Historicity Of Bom

[Makarios]

The claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet rests upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I know there are many claims that such and such an archeological finding verifies this or that aspect of the BOM, and there are probably LDS scholars who could defend it as an historical document.

My question is whether there are any historical scholars who are not LDS who consider the BOM to be historically accurate. These would be scholars who are experts in the time periods and places the BOM describes. Would any non-LDS scholar use the BOM to help him or her understand the ancient world?

[smac97]

The claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet rests upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I know there are many claims that such and such an archeological finding verifies this or that aspect of the BOM, and there are probably LDS scholars who could defend it as an historical document.

My question is whether there are any historical scholars who are not LDS who consider the BOM to be historically accurate. These would be scholars who are experts in the time periods and places the BOM describes.

Would they not also need to have a good understanding of The Book of Mormon text as well?

Would any non-LDS scholar use the BOM to help him or her understand the ancient world?

I doubt it.

-Smac

[Defender]

The claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet rests upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I disagree with this assertion. I don't think the restoration of the church and his role of prophet rests on the non-fictional historicity of the Book of Mormon. There are a few who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true, but believe the church still is. I think Michael Quinn is one. Also, IIRC, the Reorganized Church allows its members to openly believe the Book of Mormon to be fictional. I don't think the LDS church will ever go this route, but some have found a way to do it.

As for non-LDS scholars, I don't know of any who believe the Book of Mormon to be a historic record.

[cdowis]

I disagree with this assertion. I don't think the restoration of the church and his role of prophet rests on the non-fictional historicity of the Book of Mormon. There are a few who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true, but believe the church still is.

JS lied about the visit of Moroni

JS lied about the plates

JS lied about translating the plates, including the revelation of the 116 pages

The eleven witnesses lied about the angel and plates

And the church is still true? Are you familiar with the term "cognative dissonance"?

[Mighty Curelom]

Undoubtedly you're going to get a comment like "If a scholar thought the BoM was historical, they'd convert to Mormonism. That's why there aren't any non-Mormon BoM-believing scholars--the believing ones converted."

I'm perfectly willing to accept that premise, on one condition: name some of these scholar-converts. If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are.

[cdowis]

Undoubtedly you're going to get a comment like "If a scholar thought the BoM was historical, they'd convert to Mormonism. That's why there aren't any non-Mormon BoM-believing scholars--the believing ones converted."

Actually I would respond that the nonLDS scholars know little or nothing about the text of the BOM, beyond the "Lost Ten Tribes in America" and "the golden bible delivered by an angel to a farmboy in New York".

Before any scholar would take it seriously, he must concede the possibility that angels exist and visit people today. That is a very high hurdle, so they simply dismiss it without serious study.

[Defender]

JS lied about the visit of Moroni

JS lied about the plates

JS lied about translating the plates, including the revelation of the 116 pages

The eleven witnesses lied about the angel and plates

And the church is still true? Are you familiar with the term "cognative dissonance"?

Some people have found a way to make it work. The historical fiction theory does not preclude plates being provided to him by an angel, if he was a true prophet and the church was true. I'm not saying I buy this theory, but I don't have a problem with other LDS believing this if it keeps them in the church. Would you rather see these people leave?

[Sargon]

Margaret Barker is non-LDS scholar who believes the BoM fits comfortably within a 600AD Jerusalem milieu.

[Makarios]

Margaret Barker is non-LDS scholar who believes the BoM fits comfortably within a 600AD Jerusalem milieu.

Do you have a reference or quote from her on this?

[Sargon]

Do you have a reference or quote from her on this?

Edit: I said 600AD, I meant to say 600BC

Session 2

http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html

and here

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/050916restored.html

[cdowis]

Some people have found a way to make it work. The historical fiction theory does not preclude plates being provided to him by an angel, if he was a true prophet and the church was true. I'm not saying I buy this theory, but I don't have a problem with other LDS believing this if it keeps them in the church. Would you rather see these people leave?

I think they should find the church which best meets their needs, which may include the LDS church. But keeping the ordinances and covenants administered by the priesthood is what bring us back to the Father, which is unique to the LDS church.

They may actually find that another church may meet their needs better, rather than a church with a foundation built upon a "falsehood" such as a fictional BOM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually, I'm not altogether sure that Mike Quinn regards the Book of Mormon as true but fictional. I've seen statements from him (in the not too distant past) that seem to affirm not only its religious truth but its historicity.

[Rommelator]

I think that there were some individuals interviewed in the new "Jounrey of Faith" DVD who are Mesoamerican archeologists who were converted to the Church and see the Book of Mormon fit nicely in and ancient Mesoamerican context. But I could be wrong.

[Freedom]

Presently there are no collaborating ancient documents that support of dispute the Book of Mormon so it is not possible to have any scholar of any ilk determine if it is an ancient document. I don't know of any LDS scholars that claim that it is possible to establish the historicity of the book. Likewise, there are many books in the Old Testament that are not considered as legitimate historical records because to other supporting evidence has materialized to date.

[4truth]

DP wrote:

Actually, I'm not altogether sure that Mike Quinn regards the Book of Mormon as true but fictional. I've seen statements from him (in the not too distant past) that seem to affirm not only its religious truth but its historicity.

I just read his introduction to Early Mormonism and the Magical World View last night and in spite of being excommunicated he describes himself as a "DNA Mormon." I find it relevant that serious scholars who study Mormon history and publish their findings can then find themselves in danger of excommunication apparently due to the subject matter. I have not yet read Quinn's book but it promises to be an interesting read.

[Daniel Peterson]

I find it relevant that serious scholars who study Mormon history and publish their findings can then find themselves in danger of excommunication apparently due to the subject matter.

Don't presume that Mike Quinn's excommunication occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing. It may have. It may not have. The Church will never make any reason public; disciplinary council proceedings are confidential.

[4truth]

DP:

Don't presume that Mike Quinn's excommunication occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing. It may have. It may not have. The Church will never make any reason public; disciplinary council proceedings are confidential.

So then were his historical writings and excommunication mere coincidence? You state that, "It may have. It may not have" which leaves the circumstances open to speculation. But Quinn himself doesn't present the matter as speculative:

At the publication of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, I was full professor and director of the graduate history program at BYU. I resigned within several months because of administrative pressures against my continuing to work on controversial topics. In 1993 LDS officials formally charged me "apostasy" (heresy) for my historical writings, and I was excommunicated from the LDS church. Nevertheless, as a seventh-generation member of the church I remain a DNA Mormon, and the 1987 Introduction still accurately describes my personal faith. - Quinn, Introduction, pp. xiii

It would appear that Quinn believes his excommunication "occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing."

What I find remarkable is that even in the face of his excommunication for simply following the historical evidence and presenting it as best he could, he still obviously feels strong emotional ties to the church who has rejected his fellowship:

As a historian of the Mormon past, I have never accepted those limits on inquiry or expression. I also decline to conceal uncomfortable evidence directly relevant to topics being discussed. Nor do I feel obligated to to accomodate the rational limits of secular humanists. I go wherever the evidence seems to lead and present it in the best way I can. I've tried to be faithful to evidence and faithful to faith. Within those ground rules, I've always seen myself as a Mormon apologist." Quinn, Introduction, pp. xi

[poulsenll]

Undoubtedly you're going to get a comment like "If a scholar thought the BoM was historical, they'd convert to Mormonism. That's why there aren't any non-Mormon BoM-believing scholars--the believing ones converted."

I'm perfectly willing to accept that premise, on one condition: name some of these scholar-converts. If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are.

One of the present directors of Archaeological Reasearch at Teotihuacan became a convert while doing research at Teotihuacan. And dont ask me for a CFR because I dont have time to go looking for the original article that reported this.

Larry P

[selek]

DP:

So then were his historical writings and excommunication mere coincidence? You state that, "It may have. It may not have" which leaves the circumstances open to speculation. But Quinn himself doesn't present the matter as speculative:

It would appear that Quinn believes his excommunication "occurred solely or even primarily because of his historical writing."

Quinn's opinion is irrelevent- he might believe that he was excommunicated for breeding a species of flying monkeys intended to replace the lizardmen beneath Salt Lake City, but that doesn't make it so.

What I find remarkable is that even in the face of his excommunication for simply following the historical evidence and presenting it as best he could, he still obviously feels strong emotional ties to the church who has rejected his fellowship:

You're begging the question, 4- you have no evidence that Quinn's excommunication was for "simply following the historical evidence and presenting it as best he could", rather than for his other, rather public, behaviors.

Quinn's credibility is questionable because he has a rather public axe to grind against the Church, and a carefully crafted persona which could only benefit if he were the "heroic truth-teller denouncing the evil and oppressive Church"- in short, he has a vested professional and monetary interest in spinning things in the way he has.

He is also profitting from the Church's policy of confidentiality- he can make the most outlandish public statements knowing that the Church will never publically contradict whatever stories he wishes to concoct.

In short, he has a critical bias, vested interest, and degree of security that make him a somewhat less than credible witness, whatever else his failings.

[Hashbaz]

Undoubtedly you're going to get a comment like "If a scholar thought the BoM was historical, they'd convert to Mormonism. That's why there aren't any non-Mormon BoM-believing scholars--the believing ones converted."

I'm perfectly willing to accept that premise, on one condition: name some of these scholar-converts. If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are.

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).

As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.

[Rommelator]

Quinn's credibility is questionable because he has a rather public axe to grind against the Church, and a carefully crafted persona which could only benefit if he were the "heroic truth-teller denouncing the evil and oppressive Church"- in short, he has a vested professional and monetary interest in spinning things in the way he has.

He is also profitting from the Church's policy of confidentiality- he can make the most outlandish public statements knowing that the Church will never publically contradict whatever stories he wishes to concoct.

In short, he has a critical bias, vested interest, and degree of security that make him a somewhat less than credible witness, whatever else his failings.

Or, as I like to say:

Hell hath no fury like a BYU professor scorned.

[poulsenll]

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).

As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christenson from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.

Thanks for the update. I knew this had happened but did not have any of the details or the latest information. I have been at the Maya meetings too this year and I can vouch for the fact that Allen Christenson is highly respected and his writings were referenced by several of the other speakers. He was always surrounded by both students and scholars asking him questions and asking him for his insight on topics that they were either working on or interested in. Many of those present know he is a member of the Church and either ignore the fact or dont bother to mention it in the context of his accepted scholarship. There are also many scholars outside the field of archaeology who are Mormons and have left their mark in their respective fields without ever denying their belief in the Book of Mormon. The key point about this is that they dont make a big point about being Mormons but all their colleages are aware of it. The fact that we are Mormons does not enter into our scholarship unless we are working in a field directly related to Church History. the scriptures or Church doctrine.

Larry P

[Daniel Peterson]

So then were his historical writings and excommunication mere coincidence?

Probably not.

When I say that his historical writings may or may not have been the sole reason for his excommunication, or even the primary reason, I'm not denying that they may well have been, and probably were, among the reasons. As several here are undoubtedly aware, though, there may have been other factors.

What I find remarkable is that even in the face of his excommunication for simply following the historical evidence and presenting it as best he could

A description that may or may not actually represent reality.

In any event, excommunication for apostasy need not indicate insincerity on the part of the person whose doctrinal or historical positions necessitate the withdrawal of fellowship. An apostate may well be sincere. Most probably are, in fact.

Mike Quinn chose not to attend the church disciplinary council that excommunicated him, and, as mentioned previously, the Church never publicly states its reasons for discipline.

[California]

The claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet rests upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I know there are many claims that such and such an archeological finding verifies this or that aspect of the BOM, and there are probably LDS scholars who could defend it as an historical document.

My question is whether there are any historical scholars who are not LDS who consider the BOM to be historically accurate. These would be scholars who are experts in the time periods and places the BOM describes. Would any non-LDS scholar use the BOM to help him or her understand the ancient world?

This is assuming that any scholar out there knows everything about the time periods. Info has been lost.

I found something:

The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide.[27]. In brief the statement denies any evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds: "Certainly there was no contact with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East." In 1998, the Smithsonian began issuing a shorter letter without detailed response (which is found in the first letter) and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.[28]

To say that the BOM is false because the Smithsonian doesn't think that there could have been any contact during that time period is more like a gamble than anything else.

[Eunuchus]

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

Do they find the Book of Mormon to be historical and that was part of their conversion, or are they converts who also happen to be accomplished archaeologists?

If they do consider it to be historical, what in their findings lead them to believe that?