Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Hughes]

I think you've nailed it, Calmoriah. Hughes is arguing from ignorance. His reasoning is basically as follows:

1. To base one's religious beliefs on a scriptural text, one must have at least some evidence that the said text is accurately translated
2. There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is accurately translated
3. Therefore anyone who bases their religious beliefs on the Book of Mormon does so out of "blind faith"

Although Hughes has failed to provide a reasonable definition of "blind faith" (he has indeed ignored all rebuttals towards his use of the expression), I would hazard the following definition for the purpose of his argument:

"Blind faith is to believe in something out of cultural or normative pressure, without any tangible evidence to justify that faith."

Hughes' reasoning has the merit of being deductively sound. His main premise (#1), however, requires support, and he has failed to support it satisfactorily. He also needs to clarify his definition of blind faith.

I would modify #1. For a text to known or seen to be accurate, it must at least have some evidence to support that position.

The definition, I've stated, for why "blind" faith instead of just "faith" alone is based on the fact that for the BoM there is no known way to verify it externally at all. Not even a little bit. Thus rendering belief (or faith) in said book, as to it's correlation to the plates, as being blind.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would modify #1. For a text to known or seen to be accurate, it must at least have some evidence to support that position.

The definition, I've stated, for why "blind" faith instead of just "faith" alone is based on the fact that for the BoM there is no known way to verify it externally at all. Not even a little bit. Thus rendering belief (or faith) in said book, as to it's correlation to the plates, as being blind.

Ugh, we have been over this before. And so the biblical text are in the same boat. THere are no original sources to look to so we can make sure that what the original sources say are the same as the copies.

So you have hughesian blind faith as well.

You answer of "Well, copies are evidnence of the originals" is not an argument.

Copies are only evdence that there is a copy of something. Some one brought up teh fact that tehre are variances in the copies. Copies do not even prove that there was a factual original.

[ELF1024]

The definition, I've stated, for why "blind" faith instead of just "faith" alone is based on the fact that for the BoM there is no known way to verify it externally at all. Not even a little bit. Thus rendering belief (or faith) in said book, as to it's correlation to the plates, as being blind.

Incorrect. I would say that these and this verify (externally) that the book is at least based on factual places (at least a little bit).

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Does the existence of the Sea of Galilee show evidence that Jesus walked on its waters?

[Jeff K.]

How do we know that what is contained in the BoM is what was on the plates? This is an academic question.

It is academic, but also speaks to the importance of context. For instance, if the plates were merely found and translated and "then" taken up by an angel, we would have some question as to whether or not what was on the plates was also on the translation, especially since the imprimature of an angel is involved. However Joseph Smith never "found" the plates, he was led to them, meaning an angel at the beginning had shown Joseph Smith where to find them, indicating the choice was the angels, whose duty belonged to the plates. We have within that same context a "urim and thummim" or stones if you will, that only worked if one was properly focused on why the plates needed translation, in other words the process of translation was not open to any motivatino but the one which desired the most accurate of translations and most correct result.

The study of what the BoM contains (Internal evidence) doesn't verify or corroborate the non-existant external evidence, as there's none to corroborate.

Most evidence is open to interpretation. Consider Lehi's journey and an archeologists view which explores such an interpretation. Placing the standard across the board, how would Christianity view its early writing? Or rather early writing which no longer exists. Whether taken away by an angel or destroyed by man, doesn't the evidence become internal and aren't we left with an understanding that must be based on shifting transcriptional and intrinsic interpretation of evidence?

For the BoM no copies in the original language exist. For the Biblical text many copies in the original languages exist. One has external evidence, the other does not.

Until the Rosetta Stone Stele was unearthed, how would we have viewed Egyptian writings? Easter Island had a civilization which we still cannot read, and of course there is Linear A among the ancient Greek Mycenaeans. If someone were to give a full accounting of that ancient group, and state it came from an abbreviated historical text, with just a few fragments of Linear A available, would we also conclude that it is internal? Since there is no contemporary source for comparison it must be, but it does not necessarily invalidate either the language or translation.

Just musing

[nicolasconnault]

I would modify #1. For a text to known or seen to be accurate, it must at least have some evidence to support that position.

