When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[elguanteloko]

I'm amazed by the amount of discussion devoted in this forum to the issues of "evidences for the BoM" but, when should the non-Mormon layman consider these so-called 'evidences' brought up by believers seriously so as to take them as proper support for LDS belief? I'll offer my two cents.

I think non-believers should seriously consider (and Mormons should consider what they bring to the table as proper support for their beliefs) Archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course). Why not before? Because it is all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests. Anyone can claim that Quantum Mechanics provides evidence for God's existence or for pretty much anything else under the sun and it seems rather irresponsible to expect people to learn QM to the core to be able to say that this doesn't really support God's existence reliably. It seems more sensible to me to suspend judgment and take neither "Yay" nor "Nay".

Please don't take this to be an excuse for ignorance because it isn't. This is intended to be a call for a sensible approach in which neither side jumps to hasty conclusions but let's the professionals form a consensus of what the evidence actually suggests. This is also not only an approach to non-believers but intended also to be a consideration for LDS believers as to when they should present their arguments as credible, overall reliable evidence for the claims made in the BoM. Just as it seems unrealistic to expect from the non-believer to learn most of the claims made by apologists and be able to refute them with enough knowledge for him to be justified in his skepticism, it seems just as unrealistic to use pieces of actual evidence to support a conclusion not supported by mainstream academia on the subject and expect it to be intended as actual credible and reliable evidence for the veracity of the BoM.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"I think non-believers should seriously consider ... archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course). Why not before? Because it is all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests."

.

The problem with this approach is that in order for mainstream archaeology and history to test whether the Book of Mormon claims are consistent and trustworthy through secular means, they have to take the book seriously enough to read what it actually says, rather than assuming that second-hand information is accurate. This is usually the step the mainstream is unwilling to take. Oddly enough, in those rare instances that trained historians and archaeologists are intellectually rigorous enough to deal with the evidence of the text, they as often as not join the church, and therefore come to be seen as "biased" apologists. Kinduvva no-win, y'know?

Of course it's all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests. The stultifying consensual refusal to seriously reconsider the land-bridge theory of intercontinental migration while denying the multiple-colonization model still continues to distort Pre-Columbian studies, for instance.

More importantly, both sides sometimes seem to ignore one of the fundamental points of the Book of Mormon: these people were either assimilated into existing cultures or destroyed outright. Their histories were obliterated or lost, their language vanished. It seems to me that part of the reason why Joseph Smith had to translate by the power of God is that there was no one alive who knew the language on the plates, and not enough secular evidence left to be able to reconstruct the reformed characters that were used (at least not within the timeline of God's planning).

We simply shouldn't expect to find much that would distinguish Book of Mormon peoples from surrounding tribes. The seemingly-inflated numbers killed in battles are right at home in the pre-Columbian Americas (see 1491: http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059 ). To ignore the fact that we've barely scratched the surface of New World archaeology - with percentages in the high nineties of areas that still need to be excavated and studied - and claim, as so many do, that we "should" have found something more substantial by now, is simply to deny the frustratingly incomplete realities of the field, in which most historically-relevant evidence simply disappears, or is misinterpreted, or has yet to be discovered. (See, for instance:

- though the reporting is annoyingly sensationalistic, it does point out the incomplete nature of the field, and the constant need for revisions of understanding.)

"Please don't take this to be an excuse for ignorance because it isn't. This is intended to be a call for a sensible approach in which neither side jumps to hasty conclusions but let's the professionals form a consensus of what the evidence actually suggests."

I think the "sensible" approach is to recognize that consensus is not equivalent to reality. If most of these professionals dismiss outright the Book of Mormon claims, then they are limiting the pool of information from which they draw their conclusions about what the evidence "actually suggests".

Which is fine. It just means that on subjects relating to Book of Mormon archaeology, their authority is not the be-all, because they're working within an entirely different paradigm.

"It seems unrealistic to expect ... the non-believer to learn most of the claims made by apologists and be able to refute them with enough knowledge for him to be justified in his skepticism."

This, actually, seems like the minimum requirement if their skepticism is to be at all rigorous. If they're not willing to listen to what we're saying and, essentially, just disbelieve on general principles, then in what sense are they engaging the issue fairly? I'm a little bemused at the thought that this could actually be considered a reliable methodology.

"It seems just as unrealistic to use pieces of actual evidence to support a conclusion not supported by mainstream academia on the subject and expect it to be intended as actual credible and reliable evidence for the veracity of the BoM."

