In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Daniel Peterson]

My question was not about "general" Mormon scholarship. I was addressing the specific scholarship in the area of the history contained in the BOM and the works done in support of it by the archaelogists, anthropologist, historians, etc within the Church. Linking the historical record we have in the BOM to the studies needed to support and verify such historical accounts.

I understand what your question was about. I was simply echoing your language.

I had heard via a friend of mine at UT Austin that some well known, non-LDS archaeogist had looked into the BOM claims and works done by LDS scholars in this area and was not convinced but I have know idea if this is even true.

Yes, you're probably thinking of Michael Coe.

The focus of my question is specific to the evidence of our history claimed in the BOM. I thought it would fall into a similar area of validation as biblical archaeology.

Why would you have thought that?

This article might be helpful, in that light.

[WalkerW]

She even invited me to collaborate with her in an essay called "Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition." This was published this year by Oxford University Press.

Where can a poor college student get a hold of this? Or can he not...

[Daniel Peterson]

FWIW, Margaret Barker found my essays convincing. She spoke openly about the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference in Washington DC. She even invited me to collaborate with her in an essay called "Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition." This was published this year by Oxford University Press. Mark Wright (aka Hasbaz) has talked here about Mesoamerican scholars and the church. Hugh Nibley had several non-LDS scholars contribute essays to the tribute volumes, By Study and By Faith, including Cyrus Gordon, James Charleswork, and Raphael Patai. Terryl Givens managed to get several volumes of and on LDS scholarship published by Oxford University Press. John Welch has a volume on the Sermon on the Mount just out.

DanGB asked for examples of outside scholars being impressed or "convinced" by Mormon arguments. He doesn't seem to have reacted to the comments above, though. He probably didn't see them.

[Zakuska]

Thats because Margaret Barker is obviously a Mormon wanna-be hack. Who doesn't know anything about the Bible. If she really beleived a Mormon argument, then why isn't she LDS?

[Daniel Peterson]

Topping this for DanGB.

[Kevin Christensen]

Where can a poor college student get a hold of this? Or can he not...

Amazon sells the book. It's a collection of essays assembled by Terryl Givens and Reid Neilson. Joseph Smith Jr. Reappraisals After Two Centuries.

http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Jr-Reappraisals-Centuries/dp/0195369769/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259282938&sr=1-6

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

The one prominent non-LDS Mesoamericanist to address the claims of the Book of Mormon in print has been Michael Coe, who has done so three times. One essay in Dialogue in 1973, a letter in the 90s and for the PBS series on the Mormons, where his job was apparently to innoculate viewers against any possible serious consideration of scriptural claims. What I've noticed about his comments is that I learn nothing about the Book of Mormon text from reading them. In his 1973 paper his is broadly dismissive of some amateur LDS approaches to Book of Mormon archeology, but Brant Gardner has observed that the information necessary to serious test the Book of Mormon has only emerged in the last 30 or so years. In the recent PBS interviews, he talks about growing up in Wyoming in the 1940s, and reading Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History. He knew Tom Ferguson, and seems to have taken those approaches and disillusion as the last word. Where he'd been able to dismiss John Sorenson's work on the topic as coincidental cultural parallels, Sorensen has more recently demonstrated significant transoceanic botanical transfers that Coe has acknowledged as valid. In the PBS series Coe does acknowledge the important and excellent work done by LDS archeologists. I find his direct comments on the Book of Mormon more revealing about his approach than about the Book of Mormon text.

Compare the content predicted by Coe

[Gervin]

Think about how likely it is to spread such an accident across thirty-seven direct mentions distributed across twenty-eight verses of rapid dictation. And that amid all the complex story lines and discourses in the Book of Mormon. Then, along with that happy accident, consider the interlocking interrelations with the 700 other passages with geographic information on distances, coastlines, marches and tactics, the ups and downs, a massive volcanic event. Then add the numerous cultural details.2 If accidentally getting just the Sidon in Mesoamerica while imagining an undisclosed location in South America seems unreasonable, how about getting the rest of the text to fit around the Grijalva by accident as well? Coe

[Kevin Christensen]

I pulled all the River Sidon references a few years back and was amazed at how little information is provided in the verses. If the verses provide such an amazing correlation with the BOM geography then it should be no problem identifying the location of the cities listed in the book. Has this been done and ground-verified? I also dispute that teh Book of Mormon is a wealth of cultural details. More often than not details such as steel swords and horses are explained away while known cultural facts of Mesoamerica of the time are totally absent.

Larry Poulsen has demonstrated that the geographical information about the Sidon was enough to uniquely identify it as the Grijalva relative to every other river in the Western hemisphere. I think that makes it both helpful and adequate.

Notice the interesting "If... then" structure of the next sentence, leading to a conclusion that "there should be no problem." This is clearly an arbitrary assumption. The first step would be to construct a detailed internal map and to see how much you have to work with for each individual location. You should carefully define the problem, based on available textual descriptions, before deciding the scale of the problem.

And then when it comes to verification, just how would you propose to do that? In practice, paradigms are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. We weigh pros and cons, and decide which problems are more significant to have solved, and then decide which investigations are worth pursuing.

I'm amused that steel swords and horses are so often taken and the most important issues. The Sidon is much bigger than a horse or a steel sword, and is mentioned far more frequently than either of them over longer spans of time, and with more helpful identifying detail than either horses or steel swords. If we had more evidence for modern horses, and more evidence for steel swords, but no candidates for Zarahemla, the Jaredite city of Lib, or the Sidon, or rise and fall of major cultures at the right times, Cumorah, a massive volcanic event at the right time, a city immersed in a viable Waters of Mormon candidate, the use of cement at the right time, in the proper location relative to the other locations and cultures, Gaddiaton candidates, etc., I'd be far more concerned.

And based on what I've read from Brant Gardner, John Sorenson, Diane Wirth, Mark Wright, Alan Christenson, Garth Norman, and several others, you'll to forgive me for not taking seriously your claim that the "known cultural facts of Mesoamerica are totally absent." It only takes one known cultural fact to falsify a claim of "totally absent." It's not a particularly robust claim to make, particularly to an informed audience.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[DanGB]

Topping this for DanGB.

Sorry, Thanksgiving Day is not a message board day for me. Lots of other great family and friends things going on to keep s occupied. Really quite cool actually, got together w families of former teammates, BBQ a turkey, chalked up our football field and had a great flag game. Then got the group together and played some great jazz and blues w yours truly on the sax. One of my best friends is the son of BB King's back up guitarist and his dad even joined in! Precious. Then did a little quail hunting today w the good weather!

Anyway, I did read through the article of Prof. Hamblin you referenced. I have also shared it with my Prof. friend at UT Austin and will do so with my buddy who is past bishop here.

My first reaction was: "who was the intended audience" of this essay? Can it, would it or should it be taken to the academic community outside of, perhaps, troubled Church members?

My reaction, frankly stems from the title and obvious persecution complex in his style. The title seems to infer that any who question, what I did in the op, is instantly deemed "anti-Mormon "!! I don't know who this Wilson guy is, nor why he is even relevant to the issue, but I gather Hamblin does not like him. That much was very clear.

But would this be an essay we should be giving to those asking a simple question of archeological or scholarly support for the BOM history? I will be more than happy to share what feedback I get n this essay from those I gave it to but it comes across as a bit defensive and too negative w all the "anti-Mormon" statements to be taken as an objective assessment.

But I am niether and archaeologist or apologist for the Church so I may get the true value.

[Bernard Gui]

I do think it obvious that people are seldom convinced by arguments of which they're wholly unaware, and I think very, very few non-Mormon scholars pay any attention at all to Mormon apologetics or even know that a substantial Mormon apologetics exists. Why should they? If they ever thought about it, which I doubt most have ever done, they would probably think the topic unworthy of their attention. Would they be convinced by Mormon arguments if they read them? Maybe. Maybe not. Would "anti-Mormon bias" be the main obstacle? No. Would "ideology"? Maybe. Perhaps. Depending on how one defined the term..

Would we be safe to say no non-Mormon scholar could write favorably about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon (with regard

to origins) and maintain credibility with peers? Can Joseph be given any leeway by non-believers? By leeway, I don't mean "he was

sincere," or "he was a religious genius."

Bernard

[dblagent007]

But my question, for my own needs is: has any of their works convinced the a academic world outside of what we might read in Ensign and other church sponsored publications?

Dan, the vast, vast majority of apologetic work serves only to maintain the plausibility of Mormonism (no small feat at that!). Most non-Mormon academics accept something only when it has been shown to be the most probable conclusion. Very little in Mormonism even comes close to that level.

[Bernard Gui]

Dang! Wrong thread.

Sorry.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Dan, the vast, vast majority of apologetic work serves only to maintain the plausibility of Mormonism (no small feat at that!). Most non-Mormon academics accept something only when it has been shown to be the most probable conclusion. Very little in Mormonism even comes close to that level.

Joseph's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the most probable of all that have been suggested.

Bernard

[Glenn101]

dblagent007, on 27 November 2009 - 09:57 PM, said:

Dan, the vast, vast majority of apologetic work serves only to maintain the plausibility of Mormonism (no small feat at that!). Most non-Mormon academics accept something only when it has been shown to be the most probable conclusion. Very little in Mormonism even comes close to that level.

Joseph's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the most probable of all that have been suggested.

Bernard

Not if you do not believe in God. But then you are left with several implausible theories, but you must select one of them because the alternative is, well ...... unthinkable.

Glenn

[Daniel Peterson]

My reaction, frankly stems from the title and obvious persecution complex in his style. The title seems to infer that any who question, what I did in the op, is instantly deemed "anti-Mormon "!! I don't know who this Wilson guy is, nor why he is even relevant to the issue, but I gather Hamblin does not like him. That much was very clear.

But would this be an essay we should be giving to those asking a simple question of archeological or scholarly support for the BOM history? I will be more than happy to share what feedback I get n this essay from those I gave it to but it comes across as a bit defensive and too negative w all the "anti-Mormon" statements to be taken as an objective assessment.

Something about a forest and trees comes to mind.

Oh well. When I get a chance, I'll tell Bill that he's defensive and has a persecution complex. He'll love it.

[Kevin Christensen]

[sNIP]

But would this be an essay we should be giving to those asking a simple question of archeological or scholarly support for the BOM history?

I like to point people to Brant Gardner's recent work on the Mesoamerican side of things. I have a very good, very succinct quote from a few years back in my essay in FR 16:1, on pages 348-33 which I'd post here, but the FARMS site isn't taking to me at the moment. Brant's FAIR videos cover some of the same ground, the first two of five being these:

http://www.youtube.com/fairldsorg#p/c/91823FC24CEE9739/21/U4gbNvumif8

http://www.youtube.com/fairldsorg#p/c/91823FC24CEE9739/20/0-UnzBIZ_3U

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Honestly]

Larry Poulson recently examined all of the passages in the Book of Mormon that describe the River Sidon, the axis for most of the action in the Book of Mormon, and extracted the salient characteristics of that river. As he observes,

[DanGB]

Something about a forest and trees comes to mind.

Actually, something about avoiding the the question seems more accurate. But I'm used to your condecension!

Oh well. When I get a chance, I'll tell Bill that he's defensive and has a persecution complex. He'll love it.

Sorry, don't know who Bill is and I'm sure, in your normal course of attack, that makes me either an apostate or less than an intellectual.

You know, I have been nothing but genuine and polite with my questions, replies and observations. Yet you continue w a very arrogant streak about you. I am fortunate that I don't have bishops like you!

Question: Have you ever played sports? If not, and I'm guessing I'm right, do me and you a favor and hang for a week w one of the great leaders and developers of men at BYU - coach Mendenhall. He is one of the greatest persons I've ever had the privaledges to work with. And I have no doubt he has had a far greater positive impact on our members than all the essays at FARMS.

You don't seem to be the type to get in front of honest questions. Coach Mendenhall can cure you of "getting in front" without fear!

If you ever really want to answer questions, let us know!

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually, something about avoiding the the question seems more accurate.

Well yes, that would work, too.

You do some pop psychologizing of Professor Hamblin and complain about his allegedly "defensive" tone, but you don't seem, at least so far as you've indicated, to have paid any attention to the substance of what he said.

But I'm used to your condecension!

I'm a genuinely horrible person.

Sorry, don't know who Bill is

William Hamblin is the author of the article you say you read. Bill is a common familiar form of the name William.

I'm sure, in your normal course of attack, that makes me either an apostate or less than an intellectual.

I've said neither of those things, of course. But it's certainly helpful of you to put them in my mouth. It saves me the trouble, I suppose, should I ever feel inclined to say something of the sort.

You know, I have been nothing but genuine and polite with my questions, replies and observations. Yet you continue w a very arrogant streak about you.

I am, as I've observed above, a very, very bad person. Among other things, I have a sense of humor. It sometimes irritates the heck out of those who don't.

I am fortunate that I don't have bishops like you!

If only the Orem University 11th Ward were so lucky!

Question: Have you ever played sports?

Yes.

If not, and I'm guessing I'm right,

You guessed wrong.

do me and you a favor and hang for a week w one of the great leaders and developers of men at BYU - coach Mendenhall. He is one of the greatest persons I've ever had the privaledges to work with. And I have no doubt he has had a far greater positive impact on our members than all the essays at FARMS.

My friends and I are arguably among the most insignificant mortals on the planet. It would probably even be a net gain for the inhabitants of earth if at least some of us could simply be erased, don't you think?

You don't seem to be the type to get in front of honest questions. Coach Mendenhall can cure you of "getting in front" without fear!

If you ever really want to answer questions, let us know!

I provided the link to an article that deals with something you said, and yet you don't seem to have noticed what the article had to say. You merely addressed its alleged tone, and offered up some negative remarks about the personality of its author.

Plainly, that makes me a very bad fellow who refuses to engage substantive issues.

You know, you've gone on at some considerable length about how bad a person I am, and how defective my personality is. I think it would be far more efficient if we were just to agree right now that I'm an unpleasant, nasty, and supremely arrogant louse, and then leave that as an understood background to any future discussion we might have. In fact, I proposed pretty much that on the "New Sorenson Publication" thread about a week ago, in response to some of your earlier observations on my personality and character:

Let's just stipulate up front that I'm an extraordinarily arrogant, anti-social, and unpleasant person. I'll readily agree to that -- I think it's pretty obvious to everybody who knows me, anyway -- and that will spare us the obligation of discussing it any more. Okay?

[Kevin Christensen]

Wouldn't it first be a necessity to locate a single land mass surrounded by four bodies of water

(Land Northward), connecting to another piece of land (Land Southward)

that is surrounded by water on three sides by a narrow neck of land?

No. Not for the step of identifying candidates that fit the physical description of the Sidon from the text, and then using those features for a search of the entire Western Hemisphere.

What happens then, after performing such a key experiment, based on a comprehensive survey of relevant passages,one can then go on to see how such an identification coherently fits with other characteristics, to see whether such comparisons are fruitful, simple and parsimonious, as well has having future promise for further research.

It happens that Poulson's essay on the Sidon here:

http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/grijalvasidon.html

has been followed up here,

http://www.bmaf.org/node/180

considering these criteria:

An examination of the Book of Mormon for the purpose of determining such criteria that can apply anywhere yields the following critical criteria:

1. The area must show evidence of a high-level written language that was in use during the Book of Mormon time period for the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites.

2. The area must reflect two high civilizations that show extensive evidence of major population centers, continual shifts in population demographics, extensive trading among the cultures, and almost constant warfare among the inhabitants

[DanGB]

You do some pop psychologizing of Professor Hamblin and complain about his allegedly "defensive" tone, but you don't seem, at least so far as you've indicated, to have paid any attention to the substance of what he said.

I merely asked a question of who the intended audience of his essay was. If you know, I would be interested in a direct reply w/o all the drama.

Maybe I can put it in this perspective: How much credibility would you garner in all your attempts to explain and bridge build the concept of Islam and Muslims if the title of you speeches and essays invoked "anti-Muslim " in the title or pre-amble? Have you ever included such in your Muslim speeches or publications? How much real credibility would you expect to gain from doing so? With respect to the Hamblin article, I doubt it gains little exposure outside or the BYU campus or fellow professors. No one here in our ward had seen nor heard of it after a quick circulation.

One respond I did receive was that he was incorrect on Church statements. I was told that the Church actually supported a NY location of Hill Cumorah thus giving some light to the geography of the BOM history. (I suspect iwill be called to provide reference which I cannot and don't yet know the validity of this info.)

But if I can return to my original question of this thread, is there any LDS scholarship specifically addressing the existence of our BOM history that generated the interest, or convinced, the academic prossionals in this relate area of study?

(PS Dan, I did not know you and Hamblin were friends and meant nothing negative by the "bill" comment. I am just not up on this fraternal order of merit yet.)

[volgadon]

Articles with the word anti-Semitism in the title do quite well, that is, whether they stand or fall is based on the content rather than the title.

[volgadon]

The late Ze'ev Vilnay, grandaddy of land of Israel studies and a religious Jew, was fairly favourable to LDS scholarship and historical claims, though he did garble much of the information.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

One respond I did receive was that he was incorrect on Church statements. I was told that the Church actually supported a NY location of Hill Cumorah thus giving some light to the geography of the BOM history. (I suspect iwill be called to provide reference which I cannot and don't yet know the validity of this info.)

But if I can return to my original question of this thread, is there any LDS scholarship specifically addressing the existence of our BOM history that generated the interest, or convinced, the academic prossionals in this relate area of study?

(PS Dan, I did not know you and Hamblin were friends and meant nothing negative by the "bill" comment. I am just not up on this fraternal order of merit yet.)

Regarding the Church's official position:

As the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

"The Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places [of the Book of Mormon." John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:178

Unofficially, strong opinions exist. Some of these assume that there is an official position. However, looking underneath these either for revelation on the topic, what we find are typically assumptions that Joseph Smith said something definitive without producing any such definitive statement in support of the assumption. They also display a chronic neglect of what Mormon said about the Hill in the Book of Mormon. The New York hill does not match the textual description. See the FAIR Wiki on the topic.

Earlier on, I mentioned my personal experience with Biblical scholar Margaret Barker, but apparently, that is not what you have in mind. She did speak on the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress in 2005.

Mark Wright, a Phd. student in Mesoamerican studies, (aka Hashbaz on this list) on April 29th 2008 reported on this list that "We also know that the current site director of Teotihuacan, Alejandro Sarabia, and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith, are both converts to the Church (long after they became archaeologists and after decades of work at Teotihuacan), and they both believe that Teotihuacan fits the description of great cities of cement in the land northward as described in the Book of Mormon. If you'd care to visit Teotihuacan and have a chat with them, I'd be happy to arrange it."

And when the Maxwell Institute Website comes back up, I will post some information from Brant Gardner that I find is an excellent introduction to how nicely the Book of Mormon fits with the latest on Mesoamerica.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA