Faith Vs. Science

[WalkerW]

I will say this though: I think one's faith (or one's life in general) should share the same principles as science. This is why I think Articles of Faith #9 is so important:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

In other words, we don't know everything. He must be open, humble, and willing to learn. Hugh B. Brown had some excellent things to say about this:

There seems today to be a tendency toward flippant thinking, a lack of thought. There seems to be a tendency to belittle what our fathers and mothers thought because we feel we have made some progress scientifically. We are too ready to conclude that everything from past generations is now folly and that our main duty today, as far as the past is concerned, is to get away from it. There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific -- that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in. Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self.

I should like to awaken in everyone a desire to investigate, to make an independent study of religion, and to know for themselves whether or not the teachings of the Mormon church are true. I should like to see everyone prepared to defend the religion of his or her parents, not because it was the religion of our fathers and mothers but because they have found it to be the true religion. If one approaches it with an open mind, with a desire to know the truth, and if one questions with a sincere heart what one hears from time to time, he or she will be on the road to growth and service. There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storm of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. Then, and only then, will we be able to defend our religion successfully. When I speak of defending our religion, I do not mean such defense as an army makes on the battlefield but the defense of a clean and upright and virtuous life lived in harmony with an intelligent belief and understanding of the gospel.

<P align=left>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this practical view of religion: that religion should help us here and now; that we should not have to wait until after we are dead to get any benefits; that religion as understood and applied makes men and women more successful, happier, more contented, gives them aspiration and hope; that religion is the vitalizing force, religion is that which gives men and women an ideal, an ideal so high that it may be seen from both sides of the valley of life.

The religion of the Latter-day Saints teaches youth that as children of God, they are expected to acquire experience as they go through life and that experience will ripen into knowledge, that knowledge will ripen into wisdom and intelligence, and that their greatness will be in proportion to their intelligence. So the religion of the Latter-day Saints is not just theory from a book or taught in church. The gospel is a plan of which God is the author, a plan of which we are all necessary parts. My religion sweetens my life. My religion, if properly lived, helps me to be a better friend to my associates, a better neighbor, a better citizen, a better father, a better man. If I am sincere in it, my religion forbids me to do to my neighbors what I would not want them to do to me, either in word or act. My religion, in other words, is that which is the greatest part of me.

I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

As we all proceed to make our individual "declarations of independence," I hope we can distinguish between liberty and license, that we can realize that freedom is only a blessing if it is accompanied by wisdom and intelligence. At the same time, we all need to resist the down-drag of mental laziness which sometimes leads to the premature hardening of the intellectual arteries. And I would especially urge all of us to avoid sluggishness of spirit, which is the worst kind of lethargy. Some people are phlegmatic to a degree that would make a turtle seem intolerably vivacious. I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.

Both science and religion beget humility. Scientists and teachers of religion disagree among themselves on theological and other subjects. Even in our own church men and women take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.

We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity. No one would have us become mere tape recorders of other people's thoughts. We should be modest and teachable and seek to know the truth by study and faith. There have been times when progress was halted by thought control. Tolerance and truth demand that all be heard and that competing ideas be tested against each other so that the best, which might not always be our own, can prevail.

Knowledge is the most complete and dependable when all points of view are heard. We are in a world of restlessness and skepticism, where old things are not only challenged but often disappear, but also a world of miraculous achievement, undreamed of accomplishment, and terrifying power. Science offers wonderful tools for helping to create the brotherhood of humanity on earth, but the cement of brotherhood does not come from any laboratory. It must come from the heart and mind and spirit of men and women.

We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion... One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings.

<P align=left>We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.

And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within...

[WalkerW]

By this logic, one could claim that the jury is still out on fairies in the garden because scientists have ignored the evidence for their existence contained in a myriad of books and centuries old eyewitness accounts.

Perhaps. But a better comparison would be the initial dismissal of Troy.