"Actual evidence" depends on the context in which the evidence is placed. So long as the evidence is reported accurately, there is absolutely no reason why information gathered to explicate a particular issue cannot be repurposed and placed in a different context to support a different conclusion than the one it was originally used to illustrate.

...

Personally, I don't think the Book of Mormon will ever be "proved" through secular means. But I do think that archaeology is important, because further evidence can help to clear up many of the currently-contentious issues (the animals, technology, etc.) and provide a space for rational faith to function within. That is, it won't give non-believers unambiguous reason to believe, but neither will it continue to hinder the faithful who are concerned with the current inconsistencies. And that's all that's needed, really.

[elguanteloko]

The problem with this approach is that in order for mainstream archaeology and history to test whether the Book of Mormon claims are consistent and trustworthy through secular means, they have to take the book seriously enough to read what it actually says, rather than assuming that second-hand information is accurate. This is usually the step the mainstream is unwilling to take. Oddly enough, in those rare instances that trained historians and archaeologists are intellectually rigorous enough to deal with the evidence of the text, they as often as not join the church, and therefore come to be seen as "biased" apologists. Kinduvva no-win, y'know?

How do you propose professional Archaeologists and historians to "actually test BoM claims" in a way in which they are not doing it by going with what most of the evidence seems to point out at this point?

I think the "sensible" approach is to recognize that consensus is not equivalent to reality. If most of these professionals dismiss outright the Book of Mormon claims, then they are limiting the pool of information from which they draw their conclusions about what the evidence "actually suggests".

No one is saying consensus means "reality" or "truth" but it seems like the most pragmatic thing to go with. Why go with some fringe explanation that hasn't enough reliable evidence going in its favor when there are better and more consistent ones at the moment?

Which is fine. It just means that on subjects relating to Book of Mormon archaeology, their authority is not the be-all, because they're working within an entirely different paradigm.

Why would they have to change their paradigm if most of the evidence doesn't seem to support the BoM claims?

This, actually, seems like the minimum requirement if their skepticism is to be at all rigorous. If they're not willing to listen to what we're saying and, essentially, just disbelieve on general principles, then in what sense are they engaging the issue fairly? I'm a little bemused at the thought that this could actually be considered a reliable methodology.

I explained why this is simply ridiculous. If I say quantum mechanics supports the idea of souls when most philosophers of science and physicists don't agree with it, do you expect everyone to seriously study even the mathematics of QM (which, I've been told by physicists, is extremely difficult) to finally say that it isn't likely? It seems like an implication of what you're saying that new scientists should do the experiments their predecessors did just so they now see with their own eyes that what their ancestors said they got they REALLY got. That strikes me as silly. Do I, the layman, have to exhaustively go over the evidence of individual cases for extraterrestrial UFO in order for me to not accept (not reject as false or impossible, but just not accept) the existence of extraterrestrial UFO, intelligence-driven ships?

"Actual evidence" depends on the context in which the evidence is placed. So long as the evidence is reported accurately, there is absolutely no reason why information gathered to explicate a particular issue cannot be repurposed and placed in a different context to support a different conclusion than the one it was originally used to illustrate.

Well, you can do that, that doesn't matter. Anyone can use any piece of information for supporting pretty much anything they want. The point is, up to what point is one justified in being skeptical and agnostic about someone's supposed 'theory'?

Personally, I don't think the Book of Mormon will ever be "proved" through secular means. But I do think that archaeology is important, because further evidence can help to clear up many of the currently-contentious issues (the animals, technology, etc.) and provide a space for rational faith to function within. That is, it won't give non-believers unambiguous reason to believe, but neither will it continue to hinder the faithful who are concerned with the current inconsistencies. And that's all that's needed, really.

I'm talking about something rather differently, though.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Brant Gardner]

I think non-believers should seriously consider (and Mormons should consider what they bring to the table as proper support for their beliefs) Archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course).

We should wait for mainstream archaeologists to decide that the Book of Mormon is an ancient artifact and begin to produce evidence for it before the faithful begin to attempt to do so? What do you think the chances of that every happening are? What actually might happen is that the faithful (who have an interest in understanding the Book of Mormon in a real world context) do the footwork and provide the framework in which the mainstream archaeologists might see where it fits. Even then, however, I strongly suspect that the best we would hope for is "I can see why you say that" and then they would move on with their current interests.

Still, I see no hope to move anything along if the criteria is that we have to wait for someone who is completely uninterested in the topic to decide to spend a lot of time on it.

