Smithsonian Magazine Dec. 2007

[Daniel Peterson]

I could see the Smithsonian doing a piece about the westward migration of the Mormons, the travails of a people pulling their handcarts and wagons across the inhospitable mountains and terrain; there is data and evidence for this event, there are maps and probably remnants of travel, there are stories and people in writings.

So could I. In fact, for all I know, they may have done one.

But the reason that it's conceivable is not so much that there is data and evidence and maps. The reason is that the story can be told, and the people admired, without subscribing to a theological claim.

I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyle of the Book of Mormon peoples â?¦ as long as the scholarship is valid, i.e. as you say, the papers donâ??t â??appear to have arrived at their conclusions before the data were collected.â?

No. I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyles of the Book of Mormon peoples if their existence were essentially impervious to doubt and if accepting their existence did not entail theological advantage for a denominational claim.

But their existence is debated, and that debate inescapably involves sectarian controversy -- something in which government agencies may not, and mainstream secular academic venues do not, involve themselves.

Were these not real people building their cities, fighting real battles and wars, and practicing their Jewish and nascent Christian religion? Why wouldnâ??t the Smithsonian (or any scholarly journal) give fair consideration to a paper about the land of the Mormons as long as it was written according to professional standards?

For the same reasons that the Smithsonian Institution takes no position, and publishes nothing, on the question of the literality and historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

Certainly, the people and the stories are there (in the Book of Mormon). Thereâ??s only the data problem.

That's simply false.

Gervin, our training must be similar as I am in near total agreement.

I can't quite imagine what "training" would lead one to hold so unrealistic a vew of academic conferences and academic publishing.

Science is NOT inherently against apologetics as long as there are data to support the claims.

So I repeat my question: Can you point out to me some significant examples of overtly sectarian apologetics being published in top tier scientific journals?

For example, there have been plenty of scientific studies of the Shroud of Turin, some of which have had a apologetic flavor. The main (and perhaps only) artifact of the Book of Mormon is itself.

Which is a very relevant point. Of course pollen analysis and x-ray chromotography and other scientific tests can be performed on an ancient or medieval piece of cloth. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time. There is nothing extraordinary about the Shroud of Turin in this respect. Where the situation differs crucially from the Book of Mormon is that affirming its pre-modernity -- a proposition shared by both believing sindonologists and skeptics -- is entirely compatible with devout Catholicism and ardent atheism, as well as with any number of other religious positions. Nothing theological is entailed or compromised by simply publishing, say, the results of a chemical analysis of the Shroud. But the very existence of ancient Nephites and Jaredites is the point of controversy with regard to the Book of Mormon, and if Smithsonian Magazine (which Yme unaccountably regards as the absolute peak of academic legitimacy) were to publish an article presuming or arguing for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, that would involve a secular mainstream magazine (sponsored by an agency of the U.S. federal government) in the presumption of the truth of a set of religious claims and/or in advocacy of those claims.

A closer analog would be a mainstream academic periodical or a federal agency coming out in support of the resurrection of Jesus or the Virgin Birth or the miraculous parting of the Red Sea by Moses.

When was the last time that a top tier scientific journal published anything advocating any of those claims? When was the last time that a federal agency funded or even heralded explicitly relevant research in those areas?

I would love to see a target article published with LDS & non-LDS peer commentaries on the topic "Internal evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document."

Have you read the three Sorenson articles that I referenced? Have you read Terryl Givens's Oxford University Press book? Have you read John Lundquist's addendum to the Raphael Patai book?

I would like to see a venue (even if published by FARMS) similar to the format and quality of the journal "Behavioral & Brain Sciences," which publishes long articles with extensive critiques. Such papers literally put their ideas in jeopardy.

Every time somebody publishes an article or a book with us, it sails out into the public -- we even put it up on the web -- and we cannot and do not attempt to control who reads it. If anybody wants to respond, that's his or her prerogative.

What did you think of the Protestant biblical scholar Michael Heiser's critique of my lengthy essay on the presence of the "Canaanite" goddess Asherah in 1 Nephi 11? He first presented it at a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society's annual conference in Washington DC, in November 2006. Did you like David Bokovoy's response to it? Is this the kind of thing you want to happen? If so, why do you seem to assume that it isn't happening? If not, what do you want?

