As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[Gervin]

And truth should be used more "around here".

He promotes on his website "The Bible vs The Book of Mormon" DVD to people who are being "wooed by Mormons". My link

The lies of the DVD can be examined here. My link

The request was for an example of the "deceptive lies" of the DVD that Brant exposes, not a link to the article. Perhaps you've become less confident they exist ...

[thews]

That is the beauty of the message that the representatives of the Lord share. You don't have to accept it. You are only encouraged to listen to the message and take it to the source of all truth. Everyone in the world, including those who believe in the Lord will have that opportunity and on their own free will, reject or accept the message.

Please tell me that this isn't the "new tactic" of EVs? To appear on the surface to be "nicey nice", but underneath still use and recommend the same deception? You say you use no tactics, but only speak truth - then show us by action and not by mere words and remove the "recommendation" to view a known and proven lie.

Can you be specific regarding the main point you claim is a "known and proven lie"?

[Eldwynn]

I grew up in the church, and leaving it meant leaving most of my family behind. I guess I am a critic of the church because if it is true, I would really like to know. Thus far, I find it to be problematic with my own view with how the world operates.

As it stands I just can't- in good faith (har har)- accept it. Discussing it just reminds me of my entire culture (grew up in Springville Utah). I suppose it's a bit nostalgic.

[bookofmormontruth]

The request was for an example of the "deceptive lies" of the DVD that Brant exposes, not a link to the article. Perhaps you've become less confident they exist ...

Or perhaps the link provides ample evidence of the lies? I know it is a long read, but I will leave it to the experts to dissect the DVD which Brant Gardner brilliantly did like a brain surgeon.

"The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon 'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven." Hugh Nibley

Here is the classic example of how anti-Mormons desperately use their deceptive lies which the DVD follows this same predicted pattern. Imagine that! And of course this DVD is a "recommendation" from IRR in case someone is being "wooed".

[bookofmormontruth]

Can you be specific regarding the main point you claim is a "known and proven lie"?

Volgadon is still waiting for an answer.

[bookofmormontruth]

I grew up in the church, and leaving it meant leaving most of my family behind. I guess I am a critic of the church because if it is true, I would really like to know. Thus far, I find it to be problematic with my own view with how the world operates.

As it stands I just can't- in good faith (har har)- accept it. Discussing it just reminds me of my entire culture (grew up in Springville Utah). I suppose it's a bit nostalgic.

You "guess"?

I would definitely would want to know for sure, but that is just me.

In this case I wouldn't define you as a critic, a different category.

[Eldwynn]

You "guess"?

I would definitely would want to know for sure, but that is just me.

In this case I wouldn't define you as a critic, a different category.

I don't know anything for sure Sorry if my rhetoric bothers you.

[thews]

Volgadon is still waiting for an answer.

You stated there were known and "proven" lies. I'd like to know what you deem is a proven lie.

[Mudcat]

Volgadon is still waiting for an answer.

I don't see what difference that makes?

Volgadon has not posted in this thread.

[Kevin Christensen]

BOMT,

Before I go to the trouble of reading the entire lengthy review of The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon (which I'm willing to do), please name for me one of the "deceptive lies" of the DVD that Brant exposes. And please make sure it is a lie, not simply a difference in interpretation.

How about this from Gardner's review?

In discussing the Book of Mormon we have the second “optical illusion” in this section when the film zooms to a verse in the Book of Mormon (the first was panning an empty landscape while speaking of Jaredite cities): “Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots” (2 Nephi 12:7), suggesting that Book of Mormon culture includes vast numbers of horses and chariots.

What the editors do not tell the viewer is that the verse is a direct quotation of Isaiah 2:7. It may be in the Book of Mormon, but it refers to the Old World. Since the heading of the chapter clearly indicates that it comes from Isaiah, I cannot imagine how the editors could have made the mistake of assuming that this referred to the New World. If they were close enough to take the picture they used, they were close enough to see that this verse was a quotation from Isaiah. The only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive. Ironically, then, the most damning passage about horses they could find in the Book of Mormon is from Isaiah.

The deception continues in the narration: “The Book of Mormon describes the use of horse-drawn chariots during massive battles involving tens of thousands of warriors.” This might seem plausible to one who has never read the Book of Mormon and has seen only the Isaiah passage. The statement is absolutely incorrect. Nothing like it appears in the text of the Book of Mormon. Horses are never ridden. Horses are never described as pulling chariots (though we do see the phrase horses and chariots in the text). No battle scene includes either horses or chariots.[24]

One would think that the film's “Latter-day Saint experts” would have corrected such an error of fact. Unfortunately, the expert quoted makes the very same factual error. “So the stories of riding horses into battle,” Wilson claims, “could not have occurred in the Americas.” Stories of riding horses into battle do not occur in the Book of Mormon. Wilson's conclusion demonstrates that he has not read the Book of Mormon carefully or that he is simply willing to invent statements about it.

All of Brant's work is worth careful consideration.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Arggh.

Brant raises a couple of very good points. The film's use of 2 Nephi 12:7 to document the plenitude of horses in the Book of Mormon lands is inexcusably sloppy at best. I hesitate to agree with him that their intention must have been deliberate deception, but I can see how a Mormon could draw such a conclusion.

Brant comments, "Ironically, then, the most damning passage about horses they could find in the Book of Mormon is from Isaiah." But the irony is that there were other verses in the Book of Mormon that the film could have cited to make the very same point. The Book of Mormon reports that when Lehi's family arrived in the new promised land they found "the horse" there along with the cow, the ox, the goat, and other animals suitable for domesticated use (1 Ne. 18:25). It says that there were "many horses" (Enos 1:21) and makes several other references to horses. I'm guessing that the film's producers liked 2 Nephi 12:7 because it said the land was "full" of horses and didn't notice (or care, you might argue) that the verse was a quotation from Isaiah about the Old World. But they could have made the same point using verses that are clearly about the New World. I could, I suppose, grouse about the fact that Brant neglects to mention that such verses exist (he cites Book of Mormon references to horses in an endnote and doesn't acknowledge that they clearly place horses in the Old World), but he is certainly right about the citation of 2 Nephi 12:7 being egregiously misused.

Brant also scores a strong half point, when he points out that the Book of Mormon does not refer to horse-drawn chariots being used in battles. That's correct, it doesn't actually say that. I can only give him half a point here because Brant himself obscures the facts here (sorry, Brant). Brant states, "Horses are never ridden," but the documentary doesn't claim that the Book of Mormon reports people riding horses. He then states, "Horses are never described as pulling chariots (though we do see the phrase horses and chariots in the text)." This is a rather lawyerly parsing of the text. Horses and chariots are spoken of together six times in four separate passages in the Book of Mormon (Alma 18:9, 10, 12; 20:6; 3 Ne. 3:22; 21:14). It is reasonable clear from these texts that the horses pulled the chariots (after all, something had to pull them!). So while the text may not actually "describe" horses pulling chariots, it clearly enough does speak of horse-drawn chariots. Now, if the Book of Mormon peoples had horses and chariots, I don't know why they would not use them in battle, at least for the military leaders. So it seems a reasonable enough inference that they would have been so used, though again Brant is correct that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly report such usage.

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

You have brought up a serious enough criticism that I will read Brant's entire review and consider his criticisms seriously. If I decide that the DVD is seriously flawed on a number of issues, I will recommend that IRR discontinue recommending it.

[Vance]

It says that there were "many horses" (Enos 1:21) and makes several other references to horses.

. . .

But they could have made the same point using verses that are clearly about the New World.

Let's add context shall we.

Enos 1:21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

22 And there were exceedingly many prophets among us. And the people were a stiffnecked people, hard to understand.

So, NO, they couldn't. "Exceedingly many" is more than "many". Obviously there weren't more prophets than there were people. And OBVIOUSLY there were few horses than there were prophets and far fewer horses than there were people.

Despite your claims like "It should go without saying that the only proper and legitimate way to defend the truth is to speak the truth", here you are defending falsehoods and deception.

And what about this statement?

"If we are truly honest, we will represent what others believe as fairly and accurately as possible."

So by your own definition the DVD that you recommend is dishonest, because it doesn't "fairly and accurately as possible" represent the Book of Mormon.

So can we expect you to remove your recommendation (something you shouldn't have given in the first place without checking it out) for this DVD?

[Vance]

Here "many horses" are shown as one.

Here "many horses" are shown as one.

Here "many horses" are shown as one.

Does anyone NOT recognize "artistic license" when they see it?

Anyone?

[bookofmormontruth]

You have brought up a serious enough criticism that I will read Brant's entire review and consider his criticisms seriously. If I decide that the DVD is seriously flawed on a number of issues, I will recommend that IRR discontinue recommending it.

"Flawed"? It is blatant lying!

The same standard and predictable tactics used by all anti-Mormon critics and the likes. Nothing has changed, they can never stand behind truth in any way shape or form no matter how much they try to "polish" their tarnished images.

I say keep it up on your website, I would hate to see you lose your salary/gain over something so "flawed".

