Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[Craig Paxton]

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”.

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?

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?” 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.

OK, Now I need some aspirin…

Edited January 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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…

This is a total mis-representation of what Brant did say.

[Craig Paxton]

This is a total mis-representation of what Brant did say.

I'm assuming that you listened to the entire podcast? And to be clear...it is my representation of what Brant said....

Edited January 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Bill Hamblin]

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”.

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?

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?” 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.

OK, Now I need some aspirin…

I listened to the whole thing. You didn't understand Brant.

Misrepresenting and mocking an argument is not an intelligent response to an argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm assuming that you listened to the entire podcast? And to be clear...it is my representation of what Brant said....

I confess to having not listened to the podcast. However I have read several of Brant's words and works on this board. I am quite certain I understand his postion (specifically the portion I quoted from you), and that I more than likely would not garner much new info from the podcast. And you basically confessed at "it is my representation of what Brant said." which is a mis-representation.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[stemelbow]

I've listened to it too. I find the caricature drawn above an abysmal one. no wonder his head hurts.

[mikeuu]

I am pretty sure he said what Craig Paxton said he said. I am 7 minutes short of listening to the whole thing.

Maybe you guys could explain it better than Craig Paxton did, but I heard it the same way.

[Rivers]

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?” Brant responded to this question by suggesting that actually we have found lots of evidence for the Nephite civilization…

It seems you don't remember this part of the interview clearly. Brant Gardner responded to this question by pointing out how stupid of a question it is. If a civilization existed and didn't leave a shred of evidence, he obviously wouldn't be able to name it because there would be no evidence of it. John actually laughed at this response himself.

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?

This concern was addressed at least twice during the interview. Brant clearly stated that he pays attention to the text and discerns what things might be by how they act within the text. He acknowledged that metals are obviously metals because they act like metals in the text. The horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon don't exactly act like horses so they might not be horses.

[Freedom]

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?” 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.

We can turn this question around: Can you provide a record of a real people other than the Olmecs or those of Santa Rosa that left not one shred of written evidence of their existence? What we have in central america is pots and pans. The written record is limited to government sponsored plaques that justify the authority of the ruling elite. We have no written record of any of the civilizations so all we know about them is strictly conjecture. It is pretty clear, for example, that the Olmecs had 5 gods but this is concluded simply because we have stone carvings that depict supernatural beings such as the Dragon which is thought to be the god of earth, water, agriculture and fertility and who fought to protect his human children. (fighting like dragons mentioned in the book of mormon? must be an anachronism!). We know virtually nothing of the people that lived at La Venta or San Lorenzo. Nobody has even the faintest clue as to how these ceremonial cities and their hinterlands became completely depopulated. Nobody is able to reasonably explain how some of the massive stone heads arrived there from, in some cases, hundreds of kilometers away without wheeled transport, pack animals, and adequate river systems between locations. If the evidence were written in a book and not found in the ground, it would be too ridiculous to believe. More than one expert refer to these findings as 'the La Venta Paradox' (see The Olmecs, Americas first Civilization. Richard A Diel, 2004 among others). So you claim we have a book that cannot find a location, I say we have a civilization that cannot find a book. It cannot be explained by the evidence because in many cases, the evidence is so counter intuitive.

It is easy to dismiss an argument if you want it to be dismissed, it is much more difficult to dismiss an argument if you are actually aware of the issues with central american archaeology.

[mikeuu]

It seems you don't remember this part of the interview clearly. Brant Gardner responded to this question by pointing out how stupid of a question it is. If a civilization existed and didn't leave a shred of evidence, he obviously wouldn't be able to name it because there would be no evidence of it. John actually laughed at this response himself.

I think you are right he first dismissed the silly question but then went on to talk about what Craig Paxton said.

[Brant Gardner]

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 don't recognize that caricature as anything that I actually said. In case the interview format made it difficult to follow, I'll simplify. When a text is translated, the translator selects the vocabulary. In texts from a historical period, it happens that there are anachronisms in the translation that are not in the original. We know this occurs in the KJV. What that tells us, from a purely academic standpoint is that it is difficult to ascribe anachronisms based on vocabulary in a translated text. However, that doesn't also allow us to suggest that they are necessarily anachronisms of vocabulary. It requires that we eschew simplistic reactions and have to look more closely at textual clues surrounding the vocabulary item.

