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

[MDialogue]

For a history of the idea, which goes back to Joseph Smith in the Times and Seasons, and LDS authors in the 1920s, see Matt Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

There's a review of Matt Roper's article here: http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2015/04/peer-review-of-nephis-neighbors-book-of.html

[MDialogue]

In Ancient American Setting, Sorenson pointed out that the Book of Mormon provides over 600 passages with geographic information. He observes that these passages must interlock, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So the oversimplification you have here for defining a candidate location leaves out the important interrelationships between the different requirements.

For instance, Zarahemla has to be north of a narrow strip of wilderness that extends from an Eastern Sea to a Western Sea. Look at a geographic map of the Western Hemisphere. How many of those can you find? Zarahemla has to be "down" in elevation from that strip, which has the headwaters of the Sidon, and on the west bank of that river which is mentioned "37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographic locations." (See Larry Poulson at http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/grijalvasidon.html )

It has to be south of the geographic feature narrow neck, south of the 100 BCE city that used cement, south of civilization that fits the requirements for Jaredites), etc.

It does no good to isolate a few requirements, to oversimplify and overlook the interlocking nature they have with other features described in the text, and which must continue in a proposed correlation.

And why do we need permission from skeptics to believe? That is why Coe is such a useful example. He's eminent, and has actually read and commented on the Book of Mormon, but he turns out to be embarressingly incompetent when it comes to our text and readings. If the 1973 Dialogue essay didn't make that clear, the PBS Interview and the Dehlin interview proves it. A similar thing happened with The New Mormon Challenge. The LDS responses over and over demonstrated that the outside experts had not taken us seriously enough to do the homework. They tried to dismiss us without fully catching up.

Do we really to go to them, hat in hand, begging for permission and approval to believe something? Why not a little self-reliance here?

Kuhn describes paradigms as providing a "group-licensed way of seeing." Why should we need to apply to another group for licence to believe if what they provide is not demonstrably better?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Kevin, it works better if you stick with the text and not Sorenson's version of the text. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon use the term "headwaters." Nowhere does it say anyone went "down" from the narrow strip of wilderness into Zarahemla. Those are two key points that have misled everyone who has accepted Sorenson's version of geography.

[Danzo]

Kevin, it works better if you stick with the text and not Sorenson's version of the text. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon use the term "headwaters." Nowhere does it say anyone went "down" from the narrow strip of wilderness into Zarahemla. Those are two key points that have misled everyone who has accepted Sorenson's version of geography.

 

What do you think "Head of the River Sidon" Means?

[ksfisher]

Kevin, it works better if you stick with the text and not Sorenson's version of the text. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon use the term "headwaters." Nowhere does it say anyone went "down" from the narrow strip of wilderness into Zarahemla. Those are two key points that have misled everyone who has accepted Sorenson's version of geography.

Did the narrow strip of wilderness separate the land of Nephi from Zarahemla?

[Bob Crockett]

What do you think "Head of the River Sidon" Means?

"Head of river" was used in British patents (land grants) denoting the mouth of the river.  Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London for Improving of Natural Knowledge etc. (1757) Vol. III, 206-07 (pointing out that if the term meant headwaters there wouldn't be separate colonies of Mayne, Hampshire and Massachussets]; Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, etc. (Wash. DC GPO, 1893), at 787 [describing harbor survey, from an island to the head of the river].  In New Jersey, the "Head of River Road" takes one to the mouth of the Tuckahoe River.  Indeed, it appears from 18th Century survey documents that the mouth of the Tuckahoe River was simply "Head of River," or that perhaps there was a settlement there by that name.

 

One must be very careful to interpret the Book of Mormon in terms of nineteenth century vernacular rather than the 1970s when Sorenson first started doing his major work.  

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

There's a review of Matt Roper's article...

So the author claims it is peer reviewed.  Not sure an anonymous blogger's comments equate to peer review (peer is generally someone with the same level or higher credentials in the field or at least a close enough field to be able to evaluate the writing in contest of the current academic knowledge).  Is there any indication who this blogger is?

[Calm]

One must be very careful to interpret the Book of Mormon in terms of nineteenth century vernacular rather than the 1970s when Sorenson first started doing his major work.  

from the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

 

18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.

 

 

Also:

 

HEAD, verb intransitive hed. To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river.