[Jeff K.]

The approach to the Book of Mormon should be as it is, a second testimony of Jesus Christ. Archeology is, at best, a distraction, at worst, it reflects the latest academia du jour. There are many evidences, but like the existence of King David, or more importantly the resurrection of Christ, the evidence is inconclusive. As it should be. The first mistake people make, is the assumption that the Book of Mormon "must" have archeological evidence, there wasn't any when Joseph Smith translated it, there is much more now, but it remains inconclusive. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is based on faith, so its greatest and most used and important evidence is based on "faith".

Archeologists on the other hand..... Faith is not considered evidenciary, their's is speculative in attempting to learn and understand past cultures. Theirs is an analysis of what they find. It is rare that writings lead to the discovery of a civiliation (Troy being the only one I know of). Archeology and the Book of Mormon are two entirely different creatures, and archeologists should not take the Book of Mormon seriously unless they are seeking a second testament of Christ, to strengthen their faith or to learn how to live an even better life.

As a Latter-day Saint, I of course enjoy seeing how some mainstream assumptions regarding the Book of Mormon bite the dust (and do so repeatedly). People with agenda's (both pro and against) invariably end up being disappointed. Perhaps a more eastern approach? Don't play the game, let what comes forth be and allow it come forth on its own terms and in its own time. The seriousness which we may want archeologists to take regarding the Book of Mormon is equivalent to synchophants seeking approval. One thing Latter-day Saints aren't is synchopantic.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ariarates]

I think it is safe to say that mainstream scientists will never take the BoM seriously. Science is only concerned with the natural world. The origin of the BoM is all about the supernatural. Non-believers can only begin to take BoM archeology seriously if the supernatural origin of the BoM is denied and a plausible alternative is supplied. My guess is that this is not going to happen anytime soon.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I don't believe they should take the BoM seriously as a book of archaeology. At least no more than they take any other ancient book.

There are archaelogical eviences for the BoM, the Bible, ancient Hindu text, Homeric tales, ancient Greek tales, Ancient Roman,etc,. etc., etc.. However evidence of their Truth Claims is sorely lacking. IE; What physical evidence would there be that Apollo was God.

Edited August 8, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[subgenius]

I'm amazed by the amount of discussion devoted in this forum to the issues of "evidences for the BoM" but, when should the non-Mormon layman consider these so-called 'evidences' brought up by believers seriously so as to take them as proper support for LDS belief? I'll offer my two cents.

I think non-believers should seriously consider (and Mormons should consider what they bring to the table as proper support for their beliefs) Archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course). Why not before? Because it is all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests. Anyone can claim that Quantum Mechanics provides evidence for God's existence or for pretty much anything else under the sun and it seems rather irresponsible to expect people to learn QM to the core to be able to say that this doesn't really support God's existence reliably. It seems more sensible to me to suspend judgment and take neither "Yay" nor "Nay".

Please don't take this to be an excuse for ignorance because it isn't. This is intended to be a call for a sensible approach in which neither side jumps to hasty conclusions but let's the professionals form a consensus of what the evidence actually suggests. This is also not only an approach to non-believers but intended also to be a consideration for LDS believers as to when they should present their arguments as credible, overall reliable evidence for the claims made in the BoM. Just as it seems unrealistic to expect from the non-believer to learn most of the claims made by apologists and be able to refute them with enough knowledge for him to be justified in his skepticism, it seems just as unrealistic to use pieces of actual evidence to support a conclusion not supported by mainstream academia on the subject and expect it to be intended as actual credible and reliable evidence for the veracity of the BoM.

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

I wouldn't limit it to just the BoM. The Koran(along with all other secred text) would also make the list, but no serious person regardes them as NOT ancient book(s).

[Jeff K.]

I think it is safe to say that mainstream scientists will never take the BoM seriously. Science is only concerned with the natural world. The origin of the BoM is all about the supernatural. Non-believers can only begin to take BoM archeology seriously if the supernatural origin of the BoM is denied and a plausible alternative is supplied. My guess is that this is not going to happen anytime soon.

Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?

[Gervin]

Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?

There are mainstream archaeologists who take the resurrection of Christ seriously. They sometimes write articles that appear in Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR). Of course, proving or disproving the resurrection of Christ is not possible within the discipline of archaeology.

[jo1952]

This is like trying to have a reasonable discussion with believers who claim that an empty tomb is physical evidence which PROVES that Jesus came in the flesh, was crucified dead and buried, and that He arose from the dead.

Regards,

jo

[bluebell]

What is a 'mainstream archaeologist'? Who qualifies?

[ERayR]

I'm amazed by the amount of discussion devoted in this forum to the issues of "evidences for the BoM" but, when should the non-Mormon layman consider these so-called 'evidences' brought up by believers seriously so as to take them as proper support for LDS belief? I'll offer my two cents.

Not until they have received the testimony of the Holy Ghost of it's truth.

[blueadept]

What is a 'mainstream archaeologist'? Who qualifies?

I would think that would be a respected archaeologist who isn't LDS IMHO.

[bluebell]

I would think that would be a respected archaeologist who isn't LDS IMHO.

If that's the criteria, then the same standards must be applied for archaeologists invovled with biblical archaeology then. That would mean that in order for a mainstream archaeologist to take biblical archaeology seriously, he must NOT be a Christian.

Therefore, Gervin must prove his assertion that there are non-Christian archaeologists which take the resurrection of Christ seriously and which publish in Biblical Archaeology Review.

Edited August 8, 2011 by bluebell

[Gervin]

If that's the criteria, then the same standards must be applied for archaeologists invovled with biblical archaeology then. That would mean that in order for a mainstream archaeologist to take biblical archaeology seriously, he must NOT be a Christian.

Therefore, Gervin must prove his assertion that there are non-Christian archaeologists which take the resurrection of Christ seriously and which publish in Biblical Archaeology Review.

I'm not required to prove an assertion I didn't make. The question was, "Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?" I responded that some mainstream archaeologists take it seriously and pointed out that the question has nothing to do with the field of archaeology.

I would define a mainstream archaeologist as someone with an appropriate educational background, field experience, probably some kind of accreditation, and hopefully some published writings or research. Someone like Jeffrey Chadwick who states, about digging in Israel:

"(The) archaeology (here) confirms the authenticity of biblical record of what we call the Book of Kings," Chadwick said. "That doesn't mean that it proves the Bible's prophecies and miracles are correct. Archaeology can't address miracles, and it can't address prophecy."

[jo1952]

If that's the criteria, then the same standards must be applied for archaeologists invovled with biblical archaeology then. That would mean that in order for a mainstream archaeologist to take biblical archaeology seriously, he must NOT be a Christian.

Therefore, Gervin must prove his assertion that there are non-Christian archaeologists which take the resurrection of Christ seriously and which publish in Biblical Archaeology Review.

Actually, I would like all anti-LDS to hold their own belief systems against the same standard they use against LDS beliefs.

Love,

jo

Edited August 8, 2011 by jo1952

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm amazed by the amount of discussion devoted in this forum to the issues of "evidences for the BoM" but, when should the non-Mormon layman consider these so-called 'evidences' brought up by believers seriously so as to take them as proper support for LDS belief? I'll offer my two cents.

I think non-believers should seriously consider (and Mormons should consider what they bring to the table as proper support for their beliefs) Archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course). Why not before? Because it is all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests. Anyone can claim that Quantum Mechanics provides evidence for God's existence or for pretty much anything else under the sun and it seems rather irresponsible to expect people to learn QM to the core to be able to say that this doesn't really support God's existence reliably. It seems more sensible to me to suspend judgment and take neither "Yay" nor "Nay".

Please don't take this to be an excuse for ignorance because it isn't. This is intended to be a call for a sensible approach in which neither side jumps to hasty conclusions but let's the professionals form a consensus of what the evidence actually suggests. This is also not only an approach to non-believers but intended also to be a consideration for LDS believers as to when they should present their arguments as credible, overall reliable evidence for the claims made in the BoM. Just as it seems unrealistic to expect from the non-believer to learn most of the claims made by apologists and be able to refute them with enough knowledge for him to be justified in his skepticism, it seems just as unrealistic to use pieces of actual evidence to support a conclusion not supported by mainstream academia on the subject and expect it to be intended as actual credible and reliable evidence for the veracity of the BoM.

Scientists are still debating how many planets we have; new information comes to light constantly. For example I believe in a “Garden of Eden” (though it cannot be found), and in many other Biblical stories that cannot be verified, nor the places be found. I am not going to thrown away the BoM (after we have known of its teachings for 181 years but Biblical places have not been found after thousands of years). Just because you know where someplace is…it does not mean the story of what happened there is true. Besides for some, no proof will ever do, not as long as someone "mainstream” disputes it. BTW, when it comes to the things of heaven and eternity…we are all layman.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would think that would be a respected archaeologist who isn't LDS IMHO.

Ditto, how may things in the BoM were claimed to not exist...The mainstream were wrong.

[Jeff K.]

There are mainstream archaeologists who take the resurrection of Christ seriously. They sometimes write articles that appear in Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR). Of course, proving or disproving the resurrection of Christ is not possible within the discipline of archaeology.

Exactly. One of the two integral keystones of all Christian beliefs cannot be proven within the discipline. Nor can the specific place of its occurrance. The latter being unimportant relative to the former.

In general biblical archeology enjoys certain privleges we often overlook. For instance we have a contiguous cultural line that allows us to find place names within the same references points since they are passed down literally from generation to generation with few changes (Akkad being an exception that illustrates the point). American archeological study is significantly harder because we do not have such a consistent line in that field of study. When you take into account the dearth of written material for us to translate (and lets be honest without the luck of the Rosetta Stone, odds are the pyramid writings and book of the dead would still be little more than grafitti), tied to a population not given to writing much, expanded to also include an almost complete destruction of all American native populations from disease (some say as much as 80%) and complete destruction of cultural histories (often adulterated with European influence). Leads to the position that it is one tough job to be an arecheologist in the American Continents versus the almost benign Biblical lands archeology which is almost all laid out in a map.

I think a small population in the dark past of the American continents could indeed be easily lost or buried. To do any studies is a daunting task. Whereas the biblical areas have location which is known, and interaction, which is known, and then we study cultures, with which we are familiar. In the Americas it is more often the luck of finding a place, and then attempting to build the culture without foreknowledge, or interaction, without much knowledge, and so one. One tough nut to crack.

We take the Bible and biblical archeology for granted in the ease of seeing where things take place and picturing what happened (it wasn't until a few years ago we proved Ramses II even had chariots). Do we presume the same ease in the Americas and demand the same immediate satisfcations, either in part or whole? Should we?

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[altersteve]

Actually, I would like all anti-LDS to hold their own belief systems against the same standard they use against LDS beliefs.

Love,

jo

I agree, but it never happens. Every critic of the Book of Mormon and of the Church of Jesus Christ uses double standards more than they care to realize. For example, from Mormonism Research Ministry: "After all, to say that 'Nephi's wording makes it clear that Nahom was already called such by the local population' would carry no weight to someone not yet convinced that a person named Nephi ever existed" (Bill McKeever, "NHM – A Place Name from the Book of Mormon?")

One must wonder how McKeever would respond if someone told him, "I'm not convinced that Jesus ever existed, so anything you tell me about Him is meaningless." Oh well, at least McKeever said that he is "not yet convinced that a person named Nephi ever existed." So there's hope for him.

Still, pretty pathetic.

Edited August 8, 2011 by altersteve

[bluebell]

I'm not required to prove an assertion I didn't make. The question was, "Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?" I responded that some mainstream archaeologists take it seriously and pointed out that the question has nothing to do with the field of archaeology.

I would define a mainstream archaeologist as someone with an appropriate educational background, field experience, probably some kind of accreditation, and hopefully some published writings or research. Someone like Jeffrey Chadwick who states, about digging in Israel:

"(The) archaeology (here) confirms the authenticity of biblical record of what we call the Book of Kings," Chadwick said. "That doesn't mean that it proves the Bible's prophecies and miracles are correct. Archaeology can't address miracles, and it can't address prophecy."

I said 'if' the definition of what a mainstream archaeologist was, which blueadept provided, was the one being used for the thread, 'then' you would have to prove your assertion.

If the definition isn't the one being used, then no proof by you is necessary.

[Calm]

I am curious if el guan is up to date on the latest research being done by LDS scholars in placing the BoM in a historical context (for example, has he read Brant's books on the topic?). Seems to me if someone isn't, it is inappropriate to try and create a timeline for when and how that research should be taken seriously.

Edited August 8, 2011 by calmoriah

[blueadept]

If that's the criteria, then the same standards must be applied for archaeologists invovled with biblical archaeology then. That would mean that in order for a mainstream archaeologist to take biblical archaeology seriously, he must NOT be a Christian.

I disagree. I don't believe those archaeologists involved with biblical archaeology really cares if a non-Christian respects their findings or not as long as their respected collegues do.

I'm sure LDS archaeologists don't really care if non-Christians believe in their findings or not but I'm sure they would like their Christian associates to respect their work but there is a disconnect at this point IMO and I question why on a personal basis.