The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Daniel Peterson]

How rigorous is the debate over the BOM?

Advocates do the best they can. On the whole, the critics aren't very good.

What substantive evidence is there that such a civilisation ever existed in Mesoamerica?

The evidence thus far is of fair to middling strength, but, according to John Clark and others, it's been steadily getting better. (Other aspects of the evidentiary picture are already much stronger.) Professor Clark will briefly outline his general take on the subject in his forthcoming article in the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Brant Gardner is working on the topic, as well, and John Sorenson has some very interesting things in the works.

Its all seems to be inhouse.

In the sense that it's only Latter-day Saints who are writing seriously about the topic and that it's almost entirely Latter-day Saints who are reading about it, that's true. But whether the discussion is in-house or not has no direct bearing on the question of whether the evidence is solid and the analysis cogent.

He said, snarling.

[noel00]

Gardiner's normal job is not even in the area according to his webpage (maybe an armchair anthropologist), Sorenson has retired?. That leaves one individual to carry the flag. Do you guys ever front up to a AAR (American Academy of Religion) meetings and present papers on the BOM as a historical document about some now extinct group (the Nephites).

[Daniel Peterson]

Gardiner's normal job is not even in the area according to his webpage (maybe an armchair anthropologist),

He has graduate training in Mesoamerican studies.

Sorenson has retired?.

And comes to his office virtually every day, working on Mesoamerican and Book of Mormon topics.

That leaves one individual to carry the flag.

I appreciate your concern, but you needn't worry.

Do you guys ever front up to a AAR (American Academy of Religion) meetings and present papers on the BOM as a historical document about some now extinct group (the Nephites).

No. For reasons I'm really, really tired of explaining over and over again.

I've given numerous papers at regional and national meetings of the AAR, though.

He said, baring his fangs.

[asciikerr]

But, you see, you misunderstand the state of the evidence, and the DVD flagrantly misrepresents it. It isn't a question of whether the peoples of the Book of Mormon vanished without leaving a trace. Presumably, ruins from those peoples dot the landscape. The question is whether or not the ruins can be identified as having been left by Book of Mormon peoples. That's where Professor Hamblin's superb 1993 Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" will prove helpful for those who are sincerely willing to engage the issues it treats:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=25

Muchas Gracias for the linkage, there is a lot of good information there that will keep me busy for days on end as I take in the information to compile it later.

I do have a few questions for you or anybody else who can help with the WARFARE section of Brant Gardner's review. The focus is concerning the Hill Cumorah...it would appear that the video basis their argument upon the Church's position concerning the location of the Hill Comurah in New York. Brant on the other hand doesn't follow what the church leadership appears to have taught or believed in the past..but instead sides with scholarly work and places it in Mesoamerica. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Thx again...

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Cumorah, the hill is named in the Book of Mormon as the location of the final battles of both the Jaredites and the Nephites. Many records were kept at the hill, and in Mormon 1, the prophet Mormon was told to take the plates from the hill. The text never specifies where the plates were buried.

From here, we have two divergent paths. One is a "traditional reading" that emerged within a few years of the publication of the Book of Mormon. The hill from which Joseph Smith obtained the plates was assumed to be the same as the hill in the Book of Mormon. Hence, what you vaguely refer to as "leadership." All the key statements are documented in Sorensen's Sourcebook, which you can obtain from FARMS, should one be inclined to grant LDS thinkers to offer own own opinions on our belief and tradition. Notably, none of the traditional identifications of the New York hill ever make use of any elements of the Book of Mormon description.

The problem is that the hill in New York does not match the description of the hill in the text. The first attempt at a comprehensive study of the internal geographic statements in the Book of Mormon appeared in 1938, though it had some precursors as critics and believers started to explore those issues around the turn of the century. For example, the story of Limhi's explorers makes it abundantly clear that the hill must be close to the narrow neck. Accounts in Ether place the hill fairly close to the sea. Other spacial and cultural requirements can be factored in, as in David Palmer's book, In Search of Cumorah, which appeared in 1981. The eighteen requirements that Palmer (building on the work of others) led him to focus on one suitable candidate.