A broad river that heads in the great Blue Ridge of mountains.

 

 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/head

 

While there are examples of other usages, it would seem the most common according to Webster is how Sorenson used it.

 

Anyone check to see how Joseph used the term?

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Okrahomer]

So the author claims it is peer reviewed.  Not sure an anonymous blogger's comments equate to peer review (peer is generally someone with the same level or higher credentials in the field or at least a close enough field to be able to evaluate the writing in contest of the current academic knowledge).  Is there any indication who this blogger is?

 

I was going to ask the same thing, but couldn't decide how to do it without sounding "snarky."  The writing style is far more "bloggernacle" than academic.  The name given there is "jonathan3d."  But I couldn't ferret-out any indications of what sort of training would make jonathan3d an actual "peer" to Matthew Roper.

[canard78]

In Ancient American Setting, Sorenson pointed out that the Book of Mormon provides over 600 passages with geographic information. He observes that these passages must interlock, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So the oversimplification you have here for defining a candidate location leaves out the important interrelationships between the different requirements.

For instance, Zarahemla has to be north of a narrow strip of wilderness that extends from an Eastern Sea to a Western Sea. Look at a geographic map of the Western Hemisphere. How many of those can you find? Zarahemla has to be "down" in elevation from that strip, which has the headwaters of the Sidon, and on the west bank of that river which is mentioned "37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographic locations." (See Larry Poulson at http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/grijalvasidon.html )

It has to be south of the geographic feature narrow neck, south of the 100 BCE city that used cement, south of civilization that fits the requirements for Jaredites), etc.

It does no good to isolate a few requirements, to oversimplify and overlook the interlocking nature they have with other features described in the text, and which must continue in a proposed correlation.

And why do we need permission from skeptics to believe? That is why Coe is such a useful example. He's eminent, and has actually read and commented on the Book of Mormon, but he turns out to be embarressingly incompetent when it comes to our text and readings. If the 1973 Dialogue essay didn't make that clear, the PBS Interview and the Dehlin interview proves it. A similar thing happened with The New Mormon Challenge. The LDS responses over and over demonstrated that the outside experts had not taken us seriously enough to do the homework. They tried to dismiss us without fully catching up.

Do we really to go to them, hat in hand, begging for permission and approval to believe something? Why not a little self-reliance here?

Kuhn describes paradigms as providing a "group-licensed way of seeing." Why should we need to apply to another group for licence to believe if what they provide is not demonstrably better?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

This thread is about concrete archaeological evidence. To find a city in a place where Sorenson imagines or estimates it could or should be hardly constitutes archaeological evidence. Having pinpointed the city based on that geography (which I acknowledged) he then backs it up with, what he calls, concrete evidence. This amounts to a couple of grades of gravel and house types. That is it.

Are there 100s of other geographic convergences? Sure there are. Are there 100s of concrete, tangible evidences? Certainly not. Very few in fact. The paintings of different skin coloured cultures south of his location for Zarahemla is another decent one. NHM, of course, remains a reasonable one too. Could we get to ten? Maybe 20? At a stretch, but thy get a lot weaker when they get to the ones in double digits.

As for your last point. Is every non-Mormon archaeologist a sceptic? I suppose, if they don't believe the claims they are sceptical. Isn't that a self-fulfilling definition? Believers accept the evidence, sceptics don't (otherwise they wouldn't be sceptics).

I don't think you need to change the name from "non-Mormon" to sceptic. I certainly wasn't talking about "critics" view of the evidence. If the evidence for the existence of Nephites is so strong, then neutral non-Mormons (the ones who have no "dog in the fight" and aren't in the active "critic/opponent" camp) should be able to accept the evidence. Why do you suppose that only those who have first had a spiritual witness of the BoM are willing to accept the physical ("concrete") evidence for it?

[canard78]

Whenever I follow these types of threads, I have to remind myself of the Hittites. We know a fair amount about them NOW , but 150 years ago the only mention of them was in the Bible. For over a dozen centuries they were an enigma Archeology had found nothing and some scholars assumed they were myth. It wasn't until the late 1800s that some hint of their existence was found . Now we know that they were quite vast in their influence and power. How long have we been searching for Nephites? And by the way, we knew all about the " others" who lived around the Hittites long before we actually found Hittites. Patience grasshopper.

