The Bible Vs. The Book Of Mormon

[Brant Gardner]

The film The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon does not claim to be a thorough, exacting work of scholarship.

Perhaps we should try to understand what it does claim. Does it claim to be a fluff piece that has not pretense of showing anything useful? No, it aims higher than that?

Does it at least present the illusion that it is discussion scholarship? Yes, it presents scholars as authorities.

Does it intend to create a contrast between a believable Bible and an unbelievable Book of Mormon? I can't see that one could draw any other conclusion about the film.

Does it honestly compare scholarship? No. Forget exacting. It doesn't rise above obvious propaganda. If I take only the Book of Mormon pieces that are presented, would I have an accurate depiction of the way LDS scholars relate the text to the Book of Mormon? Not even close.

You note that: "The producers were not themselves scholars." That is probable, I don't know them. I do know what they produced, and what they produced attempts to look scholarly while avoiding scholarship. It was done either in ignorance or knowledge. If knowledge, then it is intentional deception. If ignorance, then we have a movie presented by people who don't really know what they are talking about trying to convince others to accept their view of something they don't agree with. That is propaganda.

Under which definition would you recommend this video to a friend?

It is a religious documentary, intended to reach a mass audience, covering a broad range of topics in just over an hour. A documentary that interviews scholars does not take upon itself the standards of peer-reviewed, scholarly, academic rigor. It is still just a documentary for public consumption. You and I would probably have done a lot of things differently if either of us were producing it, but that doesn't mean the film's producers were deliberately out to deceive people.

I am willing to go with unwitting deception. Does that really make the film acceptable? Does something that deceives improve if the deceit isn't understood because the ones perpetrating it didn't do their homework?

Who should see this film? No one who wants to have a good understanding of the issues. No one who wants to know what LDS people really think. No one who knows anything about Mesoamerica.

Really, who should see this film? We can make the same kinds of analysis of any propaganda film. It serves the purposes of the creator to the detriment of what ever they are arguing against. Any good propaganda has some foot in fact. That doesn't mean that I think all propaganda films should be endorsed or be free from criticism about what they leave out of their message, and how their message is massaged to meet their own goals--real facts be darned (it is an LDS board, so we need the euphemism).

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

I'm disappointed that you skipped over the example I gave showing that your own review could be faulted if we applied the same standard to it that you applied to the documentary. That was crucial to my reply in that post.

You wrote:

Perhaps we should try to understand what it does claim. Does it claim to be a fluff piece that has not pretense of showing anything useful? No, it aims higher than that?

There is a lot of room between the extremes of a fluff piece and a work of scholarship.

You wrote:

Does it at least present the illusion that it is discussion scholarship? Yes, it presents scholars as authorities.

I have already addressed this point. Showing brief clips of scholars making various points does not mean that the documentary claims to be itself a work of scholarship. When Jim Lehrer interviews an economics professor for five minutes on his TV news broadcast, he isn't purporting that news segment to be a work of economic scholarship.

You wrote:

Does it intend to create a contrast between a believable Bible and an unbelievable Book of Mormon? I can't see that one could draw any other conclusion about the film.

Well, of course.

You wrote:

Does it honestly compare scholarship? No. Forget exacting. It doesn't rise above obvious propaganda. If I take only the Book of Mormon pieces that are presented, would I have an accurate depiction of the way LDS scholars relate the text to the Book of Mormon? Not even close.

The documentary does not claim to be a report on LDS scholarship. Nor does it claim to be a report on biblical scholarship.

You asked:

Under which definition would you recommend this video to a friend?

It is a popular (for the masses) documentary.

[Brant Gardner]

Flora and Fauna

Criticism: The film’s producers use a visual image of 2 Nephi 12:7 to illustrate its criticism of the Book of Mormon claiming that the land was “full of horses,” when 2 Nephi 12:7 is actually part of an extended quotation from Isaiah about the Old World. “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.” The film also errs in claiming that the Book of Mormon says that the Nephites used horse-drawn chariots in battle; the Book of Mormon never says this and doesn’t even refer to horses pulling chariots.

Response: Brant raises a couple of very good points here. The film’s use of 2 Nephi 12:7 to document the plenitude of horses in the Book of Mormon lands is inexcusably sloppy at best. I don’t agree with him that their intention must have been deliberate deception, but I can see how a Mormon could draw such a conclusion.

Inadvertent and unfortunate deception is an adequate label.

The Book of Mormon reports that when Lehi’s family arrived in the new promised land they found “the horse” there along with the cow, the ox, the goat, and other animals suitable for domesticated use (1 Ne. 18:25).

All of which are addressed in LDS literature. They weren't in the video, and the issues are similar. We'll stick to horses at the moment.

It says that there were “many horses” (Enos 1:21) and makes several other references to horses. I’m guessing that the film’s producers liked 2 Nephi 12:7 because it said the land was “full” of horses and didn’t notice (or care, a Mormon might argue) that the verse was a quotation from Isaiah about the Old World.

Whatever their motivation, it remains incorrect. Because the incorrect reference is very clearly to a known horse, it sets the presumptive stage for the discussion. Even unintentionally, it is misleading at best.

But they could have made the same point using verses that are clearly about the New World. I could, I suppose, grouse about the fact that Brant neglects to mention that such verses exist (he cites Book of Mormon references to horses in an endnote and doesn’t acknowledge that they clearly place horses in the Old World), but he is certainly right about the citation of 2 Nephi 12:7 being egregiously misused.

Since the point of the endnote was to list every verse with the word horse without analysis, I don't feel too bad about the omission.

Brant also scores a strong half point, when he points out that the Book of Mormon does not refer to horse-drawn chariots being used in battles. That’s correct, it doesn't actually say that. I can only give him half a point here because Brant himself obscures the facts here (sorry, Brant). Brant states, “Horses are never ridden,” but the documentary doesn’t claim that the Book of Mormon reports people riding horses, so Brant appears to be knocking down a straw man at this point.

I don't know about the timing of the statement, but Wilson certainly speaks of riding animals into battle when ridiculing the horse/tapir suggestion. The statement is made in the film, though perhaps later.

He then states, “Horses are never described as pulling chariots (though we do see the phrase horses and chariots in the text).” This is a rather lawyerly parsing of the text.

Agreed. However, to do less brings a modern assumption to the text without questioning that assumption. When dealing with a text in translation, it is not unusual to have a reference in the target language that has an unclear relationship to the source language. To know what was meant in the absence of the original text requires the examination of the context as a corrective for vocabulary. That is what is required here.

Horses and chariots are spoken of together six times in four separate passages in the Book of Mormon (Alma 18:9, 10, 12; 20:6; 3 Ne. 3:22; 21:14).

Agreed.

It is reasonably clear from these texts that the horses pulled the chariots: after all, something had to pull them,

There are several jumps of reasoning here, none of which is based in the text. They all come from assumptions brought to the text. For example, there is the expectation that the word "chariot" translates the concept of the Old World battle chariot. The Bible does not consistently do that. A "chariot" can translate a conveyance. The next assumption is that the chariot is pulled instead of pushed. While that might be true, there is nothing in the text that can answer that. The next assumption is that it is wheeled (an assumption that has spawned all kinds of questions about wheels--that don't get passed around as much since wheeled platforms, at least in miniature, have been discovered). Again, the text doesn't allow us to know.

Finally, while horse and chariot are mentioned together, there is no textual indication of the relationship. All assumptions are imported from outside the text. That is dangerous when dealing with a text in translation.

As a simple thought question, what would happen if the Book of Mormon has said "quonk" instead of "horse"? From the text, could we know what animal a "quonk" was? No.

and the clear correlation of horses and chariots in the above passages leaves no real doubt that the horses fulfill that task.

Clearly we disagree. I see no reason to make that leap of logic. It is external to the text and dependent upon an understanding that cannot be shown to be inherent to the text.

