Horses and Chariots -

[rockyterrain]

All of the work of McCue's essay stands on one point, which has as much stability as an ice cube.  He acts as if everything there is to know about relevant areas, cultures, etc. is known to archeologists, anthropologists, etc.  That ice cube is melting.  More and more information is coming to light and applying heat.  When the ice cube finally melts to a puddle his little pyramid of logic will fall.

C'mon Charity. You're smarter than that.

How about an answer other than ice cubes and puddles?

More and more information coming to light? That's empty.

T-Bone

There is nothing empty about a real revelation from God.

Who need apologetics when you can go to God in prayer, like Joseph did, and get answers that last a lifetime.

Apologetics is a CRUTCH for mormons. FARMS is a crutch. Its an intellectual crutch for those that don't have a strong enough testimony to accept things even when they might look ridiculous to the world.

[charity]

rocky, I posted way back in the thread that I though most of McCue's argument is based on the faulty preposition that there are no horses or whatever because "science" has proven it. We all know, or should know, that there are constantly new discoveries. So this argument dies because it is in reality, a non-scientific argument. Wait and see what is found.

So t-bone says, it's "empty" to think there will be more information. Since when did science ever say there was nothing new to learn?

Then rocky comes back with the idea that apologetics are a "crutch." And strong LDS don't need it. Of course, we don't need apologetics. Among the brightest lights of the FAIR and FARMS organizations you will also see the strongest testimonies, not because of their knowledge but because of personal revelation. Anyone who either believes, or does not believe, the Book of Mormon based on what archeology says or doesn't say, is standing on sand.

Matthew 16-18: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[evilelvis]

Archeology and grant money goes where the "leading" minds go...

(pretty much works that way in all fields) Objectively speaking, would anyone "buck" the authorities to disprove what is "known" about Meso-American history?

[Marvelous]

Are scientists in the relevant disciplines aware of the BOM and LDS claims concerning pre-Columbian America? Many, if not most, of them are. The Smithsonian's statement concerning the BOM is evidence.

As has been pointed out in other threads, if there was a possibility that the BOM is an authentic history and that it offers insights archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, and historians don't have presently, they would be all over it. Science is very competitive. If a scientist can get a jump on the competition, she will take it.

Do you for a moment think that LDS scientists wouldn't love to win over their fellow scientists with regard to the BOM? Can you imagine the conversion potential of acceptance of it by the scientific community as an authentic history?

I am not claiming that these non-LDS scientists are aware of all of the pro-BOM evidence. But they are aware of LDS claims and familiar with some of the evidence. The evidence with which they are familiar is insufficient to pique their further interest.

Greg Smith claims that there are those who have examined all the evidence who have been converted. If that is true, it must be a very small number. In the last twenty years, at least, I know of no one who joined because they were persuaded by scientific evidence supportive of the BOM. During that time I was a Ward Mission Leader and a Stake Mission President. There may have been some "scientific" converts during the time "Ancient America Speaks" was in vogue, but further scientific inquiry failed to corroborate LDS claims.

As some of you have pointed out, conversion is based on gaining a spiritual witness. This is true, in part, because the factual evidence is inconclusive, at best, and damning, at worst. Greg, this is how Catholics believe as they do. It's not because the evidence for transubstantion is compelling. It's because they have been moved spiritually (emotionally?) and interpret these feelings as evidence of the validity of Catholic claims.

The catalyst for my deconversion process was studying the Jehovah's Witnesses. I was curious as to how a good friend of mine could buy into their "system of things". I discovered a very sincere group of people who, in general, are ignorant of many JW historical and religious facts. "Bethel" discourages Witnesses from doing outside research. However, a few of them were aware of the information I uncovered, yet remained committed. The basis for their religion was transparently human, not divine. I honestly believe anyone in command of all the facts will draw the same conclusion. Somehow, these few Witnesses were able to rationalize away the obvious. It was at that moment I knew I might be doing the same thing with regard to Mormonism. If I had not studied the Society (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), I might never have been able to examine Mormonism objectively.

Did I ever have a testimony? I sure thought I did. I felt I had received a confirmation of the Spirit many times. What I discovered in investigating the Witnesses is that they claim the same spiritual witness, as I believe most Christians do. So the feelings I associated with the "one and only true church" weren't unique. It wasn't an infallible gauge of truth.

