Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[Marmonboy]

To those wondering why the outside archeological community ignores the BoM in its Mesoamerican claims I submit the following:

The vast majority of the archeologists I have worked with over the years are as secular as it gets, and have absolutely no interest in anything religious whatsoever. Granted, it's a pretty small sample, but I can count on one finger all the times anyone has expressed even the slightest knowledge, let alone interest, in anything relating to the Church, or the BoM, or pretty much anything else religious, for that matter. They ignore BoM scholarship because they are totally disinterested in looking at it, not because there is or isn't any evidence.

[Ref]

The issue that Gardner, Peterson, and other apologists will never address is WHY? Why is there not even a passing interest by the entire world wide non-lds scholarly and academic community to even consider the BOM as a record of history? If we have all this "supposed" great scholarly work done by the likes of Clark and Sorenson et. al, why is there not even the least interest in our secular academic community to take the time to read the BOM and see where the claim of this, never before known history, stands with respect to the claim contained within the BOM?

Frankly, I can't imagine that anyone familiar with the academic community of anthropologists and archaeologists would seriously ask such a question.

Frankly Brant, I can't imagine anyone asking the questin either until the confidence level by likes of "supposed" Lds scholarship is ready to directly submit their work for affirmative review. As Dr. Peterson has already admitted on several occasions, leaving it in the "halls of FARMS" is the one sure way of ensuring it will be ignored.

Perhaps someday, you and your colleagues in Lds BOM historicity will submit such "scholarship" to forums beyond the FAIR message board for evaluation! Until then, I suppose you will be able to continue in the glory of your "faith promoting" material where it is sure to be ignored.

Safe plan though!!

[cksalmon]

I think one of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason, that inside-out correlations have not yet been made between BoM and Mesoamerica, for instance, is the lack of a definitive geographical milieu for BoM narratives. Many have been proposed (including one that struck me as both radically inventive and probably untenable: a Malaysian location for BoM).

If and when this situation changes—i.e., when a definitive location is able to be cross-correlated inside-out and outside-in to the general acceptance of a broad body of scholars (LDS and non-LDS)—we'll see scholarly acceptance of BoM historical narratives, at least concerning their mundane aspects. This would be the watershed event for the claim to BoM's historicity.

Many secular archaeologists accept portions of OT narratives (while questioning many others) and, at the same time, completely reject the supernatural elements. Archaeologists can reject the Bible's doctrines, while at the same time using it as one tool among many—of lesser or greater importance—in their archaeological toolbox.

Until BoM comes to be seen as a useful archaeological tool for plumbing a definitive locale, it would seem that we're left with interesting potential correlations that are only location-specific in a very broad sense: i.e., Mesoamerica, Western New York, Malaysia.

I realize that a Mesoamerican setting is seen as the most likely among many of the most knowledgable LDS investigators of this realm of inquiry. But the research, it would seem, has not broken through the impasse of specific, consensus-level, geographical correlation.

If one were to claim, for whatever reason(s), that BoM narratives just don't function that way, then the obvious question would be: how would the state of Mesoamerican archaeology be different in the absence of BoM? If it would be exactly as it now is, then BoM will not have proven itself to be a useful tool for investigating ancient Mesoamerica—or ancient New York, or ancient Malaysia.

Or, so it seems to a non-expert.

Best to all.

CKS

[Kevin Christensen]

Ref has been beating this drum monontonously for a while:

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.

Ahem.

It seems to me like the essays in Truman Madsen's 1978 Reflections on Mormonism demonstrate some interest. Particularly Charlesworth's and Stendahl's essays on the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the essays by non-LDS scholars in the the two volume set honoring Hugh Nibley, "By Study and By Faith," seem very notable to me. It is also interesting to me that John Tvedtnes was able to quote William Albright's comments on the Book of Mormon in an essay on the Book of Mormon.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...cholarship.html

And it is interesting to have four LDS scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls committee. More recently, the Joseph Smith Conference in Washington DC also included some notable expressions of interest. Particularly Margaret Barker's talk, which Ref has either not considered or ignored.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margar...arker-talk.html

Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that contextâ??the reign of King Zedikiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi? (King Zedikiah was installed in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.)

I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions, and I must emphasize that. Iâ??m a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament. Until some Mormon scholars made contact with me a few years ago I would never have considered using Mormon texts and traditions as part of my own work.

Since that initial contact I have had many good and fruitful exchanges and have begun to look at these texts very closely. Iâ??m still, however, very much an amateur in this area. What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholarâ??â??Are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem about 600 B.C.E?â?

The published version in BYU Studies is even more positive than the transcript. I also note that Barker includes a link to the FARMS website from her own website in her discussion of the publication history of The Great Angel, commending readers to Occasional Paper n 2, by yours truely. This alone should be enough to refute the Ref.

It's interesting that the Robert Price essay on the Book of Mormon in American Apocrypha, though it starts with a discussion of the Deuteromist Reform, never considers the implications the initial time and place of the Book of Mormon has for potential testing. Price uses the Reform to establish a paradigm for pious fraud and writes his essay, taking 18 pages before getting to the Book of Mormon text. Price had Barker on the editorial board for the Journal of Higher Criticism, which he edits, and at the Signature website for Price's forthcoming Ante-Nicean New Testament collection of translations, Price includes a blurb from Barker about his project. Price's neglect of previous LDS scholarship and of the possibilities for actually comparing the Book of Mormon with the situation in Jerusalem is understandable, given his avowed atheism. However, it doesn't make his essay better and more insightful.

