Historicity Of Bom

[Makarios]

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

How does my question assume this?

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.

Who in this thread said the BOM is false because of the Smithsonian?

[Calm]

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.

Assuming there are scholars out there like this, what would you expect of them once they had made the decision that the BOM was historically accurate?

[Makarios]

Assuming there are scholars out there like this, what would you expect of them once they had made the decision that the BOM was historically accurate?

I would expect them to publish their findings.

[noel00]

I think it is highly unlikly these two- minded scholars are going to risk their professional reputation by publishing something in a peer reviewed Journal that made a case for the historicty of the BOM. If they did perhaps Coe could check their arguments before publication.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think it is highly unlikly these two- minded scholars are going to risk their professional reputation by publishing something in a peer reviewed Journal that made a case for the historicty of the BOM.

I think it highly unlikely that any non-Mormon peer-reviewed journal would be interested in publishing a work of Mormon apologetics, since religiously-affiliated non-Mormon journals wouldn't want to advance Mormonism in any way and since secular journals don't publish any other kind of sectarian religious apologetics.

(I'm assuming, incidentally, that, by "peer reviewed Journal [sic]" you meant "peer-reviewed non-Mormon journal," since peer-reviewed Mormon journals have in fact published such works.)

If they did perhaps Coe could check their arguments before publication.

Perhaps. But why?

[Hashbaz]

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?

That's a fair question. The initial conversion came because of doctrinal issues that Kim had always known to be true, but she and Alex weren't actively seeking out a church. They have actually both gone on record by appearing in the new Journey of Faith film. In it Kim said she's found nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything she knows about Mesoamerica. They do consider it to be historical, and they take enormous pride working at the great city of cement northward of the ancient Maya area (compare Helaman 3:11). In general, they find the cultural parallels to be convincing, things like the presence of human sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice of animals and birds (see Alma 34:10), aspects of warfare, etc. They see the forest for the trees, as it were. There is no single bit of physical evidence that stands out to them as the most convincing, but rather the general backdrop and little clues that so clearly mark it as a Mesoamerican document.

If they did perhaps Coe could check their arguments before publication.

I chatted with Mike just this morning. Coe (1929-Can't Be Long Now) retired 14 years ago. He kind of keeps up with the current scholarship, but these days he mostly just likes to talk about fly-fishing.

Out of curiosity, can any of you out there (aside from Larry Poulson or Brant Gardner) name a single non-Mormon Mesoamerican archaeologist that didn't either die or retire in the mid-1990's? The only two whose names I ever see thrown around on this board are Linda Schele (who passed away 10 years ago) and Coe. In the scholarly literature these days, a large percentage of the quotes attributed to Schele are used with the intention of correcting her overzealous interpretations of things. For the record, there are other Mayanists besides the ones you find on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

p.s. I heart ad hominem!

[Makarios]

I think it highly unlikely that any non-Mormon peer-reviewed journal would be interested in publishing a work of Mormon apologetics, since religiously-affiliated non-Mormon journals wouldn't want to advance Mormonism in any way and since secular journals don't publish any other kind of sectarian religious apologetics.

This assumes the publication would take the form of Mormon apologetics. This need not be the case at all. It could merely argue against any of the positions taken by the Smithsonian, for example: http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

[poulsenll]

For the record, there are other Mayanists besides the ones you find on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

Yes, I never saw so many books about Mesoamerica as I saw Sarurday at the Maya Meetings. The great majority by a new generation of Mesoamerican scholars. The majority are only available from the publishers, one of which is the University of Texas Press.

I also had a chance to talk to Diane Wirth. She has a new book out called "Decoding Ancient America: A Guide to the Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" It is available from Amazon for about eleven bucks.

Coe was one of the keynote speakers at the meetings and presented data that he felt supported a common theme related to Tezcatlipoca.

Larry P

[Daniel Peterson]

Out of curiosity, can any of you out there (aside from Larry Poulson or Brant Gardner) name a single non-Mormon Mesoamerican archaeologist that didn't either die or retire in the mid-1990's?

I can! I can!

[Analytics]

I think it highly unlikely that any non-Mormon peer-reviewed journal would be interested in publishing a work of Mormon apologetics, since religiously-affiliated non-Mormon journals wouldn't want to advance Mormonism in any way and since secular journals don't publish any other kind of sectarian religious apologetics.

If the Book of Mormon were an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, it would be of paramount interest to secular scholars who are interested in pre-Columbian America. A compelling secular argument that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript would not be apologetics.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If the Book of Mormon were an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, it would be of paramount interest to secular scholars who are interested in pre-Columbian America. A compelling secular argument that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript would not be apologetics.

Then we start talking about angels and translation by the "gift and power of God" and things get a little hairy.

[Daniel Peterson]

If the Book of Mormon were an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, it would be of paramount interest to secular scholars who are interested in pre-Columbian America.

If Bach's music had been any good, it would have been of paramount interest to every serious musician and composer during Bach's lifetime and in every generation thereafter.

If Gregor Mendel's notions about heredity had had any value, they would have been recognized by every biologist of his own time and thereafter as centrally important to biological inquiry.

A compelling secular argument that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript would not be apologetics.

It would be apologetics in the purest dictionary sense of the word, as is every other argument for and against every position. And, what's more, it would be religious apologetics -- which mainstream secular journals do not tend to publish. And it would be religious apologetics on the part of a small religious minority -- which is even less likely to catch the interest of the Zeitschrift f

[emeliza]

This assumes the publication would take the form of Mormon apologetics. This need not be the case at all. It could merely argue against any of the positions taken by the Smithsonian, for example: http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

But how would that help the said scholar? I can't imagine at this point it would be of any use to them or a care for them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It should be noted, as well, that FARMS publications are peer reviewed *get this* even by non-LDS folk occasionally!

[Daniel Peterson]

This assumes the publication would take the form of Mormon apologetics. This need not be the case at all. It could merely argue against any of the positions taken by the Smithsonian, for example: http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

Such articles have been published.

Some are listed "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist," which is available here:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...18&number=2

[LifeOnaPlate]

Uncannily, I am reading that at this very instant.

[Analytics]

If Bach's music had been any good, it would have been of paramount interest to every serious musician and composer during Bach's lifetime and in every generation thereafter.

If Gregor Mendel's notions about heredity had had any value, they would have been recognized by every biologist of his own time and thereafter as centrally important to biological inquiry.

Iâ??m not sure what you are trying to say here. My point isnâ??t that the lack of interest the mainstream secular world shows in the Book of Mormon proves that it is false. Rather, my point is that if it were an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, then it would lead to seminal insights into the real lives of real people. Accurate translations of authentic ancient manuscripts are in the realm of secular inquiry, are they not?

If the secular evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon were strong enough to overcome the evidence against it, a dyed-in-the-wool naturalist would be able to make up some explanation to accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation and still dismiss or ignore the supernatural implications. Perhaps heâ??d say some unknown scholar found the record, using secular means translated it, and somehow passed the manuscript to Joseph Smith. And of course heâ??d dismiss the miraculous events in the record as mere mythology. But heâ??d still consider it an incredible, superlatively seminal insight into the culture that produced this record.

Let me put it this way. The proposition that the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript. Our hypothetical scholar is intently interested in Mesoamerican anthropology, is professionally qualified to consider the evidence, is open-minded, has excellent judgment, and an appropriate level of skepticism.

Is there now enough secular evidence to cause this hypothetical scholar to accept the proposition?

[Daniel Peterson]

Rather, my point is that if it were an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, then it would lead to seminal insights into the real lives of real people.

As, in fact, it has.

Accurate translations of authentic ancient manuscripts are in the realm of secular inquiry, are they not?

They are. Which is the very raison d'etre for FARMS -- an organization designed to foster the use of tools of secular inquiry in the study of the Book of Mormon, as distinct from devotional and/or theological approaches.

If the secular evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon were strong enough to overcome the evidence against it,

Which, in my judgment, it is.

Of course, the judgment of randomly-selected Professor X, who may have followed the question closely, but, in the vast majority of cases, doesn't even know that there is a question, will probably differ.

Our hypothetical scholar is intently interested in Mesoamerican anthropology, is professionally qualified to consider the evidence, is open-minded, has excellent judgment, and an appropriate level of skepticism.

Is there now enough secular evidence to cause this hypothetical scholar to accept the proposition?

There's enough to convince some, I think, but not to force conversion by all.

And it's important to know the nature of the evidence: It doesn't come in the form of a spectacular homerun, or even in the form of several near-homeruns. For the most part, it appears as a host of smaller things that, in my view, add up to a good cumulative case. But someone has to be really following the issue to be aware of all that's out there.

[4truth]

Dan:

And it's important to know the nature of the evidence: It doesn't come in the form of a spectacular homerun, or even in the form of several near-homeruns. For the most part, it appears as a host of smaller things that, in my view, add up to a good cumulative case. But someone has to be really following the issue to be aware of all that's out there.

I think the problem with that is that for each base hit the BOM may (or may not depending on who you ask) get, there are other valid hits from the other side with even a few potential home runs thrown in... for example, at what point does the lack of physical evidence become a home run for the opposing team? According to the LDS apologist, never, because there is always the hope that something could turn up. DNA should also be a homerun, but then LDS change the rules of BOM interpretation, saying that the current "limited geography" theory is the correct one after all.

I watched a special the other night (on History Channel) that included a group of Africans who have claimed for centuries to being one of the lost tribes of Isreal when, due to their black skin, no one believed them.... lo and behold DNA has confirmed their claim! Why does DNA not confirm BOM claims? Must have been poor interpretation by early proponents of Mormonism!

For me, the "cumulative case" speaks against BOM authenticity, not in favor of it... though I wish it were true.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the problem with that is that for each base hit the BOM may (or may not depending on who you ask) get, there are other valid hits from the other side with even a few potential home runs thrown in...

Obviously, we see the evidence quite differently.

DNA should also be a homerun, but then LDS change the rules of BOM interpretation, saying that the current "limited geography" theory is the correct one after all.

Nonsense. Your use of the word then suggests that limited-geographical models postdate studies of Amerindian DNA. But they don't. They have been around since before Crick and Watson even figured out the structure of the DNA molecule.

I watched a special the other night (on History Channel) that included a group of Africans who have claimed for centuries to being one of the lost tribes of Isreal when, due to their black skin, no one believed them.... lo and behold DNA has confirmed their claim! Why does DNA not confirm BOM claims? Must have been poor interpretation by early proponents of Mormonism!

There have been several articles on this topic by highly reputable LDS geneticists, and they seem to disagree with you. (For one thing, they don't think that "DNA should . . . be a homerun.") Which of those articles have you read?

For me, the "cumulative case" speaks against BOM authenticity, not in favor of it.

Again, we disagree.

though I wish it were true.

Your wish has been granted.

[Winyan]

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.

No, I disagree with that. I think the majority of scholars would try to read the book objectively. That's what they do with any piece of history.

[Kevin Christensen]

McMurrin objectively reported (in the Ostler interview) that he had never read it because, "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." Bloom reported (The American Religion) that it is an account of the lost 10 tribes, and that it doesn't merit careful study. Given his few comments about the actual text, he apparently kept his own advice. Coe recently reported (PBS interview) that Joseph was a fraud who came to believe his own lies, who nevertheless managed something unlike anything any fraud had ever done. He also reports that until Joseph read the Catherwood and Stephens book in Nauvoo, he never imagined a limited Mesoamerican setting for the book he fabricated, leaving us to wonder how that fraud managed to include over 700 passages with geographic information that interlock like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and comprehensively fit best in Mesoamerica, with the Grijalva, as Larry Porter has shown, being the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the Sidon as described in the text.

Nibley reports that William Albright had a well marked copy of the Book of Mormon but that he dropped it like a hot potato when anyone asked him about it. Kirster Stendahl and James Charlesworth wrote papers for the 1978 conference Truman Madsen put together (Reflections on Mormonism). Stendahl classed it as a pseudepigraphon, creatively blending Matthew's and John's divergent approaches. Since he takes a minimalist approach to Biblie scriptures, he was able to entend some sympathy to the Book of Mormon. Charlesworth made some still useful observations on Messianism in the Book of Mormon, compared to Pseudepigraphal and Dead Sea Scroll texts, yet his essay still retains a feeling of holding the Book of Mormon at a reserved distance. Marvin Sweeny presented at Claremont a few years ago, but as far as I know, that has not been published. A few Evangelical scholars commented in the New Mormon Challenge, but neither bothered to get up to speed with current LDS scholarship. Neither could be described as objective, in the sense of disinterested. They had an agenda to discredit the Book and LDS apologetics, which is fine because they were open about it.

Margaret Barker's 2005 paper on the Book of Mormon stands out as exceptional. She is the only one who seriously asked whether the Book fit the time and place of its origins in light of her speciality, which, serendipitously, happens to be the time and place of origin that it claims for itself.

Clearly, the majority of the few serious scholars who have written about the Book of Mormon to date have not written about it objectively. Most do not do with the Book of Mormon what they do with other texts because the Book of Mormon does not sit passively like other texts. It comes as gaudily decorated as a newlywed's car, announcing angels both inside the pages and in its own creation, and dragging all sorts of LDS cultural scandals, like clattering tin cans. It makes unusal demands on the reader because it is inextricably tied the angels and the Divine Intrusion, and the various LDS cultural scandals. The shouts and pointing from the Great and Spacious Building becomes a very real presence to the reader, challenging the book's own invitation to partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, I disagree with that. I think the majority of scholars would try to read the book objectively. That's what they do with any piece of history.

Ah, that lovely myth of objectivity. Perhaps you could explain what objectivity is and how one achieves this noble dream.

[Luigi]

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?

I would imagine non-LDS scholars give the BoM about as much scholarly attention as LDS scholars give to the works of Edgar Cayce, who claimed to be channeling information from the past (and future) by divine power.

[Yme]

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?

I believe recognized critical thinker Edward DeBono explains it best with his quote describing "experts" :

"An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgments easier through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore."

In other words, experts in history and archaeology have simply ignored the Lds works in the area of attempting to show support for the BOM historicity. I suspect it will stay this way until such works meet even minimal standards of academic credibility.