Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

James 1:5


Benji

Recommended Posts

Ah. I see. So, your methodology is that everything that an LDS scholar says is unreliable and can therefore be discarded without even being read. Well, no wonder it seems so "painfully obvious". With a methodology like that, things must seem very simple indeed.

It seems pretty evident to me that some gamesmanship is being played here.

1. Of course LDS scholars publish things which are peer-reviewed. They may have written on any number of subjects unrelated to the historicity of the BoM or BoA or other controversial issues of Mormon antiquities, and published those writings in peer-reviewed journals or forums. Benji's challenge is to identify works on the Book of Mormon or on the book of Abraham, et. al., written by mainstream non-LDS scholars or even by LDS scholars, which works on said topics are peer-reviewed.

2. Likewise I don't believe Benji is dismissing out-of-hand the scholarship anyone based upon their affiliation with the LDS Church. His point is that their works on specific subjects, relating to the historicity of the book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etcetera, are written strictly as faith-affirming, non-scholarly works intended for consumption by other believing Mormons. Moreover, if I understand Benji correctly--he is suggesting that works on those subjects are never critiqued by non-LDS peers nor even submitted to them for such critique.

3. I do agree that if Benji can somehow gain access to the works suggested--it will harm him not at all to read them and highlight some areas where he finds these authors wanting. Being dismissive out-of-hand does not build one's credibility.

Link to comment
Benji, you know what they say about assumptions. On what basis do you assume the following?

- That all of the scholars mentioned by TrespassersW are on the LDS side of the fence.

Will2believe, actually all 4 of the scholars TrespassersW mentioned are LDS.

Regardless of whether their names are on the rolls, Ashment and Thompson and not in the LDS camp on this issue.

I said that no LDS scholars I had ever read were peer reviewed by non-LDS scholars.

My apologies. I thought you were implying a falsehood, when really you were just admitting that you have read only sources to which "no credibility is given."

I know of many non-Christians who accept that Jesus was a real person.

And I know of many non-LDS who accept that Abraham was a real person. But neither of these facts lend meaningful support to the NT or BoA, do they?

Link to comment
Benji's challenge is to identify works on the Book of Mormon or on the book of Abraham, et. al., written by mainstream non-LDS scholars or even by LDS scholars, which works on said topics are peer-reviewed.

Exactly.

Likewise I don't believe Benji is dismissing out-of-hand the scholarship anyone based upon their affiliation with the LDS Church. His point is that their works on specific subjects, relating to the historicity of the book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etcetera, are written strictly as faith-affirming, non-scholarly works intended for consumption by other believing Mormons. Moreover, if I understand Benji correctly--he is suggesting that works on those subjects are never critiqued by non-LDS peers nor even submitted to them for such critique.

Once again, my point precisely.

I do agree that if Benji can somehow gain access to the works suggested--it will harm him not at all to read them and highlight some areas where he finds these authors wanting. Being dismissive out-of-hand does not build one's credibility.

I am more than willing to look at any of this stuff but when not even one non-LDS scholar agrees with any LDS scholars on the BOA issue, it just seems like a waste of time.

Benji

Link to comment

How many Non-LDS scholars have even given the BOA the time of Day?

Did you listens to Margaret Barkers discourse on the JS simposium?

WHere through her OT scholarship of 600BC Babylonian texts (Exactly the Cultur Lehi was coming out of) she found many Parallels to his Dream of the Tree of Life with those texts?

Link to comment
Once again you make a statement that is fraudulent. There IS a case for both the BoA and BoM. The Book of Abraham, for example, discusses the sacrifice of Abraham. Guess what? We find it in ancient non-Biblical Abrahamic lore. There are many items discovered that are exact on like this.

This does not solve the problem that Joseph Smith's "translation" of the facsimilie is completely inaccurate and has nothing to do with Abraham. This alone invalidates his prophetic claims.

As for the BoM, we have historical people too. Zedekiah and Jeremiah are mentioned. Now does that mean any people traveled to America? No. But just because people believe Jesus was historical does not make the miracles and resurrection true, either.

I was not claiming that Jesus' historicity makes his miracles true. My point was that it is an established fact that he existed and even if someone denies his divinity, they can't deny the reality that he lived. This is not true with the things that occured in the BOM.

Place names unknown in Joseph's day are being found today, like NHM. Complex societal traditions and issues in the BoM are being found to be dead on with what we find in ancient Mesoamerican society. There ARE numerous evidences for the historical reality of many things recorded in the Book of Mormon.

The day this is verified by non-LDS scholars will be the day it has credibility.

Benji

Link to comment
I am more than willing to look at any of this stuff but when not even one non-LDS scholar agrees with any LDS scholars on the BOA issue, it just seems like a waste of time.

My point above was that the same logic dictates that you bail on Christianity, since no non-Christian scholars accept the NT's depiction of Christ's miraculous birth, ministry, and resurrection.

Link to comment
As for the BoM, we have historical people too. Zedekiah and Jeremiah are mentioned. Now does that mean any people traveled to America? No. But just because people believe Jesus was historical does not make the miracles and resurrection true, either.

I was not claiming that Jesus' historicity makes his miracles true. My point was that it is an established fact that he existed and even if someone denies his divinity, they can't deny the reality that he lived. This is not true with the things that occured in the BOM.

What are the proven facts about the following people mentioned in the Bible:

King Saul

King David

Moses

Enoch

Noah

Joshua

Adam

Eve

Seth

There is no physical evidence that these people existed.

Link to comment
The problem with your claim is that no non-LDS scholars have been interested in looking beyond the papyri itself. The few that have glanced, have been anti-Mormons, like Ritner, and they've only given it a casual look.

It is interesting how quickly you dismiss Ritner as an anti-Mormon.

Benji

Link to comment
My point above was that the same logic dictates that you bail on Christianity, since no non-Christian scholars accept the NT's depiction of Christ's miraculous birth, ministry, and resurrection.

You're obviously not getting my point at all. Non-Christian scholars acknowledge that Jesus EXISTED. No non-LDS scholars acknowledge that the stuff from the BOM ever existed. Something has to at least exist before it can be believed in.

Benji

Link to comment
My point above was that the same logic dictates that you bail on Christianity, since no non-Christian scholars accept the NT's depiction of Christ's miraculous birth, ministry, and resurrection.

You're obviously not getting my point at all. Non-Christian scholars acknowledge that Jesus EXISTED. No non-LDS scholars acknowledge that the stuff from the BOM ever existed. Something has to at least exist before it can be believed in.

Benji

I understand your point just fine, but can you tell me how it addresses my point?

Link to comment
My point above was that the same logic dictates that you bail on Christianity, since no non-Christian scholars accept the NT's depiction of Christ's miraculous birth, ministry, and resurrection.

The same logic does not dictate this because as I have said several times something has to at least exist before it can be believed in.

Benji

Link to comment
The same logic does not dictate this because as I have said several times something has to at least exist before it can be believed in.

I see two non sequitur's and one question begging in that sentence.

I'll spell out my argument:

Your claim is: The fact that all non-LDS scholars see the BoA as fiction (even if some elements, such as Abraham's visit to Egypt, are factual) makes pro-BoA studies a waste of time.

My parallel claim is: The fact that all non-Christian scholars see the NT as fiction (even if some elements, such as a teacher named Jesus among the Jews, are factual) makes pro-NT studies a waste of time.

How have I misconstructed this parallel?

Link to comment
Your claim is: The fact that all non-LDS scholars see the BoA as fiction (even if some elements, such as Abraham's visit to Egypt, are factual) makes pro-BoA studies a waste of time.

What I am saying is that because there has been no non-LDS verification of anything that happened in the BOA or BOM, they lack credibility. This is on top of the fact that JS clearly was incorrect about Facsimilie 1 which casts serious doubt on his propetic claims.

My parallel claim is: The fact that all non-Christian scholars see the NT as fiction (even if some elements, such as a teacher named Jesus among the Jews, are factual) makes pro-NT studies a waste of time.

The Bible has all kinds of verifiable things in it like Israel, Jerusalem, The Jewish People, King Herod, and Jesus to name a few. It is historically reliable, unlike the BOM or the BOA. Therefore it has credibility, regardless of whether a person accepts the divinity of Jesus.

Benji

Link to comment

Double standard!! Neither the events of the Bible nor its characters can be scientifically verified, with perhaps a few exceptions! So don't expect more of the Book of Abraham. Details of the POGP do match accounts in obscure, ancient documents, such as specific elements in the life of Enoch. That's a little bit closer to trustworthy proof.

Find me Paul's grave. Peter's house. Archaeological evidence that Matthew was a tax collector.

Please.

Link to comment
Double standard!! Neither the events of the Bible nor its characters can be scientifically verified, with perhaps a few exceptions! So don't expect more of the Book of Abraham. Details of the POGP do match accounts in obscure, ancient documents, such as specific elements in the life of Enoch. That's a little bit closer to trustworthy proof.

Find me Paul's grave. Peter's house. Archaeological evidence that Matthew was a tax collector.

Please.

Israel, Jerusalem, The Jewish People, King Herod, and Jesus to name a few.

Benji

Link to comment
Your claim is: The fact that all non-LDS scholars see the BoA as fiction (even if some elements, such as Abraham's visit to Egypt, are factual) makes pro-BoA studies a waste of time.

What I am saying is that because there has been no non-LDS verification of anything that happened in the BOA or BOM, they lack credibility. This is on top of the fact that JS clearly was incorrect about Facsimilie 1 which casts serious doubt on his propetic claims.

My parallel claim is: The fact that all non-Christian scholars see the NT as fiction (even if some elements, such as a teacher named Jesus among the Jews, are factual) makes pro-NT studies a waste of time.

The Bible has all kinds of verifiable things in it like Israel, Jerusalem, The Jewish People, King Herod, and Jesus to name a few. It is historically reliable, unlike the BOM or the BOA. Therefore it has credibility, regardless of whether a person accepts the divinity of Jesus.

Benji

Wait a minute. The Book of Abraham has both Nimrod and Abraham in it, just as the Bible. Abraham is not "proveable" as a historical person in the Bible. Does this mean we should toss Genesis out along with the BoA?

And in the BoM, we have Jesus, Mary, Zedekiah, Jeremiah, Malachi and Isaiah as real people. If they are valuable enough in the Bible to study, perhaps you should give a little more consideration to the BoM. Oh, and Israel and Jerusalem are also in the BoM. So, your wordplay is rather stupid.

BTW, Schliemann used Homer's works to discover Troy. Should we suddenly start worshipping Zeus and Apollo? You see how using physical history to "prove" the Bible gets stupid? It doesn't prove anything. If you reject the BoM and BoA on a few items that you feel invalidate them, then the Bible should REALLY be considered a loser book in your view. If you were as critical of the Bible as you are on the LDS scripture, you would be an atheist. Kind of fun being hypocritical and using a double standard on the books, isn't it?

The Bible is NOT historically reliable. You can't prove Adam lived 6000 years ago. In fact, he wasn't the first man according to history OR science. Noah's flood was NOT global according to science. Joshua did not destroy Jericho, and actually just quietly moved in next to the Canaanites, according to archaeology. Moses and Abraham are no-shows in history. We barely have any evidence of David.

So, from 4000 years of Biblical history, we only have real evidence of about 1000 years of it. That, my friend, is not very good history.

Oh, and the Biblical Jesus? There are many Bible scholars out there that are happy to claim he was only a teacher, and that Paul added the Messiah stuff later on. So, given how strongly you condemn the BoA for the papyri issue (that you obviously have not really studied at all, or you would see it is more complex than you make it), you MUST reject the Bible on similar grounds.

According to many Biblical scholars, Moses did NOT write the books of Moses. Deuteronomy wasn't written until King Josiah's time. Isaiah did NOT write most of Isaiah. Daniel did NOT write Daniel. Paul didn't write Hebrews nor half of the other epistles. John didn't write his Revelation. And of the four gospels, only Mark is considered to have been written by its assumed author.

So, why are you still a Christian? If you have such simple issues with the BoA, the Bible ought to give you even bigger fits!

Link to comment
Your claim is: The fact that all non-LDS scholars see the BoA as fiction (even if some elements, such as Abraham's visit to Egypt, are factual) makes pro-BoA studies a waste of time.

What I am saying is that because there has been no non-LDS verification of anything that happened in the BOA or BOM, they lack credibility. This is on top of the fact that JS clearly was incorrect about Facsimilie 1 which casts serious doubt on his propetic claims.

My parallel claim is: The fact that all non-Christian scholars see the NT as fiction (even if some elements, such as a teacher named Jesus among the Jews, are factual) makes pro-NT studies a waste of time.

The Bible has all kinds of verifiable things in it like Israel, Jerusalem, The Jewish People, King Herod, and Jesus to name a few. It is historically reliable, unlike the BOM or the BOA. Therefore it has credibility, regardless of whether a person accepts the divinity of Jesus.

Benji

The same non sequitur's and question begging. Not to mention dodging the question, which was: How have I misconstructed this parallel?

Let me spell it out more explicitly:

Non-Christian scholars regard events in the NT as fictional, even if the setting and characters are real.

Do you agree with the above sentence? If not, then why not?

Now substitute the word "Non-LDS" for "Non-Christian" and "BoA" for "NT".

Do you still agree with it? If not, then why not?

Link to comment
Wait a minute. The Book of Abraham has both Nimrod and Abraham in it, just as the Bible. Abraham is not "proveable" as a historical person in the Bible. Does this mean we should toss Genesis out along with the BoA?

And in the BoM, we have Jesus, Mary, Zedekiah, Jeremiah, Malachi and Isaiah as real people. If they are valuable enough in the Bible to study, perhaps you should give a little more consideration to the BoM. Oh, and Israel and Jerusalem are also in the BoM. So, your wordplay is rather stupid.

Yes, and JS had access to the Bible which is why those things are there.

The Bible is NOT historically reliable.

I never said the ENTIRE Bible was reliable but significant parts of it are whereas NONE of Mormon scripture is.

Benji

Link to comment
Non-Christian scholars regard events in the NT as fictional, even if the setting and characters are real.

Yes, I agree. However, the reality of the setting and characters says a lot which is my whole point.

Now substitute the word "Non-LDS" for "Non-Christian" and "BoA" for "NT".

The setting & characters of the BOA & BOM are not real, which is also my point.

Benji

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...