When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Gervin]

Most mainstream archeologists are also devout Christians, even priests or clergy for various Christian sects.

CFR, please.

[cdowis]

Do you think that's wrong on their part?

It is neither right nor wrong. It is reality and I cannot complain that they want to protect their reputation amon the scientific community.

The point of the thread is... why should they? and, are they wrong in not be willing to publish papers on the topic (IF they are)?

Who is asking them to do this? I personally am indifferent, I don't care one way or the other. I guess I missed the point of the OP.

because, what do you expect Archaeologists and historians to do? Publish that a document, somewhere (BoM), happened to agree with what has just been found? Do you expect them to conclude that, therefore, the civilizations and culture described in the BoM are real? I'm not Archaeologist or historian... but that does seem like a very unprofessional leap.

Clearly I do not understand the point behind the OP. We seem to be in complete agreement.

[Jeff K.]

Ariarates, on 08 August 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

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.

Jeff K., on 08 August 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:

Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?

Will mainstream archeology ever take the ascent of Thor into Valhalla seriously?

You missed the point, but allow me to help you.

Christian belief is the greatest motivator of archeology in the past century or so. They are driven by their faith, both to learn and to question. That faith is part of what makes archeology of the "old world" the success it is. Most mainstream archeologists are also devout Christians, even priests or clergy for various Christian sects. Many are also of a repute that is without question. Have they all denied the divinity of Christ or if you will the supernatural aspects of their religion, in order to do their great work?

THe rhetorical resposne? Well with your somewhat predictable flailing around, you in effect agree with me, even though I do not believe you are aware of it. Its one of those times when the consequences of your lack of insight, combined with your rhetorical response, helped bolster my position.

I trust my point is made and you understand more clearly what just happened.

Jeff K., on 09 August 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Most mainstream archeologists are also devout Christians, even priests or clergy for various Christian sects.

CFR, please.

I cannot. My personal experience with the group tends to show they are Chrisian. Now some might interpret the word Christian as evangelical, which would be incorrect. Christianity tends to be mainstream in that most people of the occident tend to be Christian. I do not think the majority of the archeologists are Muslim or Hindu, but western, and the archeology was driven by Christianity (much of it still being funded by Christian schools and groups). I know a bit of the history of archeology and how it initially began with an Augustinian monk. It is not considered PC to list archeologists by their religion, but given the dearth of atheists in society as a whole, I do not see the view that archeologists are not Christian being a predominant position.

[Ariarates]

Hi Jeff, are you talking to me? You include my post in your multiquote but I get the impression you are talking to keith_richards and Gervin. If you would like me to comment, just let me know.

[Jeff K.]

Not that I mind posting to you but I was just keeping the context of the overall quote accurate.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ariarates]

Okidoki :-)

[Robert F. Smith]

The Mayan language would never have been deciphered, because the earliest major archaeologists insisted it was pure pictographs that could not be translated as a language (it took a Chinese philologist to accomplish it outside the Mayan scholarly realm).

In each case, outsiders had to provide the evidence, and then wait for the archaeologists to "rediscover" the evidence years (sometimes decades or centuries) later. Waiting for them to take an honest look at the Book of Mormon is a silly thought, given the history of how archaeology often tends to work.

Actually, it was Russian Egyptologist Yuri Knorozov who provided the key to the decipherment of Maya in the 1950s and 60s. And it did very much go against the grain of beliefs about Maya language at the time -- especially as enunciated by J. Eric S. Thompson.

[Robert F. Smith]

An interesting point. This is my main concern over the Nahom-hypothesis. Would the team that uncovered the altar interpret it as supporting the BoM? If not, are LDS writers justified in interpreting it that way?