Just as none of the traditional arguments for Cumorah ever referenced the requirements of the text, so it is with the critics. Rather, they reference various comments by people close to Joseph Smith, and certain passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. In the view of LDS who prefer the Mesoamerican location, none of the traditional statements are binding because they do not agree with the requirements of the actual text. This would be the case even if Moroni chose to name the hill in New York as Cumorah. Giving the hill the same name as another hill has no effect on the textual requirements for the Book of Mormon hill. Curiously, those who insist on identification by prophetic authority never include the Book of Mormon writers as authorities relevant to the discussion. Emphasis on the New York location by critics is done because iit is easier to criticize, and not because the identification follows from close analysis. It iinvolves views of prophetic authority and of the Book of Mormon text that cannot be supported by LDS scripture. It is a trick.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

All the key statements are documented in Sorensen's Sourcebook, which you can obtain from FARMS, should one be inclined to grant LDS thinkers to offer own own opinions on our belief and tradition.

Sourcebook available through FAIR

[Abulafia]

How rigorous is the debate over the BOM?

Advocates do the best they can. On the whole, the critics aren't very good.

What substantive evidence is there that such a civilisation ever existed in Mesoamerica?

The evidence thus far is of fair to middling strength, but, according to John Clark and others, it's been steadily getting better. (Other aspects of the evidentiary picture are already much stronger.) Professor Clark will briefly outline his general take on the subject in his forthcoming article in the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Brant Gardner is working on the topic, as well, and John Sorenson has some very interesting things in the works.

Its all seems to be inhouse.

In the sense that it's only Latter-day Saints who are writing seriously about the topic and that it's almost entirely Latter-day Saints who are reading about it, that's true. But whether the discussion is in-house or not has no direct bearing on the question of whether the evidence is solid and the analysis cogent.

He said, snarling.

Daniel, if you could put yourself in the position of a non-believer and one who was interested academically in the Book of Mormon - What would YOUR main criticisms of the Book be in terms of establishing its historicity? You are in a far better position than many to know...????

She says...imploringly!!!

Abulafia

[Gervin]

Your self-interview reminded me of one on my bookshelf by Walker Percy. There was a guy who could interview himself. You seemed to have lobbed yourself some easy ones and, as Brant Gardner likes to say, you're asking the wrong questions. Be that as it may,

DP: Do you admit that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I emphatically do not. There are many lines of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- philological, archaeological, and other kinds. With Professors Jack Welch and Don Parry, I edited a book about such evidence (Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon), and I've spoken and written frequently on the topic. (Two such lectures have been recorded and are marketed by Covenant Communications under the title Evidence and Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.) FARMS and others have published a great deal of material on this topic. Plainly, I do not "admit" that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

You know how to start off with the easy questions. This is nothing new; you believe that archeology has (

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Gervin's comments:

Actually finding and identifying the River Sidon might persuade some people to believe in the story told in the Book of Mormon. It might evince a more lackadaisical reaction;

[Confidential Informant]

Christians don’t expect conversion to Christ-claims because they can wade in the Jordan River (despite the story of Christ’s alleged witness of the manifestation of God and the Holy Spirit at the river). Jews don’t expect conversion to Judaism because they can walk through Hezekiah’s tunnel (despite the Biblical story of its construction to thwart a siege army opposing Israel). No one would expect conversion to the LDS church simply because someone could stand in the River Sidon.

You really being intentionally obtuse, aren't you. The fact is that neither Testament of the Bible has the same provenance as the Book of Mormon. Thus, finding the Jordan River is not a big deal because we've always known where it was at. There has never been any question that the Bible is legitimately ancient.

However, that is not the case for the Book of Mormon. Thus, if you find "Zarahemla" the ramification of that find go far beyond those of finding a place/site for the Bible. If you find Ninevah, that doesn't mean that Jonah existed and was swallowed by a fish. If you find Zarahemla, it does mean that Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, et. al. existed and if they existed then it the book is historical and if the book is historical all of the sudden you have to account for Joseph Smith and his story. Did he tranlate a document given to him by an angel? That question doesn't arise in the biblical context. The very nature of the provenance of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly impossible to divorce the spiritual/supernatural from the other questions. If you can't see that, then I don't know why Dr. Peterson would bother engaging your criticisms any further.

C.I.

[Pahoran]

Your self-interview reminded me of one on my bookshelf by Walker Percy.  There was a guy who could interview himself.  You seemed to have lobbed yourself some easy ones and, as Brant Gardner likes to say, you're asking the wrong questions.  Be that as it may,

Some "easy ones?" Exactly what hard questions did he miss? The only inaccuracy I saw was that he imagined that you might be interested in carrying on a civil conversation with a Mormon (ugh!)

Entirely fictitious, I know, but his dialogue did hit all the main points I've seen you trying to make. If that is not the case, why are you trying so hard to dispute his argument?