I do think feelings matter. I believe in using them as one tool in discerning truth. But feelings don't trump facts. No matter how convinced Witnesses may be that Jehovah has revealed the truth to the Society, I believe the facts say otherwise. I now believe the same of the LDS Church. I take no pleasure in it. My father and wife are devastated. My missionary daughter and BYU son are disappointed and perplexed. I haven't attempted to disabuse them. I don't think the Church is evil, although I do think it does damage to many of its members. It's just not what it claims.

If I hadn't gone through the process I have described, I might have made the same arguments many of you are. I never visited this board as a faithful Latter-Day Saint, although I did read a lot of LDS history. I avoided "anti-" literature. I certainly was better informed than most Saints, having read extensively and served in numerous leadership callings. However, I didn't have the full picture by any means, and more importantly, I wasn't being objective. I was viewing the Church through rose-colored glasses. When the tint was removed and I learned all of the facts, the truth about Mormonism was as obvious to me as the truth about the Society.

[charity]

marvelous, it is really sad that you have a mistaken idea of what scientists are likely to do, especially if that contributed to your estrangement from the Church.

I taught psychology and only engaged in research as a necessity to obtain my degrees. I loved the teaching part, not the research. Well, actually it was the statistical analysis that drove me batty. But I was around researchers all my teaching career. It is no secret in academic circles that scientists must be politically correct to have any chance of having professional credibility. If any archeologist were to take a religious text, one which had supposedly been delivered by an angel, as a basis for his grant proposal to get money to fund a dig, he/she would be laughed out of the profession.

And to deny a witness that you have had, because God loves all His children and will give them witnesses to whatever truth they can find, is so sad. It is either means that you don't think God loves all His children, or that you think that His love, if it is liberally given, cheapens it. You can't be a "special" group and get a witness so it isn't valuable? I hope that was not your reasoning.

[Greg Smith]

No matter how convinced Witnesses may be that Jehovah has revealed the truth to the Society, I believe the facts say otherwise.

My father and wife are devastated. My missionary daughter and BYU son are disappointed and perplexed. I haven't attempted to disabuse them. I don't think the Church is evil, although I do think it does damage to many of its members. It's just not what it claims.

If I hadn't gone through the process I have described, I might have made the same arguments many of you are. I never visited this board as a faithful Latter-Day Saint, although I did read a lot of LDS history. I avoided "anti-" literature. I certainly was better informed than most Saints, having read extensively and served in numerous leadership callings. However, I didn't have the full picture by any means, and more importantly, I wasn't being objective.

Are scientists in the relevant disciplines aware of the BOM and LDS claims concerning pre-Columbian America? Many, if not most, of them are. The Smithsonian's statement concerning the BOM is evidence.

Oh, I don't doubt the Smithsonian is aware that the Book of Mormon claims to say something about ancient America. But, the same Smithsonian statement (especially the previous iteration) is also evidence that whoever wrote the statement (probably a mid-level functionary, I'm guessing) isn't particularly aware of the specific claims, or the sorts of things which the LDS might consider evidences.

Really, what's the best Smithsonian monograph on the Book of Mormon? What's the best secular book on it? Really, if someone asked you for an unbiased assessment of the Book of Mormon, what volume would you send them to?

Do you for a moment think that LDS scientists wouldn't love to win over their fellow scientists with regard to the BOM? Can you imagine the conversion potential of acceptance of it by the scientific community as an authentic history?

I'm sure LDS scientists would like to. I was trained as a scientist, and I'm LDS, and I would like to.

But, I've spent enough time in academics to know that if I say to one of my scientific colleagues "Hey, I've got a Book from an angel that tells about the history of ancient America," that pesky angel is going to trump just about anything else for the vast majority. One of the first questions you ask about a putative source is its provenance, and when you have to say that it came from a religious leader in 19th century America who claimed to get it from an angel (and who, horrors, practiced polygamy) that's going to end most scientific conversations. If you think otherwise, I fear you have a pretty naive view of how open minded scientists are. :-)

And, I can't blame them, because angels are notoriously hard to study with blinded trials.

And, I was trained in the bio sciences, where (in my experience) the practitioners are generally more friendly and tolerant of religion than the social sciences, anthropology, sociology, etc. Many of those are actively hostile to it.

I am not claiming that these non-LDS scientists are aware of all of the pro-BOM evidence. But they are aware of LDS claims and familiar with some of the evidence. The evidence with which they are familiar is insufficient to pique their further interest.

That's right--they're NOT aware of all the evidence. Thanks for conceeding the point.

And, that darn angel is going to make it very hard personally (AND PROFESSIONALLY) for anyone to spend much time on the Book of Mormon in a scientific context. Science (and scholarship in general) has to be religion-neutral in most things, and I think that this is a net gain on balance.

