So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In the case of mentioning others in the land, we tend to forget two very important things. First, the original translation of the book of Lehi was lost, so we don't know exactly what it said. 

We don't know what it said, but Joseph and Martin Harris did. It seems like one of them would have mentioned it if they did. (Note, I'm not saying there we not others, but the idea that it was mentioned in the abridgment of the large plates of Nephi seems odd.) 

 

Also given Lucy Smith's recollection:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

It seems that Joseph Smith knew quite a bit more than what the Book of Mormon revealed on the subject. It's odd (but not insurmountably odd) to me that Joseph never mentioned their being other inhabitants.

[Kevin Christensen]

What was the benefit of the implied references that apparently generations of faithless LDS missed? If God was the ulimate decision maker in what made it into the final version of the BoM, then surely there was a method to his madness.

Faithless?

In 3 Nephi 17:2-17 Jesus explains that due to their weakness, the people "cannot understand all my words" and says that they must ponder and "prepare their minds." In 3 Nephi 15:16-24, Jesus gives an account of disciples who did not understand, who supposed that they understood and did not ask. That does not imply that they were faithless, but rather that they were human. It's rather like saying if Aristotle was such a great scientist how come he did not invent calculus, or how come Newton did not come up with Relativity. That generations of Latter-day saints had faith in the Book of Mormon is evident in the lives and heritage. That generations of Latter-day saints did not closely examine the text for Geographic information is evidenced by the obvious lack of evidence relative to that question they they left behind. The first serious attempt at a comprehensive internal map appeared in 1937, over 100 years after the publication.

And I was under the impression that "If there be faults, they are the mistakes of men" on the title page" and such things as 1 Nephi 19:6-7 where Nephi says he writes what "I think be sacred" and, while so writing, points out that he is human, and the people different in their values. God empowered and authorized, and in some instances, directly encouraged parts of the text, but God did not personally write it most of it. The reason for that that is so that we have the test of deciding whether to fixate on what may appear to be the mistakes of men, or whether to accept the things of God.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[omni]

It often seems that the most common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is that it isn't the text that we wish had been written. If we are to give it any credit at all for being an ancient text, then it needs to answer to its own declared ancient context and not to the one that we think a modern text should have done.

In the case of mentioning others in the land, we tend to forget two very important things. First, the original translation of the book of Lehi was lost, so we don't know exactly what it said. However, we do know that Mormon was the editor of it, and Mormon had his own agenda. By the time Mormon wrote, meeting new people was not only old news, it was thousand year old news. We have no idea if he would have thought it worth mentioning. His purposes typically weren't historical (read 4 Nephi if you have any doubt).

Next, we have Nephi--or rather we don't. We have the second book that Nephi wrote, not the first (and the one that Mormon abridged). Nephi explicitly says that the book we have is secondary to the first one he wrote, and that he wrote more and more of history in the other text. Based on Nephi's declared logic, if he had written about meeting people, it belonged in the book we don't have. The purpose of the one we do have was religious, and by the time he wrote it (after at least 20 years in the New World), his reasons were not to give a newspaper account of events, but rather to deal with the ministry--a ministry that according to what he did write, was internal, not external.

So. Of course we wish Nephi had told us more. However, suggesting that the absence of mention is somehow a problem with the book is not true. It is an issue with the way we think about the book, but not about the way the book says it was written and the purposes for which it was written.

Apparently I'm not communicating this well, but I'm not so concerned with why Nephi and Moroni didn't include the information, but why God didn't inspire them to.

[omni]

Faithless?

In 3 Nephi 17:2-17 Jesus explains that due to their weakness, the people "cannot understand all my words" and says that they must ponder and "prepare their minds." In 3 Nephi 15:16-24, Jesus gives an account of disciples who did not understand, who supposed that they understood and did not ask. That does not imply that they were faithless, but rather that they were human. It's rather like saying if Aristotle was such a great scientist how come he did not invent calculus, or how come Newton did not come up with Relativity. That generations of Latter-day saints had faith in the Book of Mormon is evident in the lives and heritage. That generations of Latter-day saints did not closely examine the text for Geographic information is evidenced by the obvious lack of evidence relative to that question they they left behind. The first serious attempt at a comprehensive internal map appeared in 1937, over 100 years after the publication.

And I was under the impression that "If there be faults, they are the mistakes of men" on the title page" and such things as 1 Nephi 19:6-7 where Nephi says he writes what "I think be sacred" and, while so writing, points out that he is human, and the people different in their values. God empowered and authorized, and in some instances, directly encouraged parts of the text, but God did not personally write it most of it. The reason for that that is so that we have the test of deciding whether to fixate on what may appear to be the mistakes of men, or whether to accept the things of God.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Whoops, it should read "faithful".

[Brant Gardner]

We don't know what it said, but Joseph and Martin Harris did. It seems like one of them would have mentioned it if they did. (Note, I'm not saying there we not others, but the idea that it was mentioned in the abridgment of the large plates of Nephi seems odd.)

I agree that had there been clear mention of meeting people upon arrival in the book of Lehi that Joseph translated, it would likely have been remembered. However, being in the book of Lehi that Nephi wrote but not surviving Mormon's editing is not surprising at all.

 

Also given Lucy Smith's recollection:

 

It seems that Joseph Smith knew quite a bit more than what the Book of Mormon revealed on the subject. It's odd (but not insurmountably odd) to me that Joseph never mentioned their being other inhabitants.

I think we can accept Lucy at her word that Joseph had visions that helped him understand the book that would be translated. The fact that it is a late remembrance makes some of the specifics less that sure--but in general it would be true. Of course, the real question is what can we surmise from that information? Certainly not that those visions showed him the entire story from beginning to end. Logically, it would have been to assist in translating--so not showing something that wasn't in Mormon's abridgement again is hardly surprising.

[canard78]

We don't know what it said, but Joseph and Martin Harris did. It seems like one of them would have mentioned it if they did. (Note, I'm not saying there we not others, but the idea that it was mentioned in the abridgment of the large plates of Nephi seems odd.)

Also given Lucy Smith's recollection:

It seems that Joseph Smith knew quite a bit more than what the Book of Mormon revealed on the subject. It's odd (but not insurmountably odd) to me that Joseph never mentioned their being other inhabitants.

Not only did he fail to mention inhabitants, the Wentworth letter specifically says there were none.

[canard78]

It often seems that the most common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is that it isn't the text that we wish had been written. If we are to give it any credit at all for being an ancient text, then it needs to answer to its own declared ancient context and not to the one that we think a modern text should have done.

In the case of mentioning others in the land, we tend to forget two very important things. First, the original translation of the book of Lehi was lost, so we don't know exactly what it said. However, we do know that Mormon was the editor of it, and Mormon had his own agenda. By the time Mormon wrote, meeting new people was not only old news, it was thousand year old news. We have no idea if he would have thought it worth mentioning. His purposes typically weren't historical (read 4 Nephi if you have any doubt).

Next, we have Nephi--or rather we don't. We have the second book that Nephi wrote, not the first (and the one that Mormon abridged). Nephi explicitly says that the book we have is secondary to the first one he wrote, and that he wrote more and more of history in the other text. Based on Nephi's declared logic, if he had written about meeting people, it belonged in the book we don't have. The purpose of the one we do have was religious, and by the time he wrote it (after at least 20 years in the New World), his reasons were not to give a newspaper account of events, but rather to deal with the ministry--a ministry that according to what he did write, was internal, not external.

So. Of course we wish Nephi had told us more. However, suggesting that the absence of mention is somehow a problem with the book is not true. It is an issue with the way we think about the book, but not about the way the book says it was written and the purposes for which it was written.

This is a detailed explanation for why no people other than Nephites and Lamanites are mentioned. But at the end, we still seem to at least agree that no other people are mentioned. You're quite right that a lack of mention doesn't prove a lack of people (I've never mentioned my pet cat on this board until this post... but I still had one)... but... does that still mean it's reasonable to accept that Mormon/others would make no mention at all of anyone other than people directly descended from people who originated from the old world.

So during the two centuries of peace, no mention of whether the "others" also left them alone (not just peace with Lamanites).

