Book Of Mormon Historicity: Does It Matter?

[mfbukowski]

One must see this from the point of an atheist, to see if reason alone can prove the Book of Mormon true.

 

If archeology does not convince a reasonable, well adjusted atheist without an axe to grind that Jesus was the Christ who took away his sins, and that this same Jesus came down from heaven on the American continent, the argument is not about what is "rational", nor is the argument about "evidence".  The argument is about faith and what we believe based on testimony, a personal experience our hypothetical atheist has not yet had.

 

Notice I say "yet".

 

The argument should center around what it would take to have that atheist have that experience.  What could one say to that person which would turn him around and cause him to earnestly seek the gospel?

 

I have some experience with this, because I was that person.

[Freedom]

is history not helpful to instruct? I don't know that any would say it is all there is to instruct, but can it offer helpful insight that someone, perhaps, would not imagine without history's story?

Certainly the history is insightful but it does not add to the principles being taught. For example the doctrine of 'love one another' will not be any better understood if profound archaeological discoveries come about proving the existence of the messenger and his divinity. Despite all the books written about the Book of Mormon events and plausible locations, no new breakthroughs have been made in understanding the doctrine of being in the service of our fellow beings, of praying in secret, or of keeping the law of chastity. 

[stemelbow]

Certainly the history is insightful but it does not add to the principles being taught. For example the doctrine of 'love one another' will not be any better understood if profound archaeological discoveries come about proving the existence of the messenger and his divinity. Despite all the books written about the Book of Mormon events and plausible locations, no new breakthroughs have been made in understanding the doctrine of being in the service of our fellow beings, of praying in secret, or of keeping the law of chastity.

I don't know. Without some history the concept of love may be less meaningful. Aren't our hearts to be impacted by doing family history, for instance? Without our experiences of learning and understanding I think the principles become less. In this sense, it is not only insightful but adds to the principles. At least that's what I think.

[Freedom]

I don't know. Without some history the concept of love may be less meaningful. Aren't our hearts to be impacted by doing family history, for instance? Without our experiences of learning and understanding I think the principles become less. In this sense, it is not only insightful but adds to the principles. At least that's what I think.

We are talking about two very different things. Learning about historical events to gain moral insight is different than studying archaeological evidence to prove they occurred. By reading the scriptures we are learning the history you are talking about. Finding pots and and pans that collaborate the history will add nothing to the moral of the story, only that the story ready did take place. if we prove once and for all where the Book of Mormon took place and prove once and for all to the world that these events ready did take place, it will have little if any effect on our understanding of the precepts being taught in the book. 

[ERayR]

We are talking about two very different things. Learning about historical events to gain moral insight is different than studying archaeological evidence to prove they occurred. By reading the scriptures we are learning the history you are talking about. Finding pots and and pans that collaborate the history will add nothing to the moral of the story, only that the story ready did take place. if we prove once and for all where the Book of Mormon took place and prove once and for all to the world that these events ready did take place, it will have little if any effect on our understanding of the precepts being taught in the book. 

 

A few pots and pans do not even corroborate that the events described took place, only that they might have taken place.  

[Calm]

Brant Gardner had (I assume it is in his multivolume work, but I haven't gotten that yet) a discussion on what the Mesoamerican context for the text on why rich clothing tied together with the other stuff going on and meant so much in terms of creating division among church members.

 

For example:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf

One of the two people who wrote the article that I think makes the most sense on this was John Clark and he talked about a process of aggrandizers where one of the things that they would do is you’d get some ambitious people who would start trading and then they would get more trade goods, and this was going to increase their status in the community, and because they are increasing their status in the community it’s going to get some differential in what they have and what somebody else has, the kind of trade goods you have. You will get some sort of social inequality there.

 

One of the things that absolutely struck me is that this is first of all an economic argument in that you’ve got people who are looking to better themselves through trade and look at wealth, money, etc. And the second thing is the mechanism that they used was that they would have plural wives. The reason? They’d have more people to work. You get more wives, so you get a bigger family, you have a cottage industry and now you’ve got more workers, you’ve got a built-in workforce, you create more items, you get more trade. It has always been fascinating to me that this is the exactly the time period where Jacob is complaining about something that is happening in his community, and he complains about two things that you would not suspect are connected which are costly apparel and multiple wives. He is telling people why this is terrible. Why is it those two things? How do those go together? Why are they related? Because that’s what is happening at that time period. 

I think this adds precautions for us to avoid, not specifically avoiding polygyny to avoid pride, but rather it points to putting making money and power first before our families or even using our families for that purpose, as in people who choose to work 24/7 for promotions etc. to the neglect of their family is something very relevant to today that would not necessarily be thought of when speaking of costly apparel and class division.  So knowing a possible context of behavior can add to what we can learn from reading it solely in the context of our own time imo.

Edited December 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Gervin]

See my only problem is that how do you know that those people are not legendary?

 

I mean Batman is about New York, but there is no real Batman.  Sherlock Holmes was about London- in a detailed way- but there was no real Sherlock Holmes.

 

So suppose your belief in the Bible is analogous to a religion based on the "prophet" Sherlock Holmes who had nearly supernatural powers in deducing things about people from the crease in their trousers or some such other tiny detail no one else would notice?

 

Are the works of Shakespeare any less significant if they were written by Bacon?

I get what you are saying but let me try to explain where I’m coming from.

 

The creators of Batman and Sherlock all acknowledge that their characters are fiction.  If a writer states that he or she is presenting history then there is nothing wrong with examining the larger known historical context to see what, if any, light it sheds on the claims of historicity.