If the big scholarly ideas behind the Book of Mormon are as strong as some say, then sympathetic scholars should be willing to "let it all hang out" by publishing their strongest claims against published critiques contiguous with the target articles.

We publish our articles. If somebody wants to respond, that's fine by us. Did you ever see the volume The New Mormon Challenge, edited by Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen? They responded over the course of hundreds of pages. Nobody stopped them. Nobody's stopped anybody.

The conversation is going on, and it's picking up. We've made every reasonable effort to provoke it. I'm simply baffled by insinuations that we've been hiding from possible critics. I've offered six counterexamples, thus far. They've been passed over as if they were invisible, in complete silence. The response has been, essentially, "Why aren't you doing this?" And when I demonstrate beyond question that we have been, the response is still "Why aren't you doing this?" It makes no sense to me whatever.

[Mars]

fox: which scientific magazines, out of curiosity? I read IEEE and ACM conference and journal papers quite a bit.

[Gervin]

So could I. In fact, for all I know, they may have done one.

But the reason that it's conceivable is not so much that there is data and evidence and maps. The reason is that the story can be told, and the people admired, without subscribing to a theological claim.

Right. Without data, without scientific evidence, without any hypothesis related to historicity for the Book of Mormon any telling of the story of the book must be done through a theological lens.

No. I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. I could see the Smithsonian doing a story of the ancient cities and lifestyles of the Book of Mormon peoples if their existence were essentially impervious to doubt and if accepting their existence did not entail theological advantage for a denominational claim.

You and I essentially agree; a paper promoting the ancient cities and lifestyles of the Book of Mormon peoples either have scientific data and debatable evidence, or it has no data and arrives at conclusions by first staking itself to a theological belief. Such is the case for the Book of Mormon.

But their existence is debated, and that debate inescapably involves sectarian controversy -- something in which government agencies may not, and mainstream secular academic venues do not, involve themselves.

For the same reasons that the Smithsonian Institution takes no position, and publishes nothing, on the question of the literality and historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

No. Iâ??m sorry, but thatâ??s simply wrong. Their existence is not debated. If it were, then LDS scholars would be in the thick of the debate with the secular world - debating data, debating methodology, debating findings, and debating conclusions. You claim this doesn't happen because the debate first relies on an acceptance by the world of an LDS theological premise. My observation is that it doesn't happen because LDS scholars offer no data on the Book of Mormon to compel a serious debate. Where do you see their existence being debated?

For the same reasons that the Smithsonian Institution takes no position, and publishes nothing, on the question of the literality and historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

Youâ??re dodging the question and making an illogical comparison. The Smithsonian might very well do a piece about the Pool of Bethesda mentioned in the Bible and referenced in a healing by Christ. Such a piece wouldnâ??t endorse the claims of the Bible, endorse the existence of Christ, endorse the healing described in the Bible, or endorse a resurrection. What would be a comparable (future) story by the Smithsonian? Do you believe any evidence exists â?? currently sitting in museums or still to be found â?? that attests to the people, cities, cultures, and activities described in the Book of Mormon?

(G:Certainly, the people and the stories are there (in the Book of Mormon). Thereâ??s only the data problem.)That's simply false.

Perhaps I should have said â??thereâ??s only the data problem for the world outside of believing LDS.â? If archaeological evidence, collected field data, geographical correlation, and cultural â??hitsâ? to support the Book of Mormon all rely on a belief in the theological claims of the LDS Church then you have both a data and a credibility problem.

Historicity for the Book of Mormon should rely on LDS theological claims only if there has never been and never will be any independent verification for the existence of the people and cultures described in the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, LDS scholars should be confident of their data supporting the Book of Mormon and let the theological chips fall where they may. On the one hand you claim thereâ??s no problem with Book of Mormon data, and on the other you want us to believe that the data can only be accepted (or understood) with an acceptance of LDS theological claims. Again, do you believe that any evidence exists â?? currently sitting in museums or still to be found â?? that attests to the people, cities, cultures, and activities described in the Book of Mormon? Evidence that only exists if understood in the light of divine transmission and angelic messaging isn't evidence it's LDS apologetics. And you still have a data problem.

[Daniel Peterson]

Right. Without data, without scientific evidence, without any hypothesis related to historicity for the Book of Mormon any telling of the story of the book must be done through a theological lens.

