"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.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 02 May 2011 - 01:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 02 May 2011 - 09:22 PM
Brant,
You wrote:
Brant Gardner, on 02 May 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:
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:
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
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?
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.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:35 AM
Charles,
Nearly all of Brant's criticisms are not about what is in the glass, but about what is not in the glass.
cdowis, on 03 May 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:
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.
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.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 08:02 AM
Temples
Critique: “The evidence of archaeology in the Old World tells us that, when Nephi built a replica of Solomon’s temple, he was simply doing what others had done and would yet do.”
Response: I agree; it is certainly possible that a group of Israelites, separated from the Jerusalem temple and its culture, might choose to build its own temple, even if doing so was a violation of the Law (as I think it would have been).
----------
Critique: Against the criticism that the Nephites were not Levites and so could not officiate in an Israelite temple, Brant comments: “Scholars do not know if the temples at Elephantine and Arad were staffed by descendants of Aaron, but recent research indicates that there were important temple officials who were not descendants of Aaron.” He cites Margaret Barker in support of the idea of a “Melchizedek priesthood” that “had no priestly descent” and who argues that the Yeb texts reflect a possible non-Aaronic priesthood. According to Barker, “The ‘surface’ picture of the Aaronite high priesthood in the Old Testament, therefore, must be treated with caution.”
Response: It is conceivable that a group of Israelites without a contingent of Levites would take it upon themselves to appoint non-Levites to officiate in their temple. However, if we accept the Old Testament as authoritative, such a practice would be contrary to God’s revealed instructions. The Book of Mormon represents the practice as not merely historical fact but as divinely authorized, and that is clearly open to challenge.
Critique: “The evidence of archaeology in the Old World tells us that, when Nephi built a replica of Solomon’s temple, he was simply doing what others had done and would yet do.”
Response: I agree; it is certainly possible that a group of Israelites, separated from the Jerusalem temple and its culture, might choose to build its own temple, even if doing so was a violation of the Law (as I think it would have been).
I guess I don't know what your opinion is of post-exilic revisions of the Bible (or of the changes that appear to have begun under Josiah). I agree that later Israelites saw the Jerusalem temple as unique, but that was a process that Josiah initiated and which became absolutely normative after the return from exile.
Going any farther on this issue requires some understanding of history, and I don't know where you are on that topic.
Quote
Critique: Against the criticism that the Nephites were not Levites and so could not officiate in an Israelite temple, Brant comments: “Scholars do not know if the temples at Elephantine and Arad were staffed by descendants of Aaron, but recent research indicates that there were important temple officials who were not descendants of Aaron.” He cites Margaret Barker in support of the idea of a “Melchizedek priesthood” that “had no priestly descent” and who argues that the Yeb texts reflect a possible non-Aaronic priesthood. According to Barker, “The ‘surface’ picture of the Aaronite high priesthood in the Old Testament, therefore, must be treated with caution.”
Response: It is conceivable that a group of Israelites without a contingent of Levites would take it upon themselves to appoint non-Levites to officiate in their temple. However, if we accept the Old Testament as authoritative, such a practice would be contrary to God’s revealed instructions. The Book of Mormon represents the practice as not merely historical fact but as divinely authorized, and that is clearly open to challenge.
See above. It depends on how you see the Old Testament. If you read it as unchanging in its approach from the beginning to the end, then I would have to agree with you. Clearly I don't.
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.
If a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more lentthy film, or even a series of films, then what is the argument against it? It's too coslty to be fair? The fillm audience's attention span precluded a fair film? Or simply, the film does not attempt to be fair?
And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and thre was no poor among them. Moses 7:18
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45
And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. 4 Nephi 1:3
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 09:38 AM
Mark,
You wrote:
Mark Beesley, on 06 May 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:
If a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more lentthy film, or even a series of films, then what is the argument against it? It's too coslty to be fair? The fillm audience's attention span precluded a fair film? Or simply, the film does not attempt to be fair?
I disagree with your premise, that "a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more [lengthy] film." No, but a fair handling of the subject matter to Brant's satisfaction appears to require a lengthier film.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 09:43 AM
Brant,
I understand that there are different views on these historical questions. Furthermore, my position is that what matters is not what Israelites thought at various points in history; presumably there was diversity of thought on all sorts of issues at various times. What matters is what God's prophets revealed as found in the authoritative written word of God, whatever the prehistory of that Scripture might be.
I will say that I think it would have been helpful if the film had explained that the issue here was more theological than it was historical. That is, the question is whether a Nephite temple and priesthood would be theologically authorized, not whether they would be historically possible.
Brant Gardner, on 06 May 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:
I guess I don't know what your opinion is of post-exilic revisions of the Bible (or of the changes that appear to have begun under Josiah). I agree that later Israelites saw the Jerusalem temple as unique, but that was a process that Josiah initiated and which became absolutely normative after the return from exile.
Going any farther on this issue requires some understanding of history, and I don't know where you are on that topic.
See above. It depends on how you see the Old Testament. If you read it as unchanging in its approach from the beginning to the end, then I would have to agree with you. Clearly I don't.
I disagree with your premise, that "a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more [lengthy] film." No, but a fair handling of the subject matter to Brant's satisfaction appears to require a lengthier film.
I don't want to intrude too severely in this conversation, so I will simply point out the following. You said in a prior reponse (and have said something of a similar nature in other responses):
Rob Bowman, on 02 May 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:
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.
Later, in the same post you wrote,
Quote
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.
Now granted, you used the word stronger, and have simply conceded the validity of Brant's points, while carefully avoiding the use of the word fair. But remembering what this discussion is about - an attack by the film-makers on the histoicity of the Book of Mormon - these are omissions by the film-makers that seriously compromise the integrity of the film, i.e. they left out things that might weaken their attack. You may not think that affects the "fairness" quality of the film. Most objective observes would, I suspect.
Why not simply concede that the film is not an attempt to portray a fair assessment of all of the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon, but rather is a focused attempt to highlight a few perceived weaknesses? Is that not a "fair" statement?
Edited to add: Your most recent response to Brant concerning " different views on these historical questions" would seem to bolster my point.
(I'm done interrupting. )
Edited by Mark Beesley, 06 May 2011 - 11:30 AM.
And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and thre was no poor among them. Moses 7:18
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45
And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. 4 Nephi 1:3
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
I understand that there are different views on these historical questions. Furthermore, my position is that what matters is not what Israelites thought at various points in history; presumably there was diversity of thought on all sorts of issues at various times. What matters is what God's prophets revealed as found in the authoritative written word of God, whatever the prehistory of that Scripture might be.
We still are not communicating on this issue. Are you saying that there was no change in the way the Bible portrays God's word before and after the Exile, and that there was never any political influence on the policies represented by the Bible?
Quote
I will say that I think it would have been helpful if the film had explained that the issue here was more theological than it was historical. That is, the question is whether a Nephite temple and priesthood would be theologically authorized, not whether they would be historically possible.
Oh, such as whether Christ might have the priesthood authority to do what he did? As in the answer that Paul gave?
So, what you are telling me is that on top of a film that gives the illusion of scholarship by quoting professionals (but doesn't actually engage with scholarship) that it also gives the illusion of arguing about history (when its issues are really only theological)? You do realize that this is precisely the point of a review tagging the film as an illusion with no substance?
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:17 PM
Brant,
You wrote:
Brant Gardner, on 06 May 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:
We still are not communicating on this issue. Are you saying that there was no change in the way the Bible portrays God's word before and after the Exile, and that there was never any political influence on the policies represented by the Bible?
I'm afraid this is a bit too vague for me to feel comfortable giving you a simple yes or no answer.
You wrote:
Quote
Oh, such as whether Christ might have the priesthood authority to do what he did? As in the answer that Paul gave?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.
You wrote:
Quote
So, what you are telling me is that on top of a film that gives the illusion of scholarship by quoting professionals (but doesn't actually engage with scholarship) that it also gives the illusion of arguing about history (when its issues are really only theological)? You do realize that this is precisely the point of a review tagging the film as an illusion with no substance?
No. Most of the points the film raises are historical issues, not theological issues. The section on temples and priesthood is the first section of the film to raise what is arguably a theological question as distinct from a historical one.
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:29 PM
Mark,
You wrote:
Mark Beesley, on 06 May 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:
Now granted, you used the word stronger, and have simply conceded the validity of Brant's points, while carefully avoiding the use of the word fair.
I don't think this is an accurate summary of what I have said. I have conceded the validity of some of Brant's points and disputed other points. With regard to the points I have conceded, I have suggested that they don't justify Brant's description of the film in such language as the following (emphasis added):
Quote
performs magic tricks with ideas...slickly demonstrates its points with the classic techniques of misdirection, unexamined assumptions, and hidden information...empty propaganda...plays upon existing assumptions without calling attention to what the producers do not want the viewer to see...this film opts for the propaganda technique of ignoring anything that does not support its thesis...remarkable lack of scholarly honesty...performs a mind-reading trick...they really have no answer and consequently prefer to pretend that one does not exist...intentionally oversimplifies...Murphy must know that his statement is misleading...The only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive.....
You say that "they left out things that might weaken their attack." Yes, that could be argued, just as it could be argued that Brant left out things that might weaken his defense, as I have documented. On the other hand, the film left out things that might have strengthened their criticism of the Book of Mormon. In fact, some of the things Brant urges they should have included would, in my opinion, have done just that.
I'm afraid this is a bit too vague for me to feel comfortable giving you a simple yes or no answer.
I suspect that it comes from different views of the construction of the text. I am suggesting that there were changes in the way temples were conceived before and after the exile, and that the restriction to the Jerusalem temple was part of a political agenda to concentrate both secular and religious authority in the same place. Therefore, the previous practices that allowed for temples (and shrines) outside of Jerusalem were changed to meet political exigencies rather than following the dictate from God.
However, if you posit that this was dictated by God, then that defines the reason that we see the data differently. In that case, I am arguing from history, and you are arguing from a faith-proposition. That is fine, but it tells us that there is no way for the two to meet.
Quote
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.
Actually, I was quite sure of that. It uses information that I believe is absolutely relevant but which I suspect you see as entirely different. Paul had to address Jesus' non-Levitical descent. Therefore:
Hebrews: 5:3-6
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
The question Paul is answering is how Christ can offer a sacrifice for sin and not be of the line of Aaron or the tribe of Levi. Paul indicates that there is another way, and that it is legitimate.
Please assume that I would use Paul's argument for why Lehi might also offer a sacrifice.
Quote
No. Most of the points the film raises are historical issues, not theological issues. The section on temples and priesthood is the first section of the film to raise what is arguably a theological question as distinct from a historical one.
Well, at least we agree that we should be discussing things on the basis of history rather than theology in most cases. Following that lead of the film, I submit that may answer for the historical situation is completely apt.
0
This topic is locked
Rob Bowman, on 30 April 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:
)