I understand that non LDS Bible scholar Marvin Sweeny also spoke recently on the Book of Mormon at Claremont, though I haven't seen a transcript.

Plus, I recall from a FARMS Insights a few years ago, an LDS student reading a paper on Alma's conversion compared to the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth ceremony. There are other examples.

Dogmatic pronouncements are easier than research, but when made without research often call for repentence.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

To add to what Kevin has to say, I note the following:

1- There is a strong secular bias in academia. Most scholars reject the BOM without ever having read it simply because of their a priori assumption that angels donâ??t bring golden plates to farm boys. Since one cannot accept the BOM without accepting prophetic claims of JS, secular bias prevents giving JS a fair hearing.

2- In New World archaeology there is a strong anti-diffusionist bias, thought this is now waning to some degree. Since the BOM argues for at least some level of diffusionism it again contradicts the prevailing paradigm.

3- The only opinions that matter are informed opinions. Even if 100% of New World archaeologists rejected the historicity of the BOM, it would be irrelevant unless they had carefully read the BOM, and studied the secondary literature. The vast majority of scholars have never read the BOM. Their opinions on the matter are therefore irrelevant.

4- Most of the few scholars who have read the BOM have not read it carefully, nor have they carefully considered the arguments in favor of the BOM. This is clear from the numerous examples of scholars who dismiss the BOM as nonsense, while simultaneously demonstrating that they havenâ??t even understood the basic narrative of the text, let alone itâ??s more intricate details (e.g. Brooke, Refinerâ??s Fire; Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel, 106-111). Uninformed opinion, even if unanimously held, is still uninformed.

5- Most of those who have critiqued the BOM in a serious and scholarly way are, in fact, ex-Mormons. Why should ex-Mormon views be considered unbiased, while LDS views are considered biased.

6- There are, in fact, numerous non-Mormon scholars who take the FARMS-style BOM arguments seriously, even if not accepting the arguments.

--Raphael Patai, in The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1998) has an appendix by John Lundquist on â??Biblical Seafaring and the BOMâ? on pp. 171-5.

--Givensâ?? By the Hand of Mormon was published by Oxford UP, one of the two or three most prestigious academic presses in the world. His book contains numerous references to FARMS arguments and publications. This should not be seen that the editors at Oxford believe the arguments, but they take them seriously enough to publish them.

--Mosser and Owens, in â??Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?â? Trinity Journal (1998), while rejecting LDS beliefs, still take FARMS-style arguments seriously.

--Jordan Vajda wrote â??Partakers of the Divine Natureâ? while a Catholic priest; http://farms.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php. He has since converted to Mormonism.

7- The fact that some who have seriously studied the BOM reject its historicity while some accept it is not proof that those who reject it are right. Rather it demonstrates that the case for either side is inconclusive. The fact that obviously highly informed scholars of the Precolumbian New World such as Sorenson, Clark, Gardner, Christensen, etc. still accept the BOM indicates that a reasonable caseâ??though not a conclusive oneâ??can be made in favor of historicity.

[Ref]

There is a strong secular bias in academia. Most scholars reject the BOM without ever having read it simply because of their a priori assumption that angels donâ??t bring golden plates to farm boys. Since one cannot accept the BOM without accepting prophetic claims of JS, secular bias prevents giving JS a fair hearing.

Itâ??s true that â??divineâ? deliverance of messages, does raise questions from the rationale thinking mind. Happens all the time, probably even at BYU. Warren Jeffs makes the same claims as Joseph Smith. So how does the rationale mind differentiate between the two? Those who have claimed such â??prophetic deliverancesâ? are numerous and probably never ending in our society. But to my knowledge, only the Lds Churchâ??s claim, with respect to the BOM, is one of not only a spiritual message, but one of a detailed, sophisticated and expansive claimed â??HISTORYâ? as well. If the history really did exist, how can you possibly posit that one has to accept the â??prophetic claimsâ? of Joseph Smith to study, investigate, and accept the claim of the people, places and cultures exhibited in the BOM as history that took place? Whether delivered by angels or Federal Express, we should be able to evaluate it on its historical and archaeological evidence without worrying about whether the evaluator has a â??personal testimonyâ? in Smith.

In New World archaeology there is a strong anti-diffusionist bias, thought this is now waning to some degree. Since the BOM argues for at least some level of diffusionism it again contradicts the prevailing paradigm.

Probably because that is where most â??accepted scholarly evidenceâ? points to. The BOM historicity claim does not fit within â??accepted scholarlyâ? evidence with respect to this, it becomes a problem, so we have the â??isolated BOM scholarsâ? suggesting to the ever shrinking audience itâ??s a problem with â??secular academics, not the works of Clark, Sorenson et al.

How much farther will it have to â??waneâ? before the scholarly peer group of Clark, Sorenson et al, will pay even a passing interest to all this â??supposed scholarshipâ? that attempts to support an â??archaeological basisâ? in claimed history you say those who donâ??t have a â??testimony forâ? will never accept???

