a later time. Suffice it to say that there are close parallels between the examples we have of the characters on the Book of Mormon plates, demotic and meroitic Egyptian script, and a recently-discovered script in early Mesoamerica that is not yet well-known (and which there are few samples of).
15. Gardner points out that the video’s team looks for evidence of massive battles far away from where Mormons think they happened (upstate New York as opposed to Mesoamerica).
“When one is looking for evidence of a battle, it is essential to dig at the location where the battle took place. A known historical siege took place at Masada (the first-century site mentioned in the film). Digging at that location is digging at a battle site.
What about the Book of Mormon battles? Most of the Book of Mormon battles take place on open fields, not in cities. Since the archaeological excavations concentrate on the cities, it is not very surprising that the remnants of large battles are not found there, where they did not happen. That does not mean, however, that the battles did not happen. The Aztecs fought tremendous battles, but archaeologists have not yet located great battlefields littered with bodies or artifacts. Yet the Aztecs are much later than the Book of Mormon. Once again, the authors of the film use a general problem from all of Mesoamerica and presume that it has specific meaning for the Book of Mormon. The lack of remnants of a battle for the Nephites no more means that there were no Nephites than the lack of evidence for Aztec battles means that there were no Aztecs.”
16. In reaction to the video’s assertion that we should find Book of Mormon personal names in inscriptions if the book is true, Garder responds:
“For the great majority of Mesoamerica, no adequate texts have survived to tell us about anything, let alone personal names. To date, the earliest name I can find is Yax Ehb' Xook, the founder of the Tikal lineage. In the absence of direct dating for his name, epigrapher Simon Martin and anthropologist Nikolai Grube deduce a time period around AD 90. This name comes from a king list, and the first contemporary data--that is, data that are not derived from delving into history--come from AD 292.The only people meriting mention are the kings or queens, and there are few of those.
We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite. If the vast majority of names refer to the kings and queens of a particular location and that location is not Nephite, we have little hope of finding a reference to a Nephite name there.”
Gardner then quotes University of Arizona Bible scholar William Dever concerning the difficulties archaeology presents in supporting the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, the entering into Canaan, and the existence of Moses:
“Dever explains the problem of assuming that archaeology can support a religious text. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon share this issue, an issue on which this film is noticeably silent:”
‘The overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion’
17. In response to the video’s assertion that a visit from the resurrected Christ to people in Mesoamerica would have to be well attested in records, inscriptions, etc., Gardner responds:
“Here, again, the film plays on a couple of assumptions. The first is that . . . the Book of Mormon [requires] . . . a virtually universal conversion. Second, it assumes that Christianity is easy to recognize in archaeological remains . . . The next problem is the question of what a conversion to Christianity might look like in the archaeological record. [How] would [we] recognize Christianity in the New World? Archaeologists can only reconstruct religion from artifacts and preserved art. Iconography is the study of the religious art and symbols of a people. Is there an exclusive Christian iconography? Would Christian iconography in the New World resemble that found in the Old World?
The best way to understand the answer to this question is to examine the iconographic history of Israel and early Christianity. Both Israel and early Christianity were very comfortable borrowing and incorporating iconography from their neighbors, even when that iconography was part of their neighbor's religion.
Historian Ramsay MacMullen notes:
‘The tangible record gives the same impression of shared territory. For example, among the grave-goods of late Roman Egypt, very much the same things are found whether the burial be Christian or not. In a Pannonian grave was placed a box ornamented with a relief of the gods, Orpheus in the center, Sol and Luna in the corners, but the Chi-Rho as well; elsewhere, in Danube burials, similar random mixtures of symbolism appear, with gods and busts of Saint Peter and Saint Paul all in the same bas-relief. The Romans who bought cheap little baked clay oil-lamps from the shop of Annius Serapiodorus in the capital apparently didn't care whether he put the Good Shepherd or Bacchus or both together on his products; and the rich patrons of mosaicists in Gaul, North Africa, and Syria were similarly casual about the very confused symbolism they commissioned for their floors’ . . .