That is where I suggested that if you look at the "horse" in the Book of Mormon that you don't find it doing anything like a horse. Therefore, that vocabulary item cannot be clearly ascribed to the original and may be an translation anachronism. That is simple textual analysis that one would do on any text.

The issue of skin color is very different. That isn't an anachronism but rather a question of literalism. Does a barrel of monkeys mean a barrel with monkeys in it or something else? If there is a pigmentation difference in the Book of Mormon, it should be obvious in human interactions There are places where the action of the text should highlight a pigmentation difference, and it doesn't. Knowing that external appearance (the face in the Old Testament and sometimes skin) can be used metaphiorically with color, then we are required to examine the text to determine if this is a metaphor or a physical pigmentation. As with "horse," the text itself does not support pigmentaion. I agree that others have read it literally for over a hundred years. That doesn't change the fact that the text does not support that reading.

Your suggestion that all of this occurs right where there is a question of science misses the basic analysis of this category of issue. Anachronisms of vocabulary are a fact of translation. Therefore, you aren't talking about science but of literalism in reading. While you might suggest that the Book of Mormon has to be read literally, that is an argument to make and cannot be taken as a basic assumption (which is why there is a whole book examining the nature of the translation so that data can tell help us make that decision).

Doesn’t this interpretation undermine the credibility of the entire book?

Not in the least, particularly if you actually understand the argument.

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.

Based on your response, I should be able to make a simple request of you. Please tell me what physical remains you expect to find that would indicate the presence of a Nephite. If you are so sure that they haven't been found, please indicate what it is that isn't there and should be. I will be very interested to know, and to know why you believe it.

[Craig Paxton]

It seems you don't remember this part of the interview clearly. Brant Gardner responded to this question by pointing out how stupid of a question it is. If a civilization existed and didn't leave a shred of evidence, he obviously wouldn't be able to name it because there would be no evidence of it. John actually laughed at this response himself.

This concern was addressed at least twice during the interview. Brant clearly stated that he pays attention to the text and discerns what things might be by how they act within the text. He acknowledged that metals are obviously metals because they act like metals in the text. The horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon don't exactly act like horses so they might not be horses.

Sooooo....because a word "horse" doesn't act like a horse...it’s not a horse? So how exactly does the word "horse" act? When the BoM describes Ammon preparing the kings horse for his chariot...what way are we to interpret the sentence? It’s not a horse...its wasn't a chariot? What animal goes with a chariot or a trivoi? or a moving tranportation thing? A mouse? A toad? A wild turkey? I'm open to suggestions on what animal one would "Prepare" for a nephite tranportation thingie (the BoM called a Chariot)...but then I forgot...prepare probably doesn't mean prepare

I understand the mental need to explain away this problem...I just believe that by discounting difficult problems by saying that words don't matter only creates other problems with other words. Which words can one rely on...only those that don't conflict with science? Is that where we really want to go?

[Kevin Christensen]

I suggest reading the first few pages of Brant's Second Witness Commentary, particularly the parts about the difference between writings with high context assumptions, or low context assumptions. Ancient writings tent to provide little context because they assume that "everybody knows" certain things. Modern writings provide more context because they do not assume that everyone knows.

I've listened to parts 1 and 3 so far. And have read a lot from Brant over the years. What I get from Brant is not that "words have no meaning" because, after all if things are not what they are what are they? Rather, words have to be read in context. What we have in the Book of Mormon are words that by default, we read according to our own 21st Century context. If we stop and think and read carefully, we ought to think about the effects of our own 21st Century assumptions, Joseph Smith's 19th Century translation, Nephi's Jerusalem/Arabian Peninsula, Ocean voyage, and New World environment, and then that of Alma, Mormon, and Moroni.