The only opinions that matter are informed opinions. Even if 100% of New World archaeologists rejected the historicity of the BOM, it would be irrelevant unless they had carefully read the BOM, and studied the secondary literature. The vast majority of scholars have never read the BOM. Their opinions on the matter are therefore irrelevant.

The longer the Lds community of â??supposed scholarshipâ? continues to hide behind such illogical (and frankly very telling) defense, the more apparent it becomes with respect to the lack of confidence they have in their own â??scholarshipâ?. Simply make the formal submittal to any academic body and/or professional association for the merits of this â??claimed history scholarshipâ? and ask them to read the BOM as evidence for this history.

Again, while such statement is very â??faith promotingâ? for the likes of this board, it goes back to a very telling and overwhelmingly difficult issue for you and the other â??message board apologistsâ? to deal with:

QUESTION: â??Why is the 1,000 year history claim of the BOM, the single most ignored â??claimed historyâ? by those who devote their entire professional careers to discover and map ancient histories?â?

ANSWER: â??An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.â?

(critical thinker Edward de Bono)

This is what Dr. Daniel Peterson has already admitted with respect to the secular academic community and the Lds scholarsâ?? claims relating to the BOM historicity. Such work has been simply ignored!

Most of the few scholars who have read the BOM have not read it carefully, nor have they carefully considered the arguments in favor of the BOM. This is clear from the numerous examples of scholars who dismiss the BOM as nonsense, while simultaneously demonstrating that they havenâ??t even understood the basic narrative of the text, let alone itâ??s more intricate details (e.g. Brooke, Refinerâ??s Fire; Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel, 106-111). Uninformed opinion, even if unanimously held, is still uninformed.

As self serving as this statement is, and obviously needs to be, it again tries to discredit anyone outside of the â??testimony bearing faithfulâ? as qualified to read the BOM and understand it. And it probably carries well among the faithful as it categorically dismisses anyone who has read the BOM and concluded it to be fiction, as a non-qualified. A nice tactic that basically tells an ignorant reader: â??One must come from Provo to be qualified to evaluated the BOM history claim!â?

There are, in fact, numerous non-Mormon scholars who take the FARMS-style BOM arguments seriously, even if not accepting the arguments.

Again, a tactic of â??coat-tailingâ? credentials or works not applicable to this issue as a way deflecting attention away from the BOM historicity claim.

Raphael Patai, in The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1998) has an appendix by John Lundquist on â??Biblical Seafaring and the BOMâ? on pp. 171-5.

While he passed away 10 years ago, I am not aware of any statements from Patai acknowledging the history claim of the BOM. Can you provide such?

Givensâ?? By the Hand of Mormon was published by Oxford UP, one of the two or three most prestigious academic presses in the world. His book contains numerous references to FARMS arguments and publications. This should not be seen that the editors at Oxford believe the arguments, but they take them seriously enough to publish them.

This is rich. Perhaps since Clark and Sorenson, et al, have not been able to get any professional journal or academic institution to give a passing interest in their BOM historicity â??scholarshipâ?, you could get Givens to convince Oxford to publish it! If not, what is your point here besides a weak attempt to coat-tail!!

Mosser and Owens, in â??Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?â? Trinity Journal (1998), while rejecting LDS beliefs, still take FARMS-style arguments seriously.

Again, do you find either one of these individuals qualified to evaluate the BOM historicity claim? If so why? And has either one of them, particularly the non-lds member of the duo, demonstrated his acceptance of the BOM historicity claim? If not, again, what is your point?

Jordan Vajda wrote â??Partakers of the Divine Natureâ? while a Catholic priest; http://farms.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php. He has since converted to Mormonism.

This is both rich and irrelevant! How many Lds priesthood holding scholars have written articles in support of the Lds view at one point during their â??testimony bearingâ? period and subsequently left the Lds church?? We could play this silly game all day but with far more names from the â??originally Lds and leftâ? side. So what is your point?

The fact that some who have seriously studied the BOM reject its historicity while some accept it is not proof that those who reject it are right. Rather it demonstrates that the case for either side is inconclusive. The fact that obviously highly informed scholars of the Precolumbian New World such as Sorenson, Clark, Gardner, Christensen, etc. still accept the BOM indicates that a reasonable caseâ??though not a conclusive oneâ??can be made in favor of historicity.

And the glaring fact that the works of those you mention above, dealing with a claimed 1000 year history for which there is no parallel in our society today, donâ??t generated the slightest interest from their very academic peer group from which they are supposed to be so well respected within, has been overwhelmingly made in favor of the BOM being nothing more than a â??fictional historyâ?!

[Bill Hamblin]

Ref,

I guess we'll just have to go with your method of accepting as definitive the opinion of those who have not bother to actually read the book, nor engage the relevant secondary literature. It makes scholarship so much easier.

[Pahoran]

There is a strong secular bias in academia. Most scholars reject the BOM without ever having read it simply because of their a priori assumption that angels donâ??t bring golden plates to farm boys. Since one cannot accept the BOM without accepting prophetic claims of JS, secular bias prevents giving JS a fair hearing.

Itâ??s true that â??divineâ? deliverance of messages, does raise questions from the rationale thinking mind.

How do you know? Have you asked someone who's got one?

Just so you know, "rationale" is not merely a fancy way of saying "rational." It actually means "the reason or explanation for an action or decision." That is, it is a noun, not an adjective.

