Critical Thinking And The Bom

[cksalmon]

If I know just one thing about Mormon apologists, I know this: they really, really hate to be labeled as presuppositionalists.

[volgadon]

If I know just one thing about Mormon apologists, I know this: they really, really hate to be labeled as presuppositionalists.

So much so that I must mix myself a stiff glass of buttermilk to soothe the nerves.

[Kevin Christensen]

Ash is citing Nibley's discussion of methodology from 1953, New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study, which in turn is referring to the standard text on testing documents, which methodology was developed by the Renaissance Scholars dealing with the problem of authenticating the flood of documents that ended up triggering the Renaissance in the first place.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=11

To illustrate this claim and not to undertake a thorough investigation at this time, let us briefly apply to the Book of Mormon the main rules put forth by Friedrich Blass in his classic work on hermeneutics and criticism, which remains the "standard work" on the subject.3 The rules given by Blass are all obvious enough to experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon.

To begin with, says Blass, "We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it." You always begin by assuming that a text is genuine.4 What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? One can hear the screams of protest: "How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!" Yet to the experience of the centuries Blass adds perfectly convincing reasons for his shocking rule. It is equally biased to accept or reject a text at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress.

Jacoby, the foremost authority on Greek historical writing, observes that no great historical writing was ever produced "sine ira et studio"5—in other words, without partiality—one must take a stand on something if one is to lift or move anything. An open mind is not a mind devoid of opinions, but one that is willing to change opinions in the face of new evidence. If we must assume something about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the outset, why not assume that it is false, as its critics regularly do? Because, says Friedrich Blass, once you assume that a document is a fake, no arguments and no evidence to the end of time can ever vindicate it, even if it is absolutely genuine. Why is that? Because "there can be no such thing as an absolutely positive proof."6 The only possible certainty lies in the negative; for example, if we know for sure that a crime has been committed by a woman, the negative fact that a suspect is not a woman completely exonerates him; but on the other hand the fact that one is a woman proves neither guilt nor innocence. Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.

It happens that in practice both falsification and verification have limits. (See my Paradigms Crossed in RMMB 7:2). But testing a purportedly ancient document against the setting it claims for itself is a far more rigorous and exacting test than simply picking at an apparent flaw, and declaring the case it closed. (See my Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" in the last FARMS Review for an example. And John Clark's survey of trends toward reconcilliation.

Nibley cites Blass again:

But how can we be certain about anything in criticizing the Book of Mormon? To this Blass gives us the answer: the nearest we can get to certainty, he says, is when we have before us a long, historical document, for it is "improbable in the highest degree, and therefore to be regarded at all times as inadmissible that any forger coming later [than the pretended date of authorship] can have the knowledge and diligence necessary to present any quantity of historical data without running into contradictions." In this, the one sure way of detecting a falsifier, according to our guide, is by those things which he cannot well have succeeded in imitating because they were too trifling, too inconspicuous, and too troublesome to reproduce.9

In Lehi in the Desert we said: The test of an historical document lies, as we have so often insisted, not in the story it tells, but in the casual details that only an eye-witness can have seen.10 It is in such incidental and inconspicuous details that the Book of Mormon shines. Blass, then, notes that when these details occur in considerable numbers (as they certainly do in the Book of Mormon), we can confidently assume a genuine text; and, above all, when the large numbers of details fit together and prove each other, we have the strongest proof of all, for difficulties increase not mathematically with the length of a document, but geometrically.11

Speaking of the Sorry Tale for instance, Richard L. Anderson tested it:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=15

The Sorry Tale

This justly forgotten novel impressed American reviewers of the World War I generation but can only be reviewed as sterile bombast today. Its notoriety came from author Pearl Curran's story of receiving dictation of poetry and historical tales from the spirit of a "Puritan spinster" called Patience Worth.56 The first awe-struck reviews were naively requoted in a recent Mormon journal article. The book is ambiguous about its fictional character, subtitled "A Story of the Time of Christ," but it contains speeches predicting that "words spoken here without the walls of Bethlehem" shall yet speak "through time and ages."57 Supporters of The Sorry Tale argued minute historical accuracy for its scenes, so its quality is evaluated here.