 

Some events in the Biblical Old Testament are very likely based on oral traditions and stories passed down from generation to generation and other events we can, with some certainty, determine actually occurred – the Israelite flight from Egypt is not archaeologically verified.  The exile of the Israelites to Babylon is.  So it’s a mixed bag.  But, it’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t self-proclaim that everything is literally true or that someone reading the text should pray for verification that the stories are true (that would be circular and, thus, invalid).  We read the Old Testament and see all forms of Hebrew literature – poetry, allegory, history, etc.

 

I have never heard of anyone stating that their faith should rise and fall with historic verification (or lack thereof).  No one.  Ever.  But it is a fact that there are many instances where history (archaeological findings) verifies the writings – the setting, if you will – of the Old Testament.  For instance: wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes attest to 1 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 accounts of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of King Rehoboam’s reign, the Moabite Stone (the Mesha Stele) attests to the 2 Kings 3 report that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. The Obelisk of Shalmaneser III verifies 2 Kings 9–10, where Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). Can facts that verify the context of Biblical writings strengthen our faith?  I don’t know why not.

 

When we get to the New Testament the stakes, so to speak, are raised because the writings purport to be (in part) eyewitness attestations of the events surrounding the life of Christ.  Did Christ really talk to a Samaritan woman at the well?  Did he really threaten people in Capernaum not to harm little children?  Did he really heal a lame man at the Pool of Bethesda?  It can never be proven.  My faith doesn’t depend on it being proven.  And the Bible doesn’t demand that I pray and receive a testimony as verification that these things really took place (circular reasoning).

 

But it is  fact that archaeological excavations at Mount Gerizim indicate a Samaritan temple built there in the first half of the 5th century BC, as the woman referred to.  It is a fact that Capernaum was a city known for its making of millstones, giving context to Christ’s statement that it would be better for a millstone be hung around the neck of one who hurt children. And there actually was a Pool of Bethesda near the Sheep Gate as stated in the Bible.  Ultimately, these facts have only a small bearing on my faith, but knowing that there is a verifiable historic context for much of the Bible certainly doesn’t weaken my faith.  I posit that my faith is stronger knowing that the writers weren’t creating a fiction out of whole cloth. 

 

A (poor) analogy might be thus: no one tells me how, why, or to what extent I fall in love with someone; I meet someone, we click, I learn her history – and she mine.  We build a relationship through the investment of time, emotions, events, etc.  It’s the real deal.  I’m particularly impressed and moved by her schooling in Paris, volunteer work at an orphanage, and her love of hunting.  But as we move further into the relationship I discover that the schooling, volunteer work, and hunting isn’t casually verified by what others say or how they act when the subjects come up.  What’s going on?  Is she lying? Are her friends and family a bit clueless or also lying?  If a dispassionate person – with no stake in either one of us – reasonably concludes that her claimed history is false I may simply claim that love is a feeling  / emotion / conviction not based on historically-verifiable events but rather on what I feel and experience when I am around her.  In reality, I’ve made a conscious decision to ignore her history and make it a non-issue.  Or maybe I just buy into it.  What does this say about me?

 

The Book of Mormon makes some incredible claims about its historicity.  It is held up as the most correct book and that praying about it verifies its claims.  But, as evidenced on this board, there’s no agreement on any part of its history.  In my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas for a Hebrew culture, which worshipped a Hebrew God, wrote and communicated in a Semitic-slash-Egyptian language, that was defined by the material and social structure described in the Book of Mormon, while strictly keeping Mosaic Law.  It doesn’t make or break folk’s testimony, for sure, but what does it mean when people are asked to make a lack of historicity a non-issue – or when they actually buy into a false history?  I get it that there are no LDS members who see themselves as being in this position.  But how would a dispassionate person, i.e., a potential convert, view it?

 

I think this is longest post I’ve ever written.  Time to start the weekend. 

Edited December 5, 2014 by Gervin

[rongo]

In your view, what burden, if any, do believers have?

 

I think that many believers/apologists in recent years (say, the last decade or so) have relied too much on the inability of non-believers to prove a negative. I favor B.H. Roberts's approach:

 

Those who accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, may not so state their case that its

security chiefly rests on the inability of its opponents to prove a negative. The affirmative side of the

question belongs to us who hold out the Book of Mormon to the world as a revelation from God. The

burden of proof rests upon us in every discussion . . . The security of "Mormonism" rests . . . from a

forensic standpoint, upon much more precarious ground; for not only must the Book of Mormon not be

proved to have other origin than that which we set forth, or be other than what we say it is, but we must

prove its origin to be what we say it is, and the book itself to be what we proclaim it to be: a revelation

from God. ‐‐‐ (B.H. Roberts, “New Witnesses for God,” 2:4‐5).  

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

A few examples: If a man stops believing that King Benjamin was a historical person, can he still teach his children to honor King Benjamin's sermons? If a woman stops believing that Elijah gave authority to Joseph/Oliver, can she still hope for her family to be united in the next life? If a person stops believing that Christ was resurrected, can he still hold the beatitudes as truth?

How can one honor the sermons of a person who did not exist? 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that many believers/apologists in recent years (say, the last decade or so) have relied too much on the inability of non-believers to prove a negative. I favor B.H. Roberts's approach:

I notice you didn't answer the question in my post to which you responded. I'll pose it again: In your view, what burden, if any, do believers have? Edited December 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

I thought that was clear from the BHR cite, Scott.

 

I think believers have the burden of making as compelling a case as possible (as opposed to simply arguing from a position of the inability of critics to prove a negative). I think the old JBMS stuff did a good job of this, but I think that many recent apologists avoid providing compelling "positive" (assertive) evidence because they fear ridicule or lack confidence in the ability to provide such evidence. This can have the effect of "making the heart sick" of believers, as Roberts explained to the FP and Q12:

 

"Will not the hoped for proof deferred indeed make the heart sick?" (see footnotes 9-11 at  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony  )

[mfbukowski]

Gervin, thanks for your post, I always appreciate discussions with you as a member of the "loyal opposition" 

I get what you are saying but let me try to explain where I’m coming from.
 
The creators of Batman and Sherlock all acknowledge that their characters are fiction.  If a writer states that he or she is presenting history then there is nothing wrong with examining the larger known historical context to see what, if any, light it sheds on the claims of historicity.

The key there of course is what "known history" is. The "known history" of the world in 1200 AD was that Adam was the first man and the earth was created in six days, and all of the Bible was literally exactly correct. In a thousand years what we now regard as "known history" will probably seem as provincial
 

Some events in the Biblical Old Testament are very likely based on oral traditions and stories passed down from generation to generation and other events we can, with some certainty, determine actually occurred – the Israelite flight from Egypt is not archaeologically verified.  The exile of the Israelites to Babylon is.  So it’s a mixed bag.  But, it’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t self-proclaim that everything is literally true or that someone reading the text should pray for verification that the stories are true (that would be circular and, thus, invalid).  We read the Old Testament and see all forms of Hebrew literature – poetry, allegory, history, etc.

I disagree that it does not present itself as literal history.  The history presents itself as linked to the lives of actual people presumed to have actually lived.  It describes major geological events as occurring for example in the lifetime of Peleg when presumably continental drift began.  It describes the division of languages as happening at the Tower of Babel, after the flood and Noah.  It gives genealogies and names the fathers of all the ethnic groups of the area.  My wife's genealogy ties into a royal line in medieval times, and then connects into a line that goes back to Adam- certainly these genealogies were are in some circles still regarded as factual.

 

And repeatedly, probably more than a hundred times, the words "Thus saith the Lord" appear. (I did a search and there were too many to count to make the point)   Did the Lord really say those things to those individuals?  How did he do it?  Did he appear personally?  Did they hear voices in their heads?  Surely those are to be regarded as historical events whatever they were.  So yes indeed the Bible does in fact "self proclaim" itself as historically accurate.  Who is the writer of Isaiah?  Was it a single person or several people?  How could a team of unknown authors say "Thus saith the Lord" and put those pronouncements under the name of Isaiah and still be "really scripture"?

 

I have never heard of anyone stating that their faith should rise and fall with historic verification (or lack thereof).  No one.  Ever.  But it is a fact that there are many instances where history (archaeological findings) verifies the writings – the setting, if you will – of the Old Testament.  For instance: wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes attest to 1 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 accounts of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of King Rehoboam’s reign, the Moabite Stone (the Mesha Stele) attests to the 2 Kings 3 report that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. The Obelisk of Shalmaneser III verifies 2 Kings 9–10, where Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). Can facts that verify the context of Biblical writings strengthen our faith?  I don’t know why not.

I will tell you why not.  By using the phrase "Strengthen our faith" as opposed to "is the basis for our faith" you yourself have given us a clue to the presumptions underlying what you are saying.  The faith comes first, and history is the support.  Faith is not about reason- it is faith.  The conviction that Jesus is the Christ is the primary position- the evidence is a support and secondary. 

 

Based on the evidence alone, your faith would not exist.  You said:" I have never heard of anyone stating that their faith should rise and fall with historic verification (or lack thereof)." That makes my point right there. 

You have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, as do I.   There is no difference in our positions, brother Gervin!

 

The evidence is ultimately not important to the faith- no one would become a Christian because of the evidence, that an ancient city mentioned in the Bible is found to exist, any more than one would believe a religion based on Sherlock Holmes because London exists.

 

When we get to the New Testament the stakes, so to speak, are raised because the writings purport to be (in part) eyewitness attestations of the events surrounding the life of Christ.  Did Christ really talk to a Samaritan woman at the well?  Did he really threaten people in Capernaum not to harm little children?  Did he really heal a lame man at the Pool of Bethesda?  It can never be proven.  My faith doesn’t depend on it being proven.  And the Bible doesn’t demand that I pray and receive a testimony as verification that these things really took place (circular reasoning).

How is that circular?

 

Listen to yourself!!  Your faith does not depend on it being proven!!  Why not?  BECAUSE YOU HAVE A TESTIMONY and that comes first before the evidence!!

 

The FAITH is the primary motivator, the evidence is secondary.  THAT MEANS THAT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF IS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE FAITH.  You take the alleged "history" as having "actually happened" BECAUSE you believe FIRST.   The history is part of your religious position.

 

Just like evidence for Mormons, no agnostics become Christian because of archeology, but CHRISTIANS BECOME ARCHEOLOGISTS to support their faith.
 

 

Dozens of archaeological digs throughout Europe and the Middle East are looking for volunteers this summer to help them excavate history. Whether you’re interested in the worlds of Kings David and Solomon, want to walk in the footsteps of Jesus and the apostles, or search for the heroes of the Trojan War, we’ve got an archaeological dig for you. For each dig, we provide an in-depth description including location, historical and Biblical significance, and what the goals are for the season. You can also learn all about the dig directors and professors who will lead your summer adventure.

http://digs.bib-arch.org/
 

But it is  fact that archaeological excavations at Mount Gerizim indicate a Samaritan temple built there in the first half of the 5th century BC, as the woman referred to.  It is a fact that Capernaum was a city known for its making of millstones, giving context to Christ’s statement that it would be better for a millstone be hung around the neck of one who hurt children. And there actually was a Pool of Bethesda near the Sheep Gate as stated in the Bible.  Ultimately, these facts have only a small bearing on my faith, but knowing that there is a verifiable historic context for much of the Bible certainly doesn’t weaken my faith.  I posit that my faith is stronger knowing that the writers weren’t creating a fiction out of whole cloth. 

 But of course you don't know that at all intellectually.  You know that a group of believers wrote some words about someone they thought was the Messiah, and they knew the geography of the area because they were from the area.  And if you are basing your faith on that story in John, you should know this, and probably do

 

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.^[37] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.^[38][39]

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

A (poor) analogy might be thus: no one tells me how, why, or to what extent I fall in love with someone; I meet someone, we click, I learn her history – and she mine.  We build a relationship through the investment of time, emotions, events, etc.  It’s the real deal.  I’m particularly impressed and moved by her schooling in Paris, volunteer work at an orphanage, and her love of hunting.  But as we move further into the relationship I discover that the schooling, volunteer work, and hunting isn’t casually verified by what others say or how they act when the subjects come up.  What’s going on?  Is she lying? Are her friends and family a bit clueless or also lying?  If a dispassionate person – with no stake in either one of us – reasonably concludes that her claimed history is false I may simply claim that love is a feeling  / emotion / conviction not based on historically-verifiable events but rather on what I feel and experience when I am around her.  In reality, I’ve made a conscious decision to ignore her history and make it a non-issue.  Or maybe I just buy into it.  What does this say about me?

Yeah, indeed that is a poor analogy.  Isaiah, whoever "he" was, if "he" existed, allegedly said "Thus saith the Lord" repeatedly, and yet we don't even know who wrote those words or how many centuries of interpreters and redactors meddled with what "he" wrote.  That is true of virtually every book in the bible, which repeatedly asserts itself as telling "the truth".

 

Now I personally have no problem saying "I know the Bible is true" in spite of all that.  On the other hand, with your point of view, I cannot imagine how you hold that position.  Since I take you as a sincere Christian, I honestly think your case for the Bible is no better than mine for the BOM.  In other words, we both think the Bible is "true" but the evidence is the evidence.  You can read it as well as I can, and probably know it better.  But again, nobody becomes a Christian because of the evidence, or EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD and every archeologist would be Christian.

 

That is nothing like someone directly lying to you about their past.  We are talking about scriptural passages asserting their religious "truth" not a personal friend lying about the facts of their life.  Surely you see the difference.  The BOM carries with it its own definition of truth- in Alma 32, and that is that by living truthful principles, you will see the benefits in your life.  In my opinion it perfectly fulfills its own definition of "truth"- not some illusory truth based on historical "evidence" which is simply one conflicting interpretation after another.

 

The BOM carries its own truth with you that you feel and know in your heart by living its principles.  And the Bible does as well.  That is the only use of "truth" that makes sense in any religious text.
 

The Book of Mormon makes some incredible claims about its historicity.  It is held up as the most correct book and that praying about it verifies its claims.  But, as evidenced on this board, there’s no agreement on any part of its history.  In my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas for a Hebrew culture, which worshipped a Hebrew God, wrote and communicated in a Semitic-slash-Egyptian language, that was defined by the material and social structure described in the Book of Mormon, while strictly keeping Mosaic Law.  It doesn’t make or break folk’s testimony, for sure, but what does it mean when people are asked to make a lack of historicity a non-issue – or when they actually buy into a false history?  I get it that there are no LDS members who see themselves as being in this position.  But how would a dispassionate person, i.e., a potential convert, view it?

Well the fact of the matter is that I was an atheist with half a masters degree done in philosophy at secular universities when I found the church.  And I had no problem with any of this because I knew that there is no such thing as a "dispassionate" human being, and that indeed passions are what make the difference in the final analysis.  We all believe what we want and then justify it "rationally".  What makes the difference between a scientist and a theologian is what they believe about evidence first- just like you and me.  The scientist begins with the belief that nothing is proven without evidence, and folks like you and me place faith first and use alleged "evidence" to back it up

Among 19^th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. Inspired by Plato and Kant, both of whom regarded the world as being more amenable to reason, Schopenhauer developed their philosophies into an instinct-recognizing and ultimately ascetic outlook, emphasizing that in the face of a world filled with endless strife, we ought to minimize our natural desires for the sake of achieving a more tranquil frame of mind and a disposition towards universal beneficence. Often considered to be a thoroughgoing pessimist, Schopenhauer in fact advocated ways — via artistic, moral and ascetic forms of awareness — to overcome a frustration-filled and fundamentally painful human condition. Since his death in 1860, his philosophy has had a special attraction for those who wonder about life's meaning, along with those engaged in music, literature, and the visual arts.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

If you place faith above evidence- saying that faith comes first, with evidence supporting faith- like me- then we are both in that same ballpark with good old Schopenhauer.
 

I think this is longest post I’ve ever written.  Time to start the weekend. 

Phew!  No kidding!

I wonder if anyone will actually read this honker

Edited December 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

A few pots and pans do not even corroborate that the events described took place, only that they might have taken place.  

I was using hyperbole. The point is that evidence does not enhance our understanding of gospel principles. 