However, this apparent manifestation of ignorance on your part may be something else. A rationale is often a post hoc explanation for a decision already taken. As in "Ref is striving mightily to come up with a convincing rationale for his ugly anti-Mormon rants."

Happens all the time, probably even at BYU. Warren Jeffs makes the same claims as Joseph Smith. So how does the rationale[sic] mind differentiate between the two?

Clearly you don't know, so I don't think I will waste any time on this obvious red herring.

Those who have claimed such â??prophetic deliverancesâ? are numerous and probably never ending in our society. But to my knowledge, only the Lds Churchâ??s claim, with respect to the BOM, is one of not only a spiritual message, but one of a detailed, sophisticated and expansive claimed â??HISTORYâ? as well. If the history really did exist, how can you possibly posit that one has to accept the â??prophetic claimsâ? of Joseph Smith to study, investigate, and accept the claim of the people, places and cultures exhibited in the BOM as history that took place?

Because, just exactly like you, others are quite willing to reject the Book of Mormon without reading it, based purely upon their visceral reaction to the story of the angel and the golden plates. This has been the treatment it has most commonly received, especially by those who fancy themselves as intellectuals.

Some of whom can't tell a noun from an adjective.

Whether delivered by angels or Federal Express, we should be able to evaluate it on its historical and archaeological evidence without worrying about whether the evaluator has a â??personal testimonyâ? in Smith.

Thus demonstrating your terminal cluelessness. Nobody has a personal testimony "in Smith."

In New World archaeology there is a strong anti-diffusionist bias, thought this is now waning to some degree. Since the BOM argues for at least some level of diffusionism it again contradicts the prevailing paradigm.

Probably because that is where most â??accepted scholarly evidenceâ? points to. The BOM historicity claim does not fit within â??accepted scholarlyâ? evidence with respect to this, it becomes a problem, so we have the â??isolated BOM scholarsâ? suggesting to the ever shrinking audience itâ??s a problem with â??secular academics, not the works of Clark, Sorenson et al.

You are confused about many things, including the direction of secular research and the "ever shrinking audience." The only group that is "ever shrinking" is the group still holding to the anti-diffusionist bias, which is an artifact of the institutional history of those dominating the field.

The only opinions that matter are informed opinions. Even if 100% of New World archaeologists rejected the historicity of the BOM, it would be irrelevant unless they had carefully read the BOM, and studied the secondary literature. The vast majority of scholars have never read the BOM. Their opinions on the matter are therefore irrelevant.

The longer the Lds community of â??supposed scholarshipâ? continues to hide behind such illogical (and frankly very telling) defense, the more apparent it becomes with respect to the lack of confidence they have in their own â??scholarshipâ?.

Your nasty, prejudicial and spiteful remarks are becoming tiresome. Professor Hamblin is a real scholar, something you are too ignorant to recognise, or too boorish to admit. Or both.

Equally tiresome is the fact that you keep boldly asserting that this argument is "illogical," although you have made not the slightest effort to explain what is wrong with the logic, or even to demonstrate that you even grasp the logic.

People who don't know the subject are ipso facto not experts therein. This is entirely simple, perfectly logical, and utterly beyond your comprehension.

Simply make the formal submittal to any academic body and/or professional association for the merits of this â??claimed history scholarshipâ? and ask them to read the BOM as evidence for this history.

Since you are completely ignorant, you of course don't know that this is simply not done in academic circles.

Again, while such statement is very â??faith promotingâ? for the likes of this board, it goes back to a very telling and overwhelmingly difficult issue for you and the other â??message board apologistsâ? to deal with:

QUESTION: â??Why is the 1,000 year history claim of the BOM, the single most ignored â??claimed historyâ? by those who devote their entire professional careers to discover and map ancient histories?â?

ANSWER: â??An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.â?

(critical thinker Edward de Bono)

Your continued chanting of this silly and superficial mantra has ceased to be amusing. Actually Dr. de Bono is known for lateral thinking, not critical thinking; not that you would know the difference, of course.

And that mantra is not the answer to the question. It is completely unrelated to it. Every expert is a specialist; she knows "what to pay attention to and what to ignore" in her own subject area, and routinely ignores vast amounts of material--virtually everything, in fact--from outside of it.

You wouldn't know this, having never read it, but The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It falls entirely outside the expertise of almost everyone who is qualified to evaluate its historicity. Most of those who have heard of it know only what they've heard at second hand, and that often from hostile sources.

The community of Book of Mormon experts is small, and although it is steadily growing, the overlap between their area of expertise and that of others is, to say the least, not great.

This is what Dr. Daniel Peterson has already admitted with respect to the secular academic community and the Lds scholarsâ?? claims relating to the BOM historicity. Such work has been simply ignored!

Of course. Ignored because it is outside of the area in which they claim expertise.

Most of the few scholars who have read the BOM have not read it carefully, nor have they carefully considered the arguments in favor of the BOM. This is clear from the numerous examples of scholars who dismiss the BOM as nonsense, while simultaneously demonstrating that they havenâ??t even understood the basic narrative of the text, let alone itâ??s more intricate details (e.g. Brooke, Refinerâ??s Fire; Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel, 106-111). Uninformed opinion, even if unanimously held, is still uninformed.

As self serving as this statement is,

As insulting as your accusation is, you'd better be prepared to support it. Please demonstrate why Professor Hamblin's statement is "self serving," or else withdraw the accusation.

and obviously needs to be, it again tries to discredit anyone outside of the â??testimony bearing faithfulâ? as qualified to read the BOM and understand it.

That assertion is quite intentionally false. Professor Hamblin merely reports what has actually happened. If you disagree, please tell us where we can read the careful and scholarly treatments of the Book of Mormon written by secular scholars. Where are they?

And it probably carries well among the faithful as it categorically dismisses anyone who has read the BOM and concluded it to be fiction, as a non-qualified. A nice tactic that basically tells an ignorant reader: â??One must come from Provo to be qualified to evaluated the BOM history claim!â?

You are uniquely qualified to speak for the ignorant reader. As an informed reader, however, it tells me something quite different.

There are, in fact, numerous non-Mormon scholars who take the FARMS-style BOM arguments seriously, even if not accepting the arguments.

Again, a tactic of â??coat-tailingâ? credentials or works not applicable to this issue as a way deflecting attention away from the BOM historicity claim.

Actually this goes directly to your demand for scholarly attention. It seems rather mean-spirited of you to keep harping away with that demand and then, as soon as it is answered, to try to dismiss it with a blatantly false accusation of "coat-tailing."

I could continue, but I've had enough of your ignorance, boorishness and spite for one day. You are completely uninformed as to the issues; you've got hold of one stupid argument, which you hang onto like a dog with a half-eaten bone, and absolutely refuse to acknowledge that anything could ever be said contrary to it. Your entire post is little more than the verbal equivalent of growling, with a little chest-thumping thrown in for good measure.

Here's a suggestion: instead of trying to run this pathetic excuse for an argument, why don't you actually read The Book of Mormon? Then you'll at least know what you are talking about.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

I would have to agree with Hamblin, and Pahoran. I see no reason for new world scholars to jump into a discussion of the "historicity of the BoM," which is a religious claim, and if they did so, they would be wholey unqualified without having studied the Book of Mormon.

However, I see no reason why LDS scholars can't advance in a professional setting, secular claims that nonLDS secular scholars would be interested in, and most certainly competent to evaluale.

LDS scholars could, for example, submit a paper, advancing a theory that hebrews migrated and settled in the world pre-columbian. The LDS scholars, without reference to the BoM (ie parrallels), could identify all footprints that trace back to support the existence of such a migration, whether it be genetic, linguistic, or the introduction at that time of old world food preparation and storage techniques, metullurgy, diseases, plants, animals, etc.

Such a theory would not prove historicity, but would help lay the groundwork for historicity.

Perhaps the more relevant question then, is whether an LDS scholar could make a credible presentation to his nonLDS peers advancing the purely secular theory of a pre-columbian hebrew migration to the new world. Or is the state of the evidence, such that this presentation would be met with the same level of disdain as a scholarly effort to prove the existence of a worldwide flood in man's history.

[Daniel Peterson]

This is what Dr. Daniel Peterson has already admitted with respect to the secular academic community and the Lds scholarsâ?? claims relating to the BOM historicity. Such work has been simply ignored!

I grew tired quite some time ago, Joey, of the way you continually abuse and misuse what I said. You are misrepresenting me. I've told you this many times, and you persist in doing it. Shame on you.

Most of the few scholars who have read the BOM have not read it carefully, nor have they carefully considered the arguments in favor of the BOM. This is clear from the numerous examples of scholars who dismiss the BOM as nonsense, while simultaneously demonstrating that they havenâ??t even understood the basic narrative of the text, let alone itâ??s more intricate details (e.g. Brooke, Refinerâ??s Fire; Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel, 106-111). Uninformed opinion, even if unanimously held, is still uninformed.

As self serving as this statement is, and obviously needs to be, it again tries to discredit anyone outside of the â??testimony bearing faithfulâ? as qualified to read the BOM and understand it. And it probably carries well among the faithful as it categorically dismisses anyone who has read the BOM and concluded it to be fiction, as a non-qualified. A nice tactic that basically tells an ignorant reader: â??One must come from Provo to be qualified to evaluated the BOM history claim!â?

And now you're misrepresenting Professor Hamblin.

He said nothing about testimonies, or being from Provo, as being necessary to understand the Book of Mormon and the arguments related to its authenticity. He said that one has to have read the Book of Mormon, and paid serious attention to those arguments, in order to have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

Please stop caricaturing us and setting up straw men. It was never amusing. It has never been intellectually honest.

[Gervin]

Pahoran: The Book of Mormon is not a history book.

If the book is true - that is if it tells a true story of ancient people, cultures, activities, and religious beliefs - then it certainly contains history. Despite not being able to verify historic details the historian would be interested in affirming the foundational elements of the book - the setting, the geography, the anthropology, and the material culture described on the pages. Considering the lack of any evidence by anyone other than a believing a Mormon your statement is true; it is not a history book.

Most of those who have heard of it know only what they've heard at second hand, and that often from hostile sources.

What may be even more amazing than the Book of Mormon is the fact that for coming on 200 years no one who has read the book - and of course there are many who have - and summarily dismissed it as fiction are considered intelligent enough by the LDS community to understand or pass judgement on the book. Credibility contingent on belief in a book.

The community of Book of Mormon experts is small

truer words ne'er were spoke, and the community of Book of Mormon experts who don't believe in the book is so small as to not even exist.

[Ref]

This is what Dr. Daniel Peterson has already admitted with respect to the secular academic community and the Lds scholarsâ?? claims relating to the BOM historicity. Such work has been simply ignored!

I grew tired quite some time ago, Joey, of the way you continually abuse and misuse what I said. You are misrepresenting me. I've told you this many times, and you persist in doing it. Shame on you.

First off, donâ??t know â??Joeyâ? (although I may have recently run in to him at RFM where I solicited input from posters there as to the origin of your statements).

Secondly, after several consistent responses from posters there, I had assumed the following quote was attributed to you:

â??it's a matter of the secular academic community (of Mesoamericanist archaeologists, for example) paying no really serious attention to Mormonism generally, or to Mormon scholarship in particular. FARMS arguments aren't so much rejected as ignored.â?

IF this is not your statement, again, my apologies. If it is, please tell me how this is an abuse, misuse or misrepresentation of what you said? If it is your statement, do you NOW believe the FARMS arguments have convinced Mesoamerican archaeologists to start paying any attention to these BOM historicity arguments yet? If so, where? If not, and again, how am I misrepresenting what appears to be a very clear statement?

And now you're misrepresenting Professor Hamblin.

With noted and accepted sarcasm aside, I would have thought Professor Hamblin would have said something had I misrepresented him. Unless of course, and perhaps, he now has a designated â??proctorâ?!

[Daniel Peterson]

First off, donâ??t know â??Joeyâ? (although I may have recently run in to him at RFM where I solicited input from posters there as to the origin of your statements).

I noticed that. So there are two of you.

IF this is not your statement, again, my apologies.

Of course it's my statement. I've never denied that it was.

If it is, please tell me how this is an abuse, misuse or misrepresentation of what you said?

Merely quoting it accurately isn't an abuse or misuse or misrepresentation. The abuse and misuse enter in depending upon how it's used -- as in abuse and misuse.

If it is your statement, do you NOW believe the FARMS arguments have convinced Mesoamerican archaeologists to start paying any attention to these BOM historicity arguments yet?

If they're not paying attention to the arguments, how do you imagine that the arguments are going to convince them of anything?

how am I misrepresenting what appears to be a very clear statement?

You and your pal Joey and a number of others over at the ironically-named "Recovery" board use my statement in order to suggest that I've conceded that outside experts have found our arguments unpersuasive. That, however, is not what I said. I said that outside experts, overwhelmingly, are unfamiliar with our arguments.

[serapha]

2)Lehi's Trail: from Jerusalem down the spice trail to NHM to Wadi Sayq(BOuntiful, where ships where launched by ancient arab mariners+all the details in 1 Nephi)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am replying to your posting with the assumption that your reference #2 is in appreciation of the works of George Potter and Richard Wellington in their joint publication of "Lehi in the Wilderness, 81 NEW, docmented evidences tat the Book of Mormon is a true history" or a similar publication.

I would like to bring it to your attention that this published work along with the visual presentation by The Nephi Project of "Discovering Lehi's Trail" contains many questionable statements and assumptions; and, if you are interested I would be willing to participate in a discussion of some of the problematic statements or words used as "evidences" in these works.

If you wish to continue a discussion along this line, please reply to this posting with such a request, and I will gladly participate in such a discussion.

Thank you for posting such an interesting subject. I await your response.

Sincerely,

~serapha~

[Ref]

I noticed that. So there are two of you.

Meaning? Two of us â??whatâ??

Merely quoting it accurately isn't an abuse or misuse or misrepresentation. The abuse and misuse enter in depending upon how it's used -- as in abuse and misuse.

Then all I can reasonably conclude is that I have been quoting you â??quite accuratelyâ?. What is your complaint?

If they're not paying attention to the arguments, how do you imagine that the arguments are going to convince them of anything?

â??Not paying attentionâ? contemplates an awareness of the arguments. How can one â??ignoreâ? something they know nothing about. Havenâ??t you been the person to direct everyone to the dictionary here!!!!

You and your pal Joey and a number of others over at the ironically-named "Recovery" board use my statement in order to suggest that I've conceded that outside experts have found our arguments unpersuasive. That, however, is not what I said. I said that outside experts, overwhelmingly, are unfamiliar with our arguments.

I sense a major â??backpedalingâ? going on now! There is a very distinct difference between being â??unfamiliarâ? and â??ignoringâ?. To ignore, one most know of something to ignore it first. But I suspect we donâ??t want to go to the dictionary now!!

Besides, if the Lds scholars publishing the literature on BOM historicity wanted the secular academic community to become â??familiarâ? with their works (concluding, as you would have it, that publishing them with FARMS only does not get it there), there are numerous professional and academic venues to submit their works for exposure and â??familiarityâ?. As Phil Knight would say, â??just do it (swish)â?! If they donâ??t want to â??do itâ?, we can only be left with the obvious conclusion that such â??sneakersâ? just wouldnâ??t sell. This is what I refer to as â??scholarship in isolationâ?. Reminds me of my high school garage band, it all sounded great as long as we never had to leave the garage!

Oh, and for the record, what you said is that such arguments are "ignored". You did not say anything about being "unfamiliar" until now!!!