The definition, I've stated, for why "blind" faith instead of just "faith" alone is based on the fact that for the BoM there is no known way to verify it externally at all. Not even a little bit. Thus rendering belief (or faith) in said book, as to it's correlation to the plates, as being blind.

OK. Back to square one, nothing learned. I feel like I'm trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with a computer program. I've better things to do.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

OK. Back to square one, nothing learned. I feel like I'm trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with a computer program. I've better things to do.

That is why rarely engage Book of Mormon critics, and when I do it is often with sarcasm because I know I am wasting my time.

[SilverKnight]

I feel like I'm trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with a computer program.

Its is very similar to debating a mindless algorithm.

You are dealing with a religious dogmatist incapable evaluating his own religious beliefs with the same degree of skepticism he applies to others.

You might as well go have a dialogue with a fire-hydrant.

[Hughes]

Ugh, we have been over this before. And so the biblical text are in the same boat. THere are no original sources to look to so we can make sure that what the original sources say are the same as the copies.

So you have hughesian blind faith as well.

You answer of "Well, copies are evidnence of the originals" is not an argument.

Copies are only evdence that there is a copy of something. Some one brought up teh fact that tehre are variances in the copies. Copies do not even prove that there was a factual original.

Copies are certainly better than no copies. No?

I have a serious question. Was Joseph Smith forbidden from making a "rub" copy of the plates (by rub, I mean taking a pencil on its side and rubbing the paper while it sits on top of the plates)

Incorrect. I would say that these and this verify (externally) that the book is at least based on factual places (at least a little bit).

Since the argument is aimed directly at the idea that the plates may or may not be representative of the BoM contents, references using the contents of the BoM are not external evidences for the plates contents, unless that correlation can be established.

Hughes:

Does the existence of the Sea of Galilee show evidence that Jesus walked on its waters?

No. Nor does it show evidence that Peter walked on water either.

It is academic, but also speaks to the importance of context. For instance, if the plates were merely found and translated and "then" taken up by an angel, we would have some question as to whether or not what was on the plates was also on the translation, especially since the imprimature of an angel is involved. However Joseph Smith never "found" the plates, he was led to them, meaning an angel at the beginning had shown Joseph Smith where to find them, indicating the choice was the angels, whose duty belonged to the plates. We have within that same context a "urim and thummim" or stones if you will, that only worked if one was properly focused on why the plates needed translation, in other words the process of translation was not open to any motivatino but the one which desired the most accurate of translations and most correct result.

Most evidence is open to interpretation. Consider Lehi's journey and an archeologists view which explores such an interpretation. Placing the standard across the board, how would Christianity view its early writing? Or rather early writing which no longer exists. Whether taken away by an angel or destroyed by man, doesn't the evidence become internal and aren't we left with an understanding that must be based on shifting transcriptional and intrinsic interpretation of evidence?

Until the Rosetta Stone Stele was unearthed, how would we have viewed Egyptian writings? Easter Island had a civilization which we still cannot read, and of course there is Linear A among the ancient Greek Mycenaeans. If someone were to give a full accounting of that ancient group, and state it came from an abbreviated historical text, with just a few fragments of Linear A available, would we also conclude that it is internal? Since there is no contemporary source for comparison it must be, but it does not necessarily invalidate either the language or translation.

Just musing

Whether Joseph was lead or just '"found" the plates doesn't seem relevant to the question of how to verify an accurate translation, externally.

It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).

[nicolasconnault]

Its is very similar to debating a mindless algorithm.

You are dealing with a religious dogmatist incapable evaluating his own religious beliefs with the same degree of skepticism he applies to others.

You might as well go have a dialogue with a fire-hydrant.

LOL at least that would be a real challenge

[ELF1024]

Its is very similar to debating a mindless algorithm.

You are dealing with a religious dogmatist incapable evaluating his own religious beliefs with the same degree of skepticism he applies to others.

You might as well go have a dialogue with a fire-hydrant.

At least a fire-hydrant is less likely to u*****e all over your arguement and tell you it's raining gold...

I don't mind a good arguement, or a rousing intelligent discussing where actual points of view are exchanged and progress is made on both sides to understand, but when it just comes back around to the same tired scripted responses... it's very tiring.

Oh well, some days your the dog, other days the hydrant.

[Vance]

Its is very similar to debating a mindless algorithm.

Indeed!

You are dealing with a religious dogmatist incapable evaluating his own religious beliefs with the same degree of skepticism he applies to others.

Hit the nail on the head with that one. Very common trait for Evangelical anti-Mormons.

You might as well go have a dialogue with a fire-hydrant.

In the end, both you and the fire-hydrant would be just as edified.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Copies are certainly better than no copies. No?

Copies are a total red herring to the idea of the originals. It does not matter. With out the orignials anything you try to argue in your favor is a waste of time.

I have a serious question. Was Joseph Smith forbidden from making a "rub" copy of the plates (by rub, I mean taking a pencil on its side and rubbing the paper while it sits on top of the plates)

Lets say there was a copy. Who would do the translation? It is not like the rosetta stone would help here. Again this is a total waste.

We have what is purported to be translated and we can look what we do have in the same what that we can look at the bible and the copies we do have. The problem is your double standard won't allow you to look at what we do have.

Since the argument is aimed directly at the idea that the plates may or may not be representative of the BoM contents, references using the contents of the BoM are not external evidences for the plates contents, unless that correlation can be established.

This argument is about as lame as "archaeology proves the bible".

I have news for you Hughes the correlation that you are looking for is not going to happen unless God wills and I don;t see that happening.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Its is very similar to debating a mindless algorithm.

You are dealing with a religious dogmatist incapable evaluating his own religious beliefs with the same degree of skepticism he applies to others.

You might as well go have a dialogue with a fire-hydrant.

Well that does it for me. It appears that I would be better off just not engaging in this mindless diatrabe.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 January 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

It is academic, but also speaks to the importance of context. For instance, if the plates were merely found and translated and "then" taken up by an angel, we would have some question as to whether or not what was on the plates was also on the translation, especially since the imprimature of an angel is involved. However Joseph Smith never "found" the plates, he was led to them, meaning an angel at the beginning had shown Joseph Smith where to find them, indicating the choice was the angels, whose duty belonged to the plates. We have within that same context a "urim and thummim" or stones if you will, that only worked if one was properly focused on why the plates needed translation, in other words the process of translation was not open to any motivatino but the one which desired the most accurate of translations and most correct result.

Most evidence is open to interpretation. Consider Lehi's journey and an archeologists view which explores such an interpretation. Placing the standard across the board, how would Christianity view its early writing? Or rather early writing which no longer exists. Whether taken away by an angel or destroyed by man, doesn't the evidence become internal and aren't we left with an understanding that must be based on shifting transcriptional and intrinsic interpretation of evidence?

Until the Rosetta Stone Stele was unearthed, how would we have viewed Egyptian writings? Easter Island had a civilization which we still cannot read, and of course there is Linear A among the ancient Greek Mycenaeans. If someone were to give a full accounting of that ancient group, and state it came from an abbreviated historical text, with just a few fragments of Linear A available, would we also conclude that it is internal? Since there is no contemporary source for comparison it must be, but it does not necessarily invalidate either the language or translation.

Just musing

Whether Joseph was lead or just '"found" the plates doesn't seem relevant to the question of how to verify an accurate translation, externally.

It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).

It is very relevant unless you believe God buys lottery tickets.

[Jeff K.]

It does seem to me that internal evidences for the BoM don't help verifying the connection of the plates with the translation (which is the BoM).

If you dug up the Bible in London a millenia or so after it was buried there, and the language of the Jews and Latins and Greeks were lost, how would you trace the origin back to Jerusalem or even the Middle East? I doubt you could. One wonders if you care to hold the same standard to your own sacred works.

The internal evidences haven't changed, but external evidence, such as Lehi's journey seem to add to the credibility, more so than you care to admit.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding the wide variety of opinions among Mormons as to the general area within the Western Hemisphere where the Book of Mormon events took place, you commented:

It's actually far less of an issue when one looks at the quality of the different proposals relative to the 1000 plus relevant passages with geographic and cultural information, and the overall trends, and increasing convergence. As more scholars work through Larry Poulson's arguments for the Grijalva as the Sidon, for instance, things will coalesce further. As the link I posted the other day demonstrates. http://www.bmaf.org/node/180

The article at that link builds a circumstantial case for one river rather than another in Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon's River Sidon, proceeding from the conclusion established on other grounds that Mesoamerica provides the best fit for the geography of the Book of Mormon. The article does not provide external evidence that the River Sidon actually existed. I acknowledge that a cumulative case based on numerous such circumstantial arguments could, if it fit the most important criteria or qualifications for identifying Book of Mormon locations, constitute a strong circumstantial argument that such locations correspond to real places. I haven't seen a successful cumulative case of this kind yet, but I'm still going through the literature and working through the issues (on this and several other Book of Mormon subjects). As best I can tell, though, the fact remains that the arguments are at best circumstantial. By contrast, no argument needs to be developed for locating the major places of the Bible. We know and have always known where to find Jerusalem, the Jordan River, the Sea of Galilee, Babylon, Rome, etc. Not only have these locations been public knowledge since biblical times, we have external evidence (i.e., external to the Bible) for these place names and descriptions of these locations in sources that go back to biblical times. It isn't that we have more evidence for biblical geography (though that is true enough), but that we have kinds of hard evidence for biblical geography that is (so far as I know) completely lacking for Book of Mormon New World geography. That evidence is non-circumstantial, hard external evidence for the major biblical lands, rivers, seas, cities, etc.; to my knowledge there is none for specifically Book of Mormon locations in the Western Hemisphere.

You wrote:

As Barbour points out, our paradigms influence what we notice and value. So, we get a notice of internal arguments, a valuation of internal evidences as "really interesting" which is well and good, but this leads to another notice and valuation.... I'm trying to reconcile the list that Brant provided to begin this thread with a valuation of external evidence as "almost entirely lacking." For me, "almost entirely lacking" seems a poor description. Brant has explained that he uses the same approach to the New World settings that William Dever applies to Biblical archeology. So the generalization seems to me directed not at the research that Brant has done (see his six volume commentary and FAIR presentations), but as describing a personal set of expectations as regards what might constitute evidence for him, based on expectations derived from Biblical archeology. It seems to me a situation rather like that in Poe's story, the Purloined Letter, where official investigators looking with one set of expectations find nothing, and Poe's detective simply notices the significance of what is in plain sight.

Brant's skeleton outline in his opening post consists largely of internal evidences (literary structures, thematic elements in the text, etc.) and circumstantial arguments for a general fit of Book of Mormon elements with ancient Mesoamerican geography, language, and culture. Biblical archaeology, even in the minimalist approach, begins with various external correspondences (geographical, linguistic, historical, biographical, etc.) that are known facts beyond reasonable dispute. Again, I didn't deny that LDS scholars and apologists offer evidence for the Book of Mormon. I simply asserted that very little of it is external evidence, as that term is customarily used in historical inquiry. Whether the internal and circumstantial lines of evidential argument are sufficient to establish that the Book of Mormon is authentic ancient literature is another question, the answer to which obviously depends on one's assessment of those multiple lines of argument in relation to the whole. I take this issue seriously enough that I am devoting a great deal of my time and energies to pursuing a careful study of such evidences.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I had written:

We do, as has been pointed out, have other ancient, extant writings for which we only have a version or translation in a different language than the original. Several examples can be found among the Nag Hammadi texts; these manuscripts are written in Coptic and are dated to the fourth century, but are believed to be translations of works originally written in Greek. For most of these, the Coptic translation is all that is extant. (For a few of them, small fragments in Greek have also been found elsewhere.) I think you want to know why one would accept these ancient Coptic manuscripts as translations of earlier Greek originals but not accept the English Book of Mormon as a translation of an earlier Reformed Egyptian original. Is that correct? There are answers, but I'd like to know if this is the argument you or others here are making. If it is, I would be happy to explain.

I'm wondering if any LDS here are making an argument of this type, and if so, if anyone would be interested in a response to it. I don't wish to reply to an argument that is not being made....

[Jeff K.]

We do, as has been pointed out, have other ancient, extant writings for which we only have a version or translation in a different language than the original. Several examples can be found among the Nag Hammadi texts; these manuscripts are written in Coptic and are dated to the fourth century, but are believed to be translations of works originally written in Greek. For most of these, the Coptic translation is all that is extant. (For a few of them, small fragments in Greek have also been found elsewhere.) I think you want to know why one would accept these ancient Coptic manuscripts as translations of earlier Greek originals but not accept the English Book of Mormon as a translation of an earlier Reformed Egyptian original. Is that correct? There are answers, but I'd like to know if this is the argument you or others here are making. If it is, I would be happy to explain.

Thought I would highlight the salient points.

[volgadon]

The article at that link builds a circumstantial case for one river rather than another in Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon's River Sidon, proceeding from the conclusion established on other grounds that Mesoamerica provides the best fit for the geography of the Book of Mormon. The article does not provide external evidence that the River Sidon actually existed. I acknowledge that a cumulative case based on numerous such circumstantial arguments could, if it fit the most important criteria or qualifications for identifying Book of Mormon locations, constitute a strong circumstantial argument that such locations correspond to real places. I haven't seen a successful cumulative case of this kind yet, but I'm still going through the literature and working through the issues (on this and several other Book of Mormon subjects). As best I can tell, though, the fact remains that the arguments are at best circumstantial. By contrast, no argument needs to be developed for locating the major places of the Bible. We know and have always known where to find Jerusalem, the Jordan River, the Sea of Galilee, Babylon, Rome, etc. Not only have these locations been public knowledge since biblical times, we have external evidence (i.e., external to the Bible) for these place names and descriptions of these locations in sources that go back to biblical times. It isn't that we have more evidence for biblical geography (though that is true enough), but that we have kinds of hard evidence for biblical geography that is (so far as I know) completely lacking for Book of Mormon New World geography. That evidence is non-circumstantial, hard external evidence for the major biblical lands, rivers, seas, cities, etc.; to my knowledge there is none for specifically Book of Mormon locations in the Western Hemisphere.

Are you aware of the search for Gamla?

[Jaybear]

Thought I would highlight the salient points.

Not quite. What is missing is the context in how the Coptic translations purported to come about.

Did the Coptic translators understand Greek, or were they using a seer stone and relying on divine intervention?

Do we have examples of other translations and the original Greek manuscripts to compare to test their translation skills?

Clearly, if the Coptic translators used a seer stone, and we have no original manuscripts to test their skills with the stone, then it would make no sense to reject the BOM, while accepting the Coptic translations.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Except that without some knowledge of, and access to the originals the means of translations is irrelevant. The translators of the KJV used the oldest manuscripts they had available, and they still added to/took away major portions of it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Clearly, if the Coptic translators used a seer stone, and we have no original manuscripts to test their skills with the stone, then it would make no sense to reject the BOM, while accepting the Coptic translations.

Ohp, Jaybear is a funny fellow. They used a seer stone, hahahahah.

[Kevin Christensen]

The article at that link builds a circumstantial case for one river rather than another in Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon's River Sidon, proceeding from the conclusion established on other grounds that Mesoamerica provides the best fit for the geography of the Book of Mormon.

The useful abstract phrase "builds a circumstantial case" does not do justice to the specifics in this case. To quote Poulson:

The river Sidon , however, occurs 37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least

six different geographical locations. Using satellite maps, a 3D satellite mapping program and the text of the

Book of Mormon, the geography of the Americas was analyzed in an attempt to find unique areas that

correlate with the textual descriptions of the river Sidon. The following comparison with the Grijalva River is

the result of that investigation.

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

Also:

http://poulsenll.org/bom/zarahemla.html

Using the three dimensional satellite maps incorporated into the computer

program

[Jeff K.]

Not quite. What is missing is the context in how the Coptic translations purported to come about.

Did the Coptic translators understand Greek, or were they using a seer stone and relying on divine intervention?

Do we have examples of other translations and the original Greek manuscripts to compare to test their translation skills?

Clearly, if the Coptic translators used a seer stone, and we have no original manuscripts to test their skills with the stone, then it would make no sense to reject the BOM, while accepting the Coptic translations.

Not really since the earliest original translation we have is almost half a millenia older than the purported events and so it is the equivalent of several translations of the Book of Mormon 500 years from now. Does that mean that somehow the Book of Mormon will become more legitimate? Is that your reasoning?

We have no original manuscript by which to test their skills in either translation or ability to accurate reflect context.