When going on missions no mention of missions to "others" (unless you count the Zoramites, Alma 30:59 suggests otherwise)

During the Alma battles or the fight against the Gaddianton robbers or the great last battle, no mention of trying to work allegiances with "others"

[canard78]

Actually, how can one be convinced of the bible? True, the writers knew the geography but there is no evidence that the narratives are true and what happened actually happened. We have no collaborative sources and no eye witness acounts from other sources. Such is the nature of religion. It all takes faith. However, it will be great to find evidence. Then, I would become an active member, try to live like a 'saint' and look forward to the celestial kingdom. Instead of how I am living now.

At this point, the existence of god will not be proven. However, do we have evidence that may increase our faith? The holy ghost, the 11 witnesses, spirtual manifestations etc?

There is clearly far more evidence for the Bible as being based at least loosely on some broad historical basis and actual groups of people.

We're not debating whether the Hebrew people ever existed (are we???). The Lehites on the other hand... I could work with a lack of evidence for Captain Moroni's title of liberty ever being hoisted if at least we could establish with confidence that the city he might have hoisted it in (Zarahemla) or the people he possibly hoisted it among (the Nephites) were real.

[canard78]

This demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what "archeology" is and how it can be used to deal with answers to a whole range of questions about events which may or may not have occurred in the past. Such questions are dealt with in much the same way by crime scene analysts who photograph, measure, and recover organic and inorganic items from a crime scene -- then taking it back to the lab for close analysis and eventual presentation in a court of law (where rules of evidence are quite strict). None of that registers with you? You don't see that the archeological recovery of textual materials might have textual and linguistic application? You say that you have been aware of some such things for years, but seem completely unaware of the implications.

I'd be interested to know why you and "many" others find Sorenson's work "unconvincing." What specifically did you find unconvincing? What do these "many others" find unconvincing? Or is this the usual throwaway comment based on lack of knowledge about what archeology and anthropology might be?

Well, you may be right that the Doubting Mormon would not accept anything that did not fit into his preconceived set of conditions -- conditions which require the kind of direct knowledge which simply does not exist for most of us, except for the biblical Doubting Thomas. This should bring home to you the reality which conditions all of our testimonies: Testimonies are personal and non-transferrable. The testimony of Saint Thomas is based on actually feeling the wounds of the Savior first-hand, and he can find that utterly convincing. That is not necessarily going to convince others, however, all of whom may only find solace in a personal testimony mediated by the Holy Spirit. In conversation with Peter (Simon Bar Jona), the Savior found this to be the best testimony, and you seem to agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you then go on to demean anything else, even though you have no idea what else there is.

As long as you expand your epistemology here enough to include Alma 32, and other like notions (dealing with Scripture and the Kingdom of God), I see no problem with inspiration and revelation as the most important bases for a testimony

But, there you go again, denigrating science and logic by comparing it to the escapades of yokels seeking after aliens. In so doing, you play into the hands of the anti-Mormons who have been making such false comparisons for many years. Furthermore, you do so knowing virtually nothing about the issues.

The late Elder Neal A. Maxwell understood the difference and spoke about it often. You just don't get it, Bobbie.

I have to join a couple of other posters in wondering why you've become so aggressive in this thread. You're usually a more reasonable "dialoguer" than this and have, in the past, addressed the topic or argument rather than attacked the person. I'm wondering why the change?

[canard78]

Moreover, why would you believe that some wet-behind-the-ears missionary would be able to speak authoritatively about archeology and ancient history? LDS missionaries generally follow the doctrines set out in Preach My Gospel, and then bear their testimonies. Why would anyone seek to change that successful pattern?

Do you actually know anything about ancient history or archeology? If so, please be so kind as to inform me as to why there is nothing at all archeological or historical out there which is in any sense convincing. Maybe I desperately need to be clued in . . .

First, I'm really appreciating the opportunity to discuss this topic with the likes of Kevin, Brant and, indeed, yourself. I'm aware that people like myself sometimes discuss issues of historicity in echo chambers that makes it easy to reach conclusions that could otherwise be challenged. With that in mind, and given I started this thread, could I respectfully ask you to avoid personal attacks as otherwise the thread will likely be locked by the mods.