[Daniel Peterson]

I noticed that. So there are two of you.

Meaning? Two of us â??whatâ??

Two of you making the same transparently fallacious argument.

Merely quoting it accurately isn't an abuse or misuse or misrepresentation. The abuse and misuse enter in depending upon how it's used -- as in abuse and misuse.

Then all I can reasonably conclude is that I have been quoting you â??quite accuratelyâ?. What is your complaint?

Sigh.

My complaint is that your use of what I said abuses what I said and misuses what I said. My complaint is that your use of what I said presses it illegitimately into service for an agenda that, properly understood, it does not serve.

Can you really not understand that it's possible to quote something accurately and yet to place it into a foreign context that distorts it?

If they're not paying attention to the arguments, how do you imagine that the arguments are going to convince them of anything?

â??Not paying attentionâ? contemplates an awareness of the arguments.

Really? Now how on earth would it "contemplate" that?

If I'm not paying attention to background music, does that entail that I recognize it as Dieterich Buxtehude's Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g'mein [buxWV 210]? If I'm not paying attention to my children, does that demonstrate that I know where they are? If I'm not paying attention to China's foreign policy machinations, does that prove that I'm actually quite aware of them and able to evaluate them? If I'm paying no attention to a speech, does that mean that I will be able to summarize it and to judge its effectiveness? If I pay no attention to Catholic biblical scholarship, does that qualify me to pronounce upon its quality?

This is a new principle to me, I must confess.

How can one â??ignoreâ? something they know nothing about.

Whatever, Ref. This is just silly.

I haven't claimed that scholars are entirely unaware that Mormons exist, or completely innocent of the fact that Mormons believe in a book that purports to tell us something about pre-Columbian America, or wholly ignorant of the fact that Mormons probably argue for their position. What I do say, however, is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence that non-LDS scholars, by and large, have seriously engaged themselves with or paid serious attention to serious Mormon arguments.

You and your pal Joey and a number of others over at the ironically-named "Recovery" board use my statement in order to suggest that I've conceded that outside experts have found our arguments unpersuasive. That, however, is not what I said. I said that outside experts, overwhelmingly, are unfamiliar with our arguments.

I sense a major â??backpedalingâ? going on now!

"Sense" away.

There is a very distinct difference between being â??unfamiliarâ? and â??ignoringâ?. To ignore, one most know of something to ignore it first. But I suspect we donâ??t want to go to the dictionary now!!

Good grief, Ref.

I've explained myself on this very point probably at least a dozen separate times here on this board.

Besides, if the Lds scholars publishing the literature on BOM historicity wanted the secular academic community to become â??familiarâ? with their works (concluding, as you would have it, that publishing them with FARMS only does not get it there), there are numerous professional and academic venues to submit their works for exposure and â??familiarityâ?. As Phil Knight would say, â??just do it (swish)â?! If they donâ??t want to â??do itâ?, we can only be left with the obvious conclusion that such â??sneakersâ? just wouldnâ??t sell. This is what I refer to as â??scholarship in isolationâ?. Reminds me of my high school garage band, it all sounded great as long as we never had to leave the garage!

I've already pointed out that we're distributing our work through the University of Chicago Press, that we've been advertising and selling our work at the annual national joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (by far the largest assembly of relevant scholars on this planet), and that we sponsor and organize relevant sessions at the AAR/SBL. We make every effort to see that our work is placed in the most significant academic research libraries. We're putting it all up on the web. Etc., etc. If you view that as an attempt to hide it, I can only say that you seem to have a very, very eccentric notion of what constitutes "hiding."

[cdowis]

>Reminds me of my high school garage band, it all sounded great as long as we never had to leave the garage!

OK, Ref, they are out of the garage and out there in the real world. They are competing with the other "bands", big time.

You might want to add this to your quotes: "It's easy to criticize when one is ignorant." cdowis

[Ref]

Two of you making the same transparently fallacious argument.

Well that response is obviously much easier than dealing with the merits of the arguments.

My complaint is that your use of what I said abuses what I said and misuses what I said. My complaint is that your use of what I said presses it illegitimately into service for an agenda that, properly understood, it does not serve.

I have never â??misused or abusedâ? what you have said and I have always put it in a very accurate context, particularly with the benefit of the passage of time in the supposed scholarship works of BOM historicity.

Look, this is so simple. Either the secular academic community â??ignoresâ? the BOM historicity works of Clark, Sorenson, et al that FARMS publishes (meaning the secular academic community is aware of such works to ignore in the first place), or they are â??unfamiliarâ? which such works and FARMS, Clark, Sorenson, et al, need to submit such works for publication, acceptance, or review in a professional academic venue where the peer professionals/scholars would be able to become familiar with such works. Which is it (or will it be, eventually)!

Can you really not understand that it's possible to quote something accurately and yet to place it into a foreign context that distorts it?

Sure I can. I see you doing it all the time with quotes from McCue and Bachman in your tag line. But there has been nothing â??foreignâ? about the context in my case.

What I do say, however, is that there isn't a scintilla of evidence that non-LDS scholars, by and large, have seriously engaged themselves with or paid serious attention to serious Mormon arguments.

This we already know so well. The question remains, with all of the notoriety and supposed â??professional peer respect and acceptanceâ? of the Clarkâ??s and Sorensonâ??s, why not even a scintilla of interests shown by those who are supposed to have the greatest respect from them?