The book itself claims to be a historical record and was presented by the author/translator and witnesses as such. And there has been a growing body of scholarship addressing this very issue. "Mormonism is stupid" is not overwhelming evidence to the contrary, no matter how many times you rephrase it.

[Vex]

By this logic, one could claim that the jury is still out on fairies in the garden because scientists have ignored the evidence for their existence contained in a myriad of books and centuries old eyewitness accounts.

By your supposed logic we could ignore the existence of the Kraken, or even sharks attacking humans unprovoked prior to 1916

[WalkerW]

In fact, considering the evidence for these two assertions, the probability of finding a fairy would be greater than that of finding a Lamanite.

Aren't you clever?

[semlogo]

By this logic, one could claim that the jury is still out on fairies in the garden because scientists have ignored the evidence for their existence contained in a myriad of books and centuries old eyewitness accounts.

In fact, considering the evidence for fairies in the garden and Lamanites, the probability of finding the former would seem greater than that of finding the latter.

I would be willing to admit that while physical evidence for the Book of Mormon in the Americas is almost non-existent, I have faith that evidence will eventually turn up. I make no pretensions that anyone should believe in the BoM based on evidence.

[Jeff K.]

"Generally accepted? By whom?".....well, off the top of my head, I know that the Smithsonian Institute issued statements in 1996 and 1998 stating that the Book of Mormon is "a religious document and not a scientific guide," and that it "has found no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." Also, the National Geopgraphic Society, in 1998, stated in a letter to the Institute for Religious Research that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." So, in a sense, you are correct, the scientific community has not stated that the Book of Mormon is false, they just state that no evidence has ver been found to substantiate the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And this is considered a victory by apologists? Yes, very scientific indeed.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

Let us be clear. I do not think anyone has declared the Book of Mormon to be a scientific document. As to finding no evidence to support its claims, I believe that is a matter of interpretation that goes in greater depth than the somewhat revised Smithsonian statements. The Book of Mormon certainly makes no such claim, nor do any of its leaders. To presume such is to presume a claim that is not made by either the Book of Mormons or non members.

So you bring up a non issue to prove something that never occurred.

Again:

The scientific community has not really stated that the Book of Mormon is false. If you care to present a peer reviewed document that is not in dispute I will be happy to read it. Otherwise it really is simply an unproven hypothesis one way or the other.

The National Geographic and Smithsonian have merely stated they have found no definitive proof of the Book of Mormon's veracity. One could say as much regarding the existence of King David or perhaps Jesus Christ also, and until a few years ago, chariots in Egypt during the time of Ramses the Great. Does this mean that chariots did not exist in Egypt or does it mean no definitive proof was found? Your position that somehow the lack of proof means no proof is a fallacy at best and has been disproved time and again in history. You need something better than vague statements.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

In other words, don't bother you with facts, or discussion, leave you to your own prejudices. I understand, but that doesn't change the issues. Your definition of a devolving discussion (ie you disagree therefore the discussion devolves) reflects a certain close mindedness that only serves to curtail your own abilities to understand cultures and people. Where you one of those that claimed that no chariots existed in the Ramses Dynasty because no evidence was found or did you consider the possibility that such items might have existed? If so, then why the double standard?

[44Foxtrot]

Perhaps. But a better comparison would be the initial dismissal of Troy.

Not really.

Because of Homer's Iliad, archeologists knew approximately where to look for Troy. Early doubt regarding the existence of Troy was due, in part, to tha fact that Homer's Iliad was written several hundred years after the events described therein were to have taken place. But Troy was eventually found, and it was found pretty much where the Iliad placed it.

In the Book of Mormon we have a a narrative that is claimed to have been written contemporarily (or nearly so ) with the events described. Yet as in fairy tales, the actual locations of named places and events are not described in sufficient detail to allow them to be determined in real life.

In fairy tales, one is simply asked to use their imagination. So it is with the Book of Mormon.

Mormon "scholars" have no idea whatsoever where to start looking for Zarahamla, or the "real" Hill Cumorah, or any other place described in the book. None. Instead we are treated to "inspired" claims that place Book of Mormon lands from the Northeastern United States through Mesoamerica and all the way down to Peru for goodness sake.

We have direct statements by inspired leaders of the Church that the final battle described in the Book of Mormon took place where Joseph Smith supposedly found the golden plates. Yet, since there is no evidence whatsoever for such a battle at this location, or anywhere near it, Mormons simply theorize that there must be another Hill Cumorah at yet another unspecified location.

Given these differences between Troy and any New World place named in the Book of Mormon, can you really, with a straight face, suggest that Zarahemla and Troy have anything like equal status in archeology?

Based on the evidence, can you seriously claim that scienists should pay more attention to the Book of Mormon?

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

I agree. While the researchers have yet to find a ancient highway sign saying "Zarahemla next 5 exits". There are those that would reject it even if it was found.

[44Foxtrot]

I would be willing to admit that while physical evidence for the Book of Mormon in the Americas is almost non-existent, I have faith that evidence will eventually turn up. I make no pretensions that anyone should believe in the BoM based on evidence.

Thank you for your candid response. I would imagine that a great many faithful Mormons must have a similar attitude.

Let me ask you a question. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the mainstream scientific narrative of New World history from approximately 15,000 BC to approximately 600 AD is accurate, and that the Book of Mormon narrative for that fits into this time period is not?

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I agree. While the researchers have yet to find a ancient highway sign saying "Zarahemla next 5 exits". There are those that would reject it even if it was found.

I'm sure that is the case.

[WalkerW]

...Mormon "scholars"...

Pretty much everything you just posted is incorrect. The only thing that would make it correct is if one adopts the attitude above toward Mormons. You don't care what Brant Gardner, John E. Clark, John Sorenson (who constructed a geographical model based on what the text itself actually says), etc. have to say about the matter because they are Mormon. By putting cute quotations around the word 'scholar', you have alleviated yourself from dealing with the research provided by these individuals.

Overwhelming bigotry (which you display in just about every post you make) is not the same as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

[semlogo]

Thank you for your candid response. I would imagine that a great many faithful Mormons must have a similar attitude.

Let me ask you a question. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the mainstream scientific narrative of New World history from approximately 15,000 BC to approximately 600 AD is accurate, and that the Book of Mormon narrative for that fits into this time period is not?

You're welcome.

That's a difficult question for me to answer because I'm not terribly well-informed on the state of archeology in the Americas. It's impossible to prove a negative (ie prove Nephites didn't exist), but if it were demonstrated to me that we knew enough about the ancient peoples/tribes in order to reasonably rule the Nephites out - ie conclude that their existence is not plausible, I'd have to accept that. I don't honestly know what the tipping point for that kind of evidence would look like, though.

I should say that I do accept the mainstream scientific narrative - that the ancestors of the native Americans came from Asia. The question is whether there some evidence of a Jerusalem migration in there somewhere as well. Yes, I realize it has been claimed that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the native Americans, and I accept that that claim is obviously wrong.

[44Foxtrot]

Pretty much everything you just posted is incorrect. The only thing that would make it correct is if one adopts the attitude above toward Mormons. You don't care what Brant Gardner, John E. Clark, John Sorenson (who constructed a geographical model based on what the text itself actually says), etc. have to say about the matter because they are Mormon. By putting cute quotations around the word 'scholar', you have alleviated yourself from dealing with the research provided by these individuals.

On the contrary. I have read enough of what these individuals have to say on the subject to understand why what passes for scholarship related to the Book of Mormon in the apologetics community seldom, if ever, makes the grade in the mainstream scientific community.

From my point of view, these indviduals are doing the best they can given the utter lack of physical archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon narrative. However, what they are doing in apologetcis is of little value to the scientific community as a whole and certainly does not merit any more attention from the mainstream scintific community than it currently receives.