Words are not emanations from things, inseparably bound to a single meaning across all time and space and culture, but are socially created and adapted and adaptable signifiers that point to other things. For instance, I live in Pittsburgh. If I say, I attended a professional football game, you might assume that I am a Steeler fan, and had been to Three Rivers stadium. which, in fact, can see every day not far from where I work. But if I add the additional context that "When I lived in Liverpool, England, I attended a professional football game," if you know anything about English football, the same words, "football game" should provide a completely different picture.

Same thing with words like chips, biscuits, bonnets, lifts, lorries, trucks, or words like "cheeky." If I say, "He's a chip off the old block," and you go looking for chips and blocks, you're the one that is confused. If I say, by way of explanation, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," and you go looking for apples and trees, you still don't understand.

To understand what a word signifies, it has to be read in context. That does not mean that a given signifier in practice, could mean anything or nothing, though, in theory, by social convention, any given signifier could mean anything or nothing. Context provides the constraints that illuminate the meaning of a word. In one of my English classes, I learned the expression, "To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mousetraps work." Rene Magritte famously painted pictures of pipes, which he labeled, "This is not a pipe." The picture of the thing, is not the thing. What a word signifies is something learned, not emanated from the thing itself. The relationship between signifiers and the things signified requires social convention and contextual constraints for communication via signifiers to work.

Brant is not saying that horse cannot be what you think of as horse, but that read in carefully in context, we don't have enough textual constraints or archeological evidence to be absolutely sure. If it said something about saddles, bits, neighing, oats, brushing down, hooves, manes, colts, ponies, mares and stallions, for instance, the additional constraints would make for more certainty. If we had lots of horse bones at the right time depth and the right geographic locations, that would suggest more for the text, but would not prove that reading in the absence of more detailed descriptions in the text.

On the other hand, the ancient Near Eastern cultural context and known Biblical practice regarding the use of expressions like "skin of blackness" whose use in the Book of Mormon exactly parallels "filthy garments" in a society where skins often were garments, provides a strong context for a meaning different from what modern reader's naive reading might lead them to suppose. But just because some words in the Book of Mormon do not have strong constraints on their meanings, on both the textual side and the geographical and cultural sides, that does not mean that nothing does. Most of the text does.

For instance, I wrote an essay arguing that Alma's conversion is a Near Death Experience. What got me started on that interpretation is the phrase "nigh unto death," but even if he had said, nigh the side of the road by Zarahemla, I have more than enough context from his descriptions and language to be able to make the case. Many different elements converge together in a complex, unified fabric.

Jesus compared words to seeds which, depending on the soil and nurture they are given, might produce nothing, might be choked off or devoured, or, with care, might produce a hundred fold. Nephi tells his readers that no one can understand the writings of Isaiah without knowing the cultural background, and that he had not taught that cultural background to his people. That tells me two things. I need to pay attention to cultural context if I want to understand, and that Nephi was surrounded by people who knew nothing about Jewish culture. In talking the assembled people in 3 Nephi, Jesus tells them that to understand, they must work to "prepare their minds."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 5, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Craig Paxton]

I don't recognize that caricature as anything that I actually said. In case the interview format made it difficult to follow, I'll simplify. When a text is translated, the translator selects the vocabulary. In texts from a historical period, it happens that there are anachronisms in the translation that are not in the original. We know this occurs in the KJV. What that tells us, from a purely academic standpoint is that it is difficult to ascribe anachronisms based on vocabulary in a translated text. However, that doesn't also allow us to suggest that they are necessarily anachronisms of vocabulary. It requires that we eschew simplistic reactions and have to look more closely at textual clues surrounding the vocabulary item.

That is where I suggested that if you look at the "horse" in the Book of Mormon that you don't find it doing anything like a horse. Therefore, that vocabulary item cannot be clearly ascribed to the original and may be an translation anachronism. That is simple textual analysis that one would do on any text.

