Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[Olavarria]

bump

[Ref]

Given that you were bragging in advance of the result you intended to get from this interview, and given that you were controlling the delightful fellow's access to the documents in question, and given that we have no independent witness to your story, I'm wondering what else we should have expected you to now say?

In any event, once we take out your heavy layers of editorial interference, we come down to this:

Which is really the only pertinent fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well now, it could indeed be that some of them share your vast prejudice and total a priori disdain for all things Mormon; indeed, I would be surprised if none of them did, but the main reason why tehy are unlikely to pay little attention to it is that it falls outside their area of esxpertise.

Plenty of reasons; the kind of prejudice demonstrated by your sneering, supercilious ridicule is not confined excusively to complete ignoramuses. However, the main reason is that the claims of The Book of Mormon are mostly out of reach of the tools of secular scholarship.

And she gets to that stage by a very long process of ever-increasing specialisation; that is, every expert is necessarily expert in only a very narrow field of knowledge.

There is always more to the story than mere slogans, Ref.

Regards,

Pahoran

Bump again!

[Olavarria]

Against:

1. Clear influence of 19th c. ideas and concerns: anti-Catholicism, anti-Masonry, similarity of one scene to camp-meeting revivals, Anselmian reconciliation of justice/mercy, Arminian influence (fortunate fall, atonement as a solution to original sin and depravity), Methodist view on infant baptism, modern soteriology, republican government, etc.

2. 1 Nephi 13's prophecies of the discovery of America and discussion of a great Gentile nation among the natives are popular nineteenth century conceptions and betray a certain Euro-American ethnocentricity.

3. Text contains numerous anachronisms, including resurrection, churches, baptism, infant baptism, fiery hell, Satan, etc.

4. Extensive use of KJV texts, including many that postdate the Book of Mormon. Many of these texts are recast, recontextualized, and reinterpreted. Book of Mormon thus appears to be an attempt to clarify, supplement, and rewrite portions of the Bible.

5. Use of KJV texts pretends to resolve textual problems, by altering italicized words and the like. But it actually retains KJV inaccuracies and translator artifacts, while not really resolving any significant problems.

6. Book of Mormon is too "neat". It appears to wrap up all the theological loose ends, to address the major questions of its day, to paint a picture of salvation history in which there is no theological development to speak of and Christ has been worshipped from the beginning. It does all this with remarkable internal consistency. We have first-hand witnesses of everything; very little of it is written long after the fact. There are prophecies of Joseph Smith, prophecies of the Book of Mormon. It's almost too good to be true.

7. Aspects of its coming forth raise eyebrows. The golden plates are carried off to heaven by an angel. Joseph comes up with a convenient explanation for why he can't retranslate the missing MS pages.

8. The character of its translator was not entirely unimpeachable. He repeatedly lied about polygamy, which he practiced in secret despite his wife's objections (and threatened her with destruction by way of revelation). He received the book by the same method he had used to divine for buried treasure. He was involved in a highly disingenuous "anti-banking" scheme, which, by the way, flopped.

9. BoM contains echoes of 19th century money-digging lore.

10. The entire premise of the Book of Mormon appears to be derived from 19th century speculation by Ethan Smith and others concerning the Hebrew origin of the Native Americans.

Ill respond to this when i get the chance. Any takers?

[Chris Smith]

Ill respond to this when i get the chance. Any takers?

I'd be interested in reading a response, though I doubt I'll have time to engage you in any extended debate.

[Brant Gardner]

1. Clear influence of 19th c. ideas and concerns: anti-Catholicism, anti-Masonry, similarity of one scene to camp-meeting revivals, Anselmian reconciliation of justice/mercy, Arminian influence (fortunate fall, atonement as a solution to original sin and depravity), Methodist view on infant baptism, modern soteriology, republican government, etc.

The problem with this list is that it works only if you accept the premise that the similarities are close enough to indicate influence. It is quite difficult to support that hypothesis if you actually examine the text. Of course in a post on a board there isn't the time to do it, but even the supposed Anti-Catholicism of the Great and Abominable church doesn't work when you goe through the vision and try to fit the text to the assumption.

The anti-Masonry has been debated for a long time. It is at least fascinating that while Vogel assumes anti-Masonry, Forsberg (who similarly thinks the Book of Mormon is a modern creation) has written an entire book on the thesis that it is a pro-Masonic work. That is a rather divergent reading of the same evidence, and that is before we get to an LDS response.

Camp revival language certainly exists - but that is a translation issue that again requires a lot of information and certainly isn't amenable to dismissal with this statement. Infant baptism is modern if and only if there was no infant baptism in the New World - and there was.

Finally, the republican government is completely incorrect. Bushman went looking for it, assuming it was there. He couldn't find it. I haven't seen it either and I have seen a lot of evidence that the form of government was anything but republican.

2. 1 Nephi 13's prophecies of the discovery of America and discussion of a great Gentile nation among the natives are popular nineteenth century conceptions and betray a certain Euro-American ethnocentricity.

This one is also problematic because our ethnocentrism assumes it is us. It is rather like the Carly Simon line in her song "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you." The argument works well if and only if you assume a HGT - in the LGT it is much better fulfilled by the Spanish.

3. Text contains numerous anachronisms, including resurrection, churches, baptism, infant baptism, fiery hell, Satan, etc.

Without question there is a modern vocabulary. However, the themes are available. Even baptism was not unknown in the form of the miqveh - and the information in the text strongly suggests that Nephi's introduction of a different meaning for the ordinance is new to the people (and that it fades and isn't renewed until Alma the Elder). In addition, the normal association of the baptismal symbolism includes death and resurrection - dependent upon Christ's resurrection. That meaning is absent in the Book of Mormon prior to Christ's visit - as it should be.

4. Extensive use of KJV texts, including many that postdate the Book of Mormon. Many of these texts are recast, recontextualized, and reinterpreted. Book of Mormon thus appears to be an attempt to clarify, supplement, and rewrite portions of the Bible.

A transalation issue.

5. Use of KJV texts pretends to resolve textual problems, by altering italicized words and the like. But it actually retains KJV inaccuracies and translator artifacts, while not really resolving any significant problems.

A translation issue.

6. Book of Mormon is too "neat". It appears to wrap up all the theological loose ends, to address the major questions of its day, to paint a picture of salvation history in which there is no theological development to speak of and Christ has been worshipped from the beginning. It does all this with remarkable internal consistency. We have first-hand witnesses of everything; very little of it is written long after the fact. There are prophecies of Joseph Smith, prophecies of the Book of Mormon. It's almost too good to be true.

And yet all of the theology it ties up is internally consistent to the issues and story that is being presented. They are all derivative of the initial premise of an atoning Messiah - a theme that is authentic to pre-Exilic Israel. As for being written after-the-fact, the majority of the text is demonstrably written after the fact. I can't think of very many examples of plate-authors writing in real time. I am not sure what is meant by that phrase.