If, in the Old World, early Christianity borrowed its symbol set from its surrounding Hellenistic culture and did so in ways that might make certain artifacts ambiguous, as in the sarcophagus Crossan discusses, then what ought we to expect of the New World? When we look for New World Christians, what do we look for? Do we look for representations of Apollo? Do we look for any of the Greek-inspired icons of the Old World? What we know as Christian from the Old World is dependent on the relationship of that area of the world to Greece. That condition does not exist in the New World. Based on the history of both Israel and early Christianity, we would expect the New World Israelites and Christians to do as their Old World counterparts did--adapt the iconography of the surrounding cultures.
Do we find evidence of Christianity? Who knows? The sarcophagus Crossan mentions could easily be Christian or pagan. If the same forces developed in New World Israelite/Christian art, there would be a similar ambiguity. Saying that archaeologists cannot find evidence of Christianity in the New World simply demonstrates a simplistic assumption about what ought to be found. If the earliest artistic depictions of Jesus Christ were based on Apollo, perhaps the New World artists would have borrowed the corn god (who was clearly a god who died and was resurrected). Enough correspondence between Christ and the corn god can be found as to suggest that a Nephite artist might borrow that symbol. If we therefore find a depiction of a corn god, is it pagan or Christian? Is the sarcophagus pagan or Christian? These questions are, at this point, unanswerable. But the apparent lack of Christian symbols in the archaeological remains is not, as the film suggests, evidence that Book of Mormon Christianity did not exist.
18. The video includes the following brief clip from Mormon scholar Daniel Peterson:
“The Book of Mormon makes sense as plausible history. The whole thing seems right. It makes sense. There is very little in it apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.”
The video then has Murphy reply to this statement as follows:
“Well, Dan Peterson is lying. The problem, first and foremost, with the Book of Mormon is its secular history. It gets the history wrong. The myth has been disproved again and again by archaeologists and historians on secular grounds--not religious ones.”
Brant Gardner supplies the entire context for the Peterson statement as follows:
“Another thing about the Book of Mormon that we need to keep in mind as we consider other more specific things is simply that it makes sense as plausible history. I spend a lot of time reading ancient history, medieval history, and so on, and I find the Book of Mormon to be plausible. It's not straining for effect, it's not trying to achieve some Romanticism, or some pseudo-Oriental flavor that would impress its audience. It's a very matter-of-fact narrative of what happened, and what happened seems to be a very plausible kind of thing--people behave the way people actually do behave. We have parallels for the behavior of Nephites and Lamanites from other historical cultures. So again, the whole thing seems right. It makes sense. There is very little in it, apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.”
Gardner comments on this:
“Placed in context, is Peterson ‘lying’ about the specific data he is discussing? Hardly. Nevertheless, Murphy claims that he is lying because the Book of Mormon gets secular history wrong. That is a bold statement, particularly since the only evidence for Murphy's statement comes from evidence that has been carefully selected and protected from any contradictory information.
Contrary to the impression given in the film, I have found several ways in which the Book of Mormon reflects secular history quite accurately.Is Murphy lying? I am sure that he sees the data differently than I do. Nevertheless, the section becomes a poster child for "us[ing] whatever means are possible." Ironically, what Wilson claims for the apologists is precisely what this film's editors do in presenting their message. They remove statements from context. They suppress contrary data. They present incorrect statements as though they were fact.Are the film's editors lying? They are at least using any means possible to make their case, even when those means distort the real picture.”
19. Gardner refers to William Wilson’s characterization of proposed explanations from Mormon scholars as to the identities of certain animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
“As with other information in this film, examining the actual argument rather than Wilson's crude caricature is instructive. John Sorenson discusses the problem of cross-cultural onomastica (the names we use for animals, things, or people). He introduces his discussion by giving examples from cross-cultural issues that arose when the Spanish arrived in the New World:
‘Anthropologists tell us that the world's peoples have many different models for classifying animals or plants, as they do for labeling geographical directions or dividing up time... When the Spaniards reached the Americas, they had trouble labeling the native creatures systematically. Yet the Indians had an even harder time classifying the animals the Europeans brought along.