*sigh*

Same BUSINESS as usual. I am sorely disappointed, but deep down - not surprised where this thread has ended.

I will stick with what the Book of Mormon says:

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

21 And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice. My link

Sounds eerily familiar.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Arggh.

Brant raises a couple of very good points. The film's use of 2 Nephi 12:7 to document the plenitude of horses in the Book of Mormon lands is inexcusably sloppy at best. I hesitate to agree with him that their intention must have been deliberate deception, but I can see how a Mormon could draw such a conclusion.

I think "sloppy" is a fair description. Personally, in all of the published criticism of the LDS that I've read, I find that overt dishonesty is rare. Mis-perception and carelessness are very common.

Brant comments, "Ironically, then, the most damning passage about horses they could find in the Book of Mormon is from Isaiah." But the irony is that there were other verses in the Book of Mormon that the film could have cited to make the very same point. The Book of Mormon reports that when Lehi's family arrived in the new promised land they found "the horse" there along with the cow, the ox, the goat, and other animals suitable for domesticated use (1 Ne. 18:25). It says that there were "many horses" (Enos 1:21) and makes several other references to horses. I'm guessing that the film's producers liked 2 Nephi 12:7 because it said the land was "full" of horses and didn't notice (or care, you might argue) that the verse was a quotation from Isaiah about the Old World. But they could have made the same point using verses that are clearly about the New World. I could, I suppose, grouse about the fact that Brant neglects to mention that such verses exist (he cites Book of Mormon references to horses in an endnote and doesn't acknowledge that they clearly place horses in the Old World), but he is certainly right about the citation of 2 Nephi 12:7 being egregiously misused.

The best practice would be to cite all of the Book of Mormon passages that mention horses and consider them in narrative context, and against the best New World corrolation. It becomes clear that horses are not mentioned often. They are never ridden, never saddled, bridled, hitched to plows. Ben McGuire has pointed that the horses don't demonstrate much characteristic horse behavior or culture.

Brant also scores a strong half point, when he points out that the Book of Mormon does not refer to horse-drawn chariots being used in battles. That's correct, it doesn't actually say that. I can only give him half a point here because Brant himself obscures the facts here (sorry, Brant). Brant states, "Horses are never ridden," but the documentary doesn't claim that the Book of Mormon reports people riding horses. He then states, "Horses are never described as pulling chariots (though we do see the phrase horses and chariots in the text)." This is a rather lawyerly parsing of the text. Horses and chariots are spoken of together six times in four separate passages in the Book of Mormon (Alma 18:9, 10, 12; 20:6; 3 Ne. 3:22; 21:14). It is reasonable clear from these texts that the horses pulled the chariots (after all, something had to pull them!). So while the text may not actually "describe" horses pulling chariots, it clearly enough does speak of horse-drawn chariots.

In the Ammon and Lamoni narrative, they appear in connection with a King's chariot, but the chariot is never described. Welch pointed out that the Hebrew word for chariot means "riding thing," which is ambiguous. The passages in Alma and in Helaman both appear to describe ceremonial transport. I can imagine a variety of forms of ceremonial transport that would be useless in Mesoamerican combat. But contextualization is going to be a far more reliable guide than presentism or unfettered imagination.

Now, if the Book of Mormon peoples had horses and chariots, I don't know why they would not use them in battle, at least for the military leaders. So it seems a reasonable enough inference that they would have been so used, though again Brant is correct that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly report such usage.

Since two of the major authors of the Book of Mormon were military men, they display substantial military knowledge (see the essays in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, as well as Nibley's discussion in Since Cumorah), to the point of describing 100 distinct wars, and they describe the tactical importance and use of various weapons,personal armor, or the lack thereof and innovations, fortifications, and lots of marching, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the consistent silence on presence and use of horses means something as well.

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

Sloppiness, careless reading, presentism, reading one's own culture into the text rather than taking the advice in 2 Nephi 25:1-5 seriously, that we cannot read a text from from another culture the way that they authors did without being taught about that culture. It's the very same "mote-eye" principle that Jesus taught. Do we look to Medieval and Renaissance art to understand Biblical culture? In some cases our familiarity with famously paradigmatic works of art prevents us from properly visualizing the texts we have. However, that does not mean that devotional art, no matter how careless, does not have its place. It just needs to be recognized for what it is not, as well as what it is.

You have brought up a serious enough criticism that I will read Brant's entire review and consider his criticisms seriously. If I decide that the DVD is seriously flawed on a number of issues, I will recommend that IRR discontinue recommending it.

Fair enough.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

You get it--the issue is whether your beliefs are true. If they are, opposing them is a mistake. If they are not true, then advocating them is a mistake. In either case, the issue is truth.