I think that the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonain have it about right in their written response to inquiries about the work done by Mormon apologists, whether it be B.H Roberts (who may well have figured it out), Hugh Nibley, or the current set of hopefuls.

[44Foxtrot]

You're welcome.

That's a difficult question for me to answer because I'm not terribly well-informed on the state of archeology in the Americas. It's impossible to prove a negative (ie prove Nephites didn't exist), but if it were demonstrated to me that we knew enough about the ancient peoples/tribes in order to reasonably rule the Nephites out - ie conclude that their existence is not plausible, I'd have to accept that. I don't honestly know what the tipping point for that kind of evidence would look like, though.

I should say that I do accept the mainstream scientific narrative - that the ancestors of the native Americans came from Asia. The question is whether there some evidence of a Jerusalem migration in there somewhere as well. Yes, I realize it has been claimed that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the native Americans, and I accept that that claim is obviously wrong.

semlogo

And again, thank you for a very candid and reasonable response.

You might well draw some fire here because of it.

My guess is that you learned long ago when to keep your head down.

[Jeff K.]

On the contrary. I have read enough of what these individuals have to say on the subject to understand why what passes for scholarship related to the Book of Mormon in the apologetics community seldom, if ever, makes the grade in the mainstream scientific community.

You seem very sure of yourself, but can you show us what you have seen and where you critique lies because so far, you have endeavored to pump the bellows, but only a little wind comes out. I would be interested to see which scholarship you found to be lacking and specifically why. Feel free to indulge your ego with something solid for a change. I have yet to see you produce something substantive in your claims beyond a vagueness that has about as much meat on it as an Ethiopian anorexic fasting.

[Jeff K.]

"Generally accepted? By whom?".....well, off the top of my head, I know that the Smithsonian Institute issued statements in 1996 and 1998 stating that the Book of Mormon is "a religious document and not a scientific guide," and that it "has found no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." Also, the National Geopgraphic Society, in 1998, stated in a letter to the Institute for Religious Research that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." So, in a sense, you are correct, the scientific community has not stated that the Book of Mormon is false, they just state that no evidence has ver been found to substantiate the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And this is considered a victory by apologists? Yes, very scientific indeed.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

Let us be clear. I do not think anyone has declared the Book of Mormon to be a scientific document. As to finding no evidence to support its claims, I believe that is a matter of interpretation that goes in greater depth than the somewhat revised Smithsonian statements. The Book of Mormon certainly makes no such claim, nor do any of its leaders. To presume such is to presume a claim that is not made by either the Book of Mormons or non members.

So you bring up a non issue to prove something that never occurred.

Again:

The scientific community has not really stated that the Book of Mormon is false. If you care to present a peer reviewed document that is not in dispute I will be happy to read it. Otherwise it really is simply an unproven hypothesis one way or the other.

The National Geographic and Smithsonian have merely stated they have found no definitive proof of the Book of Mormon's veracity. One could say as much regarding the existence of King David or perhaps Jesus Christ also, and until a few years ago, chariots in Egypt during the time of Ramses the Great. Does this mean that chariots did not exist in Egypt or does it mean no definitive proof was found? Your position that somehow the lack of proof means no proof is a fallacy at best and has been disproved time and again in history. You need something better than vague statements.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

In other words, don't bother you with facts, or discussion, leave you to your own prejudices. I understand, but that doesn't change the issues. Your definition of a devolving discussion (ie you disagree therefore the discussion devolves) reflects a certain close mindedness that only serves to curtail your own abilities to understand cultures and people. Where you one of those that claimed that no chariots existed in the Ramses Dynasty because no evidence was found or did you consider the possibility that such items might have existed? If so, then why the double standard?

[44Foxtrot]

You seem very sure of yourself, but can you show us what you have seen and where you critique lies because so far, you have endeavored to pump the bellows, but only a little wind comes out. I would be interested to see which scholarship you found to be lacking and specifically why. Feel free to indulge your ego with something solid for a change. I have yet to see you produce something substantive in your claims beyond a vagueness that has about as much meat on it as an Ethiopian anorexic fasting.