To put it in perspective, your emotional, but perhaps merely faith promoting, reaction when Clark said: "Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

You said:

And it should be realized that John Clark genuinely is "putting his professional reputation on the line." This could cost him.

John has told me, since his forum address on Tuesday, that he expects his archaeological peers to hear about what he said, and that he is prepared to stand by his views. I've known him for fifteen years, and this is the first time that he has been willing to publicly express his opinions on the relationship between archaeological research and the Book of Mormon. The potential costs of being viewed as a Mormon apologist -- not only to him, professionally, but to his excavations and other projects in Mesoamerica -- were simply too high. Clearly, he feels that his status in the profession is now sufficiently well established that he can no longer be seriously damaged. But his move is not without risk.

Great emotional play for a board like this, but after over two years â?? still nothing. Nobody even noticed nor cared. Why not even the scintilla of interest from his peer group that those â??apparently in the knowâ? were predicting with such great fear and alarm! This is what I mean and have demonstrated with â??scholarship in isolationâ?!

I've already pointed out that we're distributing our work through the University of Chicago Press, that we've been advertising and selling our work at the annual national joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (by far the largest assembly of relevant scholars on this planet), and that we sponsor and organize relevant sessions at the AAR/SBL. We make every effort to see that our work is placed in the most significant academic research libraries. We're putting it all up on the web. Etc., etc. If you view that as an attempt to hide it, I can only say that you seem to have a very, very eccentric notion of what constitutes "hiding."

If this continued overused â??red herringâ? by you gets any bigger will have to call it a â??tyeeâ? (the salmon fisherman here will understand)!

Please specifically show us where any of the BOM historicity/archaeological scholarly works of Clark, Sorenson, or FARMS have ever been published, accepted, or embraced by any of the venues you mentioned here? Please, just one! Otherwise, if itâ??s not â??hidingâ?, it sure looks like â??lack of confidenceâ? for its submittal!

[Kevin Christensen]

I notice that Ref has ignored my previous post, wherein I named some names and events significant for the endless repetition of the same basic charge.

By the very act of publishing, Sorensen, Nibley, Gardner, Clark, Peterson, Hamblin, Welch, Givens, and even yours truely have offered their work for criticism by all comers. Peer review does not end with publication, but rather, it begins that way. No one at FARMS or FAIR is preventing anyone outside from reviewing their works in any venue. The publication of By the Hand of Mormon at Oxford, and of Rough Stone Rolling by Knoph invite review by all comers. Occasionally, we even get criticisms in books like The New Mormon Challenge, which is a major step up from the likes of the standard anti-Mormon fare. But even a step up like the two Book of Mormon essays was still inadequate to the problem that the Book of Mormon presents. More often, we get things like Robert Price, or even Krister Stendahl, who approach the Book of Mormon via methods that guarentee that nothing will come up that puts their critical approach at risk. Such essays may useful and interesting, even to believers, as Stendahl's and Price's are. However, it was immediately clear to me that neither really took any risks. What sets Margaret Barker essay apart from previous outsiders is that she both raised the question and took the risk. And she did not hesistate to provide her conclusions.

In his essay in Echoes and Evidences, John Welch observes that:

"Any piece of evidence is deeply entwined with a question. No real evidence exists until an issue is raised which that evidence tends to prove or disprove. By choosing which questions we will ask, we introduce a subjective element into the inquiry-seeking and asking begin in faith. At the same time, our questions determine what will become evidence-faith begins in asking and seeking."

Welch here points out the relationship between expectation and investigation. Kuhn observes that:

"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise."

The selection of any method presupposes a problem field and a standard of solution. The Ref's method for exploring the Book of Mormon involves polling those disinclined to study the text and believing scholarshiop. He seems to recommend that we defer in all things to the opinions of uniformed skeptics.

The least impressive of all arguments that can be put forth in peer review are appeals to popularity and consensus. Kuhn observes that various factors can enter into paradigm choice, such as -idiosyncracies of autobiography and personality-even the nationality or the prior reputation of the innovator and his teachers." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. 156). It's a very old argument. "Have any of the scribes or of the pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:48)

I find it preferable to focus on criteria that have something to do with what it real. That is, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

One of the many problems with the Ref is his obvious neglect of the difference between "objectively" and dispassionately assessing some abstractly neutral theory (as if such a thing were even possible) and something as potentially demanding as Joseph Smith's claims. Ian Barbour explains that:

"Participation in a religious tradition also demands a more total personal involvement than occurs in science. Religious questions are of ultimate concern, since the meaning of one's existence is at stake. Religion asks about the final objects of a person's devotion and loyalty, for which he will sacrifice other interests if necessary. Too detached an attitude may cut off a person from the very kinds of experience which are religiously most significant. Reorientation and reconciliation are transformation of life-pattern affecting all aspects of personality, not intellect alone. Religious writings use the language of actors, not the language of spectators. Religious commitment, then is a personal response, a serious decision implicating one's whole life, a willingness to act and suffer for what one believes in." (Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, 53-56).

If what matters most, if the first and great priority upon which hang all the law and the prophets, involves polling pop attitudes to see just who is pointing and mocking, or who is derisively ignoring us and our beliefs, then by all means, gather in the biggest and most spacious building you can find.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA