Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[Ihearya]

Was the change made because the information was inacurate or because we now have more information that prompted the change?

Where did the new information that cause the change come from? From our own studies?

[MormonMason]

Was the change made because the information was inacurate or because we now have more information that prompted the change?

...

The original 1981 Introduction made comments as though something we did not know were known. We know little to nothing with certainty about the demographics of the Book of Mormon. This has been pointed out from time to time over the years. Finally, it was deemed best to make the change so as to make sure it is known that we do not know. It was a very wise modification with the further benefit of removing a favorite whipping-boy of the critics that does nothing to affect the validity of the Book of Mormon text itself.

[Pahoran]

Wrong. You keep changing the question.

That's false.

As you perfectly well know.

Here is the entire exchange between us in this thread. To begin with you made a number of throwaway assertions like:

No & Yes. If science wasn't needed, then why was it that science was the catalyst that led to the change?

Then came this interesting little subthread:

And nothing was done until science showed just how incorrect the introduction was. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

What point? That you are relying entirely upon the post hoc fallacy in making your unqualified pontifical pronouncements?

This isn't post hoc and you know it!

Now if I was suggesting that the excommunication of George P. Lee somehow caused the change in the introduction, that would post hoc.

You have been triumphantly--and vacantly--pontificating that the change in the introduction was caused by "science." Your only evidence for that is the fact that the "science" in question came before the change. That is exactly post hoc and, your heated denials notwithstanding, you know it.

(In fact the bulk of the "science" came before the 1981 Introduction itself.)

If there is actual cause and effect, you just can't claim post hoc and move on.

And that "if" is the key to the problem, isn't it?

CFR that there was "actual cause and effect" and not just an assumption of your own based upon the post hoc fallacy.

When the assumption is reasonable based on the evidence, post hoc doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that more evidence might ultimately prove the assumption wrong, but you can't throw out a reasonable premise just because it hasn't been proven.

What evidence? A CFR is before you. Produce the evidence, please. Otherwise, it remains a post hoc assumption that merely appears "reasonable" to you because it is consistent with your prejudices.

CFR is used when you honestly don't know where to find the information and you don't believe that it exists. If I was talking about something which was not common knowledge, I would understand the need for a CFR. But I'll let you choose from the 1,660 results which showed up when I typed lamanite dna into the search box.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lamanite+...ss&ei=UTF-8

As you perfectly well know, you are dodging the question. As you perfectly well know, DNA is not the point at issue. As you perfectly well know, the question is whether you can demonstrate the "actual cause and effect" you claim exists between the DNA stuff and the change to the Intro.

I take it, then, that you cannot.

I don't wish to embarrass you further, "Thinking." If you are unable to demonstrate such a relationship, then don't bother replying, and we shall simply chalk this up to your rather un-"Thinking" reliance upon the post hoc fallacy.

Just see that you refrain from trying to conceal the weakness of your argument by accusing me of being less than honest while you are in the act of trying to pull a fast one.

Note, please, that I made a CFR to you on ONE question, and one question ONLY: your unvarying refrain that "science was the catalyst that led to the change" and "there is actual cause and effect" between the "science" and the change. And so forth. And fifth.

I did not CFR you on the existence of any "science."

I did not CFR you about the existence of any opinions about any "science."

I CFR'd you about your claim that "science was the catalyst that led to the change."

Thus, when you chose to answer a question I did not ask, you defaulted.

And when you accused me of changing the question, you made an accusation you know to be false.

It was in fact you who changed the question; and you did so on purpose.

When I showed you that post hoc didn't apply, you threw a CFR at me. Then when I answered your CFR with a link, you claimed that DNA is not the issue. DNA has been a principal issue in this thread from the beginning. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise.

As you know, it is not the point at issue between us. Unlike you, I am quite sure I know why you are now trying to pretend that it is. It is because you have not a shred of evidence in support of your assumption, so you are now trying to save face.

Which assumption is a textbook example of the post hoc fallacy.

And always was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ihearya]

The original 1981 Introduction made comments as though something we did not know were known. We know little to nothing with certainty about the demographics of the Book of Mormon. This has been pointed out from time to time over the years. Finally, it was deemed best to make the change so as to make sure it is known that we do not know. It was a very wise modification with the further benefit of removing a favorite whipping-boy of the critics that does nothing to affect the validity of the Book of Mormon text itself.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=30&table=transcripts

The above has an interesting look at the change. I think the big deal is because of who wrote the intro, who was supposed to be inspired prior to writing it? Had an average editor written the intro would it have been such a big deal?

[cksalmon]

And nothing was done until science showed just how incorrect the introduction was. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Anthropological data made it fairly clear to at least B. H. Roberts that the hemispheric model was bunk.

FAIR's Kevin L. Barney suggeststhat DNA further sealed the death of that model:

Barney writes:

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia.2 This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To that extent, Murphy and Southerton are not arguing against a straw man; many contemporary Latter-day Saints (to the extent that they have thought of the issue at all) continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon [undoubtedly because they were taught such growing up in the LDS Church]

Note that the DNA evidence, per Barney, merely confirmed the untenability of the hemispheric model. That model had been under fire for a while (if Roberts's investigations are to be considered worthy of note).

Barney has recently pointed out that, to his mind, LDS leadership (or at least the scripture committee) are finally listening to the arguments propounded by LDS apologists in favor of LGT.

On the recent change, he commented: "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

LDS apologists have long since abandoned HGT in favor of a much more restricted, smaller "incursion" model (to quote from Barney). He labels HGT part of a "traditional mythology."

So, which came first? The science debunking HGT or a revisioning of BoM history based on a close reading of BoM?

Barney admits that science was a compelling factor ("[t]he limited geography model arose based on various factors [including scientific considerations]"), even while he suggests that one aspect of those scientific considerations "was a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon itself, on its own terms, rather than relying on traditional mythology about that text." Of course, he's referring to textual analysis here rather than scientific data.

Barney's summary makes it seem as if "science" and BoM scholars were working in tandem to restrict the environs of the BoM narrative, but I doubt that's how it really unfolded. Rather, I'd posit, BoM scholars found ways in which to read BoM that were congruent with scientific claims that impinged upon HGT.

DNA didn't cause the change. The incongruity of HGT has long been recognized by non-LDS and LDS scholars alike (Roberts, for one). DNA evidence perhaps drove the final nail into the coffin.

All in all, the change signals an embracing by certain LDS leaders (spearheaded by the scripture committee, among whose members is Q12's Elder Henry B. Eyring) of a much more defensible claim--more defensible because it is more ambiguous, less bold, and much less specific.

But which came first? LGT? Or the scientific debunking of HGT, which is, no doubt, still being taught to some of those unsuspecting LDS who "continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon?"

CKS

[MormonMason]

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=30&table=transcripts

The above has an interesting look at the change. I think the big deal is because of who wrote the intro, who was supposed to be inspired prior to writing it? Had an average editor written the intro would it have been such a big deal?

It is only a big deal to those who think that each and every single word that comes from an apostle or prophet is 100% inspired or that the First Presidency spends every waking hour on approving personally each and every single line of every single thing published by the Church.

To those who know the goings on and who understand what the prophets and apostles have said about themselves and the nature of revelation and inspiration in relation to their daily lives, it is no big deal.

[Ihearya]

It is only a big deal to those who think that each and every single word that comes from an apostle or prophet is 100% inspired or that the First Presidency spends every waking hour on approving personally each and every single line of every single thing published by the Church.

To those who know the goings on and who understand what the prophets and apostles have said about themselves and the nature of revelation and inspiration in relation to their daily lives, it is no big deal.

I see. But when an intro is on the cover of the Book of Mormon it's not the same as the average publication, don't you think? That's the main book. However, there is no way that back in 1981 he could have "predicted" that this DNA stuff would become an issue, right?

[MormonMason]

I see. But when an intro is on the cover of the Book of Mormon it's not the same as the average publication, don't you think? That's the main book. However, there is no way that back in 1981 he could have "predicted" that this DNA stuff would become an issue, right?

An Introduction is just an introduction--nothing more nor less. It was not considered scripture and is not the only introduction or preface that the Book of Mormon has ever had. Check my post above wherein I posted all the major ones. In fact, there were many years, from 1840 to 1980, when it did not have one at all!

Bruce R. McConkie's original 1981 edition introduction already allowed for that. It was just easy of misunderstanding. It got clarified beyond all doubt nearly a year ago. Only now has it become "big news." Whether or not DNA was an issue or not, the truth of the matter is that we do not and have never known for a certainty the demographics of the Book of Mormon peoples. It is impossible to know this short of direct revelation, which the Lord has not seen fit to disclose at this time. The change merely reflects the fact that we do not know and now more clearly portrays that fact.

[Pahoran]

Anthropological data made it fairly clear to at least B. H. Roberts that the hemispheric model was bunk.

FAIR's Kevin L. Barney suggeststhat DNA further sealed the death of that model:

Barney writes:

Note that the DNA evidence, per Barney, merely confirmed the untenability of the hemispheric model. That model had been under fire for a while (if Roberts's investigations are to be considered worthy of note).

Barney has recently pointed out that, to his mind, LDS leadership (or at least the scripture committee) are finally listening to the arguments propounded by LDS apologists in favor of LGT.

On the recent change, he commented: "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

LDS apologists have long since abandoned HGT in favor of a much more restricted, smaller "incursion" model (to quote from Barney). He labels HGT part of a "traditional mythology."

So, which came first? The science debunking HGT or a revisioning of BoM history based on a close reading of BoM?

Barney admits that science was a compelling factor ("[t]he limited geography model arose based on various factors [including scientific considerations]"), even while he suggests that one aspect of those scientific considerations "was a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon itself, on its own terms, rather than relying on traditional mythology about that text." Of course, he's referring to textual analysis here rather than scientific data.

Barney's summary makes it seem as if "science" and BoM scholars were working in tandem to restrict the environs of the BoM narrative, but I doubt that's how it really unfolded. Rather, I'd posit, BoM scholars found ways in which to read BoM that were congruent with scientific claims that impinged upon HGT.

DNA didn't cause the change. The incongruity of HGT has long been recognized by non-LDS and LDS scholars alike (Roberts, for one). DNA evidence perhaps drove the final nail into the coffin.

All in all, the change signals an embracing by certain LDS leaders (spearheaded by the scripture committee, among whose members is Q12's Elder Henry B. Eyring) of a much more defensible claim--more defensible because it is more ambiguous, less bold, and much less specific.

But which came first? LGT? Or the scientific debunking of HGT, which is, no doubt, still being taught to some of those unsuspecting LDS who "continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon?"

CKS

CK,

desperate as you clearly are to salvage some kind of papier-mache triumph from this change, you probably won't want to click this link:

Elder Oaks on BofM Historicity

For those who do, observe who the speaker is. Observe the date he gave the talk. Then please note this:

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was.

Note that the LGT has been the dominant view of the BofM in LDS scholarly circles for at least the last half century. By contrast, the HGT has never risen beyond the stature of "folk Mormonism," even if some of the "folk" who embraced it found themselves in high Church positions. Furthermore, the LGT has been an available, and at times apparently a favoured, view since at least the 1840's.

But don't anyone say anything to CKS or "Thinking." They need to take their little victories wherever they can get them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ihearya]

An Introduction is just an introduction--nothing more nor less. It was not considered scripture and is not the only introduction or preface that the Book of Mormon has ever had. Check my post above wherein I posted all the major ones. In fact, there were many years, from 1840 to 1980, when it did not have one at all!

Bruce R. McConkie's original 1981 edition introduction already allowed for that. It was just easy of misunderstanding. It got clarified beyond all doubt nearly a year ago. Only now has it become "big news." Whether or not DNA was an issue or not, the truth of the matter is that we do not and have never known for a certainty the demographics of the Book of Mormon peoples. It is impossible to know this short of direct revelation, which the Lord has not seen fit to disclose at this time. The change merely reflects the fact that we do not know and now more clearly portrays that fact.

OK. I am satisfied with your reply. Very intelligent. Thank you.

