James 1:5

[will2believe]

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

Ah, the following claims are not reliable:

There is a city in Israel named Jerusalem.

King Zedekiah reigned in 600 B.C.

Abraham visited Egypt.

Christ was crucified.

We should serve others.

The earth goes around the sun.

Be careful of absolute statements.

[will2believe]

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

Why are you trying to refute my point about the BoA by bringing up the BoM? Do you know the meaning of non sequitur?

Have you even read the Book of Abraham?

[Benji]

Why are you trying to refute my point about the BoA by bringing up the BoM? Do you know the meaning of non sequitur?

Have you even read the Book of Abraham?

My point is that Mormon fiction such as the BOA & the BOM are both in the same boat. Yes, I have read both. I was born and raised in a devout TBM family.

Benji

[Zakuska]

Again Benji has avoided the fact that "Abraham being sacrificed on a Lion bed by the wicked egyptian priest" has been found in Christian Lore.

[will2believe]

My point is that Mormon fiction such as the BOA & the BOM are both in the same boat.  Yes, I have read both.  I was born and raised in a devout TBM family.

What does that point have to do with the point that you and I are debating?

And I'm a little surprised by your assertion that Ur and Egypt are a fictional setting.

[TrespassersW]

flameburn:

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

Gamesmanship? Because I have challenged someone's rather silly assertion that the debates about Mormonism have been settled? Because I challenged him to read Egyptologists rather than Reverends?

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

I said: [Joseph's] explanation of some of the particulars hits so close to what is understood today that it defies coincidence.

And Benji said: Show me evidence that this is true from a non-LDS scholar.

Then you said: I don't believe Benji is dismissing out-of-hand the scholarship anyone based upon their affiliation with the LDS Church.

I'm not sure how it's possible to read those statements and come to the conclusion you did. He doesn't even want to see it if it isn't "non-LDS". I'm not sure how someone can be more thoroughly dismissive than that. I don't have a problem with someone who Reads John Gee's arguments and decides that they aren't convincing (I don't find all of his arguments convincing myself). But I do have a problem with someone who refuses to read John Gee's arguments because he has already decided that they are not convincing based on the fact that John Gee is LDS. Or someone who insists that no one agrees with John Gee when they haven't even bothered to read what the man has said.

His point is that their works on specific subjects, relating to the historicity of the book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etcetera, are written strictly as faith-affirming, non-scholarly works intended for consumption by other believing Mormons.

He, in fact, did not say that. But, if he had, I would have been quick to point out that he only thinks so because he is completely unfamiliar with the writings of LDS scholars. Such a claim, if he had made it, would only demonstrate complete ignorance of what has been published by Latter-day Saints on these topics. Can anyone seriously make the claim that no Latter-day Saints have published scholarly treatments of the historicity of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon?

And it's silly to say that no non-LDS scholars agree with LDS scholars on these issues. Take, for example, Gee's paper on the Sons of Horus. He cited plenty of (non-LDS) scholars who agree that the Sons of Horus do represent the four quarters of the earth. This is actually rather basic information nowadays. In fact, the only one I've seen take issue with this is Thompson, whose argument was (IMO) rather strained. Gee's understanding of the Sons of Horus seems far more in harmony with the general consensus than does Thompson's. Now, I don't hesitate for one second to recognize that virtually none of the scholars that Gee cited would want to be associated in any way with some whacky religious ideas from someone claiming to be a prophet. But that doesn't change Gee's point. What Joseph said about the drawing of the four Sons of Horus hits very close to what Egyptologists are saying about it today. So close, in fact, that I have trouble chalking it up to coincidence.

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

This has been the sum total of my entire point on this thread.

[Marcelo]

Mark Twain called the BOM "chlorophorm in print"

Maybe he had just read the Book of ETHER!

[Bertram]

Mark Twain?

He wrote an interesting book!....:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684824396...8873378-9920959