From what I can see, I am not the one who is avoiding the questions on this thread. If Walker or others were to answer the questions I posed back in post #82, I would be glad to provide specifics regarding the shortcomings of Mormon scholarship related the Book of Mormon as I see them (and they are legion).

In mainstream science, unless critique of a body of work is specifically and individually requested by the investigator or the editor of a journal considering publication of the work, comments or critiques generally wait until the work appears in print in a peer reviewed journal.

I trust that my point here is clear.

[J Green]

From one of my favorite archaeologists:

It is impossible to grasp

any

religious tradition by approaching it with contempt, or hostility or an air of superiority (in that case, why bother?). But while observers must not condemn out of hand, neither can they simply adopt the truth-claims of any particular religion at face value, for that would also result in a loss of perspective. And a

balanced perspective

is what is required -- a balance of disinterested critical judgment, but also of positive appreciation. To give up either is to become an ideologue on the one hand, or a cynic on the other. We cannot be truly "scientific"; but we can and must be

systematic

if ours is to be a disciplined inquiry. (William G. Dever,

Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], 11-12; emphasis in the original.)

Regards

[Jeff K.]

You are obfuscating and avoiding the answer. Which scholarly articles have you read and what specifically was your critique, you may consider this a CFR. You made the claim, I have yet to see it. Please feel free to provide the information.

On the contrary. I have read enough of what these individuals have to say on the subject to understand why what passes for scholarship related to the Book of Mormon in the apologetics community seldom, if ever, makes the grade in the mainstream scientific community.

Now provide the documentation that reflects your claim.

[Daniel Peterson]

On the contrary. I have read enough of what these individuals have to say on the subject to understand why what passes for scholarship related to the Book of Mormon in the apologetics community seldom, if ever, makes the grade in the mainstream scientific community.

From my point of view, these indviduals are doing the best they can given the utter lack of physical archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon narrative. However, what they are doing in apologetcis is of little value to the scientific community as a whole and certainly does not merit any more attention from the mainstream scintific community than it currently receives.

I think that the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonain have it about right in their written response to inquiries about the work done by Mormon apologists, whether it be B.H Roberts (who may well have figured it out), Hugh Nibley, or the current set of hopefuls.

For those who haven't yet read it, I recommend John Clark's entry on "Mormon Scholars Testify":

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark

Despite the obvious logical handicaps and intellectual deficiencies that beset him as a believing Latter-day Saint, Dr. Clark's grasp of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and of its archaeology may not be terribly far behind 44Foxtrot's.

[ERayR]

For those who haven't yet read it, I recommend John Clark's entry on "Mormon Scholars Testify":

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166/john-e-clark

Despite the obvious logical handicaps and intellectual deficiencies that beset him as a believing Latter-day Saint, Dr. Clark's grasp of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and of its archaeology may not be terribly far behind 44Foxtrot's.

Dan, you must be mistaken. Nothing can approach 44Foxtrots intellectual capabilities. Just ask him.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, you must be mistaken. Nothing can approach 44Foxtrot's intellectual capabilities. Just ask him.

I know. I know. I realized, even as I typed the note above, that I was committing a fearsome act of l

[44Foxtrot]

You are obfuscating and avoiding the answer. Which scholarly articles have you read and what specifically was your critique, you may consider this a CFR. You made the claim, I have yet to see it. Please feel free to provide the information.

Now provide the documentation that reflects your claim.

John L. Sorenson's evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" provides an excellent example of the comparison between mainstream secular science and apologetics.

Dr. Sorenson (who I have never met and assume to be a very nice man) apparently feels a need to try to refute this mainstream scientific view of Book of Mormon claims, but finds it impossible to do so in any effective manner, so plays to the Mormon audience by employing the usual apologetic approaches.