The issue of skin color is very different. That isn't an anachronism but rather a question of literalism. Does a barrel of monkeys mean a barrel with monkeys in it or something else? If there is a pigmentation difference in the Book of Mormon, it should be obvious in human interactions There are places where the action of the text should highlight a pigmentation difference, and it doesn't. Knowing that external appearance (the face in the Old Testament and sometimes skin) can be used metaphiorically with color, then we are required to examine the text to determine if this is a metaphor or a physical pigmentation. As with "horse," the text itself does not support pigmentaion. I agree that others have read it literally for over a hundred years. That doesn't change the fact that the text does not support that reading.

Your suggestion that all of this occurs right where there is a question of science misses the basic analysis of this category of issue. Anachronisms of vocabulary are a fact of translation. Therefore, you aren't talking about science but of literalism in reading. While you might suggest that the Book of Mormon has to be read literally, that is an argument to make and cannot be taken as a basic assumption (which is why there is a whole book examining the nature of the translation so that data can tell help us make that decision).

Not in the least, particularly if you actually understand the argument.

Based on your response, I should be able to make a simple request of you. Please tell me what physical remains you expect to find that would indicate the presence of a Nephite. If you are so sure that they haven't been found, please indicate what it is that isn't there and should be. I will be very interested to know, and to know why you believe it.

Brant I have great respect for you and your argument...it helps to explain away alot of the problems found in the BoM...You have thought outside the box...and I applaude you for that...I just have difficulty wrapping my logical brain around the concept of words not meaning what they say...I get your're flex-mode translation process....where Joseph used words he was familor with even when the actual Nephite words didn't share the same meaning...but the believablity alarm is ringing off the wall... (speaking for myself only)

PS: You have ALWYS shown me nothing but greatest of respect on this board...you are truely a gentleman and a scholar

Edited January 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[mikeuu]

Hi Brant, I am having similar thoughts to what Craig Paxton is saying. Obviously I am having a hard time understanding your ideas. I also bought your book on kindle, "The Gift and Power.."

When I read the first few chapters of the book I was getting a feeling like you were setting up a way to make excuses for what I see as problems with the BOM and it's portrayed translation method.

When I listened to the podcast I felt like you were making excuses. I understand that you have put a lot time and thought into your ideas so I don't want to discount them but I am really not getting it.

I have been until the last little while an active member so my current thinking is much more negative than positive towards the BOM, that may be a bit of a stumbling block for me.

One issue that I have with ideas you put out is that I don't think what you believe is what is taught by the church. I am pretty sure the church has never produced a manual that would say a horse in the BOM is not a horse. I am also pretty sure you would never get a lesson that says that the white and dark skin was not real human skin. Have you ever taken you ideas and tested them against the manuals and words of the prophets.?

Another issue I have is believing mormons who think they know more than the prophets or apostles do. I have read or listened to others who have a view similar to what I thought you said, or maybe John said, about them getting it wrong on certain things. I had been a literal believer in the church, I followed the prophet until I lost trust in the prophet. It seems to me that maybe you don't trust the prophet(s) if you can assume that they have gotten some important things wrong. Or you don't trust that God is leading them. Or that you view that trust differently than I did. Anyway I am rambling a bit. The podcast and book are giving me lot's to think about.

One other thing, how long have the brains at BYU discounted the Quetzalcoatl being Jesus idea? Or is that just your idea? I had no idea that the people in the know at BYU thought the theory was bunk. Or did I miss some of what you were saying?

Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I suggest reading the first few pages of Brant's Second Witness Commentary, particularly the parts about the difference between writings with high context assumptions, or low context assumptions. Ancient writings tent to provide little context because they assume that "everybody knows" certain things. Modern writings provide more context because they do not assume that everyone knows.

I've listened to parts 1 and 3 so far. And have read a lot from Brant over the years. What I get from Brant is not that "words have no meaning" because, after all if things are not what they are what are they? Rather, words have to read in context. What we have in the Book of Mormon are words that by default, we read according to our own 21st Century context. If we stop and think and read carefully, we ought to think about the effects of our own 21st Century assumptions, Joseph Smith's 19th Century translation, Nephi's Jerusalem/Arabian Penninsula, Ocean voyage, and New World environment, and then that of Alma, Mormon, and Moroni.