[Freedom]

 

The Book of Mormon makes some incredible claims about its historicity.  It is held up as the most correct book and that praying about it verifies its claims.  But, as evidenced on this board, there’s no agreement on any part of its history.  In my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas for a Hebrew culture, which worshipped a Hebrew God, wrote and communicated in a Semitic-slash-Egyptian language, that was defined by the material and social structure described in the Book of Mormon, while strictly keeping Mosaic Law.  It doesn’t make or break folk’s testimony, for sure, but what does it mean when people are asked to make a lack of historicity a non-issue – or when they actually buy into a false history?  I get it that there are no LDS members who see themselves as being in this position.  But how would a dispassionate person, i.e., a potential convert, view it?

 

I think this is longest post I’ve ever written.  Time to start the weekend. 

Ok, then tell me, what language did they write in between 600 bc and 400 ad in what is now western Guatemala and in Chiapas? And what was their culture? Of course, for this you would require a written record from that time period. 

[Robert F. Smith]

We are talking about two very different things. Learning about historical events to gain moral insight is different than studying archaeological evidence to prove they occurred. By reading the scriptures we are learning the history you are talking about. Finding pots and and pans that collaborate the history will add nothing to the moral of the story, only that the story ready did take place. if we prove once and for all where the Book of Mormon took place and prove once and for all to the world that these events ready did take place, it will have little if any effect on our understanding of the precepts being taught in the book. 

True if, and only if, the precepts being taught are not culturally based.  That's where anthropology and ethnography come in.  When we correctly understand the situation in life (of lifeways) of the people who provide an example of certain precepts, we will be able to better understand the precepts.  Context is everything, whether we are reading an agricultural or religious parable, or trying to understand odd marriage practices from the past.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that many believers/apologists in recent years (say, the last decade or so) have relied too much on the inability of non-believers to prove a negative. I favor B.H. Roberts's approach:

Those who accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, may not so state their case that its security chiefly rests on the inability of its opponents to prove a negative. The affirmative side of the question belongs to us who hold out the Book of Mormon to the world as a revelation from God. The burden of proof rests upon us in every discussion . . . The security of "Mormonism" rests . . . from a forensic standpoint, upon much more precarious ground; for not only must the Book of Mormon not be proved to have other origin than that which we set forth, or be other than what we say it is, but we must prove its origin to be what we say it is, and the book itself to be what we proclaim it to be: a revelation from God. ‐‐‐ (B.H. Roberts, “New Witnesses for God,” 2:4‐5).  

I agree, and like very much B.H. Roberts' willingness to present the Book of Mormon to the world as a document to be tested in every possible way.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................  

...................................... If a writer states that he or she is presenting history then there is nothing wrong with examining the larger known historical context to see what, if any, light it sheds on the claims of historicity.

 

Some events in the Biblical Old Testament are very likely based on oral traditions and stories passed down from generation to generation and other events we can, with some certainty, determine actually occurred – the Israelite flight from Egypt is not archaeologically verified.  The exile of the Israelites to Babylon is.  So it’s a mixed bag.

All good principles and observations.

 

But, it’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t self-proclaim that everything is literally true or that someone reading the text should pray for verification that the stories are true (that would be circular and, thus, invalid).  We read the Old Testament and see all forms of Hebrew literature – poetry, allegory, history, etc.

True enough, and perhaps understated, but the same is true of the Book of Mormon.

 

I have never heard of anyone stating that their faith should rise and fall with historic verification (or lack thereof).  No one.  Ever.  But it is a fact that there are many instances where history (archaeological findings) verifies the writings – the setting, if you will – of the Old Testament.  For instance: wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes attest to 1 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 accounts of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of King Rehoboam’s reign, the Moabite Stone (the Mesha Stele) attests to the 2 Kings 3 report that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. The Obelisk of Shalmaneser III verifies 2 Kings 9–10, where Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). Can facts that verify the context of Biblical writings strengthen our faith?  I don’t know why not.

True again, and the setting (Sitz im Leben, or mise en scene) aids us in giving context to words and events.  But even writers of historical fiction know that, so the notion is not dispositive.

 

They certainly bolster our emotional commitment, along with providing a rational basis for certain events.  My question would be why you do not allow that also to be applicable to the Book of Mormon?  Is that because of a prior faith commitment?  Do you realize that your total condemnation of the historicity of the Book of Mormon reads just like an atheist's denunciation of the Bible?

 

 

When we get to the New Testament the stakes, so to speak, are raised because the writings purport to be (in part) eyewitness attestations of the events surrounding the life of Christ.  Did Christ really talk to a Samaritan woman at the well?  Did he really threaten people in Capernaum not to harm little children?  Did he really heal a lame man at the Pool of Bethesda?  It can never be proven.  My faith doesn’t depend on it being proven.

Mine doesn't either, but I don't agree that the stakes are raised in the NT.  The OT is equally filled with crucial events which cannot be verified by rational means -- such as the "miracles" of Elijah and Elisha, and the riding of Elijah into the sky on a chariot of fire.

 

And the Bible doesn’t demand that I pray and receive a testimony as verification that these things really took place (circular reasoning).

That may be circular reasoning to you, perhaps because you are addressing a Mormon group here, but many evangelicals describe powerful spiritual events in their lives which confirm for them the truth of the Resurrection.  As evangelical scholar William Lane Craig himself observes of his own personal saving experience, his teenage "spiritual rebirth,"

I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen.  It's the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive.

Moreover, Jesus Himself apparently had a high regard for such knowledge:  Matt 16:15-17,

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

 

But it is  fact that archaeological excavations at Mount Gerizim indicate a Samaritan temple built there in the first half of the 5th century BC, as the woman referred to.  It is a fact that Capernaum was a city known for its making of millstones, giving context to Christ’s statement that it would be better for a millstone be hung around the neck of one who hurt children. And there actually was a Pool of Bethesda near the Sheep Gate as stated in the Bible.  Ultimately, these facts have only a small bearing on my faith, but knowing that there is a verifiable historic context for much of the Bible certainly doesn’t weaken my faith.  I posit that my faith is stronger knowing that the writers weren’t creating a fiction out of whole cloth.

