The Book Of Mormon Challenge: What Difference Does It Make?

[cinepro]

In another thread, cdowis made the following observation:

Even to suggest that [The Book of Mormon] is possibly historical is to admit the possibility of existence of a deity and angels. Atheists can accept parts of the Bible, but it is impossible to give any quarter to a book delivered by an angel.

Even if the Nephites had recorded absolute proof of [The Book of Mormon's] historicity, this is a fool's errand to try to convince the world to even read it, to take it seriously. It is in the realm of religion and cannot be considered as a historical document, as the Smithsonian states.

Well, to be fair, most people couldn't care less about the history of ancient America (meso or heartland), so you're already in the realm of stuff people don't care about. But for those who are interested, what are they missing out on by not accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient history?

So here's the challenge: suppose you got a phone call from Richard Adams, author of the textbook "Prehistoric Mesoamerica", and he said he was updating his book and wanted to include the information in the Book of Mormon as part of the history in the textbook. What would you tell him to include?

To keep it simple, what would be the five facts about ancient America that would be included in the new version of the textbook based on the historical reading of the Book of Mormon? For the sake of argument, these claims in the textbook will be referenced as "Indisputable Fact", and footnoted as such. This information will be presented as historical truth for the students.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Edited September 17, 2012 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

Nothing

[cesc101]

Nothing

Nothing?!

Now am a convert of "fictional" Book of Mormon...

[cinepro]

Nothing?!

Now am a convert of "fictional" Book of Mormon...

Well, what would you suggest are the top 5 things that the Book of Mormon would contribute to a college-level textbook on the history of ancient America?

[nealr]

Okay, I'll bite:

1. That there was Old World migrations into the Americas pre-Columbus. Specifically, that a group from the Middle-East sailed here around 600 BC.

2. That these people instituted the practice of some form of the Judao-Christian religion among some peoples of Ancient America

3. That various animals such as the horse, goat, cow, etc. were possibly present in Mesoamerica during at least part of the 1000 years covered by the text.

4. That the people of Mesoamerica were more advanced and skilled in metallurgical practices prior to AD 900 than currently believed.

5. That certain grains, such as wheat and barley, were available in Mesoamerica during at least part of the 1000 years covered by the text.

6. That Semitic languages were both spoken and written by some peoples in the New World, and may have had some influence on some native languages.

7. Some pretty specific dates for when warfare occurred for at least some wars, as well several potential insights into warfare.

Of course, the last three would depend on whether those apparent anachronisms are to be treated as (a) loan-shits, (b) translator anachronisms, or © things for which material evidence outside the text has not survived. Since the text is being treated as fact, I have not included the possibility that they are real anachronisms. If they are either (a) or (b), then their presence in the text tells us nothing about ancient ancient Mesoamerica (unless we can discern through a careful reading what the English words are being used to refer to). But, if they are ©, then they serve the purposes stated in points 3-5.

For what is worth, I suspect number 4 is true (though that does not mean I believe that metallurgy was widely practiced or that all swords and weapons were metallic), but I seriously doubt 3 and 5, suspecting rather that such labels are mostly the result of loan-shifting and/or translation. My skepticism for numbers 3 and 5 are why I added two additional possibilities.

[JAHS]

There were some pretty dramatic changes in the landscape that some geologists and geographers might want to know about:

3 Nephi chapter 8

11 And the city of aMoroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;

13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.

14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.

15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.

17 And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth.

18 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land.

[cesc101]

cinepro,

my response wasn't because i believed there were "indisputable facts" in BoM that can be added to Adam's textbook, rather it is what my surprise (at "Nothing") could lead to.

BTW, "indisputable [historical] facts" in BoM is impossible, untill we know the correct location of BoM stories.

[cinepro]

Interesting points.

I'm most curious about these three:

3. That various animals such as the horse, goat, cow, etc. were possibly present in Mesoamerica during at least part of the 1000 years covered by the text.

4. That the people of Mesoamerica were more advanced and skilled in metallurgical practices prior to AD 900 than currently believed.

5. That certain grains, such as wheat and barley, were available in Mesoamerica during at least part of the 1000 years covered by the text.

If we're using the Book of Mormon itself as the reference for these points, is it responsible to teach students that they happened in a specific region?