Words are not emanations from things, inseparably bound to a single meaning across all time and space and culture, but are socially created and adapted and adaptable signifiers that point to other things. For instance, I live in Pittsburgh. If I say, I attended a professional football game, you might assume that I am a Steeler fan, and had been to Three Rivers stadium. which, in fact, can see every day not far from where I work. But if I add the additional context that "When I lived in Liverpool, England, I attended a football game," if you know anything about English football, the same words, "football game" should provide a completely different picture.

Same thing with words like chips, biscuits, bonnets, lifts, lorries, trucks, or words like "cheeky." If I say, "He's a chip off the old block," and you go looking for chips and blocks, you're the one that is confused. If I say, by way of explanation, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," and you go looking for apples and trees, you still don't understand.

To understand what a word signifies, it has to be read in context. That does not mean that a given signifier in practice, could mean anything or nothing, though, in theory, by social convention, any given signifier could mean anything or nothing. Context provides the constraints that illuminate the meaning of a word. In one of my English classes, I learned the expression, "To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mousetraps work." Rene Magritte famously painted pictures of pipes, which he labeled, "This is not a pipe." The picture of the thing, is not the thing. What a word signifies is something learned, not emanated from the thing itself. The relationship between signifiers and the things signified requires social convention and contextual constraints for communication via signifiers to work.

Brant is not saying that horse cannot be what you think of as horse, but that read in carefully in context, we don't have enough textual constraints or archeological evidence to be absolutely sure. If it said something about saddles, bits, neighing, oats, brushing down, hooves, manes, colts, ponys, mares and stallions, for instance, the additional constraints would make for more certainty. If we had lots of horse bones at the right time depth and the right geographic locations, that would suggest more for the text, but would not prove that reading in the absence of more detailed descriptions in the text.

On the other hand, the ancient Near Eastern cultural context and known Biblical practice regarding the use of expressions like "skin of blackness" whose use in the Book of Mormon exactly parallels "filthy garments" in a society where skins often were garments, provides a strong context for a meaning different from what modern reader's naive reading might lead them to suppose. But just because some words in the Book of Mormon do not have strong constraints on their meanings, on both the textual side and the geographical and cultural sides, that does not mean that nothing does. Most of the text does.

For instance, I wrote an essay arguing that Alma's conversion is a Near Death Experience. What got me started on that interpretation is the phrase "nigh unto death," but even if he had said, nigh the side of the road by Zarahemla, I have more than enough context from his descriptions and language to be able to make the case. Many different elements converge together in a complex, unified fabric.

Jesus compared words to seeds which, depending on the soil and nurture they are given, might produce nothing, might be choked off or devoured, or, with care, might produce a hundred fold. Nephi tells his readers that no one can understand the writings of Isaiah without knowing the cultural background, and that he had not taught that cultural background to his people. That tells me two things. I need to pay attention to cultural context if I want to understand, and that Nephi was surrounded by people who knew nothing about Jewish culture. In talking the assembled people in 3 Nephi, Jesus tells them that to understand, they must work to "prepare their minds."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

You sir, are a patient man. I have a lot to learn from you.

[Freedom]

On another note, would you need some aspirin if I told you my made-in-China plastic cups are made by an american company, and my fine china was made by an English company? Would you also be surprised to know that, despite the fact that I drive a Japanese car I am in fact Canadian? One could say calling a Nephite cup a Mayan cup does not make them Mayan. Just because it is Mayan in design, does not mean it was owned by a Mayan, is simply means that Mayan designs permeated the region. Do you understand how the boundaries of the Mayan civilization was established and how it changed throughout history? Also, do you understand the nature of the Mayan political structure? What do you know about Santa Rosa and how it fit into the Mayan political landscape? What about Arroyo Sonso?

[mfbukowski]

This whole thing is about fundamentalism vs higher criticism.

Never the twain shall meet.

[Rivers]

If the horses in the Book of Mormon aren't acting like horses, what are they acting like? Do they act like a tapir, or a deer, or llama? Does the text of the Book of Mormon give us enough detail to tell us exactly what they were?