You know how to start off with the easy questions.  This is nothing new; you believe that archeology has (

[Abulafia]

You really being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.  The fact is that neither Testament of the Bible has the same provenance as the Book of Mormon.  Thus, finding the Jordan River is not a big deal because we've always known where it was at.  There has never been any question that the Bible is legitimately ancient.

However, that is not the case for the Book of Mormon.  Thus, if you find "Zarahemla" the ramification of that find go far beyond those of finding a place/site for the Bible.  If you find Ninevah, that doesn't mean that Jonah existed and was swallowed by a fish.  If you find Zarahemla, it does mean that Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, et. al. existed and if they existed then it the book is historical and if the book is historical all of the sudden you have to account for Joseph Smith and his story.  Did he tranlate a document given to him by an angel?  That question doesn't arise in the biblical context. The very nature of the provenance of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly impossible to divorce the spiritual/supernatural from the other questions.  If you can't see that, then I don't know why Dr. Peterson would bother engaging your criticisms any further. 

C.I.

I do agree with you here CI and thought the same thing as I was reading Gervin's post. If there were 'conclusive' proof that Zarahemla existed then it would have very wide ramifications for Joseph Smith's claims. (Perhaps not ALL his claims since he was human afterall! But it would put the Book of Mormon on to a whole different level. I don't think it will ever happen however, but what do I know!!)

Abulafia

[Gervin]

However, that is not the case for the Book of Mormon. Thus, if you find "Zarahemla" the ramification of that find go far beyond those of finding a place/site for the Bible. If you find Ninevah, that doesn't mean that Jonah existed and was swallowed by a fish. If you find Zarahemla, it does mean that Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, et. al. existed

So, we know the Bible is ancient and it mentions a city called Ninevah but if we find that city it doesn't mean that Jonah existed. We don't know if the Book of Mormon is ancient and it mentions a city called Zarahemla but if find it we know for certain that Nephi existed. And all this because someone claims to have gotten the Book of Mormon off a plate given to him by God. Would you please tell me how the story of Jonah was written and/or transmitted? Sure it's ancient. But I happen to believe that the Bible was transmitted by God. Why does my belief in transmission of the Bible by God mean that the characters in the Bible may be fictional while your belief in the transmission of the Book of Mormon by God mean that your characters are real?

and if they existed then it the book is historical

I'm afraid you would have a hard time proving that.

and if the book is historical all of the sudden you have to account for Joseph Smith and his story. Did he tranlate a document given to him by an angel?

Or maybe he didn't. Are you sure that Jos. Smith was infallible and that everything must be exactly as he claims?

That question doesn't arise in the biblical context. The very nature of the provenance of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly impossible to divorce the spiritual/supernatural from the other questions.

The provenance of the Book of Mormon shouldn't rely on the archeological evidence any more than the archeological evidence should rely on the provenance. If Joseph Smith never translated a book called Mormon do you believe that there would exist any archeolgical evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites, et al?

[Beowulf]

Gervin asserts:

QUOTE 

and if the book is historical all of the sudden you have to account for Joseph Smith and his story. Did he tranlate a document given to him by an angel? 

Or maybe he didn't. Are you sure that Jos. Smith was infallible and that everything must be exactly as he claims?

Actually it has occurred to me that it is POSSIBLE that Joseph Smith was lying about the angel and about seeing God the Father and God the Son, and yet also discovered ancient Gold Plates in the Hill south of his farm, translated it (all on his own power ), and presented us with a book about Ancient America, by ancient Americans.

In other words, an authentically ancient book, without any supernatural claims whatsoever...

On second thought... NEVER MIND!

This theory is even more fantastic than the one where an angel appears...

Beowulf

I think, friends, that Bill Hamblin's thesis, seconded by CI, Dan Peterson, and others, must be considered legitimate.

[Pahoran]

However, that is not the case for the Book of Mormon. Thus, if you find "Zarahemla" the ramification of that find go far beyond those of finding a place/site for the Bible. If you find Ninevah, that doesn't mean that Jonah existed and was swallowed by a fish. If you find Zarahemla, it does mean that Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, et. al. existed

So, we know the Bible is ancient and it mentions a city called Ninevah but if we find that city it doesn't mean that Jonah existed. We don't know if the Book of Mormon is ancient and it mentions a city called Zarahemla but if find it we know for certain that Nephi existed. And all this because someone claims to have gotten the Book of Mormon off a plate given to him by God. Would you please tell me how the story of Jonah was written and/or transmitted? Sure it's ancient. But I happen to believe that the Bible was transmitted by God. Why does my belief in transmission of the Bible by God mean that the characters in the Bible may be fictional while your belief in the transmission of the Book of Mormon by God mean that your characters are real?

That's real fancy footwork there, pardner!

Of course it is not the case that your "belief in transmission of the Bible by God means that the characters in the Bible may be fictional," and that is not what CI is arguing.

And I find it hard to believe that you can really think that he is.

As I'm sure you realise perfectly well, it is not disputed that the Bible has been around for a very long time. Its documentary provenance is known. Very old manuscripts--as old as 2000 years in some cases--exist for most of the books found therein. The languages in which these manuscripts are written are known, and they can be read by scholars using only human skills. It is logically possible for the Bible to be both authentically ancient and--as far as its significant truth claims are concerned--factually untrue.

The same cannot be said of The Book of Mormon. If it can be proven to be authentically ancient, then that would also prove the only explanation for its existence that is consistent with historical authenticity, namely that an angel gave gold plates to Joseph, who then translated them by miraculous means.

and if they existed then it the book is historical

I'm afraid you would have a hard time proving that.

No he wouldn't. It is a logical necessity and is true by definition. If the people and places described in The Book of Mormon actually existed, then it is ipso facto historical. Granted, that wouldn't guarantee the truth of every single detail--but that is not what is being claimed.

and if the book is historical all of the sudden you have to account for Joseph Smith and his story. Did he tranlate a document given to him by an angel?

Or maybe he didn't. Are you sure that Jos. Smith was infallible and that everything must be exactly as he claims?

This is a straw man. No claim of "infallibility" is anywhere in view.

But we do know--for a fact--that Joseph didn't study any ancient languages until years later in Kirtland. If The Book of Mormon is authentically ancient, then the original was written by men who lived a very long time ago and did not write in English. So just how did Joseph manage to translate it? For almost 180 years, only one explanation for an authentic Book of Mormon has been offered. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition; there is no evidence of any kind, anywhere, for any alternative at all. There are only two alternatives: either The Book of Mormon is a modern production, or it is both authentically ancient AND divinely produced.

That question doesn't arise in the biblical context. The very nature of the provenance of the Book of Mormon makes it nearly impossible to divorce the spiritual/supernatural from the other questions.

The provenance of the Book of Mormon shouldn't rely on the archeological evidence any more than the archeological evidence should rely on the provenance.

Cute, but irrelevant. The fact is that come the day that any archaeological evidence turns up that can only be explained in terms of an authentic Book of Mormon, that evidence will also only be explainable in terms of gold plates and an angel.

If Joseph Smith never translated a book called Mormon do you believe that there would exist any archeolgical evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites, et al?

If Joseph had never translated The Book of Mormon, the evidence would still be in the ground; but without a text, archaeologists would have no idea how to interpret it.

Two thousand years from now, archaeologists digging in places as far apart as Iceland and Australia and Canada and Argentina are going to turn up evidence of a remarkably uniform material culture. How are they going to know what those people did, who they were, and how they thought about the world? Only as they find written records.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Your self-interview reminded me of one on my bookshelf by Walker Percy.  There was a guy who could interview himself.  You seemed to have lobbed yourself some easy ones and, as Brant Gardner likes to say, you're asking the wrong questions. 

I asked myself the questions to which I've kept giving answers -- answers that you've apparently not understood. I absolutely agree that they're easy questions.

It is . . .  obvious that LDS scholarship with regard to the archaeological record for the setting of the Book of Mormon does not follow conventional methods for collecting evidence and presenting cogent analysis.

That's not at all obvious to me. You are welcome to survey a statistically significant sample of such LDS scholarship and then demonstrate your claim.

No one would expect conversion to the LDS church simply because someone could stand in the River Sidon.

I think, given the standard account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in the early nineteenth century, that someone who believed himself or herself to be able to stand in the Nephite River Sidon would find conversion almost logically entailed by that fact.

What is the basis for your belief that [non-LDS scholars] are unaware [of LDS arguments] - is it because they don

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, if you could put yourself in the position of a non-believer and one who was interested academically in the Book of Mormon - What would YOUR main criticisms of the Book  be in terms of establishing its historicity?  You are in a far better position than many to know...????

(1)

I would say that the fact that Book of Mormon theology seems (at first glance, anyway) to be more compatible with Joseph Smith's 1830 views than with his 1844 teachings (notably in what has sometimes been alleged to be a modalistic view of the Godhead, and in the seeming absence of such teachings as human exaltation, etc.) can be used to argue that it fits into his own intellectual trajectory too neatly for coincidence, and that this would indicate his nineteenth century authorship rather than its antiquity.

I've never seen that as a slam-dunk, however, and I've come to believe that the Book of Mormon fits less neatly into Joseph's presumed personal evolution than it once seemed to do. But that would be (and probably will be) the stuff of an article.

(2)

In my view, the glass of specifically Mesoamerican specifically archaeological evidence is roughly half full. A critic, however, can easily argue that it is at least half empty.

I think that the level in the glass is very slowly rising.

She says...imploringly!!! 

I'm having a bit of fun with noel00. Some time ago, he attacked me very sharply once or twice for my allegedly brutal and disrespectful way of treating those who dare to dissent from any of my opinions. Accordingly, whenever I respond to noel00, I feel the need to remind him that, however it may seem, I actually am snarling viciously. I wouldn't want him to feel that he had been mistaken.

[Markk]

Hi,

In my view, the glass of specifically Mesoamerican specifically archaeological evidence is roughly half full. A critic, however, can easily argue that it is at least half empty.

I think that the level in the glass is very slowly rising.

http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm

Mark

[The_Monk]

seeming absence of such teachings as human exaltation

It's not fleshed out, but it's not entirely absent either. From the mouth of Jesus, no less.

3Ne 28:10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. We are as Jesus, and Jesus is as the Father, then we are as the Father.

[noel00]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in...ent_Mesoamerica

"The emergence of a Mesoamerican metallurgical tradition occurred relatively late, with distinctive works of metal apparent in West Mexico by roughly AD 800, and perhaps as early as AD 600 (Hosler, 1988, 1995). "

Also

http://people.uncw.edu/simmonss/lamanai.htm

[Gervin]

I'm aware of no particular evidence that they are aware. Are you? I read other scholars and meet with other scholars constantly, in a variety of settings. I encounter very, very, few (effectively none) who have more than a nodding acquaintance with anything pertaining to Latter-day Saint doctrine or scripture. I'm aware of very few serious scholarly treatments (again, effectively none) of Mormon doctrine or scripture published by non-Latter-day Saints.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to look at it.

Doctrinally there are many churches that have examined LDS positions and have deemed them unworthy of serious consideration. Archaeologically you can

[Daniel Peterson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in...ent_Mesoamerica

"The emergence of a Mesoamerican metallurgical tradition occurred relatively late, with distinctive works of metal apparent in West Mexico by roughly AD 800, and perhaps as early as AD 600 (Hosler, 1988, 1995). "

Also

http://people.uncw.edu/simmonss/lamanai.htm

I assume, noel00, that you're familiar with John Sorenson's glottochronological reflections on metals in Mesoamerica, so I won't bother to rehash them here.

Said Peterson, growling with brutal menace.

[Bob Bennett]

It's amazing how many times reading the dialogue between informed LDS scholars and folks like Gervin bring to mind the dialogue between King Arthur and the Black Knight from Monte Python's Search for the Holy Grail. They just simply refuse to accept that they are being soundly trounced, regardless of how many limbs are removed.

[Daniel Peterson]

Doctrinally there are many churches that have examined LDS positions and have deemed them unworthy of serious consideration.

I wasn't talking about doctrine, of course. That's a separate issue. But it's one on which I feel personally quite qualified to make my own judgments (the history of pre-modern philosophical theology [Jewish, Christian, and Muslim] being one of my chief areas of professional research interest) -- and my judgment is that such criticisms as I've seen from other churches are far from convincing. If you wish to attempt to convince me, though, you're entirely welcome to make the attempt. But please do it on another thread.

Archaeologically you can

[Daniel Peterson]

seeming absence of such teachings as human exaltation

It's not fleshed out, but it's not entirely absent either. From the mouth of Jesus, no less.

3Ne 28:10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. We are as Jesus, and Jesus is as the Father, then we are as the Father.

That is, in fact, one of the very verses that I had in mind. I didn't realize that anybody else had noticed it. I myself only noticed it a relatively few years ago, and with something of a start. It reminded me of Elder Packer's comment that, sometimes, when he's reading the scriptures, his attention is arrested by a fabulous verse that he's just sure wasn't there the last time he read that chapter.