One way of looking at the non-Mormon discovery and translation of the altars you refer to, is that we have no accusation of bias or "poisoning of the wells," which would inevitably come up if the archeologists had been Mormon. This should be seen as positive in the sense that it then has "gentile respectability" (as Nibley used to say). The question of interpretation or application to other issues is part and parcel of scholarship all the time. The original excavator or translator need not be concerned with how someone else uses such information. All of us should simply expect that it be used honestly and fairly, and that is the purpose of scholarly peer review and formation of consensus over time. Such bits and pieces of information are not by themselves proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon (or the Bible), but they do go far toward giving it the appropriate mise en scene if it is indeed authentic.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, here's a List of Scholars. And I'm sure they know the names, addresses, and submission requirements for all the best journals. My question is, have they ever been turned down for publication because they submitted a paper titled (something like) "A Case for a MesoAmerican Setting of the Book of Mormon." ?? Or, have they ever even submitted such a paper to one of the respected journals in their field? If not, why not (see post #56)?

cdowis said : "For a scientist to seriously consider and investigate this book requires that he admit the possibility of angels, and that a farmboy in 1830 NY could have been a prophet and translated a bunch of gold plates with a seer stone."

That is a quandary worth addressing, and one which you ignored. Non-Mormon scholars addressing such issues directly (even assuming that they had done the necessary research on the Book of Mormon) is highly unlikely simply because it might very well damage or end their careers (in the case of graduate students and non-tenured professors, the danger is most immediate) and subject them to merciless ridicule.

As for Mormon professors qualified to address such matters who have tenure (or its equivalent), many of them present papers in open forums and publish in refereed journals or publish their views in book form in-house or with prestigious publishing houses. Are you familiar with such work? If so, mention some of the more important such works in the last decade in order to indicate that you are in fact well-informed about such matters.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeff K.]

Scientist? Historian? Archeologist?

Are there historians and scientists and archeologists who believe in God? Are their works considered reputable? If so, your first point invalid and irrelavent.

I see no damage done to archeologists and scientists and historians who have studied biblical texts and conjectured on various positions within and without their belief systems. Your position is that somehow Mormons scholars are different and that somehow they do not know or ignore the rules of scholarship nor that they can possibly present an objective position, which many scholars of other faiths do? Again, your point seems irrelevant.

Have these scientists presented peer reviewed work? I think they have. Have other historians and scientists written books regarding various speculations in terms of their own positions? Definately, I would refer you to Amazon and ask you to seek the criteria of authors. If scientists can contribute to "Why 50 Scientists choose to believe in Creation" or "In 6 days". You presume a conflict that does not exist.

The key points is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to put forth key positions regarding some of the Book of Mormon implications. I agree we run into prejudice regarding the Book of Mormon since its existence is considered fantastic and too recent. The other problem lies with the lack of volume in terms of mesoamerican research (relative to old world), this will take years to address in order to build a proper base of knowledge by which to clearly define the many cultures we presently know nothing about. The origin of the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with such things.

The implications of the Book of Mormon and its accuracy should also not be judged based on its origin. If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then the accuracy exists regardless of how the information came about (one could claim Eisnteins dream is just as incredible in regards to the theory of relativity).

That is at least how I see it.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Fortunately, or unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Most scientists, historians, archaeologists, expert in any field would expect an Einstein to be capable of his Theory of Relativity. Most writers expect that a Tolkien(He was an Oford Don) to be capable of The Lord of the Rings. None of my fellow social workers wouldn't bat an eye if I were to write a book about social work.

But a young man in upstate New York of the 1820's writting about a complex culture which he had no actual experience with, is a stretch few are publicly willing to make.

[Jeff K.]

True, I was pretty skeptical myself.

[Chris Smith]

If there were really good evidence for supernatural claims, I think scholars would be able to publish it in mainstream journals. There has been some parapsychology research published in Nature. The problem isn't that religious truth claims aren't currently academically respectable. The problem is that religious truth claims are too problematic to ever become academically respectable.

[thesometimesaint]

Chris Smith:

Much depends on what department at the university you were to go to. The religion department you probably be pretty good to go, the science department not so much.

[Robert F. Smith]

If there were really good evidence for supernatural claims, I think scholars would be able to publish it in mainstream journals. There has been some parapsychology research published in Nature. The problem isn't that religious truth claims aren't currently academically respectable. The problem is that religious truth claims are too problematic to ever become academically respectable.