[Freedom]

I had been a literal believer in the church, I followed the prophet until I lost trust in the prophet. It seems to me that maybe you don't trust the prophet(s) if you can assume that they have gotten some important things wrong. Or you don't trust that God is leading them. Or that you view that trust differently than I did. Anyway I am rambling a bit. The podcast and book are giving me lot's to think about. One other thing, how long have the brains at BYU discounted the Quetzalcoatl being Jesus idea? Or is that just your idea? I had no idea that the people in the know at BYU thought the theory was bunk. Or did I miss some of what you were saying? Thanks.

I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of a prophet. They are not historians or linguists. Their role is to guide us back to our Father in Heaven by teaching and protecting the principles and ordinances of the gospel. They do not pretend to know the historical context of the Book of Mormon. Concerning Quetzalcoatle, can you clarify what you mean by 'people in the know at BYU'? You seem to be implying that certain scholars have access to special knowledge that the rest of us do not. I did a search on the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and did not find any results for Questzalcoatl. lds.org has a few articles with the name of this ancient name but none of them suggest it was Jesus Christ. They all seem to use the name in the correct historical context, but then I looked at the first 4 articles.

[mikeuu]

Some more thoughts on why I don't get it.

Why not just choose to have faith?

Why not believe that the BOM means what it says and says what it means?

Why not believe that the prophets of today and the past are led by inspiration and that they won't lead the church astray?

Why does there need to be a functional translation? Why can't the power of God give Joseph the proper word for an animal?

Why did God display horse in the seer stone and not something better?

Why can't defenders just choose to believe that the words are correct in the most correct book of any on earth? It was written for our day, our modem day, for people with modern ideas and modern experiences. It wasn't written for the nephites or the jaredites or the mulekites.

Is the answer to these questions that they don't really believe in it, they believe in their own ideas? They only think they believe in the church? Maybe that is enough for some but for me it has to be true without excuses, long intellectual explanations or advanced institutional degrees.

Just some thoughts.

[mikeuu]

I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of a prophet. They are not historians or linguists. Their role is to guide us back to our Father in Heaven by teaching and protecting the principles and ordinances of the gospel. They do not pretend to know the historical context of the Book of Mormon. Concerning Quetzalcoatle, can you clarify what you mean by 'people in the know at BYU'? You seem to be implying that certain scholars have access to special knowledge that the rest of us do not. I did a search on the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and did not find any results for Questzalcoatl. lds.org has a few articles with the name of this ancient name but none of them suggest it was Jesus Christ. They all seem to use the name in the correct historical context, but then I looked at the first 4 articles.

Here is the info on a video that many missionaries used to show, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423820/

There was also a pamphlet the church produced but I don't have a copy others do I am sure.

Here is a summary from IMDB:

Storyline

Archeological evidence from pre-Columbian America is compared with artifacts from the Mediterranean region. Visits are made to many historic sites in Mexico, Central & South America. Musical "pan" pipes are shown that are very similar from both areas. Fabric that is thousands of years old found in Peru is woven from fibers that come from a hybrid of new and old world cotton. A stone box found in Iran seems similar to the box described by Joseph Smith as holding golden plates (The Book of Mormon, found within a hillside in New York). Mayan paintings showing both light and dark people are compared to Book of Mormon writings describing two distinct peoples. A possible baptismal font is found in the ruins of ancient Peru. The explorer Cortez used to his advantage being mistaken for the white and bearded god Quetzalcoatl, who according to the Aztec people had promised to return one day, similar to the teachings of Christ. Written by Brian Greenhalgh

This film was produced by BYU(I think) but in the podcast I think Brant made a comment that when he went to BYU the film was made fun of because the evidence for it's claims were so bad.

It is true that I have high expectations of a prophet. Here are a couple links to talks that will explain why I feel that way. I believe the church teaches us to expect a lot from our pophets and apostles.

http://lds.org/liaho...rophet?lang=eng

http://speeches.byu....der.php?id=8853

Here is a quote from the 14 fundamentals talk:

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

[Freedom]

If the horses in the Book of Mormon aren't acting like horses, what are they acting like? Do they act like a tapir, or a deer, or llama? Does the text of the Book of Mormon give us enough detail to tell us exactly what they were?

It is easy enough to find out. If you go to lds.org and do a search you will find 13 references to horses in the book of Mormon. It does mention horses and chariots in the same phrase, and most would assume, from images of the roman empire, that the horses were meant to pull the chariots and that the chariots therefore had wheels. This is a bad assumption to make because it never mentions horses in relationship to transportation. People are always on foot. If I said for you to prepare my dogs and my sled what assumptions would you make based on your 21st century connection of these two words? What if I said I was from central america at around 400bc? With the former, you would assume that I am traveling across ice and snow, with the latter, you would assume that I was going to first eat a meal and then slide my newly carved monuments up to the temple mount. The sled would be a wood or stone blank likely rolled on logs or pulled with ropes.

What does it mean to prepare horses? Depends on whether you are from Dallas or from Maung Khaun. In one it would mean to get ready to ride, in the other it would mean get ready to eat. What does it mean to prepare the pork? In english, we use pig to name the animal and pork to identify the type of meat. In Spanish, the name for the animal and the name for the meat is interchangeable. If you translated a Spanish word for pig to the English word pig and said 'prepare the pig' I think the message would be unclear. If I said 'prepare the pig and my boat' you would utterly confused. In our culture we prepare horses to ride so we transmit that assumption to the text.

The king was preparing to meet with other kings and based on what we know of the central american culture of the time, he would have been going to a grand banquet. If he were attempting to gain favor, he would have been bringing food so this statement, in central american context, would suggest more likely that the horses were being prepared to eat and the chariots were going to be carried. Horses are also mentioned along with cattle .

[Freedom]

Here is the info on a video that many missionaries used to show, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423820/ There was also a pamphlet the church produced but I don't have a copy others do I am sure. Here is a summary from IMDB: This film was produced by BYU(I think) but in the podcast I think Brant made a comment that when he went to BYU the film was made fun of because the evidence for it's claims were so bad. It is true that I have high expectations of a prophet. Here are a couple links to talks that will explain why I feel that way. I believe the church teaches us to expect a lot from our pophets and apostles. http://lds.org/liaho...rophet?lang=eng http://speeches.byu....der.php?id=8853 Here is a quote from the 14 fundamentals talk:

So you have provided some examples of some early assumption based on what was known at the time, assumptions that were not taught in general conference and were not presented as doctrine. If you read more current articles in the church magazines, you will see the more current research being presented. You then provide a quote that tells us that a prophet does not require special earthly credentials to be a prophet. I am not clear what this has to do with the issue at hand. None of this suggest that prophets have a special knowledge of history, medicine, physics, botany or any other fields. They are prophets, here to lead us back to God. The esoterics involved with analyzing the text of the Book of Mormon are not relevant to that mandate in my opinion.

The scriptures teach us that God teaches line upon line. He provides us with what is necessary for our salvation and leaves us to figure out the rest on our own.

[Craig Paxton]

That is where I suggested that if you look at the "horse" in the Book of Mormon that you don't find it doing anything like a horse. Therefore, that vocabulary item cannot be clearly ascribed to the original and may be an translation anachronism. That is simple textual analysis that one would do on any text.

Ok ... horse doesn't mean horse and chariot doesn't mean chariot...and words have no meaning....but horse must mean something right? So for the sake of discussion...I'm going to assign the meaning of horse as "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie". So Joseph...when he came to the Nephite charactor for "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie" in the golden plates...that were incidently sitting outside his cabin in some hollowed out log...instead of saying what the nephite charactor actually said "mysterious-Nephite-maybe-an-animal-thingie"....he simply said "horse". All well and good...

SOOOOOOO.....why didn't he just do the same thing when he came to those even more enigmatic "mysterious-Jaradite-maybe-an-animal-thingies" he called cureloms and cumoms...I mean if words have no meaning...why use words that seem so specific and unique if as you claim...the translation process was fexible and fluid. Why would Joseph use such specific names...rather than just calling them "horse"...that is if words don't have any meaning...hey just asking

Edited January 5, 2012 by Craig Paxton