I suspect there are other LDS who would argue that the Book of Mormon teaches us that those things took place in a different geography. If believers in the Book of Mormon can't even agree where these events took place within 1500 miles, can we blame non-LDS researchers for not taking the book at face value for its contribution to our knowledge of ancient American peoples?

[nealr]

If we're using the Book of Mormon itself as the reference for these points, is it responsible to teach students that they happened in a specific region?

Well, not necessarily, but since you used Mesoamerica in your OP (you asked what should be added to a textbook on Mesoamerica), I assumed that such a setting was being presumed for the sake of this discussion.

I suspect there are other LDS who would argue that the Book of Mormon teaches us that those things took place in a different geography.

Well, of course there are! We just had lengthy discussion about Rod Meldrum's theories...

If believers in the Book of Mormon can't even agree where these events took place within 1500 miles, can we blame non-LDS researchers for not taking the book at face value for its contribution to our knowledge of ancient American peoples?

Well, no, but I've never expected non-LDS experts to accept the book as a guide in secular studies. (Remember, I was indulging you in your little game, not independently suggesting that scholars should except the Book of Mormon.) While I believe there is plenty of compelling evidence for the Book of Mormon, I ultimately except it on the grounds of faith, and would never expect anyone else to accept it on any other grounds.

[cinepro]

Well, no, but I've never expected non-LDS experts to accept the book as a guide in secular studies. (Remember, I was indulging you in your little game, not independently suggesting that scholars should except the Book of Mormon.) While I believe there is plenty of compelling evidence for the Book of Mormon, I ultimately except it on the grounds of faith, and would never expect anyone else to accept it on any other grounds.

So you agree that non-LDS scholars don't accept the history in the Book of Mormon not because they're biased or atheist, but because they're rational?

On an additional note, does anyone know to what degree the events and people in the Book of Mormon are taught in Anthropology courses at BYU?

Edited September 18, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

As with the case of any ancient manuscript. It is not necessary to agree with it truth claims to establish that "X" events happened. IE; It is not necessary to assume that the Ancient Greek Gods are real to posit that Homer was a real person. That Troy existed even without the modern day proof that it did.

Edited September 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[nealr]

So you agree that non-LDS scholars don't accept the history in the Book of Mormon not because they're biased or atheist, but because they're rational?

Well now, that is a rather leading question. But it is also a false dichotomy. Rational people have biases, and most atheists are rational (I'll assume you didn't mean to imply that atheists are irrational ). People's biases often influence their rationality in ways that they don't tend to notice.

In any event, there isn't really a simply yes or no answer to your leading question. Most non-LDS scholars haven't even given the Book of Mormon a first glance, let alone a second. Without getting familiar with it, and they way informed scholars have related it to the real world, they simply are not qualified to speak on the subject whatsoever. So, in general, they don't. I view this general avoidance of the Book of Mormon for the scholarly community to be quite rational, since it would be impossible to comment on it's authenticity without also taking a stand on it's faith-based claims. It would not be wise, I think, for them to take a stand on such matters.

However, some individuals do choose to comment. When they do, I think that they have a responsibility to engage the very best arguments from LDS scholars on the subject. Yet, by and large, they have not. Michael Coe certainly didn't in his interview with John Dehlin last year. Being so dismissive of the arguments made for it's authenticity (even when they come from people that Coe repeatedly states he has a lot of respect for) I think is obviously evidence of biases. But how could such biases not be a factor? To seriously consider the book's claims to historicity also requires you to seriously consider Joseph Smith's claims to its origins. So, if you are an atheist, how can you consider the book as potentially authentic when it supposedly came from an angel? There is no question in my mind that secular (or religious biases, as the case maybe) impact the judgments of non-LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon.

So let me form a few questions of my own that I will then answer. I think this will best help me articulate my point:

Do I think non-LDS scholars should be using the Book of Mormon as a guide to ancient America?

No. To essentially restate my original comment (but also clarify): While I believe that their is plenty of compelling evidence I ultimately except it on faith, and would not expect anyone else to except it on any other grounds. This is because the books origins makes claims that can only ultimately be accepted on faith, and faith cannot be compelled by secular evidence. It must be exercised before it will be confirmed.

Do I think non-LDS scholars are rational for avoiding or not accepting the Book of Mormon?

