Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Brant Gardner]

In a different thread 4Foxtrot requested information that might be considered credible evidence for the Book of Mormon. He/she referenced a thread that had a post where he/she indicated that it was the lack of credible evidence that lead to his/her leaving the church. I find that particularly sad, because so few who make that choice for that reason have any background in understanding what might be evidence. When you look for the wrong thing and don't find it, where is the fault?

The very first requirement for discerning evidence for the Book of Mormon is to make sure that we are looking for the right things. This isn't a field without precedence. Scholars have been dealing with documents and with history for a long time, and there is a large body of work to draw on.

Before presenting some evidence, I have to lay down some of the ground rules for looking for the right thing. Let me preface this by saying that these are the kinds of ground rules that I dealt with when attempting to understand Mesoamerican religion based on documentary and iconographic information. All data must be interpreted, and you can seldom accept information on face value.

First, any evidence that comes through translation has the likelihood of having been garbled or completely misunderstood by the recorder/translator. As a simple example, the current Mexican city of Cuernavaca has a perfectly good Spanish explanation. It means "cows horn." However, it was what the Spanish heard when they misunderstood the Nahuatl Cuauhnahuac, meaning "at the edge of he forest." Anyone reading a Spanish document might believe that the city could have existed prior to Spanish contact because neither the name nor the meaning could be pre-Hispanic. That would be an incorrect analysis. Scholars understand that any document that is a translation must be examined at a level deeper than the vocabulary.

Second, imposing presumptions on the text and then discovering that the presumptions are wrong cannot invalidate the text. This is actually a very common problem with the Book of Mormon. Both from tradition and ignorance of how populations merge, the assumption has been that the Nephites would replicate an Old World material and ideological culture. There is also a presumption that because they came from an area with certain material skills, that every single one of those would be represented after they arrived. Any who believe such a thing should read Jared Diamond's discussion of how certain technologies are lost or ignored, even once they are there (see Germs and Steel). Even more important, with the Book of Mormon, it is impossible to import any technology that the small number of Lehites did not personally know. There was less to know in the ancient world, but still more than any single individual could understand.

With that basis, how do you find evidence for the Book of Mormon? The quick analogy is to the way that Schliemann convinced a skeptical world that Homer's Troy actually existed. He compared the text to the real world and found a site that fit the descriptions and then the cultural information required. He found history in the text, although there was no text that declared that "this is Troy" (he also misidentified the level of the dig at which Troy would have been, but others have corrected that error without dismissing the identification of the site). So, for the Book of Mormon, we have to take the text "shopping" for a place/time/culture/history that matches features in the text. We are not looking for menorahs, we are looking for ways in which the text reflects the time and place where the geography fits.

For geography, I refer you to Lawrence Poulsen's work. I think he is doing the best current work on the geography of the Book of Mormon. I am no geography, but rather an ethnohistorian. For me, knowing the gross parameters of the geogrpahy (Mesoamerica and the Grijalva as the River Sidon) I can then compare the text to known history. That is where the text reflects, in non-arbitrary ways, the known culture of the region.

Here is an outline of the kinds of evidence that shows a correspondence between place and text. Any single one is not particularly convincing, but then historical research seldom has that luxury. It is the interconnected combination of all of them - in the same place and at the appropriate times that makes the case.

(this has been posted to this board before, so old-timers will remember it--and can skip it)

1) Text

a) Structures reflecting a non-western perspective

1) Conclusions begin chapters rather than end them

2) The construction of the book names follows a discernible logic, but not one that has ever been explained, nor which follows traditional assumptions

b) The Book of Mormon contains metastories that are absolutely parallel to Old Testament modes of writing scripture, but which tend to be lost on the more literal modern mind.

1) Exodus motif

2) Nephi and Joseph

3) Nephi and David

c) The internally described structure of the text is the best explanation for its features

1) Nephi-Omni material is holographic

2) Mormon as editor with vision and control

3) Moroni

d) Usage of scriptural texts, such as Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount differ (even though similar in production methodology)

1) Nephi and Jacob

[jwhitlock]

Excellent! Claims of "no credible evidence" can and should be quickly dismissed.

[morgan.deane]

In a different thread 4Foxtrot requested information that might be considered credible evidence for the Book of Mormon. He/she referenced a thread that had a post where he/she indicated that it was the lack of credible evidence that lead to his/her leaving the church. I find that particularly sad, because so few who make that choice for that reason have any background in understanding what might be evidence. When you look for the wrong thing and don't find it, where is the fault?

The very first requirement for discerning evidence for the Book of Mormon is to make sure that we are looking for the right things. This isn't a field without precedence. Scholars have been dealing with documents and with history for a long time, and there is a large body of work to draw on.

Before presenting some evidence, I have to lay down some of the ground rules for looking for the right thing. Let me preface this by saying that these are the kinds of ground rules that I dealt with when attempting to understand Mesoamerican religion based on documentary and iconographic information. All data must be interpreted, and you can seldom accept information on face value.

First, any evidence that comes through translation has the likelihood of having been garbled or completely misunderstood by the recorder/translator. As a simple example, the current Mexican city of Cuernavaca has a perfectly good Spanish explanation. It means "cows horn." However, it was what the Spanish heard when they misunderstood the Nahuatl Cuauhnahuac, meaning "at the edge of he forest." Anyone reading a Spanish document might believe that the city could have existed prior to Spanish contact because neither the name nor the meaning could be pre-Hispanic. That would be an incorrect analysis. Scholars understand that any document that is a translation must be examined at a level deeper than the vocabulary.

Second, imposing presumptions on the text and then discovering that the presumptions are wrong cannot invalidate the text. This is actually a very common problem with the Book of Mormon. Both from tradition and ignorance of how populations merge, the assumption has been that the Nephites would replicate an Old World material and ideological culture. There is also a presumption that because they came from an area with certain material skills, that every single one of those would be represented after they arrived. Any who believe such a thing should read Jared Diamond's discussion of how certain technologies are lost or ignored, even once they are there (see Germs and Steel). Even more important, with the Book of Mormon, it is impossible to import any technology that the small number of Lehites did not personally know. There was less to know in the ancient world, but still more than any single individual could understand.

With that basis, how do you find evidence for the Book of Mormon? The quick analogy is to the way that Schliemann convinced a skeptical world that Homer's Troy actually existed. He compared the text to the real world and found a site that fit the descriptions and then the cultural information required. He found history in the text, although there was no text that declared that "this is Troy" (he also misidentified the level of the dig at which Troy would have been, but others have corrected that error without dismissing the identification of the site). So, for the Book of Mormon, we have to take the text "shopping" for a place/time/culture/history that matches features in the text. We are not looking for menorahs, we are looking for ways in which the text reflects the time and place where the geography fits.

For geography, I refer you to Lawrence Poulsen's work. I think he is doing the best current work on the geography of the Book of Mormon. I am no geography, but rather an ethnohistorian. For me, knowing the gross parameters of the geogrpahy (Mesoamerica and the Grijalva as the River Sidon) I can then compare the text to known history. That is where the text reflects, in non-arbitrary ways, the known culture of the region.

Here is an outline of the kinds of evidence that shows a correspondence between place and text. Any single one is not particularly convincing, but then historical research seldom has that luxury. It is the interconnected combination of all of them - in the same place and at the appropriate times that makes the case.

(this has been posted to this board before, so old-timers will remember it--and can skip it)

1) Text

a) Structures reflecting a non-western perspective

1) Conclusions begin chapters rather than end them

2) The construction of the book names follows a discernible logic, but not one that has ever been explained, nor which follows traditional assumptions

b) The Book of Mormon contains metastories that are absolutely parallel to Old Testament modes of writing scripture, but which tend to be lost on the more literal modern mind.

1) Exodus motif

2) Nephi and Joseph

3) Nephi and David

c) The internally described structure of the text is the best explanation for its features

1) Nephi-Omni material is holographic

2) Mormon as editor with vision and control

3) Moroni

d) Usage of scriptural texts, such as Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount differ (even though similar in production methodology)

1) Nephi and Jacob

[Deborah]

The very first requirement for discerning evidence for the Book of Mormon is to make sure that we are looking for the right things.

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

[Bill Hamblin]

Exactly!

[Balzer]

This was a remarkable post. I can't imagine the time that went into putting it all together. But, speculation, conjecture and coincidence do not proof make, even if you put them all together. I for one encourage you to continue to strive to find proof of the Book of Mormon lands and civilizations but, at the end of the day, for now, you still simply gotta want it. You still must simply choose to believe.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Deborah]

I guess some people don't get the point.

[44Foxtrot]

Brant,

Thank you for your response to my request on the other thread.

As you must realize, your list does not contain a single item that rises to the level of credible physical evidence, as I defined it in the other thread.

[jiggypoo]

Hello All,

From my layman's view, it would seem we may need to define and agree to exactly what constitutes "credible physical evidence". This would help facilitate a discussion more harmonic and grounded, as we would all be in agreement as to the foundation. Just my two cents.

[Brant Gardner]

Thanks Brant, I really enjoyed this post. Would you mind explaining this one a bit more?

"Change in attitude of the Nephites when facing the Lamanite plus Gadianton army"

I also think the warfare section got shortchanged. But maybe that's just me.

Considering your interest in things military, that isn't surprising. Considering that I have never been in the military, it is also not surprising that I would miss things.

In the case of the Gadiantons at the end of the Nephite polity, we have accounts of the Nephites fighting the Lamanites and defeating them. Then the Gadiantons show up and are intermingled with them. After that, the Nephites are running scared from the Lamanites plus Gadiantons. That is a fascinating shift. Why did the addition of the Gadiantons signal a shift in the attitude of the combatants?

Read against Mesoamerican history, I have argued (in a FAIR Conference paper) that the Gadiantons at that period of time are best seen as a description of the Teotihuacano warriors who were moving into the region at that time and conquering previously dominant cities. They wore distinctive armor, and would be visible to the opponents. Hence, an army of Maya and Teotihuacanos would be visibly different - and the reputation of the Teotihuacanos might explain the Nephite reaction.

[Brant Gardner]

This was a remarkable post. I can't imagine the time that went into putting it all together. But, speculation, conjecture and coincidence do not proof make, even if you put them all together. I for one encourage you to continue to strive to find proof of the Book of Mormon lands and civilizations but, at the end of the day, for now, you still simply gotta want it. You still must simply choose to believe.

Respectfully,

Balzer

I assume, therefore, that you decline to believe in very many written histories, and certainly very little of what is written from secular scholars about Mesoamerica. If you are terming that "conjecture and coincidence," then you are unfamiliar with the work that historians (and particularly ethnohistorians) actually do.

[Brant Gardner]

This was a remarkable post. I can't imagine the time that went into putting it all together. But, speculation, conjecture and coincidence do not proof make, even if you put them all together. I for one encourage you to continue to strive to find proof of the Book of Mormon lands and civilizations but, at the end of the day, for now, you still simply gotta want it. You still must simply choose to believe.

Respectfully,

Balzer

I assume, therefore, that you decline to believe in very many written histories, and certainly very little of what is written from secular scholars about Mesoamerica. If you are terming that "conjecture and coincidence," then you are unfamiliar with the work that historians (and particularly ethnohistorians) actually do.

[Brant Gardner]

As you must realize, your list does not contain a single item that rises to the level of credible physical evidence, as I defined it in the other thread.

I confess that I didn't read through that thread. However, if none of this becomes credible physical evidence, then you have too narrowly defined the term.

May I ask a simple question? Do you accept or reject the identification of the location of Troy? If so, what credible physical evidence are you accepting? If no, why is there no credible physical evidence?

[PaulBoyerFan]

This list is unfortunate, although I realize that it was well intentioned. There were large cities in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon! And kinship relationships! And literacy! And warfare!

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

[Pahoran]

This list is unfortunate, although I realize that it was well intentioned. There were large cities in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon! And kinship relationships! And literacy! And warfare!

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

I'm likewise sure that thousands of people could determinedly reject any actual history that conflicted with their preferences. There's nothing compelling about your rejection.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Brant,

Thank you for your response to my request on the other thread.

As you must realize, your list does not contain a single item that rises to the level of credible physical evidence, as I defined it in the other thread.

Oh, it has to be credible physical evidence as you define it, does it?

Don't tell me -- let me guess: you created an ad hoc definition intended to exclude actual evidence for the Book of Mormon, did you?

Would you agree that there is not now, and never has been, any credible evidence that a logical interpretation of LDS doctrine motivated "Christine Jonsen" to kill her children?

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

This list is unfortunate, although I realize that it was well intentioned. There were large cities in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon! And kinship relationships! And literacy! And warfare!

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

Summarize Brant's post to trivialize it, ignore the level of knowledge concerning ancient civilizations available to Joseph Smith at the time he translated the Book of Mormon, ignore the basic complexity of the BofM by claiming anyone could do the same, and you have the stock anti-Mormon non-response to anything presented as evidence for the book.

I can understand your unwillingness to engage in directly addressing specific evidence, however poorly intentioned. However, wouldn't it just be much simpler to say you don't want to accept the evidence, rather than engage in games like this?

[Deborah]

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

Unless those people had very limited schooling and little knowledge of historical reality even of the day. And even people with such knowledge would have a difficult time doing so in the short time Joseph had, where he had actual witnesses to Joseph dictating with no pausing or with no script before him. Tolkien took years to compose his masterpiece which created a whole world, and he was very literate.

[Bill Hamblin]

The responses of these critics to Brant's OP are very telling. There is no credible evidence for the BOM, because NOTHING presented in favor of the BOM will ever be accepted. I have seen this over and over and over. Until they read Brant's six thick volumes (to begin with), there is simply NOTHING to talk about. The fact that they will never bother to do so indicates the fundamental unseriousness of their objections.

[Bill Hamblin]

This list is unfortunate, although I realize that it was well intentioned. There were large cities in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon! And kinship relationships! And literacy! And warfare!

I'm sure that thousands of people could write a novel about a fictional ancient civilization in the Americas, or Africa, or central Asia, or wherever and someone could list such supposed similarities to the known historical reality. There's nothing compelling about your list.

How utterly you misrepresent both the issues, methodology, and the evidence! Flabbergastering! Read Brant's books, or no one will take you seriously. Nor should they.

[Mortal Man]

From my layman's view, it would seem we may need to define and agree to exactly what constitutes "credible physical evidence".

NHM constitutes credible physical evidence. The rest of the list could just have easily been made for The Hobbit, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island etc.

ignore the level of knowledge concerning ancient civilizations available to Joseph Smith at the time he translated the Book of Mormon

Yes, sadly that is what apologists do. B. H. Roberts was the last apologist to pay attention to the "level of knowledge concerning ancient civilizations available to Joseph Smith" and the list he came up with is far more impressive than Brant's. Nevertheless, Brant should be commended for his excellent research, since he is swimming upstream against the facts.

Until they read Brant's six thick volumes (to begin with), there is simply NOTHING to talk about.

I dunno, this strikes me as a bit risky. "Six thick volumes" is probably sufficient insulation against 99% of critical inquiry but what if there's a speed reader out there who gets through all of it and then comes back to ask questions? Are you sure you don't need a bigger barrier?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

The responses of these critics to Brant's OP are very telling. There is no credible evidence for the BOM, because NOTHING presented in favor of the BOM will ever be accepted. I have seen this over and over and over. Until they read Brant's six thick volumes (to begin with), there is simply NOTHING to talk about. The fact that they will never bother to do so indicates the fundamental unseriousness of their objections.

I would venture a guess that many hardcore Anti-Mormon's who are steeped in the Slick Ministry of CARM, MRM, TILM, and other counter-cult Ministries will refuse the physical evidence if Christ himself were to appear with the gold plates and testify to them with heralded angelic visions that the Book of Mormon is truly divinely inspired.

Their arrogant and adamant response is to flip to Galatians and tell Christ: "Even if an Angel from Heaven came to preach a different Gospel..." and then proceed to Curse they very being they claim to worship, love, adore, and pray to.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, sadly that is what apologists do. B. H. Roberts was the last apologist to pay attention to the "level of knowledge concerning ancient civilizations available to Joseph Smith" and the list he came up with is far more impressive than Brant's. Nevertheless, Brant should be commended for his excellent research, since he is swimming upstream against the facts.

Amazing that you would infer that Joseph Smith was fully aware of the same archaeological knowledge concerning ancient civilizations that we have today. That's pretty absurd, even for critics who generally skirt facts in the first place.

[Pahoran]

NHM constitutes credible physical evidence. The rest of the list could just have easily been made for The Hobbit, Gulliver's Travels, Treasure Island etc.

Not really, no.

Yes, sadly that is what apologists do. B. H. Roberts was the last apologist to pay attention to the "level of knowledge concerning ancient civilizations available to Joseph Smith" and the list he came up with is far more impressive than Brant's. Nevertheless, Brant should be commended for his excellent research, since he is swimming upstream against the facts.

Yes, anti-Mormons do love to try to conjure by the name of B. H. Roberts. Pity you have to abuse his arguments in order to hang your conclusions on him.

I dunno, this strikes me as a bit risky. "Six thick volumes" is probably sufficient insulation against 99% of critical inquiry but what if there's a speed reader out there who gets through all of it and then comes back to ask questions? Are you sure you don't need a bigger barrier?

Ah, I see the source of your misunderstanding. You see, MM, Brant and Bill -- unlike you -- are participating in a scholarly discussion. Brant and Bill -- unlike you -- are arguing a position in good faith. Therefore Brant and Bill -- unlike you -- aren't simply trying to score cheap points.

I realise this is difficult for you to grasp, MM, but Brant and Bill would probably be delighted if someone had read and understood the relevant literature wanted to discuss such things with them. It would make such a refreshing change from the sneering, dismissive dilettantes.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

1) Nephi