Mrs. Curran's editor stated the plot as follows:

Christ himself is the outstanding and speaking character, though the central figure is a son of the Emperor Tiberius by Theia, a dancing slave, who names him Hatte. He is born outside the walls of Bethlehem on the same night in which Christ was born, and the two lives move on parallel paths to the tragedy on Calvary, where Hatte also is crucified, being the person known as the "unrepentant thief."58

This contrived story grinds through five hundred pages of simplistic narrative and tedious dialogue before featuring Jesus. The whole is subvictorian prose at its predictable worst, where tears are dropping jewels and bosoms regularly heave. Despite Mrs. Curran's claim of "panoramic" moving pictures in her mind, The Sorry Tale notably lacks social and physical details. If they are mentioned, the score for accuracy is low. For instance, Mrs. Curran claimed to envision "the ark as it was at that time, restored," but this relic had long since disappeared from Jewish scripture and history.59 The Roman governor sat in an oriental court, with "vested virgins" dancing before him, and Jesus shocked the masses by dining with the Pharisees, though they are known in the Gospels and Josephus as popularly respected. The unhistorical "eye of the needle" gate is described, with the physically implausible act of the camel inching through it on his knees.60

If this Tale cannot recreate settings, what is its picture of Christ? The free and rapid dictation shows a patchwork of events from the Gospels—their historical integrity is flaunted in random chronology and modified message. The canonical five loaves and two fishes diminishes to "two fishes and a loaf," and the miraculous is next subtracted. Although all Gospels detail how five thousand were physically fed, The Sorry Tale gives a sentimental version of how hunger vanished as the crowd was overwhelmed with truth. The close is an unrealistic platitude on Jesus' lips: "for the body crieth out only when the spirit is barren."61 Since the Tale reports no resurrection, the natural crescendo of Christ's teachings is the Last Supper and the Garden, but here the reader meets no suffering Savior. Emotive prose changes the grim night arrest to a pregnant dawn; the bloody sweat is reduced to a footnote while Christ's insuperable burden becomes a pleasant prayer about "supping sweet the cup." This storybook Jesus gently wanders back to his Apostles, "pausing to pluck a branch and kiss it, plucking up a stone, to smile and leave it fall."62

The Sorry Tale spins overdone human tragedy but fades out the divine tragedy of Christ's atonement for sin. Its Jesus teaches an unstructured "kingdom of love" but drops out the realities of sin and salvation, church and ordinances. Such oversimplified humanism does not match the Christ of the Gospels.

Anderson goes on to demonstrate how impressive 3 Nephi looks in comparison to a range of rival modern gospels.

I agree with Mike Ash's little essay. And Brant and Larry here. And of course Nibley and Blass on the best methodology.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/705373944/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-A-better-methodology.html?pg=2

Nothing like going in with an open mind.

"when examining the Book of Mormon, we must begin by assuming that it was really written by ancient authors."

I think that's a great place to start. It assumes that one already has obtained a personal witness of its truth, and doesn't need to spend a lifetime being stuck and paralyzed by unbelief. Then, and only then, can the real learning begin.

[Calm]

So we have started with an assumption and stuck with it even though there is no proof the assumption is warranted.

There is a difference between saying there is "no proof" and saying there is no "absolute proof".

[volgadon]

At the start of his academic carreer, Gershom Scholem set out to show that the Zohar was in the main a Tannaitic work. During the course of his investigations he was forced to abandon that hypothesis and conclude that it was mainly 13th century Spanish work. Subsequent scholars, such as Idel, Liebes, and Meroz have softened that conclusion somewhat, showing that some portions and concepts are indeed earlier, but Scholem's conclusion is mostly sound.

[cinepro]

Speaking of the Sorry Tale for instance, Richard L. Anderson tested it:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=15

When Richard L. Anderson "tested" it, did he start with the assumption that it was an authentic depiction of an ancient work? Certainly the title of the piece seems to lead the reader to the forgone conclusion:

"Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry"

Would the Maxwell institute have published the article if it used the same methodologies and was titled "Imitation Gospels Including Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry", and gave the Book of Mormon the same hatchet job that he gives "A Sorry Tale" (i.e. "Chloroform in Print")?

And when analyzing "A Sorry Tale", did he search for parallels and confirming evidences? How many did he find?