7. Aspects of its coming forth raise eyebrows. The golden plates are carried off to heaven by an angel. Joseph comes up with a convenient explanation for why he can't retranslate the missing MS pages.

Aspects of early Christianity also raised eyebrows. The problem isn't in the claim, it is in whether or not the text is proof of the claims. Of course that is for a different side of the list.

8. The character of its translator was not entirely unimpeachable. He repeatedly lied about polygamy, which he practiced in secret despite his wife's objections (and threatened her with destruction by way of revelation). He received the book by the same method he had used to divine for buried treasure. He was involved in a highly disingenuous "anti-banking" scheme, which, by the way, flopped.

The early Christians were simple fisherman and sufficiently embarassing that even their speech patterns gave them away as hicks. If you believe Morton Smith, the more sophisticated early Christians were embarassed by some of the folk methods Christ used in healing (mud on the eyes, etc.).

The problem is that there is an assumption that true religion ought to behave in ways that sophisticated people expect it to behave. There isn't much historical evidence for that thesis before Joseph Smith's time. Applying the logic to Joseph Smith as though it were established is a modern vanity.

The method used for receiving the Book of Mormon is strange in an "educated" context, but normal for his milieu. The early believers didn't find it surprising at all - it didn't become embarassing until later sophisticates didn't know what to do with the humble origins. Still - the proof is in the text, not in the story of how it came to be.

9. BoM contains echoes of 19th century money-digging lore.

This has been attempted, but it simply doesn't work. The closest I know of is the slippery earth concept - which is actually authentic to Mesoamerica without any connections to Northeastern US treasure-lore. There are a number of good papers on this topic. One review is in the most recent FARMS Review.

10. The entire premise of the Book of Mormon appears to be derived from 19th century speculation by Ethan Smith and others concerning the Hebrew origin of the Native Americans.

No. This one doesn't work. The Book of Mormon explicitly ignores the popular speculation, which was about the lost tribes. The Book of Mormon leaves the Old World 100 years after the loss of the tribes. That is a pretty odd way to answer the popular question - by making your text irrelevant to it.

In addition, there were a large number of popular and accepted "proofs" of the 10 tribes theory. None of them appear in the Book of Mormon. The story is very different.

There are studies using phrases to attempt to link the two. The methodology is inherently flawed and can be used to show that the Book of Mormon came from just about anywhere - or that other workds must have copied it.

[Olavarria]

super bump

[Ref]

I donâ??t doubt that â??most scholarsâ? pay little attention to Mormonism. I suspect they find little reason to pay attention to it, because it offers so little in the way of objective â??evaluation standardsâ? in general. It is, after all, a history dependent on â??emotionsâ? as opposed to objective scholarly acceptance.

Well now, it could indeed be that some of them share your vast prejudice and total a priori disdain for all things Mormon; indeed, I would be surprised if none of them did, but the main reason why they are unlikely to pay little attention to it is that it falls outside their area of expertise.

Your typical insults aside, tell us pahoran, what area, outside of the ability to read, does one need to have an â??expertiseâ? in to be able to evaluate the â??historicityâ? claim of the BOM?

Are you trying to say that one must possess a personal testimony in the BOM before they can evaluate its claim of historicity. If so, and unlike the Bible, Koran and Torah, it is the only religious text of a claim of history requiring such!!

Maybe you should ask Prof. Peterson why he, as a believing Mormon, can have such a keen and developed interest in historicity of the Koran and/or Torah. Why BYU can devote â??historyâ? courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in the Bible and/or Koran, but yet canâ??t do the same for the history contained in the BOM. Maybe we should ask him why there are a plethora of qualified scholars like himself who can accept the historicity claim of other religious texts, but we canâ??t find any non-Mormon scholars willing to accept the same claim of the BOM?

Again, what is the specific area of expertise all others lack?

Can you provide a more detailed â??claimedâ? actual record or account of a history, than what is provided in the BOM, for which there is so little interest shown by our academic community. Even with the likes of the supposed great and accepted scholars of Clark and Sorenson, it seems quite obvious that their peer group has no real motivation for even engaging in a passing interest their scholarship. Why not???

Plenty of reasons; the kind of prejudice demonstrated by your sneering, supercilious ridicule is not confined excusively to complete ignoramuses. However, the main reason is that the claims of The Book of Mormon are mostly out of reach of the tools of secular scholarship.

Again, if we remove the personal insults from your response, we can get down to about half of what you write.

Why should we believe the BOM are out of reach from secular scholarship?? We know, as Mr. Peterson has attested to, that the secular academic and scholarly field ignore and pay no real attention to articles published by FARMS on BOM historicity, but the question remains: â??WHYâ??

If we have such well respected scholars such Clark and Sorenson publishing articles in this area in support of the BOM history, why does such scholarship continue to be ignored by their secular peer group? Why is it we canâ??t find any other academic institutions anywhere who want to provide accredited history courses on the peoples and places brought out in the BOM as they have for the Bible, Koran and other religious texts?

Your response just does not make much sense to me.

[Irondukesteve]

Given that you were bragging in advance of the result you intended to get from this interview, and given that you were controlling the delightful fellow's access to the documents in question, and given that we have no independent witness to your story, I'm wondering what else we should have expected you to now say?

In any event, once we take out your heavy layers of editorial interference, we come down to this...

editorial interference? He had access not only to all the articles...but to virtually any Egyptian source he wants? I e-mailed him the links to all 3 articles, and a link to a lds church history of the BoA (which I could tell that he researched from our chat. He commented that the BoA had nothing to do with the text and that he has never ever seen Anubis without a mask and with a knife in his hand.) Why do you think he didnt do more research on the subject outside of reading the articles? Dr. Taylor said that it was because Gee's work is subjective and of very little Egyptological value. He did say that from his experience, and from the scholars he has known that NO ONE has ever encountered what Gee was talking about. He has never read about or talked to anyone that has proposed Abraham is mentioned in Egyptian texts. He also said that it definitely would be much more widely debated if that was the case!!!!

You also want an independent witness to the story? hahah how weak....ok here is the appointment e-mail I was given. And if you dont believe this go and email them and ask if Dr. John Taylor (the deputy curator) works at the British Museum, if he is a specialist in the 3rd dynasty, and if on Thursday afternoon he met with someone and chatted about the BoA! Maybe you should do some leg work on this one instead of your easy argumentum ad personam.

Dear Mr Wellington

If you would like to come in to the Department at 2.30pm on Friday the Duty Curator, John Taylor will meet with you.

Yours sincerely

Derek Welsby

Duty Curator

Again, if we remove the personal insults from your response, we can get down to about half of what you write.