As a strict matter of logic or philosophy, "good evidence for supernatural claims" is a contradiction in terms, and most scholars attempting such a thing would be jeered at and dismissed without a fair hearing. Such "religious truth claims" can only be addressed via extrapolation from known scientific data and principles -- just as circumstantial evidence is often used in criminal cases. Sherlock Holmes' dictum can thus be taken however you prefer: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

[Ariarates]

The question of interpretation or application to other issues is part and parcel of scholarship all the time. The original excavator or translator need not be concerned with how someone else uses such information. All of us should simply expect that it be used honestly and fairly, and that is the purpose of scholarly peer review and formation of consensus over time.

True, but where is the peer reviewed scholarship that attempts to build a consensus that the LDS interpretation of this find is valid?

Such bits and pieces of information are not by themselves proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon (or the Bible), but they do go far toward giving it the appropriate mise en scene if it is indeed authentic.

Again true, but to paraphrase Michael Coe: where are the actors?

[Robert F. Smith]

where is the peer reviewed scholarship that attempts to build a consensus that the LDS interpretation of this find is valid?

That will continue to take place in blogs, articles, and books. This will be a largely solipsistic endeavor, few outside the LDS community even being aware of or interested in the matter. Indeed, even if a consensus develops, such a datum can only be taken in concert with many other data points in order to draw even tentative conclusions.

to paraphrase Michael Coe: where are the actors?

As Coe himself observes, they would have to be found primarily in Chiapas and in Guatemala. He sees no correlation between the Nephites and any known culture in Mesoamerica. Naturally, he sees the Book of Mormon as fantasy on a par with the Israelite Exodus from Egypt -- no evidence for either, he says.

Actually, he is mostly unaware of the very advanced work being done in correlating the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican cultures, and the first major book on Book of Mormon archeology should be out in a matter of months.

[Ariarates]

The other problem lies with the lack of volume in terms of mesoamerican research (relative to old world), this will take years to address in order to build a proper base of knowledge by which to clearly define the many cultures we presently know nothing about.

I seriously doubt that this is true. To begin with, the juxtaposition with the "old world" is entirely arbitrary. And what is meant by the "old world" anyway? Rome, Greece and Palestine, or Eurasia and North Africa? And what about China or Africa? Moreover, as a scientific discipline, archaeology is younger than the published BoM and Mesoamerica was an area of interest and discovery right from the beginning.

In short: CFR that Mesoamerican archaeology in any way "lacks research volume" from which to "build a proper base of knowledge".

The implications of the Book of Mormon and its accuracy should also not be judged based on its origin. If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then the accuracy exists regardless of how the information came about

This may be true in the world of religion but science is all about wanting to find out how things came about. You cannot scientifically study things while purposefully ignoring how they came about.

[Ariarates]

That will continue to take place in blogs, articles, and books. This will be a largely solipsistic endeavor, few outside the LDS community even being aware of or interested in the matter.

I'm confused. First you say: "All of us should simply expect that it be used honestly and fairly, and that is the purpose of scholarly peer review and formation of consensus over time." Then, when I ask where this peer review and consensus building takes place, you say "in blogs, articles, and books".

If LDS scholars want their interpretation of NHM to stick, they're going to have to publish it in the proper scientific arena. Otherwise, it's faithpromoting speculation. Not that there's is anything wrong with that, but to claim, in the absence of such publications, that the NHM altar is evidence for, or even an indication of, BoM historicity would be dishonest and misleading.

Actually, he is mostly unaware of the very advanced work being done in correlating the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican cultures

I beg to differ; he seems to be perfectly aware of the challenges of BoM archaeology. You just don't like his conclusion but that's no reason to discredit the man.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Ariarates

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

A pretty strong case can be made for the Lehites in the Middle East. The incense trail, MHM, Bountiful, etc., etc.. A lesser case for the New World, cities of cement, and other evidences.

See: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Edited August 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

True, but where is the peer reviewed scholarship that attempts to build a consensus that the LDS interpretation of this find is valid?

Please give us a list of peer-reviewed journals willing to publish research on the BOM.

No speculation, please, but professional journals with whom you have corresponded and the editors expressed a willingness to review and publish such articles. Please bear in mind that the reviewers need to have an intimate knowledge of the BOM text in order to conduct such a review.

I think your question is baloney, but please prove me wrong.

Again true, but to paraphrase Michael Coe: where are the actors?

Can you tell us with certainty Coe's knowledge of the BOM text? Or is he speaking from ignorance. The actors are there and the remains are evident, but the issue here is Coe himself, since you quoted him.

Give us evidence of his expertise in the BOM text, or is he just blowing hot air.

CFR on his expertise to ask such a question, please. FYI. I have asked him to participate on this forum to answer some questions on his statements, but I don't see him here. Do you?

That suggests to me that he is unwilling to hear the answer. This is a rhetorical question, and has not interest in the answer at all. Just hot air blowing in the wind, sirrah. Is this is the guy that you are quoting? We have already given the answer here on this forum, so I can see why you did not want to make it YOUR question.

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[Gervin]

Please give us a list of peer-reviewed journals willing to publish research on the BOM.

No speculation, please, but professional journals with whom you have corresponded and the editors expressed a willingness to review and publish such articles. Please bear in mind that the reviewers need to have an intimate knowledge of the BOM text in order to conduct such a review.

I think your question is baloney, but please prove me wrong.

Can you tell us with certainty Coe's knowledge of the BOM text? Or is he speaking from ignorance. The actors are there and the remains are evident, but the issue here is Coe himself, since you quoted him.

Give us evidence of his expertise in the BOM text, or is he just blowing hot air.

CFR on his expertise to ask such a question, please. FYI. I have asked him to participate on this forum to answer some questions on his statements, but I don't see him here. Do you?

That suggests to me that he is unwilling to hear the answer. This is a rhetorical question, and has not interest in the answer at all. Just hot air blowing in the wind, sirrah. Is this is the guy that you are quoting? We have already given the answer here on this forum, so I can see why you did not want to make it YOUR question.

I responded to this in post 91: Well, here's a List of Scholars. And I'm sure they know the names, addresses, and submission requirements for all the best journals. My question is, have they ever been turned down for publication because they submitted a paper titled (something like) "A Case for a MesoAmerican Setting of the Book of Mormon." ?? Or, have they ever even submitted such a paper to one of the respected journals in their field? If not, why not (see post #56)?

According to believers in the Book of Mormon, the people described in the book, their culture, their beliefs, their material world, their cities, armies, and temples all existed prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. So, finding and conducting scholarly research on the archaeological or anthropological evidence of these people is not dependent on the Book of Mormon or how it is purported to have come about. If LDS scholars are the most inclined to do this type of research (and I suppose they are) then what is keeping them from making their case in secular academics? It can't be fear of religious persecution. It can't be fear of academic reprisal. Maybe there isn't any evidence to hang one's hat on ...

[Chris Smith]

As a strict matter of logic or philosophy, "good evidence for supernatural claims" is a contradiction in terms

People say this all the time, but I don't think it's true. In most religious systems, the "supernatural" is thought to affect the physical world in observable and even regular ways. Finding good evidence for certain types of "supernatural" phenomena is no less possible than finding good evidence for dark matter or the curvature of space.

I do agree, though, that any phenomenon for which there was good scientific evidence would be recategorized from supernatural to natural. "Supernatural" is just what we call scientifically unwarranted beliefs that people are really attached to.

and most scholars attempting such a thing would be jeered at and dismissed without a fair hearing.

There was jeering when plate tectonics was first published, too. But the nice thing about the scientific process is that such ideas eventually do catch on, if they have sufficient evidentiary warrant.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Ariarates]

double

Edited August 14, 2011 by Ariarates

[Ariarates]

I think your question is baloney, but please prove me wrong.

My question was aimed at a very specific point which I am debating with Robert F. Smith. If you think it's baloney, then just don't participate. Have a sandwich instead.

CFR on his expertise to ask such a question, please.

He is a very respected archaeologist and has studied Mormonism enough to publish about it. If I am not mistaken, he counts not a few LDS archaeologists like Sorensen and Clark as his professional friends and has observed Mormon fieldwork firsthand in Mesoamerica.

FYI. I have asked him to participate on this forum to answer some questions on his statements, but I don't see him here. Do you?

His statements on BoM archaeology are exceptionally clear and unambiguous. Maybe you don't like them, but that's your problem.

That suggests to me that he is unwilling to hear the answer.

Right, just because he doesn't do what you want him to do, he is unwilling to answer. What do you have to offer him that would make coming here worth his while?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Ariarates