And did he compare it to other authentic documents that have been restored through similar methods?

[Kevin Christensen]

When Richard L. Anderson "tested" it, did he start with the assumption that it was an authentic depiction of an ancient work? Certainly the title of the piece seems to lead the reader to the forgone conclusion:

"Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry"

The content of the lengthy, detailed piece leads this reader to an understanding and appreciation of the title.

Would the Maxwell institute have published the article if it used the same methodologies and was titled "Imitation Gospels Including Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry", and gave the Book of Mormon the same hatchet job that he gives "A Sorry Tale" (i.e. "Chloroform in Print")?

Anderson provides a variety of tests for the Book of Mormon in its ancient context that the Sorry Tale and other comparable modern gospels do not pass at all. From my perspective, this is not so much a hatchet job as an evaluation according to rational criteria. If the essay had nothing original, authentic, and significant to say about the Book of Mormon, I doubt the Maxwell Institute would have published it. I think it one of the most important an enlightening essays on the Book of Mormon.

And when analyzing "A Sorry Tale", did he search for parallels and confirming evidences? How many did he find?

I expect that if other writings from New Testament times, and modern archeology had demonstrated that Jesus spoke in sub-Victorian prose, that Bethlehem has a wall, or that there really was an "eye-of-the needle" gate through which laden camels could illustratively crawl, that Anderson would have reported it. Or had the Sorry Tale contained the Pesher form that Anderson finds in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in 3 Nephi, he would have mentioned that, or if the logia in A Sorry Tale measured up, he would have mentioned that. Also, if you knew anything of equivalent worth, you could have provided it.

And did he compare it to other authentic documents that have been restored through similar methods?

He compares it, and several other documents to the 3 Nephi, and notes consistent contrasts in quality and consistency with the New Testament. I provided a link Anderson's essay to that interested individuals could read it for themselves, assuming that the disinterested would not bother.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

I agree that one should start from the assumption that the document is ancient but I didn't make it past the first page of br. Ash's essay because I think the logic employed in it is so faulty that it hurts my head.

However, te assumption that the BoM is an ancient document also opens another can of worms: how did we get it? If I remember correctly, this was exactly the point Nibley was trying to make (but my recollection may be wrong, I was an adolescent when I last read Nibley). The story of Moroni, the gold plates and the seer stones is the proverbial elephant in the room and assuming that the text is ancient is a nice way to sidestep that issue.

I wonder if Blass would agree that his theory/methodology would apply in this case (i.e. where the provenance of the document is not unknown or uncertain, but allegedly supernatural). Of course, those are the little details that Nibley never bothered with, nor his audience.

[cinepro]

I expect that if other writings from New Testament times, and modern archeology had demonstrated that Jesus spoke in sub-Victorian prose, that Bethlehem has a wall, or that there really was an "eye-of-the needle" gate through which laden camels could illustratively crawl, that Anderson would have reported it. Or had the Sorry Tale contained the Pesher form that Anderson finds in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in 3 Nephi, he would have mentioned that, or if the logia in A Sorry Tale measured up, he would have mentioned that. Also, if you knew anything of equivalent worth, you could have provided it.

Just so I'm clear, the "sub-Victorian" prose is a red flag for A Sorry Tale, but the 16th Century English of the Book of Mormon is just great?

Regarding Bethlehem's walls, 2 Samuel 23:16 says:

16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD.

Is it too much to suppose that a gate would probably be in a wall?

And in 2 Chronicles 11:

5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah.

6 He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa, 10 And Zorah, and Aijalon, and Hebron, which are in Judah and in Benjamin fenced cities.

11 And he fortified the strong holds, and put captains in them, and store of victual, and of oil and wine.

As a defence city, is it unreasonable to expect Bethlehem to have "walls"? Or was it a wall-less "strong hold"? Certainly, this was a long time before Christ's day, but walls do tend to be useful for a city and might have been maintained.

Ultimately, Anderson's article shows the different approaches taken when one wants to prove a book "false", compared to trying to prove it "true". It's rare to see it done in the same article, but refreshing nonetheless.