Just as it would be ad hoc to claim that “ox and plough” does not mean that the ox pulled the plough, it is ad hoc to claim that “his horses and chariots,” “his horses and his chariots,” “the horses and the chariots,” and “their horses, and their chariots” do not mean that the horses pulled the chariots. So while the text may not actually “describe” horses pulling chariots, it clearly enough does speak of horse-drawn chariots.

If the Book of Mormon claimed English as its original language, I would agree with you. It doesn't, so I don't.

That real problem, of course, is that the Book of Mormon represents horses as indigenous to the New World throughout Nephite history (ca. 600 BC-AD 400) when the evidence shows that horses were absent during that period and introduced into the Americas by the Spanish in the 1600s.

First, this is a problem if one supposes that the English word "horse" necessarily describes a plate text "horse." I understand why one would make that assumption, but it is a dangerous one to make. The KJV speaks of not putting a candle under a bushel. That, of course, is an anachronism. If we had no original text against which to check the translation, do we believe that the Bible would be untrue because of the word certain translators selected to translate a light-producing medium?

Finally, if one insists that these mistakes in the film must be deliberate deceptions, how shall we account for the fact that Mormons have made the same kinds of mistakes? For example, LDS art of the Book of Mormon sometimes pictures Nephite warriors riding on horses, even though the Book of Mormon never says they did.

There is no question that this is an issue that has been around for a long time, and that the most common assumption is that a "horse is a horse, of course" (reference intentional for those old enough to know it). That simply means that the film has elected, again, to avoid scholarship and go with the lowest common denominator (continuing to violate Stendahl's second rule).

[Rob Bowman]

Metallurgy and Writing

Criticism: The film criticizes the Book of Mormon for claiming that the Nephites used “steel,” but the Book of Mormon is simply following the KJV in inaccurately using the word steel in reference to brass or copper. “Wilson assumes that a translation must accurately represent the words in the original text, even though we know from the KJV (and other translations) that this is not always the case.” On the other hand, “Most Latter-day Saint scholars concede that the evidence for metallurgy in Mesoamerica does not currently support what appears in the English text of the Book of Mormon…. If the film finds anything that may be problematic for the Book of Mormon, the lack of metallurgy might be it. However, basing an entire argument on the absence of something is a curious enterprise.”

Response: If the best a Book of Mormon apologist can say is that the Book of Mormon mistranslates a word for brass or copper as “steel,” the film’s criticism of the Book of Mormon would seem to be on firm ground. Furthermore, this explanation is surely incorrect, since the Book of Mormon speaks of iron, copper, brass, and steel in the same context in a way that clearly distinguishes them (2 Ne. 5:15; Jarom 1:8; cf. references to brass and copper in Mosiah 8:10; 11:3, 8, 10; Ether 10:23). In any case, since Brant concedes that the evidence currently does not support the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of the Nephites as engaged in metallurgy, he has conceded the point that the film is making. Brant tries to deflect the problem by saying that the “entire argument” is based “on the absence of something.” However, the absence of steel and other metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica is just one part of a larger, cumulative-case argument in support of the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not comparable to the Bible.

[Brant Gardner]

Metallurgy and Writing

Response: If the best a Book of Mormon apologist can say is that the Book of Mormon mistranslates a word for brass or copper as “steel,” the film’s criticism of the Book of Mormon would seem to be on firm ground. Furthermore, this explanation is surely incorrect, since the Book of Mormon speaks of iron, copper, brass, and steel in the same context in a way that clearly distinguishes them (2 Ne. 5:15; Jarom 1:8; cf. references to brass and copper in Mosiah 8:10; 11:3, 8, 10; Ether 10:23). In any case, since Brant concedes that the evidence currently does not support the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of the Nephites as engaged in metallurgy, he has conceded the point that the film is making. Brant tries to deflect the problem by saying that the “entire argument” is based “on the absence of something.” However, the absence of steel and other metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica is just one part of a larger, cumulative-case argument in support of the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not comparable to the Bible.

Metallurgy is currently the strongest case against the Book of Mormon. It is, necessarily, a case made from a lack of evidence. There are times when that can be important (I remember the importance of the lack of pig bones at a site Dever was looking at for early Israel). However, it is fragile as it is subject to the one find that contradicts it. Archaeology in general has learned to be cautious about making a heavy case on the absence of something (note how much change San Bartolo has required in estimates of Maya cultural complexity and time depth).

Having said that, we have the golden plates as firm evidence that, unlike the potential linguistic evidence of "horse," this really does deal with actual metal.

As for as what metals, that is much more open to linguistic issues and for the same reasons.

However, the idea that this is one of a cumulative-case argument simply extends the film's avoidance of the counter arguments. The cumulative-case argument is built on one cautions foundation, and much that depends entirely on presumptions about the nature of translation and modern assumptions imputed backwards on the text. That isn't the kind of argument that will hold for long (witness the revisions of Bible vs. archaeology changes in the last 50 years).

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Try to look at this issue from a sincere outsider's perspective. We are told that Joseph Smith was supernaturally inspired by God to produce a translation of the Book of Mormon. However, when the Book of Mormon descriptions of the physical world of its peoples don't match the physical evidence, Joseph Smith's divinely inspired translation seemingly gets thrown under the bus by LDS scholars. The horses are (maybe) tapirs, the chariots are "conveyances," and the obvious correlation of these familiar terms that the Book of Mormon repeatedly uses together (horses and chariots) is, well, misleading! And that, you seem to think, is just fine. The English translation of the Book of Mormon can be misleading, even though it claims to be inspired, authoritative, scripture from God Almighty, and you don't have a problem with that. But you do have a problem with men who don't claim their work to be inspired, authoritative, or scripture, taking the Book of Mormon at face value and arguing very briefly and simply that what it says doesn't match the physical evidence. You think their film is misleading because they don't discuss seriously the LDS scholarly argument that the horses and chariots are tapirs and conveyances (although, as I think you are correct to point out, Wilson did refer fleetingly later in the film to the horse/tapir idea). But from my point of view, by not bringing up this explanation and refuting it, they actually missed an opportunity to show the lengths to which LDS apologists will go to defend the Book of Mormon.

In your review, you get as much mileage as you can out of the film's stupid mistake of using 2 Nephi 12:7 for its example reference to horses in the New World. I certainly can't fault you for playing that one up. Yet your article nowhere acknowledges the problem that the Book of Mormon does place horses in the New World throughout the Book of Mormon era. You say you "don't feel too bad about the omission," and I wouldn't want to press the point except (and forgive me for speaking bluntly) that you seem to be operating by a double standard. Your review seems to be intended to tell Mormons, "You can ignore that film and be assured that it says nothing that really undermines the Book of Mormon, because of this omission over here and that subtle implication over there and oh look, here's an obvious error," all the while you are ignoring the problems that the film does correctly identify. So why isn't it misleading if you tell your readers that the best evidence the film producers could muster for horses in the Book of Mormon lands was a quotation from Isaiah about horses in the Old World? Why doesn't this constitute your review as "propaganda"?

Let's go beyond the genre criticisms and delve into the substantive issue here. You asked:

As a simple thought question, what would happen if the Book of Mormon has said "quonk" instead of "horse"? From the text, could we know what animal a "quonk" was? No.

This thought experiment presupposes that Joseph's translation is completely uninformative. Even the LDS apologetic argument that the "horses" might be tapirs presupposes that "horses" was the best Joseph could do with the English vocabulary at his disposal. So let's at least allow that the horses are horse-like animals. To complete the thought experiment, let's assume that the chariots are at least chariot-like conveyances. So six times in the Book of Mormon we see statements associating horse-like animals with chariot-like conveyances in the New World. Separating these for the sake of argument, you might be able to convince yourself that the horse-like animals might not be utilized to pull conveyances and that the chariot-like conveyances might not be wheeled contraptions designed to be pulled by animals. But when you read "the horses and the chariots," "his horses and chariots," etc., if you're not simply looking for a linguistic sleight-of-hand way out of the problem, the clear meaning is that these terms refer to domesticated animals that pull the conveyances. In fact, the unlikelihood of either term not meaning what it seems to mean is made much, much greater by the pairing of the terms. Words that can be ambiguous apart often become unambiguous when conjoined in recognized pairings. I gave you an example before: the word pair ox and plough. The English word plough can have several meanings, but paired with ox it really can have only one meaning. The word bar has an unbelievably wide range of uses, and the word grill has a few different uses as well, but in the word pair bar and grill the two words take on very definite, correlative meanings. The same linguistic phenomenon occurs with the expression "horses and chariots." This linguistic phenomenon of word pairing is in the text, so you are mistaken in claiming that "there is no textual indication of the relationship" and that Book of Mormon readers who think the texts refer to horses that pull chariots are merely bringing "assumptions" that "are imported from outside the text." The pairing of familiar English words that when paired represent a definite, immediately recognizable relationship is a linguistic feature of the Book of Mormon as an English text.