Yes. But I also think I am rational, and LDS scholars are rational, and they accept the Book of Mormon.

Do I think non-LDS scholars have biases that impact their judgments of the Book of Mormon?

Yes, this is unavoidable. I also, of course, believe LDS scholars are being impacted by their biases. But the presence of biases doesn't invalidate arguments or mean the absence of rationality. I think the notion, perpetuated by critics of the Church, that LDS scholars must be dismissed because they are biased is a myth. I also think the notion, also perpetuated by critics of the Church, the non-LDS scholars must be preferred on the subject because they are supposedly "unbiased" is also a myth. Both myths need to be discarded.

Now, I thought this was about what impact the Book of Mormon would have on our knowledge of ancient America if we could be certain of its authenticity. I find this question ridiculous (do you seriously think that a text of such length - on any subject, from any ancient time and peoples - would not be highly valued by anthropologists and would not seriously contribute to our knowledge of that time/people?), but I have entertained the question anyhow. I am not, however, interested in the "gotcha" game you are apparently trying to play. I've got better things to do.

Have a nice day.

[KevinG]

I would go with something that is not new but probably under emphasized. That North Americas "native" population at the time of European contact was created by successive waves of immigration and multiple cultures. It was not just the product of a single group moving across the land bridge between Asia and North America, but it was mixed with other peoples who arrived by land and sea over thousands of years.

[KevinG]

Oh and concrete outhouses.

[cinepro]

Now, I thought this was about what impact the Book of Mormon would have on our knowledge of ancient America if we could be certain of its authenticity. I find this question ridiculous (do you seriously think that a text of such length - on any subject, from any ancient time and peoples - would not be highly valued by anthropologists and would not seriously contribute to our knowledge of that time/people?)

One of the first points that was made is that even if we were "sure of its authenticity", the text is so malleable and ambiguous on almost any historical point that it still offers almost no actual "data" that's of any use to anthropologists. The most we can say is that a group of people of some undetermined size lived in some undetermined location at a certain time, and that they claimed to have fought other groups of indeterminate people until one group was eliminated.

It's just not fair to say that non-LDS researchers are ignoring the Book of Mormon because they're atheist or biased against it. The reason is isn't accepted as a "historical document" is because until it can actually be tied to a place, there is no history there.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

The same argument can be made of the Bible, and no one really argues that it isn't an ancient document regardless of its truth claims.

Edited September 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[nealr]

It's just not fair to say that non-LDS researchers are ignoring the Book of Mormon because they're atheist or biased against it.

I didn't say that. But I also won't ignore the fact that they do have biases that impact their judgments on the text.

The reason is isn't accepted as a "historical document" is because until it can actually be tied to a place, there is no history there.

Really? Who said that? What expert has explained that as their reason? Or do you now speak on their behalf? That might be why you don't accept it, but you can only speak for you.

They are free to look at the settings that have been proposed and make judgments on that basis. You seem to not realize that it can't be tied to an actual place before it is taken seriously as an actual historical document. (How would you tie a book consider to be fiction to an actual place?) Alas, which to come first...the chicken, or the egg?

[KevinG]

... until it can actually be tied to a place, there is no history there.

Troy.

[Bikeemikey]

cinepro:

The same argument can be made of the Bible, and no one really argues that it isn't an ancient document regardless of its truth claims.

I am afraid that the same argument can not be made for the Bible. The Bible provides clear historical locations and we things like city names that correspond to known maps etc. The presence of these items make it a valuable historical reference. The Book of Mormon provides no reference point that allows us to determine a definitive historical location.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Troy.

Using the city Troy as an example is a little odd here.

First there is still debate as to whether the Illiad is a fictional fable, or historically based fiction. If it is fiction then the issue of Troy is moot.

Second, there is a known author and a known age. There is little debate about there actually being a "Homer" and that he actually wrote the Illiad a long long time ago. As such, even in the absence of a geographical location the text itself yeilds relevant archeological data.

Thrid, we can control for translation error and issues by having original language texts to go back to.

Four, for those who think it is historical there are a couple of different locations of ruins that match the location descriptions of Troy.

Five, there is reasonable evidence from other known records that date to the same time that reinforce the relavent historical components of the text.

The Book of Mormon has none of these. We get no geographical history. The authors go to great pains to tell us not to expect any thing other than religious content... specfically telling us that historical stuff is kept else where. There is no original text to deal with translation issues. There is no verification of outside the text for the content of the text, more over, we don't even know where to look to find such evidence.

[ANACO]

Using the city Troy as an example is a little odd here.

First there is still debate as to whether the Illiad is a fictional fable, or historically based fiction. If it is fiction then the issue of Troy is moot.

Second, there is a known author and a known age. There is little debate about there actually being a "Homer" and that he actually wrote the Illiad a long long time ago. As such, even in the absence of a geographical location the text itself yeilds relevant archeological data.

Thrid, we can control for translation error and issues by having original language texts to go back to.

Four, for those who think it is historical there are a couple of different locations of ruins that match the location descriptions of Troy.

Five, there is reasonable evidence from other known records that date to the same time that reinforce the relavent historical components of the text.

The Book of Mormon has none of these. We get no geographical history. The authors go to great pains to tell us not to expect any thing other than religious content... specfically telling us that historical stuff is kept else where. There is no original text to deal with translation issues. There is no verification of outside the text for the content of the text, more over, we don't even know where to look to find such evidence.

We do get some geographical history - such as time and distance. If we are to take the Book of Mormon at face value, then why restrict the 1,000 year primary civilization mentioned in it to a mesoamerica location, which mesoamerica is much much smaller than the peninsula of Arabia - which in turn was traversed in eight years.

[thesometimesaint]

Bikeemikey:

Using the city Troy as an example is a little odd here.

First there is still debate as to whether the Illiad is a fictional fable, or historically based fiction. If it is fiction then the issue of Troy is moot.

Second, there is a known author and a known age. There is little debate about there actually being a "Homer" and that he actually wrote the Illiad a long long time ago. As such, even in the absence of a geographical location the text itself yeilds relevant archeological data.

Thrid, we can control for translation error and issues by having original language texts to go back to.

Four, for those who think it is historical there are a couple of different locations of ruins that match the location descriptions of Troy.

Five, there is reasonable evidence from other known records that date to the same time that reinforce the relavent historical components of the text.

The Book of Mormon has none of these. We get no geographical history. The authors go to great pains to tell us not to expect any thing other than religious content... specfically telling us that historical stuff is kept else where. There is no original text to deal with translation issues. There is no verification of outside the text for the content of the text, more over, we don't even know where to look to find such evidence.

1. Troy has been found. That says nothing about the truth claims in the Illiad

2. What you are talking about is circumstantial evidence., The BoM has that too, we're just waiting for the proof.

The BoM claims Jerusalem. We definitely know where that is, even if the name has repeatedly changed over the last couple of thousand years.

The BoM claims a placed called NaHoM. Recently discovered in Saudi Arabia.

The BoM claims Bountiful in Saudi Arabia. We have one very good candidate, and a couple of not quite so good ones.

The Book of Mormon claims a city of cement. There is only one known very good candidate in Mesoamerica.

3. We don't need the original BoM to establish places and to a more limited extent events. We didn't need the originals of the Bible to establish the location of Jericho.

4. I believe you are overstating your claims about multiple Troy's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tro

5. True, but misleading. The search for BoM(Mesoamerican) evidences is still in its infancy. IE. People have been looking at the stars since there were people. Modern Astronomy is about 400 years old. Its been only in the last decade or so that planets outside of our solar system have been discovered, and we still know virtually nothing about them other than they exist.

Patience my friend patience. We have no doctrine as to where the main events of the BoM took place. That doesn't mean we have no evidence. I believe a good case can be made for Mesoamerica, but I'm not an archaeologist and at this late stage of my life not likely to become one.

[Bikeemikey]

Hey thesometimesaint,

I don't disagree with anything you have said. And the second they find a definitive set of cities and locations that can be said to match the BOM narrative then the BOM immediately becomes a potential historical tool in understanding more about the inhabitants of that geographical location. Until such time there is no reason to use the BOM as a historical tool as we have no real world geographical location to tie it to.

The historical contributions the book could lend to ancient middle eastern studies is pretty limited as very little of the discourse occurs there and there are other, better, more historically focused books that deal with the same region that don't have the same issues relating to textual authenticity.