Again, you engage in special pleading when it comes to the NT, but drop it like a hot potato when it comes to the BofM.  You both soft-pedal it, but also claim that it shows that the writers weren't creating Narnia or Perelandra.  Yet, you know no such thing, and atheist writers can reasonably claim that Homeric Epic uses an authentic mise en scene along with divine intervention in archaic Greek affairs.  The one does not make the other true.

 

The Book of Mormon makes some incredible claims about its historicity.  It is held up as the most correct book and that praying about it verifies its claims.  But, as evidenced on this board, there’s no agreement on any part of its history.  In my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas for a Hebrew culture, which worshipped a Hebrew God, wrote and communicated in a Semitic-slash-Egyptian language, that was defined by the material and social structure described in the Book of Mormon, while strictly keeping Mosaic Law.

Would you admit that you (1) have not read professional analyses of the anthropology of the Book of Mormon, and that (2) you have an apriori view that the Book of Mormon is false?  Isn't that what conditions all such statements by you?  Is it fair for you to read descriptions of biblical archeology and present that here, while just assuming that there is nothing to be said on behalf of the BofM?  Wouldn't that be like an atheist denouncing the Bible without having made a serious effort to read up on it?

 

It doesn’t make or break folk’s testimony, for sure, but what does it mean when people are asked to make a lack of historicity a non-issue – or when they actually buy into a false history?  I get it that there are no LDS members who see themselves as being in this position.  But how would a dispassionate person, i.e., a potential convert, view it? ...................................

Since most converts and potential converts to the LDS faith receive a personal testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit, they are likely not concerned with matters of historicity of Holy Writ, and do not need to be.  Certainly, Billy Graham's crusades did not focus at all on historicity of the Bible.  He preached the fundamentals of Christianity and people came forward in response to the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Later, in Sunday School and in personal reading, Christians begin to learn such matters.  Milk before meat.

 

Others of us are moved to plumb the depths of such issues, and are sometimes quite surprised at the complex reality behind the text.  The Book of Mormon is anything but "false history," as you so carelessly put it, and my own views are encapsulated in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Edited December 6, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Freedom]

True if, and only if, the precepts being taught are not culturally based.  That's where anthropology and ethnography come in.  When we correctly understand the situation in life (of lifeways) of the people who provide an example of certain precepts, we will be able to better understand the precepts.  Context is everything, whether we are reading an agricultural or religious parable, or trying to understand odd marriage practices from the past.

This can occur. Perhaps you could give an example from the book of mormon that would apply, or a passage of the book of mormon that remains unclear in terms of what gospel principle it is trying to convey. I do not reject the important of the research, but such research has not made any changes to how we understand the principles of the gospel. 

[Gervin]

I disagree that it does not present itself as literal history.  The history presents itself as linked to the lives of actual people presumed to have actually lived.  It describes major geological events as occurring for example in the lifetime of Peleg when presumably continental drift began.  It describes the division of languages as happening at the Tower of Babel, after the flood and Noah.  It gives genealogies and names the fathers of all the ethnic groups of the area.

 

The Psalms are poetry, there is quite a bit of Proverbial and Wisdom Literature, and there are parables: these do not purport to be literal history (although one can find verifiable historic elements within these writings).

I will tell you why not.  By using the phrase "Strengthen our faith" as opposed to "is the basis for our faith" you yourself have given us a clue to the presumptions underlying what you are saying.  The faith comes first, and history is the support.  Faith is not about reason- it is faith.  The conviction that Jesus is the Christ is the primary position- the evidence is a support and secondary. 

 

Based on the evidence alone, your faith would not exist.  You said:" I have never heard of anyone stating that their faith should rise and fall with historic verification (or lack thereof)." That makes my point right there. 

You have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, as do I.   There is no difference in our positions, brother Gervin!

I purposefully stated that historic Biblical is not the basis for faith.  There is a difference in our positions: I have a faith in Christ and Christ does not require me to divide my faith among Him and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church.  I also have the intellectual knowledge of a scripture (the Bible) that is not set in a fictional milieu. 

 

The evidence is ultimately not important to the faith- no one would become a Christian because of the evidence, that an ancient city mentioned in the Bible is found to exist, any more than one would believe a religion based on Sherlock Holmes because London exists.

 

I guess everyone decides if evidence is important to their faith and to what extent. 

 

How is that circular?

 

Listen to yourself!!  Your faith does not depend on it being proven!!  Why not?  BECAUSE YOU HAVE A TESTIMONY and that comes first before the evidence!!

 

The FAITH is the primary motivator, the evidence is secondary.  THAT MEANS THAT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF IS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE FAITH.  You take the alleged "history" as having "actually happened" BECAUSE you believe FIRST.   The history is part of your religious position.

No, the evidence is accepted because it is fact-based.  The extent that I apply it to my faith - or not - is a personal decision.  But the fact that the Bible has provenance and the Book of Mormon does not is a differentiation that you don't seem willing to make.

 

 

Just like evidence for Mormons, no agnostics become Christian because of archeology, but CHRISTIANS BECOME ARCHEOLOGISTS to support their faith.

http://digs.bib-arch.org/

 

If Christians become archaeologists to support their faith, then all Christian archaeologists would do their study and work in locations with Biblical connections.  That certainly is not the case.  Biblical Archeology Review, by it's name, recruits kids for their summer digs by promoting the Biblical locales.  Having visited a number of these digs firsthand I can confidently say that "supporting their faith" is not a key motivator.

