Brant Gardner Gave the "Ancient" Bias Game Away on Book of Mormon

[_Philo Sofee]

In researching for my book review of Harrell, "This is My Doctrine" I re-read Brant's very interesting book "Translating the Book of Mormon," Greg Kofford, 2011, today, and realized I missed the muthuh of all muthuhs of arguments that gives the entire enterprise for authenticity to the Book of Mormon away, so I thought I'd better share it here with you all for fun and intellectual profit.

He's discussing the various evidences various scholars have used on whether the translation of the Book of Mormon is a loose one or a tight one, a literalist one. On page 167-168 he is discussing John Tvedtnes's ideas as opposed to Bramwell's, on how Hebrew gives us clues. Gardner's response, though specific to Tvedtnes' argument, can be generalized onto a wider screen here. Brant notes:

"Of all these initial assumptions, Tvedtnes's is the most fascinating. He argues for Hebrew while noting the that the text was written in the language of the Egyptians. The problem with all these assumptions, however, is that they dictate the conclusion. If we assume we find Hebraisms and then we do, it appears as though we have validated the assumptions, even if what we find might have another explanation... the assumptions simply form a circular chain of logic, where assumption predicts and defines the Hebraism, and finding a Hebraism demonstrates that the assumption must have been correct." (p. 167)

To generalize: Of all the assumptions of any ancient parallel in attempting to show the Book of Mormon is ancient, "The problem with all these assumed ancient parallels is that they dictate the conclusion." If we assume the Book of Mormon is ancient, and then find ancient parallels to it, the assumptions simply form a circular chain of logic, where assumption predicts and defines the ancient parallel, and finding the ancient parallel demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is ancient must have been correct.
Replace the word Mesoamerican where the word ancient is, and you get the exact same argument!

[_honorentheos]

In a sense he's right. We make predictions and if those predictions hold true we find a greater degree of confidence in the underlying assumption. The issue I take is with then calling the assumption correct. There's a reason theories in science aren't proven to be true. They just hold up against attempts to disprove them.

Where apologetics tends to fall down is in asserting the rightness of their beliefs against counter evidence through changing the belief while denying their beliefs are evolving to account for the evidence. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the business when one deals in claims of divinely given truths that aren't.

[_Kishkumen]

"Of all these initial assumptions, Tvedtnes's is the most fascinating. He argues for Hebrew while noting the that the text was written in the language of the Egyptians. The problem with all these assumptions, however, is that they dictate the conclusion. If we assume we find Hebraisms and then we do, it appears as though we have validated the assumptions, even if what we find might have another explanation... the assumptions simply form a circular chain of logic, where assumption predicts and defines the Hebraism, and finding a Hebraism demonstrates that the assumption must have been correct." (p. 167)

The real irony here is that he is the fellow who has been misreading Mesoamerica into the Book of Mormon for decades. The further irony is that this is exactly why he would say such a thing about Hebraisms.

Don’t get me wrong. Brant is a really decent fellow.

[_Philo Sofee]

I fundamentally agree, Brant is a decent fellow. A real gem of a guy. His argument, based on his research for decades is deeply ironic! It is why I am sharing it. Having read his book again, it really popped out to me...

[_Kishkumen]

I fundamentally agree, Brant is a decent fellow. A real gem of a guy. His argument, based on his research for decades is deeply ironic! It is why I am sharing it. Having read his book again, it really popped out to me...

You nailed it, sir!

[_Simon Southerton]

"The problem with all these assumed ancient parallels is that they dictate the conclusion."

Maybe Brant has grown a little cynical about the whole Book of Mormon apologetics game. In 2015 Brant Gardner and Mark Wright published a review of John Sorenson's magnum opus, Mormon's Codex, in Interpreter. It's about as scathing as a review could be. Gardner and Wright are clearly fed up with Sorenson's use of parallels (he calls them ‘correspondences now). They praised Sorenson because of his amazing legacy after they stated his use of parallelomania (for 40 years!) was a ‘FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED METHODOLOGY". In other words, we love your work but it's all been a waste because your methods are dodgy. They also said, ‘there is a reason that in the four decades Sorenson has been describing such parallels that they have not been widely accepted. It is a methodology that too easily leads to false positives.’

They then run through each chapter of Mormon's Codex giving recommendations to readers. They actually recommend readers skip several chapters because they are so bad.

See Brant A. Gardner and Mark Alan Wright ‘John L. Sorenson’s Complete Legacy: Reviewing Mormon’s Codex’ Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 14 (2015): 209-221, 214-215, 217.

[_Kishkumen]

It would seem to me that the willingness of the editors of Interpreter to publish such a review contradicts the usual charges that there is a hive mind among the apologists and no room for real disagreement.

[_Philo Sofee]

Thanks for that Simon! I had no idea it was published! I'm gonna scoot on over there and take a look. This is a very good development if they can somehow find a more accurate and better methodology. I honestly don't know how or what it will be though. I'm not sure if Gardner's noble efforts at finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon won't suffer from the exact same problem Sorenson has had, namely circular arguments.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I re-read Brant's very interesting book "Translating the Book of Mormon," Greg Kofford, 2011, today, . . .

You can read an entire book in one day?? How long was the book, and how much time did it take you?

[_Philo Sofee]

. . . I re-read Brant's very interesting book "Translating the Book of Mormon," Greg Kofford, 2011, today, . . .

You can read an entire book in one day?? How long was the book, and how much time did it take you?

It's physically not a big book, and its 300 pages. Yeah I read it in about 7 hours though. Not too difficult. I am home caring for my sick wife and that gives me quite a bit more time for the time being.... so, I'm catching up on reading and actually typing like crazy about Harrell's book, which I am also re-reading.