Pahoran- an expert in argumentum ad personam SUPER SUPER BUMP BUMP

(yes I know I have been guilty too, but it was only out of malice for monsieur pahoran's personal approach to debate.

[Pahoran]

Your typical insults aside, tell us pahoran, what area, outside of the ability to read, does one need to have an â??expertiseâ? in to be able to evaluate the â??historicityâ? claim of the BOM?

Oh, I don't know; how about--the actual contents of the text?

Are you trying to say that one must possess a personal testimony in the BOM before they can evaluate its claim of historicity. If so, and unlike the Bible, Koran and Torah, it is the only religious text of a claim of history requiring such!!

No.

Maybe you should ask Prof. Peterson why he, as a believing Mormon, can have such a keen and developed interest in historicity of the Koran and/or Torah.

Just so you know, the "Torah" has nothing directly to do with Islam. It is simply a portion of the Bible, namely, the first five books in Hebrew.

Why BYU can devote â??historyâ? courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in the Bible and/or Koran,

Pardon me for interrupting, but before we ask why such is so, it seems apropos to establish that such really is so. As in, does BYU "devote 'history' courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in" the Holy Qur'an?

but yet canâ??t do the same for the history contained in the BOM.

That's not a very elegant sophistry, Ref. Secular subjects are taught from secular texts.

Maybe we should ask him why there are a plethora of qualified scholars like himself who can accept the historicity claim of other religious texts, but we canâ??t find any non-Mormon scholars willing to accept the same claim of the BOM?

Perhaps because the starting point for anyone considering whether or not to take The Book of Mormon seriously is to confront the claim that an angel gave a book of golden plates to an uneducated farm boy. That's a reasonably high hurdle for any secular scholar. The problem is that there is no plausible naturalistic theory of origins for that book that also allows for it to be historical.

Which is a sharp and important contrast to the Bible.

But I rather expect you knew that.

Again, if we remove the personal insults from your response, we can get down to about half of what you write.

What "personal insults?" I was describing the contents of your posts. Which are in fact replete with sneering, supercilious ridicule and total a priori disdain for all things Mormon. I'm sorry you find it insulting that I point this out, but if you don't like it, you know what to do about it.

Why should we believe the BOM are out of reach from secular scholarship?? We know, as Mr. Peterson has attested to, that the secular academic and scholarly field ignore and pay no real attention to articles published by FARMS on BOM historicity, but the question remains: â??WHYâ??

Mostly because they aren't actually interested in it.

If we have such well respected scholars such Clark and Sorenson publishing articles in this area in support of the BOM history, why does such scholarship continue to be ignored by their secular peer group? Why is it we canâ??t find any other academic institutions anywhere who want to provide accredited history courses on the peoples and places brought out in the BOM as they have for the Bible, Koran and other religious texts?

Your response just does not make much sense to me.

So I take it you've never heard of Moroni and the Golden Plates, then?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Irondukesteve]

Use of "a priori" is out of context.

[Ref]

Your typical insults aside, tell us pahoran, what area, outside of the ability to read, does one need to have an â??expertiseâ? in to be able to evaluate the â??historicityâ? claim of the BOM?

Oh, I don't know; how about--the actual contents of the text?

Thatâ??s precisely my point. In order for one to have the contents of the BOM, they have to be able to â??readâ? it. I will suggest that there are many well qualified scholars outside of Profs. Clark and Sorenson have the expertise to read. (Iâ??ll bet I would even get those like Prof. Peterson and Prof. Hamblin to agree with me here!) So the history claim of the BOM is well within the reach of secular scholarship.

The real question here is whether the works published by Clark, Sorenson, and/or Farms, in attempting to support a historical setting for the BOM, are considered â??scholarshipâ? or accepted by the scholarly community outside of Provo. To date, I am not aware of any evidence supporting that they have.

This (the BOM) is the single greatest claim to historicity today, for which there are so few scholars, if any, in this field of study, who have even a remote interest in it.

Why BYU can devote â??historyâ? courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in the Bible and/or Koran,

Pardon me for interrupting, but before we ask why such is so, it seems apropos to establish that such really is so. As in, does BYU "devote 'history' courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in" the Holy Qur'an?

Oh, I am quite certain that even Prof. Hamblin will support me in the fact that BYU history courses teach about and discuss the people, places and cultures we find mentioned in both the Bible and Qurâ??an.

And Iâ??m quite certain he will support me in the fact that no academic institution anywhere provides an accredited history course teaching about the specific peoples, places and cultures mentioned in the BOM.

Maybe we should ask him why there are a plethora of qualified scholars like himself who can accept the historicity claim of other religious texts, but we canâ??t find any non-Mormon scholars willing to accept the same claim of the BOM?

Perhaps because the starting point for anyone considering whether or not to take The Book of Mormon seriously is to confront the claim that an angel gave a book of golden plates to an uneducated farm boy. That's a reasonably high hurdle for any secular scholar. The problem is that there is no plausible naturalistic theory of origins for that book that also allows for it to be historical.

I would both agree and disagree with you on this point.

To confront the historicity claim of the BOM based on the â??angel storyâ? is really just addressing the â??provenanceâ? problem with the supposed translated record. Itâ??s quite true that the only provenance for the BOM exists within its text. Such is not very compelling for provenance but it is all that exists for this claim.

But to hide behind this as a reason for its complete â??non-acceptanceâ? within the scholarly community where the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, Clark and Sorenson make a living is probably more telling.

The method of delivery or discovery should not impact the matching of its content to historical evidence, scholarship, and reason. Whether the record was delivered by an angel, or found by an innocent digging miner, the claims to its great and sophisticated cultures, cities, peoples and Hebrew migration from the middle east are what is really important for our scholarly community to examine and evaluate.

Remember that historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the likes devote their entire lives and careers to being part of matching current records and or evidence, in one form or another, to past societies and piecing together our history. The BOM tells us of great and sophisticated societies, great cities, rivers, and many other distinguishable historic markers for which no one has found any credible and convincing evidence of.

As Iâ??ve stated before, the only place one seems to hear about all this supposedly great scholarship supporting the historicity for the BOM is on this message board or at FARMS. And as Prof Peterson has already admitted, the works published by FARMS, in this area, are ignored by the professional and scholarly peer group within this area expertise.

What other conclusion would one reach other than BOM historicity claim has little, if any, merit! But that is not to say that one cannot get or generate good and productive feelings from a fictional story. It happens all the time.

[Brant Gardner]

Oh, I am quite certain that even Prof. Hamblin will support me in the fact that BYU history courses teach about and discuss the people, places and cultures we find mentioned in both the Bible and Qurâ??an.

And Iâ??m quite certain he will support me in the fact that no academic institution anywhere provides an accredited history course teaching about the specific peoples, places and cultures mentioned in the BOM.

The classes teaching the history of the biblical world were quite different in the Middle Ages than they were in Joseph Smith's time. The classes teaching the history of the biblical world are quite different today than they were 50 years ago. The biblical world has the advantage of a very long period of interest in that area of the world. In addition to the wealth of information that has come from new archaeological finds, it has the benefit of a very long literary tradition. Texts from the ancient world shed light on the biblical world in ways that were unexpected not all that long ago.

Compared to the Old World, any study of the New World is in its infancy. This comes for multiple reasons. Scholars were late to the party - because it wasn't discovered by European style scholars until at least a millenium after there was interest in the biblical world. It also suffers from the very recent archaeological work and even more recent decipherment of the Maya writing system. All of this tells us that the history of the New World has been rewritten in the last 30 years.

The scholarly work on the Book of Mormon has similarly had a very slow start. To date, there is a relative agreement on a particular area of the world, but even in that geography there are details to be worked out (see Sorenson and Poulsen with their similar-but-different approaches). The way in which the Book of Mormon is to be read against that cultural area is similarly new enough that it has a penetration only to a relatively small number of LDS scholars - with even fewer doing any real work in the New World (as opposed to the Old World connections fathered by Nibley).

Why aren't non-LDS scholars looking at the material? There were a few (Coe, as a major example) who looked at the state of things in the 70's. In the 70's the LDS scholarship was uneven, to be gracious. There has been a lot of noise surrounding the few more solid efforts.

All of that is to say that the field is virtually too new and in formation. It won't attract much more attention until it is better codified with a larger scholarly literature. In the meantime, the field of Mesoamerican studies is currently in such a dynamic (and exciting) state that there is no reason to go looking for something else when there is way too much for the scholars to do keeping up with the pace of the new work.

Your argument sounds interesting, but doesn't fit the realities of either Old World history or what is going on in the New World.

The method of delivery or discovery should not impact the matching of its content to historical evidence, scholarship, and reason. Whether the record was delivered by an angel, or found by an innocent digging miner, the claims to its great and sophisticated cultures, cities, peoples and Hebrew migration from the middle east are what is really important for our scholarly community to examine and evaluate.

I agree that the provenance isn't the issue. However, the assumption that only a non-LDS can adequately assess the evidence is absurd. Until those who are interested most do work that has sufficient support behind it, there is no reason for non-LDS to care. That they haven't paid sufficient attention doesn't mean that very good work isn't being done. These things take time. Right now the LDS field is still sorting itself out. While I see very good evidence for the text's historicity, I still see a large number of "proofs" being proposed and widely repeated that I can't justify. I expect that it will be another 10 to 20 years before the various arguments have been been up enough that we will have a firm set to present.

Remember that historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the likes devote their entire lives and careers to being part of matching current records and or evidence, in one form or another, to past societies and piecing together our history. The BOM tells us of great and sophisticated societies, great cities, rivers, and many other distinguishable historic markers for which no one has found any credible and convincing evidence of.

Yes, and the very techniques you are talking about are precisely those making the best inroads into the Book of Mormon, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the field is still new - but that doesn't mean that there isn't very good information available. There are quite a few LDS scholars working on the Book of Mormon whose methodologies are absolutely in line with the best scholarship on other historical documents.

As Iâ??ve stated before, the only place one seems to hear about all this supposedly great scholarship supporting the historicity for the BOM is on this message board or at FARMS.

Are you saying that FARMS isn't doing scholarship, or that you are not qualified to judge it? I can understand the latter. The former would be patently incorrect.

What other conclusion would one reach other than BOM historicity claim has little, if any, merit!

Good grief. I could come up with any number of conclusions that were better than that one. Are you really suggesting that we cannot have any valid scholarship until someone who isn't familiar with the complexities of the field validates it? Would you suggest that we cannot know anything about the Maya until an expert in Akkadian verifies it?

If you are serious about questioning scholarship, you will get much farther if you do what scholars do - which is deal with the argument. Trying to argue that someone's silence on a topic is conclusive of anyting but silence seems rather silly.

[Pahoran]

Thatâ??s precisely my point. In order for one to have the contents of the BOM, they have to be able to â??readâ? it. I will suggest that there are many well qualified scholars outside of Profs. Clark and Sorenson have the expertise to read. (Iâ??ll bet I would even get those like Prof. Peterson and Prof. Hamblin to agree with me here!) So the history claim of the BOM is well within the reach of secular scholarship.

The real question here is whether the works published by Clark, Sorenson, and/or Farms, in attempting to support a historical setting for the BOM, are considered â??scholarshipâ? or accepted by the scholarly community outside of Provo. To date, I am not aware of any evidence supporting that they have.

Are you aware of any evidence that they have even been read by "the scholarly community outside of Provo?"

You see Ref, it's not just a question of whether a scholar is able to read something, but whether they actually have read it that limits their ability to claim expertise therein.

Pardon me for interrupting, but before we ask why such is so, it seems apropos to establish that such really is so. As in, does BYU "devote 'history' courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in" the Holy Qur'an?

Oh, I am quite certain that even Prof. Hamblin will support me in the fact that BYU history courses teach about and discuss the people, places and cultures we find mentioned in both the Bible and Qurâ??an.

Pardon me, but you have subtly shifted the goalposts. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

The question is not whether history is taught that focuses upon that cultural area. Your original claim was that BYU "devotes 'history' courses in their accredited history program which covers the history contained in" the Holy Qur'an. Which means that they are using the Qur'an as a significant source for said history. Merely teaching about the same times and places is not what you originally suggested. You are lowering the bar. Why?

I rather suspect that, whatever might be mentioned in the Qur'an, when BYU teaches secular history, it relies upon secular sources; the Qur'an--which does not contain a whole lot of historical material anyway--will not be offered as a source except where it is independently corroborated.

Did you really not know that?

And Iâ??m quite certain he will support me in the fact that no academic institution anywhere provides an accredited history course teaching about the specific peoples, places and cultures mentioned in the BOM.

And so? Your point?

Perhaps because the starting point for anyone considering whether or not to take The Book of Mormon seriously is to confront the claim that an angel gave a book of golden plates to an uneducated farm boy. That's a reasonably high hurdle for any secular scholar. The problem is that there is no plausible naturalistic theory of origins for that book that also allows for it to be historical.

I would both agree and disagree with you on this point.

To confront the historicity claim of the BOM based on the â??angel storyâ? is really just addressing the â??provenanceâ? problem with the supposed translated record. Itâ??s quite true that the only provenance for the BOM exists within its text. Such is not very compelling for provenance but it is all that exists for this claim.

But to hide behind this as a reason for its complete â??non-acceptanceâ? within the scholarly community where the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, Clark and Sorenson make a living is probably more telling.

Your insulting and counterfactual accusation of "hiding" is noted, as is the fact that all your self-righteous puffery about "insults" is hypocritical at best.

The fact is that there has never been such a thing as a perfectly impartial scholar; not even Metcalfe the Great. I agree that secular scholars really ought to be able to overlook the unusual provenance of the book and consider its claims on their merits; the reality, however, is that most of them will probably just laugh it off.

Remember that historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the likes devote their entire lives and careers to being part of matching current records and or evidence, in one form or another, to past societies and piecing together our history. The BOM tells us of great and sophisticated societies, great cities, rivers, and many other distinguishable historic markers for which no one has found any credible and convincing evidence of.

Really? Are you saying that there is no evidence of cities or rivers in Mesoamerica? How strange!

What other conclusion would one reach other than BOM historicity claim has little, if any, merit!

One could reach the conclusion that the argument from silence, when combined with a fallacious appeal to authority, leads to no conclusions at all. Except that the person attempting to draw such conclusions is demanding of the scholars a level of impartiality that he does not even pretend to approach.

Regards

Pahoran

[Ref]

Oh, I am quite certain that even Prof. Hamblin will support me in the fact that BYU history courses teach about and discuss the people, places and cultures we find mentioned in both the Bible and Qurâ??an.

And Iâ??m quite certain he will support me in the fact that no academic institution anywhere provides an accredited history course teaching about the specific peoples, places and cultures mentioned in the BOM.

The classes teaching the history of the biblical world were quite different in the Middle Ages than they were in Joseph Smith's time. The classes teaching the history of the biblical world are quite different today than they were 50 years ago. The biblical world has the advantage of a very long period of interest in that area of the world. In addition to the wealth of information that has come from new archaeological finds, it has the benefit of a very long literary tradition. Texts from the ancient world shed light on the biblical world in ways that were unexpected not all that long ago.

Compared to the Old World, any study of the New World is in its infancy. This comes for multiple reasons. Scholars were late to the party - because it wasn't discovered by European style scholars until at least a millenium after there was interest in the biblical world. It also suffers from the very recent archaeological work and even more recent decipherment of the Maya writing system. All of this tells us that the history of the New World has been rewritten in the last 30 years.

The scholarly work on the Book of Mormon has similarly had a very slow start. To date, there is a relative agreement on a particular area of the world, but even in that geography there are details to be worked out (see Sorenson and Poulsen with their similar-but-different approaches). The way in which the Book of Mormon is to be read against that cultural area is similarly new enough that it has a penetration only to a relatively small number of LDS scholars - with even fewer doing any real work in the New World (as opposed to the Old World connections fathered by Nibley).

The BOM record, as supposedly translated by Smith, has been around for almost 200 years. Plenty of time for todayâ??s scholars to have exposure to it. The supposed history of this claim, has (again supposedly) been in existence for some 2000 years. Again, plenty of time for its evaluation!

Since 1830, the academic, anthropological, archaeological and scholarly community has had the opportunity to grow and evaluate a vast and numerous records of history. The BOM has not been one any, outside of the few in Provo, have even given a passing interest to. We can rationalize and develop all the reasons we need to for faith promoting purposes, but it does not change the fact that the most significant â??recorded or translatedâ? claim to a supposed discovered actual history has generated absolutely no interest from anyone outside the group who claim it!!!! Where in our academic history has this EVER HAPPENED before? Seriously, will you or any other Lds scholar answer THAT question? Lets put this issue in its appropriate context!

Why aren't non-LDS scholars looking at the material? There were a few (Coe, as a major example) who looked at the state of things in the 70's. In the 70's the LDS scholarship was uneven, to be gracious. There has been a lot of noise surrounding the few more solid efforts.

And Coe, who was as qualified (if not more by notability standards) as the likes of Clark and Sorenson, completely dismissed the work and or claims of this history.

If there has been a â??lot of noise surrounding the few more solid effortsâ?, I wish someone would point to where this noise is being generated outside of this board and FARMS, and why anyone would even begin to think it is â??solidâ?. As Daniel Peterson has already admitted, FARMS is being completely ignored in this particular area of supposed scholarship. Perhaps you need to ask him â??WHYâ?!

I agree that the provenance isn't the issue. However, the assumption that only a non-LDS can adequately assess the evidence is absurd. Until those who are interested most do work that has sufficient support behind it, there is no reason for non-LDS to care. That they haven't paid sufficient attention doesn't mean that very good work isn't being done. These things take time. Right now the LDS field is still sorting itself out. While I see very good evidence for the text's historicity, I still see a large number of "proofs" being proposed and widely repeated that I can't justify. I expect that it will be another 10 to 20 years before the various arguments have been been up enough that we will have a firm set to present.

This seems to what it always comes down to with BOM â??supposed scholarshipâ?. WE NEED MORE TIME! I never said that only â??non-Ldsâ? can assess the evidence! But all we hear about, especially on this board, is the credentials and accolades of Clark and Sorenson. Great, I respect they are qualified and respected in their fields of study. But the obvious question remains: Who has all their work in support of the BOM historicity claim convinced within their peer group? All we do is turn up the volume of noise in the same, every shrinking room! Two years ago, Clark made a magnanimous speech at BYU about how archaeology would be the only way to prove the BOM. Various HVP posters reveled in his words. But over two years later, what has been demonstrated? NOTHING!

Your expectation that you need another 10-20 years is a great buffer for the faith promotion aspect. But I have no doubt that in 2026 the Lds apologists will be asking for another 10-20 if not more. Weâ??ve had 200 years now (almost) to examine the BOM

claim. So far, no interest outside of Provo!!

Remember that historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the likes devote their entire lives and careers to being part of matching current records and or evidence, in one form or another, to past societies and piecing together our history. The BOM tells us of great and sophisticated societies, great cities, rivers, and many other distinguishable historic markers for which no one has found any credible and convincing evidence of.

Yes, and the very techniques you are talking about are precisely those making the best inroads into the Book of Mormon, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the field is still new - but that doesn't mean that there isn't very good information available. There are quite a few LDS scholars working on the Book of Mormon whose methodologies are absolutely in line with the best scholarship on other historical documents.

I am sure that Lds Church funding is providing the employment of many qualified Lds archaeologists, historians and the likes. A more telling statistic would be how many â??non-ldsâ? are being attracted by this funding! And I am sure that the â??methodologiesâ? are consistent with professional standards. The real question has been and will be: â?? are the results and conclusions (such as those being suggested by the likes of Clark and Sorenson) given any passing interest outside of Provo?????

As Iâ??ve stated before, the only place one seems to hear about all this supposedly great scholarship supporting the historicity for the BOM is on this message board or at FARMS.

Are you saying that FARMS isn't doing scholarship, or that you are not qualified to judge it? I can understand the latter. The former would be patently incorrect.