[Daniel Peterson]

Way back in the early nineteenth century, when I was a kid growing up in California, I used to see ads in the old California Intermountain News (the local LDS paper), brochures from BYU Travel Studies, and the like, advertising trips to "Book of Mormon lands."

None of them ever went to Nebraska, or Maine, or Louisiana, or Manitoba, or British Columbia, or even Arizona.

I often used to see books about "Book of Mormon lands." They weren't very good, but, even then, they always focused essentially on Mexico, Guatemala, and etc.

Even on a popular level, something vaguely resembling a Mesoamerican limited geographical model has been dominant among the rank and file, practically speaking, for many, many years.

[Beowulf]

To chime in, there was a perfectly awful book about Book of Mormon lands that my mother had, handed down from her father. While I do not remember the title, I DO remember that it was published in 1921. It focused on Mesoamerica, not New York or anywhere else in the continental US.

In popular Mormon folklore therefore, the LGT was prominent dating back at least 80 years.

It did not arise in 2001 in response to Southerton's DNA attack. It did not arise in 1981 in response to the prevailing out-of-Siberia theory. It did not even arise in 1961.

Beowulf

[Bill Hamblin]

It is not in any way clear to me why some here think it is a bad thing if we adjust our interpretations of the BOM (or any other text) in light of new archaeological or scientific data. This is consistently done with Homer, the Bible, Herodotus, and all other ancient texts. I believe it's called scholarship in some circles.

The HGT and the LGT are both interpretations of the BOM. It is quite clear that the LGT is superior to the HGT in every way, most impressively in the travel distances mentioned in the BOM (the longest of which is 40 days), and by the fact that the land of Zarahemla--the largest Nephite state--could be traversed in a couple of days. A proclamation was made that “throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla … that thereby they may be gathered together; for on the morrow I shall proclaim unto this my people .. That thou art a king and a ruler over this people” (Mosiah 1:10). Obviously all the people of the land of Zarahemla could receive a message and gather together at the city of Zarahemla in a single day.

At any rate, various forms of the LGT were posited as early as 1887 (see Sorenson, Geography of BOM Events, 135).

PS I wonder if CK Salmon believes in the geocentric universe described in the Bible?

[Olavarria]

It is not in any way clear to me why some here think it is a bad thing if we adjust our interpretations of the BOM (or any other text) in light of new archaeological or scientific data. This is consistently done with Homer, the Bible, Herodotus, and all other ancient texts. I believe it's called scholarship in some circles.

The HGT and the LGT are both interpretations of the BOM. It is quite clear that the LGT is superior to the HGT in every way, most impressively in the travel distances mentioned in the BOM (the longest of which is 40 days), and by the fact that the land of Zarahemla--the largest Nephite state--could be traversed in a couple of days. A proclamation was made that â??throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla â?¦ that thereby they may be gathered together; for on the morrow I shall proclaim unto this my people .. That thou art a king and a ruler over this peopleâ? (Mosiah 1:10). Obviously all the people of the land of Zarahemla could receive a message and gather together at the city of Zarahemla in a single day.

At any rate, various forms of the LGT were posited as early as 1887 (see Sorenson, Geography of BOM Events, 135).

PS I wonder if CK Salmon believes in the geocentric universe described in the Bible?

Im sorry Bill and Dan,

You both are wrong!!!!!!! DOnt you know that everything I learned in primary and speculated about on scout trips is the unalterable gospel truth?

Sheesh!!

[Thinking]

Note, please, that I made a CFR to you on ONE question, and one question ONLY: your unvarying refrain that "science was the catalyst that led to the change" and "there is actual cause and effect" between the "science" and the change.

I'm not sure that you will accept anything less than direct evidence like, for example, an audio recording of the brethren discussing the reason for the change. I don't have that so I'm going to reasonably guess that you will shoot down any circumstantial evidence that I could provide by crying post hoc.

But since you asked.

The DNA controversy was definitely significant.

Claims in recent years by LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy and former LDS molecular biologist Simon Southerton regarding the lack of a genetic connection to Hebrew blood in American Indians have caused spirited debate in some quarters about the book's origins.