Greg Smith claims that there are those who have examined all the evidence who have been converted. If that is true, it must be a very small number. In the last twenty years, at least, I know of no one who joined because they were persuaded by scientific evidence supportive of the BOM.

It probably is small. We would expect it to be: "Strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth to eternal life, and few there be that find it."

As I said, I think the evidence can be read either way. If one reads it such that one does not reject it outright, then this leads to other evidences. I would not expect scientific evidence alone to "convince" someone. But, they can prepare the way, so to speak.

Dan Peterson, on occasion, has mentioned some mesoamericanists who have joined just for example.

But, I find it interesting that "the scientists" have suddenly become the authority figures in all this.

Greg, this is how Catholics believe as they do. It's not because the evidence for transubstantion is compelling. It's because they have been moved spiritually (emotionally?) and interpret these feelings as evidence of the validity of Catholic claims.

This might be true. However, I've had several Catholic friends over the years, and they have never described anything in our conversations on these issues that really approximates my own LDS experiences--which is a conversation.

Frankly, I haven

[beastie]

I've gotten behind on this thread, and am just catching up.

I agree that I don't know how it was done, but I completely understand a process that explains all data of which I am aware. Usually, that becomes a reasonable theory.

I have a theory that works to describe the translation, and it doesn't even come close to suggesting that Joseph was a reader.

Can you provide a link to where you discuss that process, or give a summary here, if it's not too complicated? I've long been interested in your conception as to how this occured. I do speak another language, and do know the difficulties in translation, but have a hard time understanding how this process works with someone who doesn't know the language being translated. While I still think the statements from JS' contemporaries is a serious problem for your theory, I do think that your theory will eventually become the predominant one. I know Ben's position is that Nephi or the original authors were the people making the translation errors, so to speak, and this resolves some issues, but I think you probably realize that it can't resolve all the issues on the Mesoamerican side of the equation.

Excellent questions. If you pursue them you might come to the same conclusion I did.

Maybe. I don't completely understand your conclusion, so I don't know. So did I leave some other process out, in which human beings receive information? Specific words, a complete thought, a visual image.... is that about it?

Somehow you have misunderstood what I said about the idiomatic expression. The vocabulary of an idiomatic expression usually does not translate, but the meaning does. Often, idioms in one language are translated with a parallel idiom in the target language - this preserves the idea that an idiomatic expression was used and translates the meaning. It does not (intentionally does not) translate the specific words of the source idiom.

I did understand what you meant. Look again at my reply, to which you were replying:

It's one thing to say that someone who just read words off a stone didn't really understand how the text worked, for example, didn't understand that the entire text took place in a very small area - but it's quite another thing to state that someone who had to process and understand the text enough to translate the MEANING of an idiomdidn't understand that same text.

I do understand that it is the MEANING which translates, not the vocabulary. But my point is that JS had to be able to process the original text well enough to understand what that MEANING was. This makes JS a very active "engager" of the text, so to speak, which weakens the premise that he didn't really understand the text he translated. He HAD to understand the text he translated, to capture an idiom in a foreign language, perhaps referring to items completely alien to him, and translate it into an idiom in English that had the same MEANING.

The text tells me that it moves. I can make some inferences from that. A good assumption would be that it transported something, since that would give us the conceptual link that produced the English word "chariot."

Maybe I've been reading the wrong books, but I can't think of many things that moved and transported something from Mesoamerica, other than the litter and the tumpline you already mentioned. What else is there?

The issue of the "horse" is one of them. Since it is something that I think is very peripheral to understanding the text, I don't see any reason to feed this particular frenzy. If I argue a point on purely Mesoamerican terms, no one seems to think that it fits the Book of Mormon because it doesn't fit the preconception of "horse" or "chariot." It seems wiser deal with the more important issue of what those particular terms mean for analyzing the Book of Mormon. What they mean in a Mesoamerican context is just way too far away from the fundamental issue - people get confused or jump to interesting conclusions.

If I understand you correctly, this is why you usually just refer to the fact that miss or colabeling is a real phenomenon. What frustrates me is that most people who have put forth some effort in this area know and accept that. I want to focus on the other point we agree on - that the context of the term must be coherent with Mesoamerica - and at that point, it seems that you have to address the Mesoamerican context, else you seem to be avoiding the really hard part of the issue.

I respect Ben's education. I respect you willingness to become educated on a topic you didn't know much about before. I think that is fantastic and I think it is worth nurturing. I think you have your version of the same problem a lot of LDS have when they approach a topic related to either the Bible or the Book of Mormon - we tend to see everythings in terms of the religious issue. Secular scholars rightfully have little patience for that. In my experience, it takes a long time working in the purely secular before you can rationally engage the secular/religious interface.

Thanks, Brant, I do credit your work on the BoM with my interest in Mesoamerican history, and now just plain enjoy it, even aside from the BoM connection. I have this probably naive hope that if I can have SOME understanding of a culture that is about as alien from my own as imaginable, and SOME ability to recognize the joint humanity behind it all, our common hopes, loves, and dreams, then I will have made progress in understanding what it means to be human.

But, aside from that, I do wonder how you view my comments as seeing everything in religious terms. How do I do that?

I'll be back later with some other comments.

[beastie]

Brant,

Thanks for noticing that I did hunt down Blass, but, unless I missed it, I don't think you responded to my post regarding how even that is problematic for you.

1. Keep out of the range of unsympathetic critics. There is, Blass insists, no such thing as a clever forgery. No forger can escape detection if somebody really wants to expose him; all the great forgeries discovered to date have been crudely executed (for example, the Piltdown skull), depending for their success on the enthusiastic support of the public or the experts. The Book of Mormon has enjoyed no such support. From the day it appeared, important persons at the urgent demand of an impatient public did everything they could to show it a forgery. And Joseph Smith, far from keeping it out of the hands of unsympathetic critics, did everything he could to put it into those hands. Surely this is not the way of a deceiver.

I have a couple of reactions to this - one is that it is nearly impossible for anyone to hope to keep a forgery away from unsympathetic critics. Second, from what I've read, the BoM wasn't criticized so much for the contradictions it presented to assumptions about ancient America during JS' period, but rather it was more attacked as a religious forgery. There is a difference.

But, aside from that, een the Piltdown skull landed in the hands of unsympathetic critics. Anything that is offered that is going to be very significant in a claim is going to be analyzed.

JS knew it was going to be criticized himself.

2. Keep your document as short as possible. The longer a forgery is the more easily it may be exposed, the danger increasing geometrically with the length of the writing. By the time he had gone ten pages, the author of the Book of Mormon knew only too well what a dangerous game he was playing if it was a hoax; yet he carries on undismayed for six hundred pages.

This may be advisable, but the BoM wouldn't be the first work of forgery that was quite lengthy.

3. Above all, don't write a historical document! They are by far the easiest of all to expose, being full of

[beastie]

BTW, Ben, I went into more detail regarding my assertion that a portion of the BoM lands were very suitable to horse manuevers on the old tapir thread.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...st=150&hl=tapir

While it may be fair to say that the impact of the horse on a maize-based culture would be different, I think it is inaccurate to say or insinuate that the impact of the horse on a maize-based culture would be negligible or nonexistent.

[Marvelous]

But, I've spent enough time in academics to know that if I say to one of my scientific colleagues "Hey, I've got a Book from an angel that tells about the history of ancient America," that pesky angel is going to trump just about anything else for the vast majority.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

The key argument is, and always was, anachronism. Is the context anachronistic or only the terminology? Only a discussion of Mesoamerican context can provide the answers.

When it comes down to it, this is the problem of a historical forgery. They are the most difficult because they must actually conform to data. I just read Ehrman's discussion of the possibility that Morton Smith forged his letter from Clement mentioning the Secret Gospel of Mark. As he noted, if it is true, it required a brilliant scholar and careful planning - and it is still controversial. What Ehrman did not also mention was that it was short. It didn't have to match a lot.

The problem with the Book of Mormon as a forgery is that it has to fit into two very specific historical contexts. For years, the historical data told researchers that the Book of Mormon failed in both the Old World and the New. What is most interesting is that the most recent research makes the Book of Mormon extremely comfortable and reflective of a precise period of history in Jerusalem - exactly the period it claims, and the New World history not only fits into the gross geographical/historical setting of the New World, but reflects the major cultural pressures developing in the New World. This includes known economic and political developments that are paralleled during the same time in the Book of Mormon as they are present in the New World and the known relationships among certain ethnic and linguistic groups.

All of that is so hard to forge as to be as amazing as the claim of the text itself.

What historians find most important in detecting a good forgery is the places where the wrong culture leaks through the text. Frankly, this happens pretty frequently in the English vocabulary. That certainly requires explanation, but one would expect that a similar issue would occur in the internal actions, attitudes and descriptions of the cultural items that are taken for granted in the text. That is where you do not find anachronisms - right in the places where they ought to be. No matter what Joseph Smith understood about theories of the population of the Americas, he did not understand Native American culture of any stripe. To have accurately described any of them without adding in romanticisms would be fascinating. That he skipped over any that he would have possibly been familiar with and described accurate cultural connections for a region where those cultural connections wouldn't be understood for nearly 150 is rather amazing.