Or, to put it another way Kevin, if you approached A Sorry Tale with the same assumptions and convictions you had about the Book of Mormon's ancient origin, and used all of the arguments and explanations available in the apologetic tool box to argue for its authenticity and nullify the arguments against it (including putting unanswered questions on a shelf), how could anyone "prove" it was any less true than The Book of Mormon?

[Kevin Christensen]

cinepro writes:

Just so I'm clear, the "sub-Victorian" prose is a red flag for A Sorry Tale, but the 16th Century English of the Book of Mormon is just great?

It helps to carefully read, rather than reflexively dismiss without reading. You will recall that in the portion of Anderson's essay that I quoted, he made this observation:

Although all Gospels detail how five thousand were physically fed, The Sorry Tale gives a sentimental version of how hunger vanished as the crowd was overwhelmed with truth. The close is an unrealistic platitude on Jesus' lips: "for the body crieth out only when the spirit is barren."61

In contrast to the Victorian sentimental platitude, Anderson offers up specific contrasts and contexts in the 3 Nephi Account. He discusses the discovery of the pesher form in the Qumran texts, contrasts it with the content of other modern "gospels" and compares it with 3 Nephi:

Although several modern apocrypha exploit the Dead Sea community by claiming Essene origin, ten pages at random from Qumran would show such pretentions to be empty. But without fanfare, portions of Third Nephi simply fit a distinctive ancient mold. To restate, Qumran's consecutive form is named from their repetitive word for interpretation, pesher, which "has come to mean in modern parlance a special Essene type of commentary on a continuous text of some prophet or psalm."123 Specifically, their Habakkuk commentary has about a 40 percent ratio of continuous scripture to about 60 percent commentary, monotonously alternating from one to the other. The Isaiah texts are fragmentary but contain more scripture and less commentary. The arrangement is so unusual in early Christian or Jewish writing that its use in Third Nephi reads like a literal translation of an ancient document. As observed, a major segment of Jesus' New World teaching is biblical exposition. This is introduced by the close quotation-explanation of Isaiah 52:1–5, dropping only verses 4 and 5. This is the second section of the longest recorded American sermon, whose theme is the latter-day gathering of Israel. It begins with a warning of judgments on gentile nations in the New World if they do not accept the gospel when it is restored. That first portion is characterized by the broader commentary form of applying various scriptures to the theme, as a combination of passages from the Pentateuch and Micah are repeated and explained to the American Israelites to whom Jesus was speaking.

...

No modern apocryphal gospel pictures Christ as an expounder of the prophets, but when he appears in this role in Third Nephi, he speaks in a known idiom of ancient Judaism, alternating prophetic verses with interpretive explanations. The Qumran "commentaries" generally quote a part of a verse, one verse, or up to three verses, with interspersed explanations. Early Christian literature has some examples of a chain of quotations with comments, but does not display the above explication of one prophet that makes the Qumran pesharim highly unusual. It is improbable that Joseph Smith stumbled onto this teaching form, since the Qumran pesher style is distinctive enough to rate a special article in the 1971 Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Another strong point in 3 Nephi compared to modern texts like the Sorry tale appears in the logia.

The first half of this paper gave sample quotations from modern apocrypha, showing that their language typically displays platitudes, wordiness, or unfocused mysticism. But Third Nephi joins the four Gospels in the spiritual light reflecting from vivid sayings of the Lord. These are not in obvious positions in the American Gospel, but are spread evenly throughout Christ's teachings as the spontaneous utterances of one who typically sums up his message in concise urgency:

Old things are done away, and all things have become new (3 Nephi 12:47).

Therefore, whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day (3 Nephi 15: 1).

Behold, I am the law, and the light (3 Nephi 15:9).

Behold, I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do (3 Nephi 18:24).

And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel, then will the Father show forth his own works in it (3 Nephi 27:10).