All I am saying, is that the only place I can find support for BOM historicity is by those promoting it. And with respect to those promoting it, all I can say is that Daniel Peterson has already stated that these articles published by FARMS are â??ignoredâ? by the secular scholarly community. Ask him, not me.

If you can find a professional forum where the likes of Clark and Sorenson (or perhaps Hamblin and/or yours) are given even a passing interest in their works supporting the BOM history claim, please provide it. If you canâ??t, why not at least give credit to my conclusion!

And Brant,

One last favor from you if I may ask. Could you please deal with the questions, rebuttals, and especially the standards of reason that Pahoran persists in using? You guys seem to be on the same side. I can't bear to tell that his logic makes no sense. Perhaps you will be more persuasive in diplomatic efforts.

Thanks in advance.

Ref

And Brant,

I recognize the likes of regular posters such as Peterson and Hamblin are avoiding this conversation. This seems to be the area, (peer review and/or acceptance and support of FARMS publications) where the FARMS boys bow out! But FWIW, I believe Clark and Sorenson are probably some of the more qualified and respected writers FARMS could solicit from!

[Daniel Peterson]

The real question here is whether the works published by Clark, Sorenson, and/or Farms, in attempting to support a historical setting for the BOM, are considered â??scholarshipâ? or accepted by the scholarly community outside of Provo. To date, I am not aware of any evidence supporting that they have.

Do you have any evidence of a significant consensus view among scholars "outside of Provo" that these works are not considered scholarship, or that they've been examined and rejected?

But to hide behind this as a reason for its complete â??non-acceptanceâ? within the scholarly community where the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, Clark and Sorenson make a living is probably more telling.

Don't make the unwarranted leap that lack of acceptance equals rejection. And don't assume that Peterson, Hamblin, Clark, and Sorenson typically speak about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism to their non-LDS academic audiences. We don't -- though some of us have occasionally done so either implicitly or explicitly.

The BOM tells us of great and sophisticated societies, great cities, rivers, and many other distinguishable historic markers for which no one has found any credible and convincing evidence of.

I disagree that no credible evidence has been found.

As Iâ??ve stated before, the only place one seems to hear about all this supposedly great scholarship supporting the historicity for the BOM is on this message board or at FARMS. And as Prof Peterson has already admitted, the works published by FARMS, in this area, are ignored by the professional and scholarly peer group within this area expertise.

I begin to hear echoes of a familiar voice.

Again, to ignore something in the sense of being wholly unaware of it, paying no attention, is quite a different matter than choosing to ignore something after having carefully examined it and found it wanting. The latter has not occurred among secular scholars with reference to the Book of Mormon.

What other conclusion would one reach other than BOM historicity claim has little, if any, merit!

To draw that conclusion at this stage would be to go far, far beyond the evidence.

[Brant Gardner]

(note: apologies to everyone - I can't find the random code that is preventing the quotations from formatting properly. I really did try)

Ref:

The BOM record, as supposedly translated by Smith, has been around for almost 200 years. Plenty of time for todayâ??s scholars to have exposure to it. The supposed history of this claim, has (again supposedly) been in existence for some 2000 years. Again, plenty of time for its evaluation!

Really? If that is your contention, you show a marked lack of understanding of the history of work on the text. If that is your contention, you aren't doing much better on the path that scholarly understanding has traveled in recent history.

Since 1830, the academic, anthropological, archaeological and scholarly community has had the opportunity to grow and evaluate a vast and numerous records of history.

Perhaps you need to review the history of New World studies. You seem quite distant from what has actually happened.

The BOM has not been one any, outside of the few in Provo, have even given a passing interest to.

Repeating the argument doesn't improve it. You really need to come up with reasons to support your hypothesis. So far, you have made some sweeping assertions that have no relation to the actual progress of scholarship in the New World.

We can rationalize and develop all the reasons we need to for faith promoting purposes, but it does not change the fact that the most significant â??recorded or translatedâ? claim to a supposed discovered actual history has generated absolutely no interest from anyone outside the group who claim it!!!!

Here is another repeated statement. No new analysis. No new thought. Just repeating what you said before. You are apparently unaware that there are a couple of archaeologists who specialize in Mesoamerica who joined the church. I would be surprised if those previously non-LDS archaeologists continue to fit your sweeping generalization. To the contrary, they rather contradict it - save that now they are LDS so apparently they don't count any more (which continues to be a silly argument).

And Coe, who was as qualified (if not more by notability standards) as the likes of Clark and Sorenson, completely dismissed the work and or claims of this history.

And Coe's report from the 70's couldn't have dealt with the more recent work - which is significantly better-grounded that what he would have seen when he wrote his article. Do you really expect that Coe wants to be held to his opinions from 30 years ago? I know that in the realm of Mesoamerican studies there are areas where new evidence has changed his mind. Would you please document where he has been involved with the most recent research? Dr. Peterson has asked for similar data from you - which continues to be ignored.

So far, you are very strong on opinions and on repeating yourself. I haven't seen anything that actually engages with the arguments being presented. Assuming that pattern continues, I can't see any reason to continue.

If there has been a â??lot of noise surrounding the few more solid effortsâ?, I wish someone would point to where this noise is being generated outside of this board and FARMS, and why anyone would even begin to think it is â??solidâ?.

You misread my statement. "Noise" is static - and I was referring to the continued publication by LDS authors of information that is academically subpar (and worse). If those were the only sources I read, I wouldn't give the LDS position any credence either - and in fact, that was precisely what happened with me - until I was introduced to the better work.

As Daniel Peterson has already admitted, FARMS is being completely ignored in this particular area of supposed scholarship. Perhaps you need to ask him â??WHYâ?!

Perhaps you need to listen. I have seen him respond to that question multiple times. I understand the answer because I have been involved on both sides of the issue. Is there a reason why you are unable to understand the reasons? If your question came because you have a reason that non-LDS cannot accept the most recent research, I would love to hear the evidence. So far, you repeat yourself and continue to assert that silence means a lot more than silence. That isn't very convincing.

This seems to what it always comes down to with BOM â??supposed scholarshipâ?. WE NEED MORE TIME!

You misread this too. There is sufficient information at this point that there is every reason to believe that there is a solid academic case for the Book of Mormon.

What will require more time is for that case to become solidified so that non-LDS might care about it. That is where the time comes in.

I never said that only â??non-Ldsâ? can assess the evidence!

Really? How many times have you suggested that because Clark and Sorenson are LDS that their research cannot be accepted. You have repeatedly suggested that we must have non-LDS confirmation - which very clearly points to some supposed deficiency in Clark's and Sorenson's work. I note, however, that you are quick on the accusation and very slow on the specifics. I have yet to see you attempt to deal with any of their arguments.

