DiscussMormonism.com

Joey wrote:http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19534/True-scholarship-vs-wishful-thinking

Out of all the mopologetic efforts, you have to feel the sorriest for those trying to defend the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. It's like trying establish that there was a real place named Oz, with a real yellow brick road.

Those defending polygamy have it easier. While it's an abhorrent practice, they at least can appeal to authority and point out that the heroes of the Bible were also perverts and misogynists.

Joey wrote:http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19534/True-scholarship-vs-wishful-thinking

It is nice article, I really don't know about this, But after reading your article, I gained much knowledge.. Thanks...

An ancient American book by now-deceased author Thomas Stuart Ferguson exhibited the uninformed exuberance that caused him to naïvely misinterpret the data. Ferguson’s zeal and untrained approach caused him to make unwarranted assumptions that eventually damaged his testimony (more on this in a later issue).

I think I have this book. Ancient America and The Book of Mormon, by Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, published by Kolob Book Company in 1950. I think it's a bit low of Bro. Ash to dismiss Ferguson's concerns so quickly. I've only read a little bit about Ferguson, but I think I remember that he was a capable scholar with as much or more expertise as many of today's Book of Mormon critics or apologists. Can anyone point me to an overview of Ferguson's life and conclusions?

Tad wrote:Can anyone point me to an overview of Ferguson's life and conclusions?

The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson.
(pdf)

Thanks Ray. Looking forward to reading it.

Thanks to you as well, Dr. Peterson.

Today, by total chance, I happened upon a copy of Warren & Ferguson's 1987 The Messiah in Ancient America published by the Book of Mormon Research Foundation in Provo. The dust cover has a quote from John L. Sorenson: "The careful reader of this work is bound to discover a good deal of valuable new information." Not an endorsement of Thomas Ferguson by any means. Monte Nyman's snippet, also on the dust cover, is more generous (or a clever jab): "It is a fitting tribute to Thomas Stuart Ferguson." Dr. Peterson's first few paragraphs of a FARMS review of Stan Larson's book (link above) are less complimentary of Ferguson; by his analysis, Ferguson was neither an archaeologist nor a scholar.

This makes me wonder what qualifications one must have in order to publish conclusions about the Book of Mormon. For example, how would Mike Ash's credentials compare to Tom Ferguson's? At least Ferguson made multiple trips to Central America during his lifetime to get his knowledge first hand. I'm looking forward to investigating this further.

Tad wrote: Dr. Peterson's first few paragraphs of a FARMS review of Stan Larson's book (link above) are less complimentary of Ferguson; by his analysis, Ferguson was neither an archaeologist nor a scholar.

You have to remember that FARMS/MI worships titles and degrees, and their "job description" is to demean and discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

Tad wrote:This makes me wonder what qualifications one must have in order to publish conclusions about the Book of Mormon. For example, how would Mike Ash's credentials compare to Tom Ferguson's? At least Ferguson made multiple trips to Central America during his lifetime to get his knowledge first hand. I'm looking forward to investigating this further.

Very good point. But see above.