All of that tells me that vocabulary anachronisms are a smokescreen. They are not at the heart of the historical issue. You are correct that context is the place to go - but I certainly disagree on what elements should be examined for context. The vocabularly anachronisms are such an easy target that they are tempting - but they are also so easily explained if the more important aspects the text are historical that it isn't worth the effort to play around with them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

BTW, Ben, I went into more detail regarding my assertion that a portion of the BoM lands were very suitable to horse manuevers on the old tapir thread.

While it may be fair to say that the impact of the horse on a maize-based culture would be different, I think it is inaccurate to say or insinuate that the impact of the horse on a maize-based culture would be negligible or nonexistent.

The thing here is this - no matter, whether they had a "horse" or not (in our traditional definition), the horse, as it appears in the text is hardly compatible with such a definition. This problem will not go away if we discover properly dated horse remains. And the idea that by "horse" something else is meant will still be valid. The issue with the maize based agriculture extends beyond the idea of a "horse" with a traditional meaning. Presumably, most large mammals would not be terribly useful in such an environment in agriculture. So, we suspect that whatever animal is meant (even if it means "horse" in the traditional sense) we would not see its use commonly among subsistence level populations - or the agrigarian elements of Book of Mormon Social groups. These comments are directed at the notion that the Tapir is unsuitable for domestication. It seems that it is reasonably suited for certain types of domestication - but, given the environmental issues was not. It may well have seen domestication given other circumstances. This supports the idea that the use of the "horse" in the Book of Mormon was limited, and was not the same as the use of the animal we traditionally call the "horse".

Ben

[Greg Smith]

Greg, I have to believe you would be a little smoother than to introduce the topic by referencing angels and religious hocus pocus.

Oh, sure. But, provenence is going to come up.

Martin Harris' report of his Charles Anthon experience is illustrative. (You can argue, of course, of whether Anthon or Harris' report best matches the experience, though Harris went to Anthon looking for confirmation, and seemed to believe that he got it. In any case, the _report_ of Anthon tearing up the certificate once he learned about the angel would very possibly match what reactions might be.)

If there were persuasive DNA or archaeological evidence to support the BOM, one would begin there. This is not the case, unfortunately.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say on DNA that as I have always read the Book of Mormon, I wouldn't expect there to be much testable one way or the other. Many experts agree with me.

As for archaelogy, Jerusalem provides a fixed point of reference. 1 Nephi has been used very profitably as a guide for the Nephite overland route to the sea. Every mentioned point has a great correlation, the apparently only year-round flowing water in all of Saudi Arabia (and unknown to the Saudi government) was found in accord with 1 Nephi, the NHM inscriptions turned up right where they had been predicted years earlier, the incense route (unknown to Joseph) was properly ID'ed, and the end place has all the right materials for ship building. Not too shabby, and all research guided by the Book of Mormon. Of course, only Mormons took it seriously enough to actually go look, but that's a number of bulls-eyes for the young Joseph Smith.

Yet, there are scientists who are researching near-death experiences,

And, there are scientists using the Book of Mormon for archaelogy and exploration, with results, as above. But, they are LDS, so they "don't count." :-)

The Book of Mormon also gives some interesting insights into Pre-exilic Jewish religion, but was considered "evidence" only by Mormons--no one else would give it the time of day. Now that Barker and others are saying the same sorts of things, though...it still doesn't seem to "count."

There's a key difference between NDE and the Book of Mormon, though--the Book of Mormon, if true, is uncompromising. Accept it, and you have to accept a specific Church, specific (fallible) prophets, specific commandments and sins, etc. And, like it or not, a certain segment of people are not going to take kindly to that. NDE can (and are) grafted onto any religious framework one likes, from New Age Touchy Feely-ism, to Christianity.

If there is good evidence to support a theory, I believe you can find scientists to investigate.

There are scientists investigating, but again, they are Mormons and so don't count. (Saves people the trouble of engaging the actual data, donchaknow.)

Well, one could easily argue that the Jerusalem to Bountiful journey has panned out pretty well. Surely there's enough there for at least some interest. Any references you know of in the 'secular' literature on this subject?

Again, what secular book on the Book of Mormon would you recommend?

Your quoting that scripture so reminds me of the Witness response to challenges. In my experience, one can find a scripture to support nearly any position.

