Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[Kevin Christensen]

James Banta says:

They just told me that the words of Lehi are wrong that it is not a full time river.. They said there IS NO SUCH THING... IHS jim

Lehi says (1 Nephi 2:9)

And when my father saw that the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: Oh that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness.

What Potter and Wellington found was a real setting in the right location suitable to inspire the poem, which, as Nibley showed long ago, is an authentic qasida, soon to be followed by its twin. What Lehi says does not pretend to offer is a complete, year-round geological survey of the condition of the river in all the years before, or after his poem. It is rather, an on location impression of what he sees before his eyes.

What James has offered, is, from my perspective, an example of what I was talking about in my previous post when I discussed possible responses to claims of "a greenhouse effect."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

[lostindc]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

The only things that would work are:

1. One of the three Nephites holding the key to the city and a few plates of brass as said critic visits city.

2. A visit from Moroni with a 2005 or later atlas with customized cartography pointing out each place.

3. A Hill Cumorah sign much like the Hollywood sign over site

All three would need to happen, only receiving 2 of the 3 would not count.

[beastie]

Just so. Much of the issue in Book of Mormon research involves how to read the Book of Mormon. As Ian Barbour observes, "Theory is revisable in light of observation, but observation may sometimes need to be reconsidered in light of theory." (Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 97). And things get more complicated in practice because "A network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." Barbour, 99.

In the recent PBS series on The Mormons, they used Michael Coe to innoculate viewers against any possible contamination by the notion that the Book of Mormon is at all plausible. Fine, but the problem is that only Coe's reading was presented. An uninformed audience cannot ask "which paradigm is better?" when they have nothing to compare against. However, an informed audience may find Coe's observations very telling, and indeed, in my case, faith promoting. (I've posted on this in the past.) What I want to mention here is that Coe deliberately and without qualification praised the important archeology being done by LDS scholars. (John Clark would be a conspicuous, but not the only example.) The thing is, from my perspective, Coe paints a picture of the Book of Mormon that utterly fails to explain the content. For instance, Coe has Joseph composing the Book of Mormon as a deliberate fraud, imagining a hemispheric geography, and then being "flabbergasted" on encountering John Lloyd Steven's book on Travel in Mesoamerica, and only then imagining as Mesoamerican setting. That specific prediction utterly fails to account for the fact that Larry Poulson proved that the Grijalva in Mesoamerica is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the description in the Book of Mormon. And all of the other 600+ geographical details in the Book of Mormon, and the cultural and historical details wrap neatly around the Sidon.

In all honesty, how does Coe's theory deal with that anomaly? Well, frankly, with no disrespect to Coe, it doesn't bother to notice the problem. His method precludes him from ever discovering the problem on his own.

You're acting as if all archaeologists specializing in Mesoamerica are aware of the BoM and working in concert to suppress evidence that could support it. The Book of Mormon and its claims are of no concern to the vast majority of Mesoamerican archaeologists. If any of these archaeologists seriously believed that they had found legitimate evidence to support, say, early metallurgy in Mesoamerica, they would excited to present it. The BoM would have nothing to do with that decision.

[beastie]

This is a pretty blatant ad hominen attack. Is this acceptable here? Why would we stoop to this?

Thank you. So far, all of lost's posts to me have been bizarre personal attacks. I decided it was best just to ignore it.

[Billy]

The only things that would work are:

1. One of the three Nephites holding the key to the city and a few plates of brass as said critic visits city.

2. A visit from Moroni with a 2005 or later atlas with customized cartography pointing out each place.

3. A Hill Cumorah sign much like the Hollywood sign over site

All three would need to happen, only receiving 2 of the 3 would not count.

No a single old manuscript would be a good start.

As far as cities, Hill Cumorah was affirmed by Joseph Fielding Smith, but this idea has lost favor. Likely because no archeological evidence has surfaced.

[Bill Hamblin]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

Anyone? Anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s-oGumvPz0

[hagoth7]

How does your answer address whether or not those scientists are seeking truth?

It's a given that such people are seeking to expand their understanding. (Didn't think that needed to be said.)

If what they discover is truth, then it is simply truth.

I hear what you're saying in theory. In practice, however, it's not that simple. They might discover something, not recognize it for what it is, and either inaccurately describe or categorize it (obscure the truth), or discard it as noise.

So I was basically saying that in the general pursuit of truth, our preconceptions often limit what we're able to discover.

You might not have any interest in what they discover, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Agreed. That wasn't what I meant. I was just using myself as an example of how others generally approach truth also. Just as there are lines of investigation that I'm not interested in pursuing - the same holds true with researchers in any field. They are not going to follow every possible avenue, or seriously consider every possible interpretation. They have to pick and choose what they will and won't pursue. They have to filter and categorize what they find. And they have to interpret.

And all three of those are driven, in part, by preconceptions.

If your point is that they wouldn't look at the discoveries in the way that you would, then it really doesn't change the fact that they have discovered truth. You just wouldn't value it.

Well, in the context of the discussion, that might also mean they hadn't actually "discovered" it at all (at least not for what it really was).

Your opinion of whether the truth backs up Mormonism or not is irrelevant to it being truth.

Interesting. My post wasn't specifically about Mormonism. Instead, it was about the general pursuit of truth.

But based on your input, perhaps that approach isn't as germane to the discussion as I had thought.

[Kevin Christensen]

You're acting as if all archaeologists specializing in Mesoamerica are aware of the BoM and working in concert to suppress evidence that could support it. The Book of Mormon and its claims are of no concern to the vast majority of Mesoamerican archaeologists. If any of these archaeologists seriously believed that they had found legitimate evidence to support, say, early metallurgy in Mesoamerica, they would excited to present it. The BoM would have nothing to do with that decision.

I don't interpret my actions in the same way that you do. I have never made that claim, nor would I. They are not working in concert to suppress evidence. They are just not concerned, which tends to mean, they have not bothered to seriously define what would and what would not be significant evidence for or against the Book of Mormon, based on a close reading of the text in an appropriate context. Coe's PBS interview is wonderfully telling in that regard. For him the problem remains in the hands of Fawn Brodie and Tom Ferguson. I understand the perspective. I just find it weak, relative to impressive progress in the several decades since those two mattered.

For the record, I don't think that Coe was suppressing evidence of the Book of Mormon. The producers of the PBS show did by the simple expedience of not asking certain questions to people who would have been more than willing to answer them, and by not even talking to certain other people. It's more a matter how different scholars go about defining what is and is not evidence for or against the Book of Mormon. Most non-LDS don't care. (I could quote more Kuhn, but will spare you.) Coe cares enough to speak up at odd intervals, but his expertise in his field doesn't mean that he has provided what I find a convicing reading of the problem of the Book of Mormon. Quite the opposite.

Or do you think that Coe's model of Joseph imagining the Sidon somewhere in South America really does explain Larry Poulson's finding that the Grijalva is the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere fits the text's description? Or do you think this does not matter?

And Coe does point out that the LDS professionals do excellent archeology.

If metalurgy were the only thing that mattered in contexualizing the Book of Mormon, perhaps I'd worry more than I do. In terms of relative significance, I find a good Sidon candidate far more important. That begins to put us in a situation were we can start looking for other things. And appropriate cultures at the right time depth, and the kinds of convergence that Brant talks about in his FAIR videos is sufficent to convince me that the case is promising. And when I look, I like the way that Clark puts open issues in perspective in his Joseph Smith Conference talk. The trend is toward resolution of open issues.

And I'm aware that there are several archeologists who are LDS, and aren't doing any suppressing about what they find. If Brant, for instance, dislikes the Quetzalcoatl apologetic, he tells us so and explains why. And if he finds convergence, he tells us. As does John Clark, as does Mark Wright and the others. Clark is quite publically documenting all of the charges raised against the Book of Mormon, and promises to publish the results for us. In including both open issues, and resolved issues, it seems to me that they demonstrate perspective and balance that Coe does not. But they are truly interested, and he is only peripherally so.

And I personally consider the Old World settings for the Book of Mormon part of the essentials for defining the problem it represents to secular explanations. Even if we didn't have the welcome perspectives that Brant and Mark, for example, have offered for the New World, we still have the Old World corrolations to weigh. But of course, those can be ignored just as easily.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

No a single old manuscript would be a good start.

The book 2 Enoch survives only in Slavic manuscripts from the 14th century. Yet most scholars concur that the lost original is 1000 or more years older, and is based on a Greek original, and the Greek may be based on a Hebrew original.

Thus, in the study of manuscripts, while ancient manuscript evidence demonstrates antiquity, the lack of ancient manuscript evidence does not disprove antiquity. Billy's argument is completely bogus.

PS Kevin has it exactly right. Critics need to pay careful attention to what he has to say.

[Bill Hamblin]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

Anyone? Anyone?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Anyone? Anyone?

Maybe beastie knows.

[Uncertain]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

Hi Bill,

Interesting question, I think you present a good argument why the lack of an identifiable "Nephite city" does not mean there were no Nephite cites. However to a certain extent I think this is besides the point. That is this issue is a question of who has the burden of proof. If the LDS church (or any organization) wants me (or you) to donate 10 percent of our increase for the rest of our life swear off green tea and possibly teach the young men:). It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

If the current set and or subset of observations concerning the inhabitants of Mesoamerica (i.e. food production, religion, architecture etc. ) does not require or is best explained by a group of Hebrew migrants. Then why should we should we believe such a migration happened? Doing so is multiplying entities unnecessarily. Now the absence of such evidences does not mean such a migration did not happen. But it is not up to the unbeliever to disprove LDS claims it is up to the believer to establish those claims. So in the absence of such evidences the logical course of action is unbelief. This is probably why the current consensus in Mesoamerican studies is that there was no migration of Hebrews to the new world. Because the current state of the evidence does not require such a migration and in the absence of such evidence the appropriate course of action is tentative unbelief pending further evidence. In other words it is entirely reasonable to disbelieve BOM claims based on the fact that the current set of observations concerning Mesoamerica do not require a migration of Hebrew immigrants.

Now most believers will not appeal to scholarly evidences. But to personal spiritual experiences and in this way the burden of proof is met for them. This is not a scholarly argument but a religious one (which doesn't necessarily make it wrong).

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

At one point Kuhn talks about paradigm shift as though it involves picking up the same data by the other end. At one end is Mesoamerica and the other end is the Book of Mormon. In the PBS interview Coe said that the Book of Mormon provided a stage, but no actors, which really means that while there are actors all over the Mesoamerica stage, he doesn't think any of them are Nephites. But what does he expect to see that makes something recognizably Nephite, or Lamanite or Jaredite? "Paradigms not only provide a map, but some of the directions for map making." It's obvious that Coe builds his map from Brodie and Tom Ferguson's expectations. While he may have an excellent map of Mesomerica during some periods, it's also obvious that his map of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon has critical problems.

The current generation of LDS archeologists have been saying that Nephite are going to leave the same material culture as any other Mesoamerican. So, as Brant so astutely put it some years ago, it's not a matter of looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but of looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Is the Book of Mormon recognizably Mesoamerican? That's the point of Sorensen and Brant Gardner and Allen Christensen and Mark Wright and others.

Uncertain says:

If the current set and or subset of observations concerning the inhabitants of Mesoamerica (i.e. food production, religion, architecture etc. ) does not require or is best explained by a group of Hebrew migrants. Then why should we should we believe such a migration happened?

This is still the "sticking out like a sore thumb" approach, holding tight to the Mesoamerican end of the stick, and not treating the Book of Mormon itself as a phenomenon that calls out for explanation.

Does the Book of Mormon present a problem? Is it enough to say, Joseph or someone else did it somehow, without carefully defining the problem of producing such a text? Nibley pointed out way back in 1953 that the best way to test the authenticity of a historical text is to place it in the context that it claims for itself, and see how well it fits. It matters not if a poor reading does not fit (Ferguson or Coe, for example), if a careful one does (Brant Gardner).

Uncertain says:

That is this issue is a question of who has the burden of proof. If the LDS church (or any organization) wants me (or you) to donate 10 percent of our increase for the rest of our life swear off green tea and possibly teach the young men:). It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

This tosses in the concept of burden of proof without acknowledging the limitations of the concept of proof during paradigm debates. As Barbour explains, paradigms are neither verified or falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. While there are values that are not paradigm dependent, there are no rules for applying them. Which means proof is not the issue, never has been, and never can be. The issue is which paradigm is best? Which problems are more significant to have solved? Is the significant problem tithing, green tea, and the inconvenience and scandal of Mormonism? Prop 8, or Polygamy, or Tom Ferguson's opinion? Or is it the way that Brant Gardner discusses, the remarkable way he finds Mesoameria in the Book of Mormon, the way Margaret Barker finds First Temple theology in the Book of Mormon, or the kinds of studies that fill several shelves of FARMS books?

Proofs are only possible within a paradigm. Those who call for coercive proof are really refusing to engage in paradigm debate. That involves considerably more risk, which can be uncomfortable, particularly in the case of Mormonism, which demands so much. Yet, there is the fruit of the tree of life... Green tea, or that fruit. Hmmm...

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

Interesting question, I think you present a good argument why the lack of an identifiable "Nephite city" does not mean there were no Nephite cites. However to a certain extent I think this is besides the point. That is this issue is a question of who has the burden of proof. If the LDS church (or any organization) wants me (or you) to donate 10 percent of our increase for the rest of our life swear off green tea and possibly teach the young men:). It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

If the current set and or subset of observations concerning the inhabitants of Mesoamerica (i.e. food production, religion, architecture etc. ) does not require or is best explained by a group of Hebrew migrants. Then why should we should we believe such a migration happened? Doing so is multiplying entities unnecessarily. Now the absence of such evidences does not mean such a migration did not happen. But it is not up to the unbeliever to disprove LDS claims it is up to the believer to establish those claims. So in the absence of such evidences the logical course of action is unbelief. This is probably why the current consensus in Mesoamerican studies is that there was no migration of Hebrews to the new world. Because the current state of the evidence does not require such a migration and in the absence of such evidence the appropriate course of action is tentative unbelief pending further evidence. In other words it is entirely reasonable to disbelieve BOM claims based on the fact that the current set of observations concerning Mesoamerica do not require a migration of Hebrew immigrants.

Now most believers will not appeal to scholarly evidences. But to personal spiritual experiences and in this way the burden of proof is met for them. This is not a scholarly argument but a religious one (which doesn't necessarily make it wrong).

All the Best,

Uncertain

I note you didn't answer my questions. Care to take another try?

Beyond that ... what Kevin says.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Bill,

Interesting question, I think you present a good argument why the lack of an identifiable "Nephite city" does not mean there were no Nephite cites. However to a certain extent I think this is besides the point. That is this issue is a question of who has the burden of proof. If the LDS church (or any organization) wants me (or you) to donate 10 percent of our increase for the rest of our life swear off green tea and possibly teach the young men:). It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

I have seen this sentiment expressed before, and it has always struck me as logically unsound. I will explain why.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not present the Book of Mormon to the world as something that can be conclusively proven through academic argument or archaeological or other scientific means. Rather, it is presented as an object or instrument of divine inquiry by which a seeker may come to know truth through personal revelation from God. Academic or scientific argument can support that process in some cases, or it can be used to counter the attacks of critics, but it is unessential in gaining such a spiritual confirmation; that is to say, the inquirer is not required under the Mormon paradigm to subject the book to academic scrutiny as a prerequisite to receiving such confirmation.

If, on the other hand, a critic claims the Book of Mormon is falsifiable on academic or scientific grounds, it is up to him to show that, if he can. Ergo, it is the critic, not the believing Mormon, who as the attacker and accuser in the debate bears the burden of proof. The critic can think the believer misled or foolish or insane, but the believer is not required to prove to the critic's satisfaction that the book is authentic, any more than a believer in God is required to prove conclusively the existence of God.

[Uncertain]

At one point Kuhn talks about paradigm shift as though it involves picking up the same data by the other end. At one end is Mesoamerica and the other end is the Book of Mormon. In the PBS interview Coe said that the Book of Mormon provided a stage, but no actors, which really means that while there are actors all over the Mesoamerica stage, he doesn't think any of them are Nephites. But what does he expect to see that makes something recognizably Nephite, or Lamanite or Jaredite? "Paradigms not only provide a map, but some of the directions for map making." It's obvious that Coe builds his map from Brodie and Tom Ferguson's expectations. While he may have an excellent map of Mesomerica during some periods, it's also obvious that his map of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon has critical problems.

The current generation of LDS archeologists have been saying that Nephite are going to leave the same material culture as any other Mesoamerican. So, as Brant so astutely put it some years ago, it's not a matter of looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but of looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Is the Book of Mormon recognizably Mesoamerican? That's the point of Sorensen and Brant Gardner and Allen Christensen and Mark Wright and others.

Hi Kevin,

I am well aware of the current apologetic approach to the BOM. I think to a certain extent you misunderstand my post. I am perfectly fine with looking for Mesoamerica in the BOM. I was simply pointing out the fact that if indeed the Nephites are indistinguishable from the existing Mesoamerican population. Then based on a purely secular argument there is no reason to believe the Nephites existed. That is the set of observations concerning Mesoamerican do not require the presence of Nephites to explain the data.

This tosses in the concept of burden of proof without acknowledging the limitations of the concept of proof during paradigm debates. As Barbour explains, paradigms are neither verified or falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. While there are values that are not paradigm dependent, there are no rules for applying them. Which means proof is not the issue, never has been, and never can be. The issue is which paradigm is best? Which problems are more significant to have solved? Is the significant problem tithing, green tea, and the inconvenience and scandal of Mormonism? Prop 8, or Polygamy, or Tom Ferguson's opinion? Or is it the way that Brant Gardner discusses, the remarkable way he finds Mesoameria in the Book of Mormon, the way Margaret Barker finds First Temple theology in the Book of Mormon, or the kinds of studies that fill several shelves of FARMS books?

I am not clear how I am using the burden of proof incorrectly. If a person or group claims new proposition X then it is up to the person or group to provide evidence for proposition X. I was pointing out simply claiming there is good reason evidence for X does not exist does not in fact establish X.

Proofs are only possible within a paradigm. Those who call for coercive proof are really refusing to engage in paradigm debate. That involves considerably more risk, which can be uncomfortable, particularly in the case of Mormonism, which demands so much. Yet, there is the fruit of the tree of life... Green tea, or that fruit. Hmmm...

Well Mormonism does indeed make the claim it leads to eternal life. This is why the church bears the burden of proof. Also I am not sure what paradigm we are debating. I am not claiming Coe has the â??correctâ? paradigm or for that matter that Brant has the â??correctâ? paradigm. I am simply pointing out lack of evidence in whatever paradigm you use is indeed a good reason not to believe proposition X. If proposition X bears the burden of proof. That is proposition X should be rejected until there is sufficient positive evidence.

Actually if I understand you correctly what you are really saying is the LDS church has met the burden of proof. That is the various evidences produced by BOM scholars are of a sufficient strength and explanatory power that the proposition â??Nephites existedâ? is well supported. I have no problem with the functional form of this argument. I am not sure I agree with your conclusion but the form of the argument is sound.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

I note you didn't answer my questions. Care to take another try?

Okay

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

I am aware of none.

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

I cannot.

Now how does this have anything whatsoever to do with my argument as outlined?

I was simply pointing out if indeed Nephites are indistinguishable from the existing Mesoamerican population. This would be a excellent reason to disbelieve the Nephites existed. Because the claim "Nephites exist" bears the burden of proof and as such in order not be rejected requires a sufficient quantity and quality of positive evidence. In fact as mentioned this is my guess why most experts in Mesoamerica do not believe in a Hebrew migration because the archaeological evidence does not require such a migration. Hence it is more parsimonious to believe there was no such migration.

Actually as I mentioned to Kevin I dare say what you are arguing. Is that the Nephites are not in fact indistinguishable from existing Mesoamerican populations. That is they produced the BOM and by carefully examining the BOM sufficient positive evidence can be accumulated such that the claim "Nephites existed in Mesoamerica" is more likely than unlikely. As I responded to Kevin I have no problems with the form of this argument although I am not sure I accept the conclusion.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

I was simply pointing out the fact that if indeed the Nephites are indistinguishable from the existing Mesoamerican population. Then based on a purely secular argument there is no reason to believe the Nephites existed. That is the set of observations concerning Mesoamerican do not require the presence of Nephites to explain the data.

You are misinterpreting the nature of the problem. The question of the Book of Mormon isn't whether or not Mesoamerican would exist without it. That makes an assumption that the people in the text caused cultural transformations. I really doubt that happened. I see the flow of cultural information necessarily moving in the other direction. Therefore, you are simply looking for the wrong thing.

The next question is what would the right thing be? If the people of the Book of Mormon are not the entirety of New World peoples and cultures, are not the entirety of Mesoamerican peoples and cultures, are not the entirety of southern Zoquen peoples and cultures. . . then the question is whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon comes from that time and place.

That is a different question. It is not answered by discerning some foreign entity in Mesoamerica, but by determining whether or not the known cultural developments and pressures are appropriately evidenced in the text. That is the same type of issue scholars had when they determined that the Histoire du Mechique, which exists only in an 18th C French translation really did represent what it claimed, which was a very early 1500's Spanish text. Archaeology could not determine the authenticity of the text, but the results of archaeology and ethnohistory could be tested against the text to determine its authenticity--which has been accepted.

That is a very obvious (to me, at least) parallel to the issue with the Book of Mormon. We have a text that claims to come from a certain time period. It can be tested against what is known of that time period. However, to test the time and place for an assumption of what the text should have caused in that time and place severely misunderstands both the problem and the way texts should be examined.

[Uncertain]

I have seen this sentiment expressed before, and it has always struck me as logically unsound. I will explain why.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not present the Book of Mormon to the world as something that can be conclusively proven through academic argument or archaeological or other scientific means. Rather, it is presented as an object or instrument of divine inquiry by which a seeker may come to know truth through personal revelation from God. Academic or scientific argument can support that process in some cases, or it can be used to counter the attacks of critics, but it is unessential in gaining such a spiritual confirmation; that is to say, the inquirer is not required under the Mormon paradigm to subject the book to academic scrutiny as a prerequisite to receiving such confirmation.

Hi Scott,

As mentioned in my post most LDS believers believe the burden of proof is met for them on the basis of a personal spiritual experience. But of course this just moves the problem back a step. What positive evidence can the LDS church present demonstrating that a personal spiritual experience is a reliable means to gain universal truth? That is why should a person believe a personal spiritual experience is accurately representing how the universe really is? Especially when there is very good evidence personal spiritual experiences may not be a reliable means to obtain universal truth.

If, on the other hand, a critic claims the Book of Mormon is falsifiable on academic or scientific grounds, it is up to him to show that, if he can. Ergo, it is the critic, not the believing Mormon, who as the attacker and accuser in the debate bears the burden of proof. The critic can think the believer misled or foolish or insane, but the believer is not required to prove to the critic's satisfaction that the book is authentic, any more than a believer in God is required to prove conclusively the existence of God.

You make a good point. Although it means the LDS churches claims are critically dependent on personal spiritual experiences being sufficient in and of themselves to establish the churches claims that Nephites existed. And I am not at all sure you want to hang your hat on that .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

However to a certain extent I think this is besides the point. That is this issue is a question of who has the burden of proof. If the LDS church (or any organization) wants me (or you) to donate 10 percent of our increase for the rest of our life swear off green tea and possibly teach the young men:). It is up to the church to demonstrate its claims. If the church does not satisfy the burden of proof it has already lost.

But it always has met that burden of proof. The church declares this a religious issue, and one of faith. It therefore declares that the solution to the burden of proof is found in faith. Ultimately, there is no other answer.

Now, moving away from that, there is certainly the question of whether or not that faith can be based upon reasonable understandings of history, archaeology, and ethnohistory. The answer here is still yes, though it hasn't been available for nearly as long, and some of the attempts to answer that part of the question haven't been very sound in the past. That doesn't suggest that good work isn't available. I believe that it is.

The final question is not where the burden of proof lies, but what one expects as a proof. If there is a definition that requires compelling belief, I don't think that is even possible in religious issues. The early Christians clearly claimed that there were those who had seen the risen Lord. That has not compelled belief in very large segments of world population. The ability to disbelieve is vast and often confounds even the best of proofs (you don't need to look very far before finding some who will deny some version of some secular understanding because it doesn't mess with the belief system they have accepted).

While the church rightfully stays above these questions and sticks to the religious end of the proof-scale, there are still other very good arguments that suggest that the Book of Mormon represents ancient cultures and specific regions in non-random ways that are appropriate to those times and places.

Assuming that you would accept the scholarly consensus on something like the Histoire du Mechique, would you not be willing to accept similar "proof" for another document? If not, why not?

[Uncertain]

You are misinterpreting the nature of the problem. The question of the Book of Mormon isn't whether or not Mesoamerican would exist without it. That makes an assumption that the people in the text caused cultural transformations. I really doubt that happened. I see the flow of cultural information necessarily moving in the other direction. Therefore, you are simply looking for the wrong thing.

The next question is what would the right thing be? If the people of the Book of Mormon are not the entirety of New World peoples and cultures, are not the entirety of Mesoamerican peoples and cultures, are not the entirety of southern Zoquen peoples and cultures. . . then the question is whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon comes from that time and place.

That is a different question. It is not answered by discerning some foreign entity in Mesoamerica, but by determining whether or not the known cultural developments and pressures are appropriately evidenced in the text. That is the same type of issue scholars had when they determined that the Histoire du Mechique, which exists only in an 18th C French translation really did represent what it claimed, which was a very early 1500's Spanish text. Archaeology could not determine the authenticity of the text, but the results of archaeology and ethnohistory could be tested against the text to determine its authenticity--which has been accepted.

That is a very obvious (to me, at least) parallel to the issue with the Book of Mormon. We have a text that claims to come from a certain time period. It can be tested against what is known of that time period. However, to test the time and place for an assumption of what the text should have caused in that time and place severely misunderstands both the problem and the way texts should be examined.

Hi Brant,

Well I think I do understand your point. You are arguing that we would not expect to see signs of the Nephites in Mesoamerica for reasons A, B, C. But there is evidence the Nephites did exist in Mesoamerica because of certain elements X, Y and Z in the BOM. As mentioned I have no problems with the form of this argument. I will say I myself do not have the necessary background in Mesoamerica to critically evaluate elements X, Y and Z. If you really want to convince someone like me first convince experts who do have the necessary background to evaluate your claims X, Y Z. Failing to do so does not mean you are wrong. But it would be a good reason for a non expert like me to doubt your claims.

All the Best,

Uncertain

P.S. I don't have the time to debate you, Kevin, Bill and Scott. So if you guys could just select a spokesman I would appreciate it . (this is a joke)

Loren

[beastie]

There has been an incessant demand for Mormons to produce "even one Nephite city." This raises two important issues that the critics don't seem to have grasped.

1- What archaeological evidence would allow us to conclusively demonstrate that archaeological site X is Nephite city Z?

2- Can any critic provide me with the ancient names of, let's say, five ancient Olmec cities?

1 â?? It is possible to use the BoM to ascertain a rough level of social complexity and political power of the described polities. To demonstrate the existence of the Nephite polity, one would first have to find evidence a polity roughly the size and possessing the political power of the later Aztecs. In addition, given the fact that this polity would indisputably have been the most powerful polity in the region, and given the complete enmeshment of religion and politics in Mesoamerica, we would expect to see a Judeo-Christian trajectory in the over-all region, not just in one city. This is due to the fact that the most powerful and precociously developed Mesoamerican polities were also the polities that set the path of cultural, religious, and political evolution for the entire region. This trajectory would be detected in the myths that were not only recorded on the codex and utilized in stelae, but would also be detected in the stories and myths that the Mesoamericans still taught and believed at the time of the conquest. However, one must exercise caution in terms of the Spaniardâ??s conception of the Mesoamerican religion, since their perceptions were heavily biased, and instead rely on actual Mesoamerican sources, like the Popul Vuh.

2 â?? We donâ??t know the names of Olmec cities, or even what the people called themselves. I do know of one Maya city for which we know the real name - Tikal, which was known as Mutul in hieroglyphic texts. I expect as the decoding of glyphs continue we will learn more actual Maya names. But the specific names are unnecessary. We can still form certain expectations based on the description of the social and political complexity as described in the BoM, and can determine whether or not a given Mesoamerican polity fits the bill. In fact, the background descriptions are far more important than any place name, which can change over time, of course.

[Tarski]

the solution to the burden of proof is found in faith

Does this strike anyone else as a little odd sounding?

[Uncertain]

But it always has met that burden of proof. The church declares this a religious issue, and one of faith. It therefore declares that the solution to the burden of proof is found in faith. Ultimately, there is no other answer.

Hold on a second. So all religious propositions meet the burden of proof? So I should for example forbear from eating meat like certain Hindu sects teach, and I should also treat Saturday holy as the Jewish faith proclaims and of course lets not forget letting women drive is a big no no according to certain Muslim sects. I agree religious propositions are a matter of faith but this does not mean I should have faith in all religious propositions. In other words there should be sufficient positive evidence supporting a given religious proposition before it is reasonable to believe it (i.e. it has the burden of proof). To believe otherwise is to believe all religious propositions unless of course I can disprove them. We all know how easy it is to disprove religious propositions .

The final question is not where the burden of proof lies, but what one expects as a proof. If there is a definition that requires compelling belief, I don't think that is even possible in religious issues. The early Christians clearly claimed that there were those who had seen the risen Lord. That has not compelled belief in very large segments of world population. The ability to disbelieve is vast and often confounds even the best of proofs (you don't need to look very far before finding some who will deny some version of some secular understanding because it doesn't mess with the belief system they have accepted).

Assuming that you would accept the scholarly consensus on something like the Histoire du Mechique, would you not be willing to accept similar "proof" for another document? If not, why not?

If the scholarly consensus was that the BOM was an authentic Mesoamerican document arrived at using the same techniques as that used on the du Mechique,. I would certainly place a great deal of weight on this fact.

All the Best,

Uncertain