 

But of course you don't know that at all intellectually.  You know that a group of believers wrote some words about someone they thought was the Messiah, and they knew the geography of the area because they were from the area.  And if you are basing your faith on that story in John, you should know this, and probably do

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

 

But I do know intellectually that the Bible contains many examples of factually verified context.  It has nothing to do with faith.

 

Now I personally have no problem saying "I know the Bible is true" in spite of all that.  On the other hand, with your point of view, I cannot imagine how you hold that position.  Since I take you as a sincere Christian, I honestly think your case for the Bible is no better than mine for the BOM.  In other words, we both think the Bible is "true" but the evidence is the evidence.  You can read it as well as I can, and probably know it better.  But again, nobody becomes a Christian because of the evidence, or EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD and every archeologist would be Christian.

 

That is nothing like someone directly lying to you about their past.  We are talking about scriptural passages asserting their religious "truth" not a personal friend lying about the facts of their life.  Surely you see the difference.  The BOM carries with it its own definition of truth- in Alma 32, and that is that by living truthful principles, you will see the benefits in your life.  In my opinion it perfectly fulfills its own definition of "truth"- not some illusory truth based on historical "evidence" which is simply one conflicting interpretation after another.

 

I said nothing about connecting religious truthfulness to evidence.  I specifically disassociated the two. 

 

The BOM carries its own truth with you that you feel and know in your heart by living its principles.  And the Bible does as well.  That is the only use of "truth" that makes sense in any religious text.

 

I may be mis-remembering, but I believe you've stated that if the Book of Mormon was entirely fiction it wouldn't matter; the religious principles would override those considerations.  Apologies if I've paraphrased you wrongly.  I think the Bible has an advantage over the Book of Mormon because the Bible isn't a work of fiction with regard to its setting, people group, and culture ... and that insights into these elements help one understand the context of the religious teachings, the meaning of the teaching, and the application of these teachings. 

[Gervin]

Ok, then tell me, what language did they write in between 600 bc and 400 ad in what is now western Guatemala and in Chiapas? And what was their culture? Of course, for this you would require a written record from that time period. 

I think your interest in Mesoamerica is admirable but, unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the topic. If this is a back-handed way of claiming a Hebrew culture in this geography during this time period, the world awaits your astonishing news.

[Gervin]

Again, you engage in special pleading when it comes to the NT, but drop it like a hot potato when it comes to the BofM.  You both soft-pedal it, but also claim that it shows that the writers weren't creating Narnia or Perelandra.  Yet, you know no such thing, and atheist writers can reasonably claim that Homeric Epic uses an authentic mise en scene along with divine intervention in archaic Greek affairs.  The one does not make the other true.

 

Would you admit that you (1) have not read professional analyses of the anthropology of the Book of Mormon, and that (2) you have an apriori view that the Book of Mormon is false?  Isn't that what conditions all such statements by you?  Is it fair for you to read descriptions of biblical archeology and present that here, while just assuming that there is nothing to be said on behalf of the BofM?  Wouldn't that be like an atheist denouncing the Bible without having made a serious effort to read up on it?

 

I don't believe there exists a professional analyses of the anthropology of the Book of Mormon not authored by a member of the LDS Church.  I could read a  professional anthropological analyses of the Israelites ca. AD100 and the author could be an atheist but as long as she presented valid and cogent, assumptions, findings and conclusions it could stand on its own merits. 

 

I didn't know anything about the Book of Mormon before I read it and determined that it was false.  Even an atheist would not dispute the facts of the cultural provenance of the Bible. 

 

Since most converts and potential converts to the LDS faith receive a personal testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit, they are likely not concerned with matters of historicity of Holy Writ, and do not need to be.

 

Isn't history, as presented in the BOM, part of the validation one is required to pray about and receive?

 

Certainly, Billy Graham's crusades did not focus at all on historicity of the Bible.  

 

CFR

 

Others of us are moved to plumb the depths of such issues, and are sometimes quite surprised at the complex reality behind the text.  The Book of Mormon is anything but "false history," as you so carelessly put it, and my own views are encapsulated in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

I think your article is a good faith-promoting piece of writing but would be surprised if it had any standing outside of the LDS faithful.  If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit so.

[ERayR]

I get what you are saying but let me try to explain where I’m coming from.

 

The Book of Mormon makes some incredible claims about its historicity.  It is held up as the most correct book and that praying about it verifies its claims.  But, as evidenced on this board, there’s no agreement on any part of its history.  In my opinion, there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas for a Hebrew culture, which worshipped a Hebrew God, wrote and communicated in a Semitic-slash-Egyptian language, that was defined by the material and social structure described in the Book of Mormon, while strictly keeping Mosaic Law.  It doesn’t make or break folk’s testimony, for sure, but what does it mean when people are asked to make a lack of historicity a non-issue – or when they actually buy into a false history?  I get it that there are no LDS members who see themselves as being in this position.  But how would a dispassionate person, i.e., a potential convert, view it?

 

I think this is longest post I’ve ever written.  Time to start the weekend. 

 

No wonder you have problems.  You have a serious misunderstanding of the claims in and for the Book of Mormon.  1)  Most correct book claim refers to its doctrinal content not its historicity.  2)  The writing and communication in "reformed Egyptian" as for the priests and record keepers and possibly within the families of the original Nephite settlers.(sacred language).  3)  The lack of historicity is a non issue.  It is not the historicity it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is important.  4)  It is not for the dispassionate but is for those that use the Moroni tesst and actually receive that spiritual manifestation.

