DiscussMormonism.com

Where does all LDS "scholarship" originate from when it comes to this 30 year plethora of Book of Mormon historicity support??? And how has it been proffered for evaluation by those presenting it as something meaningful??

Answers are quite limited.  We either have someone who is not familiar w mesoamerican studies or one who is not familiar with Mormon studies!  But why????

If, as the likes of Peterson and Gardner here, the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an ancient source, what is the issue?  One can't read the Book of Mormon??? 

What we are seeing more obviously is that the likes of Peterson and Gardner want us to be distracted from the obvious.  They want to convince of us of just that!!! Only Mormons can read the Book of Mormon and understand an ancient text!!! Everyone else is either illiterate or impaired from the faculties of reading!!! 

Truth is that the Book of Mormon is a very easy text to read and understand (or they wouldn't ask prospective members to do so in making a decision!!)

And for those who are studies and have the academic credentials in mesoamerican history and study, and can make the easy read of the Book of Mormon, it is a rather easy conclusion that comes together!! Like that of Michael Coe!! 

But Peterson and Gardner must do their best to instigate the issue and come with some nonsensical argument that Coe is not up to speed on LDS "supposed" scholarship!! 

We might find minimal valiance in such an argument if these guys could provide that this Phd in mesoamerica can't read!!!

Otherwise this dynamic duo must convince us that only Mormons can read the Book of Mormon!!!

The only thing all this supposed LDS "scholarship" that Peterson and Gardner refer to as an obstacle serves is a nonsensical and irrelevant argument for those who are either naïve or can't think.  Fireside material for sure!!!

All this supposed LDS "scholarship" originates from the conclusions of church members, software salesmen, and others who have no credentials in mesoamerican studies!! But all this supposed scholarship originates from one place - "their reading of the Book of Mormon"!!!

And no one else is capable of reading this supposed accurate translation of an ancient record???

As Coe has and others, the answer is always the same, and so is their interest in supposed LDS scholarship in this are - nothing!!!

You made some very excellent points on the Brant Gardner Book of Mormon Megathread as well: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=405621#p405621

Here is my take:

My impression is that Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner and other so-called intellectuals don't even read the Book of Mormon. Why? I think they consider the work beneath their literary intellect. Rather, they make a neverending sophomoric attempt to explain the simple words to all us "stupid" people - words that even children can actually understand with no help from them.

by the way, I draw this conclusion from a lifetime of dedication to the Mormon prophets' admonition to study the book for myself.

Before being jaded by the truth of the Mormon history, I listened to and obeyed all of the Mormon prophets concerning my need to study the Book of Mormon.

I took the Book of Mormon literally. From the time I was 16, I read the Book of Mormon over 23 times. I studied it on the mission by subject and memorized many concepts and actual verses. I took Reid Bankhead's Book of Mormon class at BYU. He took it literally (as did his heros). We were required to write 16 paradigms on the Book of Mormon. I taught Book of Mormon in Gospel Doctrine at BYU. When my children were entering their teens, we woke up and read the Book of Mormon as a family. We read it through twice in three years spending 15 to 45 minutes nearly every day. I knew it well enough as a Gospel Doctrine teacher that I stopped using the manual about 14 years ago and began teaching directly from the Book of Mormon.

Prior to my entrance down the rabbit hole I was preparing a study guide. To date, I had over 24 seperate and distinct subjects to be covered. There is no study guide out there that gives this depth to the various concepts it covers.

And yet after all of this I'm just a nobody (and I would prefer to remain that way). But I do know the Book of Mormon.

One of the primary reasons for making the Book of Mormon a life study was this statement by my former hero, Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion, and that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it's precept than any other book" (Book of Mormon | Preface Introduction:6).

Peterson and Gardner don't know the Book of Mormon. I honestly think they would prefer reading about an intellectuals take on it. If they did actually know it, they would forsake this adolescent treasure hunt for proof - FARMS (and their life's work of self vindication) and simply take the wisdom from whoever the author was and teach from it's pages (which, oddly enough, are nearly all about Jesus Christ).

by the way, Smith didn't know the book either. If he translated it, he never pondered it. If he read it, he didn't understand it. Ironically, if reveals him (and even apologists) for who they really are.

And as amazing as the book is, it's still just a work of fiction.

Is there anyone else who can speak from the position of having studied the actual book these guys are talking about?

inc.

(edited to clarify)

It occurred to me this morning why these guys think they can play doctor with all this re-interpreting/translating of the Book of Mormon.

Who, in their target audience even reads the book?

Why should anyone read it anyways if one thinks the scholars are doing a good job of it for them?

A pair of missionaries I spoke with recently in asking about the horses, chariots, scimitars and great civilizations said it best. "The Book of Mormon is not history".

I understand what they meant in trying to defuse the questions but the reality is that they are right. It is NOT history, it is fiction.

Scholastically speaking, could this thread be the metaphoric equivolent of a couple of birthday candles judging stadium lights as not producing much light?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:Scholastically speaking, could this thread be the metaphoric equivolent of a couple of birthday candles judging stadium lights as of not producing much light?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like Gardner and Peterson trying to represent themselves as mesoamerican scholars???

The issue remains that Gardner and Peterson raise less than academic and scholarly arguments that remain irrelevant. If you believe I am wrong, ask Peterson or Gardner to engage my argument. Or feel free to do so on your own. I suspect I won't be hearing from any of you now!!

Joey wrote:

wenglund wrote:Scholastically speaking, could this thread be the metaphoric equivolent of a couple of birthday candles judging stadium lights as of not producing much light?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like Gardner and Peterson trying to represent themselves as mesoamerican scholars???

I have no doubt that is how, metaphorically, a birthday candle would view them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Simple question to start with: "What specific expertise is needed to read the Book of Mormon???"

That question alone will keep Peterson, Gardner and Wade away from this thread unless they do a "Millett"!

Joey wrote:Simple question to start with: "What specific expertise is needed to read the Book of Mormon???"

No expertice is needed to read the Book of Mormon, just an ability to read, at about a 4th-grade leviel, in one of the many languages in which the Book of Mormon is printed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:I have no doubt that is how, metaphorically, a birthday candle would view them.

You may have noticed that the candles blew the stadium lights out in the past several threads.

Calling the floodlights of truth a candle or two doesn't make it so. Bring some substance next time you post and we can play.