Since you now say that you agree that LDS authors can assess the evidence, are you saying that Clark and Sorenson do or do not? Please support your position.

But all we hear about, especially on this board, is the credentials and accolades of Clark and Sorenson.

Hardly. On this board there have been multiple discussions of particulars and types of evidence. Perhaps you are new and haven't done your homework. Perhaps you read too narrowly. In any case, your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

But the obvious question remains: Who has all their work in support of the BOM historicity claim convinced within their peer group?

Why, they have convinced a large number of people in their peer group - assuming by peer group you mean those who have expertise in both archaeology and the Book of Mormon so they can make informed judgements. Did you have a different peer group in mind, and if so - why is that group better than one that handles all of the relevant data?

Two years ago, Clark made a magnanimous speech at BYU about how archaeology would be the only way to prove the BOM.

You have a strange memory, if indeed that is what it is. This sentence doesn't describe anything Clark said in the referenced presentation.

Various HVP posters reveled in his words. But over two years later, what has been demonstrated? NOTHING!

I can't agree with this either. There has been a lot demonstrated over the last couple of years. Assuming, however, that you are referring to non-LDS responses, would you please quote the non-LDS reviews that archaeologists have given on that particular speech? If, as you suggest, that non-LDS must be monitoring LDS Book of Mormon scholarship, certainly you can provide their response?

If, however, there is none (which we both know to be true) then that is de facto demonstration that those non-LDS archaeologists are not devotedly interested in the topic - which is exactly the point Dr. Peterson has been making.

I am sure that Lds Church funding is providing the employment of many qualified Lds archaeologists, historians and the likes.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am well acquainted with one person writing on this subject who has never been in the church's employ. If you would try to deal with issues rather than attempting to use rhetoric to cloud the issue, it would be very helpful.

A more telling statistic would be how many â??non-ldsâ? are being attracted by this funding! And I am sure that the â??methodologiesâ? are consistent with professional standards.

Let's see. The apologist's argument is that non-LDS aren't engaging current Book of Mormon scholarship because they aren't interested. Your argument is that current LDS Book of Mormon scholarship can't be valid because non-LDS archaeologists aren't interested. Odd. The same explanation from both sides. The problem is, one can state (with evidence) that there is little interest. One cannot, however, find evidence that the lack of interest is anything except lack of interest.

Please tell me when a lack of interest means something other than a lack of interest. How do you draw any greater conclusion from such silence?

The real question has been and will be: â?? are the results and conclusions (such as those being suggested by the likes of Clark and Sorenson) given any passing interest outside of Provo?????

That isn't the real question. It is an absurd question. There are any number of people who have no interest in something not directly related to their own work.

The real question is whether or not what the likes of Clark and Sorenson say is a valid argument, using sources and evidence correctly. LDS or not, that is the kind of question that has to be asked. Assuming that they must not be creating a valid case because someone isn't interested in it is simply silly. It doesn't address their arguments at all. It displaces the requirement to analyze the case by suggesting that since someone else hasn't done it, it doen't need to be done. There is no logic in academia that would support such a facile suggestion.

All I am saying, is that the only place I can find support for BOM historicity is by those promoting it.

Wonderful. I can't find any evidence for the Holocaust when I read books by people who deny it. I wonder why that is?

What you are missing is that people like Clark and Sorenson are quoting the very sources that you think should be reviewing their work. They are using the very same chronologies. They are using the very same archaeological data. They are using the same reconstructions (and some of them Clark has been responsible for in the non-LDS arena). Everything they are doing is solidly based in evidence that is available in non-LDS works.

They find support in the very places you don't see it. Strange. How hard have you looked?

And with respect to those promoting it, all I can say is that Daniel Peterson has already stated that these articles published by FARMS are â??ignoredâ? by the secular scholarly community. Ask him, not me.

Yes, we have this wonderful conundrum. The non-LDS ignore the LDS scholarship - but you claim that the LDS position can't be scholarly because it is ignored. Quite the fascinating argument. You complain about Dr. Peterson's statement, but your entire position is based on it (though it makes a very sandy foundation for the edifice you build on it).

I can't bear to tell that his logic makes no sense.

You are complaining about someone else's logic?

I recognize the likes of regular posters such as Peterson and Hamblin are avoiding this conversation. This seems to be the area, (peer review and/or acceptance and support of FARMS publications) where the FARMS boys bow out!

You really should be much more careful when you make statements that can be so easily demonstrated incorrect. This issue has been kicked around multiple times before. Just because you haven't done your homework doesn't mean that your ignorance becomes normative.

[Ref]

Do you have any evidence of a significant consensus view among scholars "outside of Provo" that these works are not considered scholarship, or that they've been examined and rejected?

Overwhelming. Not a single academic institution in the world or a single non-lds scholar in the world, has given any of this the slightest passing interestl. Similarly, I know of no academic body who has rejected the "fountain of youth" claim. Both are taken in about the same sense of seriousness.

But please don't let me steel your thunder. Please provide the evidence where such BOM scholarship has been accepter outside of Provo!

And don't assume that Peterson, Hamblin, Clark, and Sorenson typically speak about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism to their non-LDS academic audiences. We don't --

Frankly I am one who probably understands, more than others, why you wouldn/t make such comments. If I was a member of your peer group, and in their company, it would be the last thing I would want to bring up to demonstrate my expertise as well. I suspect it's hard getting their acceptance. Why risk years of working on gaining such respect/acceptance on a topic which would destroy it in such a short period of time. I completely understand your position here.

I disagree that no credible evidence has been found.

Great. Provide the credible evidence and why it is credible outside of Provo. IE, what is your standard of credibility outside of those who have a "testimony"? Any professional peer validation?

I begin to hear echoes of a familiar voice.

Probaly more doctrinal in nature. Aren't familar voices accepted?

Again, to ignore something in the sense of being wholly unaware of it, paying no attention, is quite a different matter than choosing to ignore something after having carefully examined it and found it wanting. The latter has not occurred among secular scholars with reference to the Book of Mormon.

The question remains: WHY? Put the BOM historicity claim on a list of any and all great cliams to a historic society. IS there any greater than what we find in the BOM for which there is absolutely no shred of passing interest outside of Provo? Time to start using some "reason" in these arguments now!!

To draw that conclusion at this stage would be to go far, far beyond the evidence.

How so? How far does one have to " jump" if there is nothing to jump over? Where is ther any credible and convincing evidence? If such evidence exists, has it convinced anyone who did not have a testimony to begin with? Again, why not treat this with the same standards that BYU presents "history" classes on middle east history?

Don't make the unwarranted leap that lack of acceptance equals rejection.

Sounds like you've been a mentor and involved in the "post campaign" talks to Al Gore and John Kerry!!! Tell me, did that argument comfort them too?!?!

