Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[mikeuu]

My opinion is the result of examining all the evidence I could find that would suggest the type of translation. I found that the majority of the time it was a functional translation. In some cases, principally in names (and perhaps name-titles) that it appears to have been more literal. I found a couple of cases where I could support a conceptual translation. It is just that the vast majority of the time the evidence suggests a functional translation, so that is the best default assumption.

I did find evidence that Joseph saw while translating, but not that he saw words that God put there for him to read.

Another question.

If the prophet in conference(or in some other official setting) described the translation process in a way that directly opposed your thinking would that cause you to:

1. question the church, if the keystone crumbles so does the church
   
2. question the prophet, thinking he got it wrong
   
3. re-evaluate you own ideas, admitting to yourself you must be wrong
   
4. all of the above
   
5. none of the above
   

Let me know if you get tired of my questions. Thanks.

[Gervin]

You seem determined to make the book what it is not. None of these assertions are made in the book.

I said: Jews came to the New World with their seeds and started successfully growing their own unique crops. You claim it's not in the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 18: 24 says:

"And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance."

How is my assertion wrong?

I said they practiced their own unique religion. You claim this is not in the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 5:10 says:

"And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses.

How is my assertion that Nephites practiced a religion unique from the Mayan or any mesomaerican religion, false?

I said they found animals in the wilderness unique to Mesoamerica. You say this is not in the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 18: 25 says:

"And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat"

So how is my assertion wrong?

Buildings and Temples: 2 Nephi 5: 15-16: And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

​The problem is, I don't think you have actually read the Book of Mormon.

I have.

I do not know of many cultural groups that have migrated to North America and remained 'unique'.

Yeah, from the mah-jongg parlors in Chinatown, San Francisco, to the ice houses in San Antonio with their conjunto music, to the Amish farmers market in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to the Hasidic film festival in Williamsburg, NY, to the Black Catholic Ministries Eucharist celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King next month ... there really is nothing unique in American culture.

[Gervin]

Please refer to the archaeology of the Holy Land. I can't imagine any archaeologist agreeing with that statement.

My response was to your claim that Nephite culture would not be unique enough to stand out or be discernible in Mayan material culture. If you want to talk about Holy land archaeology, start a thread on the topic.

As an aniconic religion, what would you think would produce the material evidence for this?

A symbolic example would be the meorah, a structural example would be a temple built in the manner of Solomon's temple.

Like the Old World, where they borrowed architectural models from other peoples and were not unique?

Please, make a case that a Mayan temple and a Jewish temple would be indiscernible.

Which we can only say was used for the plate records. There is no indication that it was used for any other purpose. See Church Latin.

You can say it was used only for plate records but provide the evidence or scripture that indicates this. This writing style had to be taught and passed down through generations. Any examples of this happening in a real life situation?

Readeth more Old World archaeology.

That's actually my problem; I've seen and read enough that I find your claim that Old World archaeological evidence contains Nephite artifacts to be laughable, at best. Of course, if your theory was presented to an Old World archaeological society, university, or symposium you wouldn't be able to support it by telling your audience to "read more Old World archaeology." Which is why you probably wisely avoid that level of interaction.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Gervin

[Bill Hamblin]

A symbolic example would be the meorah, a structural example would be a temple built in the manner of Solomon's temple.

Please, make a case that a Mayan temple and a Jewish temple would be indiscernible.

Let's just try one issue.

The earliest artistic or archaeological evidence of Menorahs date to the first century BC, over a thousand years after the Bible claims it was made.

Why then is the lack of a menorah in Mesoamerica significant?

There is no archaeological evidence of Solomon's Temple at all. None.

Why then is the lack of evidence of a Nephite temple significant?

Based on the descriptions of Solomon's temple in the Bible, it is precisely like Canaanite temples in form and construction.

See Dever, What did the Biblical Writers Know?, (2003) 144-157

It is likewise impossible to distinguish Israelite cities, houses or pots from Canaanite.

Why should we possibly think that we should be able to distinguish a Nephite pro from a Maya pot?

The point is, without the Bible, Israel would be essentially invisible based on the archaeological record alone.