Southerton, a former bishop living in Australia, was excommunicated from the church after his writings appeared. Murphy was threatened with church discipline over his writings.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226008,00.html

Apparently, many LDS scholars have believed for decades in the LGT.

It "eliminates a certain minor embarrassment in the use of language, that's all," said John L. Sorensen, professor emeritus of anthropology at Brigham Young University, adding it has no impact on the substance of the book itself.

Sorensen's book, "An Ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon," outlines the "limited geography" theory and has become the definitive work to date on the topic among scholars. Its premise is that the book's characters lived within a fairly small region of Central America, rather than populating the entirety of North and South America, as some have speculated.

He said several LDS scholars have noted for decades that the assumption about "principal ancestors" was inaccurate.

The late Elder Richard L. Evans, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve from 1953 to 1971, described the Book of Mormon as "part of a record both sacred and secular of prophets and people, who (with supplementary groups), were among the ancestors of the American Indians." The description â?? approved by the church's First Presidency â?? was printed in a book titled "Religions of America," by Leo Rosten, which was first published in London in 1957 and subsequently reprinted in 1963 and 1975, Sorensen said.

I know it's not direct evidence, but this is the opinion of an LDS scholar, not an anti.

With questions among LDS scholars about its accuracy, why didn't the change come sooner?

Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change."

Inertia is the principle that an object's motion will not change unless it is acted upon by an outside force. Translation: The introduction to the Book of Mormon needed an outside force (perhaps the DNA controversy) to cause the change.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thinking: Southerton was ex'd, but were there any other people involved in the DNA research who were not excommunicated?

Why am I not surprised that you failed to bring this up?

[SolarPowered]

Way back in the early nineteenth century, when I was a kid growing up in California,

Golly, I knew you were an old geezer, but I really had no idea you were that old...

.

[SolarPowered]

I'm not sure that you will accept anything less than direct evidence like, for example, an audio recording of the brethren discussing the reason for the change. I don't have that so I'm going to reasonably guess that you will shoot down any circumstantial evidence that I could provide by crying post hoc.

An audio recording is not necessary; a direct quote from the brethren who decided on change will be quite sufficient.

Therein lies the issue--you've purported to know what the brethren were thinking. "Mind-reading" is not sufficient evidence of what a man is thinking, except in the pages of Cosmopolitan. Actual evidence requires that they tell you what they were thinking. Absent that, people are quite entitled to cry, "post hoc".

[MormonMason]

...

But which came first? LGT? Or the scientific debunking of HGT, which is, no doubt, still being taught to some of those unsuspecting LDS who "continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon?"

LGT came first before the so-called "scientific debunking" of anything. Notwithstanding Orson Pratt's influential early belief in a form of HGT, LGT first began when Joseph Smith either wrote or allowed to be published in the Times and Seasons--he had taken direct responsibility for the Church newspaper and then handed it to one of his best friends, John Taylor, in 1842--the following:

Since our "Extract" was published from Mr. Stephens' "Incidents of Travel," &c., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatemala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.â??The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:--'And now it was only the distance of a day and half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.' [see Book of Mormon 3d edition, page 280-81.]

("Zarahemla," Times and Seasons 3 (1 October 1842): 927, bold emphasis mine)

We know from the Book of Mormon that the Nephites' capital city, Zarahemla, was in or nearly in the heart of the land southward. We also know from the Book of Mormon that the land of Nephi also was on the land southward, which this above cited editorial places north of the Isthmus of Darien (located in Panama), effectively removing South America entirely from the picture as a Book of Mormon land, whether or not there was a Lehite landing point there. This, was part of the beginning of LGT.

This reference and its implications have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. The problem with message boards is, how to keep inane threads like "New Web Video 'Christian Owns Mormons'" or the like from burying the good ones with all such information, causing the information to have to be posted over and over again?

[cksalmon]

Interesting exchange from 1986 that bears somewhat on this issue.

"A Critique of the New Theory of Book of Mormon Geography"

Dan Vogel, response by Kirk Magleby

As far as I can tell, there is no copyright issue involved here. The audio file is available free of charge for both downloading and listening on the Sunstone website.

