The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Gervin]

I wasn't talking about doctrine, of course

uhm .... right. you mentioned doctrine, but of course you weren't talking about doctrine. You've become a parody of yourself.

And you make that very confident assertion based on precisely what

The assertion is made based on the fact that when the topic of archaeolgical evidence for the Book of Mormon came up, you and someone else on this board directed me to two of the most pitiful pieces of writing I've ever read that contained not one iota of scholarship but were rather attacks and speculations that would make most college freshmen students of archaeology or anthropology blush.

The self-chosen and openly announced topic of his article was what its title declared it to be.

Rubbish is rubbish no matter how it's wrapped. That you consider it superb scholarship is a badge you can wear proudly. Scholars I know and work with in the field of archaeology would be embarrased to be seen reading it.

We're content to rely on standard archaeological methodology, and on the findings of mainstream archaeological research.

Is this some kind of wish-fulfillment on your part? Mainstream archaeological research indicates no basis for recognizing any evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. You don't rely on any such thing. This is where Hamblin makes acceptance of historicity into a faith decision. You're slipping.

Acceptance of a historically authentic Book of Mormon necessarily entails acceptance of its miraculous provenance in the early nineteenth century, which, in turn, necessarily entails acceptance of at least some of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. It's that simple.

This really is your archaeological methodology. I guess I finally believe you.

Professor Hamblin did not say that every case of rejection is a matter of having failed to read the Book of Mormon (carefully or uncarefully). He did, however, say that most non-Mormons have not read the Book of Mormon with any degree of care, or even at all. And that seems to me a statement whose truth is virtually self-evident. But the criticisms or opinions of someone who hasn't read the Book of Mormon with any care (or at all) carry no more weight than the opinions of a person who hasn't seen a particular film or read any other particular book would carry with regard to that film or book. This is scarcely a revolutionary or uniquely Mormon thought. My opinions on medieval Thai history would be utterly without merit, because I know nothing about the subject.

The poor mis-understood LDS scholars vs. the world of poor readers. Only a True Believer would take the time to read the book carefully enough to make a valid criticism of the historical evidences of the Bo--- Ooops, sorry. A true believer who could read 'real good' would never make such a criticism, would he? I almost forgot your methodological approach.

Feel free to take Mr. Hamblin

[charity]

Gervin, I recognize the names of, and respect the credentials of the scholars who reguarly research and publish articles about the Book of Mormon historicity. And find criticques of the critics credible as well.

I don't know you. Would you care to present your credentials so we can evaluate your credibility. Your curriculum vitae please. I would really like to see a list of your published works in scholarly journals.

[Daniel Peterson]

Gervin, when you care to engage me rather than a weird simulacrum created by yourself, when you choose to interact with what we've actually written rather than with your bizarre and hostile misreadings of what we've written, you and I might be able to have an interesting discussion.

[smac97]

Some of the comments in this thread persuade me that I should dredge up a previous observation of mine.

First, let's look at Pahoran's comment:

I see you have either missed or completely ignored my previous demonstration of the fact (and it is a fact) that a historically authentic Book of Mormon is necessarily a divinely authentic Book of Mormon. Unlike in the case of the Bible, there is no way for The Book of Mormon to be both genuinely ancient and a merely human production.

And this one:

As I'm sure you realise perfectly well, it is not disputed that the Bible has been around for a very long time. Its documentary provenance is known. Very old manuscripts--as old as 2000 years in some cases--exist for most of the books found therein. The languages in which these manuscripts are written are known, and they can be read by scholars using only human skills. It is logically possible for the Bible to be both authentically ancient and--as far as its significant truth claims are concerned--factually untrue.

The same cannot be said of The Book of Mormon. If it can be proven to be authentically ancient, then that would also prove the only explanation for its existence that is consistent with historical authenticity, namely that an angel gave gold plates to Joseph, who then translated them by miraculous means.

Second, let's look at DCP's comment:

Acceptance of a historically authentic Book of Mormon necessarily entails acceptance of its miraculous provenance in the early nineteenth century, which, in turn, necessarily entails acceptance of at least some of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. It's that simple.

Gervin doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the BoM's historicity is, IMHO, necessarily linked with the BoM's divine authenticity, such that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.

I created a thread on this topic back in August '05. Interestingly, I cited the same article by Hamblin that is under discussion here. I also discussed the historicity/authenticity link and how that link works for the Book of Mormon but not for the Bible (which, I believe, is the point being made by CI, Pahoran and DCP).

Here's my explanation:

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible.  One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.  As Confidential Informant's atheist friend put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is [that] the Bible is a really old fraud."  Another time, William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith

[charity]

Way cool, smac97. When toponyms and the like show up, the whole academic world is turned upside down. I can hardly wait.

But there had better be a close watch. I wouldn't put destruction of evidence outside the realm of possibilities here. It would do too much damage to the traditional arguments.

[Dale]

Gervin I do not consider the writings you were directed to as pitiful. Neither was it rubbish. I do not see anything you have written on this post I have looked at so far that forces me to agree with you. I think those you have dialogued with have held their own in the discussion.

[smac97]

Bump for Gervin.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Gervin doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the BoM's historicity is, IMHO, necessarily linked with the BoM's divine authenticity, such that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.

I suspect that Gervin and others like him are loathe to let go of an argument they thought was a Mormonism killer but, in actuality, turns out to be quite specious.

The same reason, I suppose, that people keep dredging up such meritless contentions as the use of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and the mention of Jesus being born at Jerusalem ("the land of our fathers" which would take in the city and its environs, including Bethlehem).

[Gervin]

I suspect that Gervin and others like him are loathe to let go of an argument they thought was a Mormonism killer but, in actuality, turns out to be quite specious.

What a pleasant Friday thought. Actually, in about 2 hours I'm going to let go of all my loathsome arguments and engage myself with a real Mormonism killer; a Manhattan, neat. Then it's Chinese with 12 friends - and though the subject of religion will come up, I promise to keep all my specious arguments to myself. Perhaps Sat evening I can come back here and attempt (and only attempt) to better articulate some points I've been unable to make. The results can be judged by how quickly Daniel Peterson has to conduct another interview with himself.

[The Practical Mormon]

I've simply said that, since belief in the antiquity of the Book of Mormon virtually entails [requires] belief in the miraculous and in modern revelation...

OK, I've got it. An explanation for how the Book of Mormon could be historical, but not miraculous.

See, there's this guy, Joseph Smith, who finds this genuine ancient text written on gold plates. And it's actually written in Hebrew, even though it claims to be written in an unknown language called Reformed Egyptian. And this Joseph guy just happens to know this other guy, who actually knows Hebrew. See, this Hebrew-speaker is a wandering Jewish scholar who actually arrived in America as a stowaway, and so has no friends or family.

Joseph gets this Jew to translate the plates into a tiny little manuscript that Joseph can fit into his breastpocket. Then he hires some hit Masons, whom he presciently calls Danites, to kill the Hebrew speaker and toss his body into the Susquahannah river. Then Joseph himself hides the plates under a hankie, and recruits some dupes to sit on the other side of a curtain transcribing the text while Joseph reads it from his breast-pocket version of the already-translated text. Then he hypnotizes his neighbor, Martin Harris, into secretly buy off the hit-Masons, which means Martin must for ever and ever keep silent about the conspiracy.

And then...

Oh, I'm growing weary. And I've got an incoming call from my buddy Occam.

-- The Practical Mormon

http://www.ldessays.com

[USU78]

The same reason, I suppose, that people keep dredging up such meritless contentions as the use of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and the mention of Jesus being born at Jerusalem ("the land of our fathers" which would take in the city and its environs, including Bethlehem).

Wouldn't it be a gas if it were established that the gospel writers got it wrong and the Master was actually born in Jerusalem, David's City, instead of Bethlehem, the City of David?

[Beowulf]

Well, the distance from Bethlehem to the Jerusalem City Wall is about the same as it is from my house (in an unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain) to the Tigard City Post Office (which is the city address I mark on my mail).

Am I lying when I say I live in Tigard rather than Bull Mountain? (Or even Portland, about 15 miles away, and a city name that people can write on letters addressed to me and have it arrive at my house without any trouble whatsoever?)

Land of Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, indeed...

Beowulf

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, the distance from Bethlehem to the Jerusalem City Wall is about the same as it is from my house (in an unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain) to the Tigard City Post Office (which is the city address I mark on my mail).

Am I lying when I say I live in Tigard rather than Bull Mountain? (Or even Portland, about 15 miles away, and a city name that people can write on letters addressed to me and have it arrive at my house without any trouble whatsoever?)

Land of Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, indeed...

Beowulf

We have a modern-day analogue with the city of Naperville, Ill., a suburb of Chicago. Naperville and other suburbs are located in what is known locally as Chicagoland.

So a Naperville resident could well say he lives in "the land of" Chicago, or Chicagoland, even though he's not right within the municipal limits of Chicago.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh, I'm growing weary. And I've got an incoming call from my buddy Occam.

Occam's a pest. I say, Go with your really involved and utterly baseless conspiracy theory. You'll have at least one fan here on this thread if you do. He'll be full of Chinese food and in really good spirits.

[Hawkeye]

Occam's a pest. I say, Go with your really involved and utterly baseless conspiracy theory. You'll have at least one fan here on this thread if you do. He'll be full of Chinese food and in really good spirits.

Actually the long winded conspiracy theories are an absolute gas, that is half the phone if them, it is difficult not to get wrapped up in the fun of some of the most outlandish things every now and then. Gives us a break from the hum drum of Facts and methodologies and such..

[Dale]

Gervin doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the BoM's historicity is, IMHO, necessarily linked with the BoM's divine authenticity, such that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.

I suspect that Gervin and others like him are loathe to let go of an argument they thought was a Mormonism killer but, in actuality, turns out to be quite specious.

The same reason, I suppose, that people keep dredging up such meritless contentions as the use of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and the mention of Jesus being born at Jerusalem ("the land of our fathers" which would take in the city and its environs, including Bethlehem).

I was surprised the films producers did not integrate LDS apolologetic responses into the film. The Jesus born at Jerusalem issue has been responded to in-depth. They could have tried to answer the response instead they raised the point as if nothing had been said.

Gervin does have the right to opinion. I just did not agree with him. He did not agree with others who felt differently about the issue.

[dacook]

Well, the distance from Bethlehem to the Jerusalem City Wall is about the same as it is from my house (in an unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain) to the Tigard City Post Office (which is the city address I mark on my mail).

Am I lying when I say I live in Tigard rather than Bull Mountain? (Or even Portland, about 15 miles away, and a city name that people can write on letters addressed to me and have it arrive at my house without any trouble whatsoever?)

Land of Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, indeed...

Beowulf

My favorite "land" story is from a few years ago when a bunch of EV's organised to come to Utah and "witness" to us benighted Mormons.

A friend of mine who lives in the Salt Lake Valley invited two of them into his home. They were just getting going on the Jerusalem vs Bethlehem so-called mistake JS made when my friend interupted to ask them what city they were in right now.

"Salt Lake" they replied.

"Wrong," he said, "you're in Sandy."

Sandy, of course, is about the same distance from Salt Lake as Bethlehem is from Jerusalem.

They immediately moved on to another topic.

[Dale]

People get so stuck in trivia they assume no answers exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, the distance from Bethlehem to the Jerusalem City Wall is about the same as it is from my house (in an unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain) to the Tigard City Post Office (which is the city address I mark on my mail).

Am I lying when I say I live in Tigard rather than Bull Mountain? (Or even Portland, about 15 miles away, and a city name that people can write on letters addressed to me and have it arrive at my house without any trouble whatsoever?)

Land of Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, indeed...

Beowulf

My favorite "land" story is from a few years ago when a bunch of EV's organised to come to Utah and "witness" to us benighted Mormons.

A friend of mine who lives in the Salt Lake Valley invited two of them into his home. They were just getting going on the Jerusalem vs Bethlehem so-called mistake JS made when my friend interupted to ask them what city they were in right now.

"Salt Lake" they replied.

"Wrong," he said, "you're in Sandy."

Sandy, of course, is about the same distance from Salt Lake as Bethlehem is from Jerusalem.

They immediately moved on to another topic.

That's a great story.

I live in Sandy myself. On out-of-state trips, I regularly tell people I'm from Salt Lake, or, if I want to be more precise yet conveniently communicative, Salt Lake County.

Saying Sandy is in Salt Lake County is, I suppose, the modern-day equivalent of saying Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem.

[Scott Lloyd]

Gervin doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the BoM's historicity is, IMHO, necessarily linked with the BoM's divine authenticity, such that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.

I suspect that Gervin and others like him are loathe to let go of an argument they thought was a Mormonism killer but, in actuality, turns out to be quite specious.

The same reason, I suppose, that people keep dredging up such meritless contentions as the use of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and the mention of Jesus being born at Jerusalem ("the land of our fathers" which would take in the city and its environs, including Bethlehem).

I was surprised the films producers did not integrate LDS apolologetic responses into the film. The Jesus born at Jerusalem issue has been responded to in-depth. They could have tried to answer the response instead they raised the point as if nothing had been said.

The fact that they took the one course and not the other is quite telling, I think.

Gervin does have the right to opinion. I just did not agree with him. He did not agree with others who felt differently about the issue.

What is in dispute is not Gervin's right to his opinion, but rather, the quality of that opinion.

[Dale]

I agree.

[asciikerr]

Just out of curiosity...How long will this remain as "The Special Feature" on FARMS?

Have their been any other reviews/critiques on the video?

[Dale]

I heard some other responses may be forthcoming. Not sure whether that means other responses from FARMs, or FAIR or some other source.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know how long Brant Gardiner's response will remain as a "special feature" on the FARMS web site.

I have another response in hand -- like Brant's, from someone who volunteered to write it -- that we are now preparing for publication in the FARMS Review but that, also like Brant's, may possibly be published somewhere prior to that.

And I know of one other response that will eventually appear, outside of FARMS.

The Bible versus the Book of Mormon is a very poor piece of work, and, with the passage of time, that will become even more evident than it already is.

[Gervin]

Let me give one example of what I consider Hamblin