Because a main goal of scholarship is discovery, studies continue to gather and weigh the non-canonical sayings of Jesus. Out of several hundred possibilities, from one to two dozen are usually selected on the double basis of location in a responsible historical source plus tone reminiscent of Jesus. Third Nephi contains many more vivid sayings than the examples given above. But if these are mingled with other uncanonical words from early sources, they measure up with those most favored in possessing the "terseness and aptness very characteristic of Jesus's mode of speech."127 The objective element is style, the close resemblance to Jesus' patterns of expression.

cinepro made some effort to argue for a wall in Bethlehem, providing evidence for at least a fence and gate, which I see as a bit different than a wall. I'll grant the partial point, but really, how significant is it compared to the points you ignored? But other than a smart alec remark, you ignored the style issues, you do not discuss the far more serious matter of the Sorry Tale describing the fabled "eye of the needle" gate, non-existent in the real Jerusalem, but a rather, a late invention of preachers wanting to sooth the consciences of their wealthy congregations troubled by the analogy relative the rich man getting to heaven. That error, I submit, is a very telling anachronism.

Of course, I don't believe that one issue defines the whole problem so, against that unsolved problem, what do you have for the other side of the balance? Something like Legal Cases of the Sorry Tale? Or, An Ancient Israelite Setting for the Sorry Tale? The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Sorry Tale? Even something comparable to a Mesoamerican cylinder seal? Or Mulek's seal and name in the Bible? Anything good? Anything comparable to even Nibley's Lehi and the Desert? Let alone all that has come since?

Cinepro asks:

Or, to put it another way Kevin, if you approached A Sorry Tale with the same assumptions and convictions you had about the Book of Mormon's ancient origin, and used all of the arguments and explanations available in the apologetic tool box to argue for its authenticity and nullify the arguments against it (including putting unanswered questions on a shelf), how could anyone "prove" it was any less true than The Book of Mormon?

Let's be specific. I've personally tested the Book of Mormon against modern NDE accounts and against Margaret Barker's reconstruction of temple theology, among other things. And I try to keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship, pro and con. I've published two dozen articles. And I've got some acquaintance with ways that New Testament scholarship has changed since Pearl Curran and Patience Worth. Would I have found anything comparable in The Sorry Tale? Have you?

I haven't read the Sorry Tale yet, though last year I did managed to plow through the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, with its Jesus touring the ancient world with a Xena-like disregard for known chronology, learning wisdom from all the masters in India, Egypt, Greece, Tibet, and beyond, rewriting several Gospel sermons to suit the tastes and hobbies of the author (John 9, for example takes an odd turn), adding in reincarnation and mysticism. Anderson discussed that book, and I saw that it would not stand for a moment against the kind of testing that the Book of Mormon has been subjected to over 180 years.

Ariates said:

However, te assumption that the BoM is an ancient document also opens another can of worms: how did we get it? If I remember correctly, this was exactly the point Nibley was trying to make (but my recollection may be wrong, I was an adolescent when I last read Nibley). The story of Moroni, the gold plates and the seer stones is the proverbial elephant in the room and assuming that the text is ancient is a nice way to sidestep that issue.

I wonder if Blass would agree that his theory/methodology would apply in this case (i.e. where the provenance of the document is not unknown or uncertain, but allegedly supernatural). Of course, those are the little details that Nibley never bothered with, nor his audience.

Actually, Nibley discusses such issues in detail, in the New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study, as well as things like "Kangaroo Court", wherein he showed that all too often,

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=73&chapid=884

The one man best qualified to make the tests indicated, though he was interested enough in the Mormons to write a whole book about them, frankly confessed that he had never read the Book of Mormon.1 That was the celebrated Eduard Meyer, who wrote with complete finality: "There can be no doubt at all that the golden plates, though described by his mother and others as reposing in a box in Smith's house, never existed in the real world."2 For him that settled the matter: He can speak with absolute assurance, not because he has examined the Book of Mormon—he didn't need to!—but because he knows perfectly well that there are no such things as angels and gold plates.

Justified or not, this has been the standard and accepted position taken by Book of Mormon critics from the beginning, and it should be obvious to any reader that such an attitude, however sincere, effectively closes the door on any serious investigation of the book on its own merits. The dice are always loaded before the game begins: It is not the Book of Mormon, but the Angel Moroni who is on trial. Let us glance at a few frank confessions by the leading critics of the Book of Mormon in the past, to see whether they ever intended to give it a fair trial.

...