[mfbukowski]

Gervin, I think this post just repeats issues discussed before, and I don't want to end up playing the "Yes it is, No it's not" game. No point in that. But I will address some genuine misunderstandings.

The Psalms are poetry, there is quite a bit of Proverbial and Wisdom Literature, and there are parables: these do not purport to be literal history (although one can find verifiable historic elements within these writings).

I purposefully stated that historic Biblical is not the basis for faith.  There is a difference in our positions: I have a faith in Christ and Christ does not require me to divide my faith among Him and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church.  I also have the intellectual knowledge of a scripture (the Bible) that is not set in a fictional milieu.

The first part is a given, and is irrelevant to the discussion. I have no clue what you are talking about on the last part. The BOM is not "fictional", and I regard it as "true" as the Bible is. Neither in my view are objective history, there is no difference between them from a rational perspective. True agnostics find no reason to believe in either based on alleged "history".

I notice you did not address anything I said about that, nor all the evidence- since you like evidence so much- that Isaiah and others were actually several people who wrote over perhaps a hundred years or more. I am not a scholar on these issues and do not care to be, but I am still wanting an answer on how you know that "thus saith the Lord" are actually the words of the Lord.

 

I guess everyone decides if evidence is important to their faith and to what extent.

On this we totally agree- and it is really the only issue here. This is really all that needs to be said by either of us on the subject- after one admits this, there is no more to argue about. It is hard for me to understand why you need to go on and on repeating the same old arguments, actually contradicting this statement of yours. If evidence is not important, it is not important. Discussion over. If one admits that different people have different levels of "evidence needs" then one admits that those with no "evidence need" are just as "right" as those who have major "evidence needs".

If it is all based on faith ultimately, which it is, the discussion is over. If it is doctrinally OK for you to admit that, that one can be a Christian without need for "evidence" then why bother to argue about it? It becomes a non-issue, and is only as important as perhaps color preference in being a "true Christian". 

 

No, the evidence is accepted because it is fact-based.  The extent that I apply it to my faith - or not - is a personal decision.  But the fact that the Bible has provenance and the Book of Mormon does not is a differentiation that you don't seem willing to make.

Fact based? Where are the facts that Jesus is the Christ? Where are the facts which prove that the atonement is even "real"? Can science prove that our sins are removed by faith in Christ?

Of course I am not willing to make that distinction- there IS no distinction. And for those who need evidence, there is plenty for the BOM if you study the literature. You are looking for a sign saying "welcome to Zarahemla" written in Reformed Egyptian, but according to many contemporary scholars of the BOM, that sort of evidence is not what we would expect to find.

I will let the next two quotes answer themselves.   

But I do know intellectually that the Bible contains many examples of factually verified context.  It has nothing to do with faith..... 

I said nothing about connecting religious truthfulness to evidence.  I specifically disassociated the two.

?????????

Uh, what are we talking about then? This is the whole point, You appear to be contradicting yourself. If religious truthfulness is not connected to evidence, then we agree, and there is no point to this discussion. You are confusing me here Bro Gervin!

 

I may be mis-remembering, but I believe you've stated that if the Book of Mormon was entirely fiction it wouldn't matter; the religious principles would override those considerations.  Apologies if I've paraphrased you wrongly.  I think the Bible has an advantage over the Book of Mormon because the Bible isn't a work of fiction with regard to its setting, people group, and culture ... and that insights into these elements help one understand the context of the religious teachings, the meaning of the teaching, and the application of these teachings.

Notice that the first sentence contains the word "IF". That makes it a "conditional statement" IF x, then x. NO x, NO y.

One can say such things while not presuming that X is the case.

I do not presume that the Book of Mormon is "fiction". I think it is historically correct, but that position is based on faith- on as much faith as I have that the atonement of Jesus Christ "really happened".

Surely you can see the difference between asserting a conditional statement and asserting that the alternative suggested by the conditional is in fact the case. "If the moon is made of green cheese, I am a monkey's uncle" Does not imply that I am in fact a monkey's uncle because the moon is NOT made of green cheese.

IF the BOM was fiction (but it is not) it would be just as "valid" for me religiously as a work of fiction is. That is true. IF that were the case, I could easily shift my point of view back to where it was in my agnostic days.

When I joined the church, I never dreamed for a moment that the events of the Book of Mormon "actually happened". But that's ok, because I thought the same about the Bible. NONE of it can be proven, because those are religious assertions, not historical ones. Yet I had a strong spiritual confirmation that the "Book was true" religiously and was the true path to a spiritual life. Now actually I am looking more at the evidence and my view is changing, so that now I think that there is some good evidence that it "actually happened"

But that evidence is no more important to me now than it was before.

Clearly in that last sentence of two you are magnifying the evidence for the Bible and reducing the evidence for the BOM in your own mind, showing your prejudices. I am very confused by this post.

But that's ok- I don't think this conversation is going anywhere anyway. We seem to be talking past each other I guess.

[mfbukowski]

No wonder you have problems.  You have a serious misunderstanding of the claims in and for the Book of Mormon.  1)  Most correct book claim refers to its doctrinal content not its historicity.  2)  The writing and communication in "reformed Egyptian" as for the priests and record keepers and possibly within the families of the original Nephite settlers.(sacred language).  3)  The lack of historicity is a non issue.  It is not the historicity it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is important.  4)  It is not for the dispassionate but is for those that use the Moroni tesst and actually receive that spiritual manifestation.

Exactly!

[Tacenda]

We need to get away from saying Joseph translated the gold plates, that's deceiving.