I think the issue is more certainty and how and why you get there, not "truth".

One is only a critic if one is certain that the other guy is wrong.

That doesn't have much to do with truth.

[Vance]

I think the issue is more certainty and how and why you get there, not "truth".

Ah, yes, one of the issues that Bowman studiously avoids.

[Rob Bowman]

So, you aren't certain that I am wrong?

I think the issue is more certainty and how and why you get there, not "truth".

One is only a critic if one is certain that the other guy is wrong.

That doesn't have much to do with truth.

[Vance]

So, you aren't certain that I am wrong?

Wow!!

How did you get THAT from THIS?

I think the issue is more certainty and how and why you get there, not "truth".

One is only a critic if one is certain that the other guy is wrong.

That doesn't have much to do with truth.

[Mars]

I think God will honor service to Him, even if it was done in the name of someone or something else, if that service was performed to the deity of the adherent's choosing in honesty, integrity, and according to the right and wrong the adherent had been taught. In this case, which can be applied to the many who have lived and died without hearing of the name of Jesus, it's not so much a matter of whether or not they were right or wrong, but what they chose to do with the knowledge they did have.

[mfbukowski]

So, you aren't certain that I am wrong?

Did I say I wasn't?

I am critical of your position and I am certain you are wrong, yes, primarily because I think your position is inconsistent. Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

My purpose or motivation in criticizing your position is to show that it is inconsistent. Incidentally, on a personal basis I tend to like you more and more over time. I sincerely think that you think you are right and doing the right thing by trying to show us the error of our ways.

But I think it is important to realize that my position with you is always as a "defender", whereas I see your activity with IRR as "aggressive"- I do not have a website devoted to showing how "wrong" you are- I simply try to show inconsistencies of your positions when you appear in my living room to tell me I am wrong.

[thews]

Or perhaps the link provides ample evidence of the lies?

You continue to state what you believe to be lies without defining what the supposed lies are, or which have been "proven" as lies. Please be specific... what points are you claiming are lies, based on what facts? What's the top one specific "lie"?

[bookofmormontruth]

You continue to state what you believe to be lies without defining what the supposed lies are, or which have been "proven" as lies. Please be specific... what points are you claiming are lies, based on what facts? What's the top one specific "lie"?

Look, I understand it is an automatic response to be on the opposite side of the Lord's Church and support any material that has a sole purpose to destroy the veracity of the Book of Mormon. You have that right, but it will never completely pacify your own desperate needs. The Lord's Church will remain true, sorry.

I can't help you with this suggestion, but in the least, follow the thread and read all the posts so you don't have to ask redundantly of an already answered question that Brant Gardner dissected in detail. I am not going to repeat myself "over and over" in order for you to keep up. Work on that suggestion and maybe, just maybe answer Volgadon's unanswered question if you don't want a taste of your own medicine.

[thews]

Look, I understand it is an automatic response to be on the opposite side of the Lord's Church and support any material that has a sole purpose to destroy the veracity of the Book of Mormon. You have that right, but it will never completely pacify your own desperate needs. The Lord's Church will remain true, sorry.

This is a discussion board dedicated to Mormon apologetics... no? I'm attempting to understand your point, but in making blatant claims that someone has "lied" and this lie is "proven" should be based on an argument. All I'm asking for is to be specific in what your argument is based upon.

I can't help you with this suggestion, but in the least, follow the thread and read all the posts so you don't have to ask redundantly of an already answered question that Brant Gardner dissected in detail. I am not going to repeat myself "over and over" in order for you to keep up. Work on that suggestion and maybe, just maybe answer Volgadon's unanswered question if you don't want a taste of your own medicine.

Based on the above, if I'm correct your claiming that Brandt's argument is fact. There are many points of contention and I'm only asking you for one. If you don't wish to help me understand you, ok, I won't ask again, but I think the accusation of "lies" and "proven lies" should be based on specific arguments rather than an overall opinion.

[bookofmormontruth]

This is a discussion board dedicated to Mormon apologetics... no? I'm attempting to understand your point, but in making blatant claims that someone has "lied" and this lie is "proven" should be based on an argument. All I'm asking for is to be specific in what your argument is based upon.

Based on the above, if I'm correct your claiming that Brandt's argument is fact. There are many points of contention and I'm only asking you for one. If you don't wish to help me understand you, ok, I won't ask again, but I think the accusation of "lies" and "proven lies" should be based on specific arguments rather than an overall opinion.

Look, I know what you are doing, you are all a dime a dozen, nothing new and Pahoran definitely nailed it.

I am also no apologist.