This absurd position, that the Book of Mormon has failed to pass a test which has never been given it because of its failure to pass, etc., is neatly confirmed by the learned LaRue in 1919. "What of the book itself?" he asks, "No serious consideration has ever been given it by men of science. It is considered fabrication."39 Since it is a fabrication, why should any man of science waste his time with it? The answer is, that only by spending a lot of time with it can any man of science prove that it is a fabrication in the first place. But such reasoning does not count: "How could three rational men address 'all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people,' " LaRue asks, "and say that God had told them that these plates had been 'translated by the gift and power of God'?"40 Another rhetorical question, and quite pointless besides, since the problem of how they could do so is overridden by the admitted fact that they did.

One of the best commentaries on this text is one of the latest: Dr. O'Dea has observed, not without a touch of Irish wit, that "the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it."55 We have seen why.

A good recent example of someone who actually read the Book of Mormon was the Robert Price essay in American Apocrypha. He begins by telling the story of the Josiah's reform, describes it as a pious fraud, and with that paradigm, eventually describes how the scenes of priesthood and transfiguration in 3 Nephi fit with that hypothesis. But I found it telling that it doesn't ever occur to Price that given Barker's Temple Theology, the themes of priesthood and transfiguration would and should appear in an authentic text rooted in Jerusalem 600 BCE. The only things he brought forward as evidence can also be seen as evidence for an opposite view. Price had reviewed The Great Angel in his Journal of Higher Criticism, published "The Secret Tradition" in the same journal and had Margaret on his editorial board. For all his critical thinking, his thought never knocked on the obvious door, a door that one who read Blass would not fail to exploit. Margaret herself, did, as you know, and was surprised and impressed.

And at this late date, let's not pretend that I'm tangled up in the "trying to prove" mode. As Barbour explains, and I have repeated many times over the years, "Paradigm are neither verified nor falsified, but assessed." It's not a matter of picking some unsolved problem and declaring that the Book of Mormon is false, or some nifty aspect and deciding it true, but a matter of deciding which problems are more significant to have solved. If you want to stop assessing with the angel, and hide behind some snarky remarks, you are welcome to do so. But I want my Book of Mormon puzzles to be tested seriously against the real claims it makes. I want a comprehensive and coherent account that explains it's presence in the modern world, including how remarkably well it fits with known aspects of the Ancient worlds it touches that were unknown to Joseph Smith and anyone else. I'd like not the usual short list of open problems regarding horse, steel, DNA, and Welcome to Zarahemla signs, but an explanation of how and why John Clark can demonstrate the clear tendency for resolution of open problems over the past 180 years.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, critical thinking:

“There are also, however, values to be used in judging whole theories: they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle formulation and solution; where possible, they should be simple, self-consistent, plausible, compatible with other theories currently employed.” (Kuhn 185)

The Book of Mormon's claims about Jerusalem 600 BCE, the journey across the Arabian Desert to Nahom and Bountiful provides testable puzzles, as do it's claims about the New World. Nibley's citation of Blass and the need to begin by considering the Book of Mormon's claims in that complex is compatible with the science of authentication. You can dismiss the test because of the presence of the Angel, but that is not the same as actually applying the tests to the book. You can cite any open issues that tickle your fancy, but that simply demonstrates how you have decided "which problems are more significant to have solved." (Kuhn.) It is not a comprehensive and coherent explanation or even meaningful test of the Book of Mormon, and the 180 years of scholarship, and the trend toward resolution that John Clark found.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

Actually, Nibley discusses such issues in detail, in the New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study, as well as things like "Kangaroo Court", wherein he showed that all too often ...

Thanks for jogging my memory. I'm impressed with myself :-)

Nibley does not discuss how Blass's method applies to documents of supernatural origin. He just insists that it does. But it doesn't, of course. Science is not concerned with the supernatural. From a scientific point of view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with declining to take seriously a text of supernatural origin. Nibley was correct in his assessment that it is Moroni who is on trial, not the Book of Mormon, but he was being polemical in complaining about it. It was a cheap trick that Ash and many LDS today still fall for.

[cdowis]

Nibley does not discuss how Blass's method applies to documents of supernatural origin. He just insists that it does. But it doesn't, of course. Science is not concerned with the supernatural. From a scientific point of view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with declining to take seriously a text of supernatural origin

Ariarates,

Thank you for your honesty.

"This is a book delivered by an angel, and that puts outside any serious scientific investigation."

Any discussion of the valley of Lemuel, Nahum, Bountiful, Paanchi, sheum, etc is irrelevant by the simple fact that this is a book delivered by an angel.

I find it interesting that this view is not shared by those who study the Bible for its historic value. The angel is the only thing that sets them apart.

Look, it is time to be honest. Any evidence for the historic Bible allows scientists to remain atheists, but a single verifiable piece of evidence that the BOM has scientific and historical merit -- well, there is nowhere to hide, is there?

This would be evidence for the existence of prophets, angels, and God. That's what it is all about ==> when we start talking about scientific evidence for the divine, that is where critical thought and discussion comes to a halt.

[Ariarates]

Any discussion of the valley of Lemuel, Nahum, Bountiful, Paanchi, sheum, etc is irrelevant by the simple fact that this is a book delivered by an angel.

Now, that's just sulking, isn't it?

Look, it is time to be honest. Any evidence for the historic Bible allows scientists to remain atheists, but a single verifiable piece of evidence that the BOM has scientific and historical merit -- well, there is nowhere to hide, is there? This would be evidence for the existence of prophets, angels, and God.

I agree.

when we start talking about scientific evidence for the divine, that is where critical thought and discussion comes to a halt.

No, it doesn't come to a halt, it accepts its limitations and declines to comment. Science is not about the divine. The divine is about faith, science is about reason.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If I know just one thing about Mormon apologists, I know this: they really, really hate to be labeled as presuppositionalists.

Much more annoying to me is the disregarding of entire arguments at the outset (and the oversimplifying categorization imposed) via the label "Mormon apologists" by certain folks.

[cdowis]

cdowis -- when we start talking about scientific evidence for the divine, that is where critical thought and discussion comes to a halt.

No, it doesn't come to a halt, it accepts its limitations and declines to comment. Science is not about the divine. The divine is about faith, science is about reason.

Again, thank you for your honesty. This is your explanation why scientists refuse to investigate the **scientific** and historical claims of the BOM because of the angel.

Be honest and admit it. If we take away the angel, scientists would look at the BOM's historic claims with the same interest as they do the Bible.

Come on, man. You're not fooling anybody here. You are on the verge of telling us the whole truth.

Admit it!!!

[Ariarates]

Again, thank you for your honesty. This is your explanation why scientists refuse to investigate the **scientific** and historical claims of the BOM because of the angel.

Be honest and admit it. If we take away the angel, scientists would look at the BOM's historic claims with the same interest as they do the Bible.

Come on, man. You're not fooling anybody here. You are on the verge of telling us the whole truth.

Admit it!!!

Why the hysterics? Is my position not clear? Why should scientists investigate supernatural Mormon truth claims - or any other supernatural truth claims, for that matter? That's not what science is for. Science is for learning about the natural world by natural means. Based on the supernatural aspects of the story of the coming forth of the BoM, every scientist is perfectly justified in summarily declining to investigate - or even read - the BoM. There's just nothing science can say about the supernatural, other than weigh the odds that, in the absence of tangible evidence, it even exists (which odds are very small from a scientific point of view).

[Chris Smith]

Brant's post #26 in this thread good example of the kind of confusion that can result when we fail to clarify what we mean by the word "assumption". In that post, Brant took the word assumption to mean a "given" or a "premise", rather than a "hypothesis". Premises and hypotheses are different kinds of assumptions that are treated differently by scientists. For example, let's say my hypothesis is that all apples are red. When I construct my test, this will be treated as an open-ended assumption, meaning that it is tentative and subject to falsification. However, my test will also involve a variety of premises, or closed-ended assumptions that will not be treated as tentative or subject to falsification. I will assume, for example, certain definitions of "redness" and "appleness". I will also assume that my instruments are capable of reliably determining the presence of both traits. At an even more basic level, I will assume that the scientific method is a valid way of arriving at knowledge. If any of these premises are untrue, then my experiment is invalid. Thus, when I design my experiment I should limit myself to premises that are relatively obvious and/or uncontested, and I should also explicitly state my premises in my publication so that they can be tested by other researchers. But in the experiment itself, they are taken for granted rather than tested.