Wrong. Without decisive data proving its fundamental claims beyond reasonable doubt, without inescapable "scientific" support -- I wonder, incidentally, why some people keep bringing "science" into this; we're not talking about chemistry or physics here, archaeology is at best only ambivalently "science," and history isn't "science" at all (unless, I suppose, one has in mind German Wissenschaft) -- taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history inevitably entails taking its theological claims seriously, assuming them to be at least potentially true. And that is territory into which neither "top tier scientific journals" nor mainstream secular popular magazines like the Smithsonian typically venture (and particularly not when the theological claims are solely associated with religious minorities). It is, in fact, territory into which the Smithsonian Institution, by constitutional standards and by reason of several decades of Supreme Court rulings, simply cannot venture.

As for "hypotheses related to historicity for the Book of Mormon," we have no shortage of those.

You and I essentially agree; a paper promoting the ancient cities and lifestyles of the Book of Mormon peoples either have scientific data and debatable evidence, or it has no data and arrives at conclusions by first staking itself to a theological belief. Such is the case for the Book of Mormon.

I'm not at all sure that we agree. There are plenty of papers and books arguing for Book of Mormon historicity that are chock full of "scientific data" -- relatively little astrophysics, microbiology, quantum mechanics, particle physics, or plant physiology is involved, though -- and crammed to the brim with what you aptly term "debatable evidence." (Overwhelmingly, most of the evidence is philological, archaeological, literary, historical, comparative-legal, comparative-religious, etc.)

Taken together, I think that these papers and books make an increasingly impressive case for taking the historicity of the Book quite seriously, and demonstrate that doing so is a rational choice. I do not think, however, and have never claimed -- nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any other responsible student of the subject -- that the case is so overwhelming that unbelievers would somehow be compelled to accept it. More to the point, I have never thought nor suggested -- nor, as far as I can recall, has any of my associates -- that the presently extant evidence on the ground would dictate a Book-of-Mormon-like view of the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic in the absence of the Book of Mormon itself. What I do contend is subtly but significantly different: The Book of Mormon makes sense, and becomes increasingly plausible, when we view it against what we're coming to know of the ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican backgrounds that it claims for itself.

This is, I think, rather like the case with Homer's Iliad. Absent that ancient poem, I don't believe that anybody would ever have come to anything remotely like a "Homeric" understanding of the ruins at Hissarlik. Heinrich Schliemann was guided to what he called Troy II by his extraordinarily careful reading of the Iliad -- and, even so, he identified the wrong destruction layer with Priam's city.

Now, "Homeric" interpretations of Hissarlik have no problem entering the academic mainstream because the antiquity of the Iliad (and of the Odyssey) is undisputed, and because, since the transmission of the Homeric texts involves no claims of a supernatural character, doing so entails no theological commitments or assumptions. By contrast, the Book of Mormon's antiquity is a matter, precisely, of religious dispute, and claims of its antiquity inescapably entail claims of supernatural intervention in its transmission. Which means that the case of the Homeric epics is instructive both in its similiarities and in its differences from the case of the Book of Mormon.

No. Iâ??m sorry, but thatâ??s simply wrong. Their existence is not debated.

I meant, of course, that their existence is denied, controverted, a matter of controversy.

As opposed, for example, to the ancient existence of Trojans and Achaeans, which is not debated in that or any other sense.

If it were, then LDS scholars would be in the thick of the debate with the secular world - debating data, debating methodology, debating findings, and debating conclusions. You claim this doesn't happen because the debate first relies on an acceptance by the world of an LDS theological premise.

See above.

My observation is that it doesn't happen because LDS scholars offer no data on the Book of Mormon to compel a serious debate.

And your observation is based upon what?

I remind you, yet again, that the proposition If P, then Q does not entail If Q, then P. To give a concrete example, If the victim has been shot seventy times between the eyes, he is dead does not entail If the victim is dead, he has been shot seventy times between the eyes.

Thus, the somewhat doubtful proposition If Book of Mormon scholarship is of low quality, it will attract little or no attention from non-Mormon scholars, even if accepted, does not entail If Book of Mormon scholarship attracts little or no attention from non-Mormon scholars, it is of low quality.

In order to make your assertion count for more than a bit of gaseous vapor, you will need to demonstrate both that Book of Mormon scholarship is of low quality and that it is because of this low quality that non-Mormon scholars fail to pay much attention to it. You've given me no reason to suspect any very serious engagement, on your part, with Book of Mormon scholarship, and you've never supplied any survey or other data to support your repeated insinuation that academics generally have examined Book of Mormon scholarship and found it wanting.

Youâ??re dodging the question and making an illogical comparison.

No I'm not. You're failing to grasp the point and misunderstanding the logic of the argument.

The Smithsonian might very well do a piece about the Pool of Bethesda mentioned in the Bible and referenced in a healing by Christ. Such a piece wouldnâ??t endorse the claims of the Bible, endorse the existence of Christ, endorse the healing described in the Bible, or endorse a resurrection.

Precisely my point.

What would be a comparable (future) story by the Smithsonian?

The Smithsonian might very well do a piece about the restoration of Nauvoo, a city mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants and referenced in LDS history in a healing by Joseph Smith. Such a piece wouldnâ??t endorse the claims of the Book of Mormon, endorse the prophethood of Joseph Smith, endorse the healing described in the History of the Church, or endorse the First Vision.

Do you believe any evidence exists â?? currently sitting in museums or still to be found â?? that attests to the people, cities, cultures, and activities described in the Book of Mormon?

I can say nothing with any certainty about what evidence is still to be found.

As noted above, though, I do not think that the evidence currently sitting in museums or in situ is enough, by itself, to compel a Book-of-Mormon-type reading of either the ancient Near East or Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. I think that Latter-day Saint scholars are patiently assembling a case involving multitudes of small pointers toward the plausibility of the Book of Mormon in the cultural and geographical settings it claims for itself -- which is quite a different thing than you seem to imagine us claiming, but, nonetheless, quite an important and useful thing.

Perhaps I should have said â??thereâ??s only the data problem for the world outside of believing LDS.â? If archaeological evidence, collected field data, geographical correlation, and cultural â??hitsâ? to support the Book of Mormon all rely on a belief in the theological claims of the LDS Church then you have both a data and a credibility problem.

If, mutatis mutandis, there is a debilitating problem with my analogy to the Homeric poems, above, I hope you'll point it out to me. Only if the data from Schliemann's, D

[Gervin]

Taken together, I think that these papers and books make an increasingly impressive case for taking the historicity of the Book quite seriously, and demonstrate that doing so is a rational choice.

In the eyes and mind of LDS, certainly. For the unbiased, certainly not.

In order to make your assertion count for more than a bit of gas, you will need to demonstrate both that Book of Mormon scholarship is of low quality and that it is because of this low quality that non-Mormon scholars fail to pay much attention to it. You've given me no reason to suspect any very serious engagement, on your part, with Book of Mormon scholarship, and you've never supplied any survey or other data to support your repeated insinuation that academics generally have examined Book of Mormon scholarship and found it wanting.

The lack of serious engagement begins on the side of the LDS scholar who argue that the people, events, cultures, activities, material production, wars, migrations, cities, and religions described in the Book of Mormon actually took place. If the setting is Mesoamerica then demonstrate that LDS scholarship successfully engages the secular academic community and attempts to make a case for these claims. LDS scholarship on Book of Mormon historicity appears to be a cottage industry exclusively within the ranks of the LDS Church. If you smell a gas leak you probably need to check the fittings in your own house.

I can say nothing with any certainty about what evidence is still to be found.

I didn't ask you to stake your life to the answer of what is still to be found ... I asked you what you believed.

As noted above, though, I do not think that the evidence currently sitting in museums or in situ is enough, by itself, to compel a Book-of-Mormon-type reading of either the ancient Near East or Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. I think that Latter-day Saint scholars are patiently assembling a case involving multitudes of small pointers toward the plausibility of the Book of Mormon in the cultural and geographical settings it claims for itself -- which is quite a different thing than you seem to imagine us claiming, but, nonetheless, quite an important and useful thing.

Oh yes, the "small pointers" approach.

At this point, and for the foreseeable future, the archaeological and other data from the Near East and Pre-Classic Mesoamerica will likewise only be read in a Mormon way if they are viewed through the text of the Book of Mormon. However, while the former entails no theological assumptions, the latter most emphatically does.

This LDS condition means that the "ancient inhabitants of the Americas" and the "two great civilizations" claimed to be within the pages of the Book of Mormon cannot be independently verified. Rather convenient but hardly impressive.

[cdowis]

The lack of serious engagement begins on the side of the LDS scholar who argue that the people, events, cultures, activities, material production, wars, migrations, cities, and religions described in the Book of Mormon actually took place. If the setting is Mesoamerica then demonstrate that LDS scholarship successfully engages the secular academic community and attempts to make a case for these claims.

I have already posted several times an archeological discovery for which the archeologists have no explanation, but the BOM does give a credible explanation (regarding the change in a 1500 year burial practice in Costa Rica.

snip

This LDS condition means that the "ancient inhabitants of the Americas" and the "two great civilizations" claimed to be within the pages of the Book of Mormon cannot be independently verified. Rather convenient but hardly impressive.

It is indeed rather convenient that virtually no written records have survived from the BOM time period, having been destroyed. It is rather convenient that very small percent of possible excavation sites have been excavated to the BOM time period. It is very very convenient that virtually no geographic or city names have survived to the modern day, except Lamanai (oops, that is a BOM name, is it not?)

Yes, antimormons like yourself blow hot air about how "convenient" things are, when most of the potential evidence is still under the rainforest, or destroyed.

[Daniel Peterson]

In the eyes and mind of LDS, certainly. For the unbiased, certainly not.

Are you The Unbiased? If so, it's an honor to meet you.

Your assertion is vacuous. You've not demonstrated the possibility of human lack of bias, nor the existence of a significant population of the Unbiased, nor that the Unbiased have examined LDS scholarship, nor that the Unbiased share (or, just possibly, must share) your conclusion about LDS scholarship. You've given me no particular reason, even, to believe that you yourself are familiar to any substantial degree with the LDS scholarship that you summarily dismiss. Strikingly, for someone who blathers on and on about the importance of empirical data, you seem, in these matters, to inhabit an entirely evidence-free zone.

The lack of serious engagement begins on the side of the LDS scholar who argue that the people, events, cultures, activities, material production, wars, migrations, cities, and religions described in the Book of Mormon actually took place. If the setting is Mesoamerica then demonstrate that LDS scholarship successfully engages the secular academic community and attempts to make a case for these claims.

I've cited three articles from John Sorenson, published, respectively, in the Mayanist journal Katunob and in books published by the University of Texas Press and the University of Hawai'i Press. I've cited Terryl Givens's By the Hand of Mormon, published by Oxford University Press. I've cited John Lundquist's essay, published in a book issued by Princeton University Press.

I could cite more -- there is a considerable literature in which "LDS scholarship . . . attempts to make a case for these claims" -- but, since no critic here has, thus far, so much as acknowledged the existence of these materials, let alone engaged them, I see no point in doing so.

Have you, by the way, read the three Sorenson articles? Have you read the Givens book? Have you read the Lundquist essay?

LDS scholarship on Book of Mormon historicity appears to be a cottage industry exclusively within the ranks of the LDS Church.

Wow. Weird. I guess Princeton University Press, the University of Texas Press, Oxford University Press, the University of Hawai'i Press, and the Mayanist journal Katunob are invisible on your computer monitor, too. That's really strange, but the data, thus far, is absolutely uniform: Critics can't see the evidence that refutes them on this point! Perhaps I'll have to write up an article on the topic for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, or some such thing.

I didn't ask you to stake your life to the answer of what is still to be found ... I asked you what you believed.

Based on my own travels in Mesoamerica, my reading of Mesoamerican archaeological materials, and my conversations with Mesoamerican archaeologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon, I find no reason to disagree with their view that most of the ruins and artifacts in Mesoamerica, and particularly for the Pre-Classic period, still require excavation and examination. What will turn up, though, I cannot say.

Oh yes, the "small pointers" approach.

Archaeological and historical research in the real world is, I'm sorry to say, nothing like what you've seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Mummy. Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamen's tomb was the exception, not the rule.

There is nothing at all wrong or suspect about the method of building cumulative cases. It's done in archaeology and history all the time. It's done in criminal inquiries, as well. (Consider, for example, the logic of the successful prosecution of Scott Peterson for homicide.) Your dismissive sneer is without substance.

This LDS condition means that the "ancient inhabitants of the Americas" and the "two great civilizations" claimed to be within the pages of the Book of Mormon cannot be independently verified.

Thus far, that's certainly true.

Rather the way Priam's Troy cannot be confirmed on the basis, merely, of the rubble at Hissarlik VIIa. (I note that you make no attempt to engage my remarks on that issue.)

Rather convenient but hardly impressive.

Impressing you, Gervin, has never made it onto my priority list. Sorry about that.

[Gervin]

Your assertion is vacuous. You've not demonstrated the possibility of human lack of bias, nor the existence of a significant population of the Unbiased, nor that the Unbiased have examined LDS scholarship, nor that the Unbiased share (or, just possibly, must share) your conclusion about LDS scholarship. You've given me no particular reason, even, to believe that you yourself are familiar to any substantial degree with the LDS scholarship that you summarily dismiss. Strikingly, for someone who blathers on and on about the importance of empirical data, you seem, in these matters, to inhabit an entirely evidence-free zone.

Rather than saying "unbiased" I should have said "those without a religious stake." The discussion is not about what you perceive about me and my knowledge or lack of knowledge about LDS scholarship in this arena. You've already cast me as one who hasn't a clue, right? If, as you say, "taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history inevitably entails taking its theological claims seriously."

I've cited three articles from John Sorenson, published, respectively, in the Mayanist journal Katunob and in books published by the University of Texas Press and the University of Hawai'i Press. I've cited Terryl Givens's By the Hand of Mormon, published by Oxford University Press. I've cited John Lundquist's essay, published in a book issued by Princeton University Press.

You're right that "Katunob" isn't on my monitor - as best as I can discern it's a defunt occasional newsletter/brochure. Do these other published works advance LDS arguments for Book of Mormon historicity, or are they focused on other topics? btw, I have read most of Sorenson's stuff - probably not his renowned Katunob pieces, though.

Based on my own travels in Mesoamerica, my reading of Mesoamerican archaeological materials, and my conversations with Mesoamerican archaeologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon, I find no reason to disagree with their view that most of the ruins and artifacts in Mesoamerica, and particularly for the Pre-Classic period, still require excavation and examination. What will turn up, though, I cannot say.

? Do you believe that archaeological evidence to independently support the claims of ancient civilizations in the Book of Mormon are in the ground in Mesoamerica? (it's really just a yes/no answer)

Rather the way Priam's Troy cannot be confirmed on the basis, merely, of the rubble at Hissarlik VIIa. (I note that you make no attempt to engage my remarks on that issue.)

I'm not familiar with the archaeological work there so I have no idea if your example has merit. You did say this, however:

By contrast, the Book of Mormon's antiquity is a matter, precisely, of religious dispute, and claims of its antiquity inescapably entail claims of supernatural intervention in its transmission.

It struck me that, really, the most important part of the Book of Mormon is the intro and testimonies; if they were accidently left out out of a copy of the Book of Mormon some unsuspecting soul might be inclined to think that they could field verify these people and their culture .. not knowing that he was bound to claims of supernatural intervention.

Impressing you, Gervin, has never made it onto my priority list.

As it shouldn't; based on what I see here you'd only be left disappointed. picture a smilie here (I've used my one smilie-quota for the year)

[Daniel Peterson]

Rather than saying "unbiased" I should have said "those without a religious stake."

That wouldn't help much. Anyway, nonbelievers have "a religious stake" in confronting the claims of the Book of Mormon, too.

The discussion is not about what you perceive about me and my knowledge or lack of knowledge about LDS scholarship in this arena.

When you issue sweeping dismissals of Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon, it's proper to wonder whether you have any familiarity, substantial or even slight, with that scholarship that would give you any basis for those sweeping dismissals. You've supplied no reason to suppose that you have any such familiarity. And, although you've frequently insinuated that non-LDS academics have considered Mormon scholarship and found it wanting, you've never so much as hinted at any empirical evidence to sustain that insinuation.

You've already cast me as one who hasn't a clue, right?

I've suggested that you lack familiarity with the writings that you dismiss. I've invited you to demonstrate otherwise. You have declined to do so.

You're right that "Katunob" isn't on my monitor - as best as I can discern it's a defunt occasional newsletter/brochure.

You haven't seen it, but you're already clearly attempting to denigrate and dismiss it.

http://www.periodicals.com/html/ihp_e.html?ek51435

Do these other published works advance LDS arguments for Book of Mormon historicity, or are they focused on other topics?

They plainly advance arguments important for the case for Book of Mormon historicity.

I have read most of Sorenson's stuff - probably not his renowned Katunob pieces, though.

His bibliography is quite extensive. It would be interesting to find out what proportion of it you actually know. But I won't press my luck.

Do you believe that archaeological evidence to independently support the claims of ancient civilizations in the Book of Mormon are in the ground in Mesoamerica? (it's really just a yes/no answer)

I believe that there is likely to be more evidence in the ground that will support the Book of Mormon. Whether it will "independently support" the Book of Mormon, however, is quite another matter. Without the text of the Bible, how much would we know, simply from the outlines of the foundations of some city walls and buildings, about early Hebrew history in Palestine? Not very much, I estimate. Would we be able to reconstruct much of Israelite history were the texts to disappear? It depends, I suppose, on what you mean by much.

I'm not familiar with the archaeological work there so I have no idea if your example has merit.

Too bad. It does, and it flies in the face of several of your assertions here.

I could, I suppose, point out that your ignorance of the formative history of archaeology is "convenient." But, of course, I wouldn't stoop to that level of well-poisoning cynicism.

Heinrich Schliemann famously started from the premise that Homeric ruins, Homeric artifacts, and so forth, ought to exist, and then he went to look for them. Had it not been for his conviction of the historicity of the Iliad -- something that most scholars prior to his time dismissed -- he would not have gone to look for the ruins of Homeric Troy. (He was the first to do so.) Because the antiquity of the Iliad and the Odyssey is undisputed and because acceptance of a greater or lesser degree of historicity for the Homeric poems entails no theological implications, it has not been difficult, since Schliemann's work (and that of his successor, D

[Daniel Peterson]

Trying to make it as convenient as possible for Yme.

[Daniel Peterson]

For Yme.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yme? Anybody home?

[Daniel Peterson]

I see, Yme, that you're back on the site.

Welcome!

I look forward to your response.

[Freedom]

I am hoping that we can find an example of research on the bible what will match what is expected of the Book of Mormon. The bible's text is thousands of years old and from that old and ancient time, many writers have commented on what it has to say. Today, scholars take the bible and these other writings and consider them not to prove that the bible is true, but to consider the merit of the literature. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that any of the people or events in the bible have every occurred.

In a thousand years, scholars will be writing about the book of Mormon as a historical text by comparing all that has been written about it by other writers. It will become a historical text similar to the book of Job or Ether. Not that the events are historically proven but that the text itself is ancient. The Doctrine and Covenants, however, will be studies as is the bible because there would be real evidence that many of the places and names really did exist. We will read about Martin Harris but not about the visions. I don't know of any scholarly research that examines the burning bush or the amazing burning alter of water. These events and people are not really given any mention because there is no evidence they ever existed.

All we know of the bible is that the places mentioned likely did exist. Nobody knows anything about mezzo America. Nothing that Mormons say about the area contradicts what is known because in reality nothing is known. So we are supposed to engage the scientific community with evidence that does not exist. And we are, for some reason, at fault for this?

I recall reading a number of scholarly articles on the many incarnations of Abraham in ancient literature. Non of them are presenting the man as a true historical figure, they are focusing on the literature itself. I have read a number of journals that discuss the various stories of the creation. They are comparative studies not of the historical event as laid out in the bible (I hope nobody would suppose that the scientific community embraces the Genesis version of how life came to be) but on the merits of the literature itself. Science does not accept that Adam existed but they to accept that people have been writing about him for thousands of years.

[Daniel Peterson]

Good morning, Yme!

[Daniel Peterson]

Here it is, Yme.

Thought I'd save you some trouble.

I look forward to your reply.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think that Yme is refusing to answer my questions. Oh well.

He'll be back when he thinks the coast is clear.

[urroner]

I think that Yme is refusing to answer my questions. Oh well.

He'll be back when he thinks the coast is clear.

He might be listening to the BYU/SDSU game. GO UNGA!!!!!