Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[Uncle Dale]

To UDale: I would indeed like to have a copy of the Rigdon book.

Your wish will my command, Daniel -- patience; yet a little while must pass.

'Til then,

UD

[Ref]

I would be interested, by the way, in seeing any evidence that you might have that non-LDS scholars either "totally reject" the work of Drs. Sorenson, Clark, or Hamblin, or that they have consciously, knowingly, and deliberately chosen to "ignore" it. Please do supply your evidence, if you have any.

From seeing it on other boards, I thought it was you who admitted some time ago:

"it's a matter of the secular academic community (of Mesoamericanist archaeologists, for example) paying no really serious attention to Mormonism generally, or to Mormon scholarship in particular. FARMS arguments aren't so much rejected as ignored."

I apologize if I have wrongly attributed this quote to you.

I would be interested, by the way, in seeing any evidence that you might have that non-LDS scholars either "totally reject" the work of Drs. Sorenson, Clark, or Hamblin, or that they have consciously, knowingly, and deliberately chosen to "ignore" it. Please do supply your evidence, if you have any.

In addition to the above quote (if it is indeed your quote), if you now find that the secular community is paying any attention to the likes of Clark, Sorenson, (and/or Hamblin??) in the area of BOM archaeology, historicity and/or geography, could you share any specifics? I have just found the supposed scholarship and attempted defense of such limited to the Lds likes of this board and FARMS. Am I wrong?

[Daniel Peterson]

I apologize if I have wrongly attributed this quote to you.

You have correctly attributed the quotation to me (as you know full well), but, following a well-worn path -- it was, incidentally, scarcely an "admission" -- you have abused it and pressed it into service for an agenda to which it has no relevance.

I was saying that, for reasons many and varied, most scholars pay little attention to Mormonism. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon publications. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon arguments for the Book of Mormon. But being completely unaware of a body of scholarship is a far different thing than (having given it serious consideration and, on that basis, having judged it deficient) consciously deciding to pay no more attention to it. If you have evidence that any statistically significant proportion of the non-LDS scholarly community has rejected Mormon scholarship after seriously engaging it and, thus, has chosen to ignore it from now on, please do share that evidence with us.

In addition to the above quote (if it is indeed your quote), if you now find that the secular community is paying any attention to the likes of Clark, Sorenson, (and/or Hamblin??) in the area of BOM archaeology, historicity and/or geography, could you share any specifics? I have just found the supposed scholarship and attempted defense of such limited to the Lds likes of this board and FARMS. Am I wrong?

Again, I ask why you think your comments here have even the slightest relevance to my response to UDale. That's one request. And I ask you, yet again, to explain why you seem to think that the size or composition of a scholarly work's audience has any direct relevance at all to answering the question of whether that work's logic was sound or its evidence cogent. That's a second request. Please advise.

[Ref]

You have correctly attributed the quotation to me (as you know full well), but, following a well-worn path -- it was, incidentally, scarcely an "admission" -- you have abused it and pressed it into service for an agenda to which it has no relevance.

I was saying that, for reasons many and varied, most scholars pay little attention to Mormonism. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon publications. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon arguments for the Book of Mormon. But being completely unaware of a body of scholarship is a far different thing than (having given it serious consideration and, on that basis, having judged it deficient) consciously deciding to pay no more attention to it. If you have evidence that any statistically significant proportion of the non-LDS scholarly community has rejected Mormon scholarship after seriously engaging it and, thus, has chosen to ignore it from now on, please do share that evidence with us.

Again, I ask why you think your comments here have even the slightest relevance to my response to UDale. That's one request. And I ask you, yet again, to explain why you seem to think that the size or composition of a scholarly work's audience has any direct relevance at all to answering the question of whether that work's logic was sound or its evidence cogent. That's a second request. Please advise.

As I am leaving right now for a red eye to NYC, I will have to defer my response till I am back from travels. A date with the Mets is calling. But I will get back to you when I return. Obviously, I just don't have the luxury of time on this board as others seem to.

Goodnight, but not goodbye!

[Daniel Peterson]

Obviously, I just don't have the luxury of time on this board as others seem to.

Other than a 3.5 week lecture tour of Australia and New Zealand in September, a five-day lecture tour in North Carolina that ended yesterday, and various symposia and writing deadlines and local presentations and assorted business in between, I've clearly had nothing at all to do recently.

[JarMan]

I see your point here but with the Navajo example you gave-anyone can see that English letters were used and so if a historian found Navajo writings 2,000 years from now he may be able to determine that English and Navajo were completely different, unrelated languages, but he would clearly see that the Navajo writing system came because of the English writing system. The claim here would have to be then that Mayans simply saw Egyptian hieroglyphs the Nephites had(and my problem with this theory is why Nephi wouldn't mention running into an entire group of people when he mentions all the animals he found is beyond me) and that they decided to create their own system based on the same principles without borrowing the Egyptian heiroglyphs themselves-which it seems would have been much easier. But, you never know-it could have happened.

Many early missionaries to the Navajo tried to develop a phonetic writing system for the Navajo. Some of them tried to develop a completely original alphabet since the ones they were using didn't seem to fit. If an early attempt would have been successful the Navajo could have ended up with a phonetic written language that bore apparently no resemblance to English or Spanish (or whatever the language of the missionaries).

It could be that a similar thing happened with the Maya and the Lehites. There do not appear to be any similarities, as far as these things are normally analyzed. But based on my limited knowledge of both languages it seems that there are many surface similarities, which is about all that you would really expect.

[Salem]

6. The Documentary Hypothesis being that the Pentateuch was not compiled when Lehi left Jerusalem.

What evidence supports this hypothesis?

[consiglieri]

Consiglieri, that ain't M. LeCurelom, that's Californina kid. I think you got them mixed up because MC used to have an avatar of a smoking chimp, and now CK has an avatar of a chimp.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jerubaal. And just when I was going through the internal injury caused by my reconsidering my opinion about the Mighty Curelom. Way to go California Kid!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[phaedrus ut]

What evidence supports this hypothesis?

I'll answer for Steve. Inside the Torah we have four earlier source texts often referred to as J,D,E,P that were assembled in our present form by a redactor 'R'. The last of the source texts were written after the fall of Israel and therefore after Lehi's family left Jerusalem. According to the theory the Five Books of Moses reached their present form approximately 400 BCE around the time or Ezra.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

>6. The Documentary Hypothesis being that the Pentateuch was not compiled when Lehi left Jerusalem.

That may be true. The record of Moses on the plates of brass were written in egyptian, not Hebrew -- they are the record of Joseph, not the Biblical record of Judah. Remember that the record of Joseph (plates of brass) were *taken* from Jerusalem and not available to the Jews when compiling the Hebrew Bible (record of Judah).

The Pentateuch has absolutely nothing to do with the record of Joseph.

[phaedrus ut]

That may be true. The record of Moses on the plates of brass were written in egyptian, not Hebrew -- they are the record of Joseph, not the Biblical record of Judah. Remember that the record of Joseph (plates of brass) were *taken* from Jerusalem and not available to the Jews when compiling the Hebrew Bible (record of Judah).

The Pentateuch has absolutely nothing to do with the record of Joseph.

Absolutely nothing? How about this?

He beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents. (1 Nephi 5:11)

The Book of Mormon specifically affirms that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. In addition we have quotations in 1 Nephi 22:20-21 & 3 Nephi 20:23 of Deuteronomy(18: 15& 18-19). Modern scholarship, including the Documentary Hypothesis, puts Deuteronomy with a late dating(around Josiah in 620 bce). In addition we have the writings of Lehi's contemporary Jeremiah(1 Nephi 5:13).

The Book of Mormon retains the post Mosaic redacted texts and presents them in KJV language. The statement in 1 Nephi confirms the tradional view of the Torah and necessates the rejection of the Documentary Hypothesis. The best discussion I've seen on the numerous troubles presented by the "Pentateuch problem" was Sperry's article in FARMS.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

>The Book of Mormon specifically affirms that the Pentateuch was written by Moses

I am using the term Pentateuch as a textual tradition, not as the writings of Moses. I assumed that was clear from my post and the previous posts. I guess I have to spell it out for some folks. I am differentiating between the record of Juday and that of Joseph, as opposed to those who do not understand that concept == they simplistically think in terms of "the Bible".

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the Book of Moses (PGP) as part of the Pentateuch?

[phaedrus ut]

>Just out of curiosity, do you consider the Book of Moses (PGP) as part of the Pentateuch?

Well technically that would make it the Hexateuch. I see the Book of Moses in the same light as other LDS Scholars view the JST. I view it as a midrash of Joseph on Genesis. Not a inspired revelation or resoration of a more ancient translation.

However, I am open to including Joshua into the Hexateuch.

Phaedrus

[Brant Gardner]

The Book of Mormon specifically affirms that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.

So does the Bible. Do you see a difference?

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Sperry's discussion of the relationship of the Documentary Hypothesis, much has happened since he wrote.

Kevin Barney's "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis" presents a much more up to date and extensive discussion of the issues for LDS. This is a landmark essay, IMHO.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/doc_hyp.htm

John Sorenson wrote an essay in Dialogue called "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship" arguing that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics of the Northern "E" source. This is available as a FARMS reprint and in one of Sorenson's books. There used to be an essay online by Steve St. Clair on the Book of Mormon and the Northern Traditions of Israel that extended Sorenson's arguments. I think I still have a copy.

George Potter offers an essay suggesting the compatibility of the Book of Mormon and the Documentary Hypothesis. This does not show the rigor and breadth of Barney, but I still find it interesting.

http://www.nephiproject.com/biblical_schol...ip_supports.htm

FWIW, we don't have the Brass Plates, but we can make some inferences about what was on them. However, I think it is dangerous to presume that just because the Book of Mormon quotes Deuteronomy in a few places that the Book of Mormon endorses the current version of Deuteronomy in all respects. The first chapter of 1 Nephi is remarkable for the way it champions themes that were being opposed by the Deuteronomist reformers at that very time.

In Who Wrote the Bible, Richard Elliot Friedman makes the case that the first version of the Deuteronmist History (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1& 2 Samuel and 1& 2 Kings) was prepared specifically for King Josiah. In Appendices B&C to his The Hidden Book of the Bible, Friedman puts out evidence that the source texts (if not the editions) for the Pentateuch pre-Date the Exile. Hence, such things were available to a historical Lehi. And it happens that the oldest extant Biblical texts are prexilic metal scrolls containing verses from Numbers.

I personally think the Brass plates were compiled during the reign of Jehoiakim (an Egyptian vassal) for much the same reason the Septuagint was compiled for Ptolomy a few hundred years and a Greek conquest later. Jehoiakim's reign was a period during which the Reformers were somewhat in disarray, after the traumatic loss of Josiah. Before the intended gift of the Brass Plates was delivered, the Egyptians were defeated, and Zedekiah was enthroned as an Babylonian appointee. With Pharoh inconvenienced, Nephi had an opportunity to visit Laban and negotiate for an alternate disposal.

The texts that were identified in the Brass Plates included "The five books of Moses" is not necessarily a complete textual history, but merely a self description for the records contained therein. Kevin Barney has offered his opinion that it is a translator gloss.

For the transmission of the texts that eventually became the Masoretic Hebrew, there is a long and colorful history. See "Text and Context" by Margaret Barker here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/default.htm

I find the story remarkably akin to the process described in 1 Nephi 13.

The Book of Mormon happens to fit extravagantly well into a Pre-exilic context. See the essays in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, including my own essay on Lehi's World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[phaedrus ut]

So does the Bible. Do you see a difference?

I do see a difference. If in fact the BOM retained an artifact of scripture representing pre-exhilic composition then there wouldn't be a problem. However, what the BOM shows is the marks of the later compositional elements of the Hebrew Bible and that is very problematic. It's the same 600 BC problem that shows up with the Deutero-Isaiah quotations. Elements that couldn't possibly be on the Brass Plates are some how there. I consider that very problematic.

Phaedrus

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the Deutero Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon, see my Occasional Paper n 2 on the FARMS site, the section titled, "Open Questions and Suggestions Regarding Isaiah."

Subsequent to my writing that chapter, Margaret Barker did a study of Isaiah 53, the servant song, typically attributed to Deutero Isaiah. She makes an impressive case that the Original Setting of the Fourth Servant song was Hezekiah's bout with the plague. That, of course, makes that chapter pre-exilic.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/default.htm

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

As far as 'historial facts', there is some supporting evidence;

First is presidence from the Bible,

The Apostles were given very specific instructions not to preach to non-Israelites, not unto the Gentiles or the Samaritans. He very specificly instructed to only to take the gospel to the tribes or descendants of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). Recorded later in the book of Matthew, Christ repeats that he was only sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," (Matt 15:24).

The House of Israel has twelve tribes, so there are more people he's refering to than just the Jews.

Of course, Jesus later gives the "Great Commission," to take the gospel unto "all nations." It was only long after Jesus had acended, that in Acts 10 we find Peter receiving a revelation to at last take the gospel unto the Gentiles.

And so while Jesus acends, he tells the Jews concerning where he's going, "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" He was referring to other Israelites, not Gentiles, people errorously asume that it was the Gentiles because they don't know who else it could be. Jesus did not go to the Gentiles, the Gentiles are not sheep in the context of the lost sheep which Christ was only sent to, the lost sheep of Israel. The Apostles were still not preaching to the Gentiles until a long time after Jesus left.

Therefore, we have this record, called the Book of Mormon, concerning these Israelites who are not Jews, which the Jews were the Tribes of Benjamin and Judah, but instead these were the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh who had sailed across the ocean to whats now called the Americas.

The second historical fact that comes to mind is the ancient American culture:

The Book of Mormon's culture apostasized but one might suspect a bit of a once Christian culture would survive anyways.

After Columbus landed in America, the next boat to the Americas was the Spanish, lead by Cortez, a white and bearded man. We find that the Mesoamericans believed in a demi-god (a deity on earth) named Quetzalcoatl, who was very Christlike, was said to of had a "beard and the features of a white man." and because he was represented as white and bearded, and they had prophesied of his return, the Totonacs identified the white, bearded Cortez as being Quetzalcoatl.

Aside from this tale of mistaken idenity, is the presence of evidence linking Quetzalcoatl with Christ is very compelling to me. Quetzalcoatl was the creator of life, he taught virtue, he was the greatest Lord of all, had a beard which Mesoamricans can't grow beards, and so meaning he was not a native person, and the Mesoamericans believed Quetzalcoatl would one day return as he promised.

Quetzalcoatl was a god in a resurrection sect of the religion that is visible most clearly at Teotihuacan. And the legend tells of a divine creator couple who lived in a paradise from which they were expelled because of a transgression. They were rescued from their dismal state on earth by the self-sacrifice of the god Quetzalcoatl, and this allowed them to escape the underworld and provided a means by which humans who emulate his qualities may reach the lost paradise.

The rituals of baptism and other remarkable ritualistic repentance process parallels are found in the culture, and coinside with the teachings in the Book of Mormon, may be evidence of the teachings on baptism that Christ gave to his people in the Americas when he ministered to them after His Resurrection (3 Nephi 11)

[Brant Gardner]

However, what the BOM shows is the marks of the later compositional elements of the Hebrew Bible and that is very problematic.

That was a better response than I had feared. The mention of attribution is part of the literary assumption of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon translation. Without a defining theory of translation, the attribution itself doesn't say anything except that at least the translator held a common assumption (rather like the attribution of NT writers).

However, even though it is a better reason, it is too general to respond to. As Kevin noted, there are some issues with the later ascription of sections of Isaiah.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, however, there are also assumptions about the nature of God, the nature of the Messiah and the relationship of temple and place that are all pre-exilic - which is why they are often considered anachronistic (because they don't match the assumptions created by post-exilic theology).

[phaedrus ut]

Kevin,

I've read Sorenson, Potter, and Barney. And I agree that Barney is the best response for a LDS audience.

I really enjoyed Who Wrote the Bible and The Hidden Book of the Bible. Friedman proposes his argument for the earlier dating of the Priestly Code 'P' to a period prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587bce. It's a divergent view from those that originally followed the premise proposed by Wellhausen.

Even with his early dating of the source documents Friedman recognizes the work of the Aaronid Priest Redactor hundreds of years later and post exile. In addition, I believe Friedman agrees with other scholars who identify Ezra as the redactor. There is a apocryphal "Fourth Book of Ezra" which claims that Ezra actually wrote the Torah himself. And early in the Christian era Jerome also stated the tradition that "Ezra was the renewer of the Torah."

I haven't examined Barkers attribution of the Fourth Servant song to Hezekiah. I'm open to all ideas so I'll take a look. I wonder what that would mean for Alma 7:11? If a similar answer can be found for the remaining Deutero-Isaiah quotes (1 Nephi 20 - Isaiah 48, 1 Nephi 21 - Isaiah 49, 2 Nephi 7 - Isaiah 50, 2 Nephi 8 - Isaiah 51, 3 Nephi 17:18-20 - Isaiah 52:8-10) then that would be one problem off the table.

Phaedrus

[grego]

I personally think the Brass plates were compiled during the reign of Jehoiakim (an Egyptian vassal) for much the same reason the Septuagint was compiled for Ptolomy a few hundred years and a Greek conquest later. Jehoiakim's reign was a period during which the Reformers were somewhat in disarray, after the traumatic loss of Josiah. Before the intended gift of the Brass Plates was delivered, the Egyptians were defeated, and Zedekiah was enthroned as an Babylonian appointee. With Pharoh inconvenienced, Nephi had an opportunity to visit Laban and negotiate for an alternate disposal.

Interesting and insightful...

[Ref]

I was saying that, for reasons many and varied, most scholars pay little attention to Mormonism. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon publications. Hence, they pay little attention to Mormon arguments for the Book of Mormon.

I donâ??t doubt that â??most scholarsâ? pay little attention to Mormonism. I suspect they find little reason to pay attention to it, because it offers so little in the way of objective â??evaluation standardsâ? in general. It is, after all, a history dependent on â??emotionsâ? as opposed to objective scholarly acceptance.

But being completely unaware of a body of scholarship is a far different thing than (having given it serious consideration and, on that basis, having judged it deficient) consciously deciding to pay no more attention to it.

Perhaps I have misunderstood all of your accolades about how well John Clark and John Sorenson are respected by their peer group in archaeology in general and, specifically, Mesoamerican archaeology. With all of their recognition, I would have thought their credentials and articles would have garnered even a passing interest from their colleagues in the great discovery of linking a modern day transcript of a virtually unknown Hebrew migration into the western hemisphere to the actual potential sights as researched and defended by these two, well known and respected, Mesoamerican archeologists.

If you have evidence that any statistically significant proportion of the non-LDS scholarly community has rejected Mormon scholarship after seriously engaging it and, thus, has chosen to ignore it from now on, please do share that evidence with us.

As explained above, such is not the real issue here. The question remains as to why no one or no academic institution has shown the slightest interest to what, by Lds claims and minimum historicity standards, is the greatest claim to one of the most detailed written claims of a specific history of a specific genetic people, migrating from the middle east to somewhere between NYC and Mesoamerica, involved in great and sophisticated civilizations, for which there is no convincing credible evidence for!

Can you provide a more detailed â??claimedâ? actual record or account of a history, than what is provided in the BOM, for which there is so little interest shown by our academic community. Even with the likes of the supposed great and accepted scholars of Clark and Sorenson, it seems quite obvious that their peer group has no real motivation for even engaging in a passing interest their scholarship. Why not???

There are obviously many scholars who would jump at the opportunity to link a â??lost but restoredâ? record of civilizations from the past to the present day locations if they felt any merit to the claim or, I would hope you would defend, the research and/or scholarship of Clark and Sorenson. After all, those who would have the interest in such a linking would be the â??expertsâ? in this field and putting their name on such a document of validation is what these types of experts strive for!!! Itâ??s what they live for!

So before you ask me to identify the statistics of those who have studied and rejected the likes of the supposed â??great scholarly worksâ? defending the historicity of the BOM (the most obvious â??red herringâ?) perhaps you could identify those who have been convinced by the likes of Clark and Sorenson within their professional peer group! Or you could explain why a claimed â??historic documentâ? garners so little interest.

Remember the acclaimed critical thinker Edward de Bono:

â??An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.â?

Again, why is it that so many â??experts in this historyâ? totally ignore the â??claimed historyâ? of Clark, Sorenson, and the BOM. Do you know of any other â??record of historyâ? that has been so totally ignored and/or rejected than the BOM?

[Chris Smith]

Regarding the Deutero Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon, see my Occasional Paper n 2 on the FARMS site, the section titled, "Open Questions and Suggestions Regarding Isaiah."

Subsequent to my writing that chapter, Margaret Barker did a study of Isaiah 53, the servant song, typically attributed to Deutero Isaiah. She makes an impressive case that the Original Setting of the Fourth Servant song was Hezekiah's bout with the plague. That, of course, makes that chapter pre-exilic.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/default.htm

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, Margaret should pay you royalties.

[Irondukesteve]

...being completely unaware of a body of scholarship is a far different thing than (having given it serious consideration and, on that basis, having judged it deficient) consciously deciding to pay no more attention to it. If you have evidence that any statistically significant proportion of the non-LDS scholarly community has rejected Mormon scholarship after seriously engaging it and, thus, has chosen to ignore it from now on, please do share that evidence with us.

Again

Hey DCP, I chatted to Dr. John H. Taylor a deputy curator of Egyptian and Somalian studies at the British Museum about the articles of John Gee and Ashment. He said that he had never heard of them. But that after reading them and having a quick look at the Book of Abraham he found that he sided more with Ashment. He is, however, a specialist in the 3rd dynasty and reffered me to Jan Assman. I am waiting for his e-mail to pose the question to him and perhaps his views on the BoA. Chances are that he will be too busy to write but I thought I would give it a shot. Dr. Taylor said that, even though Gee's article was pleasantly amusing, he though Ashment's article was more logical and in line with mainstream Egyptology. Having never heard of Ashment or Gee he feels that they have probably "self-marginalized" themselves from the rest of the scholarly community on Egyptian Studies. He said that if Gee is indeed wrong in his interpretations of the iconography then his essay would not be taken seriously my the scholarly community. However, at first glances he did say that it was well cited and very scholarly work. However, he was not familiar with the texts and told me to e-mail or write Assman. I will do just that once I get an address. He also agreed with me that Joseph Smith didnt know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs and that some material in the Book of Abraham was questionable when compared to mainstream Egyptology(i.e. of no value to Egyptologists). He was a pleasant and lovely guy, and by no means an "Anthon" character. lol Just to let you know what I discovered this week....

[Pahoran]

Hey DCP, I chatted to Dr. John H. Taylor a deputy curator of Egyptian and Somalian studies at the British Museum about the articles of John Gee and Ashment. He said that he had never heard of them. But that after reading them and having a quick look at the Book of Abraham he found that he sided more with Ashment. He is, however, a specialist in the 3rd dynasty and reffered me to Jan Assman. I am waiting for his e-mail to pose the question to him and perhaps his views on the BoA. Chances are that he will be too busy to write but I thought I would give it a shot. Dr. Taylor said that, even though Gee's article was pleasantly amusing, he though Ashment's article was more logical and in line with mainstream Egyptology. Having never heard of Ashment or Gee he feels that they have probably "self-marginalized" themselves from the rest of the scholarly community on Egyptian Studies. He said that if Gee is indeed wrong in his interpretations of the iconography then his essay would not be taken seriously my the scholarly community. However, at first glances he did say that it was well cited and very scholarly work. However, he was not familiar with the texts and told me to e-mail or write Assman. I will do just that once I get an address. He also agreed with me that Joseph Smith didnt know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs and that some material in the Book of Abraham was questionable when compared to mainstream Egyptology(i.e. of no value to Egyptologists). He was a pleasant and lovely guy, and by no means an "Anthon" character. lol Just to let you know what I discovered this week....

Given that you were bragging in advance of the result you intended to get from this interview, and given that you were controlling the delightful fellow's access to the documents in question, and given that we have no independent witness to your story, I'm wondering what else we should have expected you to now say?

In any event, once we take out your heavy layers of editorial interference, we come down to this:

However, he was not familiar with the texts

Which is really the only pertinent fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

I donâ??t doubt that â??most scholarsâ? pay little attention to Mormonism. I suspect they find little reason to pay attention to it, because it offers so little in the way of objective â??evaluation standardsâ? in general. It is, after all, a history dependent on â??emotionsâ? as opposed to objective scholarly acceptance.

Well now, it could indeed be that some of them share your vast prejudice and total a priori disdain for all things Mormon; indeed, I would be surprised if none of them did, but the main reason why they are unlikely to pay little attention to it is that it falls outside their area of expertise.

Can you provide a more detailed â??claimedâ? actual record or account of a history, than what is provided in the BOM, for which there is so little interest shown by our academic community. Even with the likes of the supposed great and accepted scholars of Clark and Sorenson, it seems quite obvious that their peer group has no real motivation for even engaging in a passing interest their scholarship. Why not???

Plenty of reasons; the kind of prejudice demonstrated by your sneering, supercilious ridicule is not confined excusively to complete ignoramuses. However, the main reason is that the claims of The Book of Mormon are mostly out of reach of the tools of secular scholarship.

So before you ask me to identify the statistics of those who have studied and rejected the likes of the supposed â??great scholarly worksâ? defending the historicity of the BOM (the most obvious â??red herringâ?) perhaps you could identify those who have been convinced by the likes of Clark and Sorenson within their professional peer group! Or you could explain why a claimed â??historic documentâ? garners so little interest.

Remember the acclaimed critical thinker Edward de Bono:

â??An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.â?

And she gets to that stage by a very long process of ever-increasing specialisation; that is, every expert is necessarily expert in only a very narrow field of knowledge.

There is always more to the story than mere slogans, Ref.

Regards,

Pahoran