As a more relevant example, imagine I am testing the historicity of 2 Nephi. My hypothesis is that 2 Nephi is a text written in America shortly after 600 BC. One of my premises might be that no text written in America shortly after 600 BC should contain chapters from 2nd Isaiah. Thus I conclude that the Book of Mormon fails my test of historicity, because it contains chapters from 2nd Isaiah. Some other researcher could come along and use my premise as a hypothesis to be falsified, but my analysis does not treat it as such. In my analysis, my premise is treated as a "given".

So when Mike Ash says we must begin by assuming the historicity of the Book of Mormon, he runs the risk of being misunderstood. He should clarify that this is to be assumed as a hypothesis, not as a premise.

[ebeddoulos]

Why the hysterics? Is my position not clear? Why should scientists investigate supernatural Mormon truth claims - or any other supernatural truth claims, for that matter? That's not what science is for. Science is for learning about the natural world by natural means. Based on the supernatural aspects of the story of the coming forth of the BoM, every scientist is perfectly justified in summarily declining to investigate - or even read - the BoM. There's just nothing science can say about the supernatural, other than weigh the odds that, in the absence of tangible evidence, it even exists (which odds are very small from a scientific point of view).

So it is just a philosophical difference?

Mormon Philosophy: Here’s the evidence. What can we conclude from it?

Anti-Mormon Philosophy: Here's the conclusion. What evidence should we ignore?

[cinepro]

So it is just a philosophical difference?

Mormon Philosophy: Here’s the evidence. What can we conclude from it?

Anti-Mormon Philosophy: Here's the conclusion. What evidence should we ignore?

I don't know about the anti-Mormons, but here is what FARMS used to have as their Mission Statement:

The work of the Foundation rests on the premise that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were written by prophets of God. Belief in this premise in the divinity of scripture is a matter of faith. Religious truths require divine witness to establish the faith of the believer. While scholarly research cannot replace that witness, such studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies by fostering understanding and appreciation of the scriptures.

Conclusion: Scriptures were written by Prophets of God

Evidence: Studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies

They've changed their name, but from what I can tell, that's still their methodology.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that anti-Mormons do the same thing starting with the opposite premise, but I would be surprised to hear that Mormons start with evidence before determining the conclusion.

[cdowis]

Why the hysterics? Is my position not clear? Why should scientists investigate supernatural Mormon truth claims - or any other supernatural truth claims, for that matter?

Help me understand. Not hysterical but confused at your position.

Tell me how investigating the route that Lehi supposedly took across the Arabian peninsula is a "supernatural truth" claim. Does it match the description found in the BOM text? Scientists do the same type of research for the Bible -- the march from Egypt to Israel, while, at the same time, ignoring the miracle at the Red Sea.

They are willing to investigate the nonsupernatrual aspects of the Bible. Scientists are willing to do research on vactual aspects of ancient myths such as Homer, regardless of the magical events in the story.

But, I agree that scientists will not investigate a book delivered by an angel.

But this is just a matter of geography and historical investigation. Help me understand why you are so hysterically opposed to scientific investigation of the historical claims of the BOM.

[Chris Smith]

I agree with cdowis. The supernatural is only really relevant to us to the extent that it impinges upon the natural world. And fortunately for our purposes, its influence should be observable and testable to precisely the same extent.

(I guess the exception would be the afterlife. Although this is relevant to us, it doesn't really require an impingement on the natural world; only a replication of it in some other supernatural realm.)

[Ariarates]

They are willing to investigate the nonsupernatrual aspects of the Bible. Scientists are willing to do research on vactual aspects of ancient myths such as Homer, regardless of the magical events in the story. But, I agree that scientists will not investigate a book delivered by an angel. But this is just a matter of geography and historical investigation. Help me understand why you are so hysterically opposed to scientific investigation of the historical claims of the BOM.

Scientists have investigated the non-supernatural aspects of the BoM and found them contradicting everything they know about the history of the Americas.

[Jeff K.]

Which non supernatural aspects of the Book of Mormon are contradicting exactly? Or are you presuming your interpretation of the Book of Mormon is the one that appears to be "contradicting".

[TAO]

Scientists have investigated the non-supernatural aspects of the BoM and found them contradicting everything they know about the history of the Americas.

History changes though. Like with that horses thread. History hasn't nailed any coffins. Yet.