Probably. But, I don't think the idea of relatively few "finding it" does violence to the over-all Christian message. It is not an uncommon or twisted idea--it runs all through it.

I'm just saying, few people accepting something is hardly an obstacle for a Christian--it is what we expect and are told to expect.

However, I don't want to be dismissive, as the one you selected used to be a favorite of mine. Why are so few able to find eternal life? What is so special about the few who find it?

I don't know what's so special about the few. (And, by quoting this, I by no means assert that I'm one of the few--any declaration of that by the living would be premature at best! :-))

I know enough about myself and my inclinations, though, to know what characterizes those who do NOT find it. They would include:

- sin which they refuse to part with

- pride in one's own material, intellectual, or personal self-sufficiency

- fear of others, social pressures, or seeming "uninformed," "cognitively dissonant"

- distraction by the multiple demands of life

- lust for power, money, popularity, or prominence

- a concern for self over concern for others

- a refusal or reluctance to trust God in all circumstances

I find little difference between Latter-Day Saints and JWs, other than Mormons are better educated. I find little difference between Mormons and Christians, in general. Are Latter-Day Saints happier or more moral? I know of no supporting research. My observation is that Latter-Day Saints are pretty much like other human beings.

I'm not sure how one could define who is truly "happier" or "more moral." Jesus doesn't really promise present happiness. He promises "peace in this life, and eternal life in the world to come." But that peace may (and indeed, often WILL) be in the midst of rather horrid outward circumstances or appearances.

In fact, joining up with Christians in anticipation that you will have an easier time of it from an outsider's perspective is probably misguided. "Most gladly," said Paul "will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12:9 - 10)

LDS salvational theology is very inclusive, and we certainly don't believe that the LDS are all those who are the "few" who have find the "strait" way, nor do we think that those "few" are not to also be found among other religions (or no religion).

That system doesn't appear to extend any particular advantage to them. If it did, missionary work would be a cinch.

Again, I think it misguided to expect that such "advantages" would be readily apparent. (One could point to lifespan extension and less disease because of Word of Wisdom issues. JWs probably have similar things, as do 7th Day Adventists, or clean-living atheists!)

Such "advantages" or "happiness" is probably going to be an internal state. The best parts of my discipleship, if I may call it that, are simply not for public display or consumption. But, I know them.

Anything else would probably be seeking for signs.

The God portrayed in scripture didn't seem very divine or wise. He seemed to be on a power trip, as if he had a fragile ego that needed to be stroked. I have no idea whether you will be able to relate to this at all, but it's there.

Well, I can understand how some Old Testament passages seem that way, certainly. But, my own encounters with the Divine have never been that way, I've never been told to act that way, and my faith isn't really scripturally-based, but revelatory-based.

I consider the phenomenon you describe a paradigm shift.

You may, of course, consider it anything you like, but this is not how I consider it, nor does it match my experience. (I have had a few paradigm shifts in various areas of my intellectual life, I suppose, but they do not match the revelatory dimension.)

I like Terryl Given's term, "dialogic revelation." A simple, even matter-of-fact act of discourse.

I guess my response to your appeal to revelation and spiritual confirmation is that it's unreliable.

Ah, but my revelation is not for you. It is for me. I always find it strange that people act as if one can only realize later, "after the fact," that one might deceive oneself via spiritual experiences.

Before I ever considered using a revelatory appeal to truth, I was painfully aware of the potential for self-deception. God knew what it would take to convince my skeptical, rationalist soul despite that, and (to my humbled amazement) I got it.

Joseph himself admitted he often couldn't distinguish divine inspiration.

I'm not sure what statement you're referring to here. I'd be interested in seeing it.

Can you honestly say that your communication with the divine has been unequivocal. If not, then how can you trust it implicitly?

My experience is perhaps best expressed by Joseph:

Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but 'he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation.' - Richard L. Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling (2005), xxi; citing Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, September 15, 1843, Papers of Joseph Smith 1:443.

That is, there are times when I would like revelation and don't have it. But, as I said, the clarity of it when it comes is always striking. I trust it implicitly because I trust Our Father, because of experience and on general principles.

If it is so reliable, why are there so many belief systems.

I don't know. I don't know how reliable other people find it, or how well they listen. Mine is for me, theirs is for them. I can only do what I am told.

Contrary to your experience, most of the devout Christians I know seek divine guidance in their lives and believe in answers to prayers.