Vogel makes points that seem fairly obvious, at least to me (though I think he overstates at least one of them).

Magleby's points seem to be that one cannot prove that there has ever been any truly revelatory information about BoM geography. Moreover, JS was "unskilled and untrained" in the necessary arts to make definitive pronouncements about BoM geography, so we can discount what he said and wrote on the subject. Also, Sorenson is not an apologist. He labels Vogel's investigation as "sophomoric" and of a "pamphleteering" nature. *Boo's from the audience.* But that seems to be roughly the tone of Magleby's presentation throughout--he comes across, to my ears, as a conspicuously-angry defender. (And, indeed, he defends his right to be "vituperative," in light of his appraisal of Vogel's paper.) All in all, his response was on-point and detailed, even if his tone was a bit much.

CKS

SL86590.zip

[why me]

I have one question. Did the first presidency approve the introduction before it was published?

Also, the "just an introduction" defense is wimpy at best. This is the introduction for the foundational book of scripture for the Church. It was so important that a committee was formed and the most respected GA scholar of the time was in charge.

I don't know if the first presidency approved the introduction. It would not matter if they did. As I have said, it is basically just an introduction that was written for the triple combination. I am sure as I think DCP stated that there was much discussion about the referring to the Native Americans as the principle ancestors. But at the end of the day, I think what happened was simple. Someone drafted the Introduction to compliment the new triple combination as we have today. I think that the most important work at that time was not the introduction. In fact, it was probably the least important. What was more important for the committee was getting the footnotes, concordance, bible dictionary and all the other cross-references right. The Introduction was small potatoes when put up against the rest of the work. And that it what I meant: that an intro is just an intro.

[why me]

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=30&table=transcripts

The above has an interesting look at the change. I think the big deal is because of who wrote the intro, who was supposed to be inspired prior to writing it? Had an average editor written the intro would it have been such a big deal?

I think that there is much in the quotation that I took from your link:

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question. Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum.

I think that this says volumes about the change that was made to the introduction recently. And as the quotation states, in BYU the debate was present between the LGT and the Hemispheric Model. Now I can assure you that the critics will ignore this evidence. It just doesn't fit into their validation syndrome.

[cksalmon]

I think that there is much in the quotation that I took from your link:

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

...*snip*...

Now I can assure you that the critics will ignore this evidence. It just doesn't fit into their validation syndrome.

I can assure you that I don't ignore this "evidence" (quotations only because I'm not sure exactly what bit you're referring to).

I think this is a good synopsis of at least some of the underlying reasons for the change: (1) shift "the burden of argument"; (2) present opponents of BoM historicity with a "notoriously difficult exercise."

It's a decent summary of the situation. Why would critics ignore it? And, how would this approach strengthen

BoM apologia other than by making BoM historicity less investigable? And what's a validation syndrome?

CKS

[why me]

I can assure you that I don't ignore this "evidence" (quotations only because I'm not sure exactly what bit you're referring to).

I think this is a good synopsis of at least some of the underlying reasons for the change: (1) shift "the burden of argument"; (2) present opponents of BoM historicity with a "notoriously difficult exercise."

It's a decent summary of the situation. Why would critics ignore it? And, how would this approach strengthen

BoM apologia other than by making BoM historicity less investigable? And what's a validation syndrome?

CKS

Ck, the problem is: the article is 14 years old. It was written in 1993. And here we have the problem. The issue was always debated. It was never finalized. The Introduction was a mistake. Now the critics need to get a handle on this. Likewise for Simon. The two theories were out there for quite some time and even after the Introduction, the debate was still there. Like I said, an intro is just an intro..nothing more. Now the critics on the postmo or exmo board will not recognize this fact. They just can't. They need validation. To acknowlede the great debate would not be beneficial for their new paradigm.

I am afraid that the link shoots a hole in the critic's arguments.

[why me]

Now I must remind the critics that this GA had this information in his BYU class and what year was this? Quite awhile ago.

And so what do we have? We have two theories being debated by church academics at a church sponsored university. Quite amazing, right? Now in 1993, the GA relates his take on it based on the link that was provided and the quotation that I provided from the link.

And so what is the problem?? I see no problem.