[Freedom]

Yeah, from the mah-jongg parlors in Chinatown, San Francisco, to the ice houses in San Antonio with their conjunto music, to the Amish farmers market in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to the Hasidic film festival in Williamsburg, NY, to the Black Catholic Ministries Eucharist celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King next month ... there really is nothing unique in American culture.

I assure you that if you went into the houses of the people that practice these faiths, their houses will look just like yours and their clothes will look just like yours, with the exception of those very few who isolate themselves from society. The Nephites were not such a group so they would have looked just like everybody else.

You provide a reference to planting old world crops in the first year of more than a 2,000 year history. Did it occur to you that the Europeans did the same thing when they arrived? Eventually they just started to eat the local foods.

You note that they had a different religion, how does this practice make them look unique? How would this show up in the archaeological record? How different does a Catholic look from a Christian Scientist? Remember, we are talking about pots, carved figurines and some references to a pagan religion in archaeological sights largely outside of the realm where the Book of Mormon events likely took place. A religion that was practiced by the ruling elite, not necessarily the general population. What can you tell me about the practices of the common folk at La Venta in 400 bc? Can you prove what the farmers and fishermen looked like and how they practiced their religion? I suspect you have no idea so you are arguing from silence. Do you even know what type of city La Venta was and how many, if any, buildings have been found there?

The animals have nothing to do with what a Nephite would look like but none of these animals pose a problem. Very few animal remains have been found so we have no idea what animals would have been around. Not enough information is available at this time.

Temples like unto solomons: what material was used to make these temples? All that remains are the major structures made of stone and some of these have inner courts and outer courts; nevertheless, so little work has been done that it is not possible to paint an accurate picture of what their buildings looked like. We are talking about one structure among countless thousands in a region where a few hundred of countless thousands of buildings have been uncovered. Of course, Solomon's temple did not survive so we have nothing to compare it to other than the description. So you are ok with Solomons' temple not being found but we need to find the Nephite temple that should look like Solomons temple which nobody has seen. The Mayan temples post date the Nephite civilization and few of the sites in the region that have proposed as Nephite locations have been investigated yet. Remember, archaeologists had been looking in earnest for the library of Alexandria for decades and it was only just discovered a few years ago. Tell me, did you insist that this library was a falsehood back in 2005?

You have failed to demonstrate how a Nephite should look and why their pots and figurines would be different than the Mayan styled pots and figurines. Further you failed to provide any evidence that the Nephites had a unique look, only that they had some unique beliefs.

[Freedom]

Please, make a case that a Mayan temple and a Jewish temple would be indiscernible.

You are the expert, you tell us how they are different. For Solomons temple we need an outer courtyard and an inner court yard with an altar at one end. That would be the manner of the temple. As I informed you, the Mayan temples post date the Nephite civilization, so let us know what the contemporary temples in western Guatamala looked like in 600 bc. You do understand, of course, that the Nephites abandoned this Solomon like temple within a few hundred years and subsequent temples are not described so we have no idea what they would have looked like. There is no justification in the text to say that the Nephite temples looked like the temple in Jerusalem. Even LDS temples, despite their very specific use, look very different in design from each other yet I would say that they are built after the same manner as the Salt Lake Temple.

[volgadon]

A symbolic example would be the meorah, a structural example would be a temple built in the manner of Solomon's temple.

Please show me where any First Temple Era depictions of a menorah have been found.

[zerinus]

I just had a chance to listen to the third podcast in the series, and here are some of my thoughts on the subject. The quotes are transcribed by hand and may not be verbatim accurate:

The best information we have is that Joseph Smith who was this village seer and who understood what a seer stone was got hold of the interpreters in the Book of Mormon which were delivered with the plates, and he understood them as though they were seer stones and thought they were wonderful and apparently used them to translate the 116 pages that were lost.

That attributes very little intelligence to Joseph Smith, to God, to Moroni, and to other angels who tutored Joseph Smith for four years prior to obtaining the plates, and prepared him to act as a seer to translate them. Joseph Smith did not just stumble upon the plates and the Urim and Thumim while walking his dog in the woods. They were revealed to him by an angel, and he was tutored for four years by angelic ministration on how to act as a seer not only to translate the plates, but to be a prophets of the restoration. Brant’s portrayal of Joseph Smith as this village idiot/seer who half the time didn’t know what he was doing doesn’t quite match the description. Then he continues:

It appears that they were returned with the plates [i.e. to Moroni], and that Joseph Smith after that point in time no longer had those interpreters that had been delivered with the plates, and it appears that all of the text of the Book of Mormon that we have was translated with a seer stone.

Again that is not borne out by available evidence. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord explains it as follows:

D&C 10:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.

This cannot be understood in any other way than that the Lord returned to Joseph Smith the Urim and the Thummim with the plates; and Oliver Cowdery, who acted as his chief scribe, and was closer to him than anyone else during the translation process, beard witness that he not only had the Urim and Thummim, but actually translated the Book of Mormon by them:

And Oliver Cowdery wrote: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called 'The Book of Mormon.' (JS–H 1:71, footnote.)

Furthermore, Martin Harris states that Joseph Smith had the seer stone before he lost the 116 pages, and that he also used them in part to translate some of those pages:

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881 in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

And the way you use a seer stone is that you a seer stone is to put it in the crown of a hat and put our head in the hat to exclude all light, and that process mechanically is how you use them no matter how you are going to use them or what you are going to use them for, and that somehow that is how you are getting the translation.

Brant seems to know a lot about using seer stones. I don’t know a lot of examples of other people using seer stones to be able to make such definitive statements about their use. After that the following exchanges take place between the presenter and Brtant:

Q. Did Joseph ever describe the mechanics by which he translated, or did he ever describe his process?

A. Joseph basically said one thing: he translated by the gift and the power of God. That is it. That is all he says ... the only thing he is really on record saying about the process is that he translated through the gift and power of God.

He did say that he translated them by the gift and power of God; but he is also on record saying that he translated by the Urim and Thummim.

Q. He did use the word translate?

A. Oh yes, he did certainly use the word translate. I strongly suspect that he used the word translate in a very different term than we do. For him translate wasn’t in the way we think a linguist going through a text. For him something was “translated” if it was made understandable. So when he translated the Bible, it was not from an original language. It was from English to a version of English that made things more understandable. So his concept of translation was different from what we believe it to be.

That theory presents a problem: how do you explain the extensive additions Joseph made to the text of the Bible in various places, such as the book of Moses for example, and smaller but still significant additions he made to the New Testament? These additions don’t just “clarify” things. They either change the meaning of the text, or add material and information that wasn’t there before. How can that be described merely as "making things more understandable"? Does "making things more understandable" include inventing new stuff out of whole cloth?

Edited January 9, 2012 by zerinus

[mathilde]

Around the 10 minute mark, Brant Gardner talks about the filmstrip Ancient America Speaks. Like many missionaries he showed this film on his mission. When he went to BYU after his mission he found professors who used this film as comedy because of its many errors. I think I can understand how Mr. Gardner interprets revelation, that the Lord works through imperfect humans.

However, I can still do a search of Quetzalcoatl on the church website and find quite a few articles that link him to Christ -- no correction of this information anywhere on the church site that I can find. It is one thing to be accidentally misleading in the 1970's because of a lack of understanding or incorrect scholarship. But to not have openly corrected that misinformation more than 40 years later is definitely misleading.

[Brant Gardner]

But to not have openly corrected that misinformation more than 40 years later is definitely misleading.

You give me far too much credit. The historical momentum behind the idea takes a long time to change. Even among those who are aware of my research, there are many who prefer the old paradigm. Slow change is par for the course when a topic becomes connected to religion in any way. I'm not unhappy with the pace, even if I might like it to be faster.

[mathilde]

I understand the idea that historical momentum behind any idea takes a long time to change. I however do not think that correcting the inaccuracies of this particular film should be dependent on your own or any one person's research, especially in light of the fact that you said there were BYU professors years ago laughing about its flaws, and I do think that 40 years is long enough.

Slow change does not have to be par for the course for relatively small changes like this.

[Craig Paxton]

Well I wanted to again applaud Brant on the originality of his functional translation premise. It certainly offers protection against the many “translation” difficulties found in the Book of Mormon. So now that we know that the Book of Mormon is full of errors, can we once and for all dismiss it as the most correct book of any on the earth? Accept that God did not dictate words from His mouth to Joseph’s ear thus giving word for word what Joseph should dictate…that the translation process was much more fuzzy and nuanced. That God allowed Joseph to put his own words into the Book of Mormon in place of the text written in reformed Egyptian (whatever that is) by Mormon on the golden plates.

The Book of Mormon rather than a solid rock of actual reliable history…has become a much more fluid and fuzzy, functional book…with many interpretations of man (Joseph) inserted. With this new found knowledge of Brant’s hypothesis …the stories in the Book of Mormon …aren’t quite as rock solid as they might have been before Brant’s translation thesis. Can we really believe that there really was an Abinidi or Mosiah or Moroni or where these just words made up by Joseph because he didn’t know what the actual Nephite words were? Did Joseph mistranslate these words too and insert words that he felt fit rather than words that were actually there? With a functional translation…nothing can be held as original to the golden place…every single word must come under new scrutiny. Was it Joseph’s words or was it Mormon’s words? I guess the only way to tell is if the word acts like a word.

Another question is whether or not Joseph’s inability to use the correct words were only limited to nouns such as horse, steel, wheat, chariot etc…or if these errors also applied to verbs, adjectives, pronouns etc.?

If the original words have no solid basis or meaning in trusting their reliability…why should anyone relay on any of the words found in this nuanced translation that became the Book of Mormon?

On another point, I’ve been asked several times what a Nephite artifact looks like…well I believe that that question deserves an answer also. So here is my answer. It would look like nothing…personally I believe the whole Nephite civilization is fiction. Fictional civilizations don’t leave any evidence behind of their existence because …ahh…they’re fictitious. Fictions don’t leave evidence...so it stands to reason that no Nephite artifacts will ever be found. I’ve been asked what a Nephite artifact might look like and been told by posters on this board that they don’t know what they look like and that perhaps some have even been found…suggesting that ancient American civilization artifact could in fact be Nephite…yet there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that this is true. There is nothing to suggest that ancient American civilizations were influenced by any old world civilizations. It’s a bold claim…but it is smoke in a bottle.

I guess that one could also argue the obvious projection that Brant is attempting foist on the believing church member…that Mayan artifacts are actually Nephite artifacts. Why would he argue this…well the answer is obvious…because he cannot produce a single Nephite artifact nor can he provide a single example of an ancient American artifact that has been influenced by old world civilizations prior to 1492….save those brought across the Bering Strait in 14,000BCE

Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Pahoran]

Craig,

I'd like to thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is clear that Brant has the upper hand in this discussion, and your convoluted attempts to criticise him bear this out. For example:

I’ve just finished listening to 4 of the 5 hours of Brant Garner’s interview with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast….and all I can say is my head hurts. I’m really trying to understand what Brant is trying to describe…but what I’m hearing is reflective of Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky testimony when he is famously quoted for responding to a question with…”it depends on what the meaning of IS is”.

Thank you. So you signal your utmost bad faith from the outset by an attempt at smearing by association. Since that is a tool of last resort among the most unprincipled demagogues, the fact that it is a tool of first resort for you is highly telling.

In Brant’s version of events…words hold no meaning. A horse doesn’t mean a horse…skin doesn’t mean skin…wheat doesn’t mean wheat…in fact, coincidently, words have no meaning in the exact same areas where science doesn’t support the Book of Mormon's claims...what are the odds? I find this coincidence convenient and interesting. If only certain Book of Mormon words have no meaning and can be discounted when awkward…why hold firm meaning to any of its words? Doesn’t this interpretation undermine the credibility of the entire book?

No, it does not. But I agree that it's the best you've got, so you'd better milk it for all it's worth.

At one point Brant is asked to respond to a listeners question which was something like…”Can you name any other civilization, other than the Nephites, that existed in reality yet left not one shred of evidence of their existence?”

Umm, Craig? Do you have any idea how daft that question is?

If a civilisation "left not one shred of evidence of their existence," then how do you propose that we know it was ever there in the first place? IOW, how could Brant -- or anyone else -- know of such a civilisation?

Well, Duh!

Brant responded to this question by suggesting that actually we have found lots of evidence for the Nephite civilization…it’s just that we don’t know that the evidence we’ve found is Nephite evidence because we don’t know what Nephite artifacts look like. He then asks...”What does a Nephite house look like or Nephite pottery?” HUH??? Assigning a Nephite name to Mayan artifacts does not make them Nephite…and perhaps…just perhaps…the reason we’ve found no Nephite artifacts is because there are no Nephite artifacts to find. One thing I do know to be true is that fictoinal civilzations don’t leave behind evidence of their existence…because ahhhh...they're fictional.

This is an example of "begging the question." And your artificial indignation about "assigning a Nephite name to Mayan artifacts" is remarkably manipulative.

If this is the best you've got, Brant must be on to something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[morgan.deane]

On another point, I’ve been asked several times what a Nephite artifact looks like…well I believe that that question deserves an answer also. So here is my answer. It would look like nothing…personally I believe the whole Nephite civilization is fiction. Fictional civilizations don’t leave any evidence behind of their existence because …ahh…they’re fictitious. Fictions don’t leave evidence...so it stands to reason that no Nephite artifacts will ever be found. I’ve been asked what a Nephite artifact might look like and been told by posters on this board that they don’t know what they look like and that perhaps some have even been found…suggesting that ancient American civilization artifact could in fact be Nephite…yet there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that this is true. There is nothing to suggest that ancient American civilizations were influenced by any old world civilizations. It’s a bold claim…but it is smoke in a bottle.

I have to say this argument is circular. The BoM is fiction so there can be no artifacts. There are no artifacts so the BoM is fiction. To be charitable I think you read the explanations of material culture and tried to answer the question while avoiding the same fate as others.

[cinepro]

If making your theory less falsifiable was the same thing as making it stronger, there would be lots of really strong arguments for the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

Through the fog of radical fundamentalism, perhaps a light finally glimmers.

"Oh- you mean that".

[mfbukowski]

If making your theory less falsifiable was the same thing as making it stronger, there would be lots of really strong arguments for the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand....

[zerinus]

Well I wanted to again applaud Brant on the originality of his functional translation premise. It certainly offers protection against the many “translation” difficulties found in the Book of Mormon.

His idea of a “functional translation” is not such novel idea as you seem to think, nor does it have the implications that you are suggesting. Most translations fall into the category of “functional” as he defines it. There are basically two extremes ends of translation methods that can be adopted: a literal (or direct, or word-for-word) translation, or a non-literal (or sentence, or thought to thought, or dynamic equivalence) translation. In reality few translations go to either of these two extreme ends. They fall somewhere in between—which is what he calls a “functional translation”. The difference is how far they approach either extreme end. The KJV approaches close to the “literal” end of the spectrum of translation methods, whereas the New International Version (NIV) gets too close to the other extreme end. Here and here are two interesting articles that are informative to read on this subject.

So now that we know that the Book of Mormon is full of errors, can we once and for all dismiss it as the most correct book of any on the earth?

The Book of Mormon is not “full of errors,” and Brant didn’t imply that it was either.

Accept that God did not dictate words from His mouth to Joseph’s ear thus giving word for word what Joseph should dictate…that the translation process was much more fuzzy and nuanced.

I don’t know whether God dictated any words to his ears or not, but the end result was close to it. That is my belief regarding the translation. I believe that if somebody else other than Joseph Smith had been appointed to do the translation, the end result would have been the same as the one that Joseph Smith produced. I agree that Brant suggests otherwise, and that is one of the areas where I would disagree with him.

That God allowed Joseph to put his own words into the Book of Mormon in place of the text written in reformed Egyptian (whatever that is) by Mormon on the golden plates.

See above.

The Book of Mormon rather than a solid rock of actual reliable history…has become a much more fluid and fuzzy, functional book…with many interpretations of man (Joseph) inserted.

In fairness, Brant doesn’t go so far as to imply that. From my point of view, however, the Book of Mormon is indeed a “solid rock of actual reliable history;” and there is nothing “fluid” or “fuzzy” about it at all.

With this new found knowledge of Brant’s hypothesis …the stories in the Book of Mormon …aren’t quite as rock solid as they might have been before Brant’s translation thesis. Can we really believe that there really was an Abinidi or Mosiah or Moroni or where these just words made up by Joseph because he didn’t know what the actual Nephite words were? Did Joseph mistranslate these words too and insert words that he felt fit rather than words that were actually there? With a functional translation…nothing can be held as original to the golden place…every single word must come under new scrutiny. Was it Joseph’s words or was it Mormon’s words? I guess the only way to tell is if the word acts like a word.

As I said, Brant’s “translation hypothesis” doesn’t lead to such a conclusion. The stories of the Book of Mormon are as “rock solid” as they can be, while accepting his “translation hypothesis”.

Another question is whether or not Joseph’s inability to use the correct words were only limited to nouns such as horse, steel, wheat, chariot etc…or if these errors also applied to verbs, adjectives, pronouns etc.?

It is not an “inability to use the correct words”. I agree with what he says about the horses. What is called a “horse” in the Book of Mormon could indeed be a horse, without having all the characteristics of a modern horse. Modern horses have been bred to become large and strong. The horses that existed in 2,000 BC were nothing like that. To insist that the Book of Mormon horses had to be identical to modern horses otherwise they were not real horses, is like saying that all dogs have to be as big and strong as Alsatians otherwise they are not real dogs.

On another point, I’ve been asked several times what a Nephite artifact looks like…well I believe that that question deserves an answer also. So here is my answer. It would look like nothing…personally I believe the whole Nephite civilization is fiction. Fictional civilizations don’t leave any evidence behind of their existence because …ahh…they’re fictitious. Fictions don’t leave evidence...so it stands to reason that no Nephite artifacts will ever be found. I’ve been asked what a Nephite artifact might look like and been told by posters on this board that they don’t know what they look like and that perhaps some have even been found…suggesting that ancient American civilization artifact could in fact be Nephite…yet there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that this is true. There is nothing to suggest that ancient American civilizations were influenced by any old world civilizations. It’s a bold claim…but it is smoke in a bottle.

What you believe is irrelevant. The truth is that there is no way of linking the archaeological remains of an ancient city with the Book of Mormon. If I found the remains of an ancient city in South America, and claimed that it was Zarahemla, you would have no way of proving to me that it wasn’t; any more than I could prove to you that it was.

I guess that one could also argue the obvious projection that Brant is attempting foist on the believing church member…that Mayan artifacts are actually Nephite artifacts. . . .

For all you and I know they might be. Can you prove that they arn’t?

Edited January 10, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

I think the point is not that "Mayan artifacts are Nephite artifacts" the point is that the Nephites possibly existed within the larger Mayan culture the way that LDS people exist in the modern world culture.

Looking for "Nephite artifacts" would be like looking for "LDS artifacts" in the ruins of America, thousands of years from now. The other factor of course is that the Book of Mormon is about the extinction of the Nephites, so factoring that into the analogy, it would be more like looking for LDS artifacts 1500 years after the LDS church ceased to exist, all the chapels and temples being torn down or built over, and anything specifically LDS being absorbed into the larger culture.

In short there would be nothing left but hints that we had even been here. What will be left of this thread 1500 years from now, even if the church prospers?

[mathilde]

A small band of people are led to the promised land which has been preserved for them -- yet when they get there, this land is already teeming with a native population -- and this amazing Nephite society thrives for about a thousand years, farms and has flocks of animals, engages in significant warfare, not as a minority group but as the leaders of this warfare, has an advanced government and ruling class, and practices a Christian-based religion. All of this is lost to our temporal modern view other than what we can read in the Book of Mormon, because every other indication and tool we have to search the past: linguistics, DNA, archaeology, even geography makes finding a trace of them very clouded and convoluted at best. I think faith in the Book of Mormon can help us get past any difficulty or historical question, but the faith comes first, not the data.

But given the importance of this Book of Mormon to our religion, the emphasis on it from prophets long ago to current General Conference addresses, I do believe every sincere question we ask about it: how it came to us, how it was translated, what it says, how it fits into history, is fair.

This quote from the interview was fascinating: John Dehlin asks, "How do you feel about the fact that we're still not depicting this accurately?" The context was the method Joseph Smith used for translation of the plates. Brant Gardner: "I guess I am too much of a historian to worry about that, my questions are always, how did we get to this point? I am always surprised that people feel betrayed because somebody else hasn't taught them something where there is information that they could easily go learn something about."

Later Mr. Dehlin asks, "Don't you think that getting the record straight is the responsible thing to do given where we are now?" Mr. Gardner answers by relating a conversation he had with his wife about teaching seminary, about "what these kids needed and what was important in their lives." At that level, he says, "there were very few students in her class that were at the point where you'd say, let's delve into history and get history right – they didn't know enough history to know that they had it wrong...."

The question was about getting the record straight. It wasn't about what is important or not important to teach, about how high school students are just trying to survive high school. It doesn't matter whether there is not even one single high school student interested in any tiny iota of history. Doesn't matter. The question was about the responsibility to get the record straight.

Is the church invested in getting the record straight for truth's sake? I'm not sure there is much momentum in this direction except for the momentum that the internet and easily accessed information is causing.

It is true, I do agree with Mr. Gardner, I shouldn't feel betrayed because I haven't been taught what I need or because I have clearly been taught some things that aren't true. The fault is mine for accepting any of it on good faith.

[Pahoran]

A small band of people are led to the promised land which has been preserved for them -- yet when they get there, this land is already teeming with a native population -- and this amazing Nephite society thrives for about a thousand years, farms and has flocks of animals, engages in significant warfare, not as a minority group but as the leaders of this warfare, has an advanced government and ruling class, and practices a Christian-based religion. All of this is lost to our temporal modern view other than what we can read in the Book of Mormon, because every other indication and tool we have to search the past: linguistics, DNA, archaeology, even geography makes finding a trace of them very clouded and convoluted at best. I think faith in the Book of Mormon can help us get past any difficulty or historical question, but the faith comes first, not the data.

But given the importance of this Book of Mormon to our religion, the emphasis on it from prophets long ago to current General Conference addresses, I do believe every sincere question we ask about it: how it came to us, how it was translated, what it says, how it fits into history, is fair.

This quote from the interview was fascinating: John Dehlin asks, "How do you feel about the fact that we're still not depicting this accurately?" The context was the method Joseph Smith used for translation of the plates. Brant Gardner: "I guess I am too much of a historian to worry about that, my questions are always, how did we get to this point? I am always surprised that people feel betrayed because somebody else hasn't taught them something where there is information that they could easily go learn something about."

Later Mr. Dehlin asks, "Don't you think that getting the record straight is the responsible thing to do given where we are now?" Mr. Gardner answers by relating a conversation he had with his wife about teaching seminary, about "what these kids needed and what was important in their lives." At that level, he says, "there were very few students in her class that were at the point where you'd say, let's delve into history and get history right – they didn't know enough history to know that they had it wrong...."

The question was about getting the record straight. It wasn't about what is important or not important to teach, about how high school students are just trying to survive high school. It doesn't matter whether there is not even one single high school student interested in any tiny iota of history. Doesn't matter. The question was about the responsibility to get the record straight.

And the answer went to the question. As quoted by you, Mister Dehlin said:

Don't you think that getting the record straight is the responsible thing to do given where we are now?

Brother Gardner's answer to Mister Dehlin's leading question very properly addressed the key issue in that question, namely, the issue of what is responsible.

And Brother Gardner has it exactly right: teaching people what they need to learn, based upon "what was important in their lives" is at all times what is responsible.

Satisfying borderline apostates, not-so-borderline apostates, nit-pickers and self-appointed attention-grabbing ark-steadiers is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- not very responsible. At all.

Is the church invested in getting the record straight for truth's sake? I'm not sure there is much momentum in this direction except for the momentum that the internet and easily accessed information is causing.

Accepting as a given (and it is a given) that the Church is concerned with the truth, and has no interest whatsoever in misleading people, the fact remains that the priorities of sacred texts lie elsewhere than in dotting the i's and crossing the t's of all the dry historical facts. They always have.

There is a place for teaching about which Whitmers and Smiths scribed which pages of the Book of Mormon on which days in 1828-9, which houses the translation was done in and which stones were used for which pages, but the really important matter is that the Book of Mormon was translated from the Golden Plates by the gift and power of God. That is the priority, and to the extent that any study of the Book of Mormon translation fails to make that clear, that study is a failure, regardless of whatever other facts it may get right.

It is true, I do agree with Mr. Gardner, I shouldn't feel betrayed because I haven't been taught what I need or because I have clearly been taught some things that aren't true. The fault is mine for accepting any of it on good faith.

And yet I expect you would object if adjectives such as "cynical" or "bitter" were applied to that paragraph, wouldn't you?

Incidentally, it's more than a little bit manipulative to claim to "agree with" somebody, and then proceed to advance a view that that person would not, by any stretch of the imagination, endorse. So, speaking of good faith, how much of your post was really made with any bona fide intent?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brant Gardner]

The question was about getting the record straight. It wasn't about what is important or not important to teach, about how high school students are just trying to survive high school. It doesn't matter whether there is not even one single high school student interested in any tiny iota of history. Doesn't matter. The question was about the responsibility to get the record straight.

Do you really see a difference between the subject and the teaching? Are you really suggesting that it is important to teach calculus in Kindergarten because it exists and is part of mathematics?

There is certainly a responsibility to do good history. As one who dabbles in history, how any group recounts its own history is part of that history. There are some things about the history of the church that I do believe we need to teach so that no one can say that they were surprised. Having said that (as I believe I did), it is then relevant to ask when that teaching should occur. Hence, the issue of teaching in seminary. I thought it was quite interesting that John Dehlin, who clearly believes that the church should be clearer in what it teachers, agreed that seminary wasn't the place to do it.

Teaching really is an issue. No matter what we have in our histories, the question is how and when that information is taught.

[mathilde]

Seminary IS the place to make sure that what we are teaching is accurate. Primary is the place. What the missionaries are teaching out in the world with Preach My Gospel is the place. I didn't think that the point in the discussion was about teaching a comprehensive view of history to those audiences, certainly, but even now I can go back in any manual whether it be Primary or Young Men or Sunday School and find things that even the leaders of the church probably don't believe to be accurate or true. Start with the visual aids produced by the church -- often inaccurate, as you yourself said in your interview. Films such as the one about Thomas Marsh, so many inaccuracies and misleading points in those films, and there is no reason for it. And those films are shown in Seminary, Sunday School for the adults, maybe even Primary sometimes. Isn't there is a responsibility to depict things in the very truest way we possibly can even to the youngest Primary children? The topic was not, as mentioned above, dotting all the i's or making sure that every little historical detail is made clear. Making sure that what we DO teach is right however is not too much to hope for. I couldn't agree more with you that teaching IS really an issue. I think it matters so very much.

[Brant Gardner]

Making sure that what we DO teach is right however is not too much to hope for. I couldn't agree more with you that teaching IS really an issue. I think it matters so very much.

I assume that you are also discussing American history in various grades and different states? From art to various stories, there is a lot of US history that isn't taught accurately. There is a lot of very famous and well-known art that is also not accurate. When do we make sure that we teach things accurately? How do we teach young children that art they might see on their parents wall (my son-in-law being one of them) that the are is inaccurate?

[mathilde]

I am specifically talking about what we teach and are taught at church and about the inaccuracies that have been perpetuated through the years in the church curriculum. I admit to wanting to hold the church to a higher standard of truth-telling than secular schools. I wish maybe like you do also that US history and other topics could be taught more accurately in our school system, yes, but that is beyond the scope of a discussion about whether or not the church has a responsibility to get the record straight on various topics.