Beyond that, and responding to this specific point. This is a problem for the Book of Mormon. You, Kevin and Brant might be absolutely right that for people who have studied archaeology and ancient history extensively there is credible evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is twofold:

a) That's not enough for the majority. If the only archaeological evidence that is ever available is so vague that you need a degree to understand it then it's never going to be convincing for most people. My 10-year old son loves history. Hoovers it up. He can rattle off information for hours about the Egyptians, the Romans, the Tudors and others. He doesn't need a degree to talk in detail and confidence about those civilisations. If there was equivalent evidence for the Nephites then your "wet-behind-the-ears" missionaries and even my 10-yo son could confidently teach and talk about them. The fact that no such evidence exists might not be evidence for no Nephites ever living, but it means it's not looking good from the perspective of the majority.

b) There are plenty of very well educated non-Mormon scholars of American ancient history and archaeology. Can you call on support from any of them for your argument that evidence exists? If they are not limited by the unreasonable expectations of laymen like me, can they look at your evidence and agree that Nephites are plausible? Alternatively would any of the papers you linked to get accepted to peer reviewed, non-Mormon academic journals? My question is, even if I, in my apparent ignorance of what's reasonable, can't accept the evidence as being convincing, can non-Mormons who are better educated than me accept it?

[Brant Gardner]

This is a detailed explanation for why no people other than Nephites and Lamanites are mentioned. But at the end, we still seem to at least agree that no other people are mentioned.

There is a difference between explicitly mentioned and implicitly present. The implied presence resolves more textual issues than an assumed actual absence of others can.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to join a couple of other posters in wondering why you've become so aggressive in this thread. You're usually a more reasonable "dialoguer" than this and have, in the past, addressed the topic or argument rather than attacked the person. I'm wondering why the change?

O.K.  I'd like to say that I'm playing good cop - bad cop with Brant Gardner (whom all of us admire for his unruffled composure and patience), but what is likelier is that I am in a bad mood.  And I have good reason to be.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

That could be an explanation for why Nephi didn't mention them, but the more important question is why God didn't mention them. If Moroni and JS were inspired by God to include only what is in our current BoM then there must have been a good reason why God wanted it left out.

 

I have a PhD in Speculation, Reading God's Mind, and Reading Between Lines, but I am afraid I have no idea why God might have wanted it left out.  If He did.  Maybe he wanted it left in, but on the day he was supposed to put that information into the book Joseph had had an argument with Emma that morning and wasn't quite in tune with the Spirit to pick up on it.

 

Don't you hate it when that happens?  Sheesh.

[Stargazer]

O.K.  I'd like to say that I'm playing good cop - bad cop with Brant Gardner (whom all of us admire for his unruffled composure and paitence), but what is likelier is that I am in a bad mood.  And I have good reason to be.

 

Sorry about the mood thing!  Been there, it sucks.  Are you going to tell us what your good reason for being in a bad mood is?  Of course if it is too personal or totally unrelated to the thread by all means leave us puzzling, no problem there, but some people's bad moods can be quite profound.  I'd guess you'd be one of those!

[Robert F. Smith]

First, I'm really appreciating the opportunity to discuss this topic with the likes of Kevin, Brant and, indeed, yourself. I'm aware that people like myself sometimes discuss issues of historicity in echo chambers that makes it easy to reach conclusions that could otherwise be challenged. With that in mind, and given I started this thread, could I respectfully ask you to avoid personal attacks as otherwise the thread will likely be locked by the mods.

I am sure that there must be a polite way of telling someone that he is wrong without offending him, but it is much harder to tell someone that he is irresponsible in his entire approach to a question.  The more far reaching and reckless such opinions are, the more likely others are to be misled and confused.  Having been at one time quite young and foolish in my odd opinions, I am well-aware of just how wrong and intransigent someone can be.  What helped me was to be at least open to the possibility that I was wrong, and to continue learning for a lifetime.

 

Beyond that, and responding to this specific point. This is a problem for the Book of Mormon. You, Kevin and Brant might be absolutely right that for people who have studied archaeology and ancient history extensively there is credible evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is twofold:

a) That's not enough for the majority. If the only archaeological evidence that is ever available is so vague that you need a degree to understand it then it's never going to be convincing for most people. My 10-year old son loves history. Hoovers it up. He can rattle off information for hours about the Egyptians, the Romans, the Tudors and others. He doesn't need a degree to talk in detail and confidence about those civilisations. If there was equivalent evidence for the Nephites then your "wet-behind-the-ears" missionaries and even my 10-yo son could confidently teach and talk about them. The fact that no such evidence exists might not be evidence for no Nephites ever living, but it means it's not looking good from the perspective of the majority.

This is not a question of minority or majority opinion, and you make a major error in supposing that the methods by which we understand the ancient European or Middle Eastern worlds are in any way different from the ways in which we understand ancient America.   The same applies to understanding the Bible or Book of Mormon, or any other literature..  The same canons of logic and science apply to all.  Whether one is a believer already or not is also irrelevant.  As I have said repeatedly, without any evidence being presented to the contrary, there is no evidence that the LDS Church would ever tout some set of archeological evidence in favor of the Bible or Book of Mormon.  I just don't understand why this sort of suggestion is made over and over.  It just doesn't make any sense.

 

b) There are plenty of very well educated non-Mormon scholars of American ancient history and archaeology. Can you call on support from any of them for your argument that evidence exists? If they are not limited by the unreasonable expectations of laymen like me, can they look at your evidence and agree that Nephites are plausible?

I have repeatedly cited non-Mormon scholars who speak frankly in favor of the Book of Mormon and who speak of the advantages of Mormon theology, but these are always received in silence.  If those complaining about the false absence of such opinions were well-read and well-informed simply as ordinary people, such claims would not get to first base.  A little sincerity is always welcome.

 

Alternatively would any of the papers you linked to get accepted to peer reviewed, non-Mormon academic journals? My question is, even if I, in my apparent ignorance of what's reasonable, can't accept the evidence as being convincing, can non-Mormons who are better educated than me accept it?

You and some others suggest that the evidence is unconvincing, but always in a non-specific and generic way, so that it is never clear just what is unconvincing.  On those rare occasions when we are given a specific problem in the text, it typically is based on a simple or complex misunderstanding of the text, or of the ancient world.  Most often, the polemicist is simply wrong based on actual information about the ancient world.  As to peer-reviewed information, it might be helpful to observe that the footnotes in the items I linked to are primarily to non-Mormon, peer reivewed books and articles.  In other words, based on the hard work of non-Mormon scholars without any axe to grind.

 

I have often encountered on this board and elsewhere the completely untenable suggestion that pro- or anti-Book of Mormon articles would ever be acceptable in non-Mormon journals.  Not in the real world . . .  Not for any substantive reason, but simply because of the apriori nature of those kinds of opinions.  Again, sincerity leads to more reasonable conclusions about what is possible.

[tagriffy]

It often seems that the most common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is that it isn't the text that we wish had been written. If we are to give it any credit at all for being an ancient text, then it needs to answer to its own declared ancient context and not to the one that we think a modern text should have done.

In the case of mentioning others in the land, we tend to forget two very important things. First, the original translation of the book of Lehi was lost, so we don't know exactly what it said. However, we do know that Mormon was the editor of it, and Mormon had his own agenda. By the time Mormon wrote, meeting new people was not only old news, it was thousand year old news. We have no idea if he would have thought it worth mentioning. His purposes typically weren't historical (read 4 Nephi if you have any doubt).

Next, we have Nephi--or rather we don't. We have the second book that Nephi wrote, not the first (and the one that Mormon abridged). Nephi explicitly says that the book we have is secondary to the first one he wrote, and that he wrote more and more of history in the other text. Based on Nephi's declared logic, if he had written about meeting people, it belonged in the book we don't have. The purpose of the one we do have was religious, and by the time he wrote it (after at least 20 years in the New World), his reasons were not to give a newspaper account of events, but rather to deal with the ministry--a ministry that according to what he did write, was internal, not external.

So. Of course we wish Nephi had told us more. However, suggesting that the absence of mention is somehow a problem with the book is not true. It is an issue with the way we think about the book, but not about the way the book says it was written and the purposes for which it was written.

 

Whatever we make of the failure to explicitly mention others, I don't think your explanation is going to cover it. Certainly Mormon had his own agenda, but he was not adverse to writing about contact with others when they were encountered. After all, he did incorporate the discovery of a dead civilization into his record, and even intended write an account of the Jaredites. And I see no reason to doubt the book of Lehi would have included an account of the discovery of the people of Zarahemla. Even with the emphasis of the small plates on religious matters, Amaleki saw fit to describe not only the discovery of the people of Zarahemla, but recounted those people's contact with Coriantumr. One could respond that discovering these peoples were of great significance for the Nephites--and I would certainly agree with that. But it does make Nephi's lack of mentioning others all the more curious, especially since even on the small plates he mentioned the beasts and metals the Lehite party found as they journeyed on into the land. Discovering the people of Zarahemla and the remains of a dead civilization are important enough to mention in the record, but the fact there were already people in the land isn't?

[Hagoth]

I am sure that there must be a polite way of telling someone that he is wrong without offending him, but it is much harder to tell someone that he is irresponsible in his entire approach to a question.  The more far reaching and reckless such opinions are, the more likely others are to be misled and confused.  Having been at one time quite young and foolish in my odd opinions, I am well-aware of just how wrong and intransigent someone can be.  What helped me was to be at least open to the possibility that I was wrong, and to continue learning for a lifetime.

 

I assume you're referring to me. Please allow me to explain something, Robert.

 

Although I have been a member of this board for several years I only became active when Tom M showed up and started bombarding the forum with his "evidence." I was unfamiliar with you and I mistakenly put you into the same crackpot category as Tom because you responded to me with the exactly the same accusatory and dismissive tone. I felt like you were shooting back angry responses and straw-manning my comments without even considering what I was trying to say. I can only blame myself for not communicating my ideas competently. Tom was doing his cause no good by treating people with such utter disrespect and repeatedly proclaiming the superiority of his knowledge (behavior which got him banned from the forum). And, frankly, you responded to me exactly as he did so hopefully you can put yourself in my shoes and understand how that might have felt. In my experience, demeaning others has never been a good persuasive tactic, especially if you are hoping to educate someone who you consider beneath your intellectual pay grade.

 

The point I was trying to make is simply that there is a great deal of evidence for the Book of Mormon that believers find compelling but I have yet to see anything that is convincing to the non-LDS community of archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, metallurgists, linguists, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, etc, Or anything that the institutional church feels confident heralding as an actual BoM artifact or location.  

 

I apologize for my inadequacies but I think that is a reasonably accurate statement.

[tagriffy]

There is a difference between explicitly mentioned and implicitly present. The implied presence resolves more textual issues than an assumed actual absence of others can.

 

I'd like to work with this a bit. Call it an experiment in reader-response theory if you will.

 

I think it can be safely assumed that most, if not all, of the Book of Mormon's earliest readers assumed an actual absence of others in the text. Why didn't they perceive the textual issues that need to be resolved?

 

I think the biggest textual issue will be the problem of population. The implicit presence of others resolves that problem. Yet the issue of population growth doesn't seem to have been mentioned even by critics until M. T. Lamb's The Golden Bible in 1887. Why not? My best guess is the Bible. If one can believe the world population rebounded quite quickly in the relatively short time period after the Flood, or that seventy people could go down to Egypt and come out with a population capable of fielding a 600,000 man army, the population growth of the Lehites won't seem absurd. They didn't see a problem because, for them, there was no problem.

 

Another problem we now see is the problem of the distances that need to be covered. Whether or not the ideas of Lehi landing a little south of the isthmus of Darien or somewhere in Chile actually came from Joseph, these locations were accepted by early Mormons. Getting Lehi to land in either of these places and have Moroni end up at Cumorah is a big distance to cover, but this doesn't seem to have been a problem for early Mormons by and large. Though there is interesting history about how the hemispheric model started, I'm interested in knowing why someone like Orson Pratt, who was hardly an idiot, couldn't see a problem that now seems so obvious.

 

What other issues result from assuming an actual absence of others?

[Kevin Christensen]

Most of the problems I see here come before the data, before the facts. It's in the unconscious presuppositions.

There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories… The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his inquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation.

In N. R Hanson’s oft quoted words, ‘All Data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting measurement and interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend in implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited… But, says Feyerband, when the background theory itself is an issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial.

From Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion, 95.

Canard, have you read it?

One of the things that Coe's various comments on the Book of Mormon, from Dialogue to PBS interview to Dehlin interview, demonstrates to me is that we cannot assume as a matter of course that the title of eminent scholar means "fair and impartial hearing, considering all of the facts with perfect objectivity and absolute certainty on which layman can and should trust decisions of eternal significance."

However prominent and important in his own field, his comments fall far short of the supposed ideal that we're supposed to rely on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Brant Gardner]

Whatever we make of the failure to explicitly mention others, I don't think your explanation is going to cover it. Certainly Mormon had his own agenda, but he was not adverse to writing about contact with others when they were encountered. After all, he did incorporate the discovery of a dead civilization into his record, and even intended write an account of the Jaredites.

These questions work if you begin from the assumption that a modern writer wrote the text. Assuming that the text is (or could be) modern allows for all kind of speculation about why it isn't better than it is--particularly in the things we notice.

However, if we begin with the evidence that does suggest historicity, we have a different question. It isn't why aren't we satisfied, but why does something we care about not appear to be of interest to the writers?

The two perspectives yield different answers. In the one case, the "obvious" missing others condemns the text because of something we think it should have said. In the other, the implicit presence of the others makes it "obvious" that the text was written by people to whom that situation was normal and of no particular interest for the purposes of the text.

As with so many historical issues associated with the Book of Mormon, focusing on one issue as that thing that defines its historicity ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence. The weight of the cumulative evidence is sufficient that it suggests that some of the questions asked about historicity are simply the wrong ones--reflecting our interests but not those of the writers.

[Okrahomer]

These questions work if you begin from the assumption that a modern writer wrote the text. Assuming that the text is (or could be) modern allows for all kind of speculation about why it isn't better than it is--particularly in the things we notice.

However, if we begin with the evidence that does suggest historicity, we have a different question. It isn't why aren't we satisfied, but why does something we care about not appear to be of interest to the writers?

The two perspectives yield different answers. In the one case, the "obvious" missing others condemns the text because of something we think it should have said. In the other, the implicit presence of the others makes it "obvious" that the text was written by people to whom that situation was normal and of no particular interest for the purposes of the text.

As with so many historical issues associated with the Book of Mormon, focusing on one issue as that thing that defines its historicity ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence. The weight of the cumulative evidence is sufficient that it suggests that some of the questions asked about historicity are simply the wrong ones--reflecting our interests but not those of the writers.

 

I love the point you are making here--indeed I enjoy all of your posts.  They are invariably insightful and helpful to me.  Thank you for taking the time!  This last response about the importance of perspectives reminds me of the differences between Lehi's description of his dream and Nephi's vision of the same dream.  After explaining that the River of Water represented filthiness, Nephi explains that father Lehi had simply not noticed that it was filthy, because  "his mind was swallowed up in other things."  (1 Nephi 15:27)  Grant Hardy believes these differences are the result of two very different perspectives:  Tender father vs. Persecuted younger brother.  I think he is right.  (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw/11-prophetic-perspectives-how-lehi-and-nephi-applied-lessons)  I also see it in my own life, when details of an event seem quite important (to me) but have gone unnoticed or deemed insignificant by others who witnessed or experienced the same thing.  I've come to understand that such differences are not only possible but inevitable.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

I think it can be safely assumed that most, if not all, of the Book of Mormon's earliest readers assumed an actual absence of others in the text. Why didn't they perceive the textual issues that need to be resolved?

Ordinary folks don't usually give such questions much thought.  I certainly didn't when I was young.  It is all too easy to simply assume the presence or absence of others, without a close examination.

 

I think the biggest textual issue will be the problem of population. The implicit presence of others resolves that problem. Yet the issue of population growth doesn't seem to have been mentioned even by critics until M. T. Lamb's The Golden Bible in 1887. Why not? My best guess is the Bible. If one can believe the world population rebounded quite quickly in the relatively short time period after the Flood, or that seventy people could go down to Egypt and come out with a population capable of fielding a 600,000 man army, the population growth of the Lehites won't seem absurd. They didn't see a problem because, for them, there was no problem.

Correct.  Many of us just don't see such problems until we have actually been trained to look for them.  

 

Take a look at these:

James E. Smith, “Nephi’s Descendants? Historical Demography and the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994), 255-296.

James E. Smith, “How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography,” in N. B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo: FARMS, 1997), 255-293.

 

Another problem we now see is the problem of the distances that need to be covered. Whether or not the ideas of Lehi landing a little south of the isthmus of Darien or somewhere in Chile actually came from Joseph, these locations were accepted by early Mormons. Getting Lehi to land in either of these places and have Moroni end up at Cumorah is a big distance to cover, but this doesn't seem to have been a problem for early Mormons by and large. Though there is interesting history about how the hemispheric model started, I'm interested in knowing why someone like Orson Pratt, who was hardly an idiot, couldn't see a problem that now seems so obvious.

 

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

Orson was smart all right, but that doesn't mean that he understood such geographical issues well at all, and we can see that in his notes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, which were removed in 1920.

 

The best assemblage of information on how to evaluate the various geographical legends and theories are John Sorenson, Mormon's Map, and his Geography of Book of Mormon Events.

You might also want to see John Clark, "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies: A Review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review of Books 1 (1989), online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/1/1/S00007-5176d4c9279847Clark.pdf .

[ksfisher]

These questions work if you begin from the assumption that a modern writer wrote the text. Assuming that the text is (or could be) modern allows for all kind of speculation about why it isn't better than it is--particularly in the things we notice.

However, if we begin with the evidence that does suggest historicity, we have a different question. It isn't why aren't we satisfied, but why does something we care about not appear to be of interest to the writers?

The two perspectives yield different answers. In the one case, the "obvious" missing others condemns the text because of something we think it should have said. In the other, the implicit presence of the others makes it "obvious" that the text was written by people to whom that situation was normal and of no particular interest for the purposes of the text.

As with so many historical issues associated with the Book of Mormon, focusing on one issue as that thing that defines its historicity ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence. The weight of the cumulative evidence is sufficient that it suggests that some of the questions asked about historicity are simply the wrong ones--reflecting our interests but not those of the writers.

 

So would it be safe to say that Mormon didn't write about "others" because from his perspective there were no "others," only people where they had always been?  (excepting the Gadiantons)

[Hagoth]

I have a question. 

 

I'm not sure when the Bering land bridge theory was first proposed but I understand that as early as the late 16th Century (Fray Joes de Acosta) it was considered by various proponents of the biblical timeline to be a reasonable explanation of how the Americas were populated post-flood, in the Days of Peleg (even though Peleg appears to be a reference to sailing, but that's another story).

 

Early Mormons didn't have a need for the land bridge in their religious history, considering that it was generally assumed that the inhabitants of the Americas were the Lamanite remnants, so I don't think it made much of a blip on the LDS radar.

 

Then genomic testing came on the scene around 1985 and eventually became a practical tool for establishing Native American origins.

 

My question: Were Book of Mormon scholars seriously discussing the presence of Others before the DNA results were made available, or is it a discussion that arose as a direct result of that data? 

[Brant Gardner]

So would it be safe to say that Mormon didn't write about "others" because from his perspective there were no "others," only people where they had always been?  (excepting the Gadiantons)

Yes, though I think I would add to this. There were no Nephites until there was a community that looked to Nephi as its leader. There were no Nephites in the Old World. There were no Nephites while Lehi was alive. Until the word Nephite defined a community, there was a single family. So if Mormon tells the story of the Nephites, he necessarily tells the story of the community, not the family.