If there is an "assumption" that is brought "from outside the text" it is that the Book of Mormon must be historically authentic and thus any apparent anachronism is to be explained away as a mistranslation of a text that is not accessible. You point out that the KJV contains an anachronism in its translating Matthew 5:15 to speak of people placing a "candle" under a "bushel." You may be correct, although early English dictionaries give the broader definitions "light" or "luminary" as alternative definitions for candle. But two points here. (a) There is no linguistic phenomenon in Matthew 5:15 KJV, comparable to the Book of Mormon references to horses and chariots, that would require us to take candle in its usual, narrow sense. Indeed, the picture of putting a candle under a bushel basket creates a linguistic clash, since candles and bushel baskets don't go together at all. (b) At least in the case of the KJV, we have a Greek text to which we can refer to see if the anachronism is indeed in Matthew or in the KJV translation. When we consult the Greek text, we find that the problem is strictly with the KJV rendering. The appeal to translation error is not ad hoc because we actually have an original-language text with which to compare the translation! Of course, we lack that for the Book of Mormon. That isn't your fault (i.e., it isn't Brant's fault), but it still leaves you in the situation that your explanation of the Book of Mormon anachronism is ad hoc.

One more point--and here the film's bad mistake of citing 2 Nephi 12:7 in a way comes back to bite you. It is quite correct that 2 Nephi 12:7 is a quotation from Isaiah 2:7, which is referring to horses in the Old World. More to the point, it is referring to horses and chariots in the Old World. Now, we know this isn't an anachronism. Horses and chariots were in use in the Old World more than a millennium before Isaiah. However, 2 Nephi 12:7 is relevant and important to the film's conclusion in a way that the film doesn't mention and its producers seem to have missed. The fact is that 2 Nephi 12:7 establishes that the word pair of horses and chariots in the Book of Mormon does in fact refer to horses and chariots. It would, again, be obviously and egregiously ad hoc to acknowledge that the horses and chariots in 2 Nephi 12:7 are horses that pull chariots, while trying to maintain that the horses and chariots in references to the New World do not really refer to horses that pull chariots.

In sum, we have three reasons to reject the apologetic argument that the horses and chariots of the Book of Mormon peoples were tapirs (or something similar) and unrelated, undefinable "conveyances": (1) The claim that the Book of Mormon is an inspired translation entails that the presumption is that the translation is to be accepted as correct, placing the burden of proof on those who would say otherwise. (2) The repeated pairing of horses and chariots in the same context functions linguistically as a word-association pairing and indicates that the two types of objects are related to each other in the way that the word pair conventionally assumes. (3) The similar pairing of horses and chariots in 2 Nephi 12:7, a quotation from Isaiah where the reference to literal horses and chariots is beyond dispute, is strong precedent for understanding the word pair to have the same meaning in its other Book of Mormon occurrences.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Any comment on the evidence I presented from the Book of Mormon that the word steel there is not referring to brass or copper?

[Brant Gardner]

I actually stayed up late last night and responded to this--and it is gone. Darn. I know that it was the picture of eloquence and I can't match it - but I'll say something anyway.

First post (I had too many quote blocks, which is probably why I lost last night's post)

Brant,

Try to look at this issue from a sincere outsider's perspective. We are told that Joseph Smith was supernaturally inspired by God to produce a translation of the Book of Mormon.

This will be a theme in this post. It creates a presumption of what should have happened in the translation without actually dealing with whether or not that is a reasonable expectation. This is a strawman argument: This is what I think should have happened, and since it didn't, the text is wrong. I disagree with the premise.

However, when the Book of Mormon descriptions of the physical world of its peoples don't match the physical evidence, Joseph Smith's divinely inspired translation seemingly gets thrown under the bus by LDS scholars.

Here is the strawman at work. LDS scholars don't accept it and provide other answers. Therefore, they throw Joseph under the bus. Correction, we throw the strawman under the bus. I can't speak for others, but I know that my understanding of the translation process is built from a long look at a lot of data.

The horses are (maybe) tapirs, the chariots are "conveyances," and the obvious correlation of these familiar terms that the Book of Mormon repeatedly uses together (horses and chariots) is, well, misleading! And that, you seem to think, is just fine. The English translation of the Book of Mormon can be misleading, even though it claims to be inspired, authoritative, scripture from God Almighty, and you don't have a problem with that.

Now the strawman is used to create a false comparison between the way I deal with the Book of Mormon and the way I deal with the film. Again, I reject the premise. I actually use the same measuring stick for both. Oddly enough, most of my measuring stick conforms to secular academics.

But you do have a problem with men who don't claim their work to be inspired, authoritative, or scripture, taking the Book of Mormon at face value and arguing very briefly and simply that what it says doesn't match the physical evidence.

This is the punchline set up by the strawman above. However, it doesn't correctly describe the film or my opinion of it. It is true that the editors of the film don't consider it inspired or scripture. They not only take the Book of Mormon at face value, they take it at less than face value (it makes claims they never take seriously, having decided how they want to proceed by their selection of the talking heads).

Lastly, the statement that "what it says doesn't match the physical evidence" is entirely incorrect. A case can be made for the reading of about, say 10 words from the text. However, this particular statement ignores everything else in the text. I doubt that any text in translation should be judged on the basis of 10 words (unless there aren't very many more). In the case of examining the physical evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, the reason Rob can say that it isn't there is (assuming he is arguing from the film and that perhaps he has actually read more) that the film ignores it and prefers to concentrate on things like the 10 words.

by not bringing up this explanation and refuting it, they actually missed an opportunity to show the lengths to which LDS apologists will go to defend the Book of Mormon.

The word "lengths" here clearly indicates that Rob is unconvinced by the arguments. I don't find that surprising, but I also don't find that Rob actually understands the arguments that are made. These are not "lengths" but rather the very typical understanding of how cultures interact, the influence of cross-cultural linguistic labels, and the way that translations work. There isn't a single one of the hypotheses that is not at home in the arsenal of secular ethnohistorians. However, because we are dealing with a religious text, Rob makes the assumption that it should conform to some idea he has about sacred texts. When the scholars treat it differently, it becomes "lengths." This is the effect of the strawman initial assumption.

In your review, you get as much mileage as you can out of the film's stupid mistake of using 2 Nephi 12:7 for its example reference to horses in the New World. I certainly can't fault you for playing that one up. Yet your article nowhere acknowledges the problem that the Book of Mormon does place horses in the New World throughout the Book of Mormon era.

I knew when we started this discussion that it would turn from criticism/defense of the film into a criticism/defense of the Book of Mormon. However, it is important for me to reiterate that when I reviewed the film, and was reviewing the film--not trying to defend the Book of Mormon. Were I to defend the Book of Mormon, I would do so in a very different way. Responding to the film uses their agenda and issues and because they completely ignore anything that I would consider a good argument, I would have to create two documents. I elected to do only the one and deal with the film.

On that point, I continue to insist that by the nature of the way information was presented, the editorial selection of the particular people interviewed as well as the kinds of questions that they were asked, that this is a film that has no scholarly intent but exists only as propaganda for a position that they took before doing the film. They are, as Rob indicates, uninformed (at best). It is quite probable that they are sincere, but their sincerity leads to illusive deception nevertheless.