Instead of refuting the Smithsonian statement with facts, he attacks the Smithsonian and then offers opinions (not physical evidence) as to why their statement might be inaccurate on a few minor points. He tries to pick out a few issues on which he might raise some doubt regarding the Smithsonian statement while failing to acknowledge that, overall, his nit picking makes no difference to its point or impact.

In his response to the nine points of the Smithsonian statement, he conveniently chooses to address those which are fatal to the Book of Mormon narrative with nothing but a hand wave. In other cases, he simply misrepresents the facts.

Here are two examples of where his apologetics gets in the way of his scholarship.

"It is not apparent why this particular statement is included, since the Book of Mormon itself does not make any particular claim of an Egyptian connection."

This is disingenuous to say the least since Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was written in "Reformed Egyptian". He fails to mention this fact, or for that matter, the fact that there is no credible evidence that "Reformed Egyptian" has ever existed except in the minds of the faithful.

Perhaps he believes that the failure to acknowledge the claimed role of "Reformed Egyptian" in the Book of Mormon saga will make it unnecessary for him to explain how a supposed record of the principal ancestors of the Native Americans can be written in a language of which no other examples have ever been found, in Mesoamerica or anywhere else.

Here is another example.

Where was this scene? It is essentially certain that only Mesoamerica could be it.

In making this claim, Dr. Sorenson again fails to acknowledge the obvious problems with his assertion, including the fact that Joseph Smith himself claimed that the Lamanites ranged widely over North America. He fails to mention that Smith's identification of the remains of Zelph (a "white Lamanite") and the claimed location of the Hill Cumorah are two problems for his " It is essentially certain that only Mesoamerica could be it." statement.

Finally there are the references used for his article. In criticizing the Smithsonian statement Dr. Sorenson states that "knowledge has expanded vastly" and implies that the Smithsonian somehow lags behind this expansion. Yet, when one looks at the references for the article, one sees no reference to work published after the Smithsonian statement was made. Dr. Sorenson does, however, reference his own unpublished book, which is not very scholarly thing to do.

I take this as an indication that the later findings of mainstream scientists are less favorable to his cause than those of 30 years ago or more. If the expansion of knowledge is really mitigating in favor of the Book of Mormon as he implies, why not cite some of the newer secular scientific findings?

In summary, what I see in the works of Dr. Sorenson, as described above, or of Brant Gardner or Hugh Nibley when it comes to the Book of Mormon is more apologetics than scholarship.

[44Foxtrot]

From one of my favorite archaeologists:

It is impossible to grasp

any

religious tradition by approaching it with contempt, or hostility or an air of superiority (in that case, why bother?). But while observers must not condemn out of hand, neither can they simply adopt the truth-claims of any particular religion at face value, for that would also result in a loss of perspective. And a

balanced perspective

is what is required -- a balance of disinterested critical judgment, but also of positive appreciation. To give up either is to become an ideologue on the one hand, or a cynic on the other.

We cannot be truly "scientific"; but we can and must be

systematic

if ours is to be a disciplined inquiry.

(William G. Dever,

Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], 11-12; emphasis in the original.)

Regards

I like this quotation as well. The passage in bold above pretty much sums up the problem. The core assertions of religion cannot be validated scientifically. As the Smithsonian has noted, the Book of Mormon is a religious text. Along with its companion, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon has been shown to have less basis in reality than many, if not most, other religious texts.

Mormons, and especially the apologists among them, should simply acknowledge this fact. Mormon apologists, and especially those with a Ph.D., should stop pretending that what they are currently doing when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon is science. They should know better.

[volgadon]

Mormons, and especially the apologists among them, should simply acknowledge this fact. Mormon apologists, and especially those with a Ph.D., should stop pretending that what they are currently doing when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon is science. They should know better.

Once again we have an example of how you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. In most every other language I know of, science includes the things you are disparaging.

And also, though the jobs you are hiring for weren't around in Newton's day, your reply was a dodge.