A good example of the confusion is with the coatimundi (Nasua narica). Landa, the padre who favored us with a detailed description of Yucatan, wrote of the beast, "There is an animal which they call chic, wonderfully active, as large as a small dog, with a snout like a sucking pig. The Indian women raise them, and they leave nothing which they do not root over and turn upside down; and it is an incredible thing how wonderfully fond they are of playing with the Indian women, and how they clean them from lice.’ The flesh of the coati was also widely eaten, and the animal remains a pet today in some rural Mexican homes... What ought the coati to be called in English? One common Spanish name is tejon. Unfortunately, tejon is also the Spanish name for badger as well as raccoon. Another name, from the Aztecs, is pisote (Nahuatl pezotli), which means basically glutton. Yet pisote is sometimes applied also to the peccary or wild pig. In regard to the peccary, the Nahuatl terms quauhcoyametl and quahpizotl were developed after the conquest to distinguish the native species from the introduced Castilian pig, so by extension the coati was sometimes termed quauhpezotli, tree-glutton, to distinguish it from the peccary, the ground-glutton. Finally, the Mayan languages labeled the coati for its playful aspect, hence chic, clown.’
“The introduction to the issue is based on what anthropologists understand about the problem of cross-cultural naming. So far there is nothing in this description that any anthropologist or archaeologist would shake a head at (to use Wilson's language). In fact, in cross-cultural conditions, anthropologists expect precisely what Sorenson describes. Is it possible that anthropologist Wilson is unaware of this?” . . .
What Sorenson says is that when Nephites encountered the same problem of cross-cultural naming as did the Spanish, they may have applied the same solution. In that condition, the word horse might have been used as the name for the unfamiliar animal, the deer. Sorenson is not suggesting that Nephites did not know the difference between horses and deer. He is simply suggesting that, according to known human practice, they might have used a common name for a known animal to refer to a previously unknown animal that they felt was somehow similar to the more familiar one. That is hardly an "outrageous" suggestion. Sorenson is doing exactly what an anthropologist would do--applying known human behavior in similar conditions to explain human behavior in a different setting.
As with the deer, Sorenson's suggestions about tapirs follow known practices, which is not outrageous, as Wilson's mockery implies.
What is outrageous, however, is Wilson's "evidence" for a "problem" in Sorenson's argument. Wilson asks: "Well, how do you ride something that is a little bit bigger than a dog into battle? It's an outrageous idea." Why, yes it is. It is outrageous that Wilson makes this statement and does not understand why he is completely incorrect. Wilson here repeats the erroneous idea that the Book of Mormon has horses that are ridden or appear in battle. Wilson's "proof" that a Latter-day Saint scholar's argument is "outrageous" is a statement that is demonstrably contrary to fact. Sadly, it appears that Wilson is aware neither of what the Book of Mormon actually says nor of how anthropologists deal with cross-cultural onomastica.
Ironically, Wilson suggests: "If this argument was brought up in a scientific community, I can tell you they'd be laughed out of the building." Rather, it would be anyone calling himself an anthropologist who was completely unaware of common anthropological principles and who misrepresented a primary text who would be laughed out of the building. As an illusionist, Wilson appears to be learning the trade. To use another show business analogy, Wilson is a ventriloquist whose lips are moving. He is presented as an expert witness, but he continually demonstrates that he is far from expert in this field.
----------------------
I hope this gives everyone enough to chew on and see that Serpthia, EEE, and itsadryheat's initial, predictable reactions to a thorough response to "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon" were superficial and perfunctory. And that's been the central issue with demands for evidence of Book of Mormon peoples in general: critics make the demands but then refuse to consider any evidence presented. | | | |
|
| | NAHS79
Posts:15
| | 06/29/2008 7:43 PM |
Alert | | Long and Boring. Next subject. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|