In the case of horses, I could hardly disagree with the fact that horses are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. What I have said is that careful examination of the text suggests that this is just as easily an issue of translation as it is an anachronism. Unfortunately, if you begin with the assumption that the Book of Mormon cannot represent and ancient document, then your initial assumption feeds the need to see a horse as a horse. Taking the position that it might be authentic, known human history comes into play and there are good reasons to believe that a horse might not be a horse.

Oddly, the logic of secular academics supports the second. Only the initial assumption that the Book of Mormon couldn't be true supports the first.

You say you "don't feel too bad about the omission," and I wouldn't want to press the point except (and forgive me for speaking bluntly) that you seem to be operating by a double standard. Your review seems to be intended to tell Mormons, "You can ignore that film and be assured that it says nothing that really undermines the Book of Mormon, because of this omission over here and that subtle implication over there and oh look, here's an obvious error," all the while you are ignoring the problems that the film does correctly identify. So why isn't it misleading if you tell your readers that the best evidence the film producers could muster for horses in the Book of Mormon lands was a quotation from Isaiah about horses in the Old World? Why doesn't this constitute your review as "propaganda"?

I was reviewing the film and what the film did. I am not presenting the discussions about why we see the word horse in the text. It is hardly propoganda when I point out what the film does. If I were to review what an LDS author says about the Book of Mormon, it is then appropriate to point out when their arguments might not be sufficient (which I have done).

I don't feel bad for not doing what I never intended to do.

This thought experiment presupposes that Joseph's translation is completely uninformative.

This is another restatement of the strawman assumption of what should have happened. I certainly don't accept that hypothesis.

Even the LDS apologetic argument that the "horses" might be tapirs presupposes that "horses" was the best Joseph could do with the English vocabulary at his disposal.

This statement makes the same mistake as most people do with that particular argument. It reduces the argument to the horses/tapir connection and then (out of its original context) creates a new explanation for it. This statement obviously misunderstands Sorenson's argument. Sorenson actually suggests a translation method that suggests that Joseph got it right, but that this is a cross-cultural labeling issue from the Nephites who experienced new animals and used Old World names for them. This is a process that is well known. There is nothing unusual about it. There is nothing controversial about it. It becomes less understandable only in the caricatures that are made of it (such as Wilson's in the film, which is more condemnable because his anthropological background should have prepared him to understand it).

[Brant Gardner]

Second part

So let's at least allow that the horses are horse-like animals.

Like a hippopotamus is a horse-like animal (it means river-horse). I suppose under that definition I could agree. Book of Mormon horses are at least as horse-like as a hippo.

To complete the thought experiment, let's assume that the chariots are at least chariot-like conveyances. So six times in the Book of Mormon we see statements associating horse-like animals with chariot-like conveyances in the New World. Separating these for the sake of argument, you might be able to convince yourself that the horse-like animals might not be utilized to pull conveyances and that the chariot-like conveyances might not be wheeled contraptions designed to be pulled by animals. But when you read "the horses and the chariots," "his horses and chariots," etc., if you're not simply looking for a linguistic sleight-of-hand way out of the problem, the clear meaning is that these terms refer to domesticated animals that pull the conveyances.

Back to "the clear meaning" argument. Your argument is based entirely on the external assumptions accompanying both terms, which you then suppose mutually support themselves. However, if you look at the other side of the argument, that we are dealing with a translation issue, the presence of the two paired terms can just as easily occur when a different combination is related to a known combination. Sahagun relates the Aztec gods to the Greek pantheon. The fact that there are so many and that he finds correspondences for each to create a mutually reinforcing argument that the Aztecs borrowed their gods from the Greeks. The initial assumption simply carries through the various descriptions and is separately the cause of each. Although he said it, and there is some comparison, there is no suggestion (even in Sahagun) that the Aztec pantheon really equaled or came from the Greeks. The familiar in translation does not insist upon precise equivalence in the source.

In fact, there is a particular combination of factors that suggest that the Maya cultural context actually describes what is going on better than the assumption of linguistic meaning. When horses and chariots appear together (outside of the Old World scriptural citations) the do so in the context of a royal visit to another city. This happened in the Maya world, and the king was conveyed on a litter and accompanied by animals. Depending on how you want to read this, it could be an animal as sacred symbol, or it might be a dog (one is pictured accompanying the litter in one painting).

That association of animal and conveyance in a specific context fits the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. If you were to substitute 'dog' for 'horse' and 'litter' for 'chariot' the text would not only still make sense, it would make very appropriate ancient sense. Because there is nothing that actually shows a 'horse' doing anything horse-like, nor a 'chariot' doing anything chariot-like, the suggestion that we dealing with known types of translation issues is strengthened.

In fact, the unlikelihood of either term not meaning what it seems to mean is made much, much greater by the pairing of the terms. Words that can be ambiguous apart often become unambiguous when conjoined in recognized pairings. I gave you an example before: the word pair ox and plough. The English word plough can have several meanings, but paired with ox it really can have only one meaning.

The argument here depends upon cultural information informing the pair, not on the pair itself. Therefore, you are not arguing about words, but cultural concepts that are known together. The weakness of the arguments is easily demonstrated if you look at another language. An important word pairing in Aztec is Flower War. They go together and are a significant set. Could you derive the meaning from each term separately? Could you come up with an definition that is based on the relationship of war and flowers? We know the meaning only because it has arrived in translation, where we may use the term, but then have to define it.

Your example still relies on outside imputation of meaning.

If there is an "assumption" that is brought "from outside the text" it is that the Book of Mormon must be historically authentic and thus any apparent anachronism is to be explained away as a mistranslation of a text that is not accessible.

I would think that you might want to be fair and understand whether your caricaturization of my position were at all accurate. It isn't. Although I begin as a believer, academically I remove that initial belief and tone it down to accepting the possibility that it might be true so that I actually consider all evidence rather than rejecting some out of hand.

My arguments about the linguistic issues come at the end of an analysis of a lot of material that the film never touches upon (it was available to them, they show Sorenson's book, which has many of them--they somehow managed to forget to mention them). Only as a means of tying up loose ends do I get to these issues. Of course, that is when I get to set my agenda for building an argument.

In this case, when reviewing the film, it was sufficient to point out that the film makes no effort to actually engage reasonable scholarship, but rather presents its own agenda, and often one that is distorted by reducing an argument with ad absurdam (in which category I place most of Wilson's efforts). It works as propaganda. It isn't scholarship. By the very fact that the film interviews scholars, it presents the illusion of scholarship while ignoring actual scholarship.

You point out that the KJV contains an anachronism in its translating Matthew 5:15 to speak of people placing a "candle" under a "bushel." You may be correct, although early English dictionaries give the broader definitions "light" or "luminary" as alternative definitions for candle. But two points here. (a) There is no linguistic phenomenon in Matthew 5:15 KJV, comparable to the Book of Mormon references to horses and chariots, that would require us to take candle in its usual, narrow sense.

Let's see. Sometimes a candle isn't a candle. Sometimes it is a forgivable translation that still has some relation to the original text. We should worry that the KJV is wrong because it has the wrong word.

Why, I agree with you. You have correctly understood the reason I used the example.

When we consult the Greek text, we find that the problem is strictly with the KJV rendering.

Yes, that is the reason it makes a good example. We can confirm that this kind of translation error occurs and that a word in translation need not be precisely what was in the source. That model is precisely the point.

The appeal to translation error is not ad hoc because we actually have an original-language text with which to compare the translation! Of course, we lack that for the Book of Mormon. That isn't your fault (i.e., it isn't Brant's fault), but it still leaves you in the situation that your explanation of the Book of Mormon anachronism is ad hoc.

It would be ad hoc if it were not supported by an analysis of the context in which the word appears. That is how, in the absence of an original, you determine whether or not the label you have accurately represents the original. It happens often in Spanish descriptions of the Aztecs precisely because the Spanish had to describe a culture they didn't know and didn't fully understand.