[Gervin]

And don't assume that Peterson, Hamblin, Clark, and Sorenson typically speak about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism to their non-LDS academic audiences. We don't --

Should the academic community be chided (see Pahoran, above) for not engaging in the LDS scholarship of the Book of Mormon if the LDS scholars themselves don't typically speak about the book to scholars outside of the LDS Church? Why hold back?

[Brant Gardner]

Overwhelming. Not a single academic institution in the world or a single non-lds scholar in the world, has given any of this the slightest passing interestl.

Here is the same argument again. There is silence, therefore everyone has examined the the evidence and rejected it.

Ref, here are some questions for you:

1) Is it really possible to review a book or article you haven't read?

2) If you haven't read a book, does that mean that the book or article cannot be academically sound?

3) Can you disclose the source of your information about the reading lists of all archaeologists?

4) Can you give us any evidence that you are sufficiently familiar with Dr. Clark's archaeological peer group that you can speak for all of them?

5) Does one person's opinion automatically define everyone else's opinion of those with the same job description?

6) Does a 30-year-old opinion always represent a person's current position - and that of everyone else - despite massive changes in the available data in the last 30 years?

7) And lastly, you haven't explained why Dr. Peterson's answer that non-LDS academics have generally ignored LDS Book of Mormon scholarship translates into your position that such silence must mean that they reject it. How is the very same piece of evidence read so entirely differently? In particular, how do you defend your reading of it?

[Not quite me]

Here is the same argument again. There is silence, therefore everyone has examined the the evidence and rejected it.

I understand the argument to be that scholars outside Provo consider the claims to be so far removed from the facts that the "evidence" is not worth looking at. Big difference.

Years ago I took a Latin American history class from George Addy at BYU (a delightful old guy). The first day of class, he told us we would be learning about the history of the peoples of the Americas from earliest history to the Spanish conquest. He cautioned us not to expect any discussion of Book of Mormon peoples, as nothing that we knew about native peoples supported the Lehi story. Similarly, my brother told me that his first day at BYU, his history professor told the class that anyone who said there was historical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon was lying. He was kind of shocked, to say the least.

In asking for scholarly interest in Book of Mormon stories, you're essentially asking scholars to set aside everything they know to look at the evidence for a "history" that is supported primarily by a spiritual witness. Not going to happen.

[why me]

Althought Mark Twain dismissed the Book of Mormon as poor literature, it seems to me that he dismissed it rather prematurely. As we can see from this thread, the Book of Mormon can be actively debated. Amazingly, the book still has not been proven a fraud and that says much for the book.

We can read the pro's and the con's but the fact still remains that the book is quite a religious text, filled with theology that may or may not be recognized as historically geniune and yet the theology exists. The book will be actively debated for quite some time and if the church continues to grow, the book cannot be ignored. Eventually, it will come under a more scrutiny from the academic relgious community and mormon studies will be the norm, with the book of mormon as reference.

The book itself has been torn to sheds by scholars wishing to destroy the book since its inception, but they did not succeed. What is the reason for that? Much hangs on that book. It seems to me that if religious organizations wish to destroy the church, they should concentrate on destroying the book. If the book cannot be destroyed, then they should leave 'mormonism' in peace.

[Not quite me]

Althought Mark Twain dismissed the Book of Mormon as poor literature, it seems to me that he dismissed it rather prematurely. As we can see from this thread, the Book of Mormon can be actively debated. Amazingly, the book still has not been proven a fraud and that says much for the book.

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in destroying Mormonism. It works for some people, just not for me.

As for your argument above, that it hasn't been "proven" a fraud in your estimation really says nothing about the book. I can't prove that there's no worldwide conspiracy involving fluoridated water, but that doesn't say much for the theory, does it?

Again, we all look at the same evidence and decide what is true and what is not. You and I have simply concluded differently.

[why me]

Years ago I took a Latin American history class from George Addy at BYU (a delightful old guy). The first day of class, he told us we would be learning about the history of the peoples of the Americas from earliest history to the Spanish conquest. He cautioned us not to expect any discussion of Book of Mormon peoples, as nothing that we knew about native peoples supported the Lehi story. Similarly, my brother told me that his first day at BYU, his history professor told the class that anyone who said there was historical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon was lying. He was kind of shocked, to say the least.

In asking for scholarly interest in Book of Mormon stories, you're essentially asking scholars to set aside everything they know to look at the evidence for a "history" that is supported primarily by a spiritual witness. Not going to happen.

And yet, at BYU such conversions take place. Amazing isn't it? Many scholars ignore the book of mormon because it is a religious text supported by a church. They may have no interest in its historicity but some religious scholars have an interest in its theology. The book is not actually a history text. I see no major history happening except the wars..but what I do see is a religious philosophy in the book and how people were coping with their religious life. The book is not to bring us closer to history but it is to bring us closer to christ. Big difference in my opinion.

[Not quite me]

And yet, at BYU such conversions take place. Amazing isn't it? Many scholars ignore the book of mormon because it is a religious text supported by a church. They may have no interest in its historicity but some religious scholars have an interest in its theology. The book is not actually a history text. I see no major history happening except the wars..but what I do see is a religious philosophy in the book and how people were coping with their religious life. The book is not to bring us closer to history but it is to bring us closer to christ. Big difference in my opinion.

I very much doubt Hamblin et al. are talking about conversions here. FARMS functions, as far as I can see, as a generator of plausible parallels, for that's really what you have supporting the Book of Mormon. Nihm might be Nahom. Wadi Sayq might be Bountiful. The Olmecs might be Jaredites, etc. Nothing solid, just a lot of hints and parallels, which is fine enough if you're a believer. But it doesn't attract scholarly attention for pretty obvious reasons.

Of course the book's stated purpose is to bring people to Christ. And yes, I would think that the Book of Mormon should attract more theological study, though it's Christology and doctrines are not nearly as interesting from that perspective as the D&C and Book of Abraham, etc.

[why me]

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in destroying Mormonism. It works for some people, just not for me.

As for your argument above, that it hasn't been "proven" a fraud in your estimation really says nothing about the book. I can't prove that there's no worldwide conspiracy involving fluoridated water, but that doesn't say much for the theory, does it?

Again, we all look at the same evidence and decide what is true and what is not. You and I have simply concluded differently.

But this is a big issue. How the book originated? It is one thing to make claims but it is quite another to prove them with sound evidence. As you can see on this thread the apologists have a pretty good take on it. True, they haven't proven it true, but the defense is sound. It is not up to Mormons to prove it true. This would only cloud the faith issue. But it is up to the countermo's to prove it false. And this they haven't done yet. And there is perhaps a good reason for this. Isn't it just a little difficult to say something is a fraud when there is no fraud proven? Hunches just don't work.