Not so easy?

[religiously free]

Hamblin:  It does, however, demonstrate that claims that the lack of archaeological evidence for Nephite religion in Mesoamerica proves the BOM is false are methodologically weak (at best), and should give pause to critics making such claims.

and

Anti-Mormons consistently claim that the lack of archaeological evidence for Nephite religion is conclusive proof that there was not Nephite religion and that the BOM is therefore ahistorical.

The problem with the above is that you are not appreciating who has the burden of proof. The onus is on the one who makes the positive claim. Anti mormons are not making the positive claim. Pro mormons are. The claim being that the BOM is true, historical authentic. Where or how pro-mormons get their evidence to support their claim is up to them. Whatever evidence is provided is then evaluated as to how well it supports the claim.

Lack of evidence does not prove something false. If there is supposed to be evidence and it is NOT found then that is considered negative evidence. It doesn't mean it's a claim of evidence, it means the evidence is lacking to support the positive claim which should be available. So the positive claim fails.

So in your example the evidence offered by pro mormons in support of the claim has been evaluated by anti mormons and they do not accept that it supports the claim. lack of evidence contributes to failure of positive claim.

[Tetraforce]

No. LDS members ask people to ask God if the BoM is true, as the only way to know if its true, our only offer of proof depends on personal revelation, thus the burden of proof will always be with your conscience and getting in touch with the source. Which is something that can't be taken by critics, so the burden of proof is with the critic and only to themselves, because how do you prove its wrong with people who already know through their oun spiritual testimony that is true?

[Tetraforce]

You got a marriage certificate for these people?

yes I as a matter of fact do...why don't you go onto the internet and do a search on the "Margaritta Case" it was a federal case in New Orleans with my 6th great grandfather marrying a slave...that ought to show you...

If you say so, but in 1863, there were few, if any, places where whites were free to marry blacks in the United States. It is a fact there were miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutonality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883).

Not forgetting Jim Crow laws (or Black Codes) were made to enforce racial segregation, and included laws that would prevent African Americans from doing things that a white person could do. Separate use of water fountains and separate seating sections on public transport, excluded blacks from juries and prohibited interracial marriage.

[alienward]

No. LDS members ask people to ask God if the BoM is true, as the only way to know if its true, our only offer of proof depends on personal revelation, thus the burden of proof will always be with your conscience and getting in touch with the source. Which is something that can't be taken by critics, so the burden of proof is with the critic and only to themselves, because how do you prove its wrong with people who already know through their oun spiritual testimony that is true?

Do we ask if it

[Bill Hamblin]

All I will say is: even if the BofM is not history and Joseph Smith made it up, it does not mean that he was not

[religiously free]

In regards to burden of proof.

LDS members ask people to ask God if the BoM is true, as the only way to know if its true, our only offer of proof depends on personal revelation, thus the burden of proof will always be with your conscience and getting in touch with the source.

I understand that may be the way church members, such as yourself establish for themselves whether the BOM is true. But that has nothing to do with the logical concept of burden of proof. God (your god) has not been proven. If there were a consensually agreed upon verifiable entity in this world of god and he could be asked by all including skeptics ..is the BOM true?...and he answered...that would be verifiable evidence. But there is no universal consensus of a verifiable god. So your suggested evidence is not evidence. It's only evidence to those who want it to believe it is.

Which is something that can't be taken by critics, so the burden of proof is with the critic and only to themselves, because how do you prove its wrong with people who already know through their oun spiritual testimony that is true?

If I say I have 2 kids it's not up to you to prove me wrong. My kids could be full grown and living in some foreign country. What are you supposed to do, search the world for my kids, whom I've given you no evidence of, no information to go by. If you can't find evidence of my kids does that mean you've made a claim that I don't have kids. No. All you are going to tell me is to provide the evidence otherwise there is no reason to believe me. The burden of proof is on me, I made the claim. If I don't provide the evidence, my (positive) claim that I have kids ..fails...to you the skeptic.

[Dunamis]

I'm not quite sure where this thread is going but the originator has rights to it:

For those that think it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the BOM through archaeological evidence, I offer the following challenge.

All that survives in Mesoamerica from pre-400 AD is archaeological artifacts, and some Maya royal inscriptions and reliefs. Assume, for the sake of Argument, that Diocletian's persecutions of Christianity were successful, Constantine never converted, and Christianity disappeared around 300 AD. Using solely archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions, reconstruct the history of Christianity. What, precisely, could we prove about Christianity using solely archaeological artifacts and Roman royal inscriptions? To give you a little help, you can turn to Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, 2nd ed.(Mercer UP, 2003), which includes all major archaeological data.

Warning: This is a thread for substantive discussion only and violators will have their posts deleted without warning or explanation.

[William the Conqueror]

A better analogy would be the Jewish Khazar state in modern Russia in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, or the Manichean Uighars in modern western China and Mongolia. (I did not use these in the original challenge since I suspect that few on the FAIR board have ever heard of the Khazars or Uighars and would be unfamiliar with the evidence for it.)

I have heard a lot about the Khazars from someone who thinks all the Jews in America and Israel today are Khazars.

Also Kostler (I believe that is his name) wrote a book about the alleged 13th tribe over 30 years ago. He is a proud Jew claiming descent from Russian Khazars.

Another related METHODOLOGICAL analogy would be to reconstruct the religion of ancient Israel by archaeological and royal inscriptional evidence alone, and distinguish by such evidence between Israelite artifacts and Canaanite artifacts. If one were to make the attempt, one would conclude that the Israelites were indistinguishable from their Canaanite neighbors in both religion and material culture. If we include non-royal inscriptions we could learn that Israelites sometimes called called the god Baal by the name YHWH, and that YHWH was the consort of the Canaanite goddess Asherah. (See Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, (London: Continuum, 2001) for a review of all known evidence.)

Did William F. Allbright support this view? I remember an intro to one of his books where he states: "...if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not exist, then individuals with those same names did... (not sic) "

Dr. Hamblin,

[Bill Hamblin]

Did William F. Allbright support this view? I remember an intro to one of his books where he states: "...if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not exist, then individuals with those same names did... (not sic) "

That these names are ancient Semitic names is not in dispute. But it does not prove that the biblical Abraham existed, nor does it prove the supernatural claims of the Bible any more than the fact that Joseph is an authentic 19th century American name prove that Joseph Smith existed, and especially that he was a true prophet.

The case with BOM names is different, however. Since everyone agrees that the Bible is an ancient Semitic text, the existence of authentic ancient Semitic names in the Bible does not prove the historicity of the events described in the Bible any more than the existence of authentic French names in the Three Musketeers proves that the novel is history. Historical verisimilitude does not prove historicity.

On the other hand, the existence of authentic, anciently attested Semitic names in the BOM has a different type of probative value because the authenticity and provenance of the text itself is disputed. Thus, the existence of ancient Semitic names in the text is evidence for the antiquity of the BOM. The significance of the data is different in each case because the fundamental question being asked about the data is different.

[noel00]

another "pedestrian" comment

I just think the arguments for the BOM historicty have become so convoluted, they are hard to follow. I found Dan's book on Indian origins interesting, especially his comments about the Indian mounds and how often they are mentioned in the BOM as apposed to that in general terms to that of the spacious buildings. There seems so much 19c material that can be found in the BOM. Of course the like of Blake Ostler admits to that along with the ancient material. Did Smith translate part of the BOM looking into a stone in a hat? Where were the plates in the meantime and why did he need them?

I realise people associated with Signature etc are agnostic or athiest, but then people like Alvin Plantinga are Christians. So what?

{personal comments edited by moderator}

[Elihu]

Bill, as prophecy has stated, the Church will grow and fill the earth.

God never got rid of Israel, and God never let the Church disappear either, in fact Jesus said the Comforter would be with us to the end of the age.

The premise you stated in your first post is flawed because the teaching that God would allow His people to disappear is flawed. That is one obvious flaw of the book of Mormon in fact. God does not work that way. God is faithful to preserve His people and words.

You can't find archeology to back up the bom because there is none to find.

Never has been.

[Confidential Informant]

I just think the arguments for the BOM historicty have become so convoluted, they are hard to follow.

That's funny. I don't find them all that difficult to track at all.

I found Dan's book on Indian origins interesting, especially his comments about the Indian mounds and how often they are mentioned in the BOM as apposed to that in general terms to that of the spacious buildings.

Indian mounds mentioned in the B of M? You know, I've read that book approaching 50 times now, and apparently I've continued to miss the B of M references to "Indian mounds." Don't suppose we have a chapter and verse so I might see the mention of these mounds for myself?

Moreover, it appears to me that the most "convoluted" thing around here is your post. What is the point of a comparison between the frequency of citation of "spacious buildings" and "Indian mounds"?

There seems so much 19c material that can be found in the BOM.

You know, I keep hearing this claim, but I seldom see any evidence of what material counts as 19th century and what does not.

Of course the like of Blake Ostler admits to that along with the ancient material.

It occurs to me that I doubt Ostler would agree with your rather brief description of his work. Moreover, it occurs that the 19th century material in the B of M is a relic of the translational process rather than a relic of the actual text. Just as the concept of banking was a modern translational relic of the English translation of the Bible and not actually a part of the origial text.

Did Smith translate part of the BOM looking into a stone in a hat?

Hello, can you say radical subject change for no apparent reason at all? You can almost hear the synapses frying themselves.

Where were the plates in the meantime and why did he need them?

Snap, crackle, pop. fizzle.....

I realise people associated with Signature etc are agnostic or athiest, but then people like Alvin Plantinga are Christians. So what?

Whoa, whiplash! I thought dunamis said this thread was for substantive posts only. I'm pretty sure this one doesn't qualify. It has that "drive by shooting" feel to it.

C.I.

[Ray Agostini]

Noel, you wrote:

I just think the arguments for the BOM historicty have become so convoluted, they are hard to follow. I found Dan's book on Indian origins interesting, especially his comments about the Indian mounds and how often they are mentioned in the BOM as apposed to that in general terms to that of the spacious buildings.

You're whetting my appetite, but I will read it soon. I trust though that Dan's explanation is much better than what you just did, because it wasn't impressive at all.

There seems so much 19c material that can be found in the BOM.

You can find it almost anywhere you want. For example, from memory, the Treaty-Covenant pattern, which could be either 19th century or ancient, but whether you accept it as either depends on your bias.

Of course the like of Blake Ostler admits to that along with the ancient material.

And he gave some explanations as to why that might be.

Did Smith translate part of the BOM looking into a stone in a hat? Where were the plates in the meantime and why did he need them?

Why do you need a modem for your computer. Do you look into the modem? Just a thought. We don't know all the processes of the translation.

I realise people associated with Signature etc are agnostic or athiest, but then people like Alvin Plantinga are Christians. So what?

I never said there was anything wrong with that. But it is curious that Christians like yourself will quote and rely so heavily on people who think the same about your biblical beliefs that they do about Mormon beliefs. They think you are just as gullible for believing fantastic Bible stories as they think Mormons are for believing "fairy tales". The very ammunition you used, from their books, they can also use to decimate your Christian beliefs.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I must say this post-modernist view of the BOM is rather amusing.

The postmodernist or social constructionist reading of the BofM is all your

[Dale]

Hi,

Dan personally I am not threatened by views that the Book of Mormon is inspiring fiction. As far as my testimony the Book of Mormon is true feelings can be subjective. Intellectually I only trust what I test to be true. The main thing that has caused me to be confident in my spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon has been reading dopy anti-Mormon literature. The arguments used by the critics I feel have answers. With Signature Books my feelings have been better about the stuff they publish. I am not sure I feel forced to reject my testimony. But I certainly don't believe one should not read what dissagrees with you. When Signature Books publishes something important I usually buy the book.

In deciding based on intellectual arguments that the Book of Mormon is untrue historically it boils down to making a choice. Certainly on some issues relating to the Book of Mormons historicity one could choose to take the inspiring fiction point of view.

Personally I much prefer to see more debates rather than agreements on the issues. I welcome you here to the FAIR board.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Dan Vogel]

Dale,

I do not wish to give the impression that I expect everyone to adopt my views. All I want to do is express my views and interpretations, which may or may not be valid. If in some small way others find benefit from my research, I'm happy that I have contributed to their own personal journeys, wherever they may lead. I cannot tell you what is right for you. You must decide that for yourself.

Debates are good as long as people do not violate one another's boundaries. Sharing views should lead to understanding and tolerance. It should help us see that things are not always as simple as they might at first appear. Some participants, I fear, take themselves a little too seriously.

[Dunamis]

Reminder: Off-topic and/or inflammatory posts are being removed.

[Dan Vogel]

Noel said:

I found Dan

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Dan

The postmodernist or social constructionist reading of the BofM is all your

[Confidential Informant]

For those interested,Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon is available on line at

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/vogel1.htm

Noel is referring to chapter two: “New World Antiquities.”

Wow, I'm just left speechless at the sheer audacity. History, psychology and now archeology and anthropology, all without ever stepping foot in a university classroom.

the implication that a precise methodology is necessary to demonstrate 19th century influences is absurd.

And thus we reach the underlying theme of Vogel, Metcalfe, Palmer, et al. Methodology is not necessary. Can you imagine a [edited] scholoar ever suggesting such a thing? Can you imagine a New Testament scholar claiming textual reliance on Greek mythology and then suggesting that he doesn't need to provide any methodology to show how he reached his conclusions? Unbelievable.

Those writing on this subject have presented adequate reason for making such claims. I’m certainly not going to rehash all the discussions here.

Adequate reasoning according to whom? Signiture books?

But

[juliann]

the implication that a precise methodology is necessary to demonstrate 19th century influences is absurd.

Dan, you will have to take on the Mormon Studies program at CGU if you want this to fly. Are you prepared to do that?

Session IV: “Positioning Mormonism in American Religious History”

Presider:

[japanguy]

Confidential,

[edited by moderator]

Just because a person has a degree does not make them automatically better than one who is self educated. Learning does not stop just because you don't go to college.

I have read some of Dan Vogel's writing and while I don't always agree with him I do respect him for doing his best to understand early LDS history. And while he and others may not have degree's hanging all over their walls for all to "see" they are still "educated". So let's stick with the issues. If you don't agree with a point let them know "why" and "what" it is that you disagree with. And while you are at it maybe you could give us some reasons to just "believe" you. Let's stop just attacking the messenger. If you don't agree then I would encourage you to be fair and balanced and start to reviewing many of the books published by LDS leaders(most don't have theology degrees).

Thanks,

Japanguy

[Confidential Informant]

Japan guys says I'm rude.

Japanguy, I freely admit that I'm quite confrontational on these boards. I'd get used to it if I were you.

As to my ego, what have I said that indicated that my ego is either too large too small? I don't "have" to tell any that I have a law degree and I've never told anyone that I'm a "defense attorney" since I'm not. What I am is a "criminal attorney" with some experience in constitutional matters. And that information was relevant in the context of the discussion. I was questioning Mr. Vogel's credentials. In my line of work, credentials matter. Also, evidentiary matters are subjected to strict rules prior to being allowed for consideration. Thus, I was not bragging about my education or my qualifications, I was simply being "transparent" as Juliann would put it, exposing by biases.

Just because a person has a degree does not make them automatically better than one who is self educated.

Nor have I ever said that it does.

Learning does not stop just because you don't go to college.

Nor have I made this claim. I do not question Mr. Vogel's knowledge of LDS history, what I have questioned is his use to the "tools" that aspiring historians are taught in post-graduate educational courses. If being a historian was simply a matter of reading a bunch of books, then any of us or all of us could be considered experts. But it's not that easy. That's why I'm focusing on and dwelling on methodology because it is via the methodology that we can judge the use of these "tools."

What I'm getting so far is that Mr. Vogel rejects the use of those tools, and that's making me very suspicious.

while he and others may not have degree's hanging all over their walls for all to "see" they are still "educated".

So what? The fact still remains, if you had been charges with a crime, would you hire the guy with the JD degree or would you simply hire a guy whose read a bunch of law books? If you wanted that molar removed or that root canal done would you go to the guy with the DDS degree or would you choose the guy who read how to do the proceedures in a book only? Both people are "educated" but one has a grasp of the use proper use of the "tools" involved and the other does not.

  So let's stick with the issues.

I have, and I have explained why.

If you don't agree with a point let them know "why" and "what" it is that you disagree with.  And while you are at it maybe you could give us some reasons to just "believe" you.

Obviously you haven't followed the whole thread. I have done this. For example, on the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had the ability to write the Book of Mormon unaided, Mr. Vogel made some assertions that, in his view, Smith could have done so. I asked him specifically why and how he reached this conclusion when a majority of Josephs contemporaries, both friend and foe, agreed vehemently that he could not have. I have, as yet, received no answer.

I also asked for an explanation of what methodology he used to determine what thoughts feelings and actions Joseph Smith may have been experiencing in any given context, especially when Smith had already provided an explanation of his thoughts and motivations. I wanted to know why Vogel's analysis supercedes Smith. He has not answered. In fact, he still has not explained what his qualifications are to reach such conclusions.

Let's stop just attacking the messenger.

Mr. Vogel is not the messenger. he is the creator of the message and the originator of the conclusions contained therein. I have 1. Questioned his qualifications to created the message and 2. questioned his reasons and methodology for the conclusions found in the message.

If you don't agree then I would encourage you to be fair and balanced and start to reviewing many of the books published by LDS leaders(most don't have theology degrees).

As soon as you can explain to me the nexus between the type of work Vogel has done and the type of word LDS authorities have done, I'll undertake such an analysis. Too my knowledge, no LDS leader has ever endeavored to reinterpret Joseph Smith's thoughts and motivations in ways contrary to what Smith indicated.

LDS leaders are specifically qualifed to write the type of books they write.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

I'm not going to take on Claremont because Claremont is not the monolith that you think it is. Claremont can't control all who pass through, some are bound to have opinions that differ from that institution. And you have no authority to speak for Claremont. Nor do I seek the appoval of any institution. I do not see myself in an adversarial relationship with them, as you seem to wish were the case. It may be that some at Claremont will take issue with either my approach or interpretations, but that is the nature of scholarship. You can be PC as you wish and I guarantee that someone is going to disagree with you. That is, if you ever publish something.

I agree with Barlow: "Thou shalt not assume if you know 19th century Mormonism that you understand Mormonism." I don't. My works are confined to the 19th century. Conversely: "Thou shalt not assume if you know contemporary Mormonism that you understand 19th century Mormonism." I understand current Mormon somewhat since I'm a sixth-generation Mormon and a former missionary. But I haven't tried to keep up with current trends.

As to Barlow's other commandment: "Mormons studying Mormonism must know something else." I think this is good advise, too. There has always been the problem, in my view, with non-Mormon Ph.D.s trying to comment on Mormon history and making very simple mistakes, on the one hand, and Mormons, on the other, who have a good knowledge of their own history but no training or even interest in other subjects. When I started, I also thought there were too many Ph.D.s rushing to make big theories and sweeping generalizations without doing a thorough search of the sources. I have tried to remedy this lack, at least in the area of origins. Interdisciplinary work is not easy as it is, but when you want to require credentials for everything, like Mr. Informant (as if doing scholarship was the same as testifying in a court), then interdisciplinary work becomes impossible. The best you can do in some cases is consult experts in those fields, as those in other disciplines have consulted me.

As to DeChaine, what he recommends for the academy might work as an institutional policy is not a rule that independent scholars must follow. Nor does it imply that other approaches are invalid. If they choose not to deal with certain questions or they prohibit anyone at Claremont from doing so, that is their prerogative, but I don't have to follow it. I'm only concerned with specific criticism to specific interpretations. But, if they truly are going to be inclusive, then they must consider all points of view. Indeed, they may have to, whether they want to or not.

As to McKechnie, I haven't read this book, so I do not know the context of the statement. I suspect, but could be wrong, that since his subject is the first century of Chritianity, he might be taking a pluralistic approach since there was no one Christianity but many. If so, I can see how a Mormon would be encourage by such a view, and I have no objection to it.

So we should be able to ask the question as to what way you are seeing and have it readily answered. Why are you so resistant to what should be taken for granted?

Because you are asking a complex question and expecting a simple answer. You are asking a writer to write a treatise on a web-board. I simply don't have the energy necessary to write at that length, nor do you have the space, nor would the average reader find it interesting. That's why I told Mr. Informant that I would only do it as it comes up in specific instances. Like, why do you believe this source is reliable and not this other one. So, if you want answers, be more specific. The problem is Mr. Informant evidently hasn't a clue about what has been written, so all he can do is talk in very general terms, hoping I'm stupid enough to do all the work for him.

Now, Juliann, you brought something up on another string that has made me reconsider my participation here: "Transparency ... is why FAIR says it is an apologetic organization rather than claiming we search for truth, openness and the American way. That is transparency.

[Confidential Informant]

Typical.

Apparently we didn't genuflect sufficiently at the altar of Dan.

At the very least he could interact with Bill Hamblin and ignore the rest of us simpletons.

Maybe Dan's right. Maybe I'm just stupid. However, I still fail to see the problem with asking Dan why he thinks Smith could have written the B of M when most contemporary sources, both pro and con, did not consider him capable of such.

Moreover, I don't see how asking him what his qualifications are regarding psychology is out of line.

Apparently, I'm simply supposed to accept all such things at face value.

<sigh>

C.I.