Please remember that in addition to examining the context of these words in translation, I also advocate examination of the rest of the text, where I consider much stronger evidence to exist and which lends foundation to the probability of 'horse' being a translation issue.

[cdowis]

del

Edited May 1, 2011 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Language and Literacy

Criticism: “Because the Book of Mormon absolutely requires literacy, the editors of this film want to paint a picture of a New World with a general absence of writing, or at least an absence of anything that Nephites might have written…. 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…. Mesoamericanists certainly do not assume that the lack of texts indicates that writing did not exist.”

Response: No one in the film asserts or implies that writing did not exist in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon era. This line of criticism is completely irrelevant to what the film says. The experts in the film deny the existence of any Nephite writings found in the New World (or anywhere else for that matter). They do not deny the existence of Mesoamerican writing. This is a straw-man criticism of the film. The film’s producers did not “want to paint a picture of a New World with a general absence of writing,” which would be inaccurate, but they did want to paint a picture of “an absence of anything that Nephites might have written.” And on that point they are correct.

----------

Criticism: “Why have the experts not heard of reformed Egyptian? Because they are scholars of the Old World and reformed Egyptian was never an Old World language. Why do we not clearly find it in the New World? First, we have no idea how the script was changed, so we do not know what to look for. Second, we run into the problem of the absence of texts in Mesoamerica. Mesoamericanists certainly do not assume that the lack of texts indicates that writing did not exist. Wilson oversimplifies again and continues to present his misunderstanding as demonstrated fact.”

Response: I have already responded to Brant’s second point, which knocks down a straw-man argument. Regarding his first point, even according to Brant, the final production of the Book of Mormon in the early fifth century AD was preceded by a thousand-year history of Nephite writing in the New World, using some form of Hebrew or Egyptian or both. It is reasonable to adduce the utter lack of evidence in Mesoamerica for any form of such languages, “reformed” or not, as another problem for the Book of Mormon. There may not be as many texts extant from that period in Mesoamerica as there are from such places as Egypt, but some Mesoamerican literature from that period is extant. What we do know about Mesoamerican languages and literature from 2000 BC to AD 1000, as best I understand, shows a significant mismatch with the Book of Mormon.

At some point, I should acknowledge, I need to respond to some of Brant’s remarks in earlier posts in this discussion that are of relevance to this issue.

[Rob Bowman]

Coins

Criticism: “While maintaining that coins are an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, they fail to mention that they are also anachronistically present in the Bible. Redford lists the use of coined money in 1 Samuel as one of the ‘blatant anachronisms.’ The Bible and the Book of Mormon continue to be comparable at least in that those who wish to find issues with them have fodder for their search.”

Response: Redford, frankly, was blowing smoke on this one. 1 Samuel (Redford cites 13:21) does not refer to coined money; it refers to pîm, a measure of weight of metal. I’m afraid Brant compounded the error by alleging in an endnote, “Note the difference between biblical and Book of Mormon anachronisms. Those that Redford lists for the Bible exist in the original language. Those of the Book of Mormon exist (necessarily) in the translation. Anachronisms in the original are considered serious, where a translator’s anachronism can simply reflect the word choice of the translator.” But in the case of the Bible, the alleged anachronism exists neither in the original language nor in the translation. No translation I have found renders pîm in 1 Samuel 13:21 as “coins” (“two-thirds of a shekel,” HCSB, ESV, NAB, NASB, NET, NIV, NJB, NRSV, TNIV; “a pim,” JPS, NKJV; “a quarter of an ounce of silver,” NLT). The anachronism exists only in Redford’s mind!

----------

Criticism: “More particularly, however, we have the disingenuous way in which the film presents the ‘fact’ that there were coins in the Book of Mormon. They show an excerpt of the Book of Mormon, but they display a header that was added in 1981 rather than the actual text! The film at this point does not tell the viewer a number of things. It does not tell the viewer that this visual does not represent the actual text of the Book of Mormon. It does not tell the viewer that Latter-day Saint scholars believe the text refers to weights and measures (not coins). It does not tell the viewer that the Nephite system of weights and measures is similar in a number of ways to the Egyptian system.”

Response: Here Brant accuses the film’s producers of being “disingenuous” because they accepted the LDS Church’s own official explanation of what the Book of Mormon says about money in the New World. Surely this is a dubious criticism. If the LDS Church teaches in an official published edition of the Book of Mormon that the Nephites used coins, how can non-Mormons be accused of being disingenuous for critiquing the Book of Mormon on that basis? That having been said, I also would like to have seen some acknowledgment that the Book of Mormon text does not actually use the word coins. I think Brant’s criticism of the film in this regard has some validity even though I would not characterize the film’s producers in the way that Brant does in his review.

It should be noted that the LDS Church’s summary reference to coins did not originate in 1981. As I understand it, earlier editions going back to 1920 used the term coinage, and nineteenth-century Mormons also understood the text to refer to coins. Thus, for nearly a century, this is how official editions of the Book of Mormon interpreted the passage, and that understanding goes back even further.

I think there are some reasons to conclude that the Book of Mormon does refer to coins, and perhaps we can discuss this question later. For now, I would simply suggest that the understanding that the Book of Mormon speaks about coins is not an anti-Mormon assumption but the traditional, common LDS view. In a short documentary film, it is asking too much to expect the film’s producers to expand each segment to discuss the opinions of some LDS scholars about each topic. This is especially unrealistic when those opinions conflict with each other (as in Book of Mormon geography) or with the text of the Book of Mormon itself (as in the references to steel) or with the LDS Church’s own official exposition or summary of what the Book of Mormon says (as in the case of Nephite coins).

[Brant Gardner]

Language and Literacy

Criticism: “Because the Book of Mormon absolutely requires literacy, the editors of this film want to paint a picture of a New World with a general absence of writing, or at least an absence of anything that Nephites might have written…. 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…. Mesoamericanists certainly do not assume that the lack of texts indicates that writing did not exist.”

Response: No one in the film asserts or implies that writing did not exist in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon era. This line of criticism is completely irrelevant to what the film says. The experts in the film deny the existence of any Nephite writings found in the New World (or anywhere else for that matter). They do not deny the existence of Mesoamerican writing. This is a straw-man criticism of the film. The film’s producers did not “want to paint a picture of a New World with a general absence of writing,” which would be inaccurate, but they did want to paint a picture of “an absence of anything that Nephites might have written.” And on that point they are correct.

I reviewed the film to make sure that I have the argument correct. They explain that there is no document trail for the Book of Mormon. That is certainly correct. However, the film makes it appear that this is a problem because there is a document trail for Bible books. That comparison fails when compared to the general absence of texts in the New World from that time period. Is it unusual to not have a document trail for any document from that time period? No, because none of them have one. This is the same problem discussed earlier about the differing nature of textual history on the two continents.

Criticism: “Why have the experts not heard of reformed Egyptian? Because they are scholars of the Old World and reformed Egyptian was never an Old World language. Why do we not clearly find it in the New World? First, we have no idea how the script was changed, so we do not know what to look for. Second, we run into the problem of the absence of texts in Mesoamerica. Mesoamericanists certainly do not assume that the lack of texts indicates that writing did not exist. Wilson oversimplifies again and continues to present his misunderstanding as demonstrated fact.”

Response: I have already responded to Brant’s second point, which knocks down a straw-man argument. Regarding his first point, even according to Brant, the final production of the Book of Mormon in the early fifth century AD was preceded by a thousand-year history of Nephite writing in the New World, using some form of Hebrew or Egyptian or both. It is reasonable to adduce the utter lack of evidence in Mesoamerica for any form of such languages, “reformed” or not, as another problem for the Book of Mormon.

You are echoing the logic of the film without adding anything new, including no better understanding of the issues involved in the New World. There are slight evidences of a number of different scripts. To date, only one is firmly deciperhable, and there is a scholarly argument about how well a proposed translation scheme works for the second. There are other scripts for which we simply don't know the language encoded. That is not because there were no such languages or scripts, but because so much has been lost. In the context of the New World, missing a script that pretty much indicates that it was gone by 400 B.C. (and in particular, if it was kept only by a comparatively smaller people--which the Nephites certainly were by this time) there should be not surprise that there isn't a rich documentary history. There are, however, some who have proposed similarities between the one written example of the plate script from Joseph's time and the Tlatilco seal. There are few enough characters on the seal as to be inconclusive, but some it is an interesting possibility.

How about the idea of "some form of Hebrew or Egyptian"? That is also problematic. The text says that it wasn't written in Hebrew (presumably at least Hebrew script) so saying that it isn't found doesn't contradict the Book of Mormon. How about Egyptian? If Egyptian was used early, it was during the period for which very few texts of any kind have survived. Even with a few Nephite plates (and plates were an unusual medium, as noted before) it isn't surprising that none are found for a time period where writing is simply not found (but known to exist).

At the end of the text, it suggests that what they did use was "Reformed Egyptian." There isn't much textual evidence for what that was. Tracing the know Egyptian scripts through hieroglyphs to meriotic to demotic certainly tells us that there could be major changes in the form of the writing system. When the "experts" say that there is no such language as reformed Egyptian, they are coming to a conclusion based on some kind of fundamental misunderstanding of what the text says. It may not have been a language, but more a script. If a script, we might have examples (such as the Tlatilco seal) and not know it, because so much was lost.

There may not be as many texts extant from that period in Mesoamerica as there are from such places as Egypt, but some Mesoamerican literature from that period is extant.

Extremely little. One painted text from B.C. times, and that was found only a few years ago. A couple of dates (one AD. 32, I think). Most texts don't pick up until after A.D. 250, and most of them are in regions that aren't part of the Book of Mormon.

There are, however, snippets of things that appear to be writing systems that are unrelated to any other systems, and they cannot be deciphered because there isn't a large enough text to work with.

What we do know about Mesoamerican languages and literature from 2000 BC to AD 1000, as best I understand, shows a significant mismatch with the Book of Mormon.

And what would that be? My assumption is that an immigrating people that is so far outnumbered as the Lehites would have been pretty much anywhere in Mesoamerica would lead them to adopt the local language. Therefore, it is most likely that the spoken language would have been a Mesoamerican language. The text says it was not written in Hebrew, so although that statement suggests its persistence among scholars, it isn't even the language of the text.

[Brant Gardner]

Coins

Criticism: “While maintaining that coins are an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, they fail to mention that they are also anachronistically present in the Bible. Redford lists the use of coined money in 1 Samuel as one of the ‘blatant anachronisms.’ The Bible and the Book of Mormon continue to be comparable at least in that those who wish to find issues with them have fodder for their search.”

Response: Redford, frankly, was blowing smoke on this one. 1 Samuel (Redford cites 13:21) does not refer to coined money; it refers to pîm, a measure of weight of metal. I’m afraid Brant compounded the error by alleging in an endnote, “Note the difference between biblical and Book of Mormon anachronisms. Those that Redford lists for the Bible exist in the original language. Those of the Book of Mormon exist (necessarily) in the translation. Anachronisms in the original are considered serious, where a translator’s anachronism can simply reflect the word choice of the translator.” But in the case of the Bible, the alleged anachronism exists neither in the original language nor in the translation. No translation I have found renders pîm in 1 Samuel 13:21 as “coins” (“two-thirds of a shekel,” HCSB, ESV, NAB, NASB, NET, NIV, NJB, NRSV, TNIV; “a pim,” JPS, NKJV; “a quarter of an ounce of silver,” NLT). The anachronism exists only in Redford’s mind!

I accept the correction. I don't handle Hebrew and didn't check Redford.

However, I find it fascinating that we have an example of someone reading coins into a text where the actual text spoke of measures, not coins. Feel free to use your example as ethnographic analogy for precisely the problem with the word "coins" in the header (not the text) of the Book of Mormon.

Criticism: “More particularly, however, we have the disingenuous way in which the film presents the ‘fact’ that there were coins in the Book of Mormon. They show an excerpt of the Book of Mormon, but they display a header that was added in 1981 rather than the actual text! The film at this point does not tell the viewer a number of things. It does not tell the viewer that this visual does not represent the actual text of the Book of Mormon. It does not tell the viewer that Latter-day Saint scholars believe the text refers to weights and measures (not coins). It does not tell the viewer that the Nephite system of weights and measures is similar in a number of ways to the Egyptian system.”

Response: Here Brant accuses the film’s producers of being “disingenuous” because they accepted the LDS Church’s own official explanation of what the Book of Mormon says about money in the New World. Surely this is a dubious criticism. If the LDS Church teaches in an official published edition of the Book of Mormon that the Nephites used coins, how can non-Mormons be accused of being disingenuous for critiquing the Book of Mormon on that basis?

The back cover of the DVD states "History, archaeology, textual criticism, and other disciplines combine to shed light on what is true . . . and what is false." If I take that as a statement of the intent of the film, then I expect to deal in questions of history, archaeology, etc. I do not expect the film to suggest that uninformed popular opinion dictates what is actually in the text.

This film is the Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, not the Bible vs. Mormons. I freely acknowledge that the LDS community has held, published, and preached some interesting views about the Book of Mormon, many of which are demonstrably incorrect and are in the process of correction (noting that "coins" is now removed from the heading - which was a later addition anyway).

Stendahl's second rule continues to apply. The editors are free to create a film entitled "Uniformed Bible Believers vs. Uniformed Book of Mormon Believers." We can all have a laugh.

The problem is that the film has pretenses of scholarship, and an appeal to mass error--not matter how faithfully believed--is not of the same quality as engaging the best arguments available.

I think there are some reasons to conclude that the Book of Mormon does refer to coins, and perhaps we can discuss this question later. For now, I would simply suggest that the understanding that the Book of Mormon speaks about coins is not an anti-Mormon assumption but the traditional, common LDS view. In a short documentary film, it is asking too much to expect the film’s producers to expand each segment to discuss the opinions of some LDS scholars about each topic.

Interesting. I cannot imagine a college paper in which I suggest to a professor that I really don't need to consult scholars who disagree with my conclusions, because asking my neighbors has been sufficient.

Failing to engage LDS scholarship is pervasive in the film. It continuously tries for low-hanging fruit and relies upon an uniformed viewing audience. An informed audience cannot accept the proposition. Because they make no attempt at better, I continue to insist that this is propaganda. It is determinedly one-sided, and one-sided in the way it selects its material, and especially one-sided in what it declines to include.

Remember, the film intentionally includes scholars, but none of them represent the best current LDS scholarship, many of them are reasonably unaware of it, and the ones that I know are aware of it assiduously avoid any indication of it, unless it is to ridicule something that they don't seem to grasp very well.

This is especially unrealistic when those opinions conflict with each other (as in Book of Mormon geography) or with the text of the Book of Mormon itself (as in the references to steel) or with the LDS Church’s own official exposition or summary of what the Book of Mormon says (as in the case of Nephite coins).

Beginning with the second issue, the question should now be entirely moot because the church have very officially changed that heading. That ought to suggest that it was never scriptural, but an opinion. It should also suggest that if the official church understood the issues presented by the scholars, it is not unreasonable to expect that a film purporting to show expert testimony would include any reference that indicate that those experts were actually familiar with the field.

As for differences in geography, the film acceeds that Mesoamerica is where most of the work is being done. There are differences in geographies there, none of which is involved in any of the issues the film raises. The could easily combine the various Mesoamerican models and discuss all of the them simultaneously. However, I doubt the film has any interest in the subtle reasons for why some place Bountiful in one location and others in another, when the difference in the locations is perhaps less around 100 miles apart and still within the general cultural sphere.

The film engages with their reduction of arguments, but never the best ones presented, and rarely accurately depicting those they do select.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

I had written:

"Any comment on the evidence I presented from the Book of Mormon that the word steel there is not referring to brass or copper?"

And more recently I wrote:

"This is especially unrealistic when those opinions conflict with each other (as in Book of Mormon geography) or with the text of the Book of Mormon itself (as in the references to steel) or with the LDS Church’s own official exposition or summary of what the Book of Mormon says (as in the case of Nephite coins)."

Your most recent post comments on the first and third points but again says nothing about steel. (You stated in your reply that you were "beginning with the second issue" but in fact you began with the third and said nothing about the second point, which was about steel.) I believe I have shown rather conclusively that the word steel in the Book of Mormon cannot refer to brass or copper. I remain interested in any response you might care to make on this point.

I'll have more later, but probably not for a couple of days.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

I had written:

"Any comment on the evidence I presented from the Book of Mormon that the word steel there is not referring to brass or copper?"

And more recently I wrote:

"This is especially unrealistic when those opinions conflict with each other (as in Book of Mormon geography) or with the text of the Book of Mormon itself (as in the references to steel) or with the LDS Church’s own official exposition or summary of what the Book of Mormon says (as in the case of Nephite coins)."

Your most recent post comments on the first and third points but again says nothing about steel. (You stated in your reply that you were "beginning with the second issue" but in fact you began with the third and said nothing about the second point, which was about steel.) I believe I have shown rather conclusively that the word steel in the Book of Mormon cannot refer to brass or copper. I remain interested in any response you might care to make on this point.

I'll have more later, but probably not for a couple of days.

Unfortunately for you, you are corresponding with someone who doesn't trust the translation of individual words in the text. Without seeing the effect of such things in the text, I have no idea what the original would have said (and again, there is precedent for this in some Bible translations).

If I recall, there is some evidence for Old World steel that Nephi might have known about, so it is possible. However, it certainly never altered technologies as one might expect, so it doesn't appear that it either continued, or possibly that it represents whatever word was on the plates.

Vocabulary is the weakest argument either for or against the Book of Mormon. I can't say much about vocabulary issues until larger issues have a resolution: is the text a translation-- based on evidence much stronger than vocabulary, or what kind of translation is it--because vocabulary is important only if it is a literal translation.

[Rob Bowman]

Warfare

Critique: “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…. 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.”

Response: In general, I think Brant’s argument here is valid. Unless we know where the battlefield would have been, we can’t infer from the lack of evidence that there was no battlefield. We need to know where to look. However, we do know one reasonable place to look.

----------

Critique: The film attempts to make it appear that Latter-day Saints are afraid to do archaeological excavations at the New York Hill Cumorah because they know that they will not find the evidence of battles there…. However, since at least the 1950s Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon has argued that the text’s Cumorah is in Mesoamerica. The New York hill is merely a namesake. Why do we not find evidence of the final battles at the New York hill? Because those battles happened thousands of miles away. It is not surprising to find nothing when you look for something in the wrong place.”

Response: There are very good reasons to reject the LDS scholarly theory that Cumorah was in Mesoamerica. It isn’t just anti-Mormon filmmakers and uninformed LDS laymen who naively assume that the hill in New York is supposed to be the Book of Mormon’s Cumorah. This is also the view of General Authorities of the Church who responded to the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory by directly criticizing it and arguing against it.

Brant will say that the film is propaganda because it does not even mention the fact that LDS scholars argue that the Book of Mormon Cumorah is different from Joseph Smith’s New York Cumorah. I’m not sure that mentioning this idea in the film would have been enough for Brant. If they mentioned that many LDS scholars hold this view but then briefly dismissed it, without going through all of the arguments back and forth on both sides (arguments found in LDS sources), would that have been acceptable? This is one of the recurring issues I have with Brant’s review and with his rebuttals to my response to his review. How much of the LDS scholarly views and arguments should the film have presented, according to Brant? I don’t know. But my own personal opinion is that Brant does have a point. I think it would have been better if the film had mentioned the two-Cumorahs theory. If Brant is criticizing the film because it doesn’t even mention this and other LDS scholarly theories, and he’s not suggesting the film should have hashed out these issues in back-and-forth argumentation, I think I would generally agree with his criticism. But then, I think that the film would have been much stronger had it mentioned some of those theories and then briefly responded to them.

[Brant Gardner]

Warfare

Critique: The film attempts to make it appear that Latter-day Saints are afraid to do archaeological excavations at the New York Hill Cumorah because they know that they will not find the evidence of battles there…. However, since at least the 1950s Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon has argued that the text’s Cumorah is in Mesoamerica. The New York hill is merely a namesake. Why do we not find evidence of the final battles at the New York hill? Because those battles happened thousands of miles away. It is not surprising to find nothing when you look for something in the wrong place.”

Response: There are very good reasons to reject the LDS scholarly theory that Cumorah was in Mesoamerica.

Shoot, if there were, I might believe them. There are reasons, but not very good ones.

It isn’t just anti-Mormon filmmakers and uninformed LDS laymen who naively assume that the hill in New York is supposed to be the Book of Mormon’s Cumorah. This is also the view of General Authorities of the Church who responded to the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory by directly criticizing it and arguing against it.

We return to the question of the focus of the film. If the film has any pretension of scholarship (and it certainly attempts it by having "authorities" to provide opinions), then the proper "versus" is to LDS Book of Mormon scholars.

The assumption that uninformed laymen have anything to say is easily dismissed. That is the reason that General Authorities are tossed into the mix. The presumption is that because their word is normative in some cases that it is necessarily normative in all cases--and in particular in this case. Since that contradicts statements they have also made, it hardly seems likely.

The situation the film attempts to set up is one of scholarship supporting the Bible, but denying the Book of Mormon. While it is quite simple to do that if you don't set up an implicit comparison, when you do it implies that the comparison be reasonable and appropriate. That does not happen.

Brant will say that the film is propaganda because it does not even mention the fact that LDS scholars argue that the Book of Mormon Cumorah is different from Joseph Smith’s New York Cumorah.

I'm predictable.

I’m not sure that mentioning this idea in the film would have been enough for Brant. If they mentioned that many LDS scholars hold this view but then briefly dismissed it, without going through all of the arguments back and forth on both sides (arguments found in LDS sources), would that have been acceptable? This is one of the recurring issues I have with Brant’s review and with his rebuttals to my response to his review. How much of the LDS scholarly views and arguments should the film have presented, according to Brant? I don’t know. But my own personal opinion is that Brant does have a point. I think it would have been better if the film had mentioned the two-Cumorahs theory. If Brant is criticizing the film because it doesn’t even mention this and other LDS scholarly theories, and he’s not suggesting the film should have hashed out these issues in back-and-forth argumentation, I think I would generally agree with his criticism. But then, I think that the film would have been much stronger had it mentioned some of those theories and then briefly responded to them.

Remember, my criticism is of the illusion that the film creates. It proposes that it is a scholarly examination, but it avoids actual scholarly discussion in favor of hit and run tactics. Therefore, it is an illusion. Because many who see it don't understand the issues, exposing the way the film obscures scholarship in favor of its agenda seems to be a reasonable response to it.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

The assumption that uninformed laymen have anything to say is easily dismissed. That is the reason that General Authorities are tossed into the mix. The presumption is that because their word is normative in some cases that it is necessarily normative in all cases--and in particular in this case. Since that contradicts statements they have also made, it hardly seems likely.

Who said anything about their views being normative? I didn't. You aren't quite getting it. The film is showing that the traditional LDS views of the Book of Mormon have serious problems. If you keep saying that you agree that those views have problems but your cadre of LDS scholars don't share those traditional views, I understand your frustration but that doesn't make the film pointless or deceitful propaganda. I'll have more to say on this issue after I finish my section-by-section response.

I had asked if it would satisfy you if the film briefly touched on LDS scholars' views without getting into all of the specific arguments back and forth. You did not answer that question, at least not directly. Instead, you wrote:

Remember, my criticism is of the illusion that the film creates. It proposes that it is a scholarly examination, but it avoids actual scholarly discussion in favor of hit and run tactics. Therefore, it is an illusion. Because many who see it don't understand the issues, exposing the way the film obscures scholarship in favor of its agenda seems to be a reasonable response to it.

At this point, it seems your answer to my question was no, a brief mention of LDS academicians' views would not satisfy you. This is very telling. It confirms that what I have been saying all along is correct. Your critique presupposes that the film is unacceptable because it isn't four times as long.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

You wrote:

Who said anything about their views being normative? I didn't. You aren't quite getting it. The film is showing that the traditional LDS views of the Book of Mormon have serious problems.

That is the point? That isn't much of a point, then. I can see the value of a film that says to Bible believers (LDS included) that here is where your traditional views are modified by what we now know. In the case of the Bible, we certainly wouldn't be producing such a film to suggest that they shouldn't believe in the Bible, but rather than they might enrich their understanding. I'm all for such a film.

However, to create a film that says to a Book of Mormon believer that there are things that have been believed about the Book of Mormon that are wrong and therefore the Book of Mormon is wrong is not only an incorrect premise, it completely skirts the issue. If there are things that Book of Mormon believers didn't get right, and a richer understanding is available, why wouldn't I prefer a film that did just what we could have done for the Bible? Of course, there are such films, but since they presuppose the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, Living Hope Ministries wouldn't be interested.

This is a film where the intent of the film is to damage faith, and it does so by establishing conditions that make its point by ignoring anything that would contradict that point. Ergo, propaganda.

If you keep saying that you agree that those views have problems but your cadre of LDS scholars don't share those traditional views,

Things certainly are not settled. However, the film elected to give the illusion that it was showing the weakness of the strongest LDS position, which is the Mesoamerican connection. Therefore, again, it gives the illusion that it is directed to the arguments of the LDS scholars that it clearly ignores.

If a film says that it is going to talk about the best ideas about the development of culture and speaks of the Nazca lines in Peru and Pacal's tomb, and then suggests that the ideas about ancient astronauts are not good explanations, does that therefore suggest that the work of most scholars on those topics are wrong? There are lots of people who bought the ancient astronaut idea (going back to the popularity of Von Daniken's stuff). Does arguing against the weakest possible representation of a position mean that you have contradicted the strongest representation of the same opinion, even when they deal with a similar subject in history? Of course not.

The problem continues to be the nature of the illusion of the film. If the film were to say that it is going to debunk many of the folk traditions about the Book of Mormon, I would have less worry about it. There are LDS films which do the same.

The difference is that this is a designed attack film. It has no intent to actually educate. Its intent is destructive, but to house that destructive intent in the sheeps clothing of an appearance of scholarship on which it does not deliver.

I had asked if it would satisfy you if the film briefly touched on LDS scholars' views without getting into all of the specific arguments back and forth. You did not answer that question, at least not directly. Instead, you wrote:

Personally, I dislike films whose sole intent is to destroy faith. Even without seeing one, I would be against any LDS produced film where the intent was to denigrate anyone else's faith. Believe me, I understand proselytism, but there is a positive way to do it.

Would the film be better if, for example, when it made its points about coins that it suggested that current LDS scholarship recognizes that the text doesn't refer to coins but to measures (we could use the argument that you used contra my quotation from Redford). Yes, that would be better. However, since it rather makes the point of that section of the film moot, I can't see them doing it.

Would it be better if, instead of the simplistic way they handled the issue of horses that they would actually try to understand the argument offered rather than ridicule only a caricature of it? Yes, that would be better. Of course, they would have to toss out the rest of their argument.

Would it be better if, instead of giving the illusion that the only answer to battles was to be answered in NY, that they would indicate that the very theory they spent so much time on just before doesn't support that conclusion? Yes that would have been better.

Would it be better if, instead of harping on the lack of a literary tradition behind the Book of Mormon, if they indicated that that region of the world lost any literary tradition from that time period and that because of climate, time, or Spanish intervention, very little has survived? Would it be nice if they tossed in the fact that most things done with Mesoamerican gold became bars of gold shipped to Spain? Yes, it would be nice. However, since that contradicts the point they wanted to make, I don't see it happening.

At this point, it seems your answer to my question was no, a brief mention of LDS academicians' views would not satisfy you. This is very telling. It confirms that what I have been saying all along is correct. Your critique presupposes that the film is unacceptable because it isn't four times as long.

It isn't the length. It is the combination of an attack film that gives the illusion that it is arguing against LDS scholarship that it consistently ignores, misrepresents, or ridicules (without actually indicating that there is any understanding of the argument they are ridiculing).

If they removed those offensive parts and made a film that actually did what the title implies, a fair Christian comparison of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it wouldn't be four times as long. It wouldn't exist.

[Brant Gardner]

Rob:

Let me try to put a clearer focus on the problem. Suppose that a Taoist film company (and they will forgive me for using them in this example) decided to have a "versus the Bible" film.

They lined up a number of scholars who described the scientific lack of evidence for a universal flood and contrasted that with the popular belief that there was one. They contrasted the Bible's description of Israelites in Egypt, and noted that in a time period that that doesn't correspond with the Bible, there were no Israelites there.

I could continue the examples, but the obvious question would be whether that film would be a reasonable comparison, or whether it was carefully selected for its own arguments and showing only the easiest information to combat--while ignoring the best.

How would you review such a film? Would you really argue that because many people believe the issues the film knocks down, that therefore it was OK for the film to conclude that the Bible was false?

[cdowis]

Brant,

I am very thirsty and someone gives me a nice cold glass of water. But after some investigation, I notice that the glass also contains a deadly poison. When I complain (I really am thirsty), they suggest that they *could* dilute the poison in the glass, but it would take two or three gallons of water. The glass is just not big enough.

Sorry, but we can't do that.

I wonder why this person insists that it is impossible. The solution is so obvious.

Edited May 3, 2011 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

Nearly all of Brant's criticisms are not about what is in the glass, but about what is not in the glass.

Brant,

I am very thirsty and someone gives me a nice cold glass of water. But after some investigation, I notice that the glass also contains a deadly poison. When I complain (I really am thirsty), they suggest that they *could* dilute the poison in the glass, but it would take two or three gallons of water. The glass is just not big enough.

Sorry, but we can't do that.

I wonder why this person insists that it is impossible. The solution is so obvious.

[Zeta-Flux]

Charles,

Nearly all of Brant's criticisms are not about what is in the glass, but about what is not in the glass.

And the thing not in the glass is drinkable water. I think Charles' analogy still holds.

[cdowis]

What is a "lie". That is the fundamental question.

The legal system has long experience with this question, perjury. So we take an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth".

So, for example, if we quote Tom Jones, but if we quote him out of context, if we leave out certain words and phrases, we are clearly "lying" even though everything we said was truth. But we distort the meaning of his words by selectively leaving out those important words and phrases.

1. "There have been no Book of Mormon cities discovered by archeologists." This is true, but it is also a lie. Less than 1% of the potential archeological sites have been excavated, virtually all of the names of the cities that have been excavated are unknown, so we do not have a basis for matching them with BOM names.

2. "There are no Nephite/Lamanite artifacts found." It is true, that this is a lie. At the present time there are hundreds, thousands of artifacts, but there is no known method to identify whether an artifact is Nephite, or something else. One could contend that there are many BOM artifacts in the museums, but we cannot identify them.

3. "We find no evidence of Hebrew culture in the Americas." Another truthful lie. The BOM tells us that we are not looking for "Jews" or Hebrews, but Nephites and Lamanites. It is clear that they were not speaking the Hebrew language, for example. The records from the BOM time period are almost non-existant, and culture and religion are found primarily in written records.

4. "There is no evidence of Christianity." Well, the BOM tells us that for the majority of the time, for the majority of the inhabitants, they were not Christians. We find exactly on the ground what the BOM tells us. And how do we identify Christian artifacts -- statues of Mary, the cross? Perhaps in mesoamerica, the Christian icons included serpents.

It is not a matter of giving more information, but the very structure of the statements that they give. They give "true" lies. They can claim that everything they say is the truth. But a court of law would not be fooled by the half truths and deceptions.

Only the naive and those ignorant of the facts are deceived.