Oh, I know they believe this. It just hasn't been my experience that most Christians spend time praying about whether they are in the right denomination or branch of Christianity. Some do, but most don't. All I can say is when I suggest doing so, most act as if the idea is silly, or somehow offensive. Maybe that only happens when a Mormon brings it up... ;-)

But, this is my point as well--if they do seek divine guidance and believe in answers to prayers (and I know that many do) then their own experience with spiritual witnesses doesn't surprise me in the least. I would, in fact, expect it.

I have enough experience of my own on how God leads me along with things that I trust His ability with other people.

People seem to get conflicting answers with regard to fundamental questions concerning God and our relationship to him.

But, that isn't any of my business. I can only tend my own garden, and He's always been very clear to me. If someone else feels He's been very clear to them in the opposite direction, he/she has my blessing and best wishes, as long as they don't try to interfere with me, or send me to meet God ahead of schedule.

My disaffection from Mormonism isn't based on a single problem. It isn't based on BOM historicity issues alone. It isn't based on Book of Abraham papyri issues alone. It isn't based on Joseph Smith's character alone. It isn't based on changing doctrine alone. It isn't based on questionable theology alone.

I'm sure that's true. I feel the same way about my affection for Mormonism. It isn't the Book of Mormon alone (though the fact that it continues to reward me after so many readings is astonishing to me, and virtually unprecedented in the bookish field), the character of Joseph, or the intellectually and rewarding theology.

I've come late to Chesterton, but he says some things very well. I like how he described the issue, and I suspect it applies equally well to both of us:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence. But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. [Gilbert K Chesterton,

[beastie]

The problem with the Book of Mormon as a forgery is that it has to fit into two very specific historical contexts. For years, the historical data told researchers that the Book of Mormon failed in both the Old World and the New. What is most interesting is that the most recent research makes the Book of Mormon extremely comfortable and reflective of a precise period of history in Jerusalem - exactly the period it claims, and the New World history not only fits into the gross geographical/historical setting of the New World, but reflects the major cultural pressures developing in the New World. This includes known economic and political developments that are paralleled during the same time in the Book of Mormon as they are present in the New World and the known relationships among certain ethnic and linguistic groups.

All of that is so hard to forge as to be as amazing as the claim of the text itself.

I'm not particularly interested in the Old World connections, because of the possibility of an author, or partial author, that had studied the Bible and that period.

I'm interested in the New World connections due to the fact that little was known about ancient america during JS' period. The BoM matched the speculations of others during the period.

Can you offer an example of a BoM "hit" to Mesoamerica that:

1) was not a popular notion during JS' time period

2) was not equally reflected in JS' time period

3) is specific enough to measure, rather than so generic it could fit just about any

time period

[beastie]

But, I've spent enough time in academics to know that if I say to one of my scientific colleagues "Hey, I've got a Book from an angel that tells about the history of ancient America," that pesky angel is going to trump just about anything else for the vast majority. One of the first questions you ask about a putative source is its provenance, and when you have to say that it came from a religious leader in 19th century America who claimed to get it from an angel (and who, horrors, practiced polygamy) that's going to end most scientific conversations. If you think otherwise, I fear you have a pretty naive view of how open minded scientists are. :-)

And, I can't blame them, because angels are notoriously hard to study with blinded trials.

There have been examples of other texts with unknown or highly suspicious provenances that have been seriously studied by scholars, and either validated or refuted. This is an excuse.

[charity]

beastie, name these other texts and the scholars who have studied them, please.

[Greg Smith]

There have been examples of other texts with unknown or highly suspicious provenances that have been seriously studied by scholars, and either validated or refuted. This is an excuse.

I'm not talking about "suspicious" circumstances. I'm talking about divine claims.

Name one other text claiming historicity that also claims divine/angelic origins which has been studied in secular circles in terms of its historicity for the period other than when it was produced.

(There's the Qu'ran, and while scholars use it to illuminate the time/historical period of Mohammed, I don't think they use it as evidence of what happened in the time of Jesus, or Adam, for example--even though Adam and Jesus are mentioned.)

That's not an excuse, it's just the way it is.

So, people are happy to use the Book of Mormon for supposed insights into Joseph's 19th century environment, thought, concerns, etc. Not so much concerning pre-exillic Israelite theology, for example, which is an Old World connection, but certainly nothing that Joseph or any other putative 19th century author could have had on their radar.

Please, give a comparable example for another text. I honestly can't think of one.

And, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a cite to a non-LDS, balanced assessment of Book of Mormon evidences to which one might refer an interested secularist.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Kevin Christensen]

Beastie:

Can you offer an example of a BoM "hit" to Mesoamerica that:

1) was not a popular notion during JS' time period

2) was not equally reflected in JS' time period

3) is specific enough to measure, rather than so generic it could fit just about any

time period

From Lawrence Poulsen's website:

http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/zarahemla.html

The description of the Nephite and Lamanite lands in Alma 22:27-34 identifies

3 specific geographic attributes relative to the River Sidon.

These are:

1.        Its head, source, is located in a narrow strip of wilderness.

2.        The head runs from east to west

3.        The narrow strip of wilderness is located south of the Land of Zarahemla

and runs from an east sea to a west sea from the east to the west.

<SNIP>

Using the three dimensional satellite maps incorporated into the computer

program

[Jan]

Beastie:

Can you offer an example of a BoM "hit" to Mesoamerica that:

1) was not a popular notion during JS' time period

2) was not equally reflected in JS' time period

3) is specific enough to measure, rather than so generic it could fit just about any

time period

I'm not sure if this has already been offered as a possiblity of meeting these criteria (including specificity to time and place), but would Brant Gardner's proposition for a certain place in the Book of Mormon ("the land north"?) being Teotihuacan? There were several specific identifiers and, if I am remebering/citing this correctly, Brant thinks that there is no other place in the world than Teotihuacan that matches the criteria described in the Book of Mormon.

Apologies to Brant if I've butchered his proposition.

Oh, here's a link (hat tip to Kevin Christensenon ZLMB): www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002GarB.html

Go there for the correct representation of Brant's ideas!

[beastie]

beastie, name these other texts and the scholars who have studied them, please.

Here's one that is extremely relevant.

The following summary is taken from Michael Coe

[beastie]

First, the river issue.

Like many geographic descriptions in the BoM, the information given regarding the river Sidon is a bit more open-ended than some would like to portray.

http://www.mormonstudies.com/geo1.htm

Sorenson's description of the river Sidon seems to be based primarily on two references in the Book of Mormon. In one passage Alma says to Zoram, "Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. And behold there shall ye meet them, on the east of the river Sidon . . . . And it came to pass that Zoram and his sons crossed over the river Sidon, with their armies, and marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon" (Alma 16:6-7). This establishes the fact that the river Sidon extended beyond Manti into the south wilderness, but it does not tell us in which direction the river flowed. A second passage refers to both Manti and the head of the Sidon. We are told that the territory of the Lamanites "was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west--and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided" (Alma 22:27). This passage is anything but clear. It could be interpreted to mean that the head of the river Sidon was near Manti. But, the subject of the sentence is the "narrow strip of wilderness," which ran from east to west, passing through the borders of Manti and by the head of the river Sidon, so that the head of the Sidon could be anywhere along the strip of wilderness, either on the east or on the west. We must, therefore, look for other clues.

In Alma 56, we learn that the Lamanites had captured some Nephite cities, including Manti, which were all located to the west of that stretch of the river Sidon which ran by Manti. Helaman was preventing the Lamanites from turning northward to attack Zarahemla: "Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah" (Alma 56:25). The Book of Mormon very clearly places Nephihah on the east coast: "And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore" (Alma 51:26). Thus, if the Lamanites had to cross the head of the river Sidon in order to reach Nephihah on the east coast, it seems that the head of the river would lie somewhere to the east of Manti, rather than south as Sorenson claims.

This is just a small snippet of the information provided on this site which critique's Sorenson's river Sidon theory.

Aside from that question, there is a river, right in New York, that could also fit the description, the Genesee River:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesee_River

I'll be back shortly with more comments

[beastie]

Only in Mesoamerica can we find the important factors of writing, city building, high cultures, kings over kings, volcanics, the seasonality of warfare, armor and weapons, the influence of Teotihuacan at the time of Mormon and the final Nephite wars, the complete absence of any reference to winter snows, and of oppressive heat at the New Year (remembering the conspicuous influence of severe winters on the Smith

[beastie]

note to Jan: I figured the Gadianton Robbers would come up. There were some very long and detailed discussions about that on Z, I'm going to see if I can locate them.

[exegete]

Hi folks,

A quick note

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

From Lawrence Poulsen's website:

The description of the Nephite and Lamanite lands in Alma 22:27-34 identifies

3 specific geographic attributes relative to the River Sidon.

The neck of land and situation of the lands northward and southward are more important than a river that is never completely described. We gather than Sidon runs northward into the sea, but while the head is described as being situated in the wilderness, the mouth, oddly, never gets described.

These are:

1.        Its head, source, is located in a narrow strip of wilderness.

What river isn