I'm more than happy to agree with the analogy because, at the end of it, the implication is that the only real evidence currently available for the existence of Nephites is a book of scripture.

Now... Could the Nephites be like the Hittites and in another century or two there's compelling, material evidence for them existing? Of course it's possible. But just because the Hittites have now been found by scholars doesn't then mean that the Nephites ever will be or, indeed, that they ever even existed.

[Bob Crockett]

This thread is about concrete archaeological evidence. To find a city in a place where Sorenson imagines or estimates it could or should be hardly constitutes archaeological evidence. Having pinpointed the city based on that geography (which I acknowledged) he then backs it up with, what he calls, concrete evidence. This amounts to a couple of grades of gravel and house types. That is it.

Are there 100s of other geographic convergences? Sure there are. Are there 100s of concrete, tangible evidences? Certainly not. Very few in fact. The paintings of different skin coloured cultures south of his location for Zarahemla is another decent one. NHM, of course, remains a reasonable one too. Could we get to ten? Maybe 20? At a stretch, but thy get a lot weaker when they get to the ones in double digits.

As for your last point. Is every non-Mormon archaeologist a sceptic? I suppose, if they don't believe the claims they are sceptical. Isn't that a self-fulfilling definition? Believers accept the evidence, sceptics don't (otherwise they wouldn't be sceptics).

I don't think you need to change the name from "non-Mormon" to sceptic. I certainly wasn't talking about "critics" view of the evidence. If the evidence for the existence of Nephites is so strong, then neutral non-Mormons (the ones who have no "dog in the fight" and aren't in the active "critic/opponent" camp) should be able to accept the evidence. Why do you suppose that only those who have first had a spiritual witness of the BoM are willing to accept the physical ("concrete") evidence for it?

 

Nonetheless, your qualifier "concrete evidence" certainly rules out lots of evidence.   Historians usually have to weigh masses of conflicting evidence.  

 

I don't think there is "concrete evidence" to show the location of the city of Troy, or even Jamestown, for that matter.

 

Sworn affidavits are not "concrete evidence."  Photographs are not "concrete evidence."   I wonder what is.

 

Dr. Sorenson sweeps together a lot of weak evidence.  As I understand his rather obscure point, it is that his view is the "most plausible view," which I think is rather a cop-out.  (See Codex, Kindle locations 52, 108, 113, 122, 125, 130, 135, 309, 582, 611, 662, 667, 903, 1446, 2710, 2786, 2856, 3012, 3058 etc.)  There is probably a most plausible view somewhere that Superman really exists, that there is life on the Moon, etc. and etc.   His "most plausible view" analysis, a phrase many have used here to fight back my criticisms of Dr. Sorenson, is really very little of quality.  Using "most plausible" of alternatives is not the scientific method at all. 

 

Dr. Sorenson goes too far with his hyperbole.  "As far as this book is concerned, the correlation of the real-world map with Mormon's map summarized above remains thoroughly plausible and very probable.  No alternative correlation comes close to being plausible."  (Kindle 663).  This statement juxtaposes "no alternative correlation" with "very probable."  The scientific method does not reach a conclusion on the basis of the claim that at an assertion is better than its alternatives.  Alternatives may be entirely groundless. 

 

Let me be clear as to my beliefs.  I don't rule out Mesoamerica as a land of the Nephites, nor do I rule out any other place on the American continent.  I believe the source materials show that when Joseph Smith and his followers referred to Mesoamerica, it was to buttress a hemispheric theory.   I think the authorities in the church have just about ruled out any kind of study to prove otherwise, and I further believe that Dr. Sorenson's life's work on Book of Mormon geography has zero zero zero support amongst LDS anthropologists and archaeologists, "support" being defined as peer acceptance in a journal of the profession.

 

However, the Meldrum North American model is about three steps of lunacy below.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

Nonetheless, your qualifier "concrete evidence" certainly rules out lots of evidence. Historians usually have to weigh masses of conflicting evidence.

I don't think there is "concrete evidence" to show the location of the city of Troy, or even Jamestown, for that matter.

Sworn affidavits are not "concrete evidence." Photographs are not "concrete evidence." I wonder what is.

Dr. Sorenson sweeps together a lot of weak evidence. As I understand his rather obscure point, it is that his view is the "most plausible view," which I think is rather a cop-out. There is probably a most plausible view somewhere that Superman really exists, that there is life on the Moon, etc. and etc. His "most plausible view" analysis, a phrase many have used here to fight back my criticisms of Dr. Sorenson, is really very little of quality.

I'd accept a photo!

I don't mean concrete as in, irrefutable, I mean something tangible/physical and actually linked to the BoM people.

I accept that the gravel courtyard is a small physical evidence for the location of Zarahemla. If it were one thing among many other physical evidences in that location then it would be worth more. That it's the only physical thing offered for Zarahemla means I don't find it very strong.

Robert complained that I'd not offered anything specific of the weak evidence. I'd consider all of Sorenson's collective evidence for Zarahemla (geography included) to be very weak.

[ERayR]

I'd accept a photo!

I don't mean concrete as in, irrefutable, I mean something tangible/physical and actually linked to the BoM people.

I accept that the gravel courtyard is a small physical evidence for the location of Zarahemla. If it were one thing among many other physical evidences in that location then it would be worth more. That it's the only physical thing offered for Zarahemla means I don't find it very strong.

Robert complained that I'd not offered anything specific of the weak evidence. I'd consider all of Sorenson's collective evidence for Zarahemla (geography included) to be very weak.

 

Its not that there are no evidences.  It is that there is no evidence that you accept.  Big difference.

[Bob Crockett]

Its not that there are no evidences.  It is that there is no evidence that you accept.  Big difference.

 

Well, I'm a big believer in the Book of Mormon.  To me, the LGT isn't a question of subjective acceptance of evidence.  It is a question of whether there is evidence of a nature to be accepted in the discipline in which the evidence is offered.  Dr. Sorenson is not a cartographer and has not used the scientific means of cartographers to compare ancient texts to geography.  He has not used the statistical method to support any of his conclusions.  His two major books have not been reviewed by any peer, including LDS peers, in a standard academic setting.  

 

But that isn't enough for me to doubt him as an author and a social scientist.  Having read the decades of statements on the subject by General Authorities, I have concluded that his works will eventually fade from view.

[strappinglad]

Here's a link to a report about my favorite type of scientists, astro-biologists , and the 'evidence ' that they present in order to promote their speculations/conclusions . Sorenson's evidence is ,in my opinion , several orders of magnitude more plausible than theirs but boy can the media lap it up if there is a mere whiff of the mention of possible LIFE somewhere other than Earth.

https://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-to-suggest-there-is-life-on-comet-67p-44384

Note to self: all science is not created equal .

[canard78]

Its not that there are no evidences. It is that there is no evidence that you accept. Big difference.

That's not correct. I have said in this and several other threads that I accept many of the evidences for the Book of Mormon. I'm simply saying that the archaeological evidences are scant and unconvincing.

[Kevin Christensen]

"unconvincing" is a subjective reaction, not an inherent existential quality.

"scant" is also a subjective valuation.

There are reasons why I find the collective case provided by the hundreds of scholars I have read far more persuasive than the counter-cases and arguments provided by various competing and mutually contradictory schools of skeptics and counter-proposals. And I find it most helpful when I align my reasons with Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

And because I have over forty years of serious reading to consider, and I get to consider what I was given in the decade of awareness before I got serious, and have seen how much has changed and has been learned and published, "abundant" is the term that comes to mind.

John Welch wrote a helpful essay on "The Power of Evidence in Nurturing Faith" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.

The power of evidence is shaped by metaphysical assumptions (such as causation) and cultural conditions (such as the value placed on proof), and it combines wide fields of human experience (including such philosophical concerns as epistemology, the reliability of sensory experience, the adequacy of language, the nature of history, and the psychology of persuasion).

The word evidence derives from the Latin ex videns, meaning anything that comes from seeing and also from seeming. Evidence is literally what meets the eye and, more than that, what seems to be from what we see. Evidence is based on hard facts, but even under the best of circumstances it works less automatically and more subjectively than many people realize. If evidence were not such a complicated matter, many things would be much simpler in our courtrooms, legislative sessions, and corporate board rooms as well as in our lecture halls and Gospel Doctrine classrooms.

Though this complexity may present problems in many cases, it also allows evidence to combine with faith, because in its complexity evidence is both a product of empirical data attractive to the mind amenable to study and the result of personal choices generated by the Spirit in faith. Not only is seeing believing but believing is seeing, as has been often said. Philosophical worldviews that would have it only one of these two ways offer us a model that limps on one leg.

And this sort of thing follows:

1. Any piece of evidence is deeply intertwined with a question. No real evidence exists until an issue is raised which that evidence tends to prove or disprove. By choosing what questions we will ask, we introduce a subjective element into the inquiry—seeking and asking begin in faith. At the same time, our questions in turn determine what will become evidence—faith begins with asking and seeking.

....

2. Just about anything can serve potentially as evidence, depending on what a person wishes to emphasize.

...

3. For this reason, evidence can almost always be found or generated for and against just about any proposition. Only a very impoverished mind cannot find evidence for just about anything he or she wants. Once again, this points out that evidence is not only discovered but also created. That creation is not arbitrarily ex nihilo, but neither is it impersonally predestined.

4. Different kinds of legal evidence evoke different kinds of responses. The law allows physical evidence, written documents, oral testimony, and so on. But at the same time, different people or legal situations may require or prefer to favor one kind of evidence over another. No rules automatically determine how one kind of evidence stacks up against another or what kind of evidence is best.

....

5. Legal evidence is often circumstantial. The more direct the evidence, the more probative it usually is, and in some courts "circumstantial evidence only raises a probability."53 But on the other hand, people may also choose to view circumstantial evidence as desirable and even necessary in certain situations. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding a particular event or statement are usually essential to understanding the matter. To quote Henry David Thoreau, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."54 A dictum from the United States Supreme Court explains the power of circumstantial evidence: "Circumstantial evidence is often as convincing to the mind as direct testimony, and often more so. A number of concurrent facts, like rays of light, all converging to the same center, may throw not only a clear light but a burning conviction; a conviction of truth more infallible than the testimony even of two witnesses directly to a fact."55 Accordingly, the convergence of huge amounts of circumstantial evidence, such as in the astonishingly short time in which the Book of Mormon was translated,56 may be viewed quite favorably, if a person's spiritual disposition inclines one to receive and value such evidence.

6. Another fascinating and crucial question is, How are we to evaluate the cumulative weight of evidence? Some compilations of evidence are strong; other collections are weak. Yet once again, in most settings, no scale for evaluating the cumulative weight of evidence is readily available. No canons of method answer the question, How much evidence do we need in order to draw a certain conclusion? Answering this question is another choice that combines and bridges faith and evidence.

An interesting scale has developed in the law that prescribes specific levels of proof that are required to support certain legal results. The world of evidence is not black and white; there are many shades of gray. Ranging from a high degree of certitude on down, standards of proof on this spectrum include:

Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

Plausible, reasonably suspected

Material, relevant, merely possible.

....

7. Different legal cases call for different configurations of evidence.

...

8. In certain cases, the sum of the evidence may be greater than the total of its individual parts. "Pieces of evidence, each by itself insufficient, may together constitute a significant whole, and justify by their combined effect a conclusion."60 The cumulative effect of evidence is in some ways perplexing, but again reflects the role of the observer's preference in how evidence works. Individual pieces of evidence, each of which standing alone is relatively insignificant and uninteresting, may take on vast importance in a person's mind as they combine to form a consistent pattern or coherent picture.

9. Another interesting effect occurs when a good case is actually weakened by piling on a few weak additional points. A bad argument may be worse in some minds than no argument at all if the weak arguments tend to undermine confidence in the strong points. But who can tell what will work or not work for one person or another? The degree of confidence a person is willing to place in any evidence is another manifestation of faith or personal response.

10. Similarly, advocacy and rhetoric are virtually part of the evidence. The techniques of presenting evidence are often as important as the evidence itself, and the subjective decision to feature certain points in favor of others can be the turning point of a case. Important facts forcefully presented take on added significance; crucial evidence overlooked and underused will not always even be noticed by the judge or jury.

11. Not all evidence ultimately counts. In a court of law, the judge and jury will eventually decide to ignore some of the evidence, especially hearsay, mere opinions, or statistical probabilities. Similarly, in evaluating Book of Mormon evidence, one needs to be meticulous in separating fact from opinion. Likewise, fantastic statistics can be generated by either friends or foes of the book. This does not mean that statistical presentations should be ruled out of Book of Mormon discussions; some wordprinting studies, for example, have achieved noteworthy results.61 But such evidence must not be exaggerated and must be approached with sophistication.

12. Constraints on time and the availability of witnesses or documentary evidence may be completely fortuitous yet also very important. If a witness is unavailable to testify in court, the case may be lost. Documentary evidence known or presumed once to have existed is scarcely helpful. To reach a legal decision, time limitations are imposed on all parties; and in most cases, evidence discovered after a decision has become final is simply ignored.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

Food for thought.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

It is interesting to me, Kevin, that your citation to Jack Welch's article does not mention the standard Dr. Sorenson used as evidence or proof:   "most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives." 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

As for your last point. Is every non-Mormon archaeologist a skeptic? I suppose, if they don't believe the claims they are sceptical. Isn't that a self-fulfilling definition? Believers accept the evidence, sceptics don't (otherwise they wouldn't be sceptics).

I don't think you need to change the name from "non-Mormon" to skeptic. I certainly wasn't talking about "critics" view of the evidence. If the evidence for the existence of Nephites is so strong, then neutral non-Mormons (the ones who have no "dog in the fight" and aren't in the active "critic/opponent" camp) should be able to accept the evidence. Why do you suppose that only those who have first had a spiritual witness of the BoM are willing to accept the physical ("concrete") evidence for it?

Interesting that some years back Mark Wright reported on discussing faith in the Book of Mormon with two converts who happened to be in charge of Teotuihican, a site most famous for the use of cement buildings. They reported their belief in the Book of Mormon in terms of the overall fit.

How does anyone approach Joseph Smith's claims from a position of complete neutrality, which I presume means that the outcome to them means utterly nothing, and calls for no change in any thinking, behavior, committment, sacrifice, or effort. The ones who most closely approximate that description are, I think, mannequins and crash-test dummies.

The whole point of the Book of Mormon is to challenge everyone and everything. It is not a passive object that can be neutrally considered, anymore than newlyweds can consider their gaudily decorated car neutrally. To enter is to become conspicuous and a scandal.

Have you listened to Peter Novick's Sunstone talk? A completely objective and disinterested person, he says, approaching ANY historical question (let alone something as inherently radical as the Book of Mormon) without any preconceptions whatsoever, would have no idea where to even begin to select, arrange, and frame the zillions of bits of relevant information.

A book that I have recommended for years is Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion.

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org%20Books/Barbour,%20Ian%20-%20Myths,%20Models%20and%20Paradigms-A%20comparative%20Stu.pdf

During the book, Barbour several times reflects on a challenge atheists issued to believers in the form of a parable by Wisdom. Imagine, he says, two people walking along and coming upon a location in the woods. One of them claims to see evidence that the area had once been cultivated. Another claims that no, it is just random growth.

What sort of evidence could sway the discussion one way or another? That is one way of framing the discussion, but by framing it that way, it also lacks something. Who cares? Nothing is at stake.

Barbour cites another parable, offered in response, The Partisan. During WWII in occupied France, a resistance member comes to know and trust another person. Later, he sees that person talking to a member of the Gestapo.

Now what? Is the person a traitor? Being interrogated? Under suspicion? A random check? A betrayal? Or is that person striving to obtain important information? Now we have a life and death situation, and it's not something at this point that can be settled by an appeal to an outside, neutral observer, in large measure because of the immediate and personal stakes, and also because any outsider will of necessity appeal to their own prejudices and interests that do not include the experiences that produced the personal trust.

It's quite similar, on one hand, to a moment in Harry Potter where Dumbledore insists to the incredulous Harry, "I trust Severus Snape." Of the two, who is being more objective? Do their subjective experiences matter or not? And do they matter to what they decide?

On the otherhand, I could also compare to the recent news and discussion regarding Bill Cosby. It's not like wandering through a garden and speculating about whether or not in this place at some past moment, there was a gardner. Much more is at stake. Just the existence of the question is painful, and clashes with my feelings and desires. And yet, that public question has much much less at stake for me personally than do questions about Joseph Smith.

In the parable of the Partisan though, we are closer matched by Harry or Dumbledore, choosing based on personal knowledge, intimate encounters, and not remote media claims. And the stakes matter personally, the choices related to life and death issues, not just for one person, but for everyone and everything they care about..

Dehlin in interviewing Coe was looking for what? Publically displaying his objectivity and neutrality? And what was Coe offering? An informed outsider, non-prejudiced perspective? Was the result something a person ought to base their life choices on?

I don't think the story that Joseph Smith tells is amenable to disinterested contemplation. It's not a nothing-at-stake claim that there might once have been a gardner, or not, but that there is an urgent messenger and important commitments and sacrifice, and unpopular and inconvenient choices right here, right now.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited July 10, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mormonmaniac]

Many houses and buildings the Nephites built with cement. http://www.google.com/search?q=anasazi+ruins&client=tablet-android-asus&hl=en&biw=1088&bih=551&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=UxygVc2vJ5XYoASDoZWoAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

[tagriffy]

It is interesting to me, Kevin, that your citation to Jack Welch's article does not mention the standard Dr. Sorenson used as evidence or proof:   "most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives." 

 

What is most interesting to me is that plausibility is rather low in the spectrum. "Most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives" does constitute proof that one's model is better than the other. Note the initial problem with Copernican theory was that it didn't offer a more plausible model of the solar system than Ptolemaic theory. It was only after Copernicus was modified by Kepler and additional data poured in that the Copernican model was accepted. IOW, we now accept the Copernican model because it is "more plausible than the alternatives." Assuming the Book of Mormon is historical, Sorenson's model may well be the "most plausible" of the alternatives, and if so, that is an entirely valid reason to accept it--at least pending further data.

 

But when it comes to the question of historicity itself, if I'm reading canard78 correctly, he is saying that "plausibility" doesn't cut it. Even if I'm not reading him correctly, what he is saying overlaps well enough with my reasoning that I'm able to strike off on my own here. Establishing a person had "motive, means, and opportunity" may well be a plausible or even a probable case that someone committed a crime. Indeed, that would that person the most likely suspect if none of the other alternatives had "motive, means, and opportunity." But unless you tie that circumstantial evidence into something more substantial--say, fingerprints on the weapon, DNA evidence at the scene, what have you--the fact this person had "motive, means, and opportunity" isn't going to amount to much. That's why Lizzie Borden was exonerated, even though she still remains the prime suspect in the murder of her parents to this day.

 

Now to take canard78's example, Sorenson's case for placing Zarahemla at Santa Rosa. canard78 seems to be saying Sorenson does make a plausible case for that identification. If not, I certainly wouldn't deny it. What we might say, and what canard78's hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly say, is that Sorenson's case doesn't amount to much. Something that will make you go "Hmm" perhaps, but certainly not proof that Zarahemla was Santa Rosa. Now if there was a sign the building that read "The Temple of God at Zarahemla" or the houses contained copies of the Book of Mormon's ur-documents, then Sorenson's "plausible" case moves at least into the realm of "preponderance of the evidence." This is something our hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly accept.

[tagriffy]

 

SNIP

As for your last point. Is every non-Mormon archaeologist a skeptic? I suppose, if they don't believe the claims they are sceptical. Isn't that a self-fulfilling definition? Believers accept the evidence, sceptics don't (otherwise they wouldn't be sceptics).

I don't think you need to change the name from "non-Mormon" to skeptic. I certainly wasn't talking about "critics" view of the evidence. If the evidence for the existence of Nephites is so strong, then neutral non-Mormons (the ones who have no "dog in the fight" and aren't in the active "critic/opponent" camp) should be able to accept the evidence. Why do you suppose that only those who have first had a spiritual witness of the BoM are willing to accept the physical ("concrete") evidence for it?

Interesting that some years back Mark Wright reported on discussing faith in the Book of Mormon with two converts who happened to be in charge of Teotuihican, a cite most famous for the use of cement buildings. They reported their belief in the Book of Mormon in terms of the overall fit.

How does anyone approach Joseph Smith's claims from a position of complete neutrality, which I presume means that the outcome to them means utterly nothing, and calls for no change in any thinking, behavior, committment, sacrifice, or effort. The ones who most closely approximate that description are, I think, mannequins and crash-test dummies.

The whole point of the Book of Mormon is to challenge everyone and everything. It is not a passive object that can be neutrally considered, anymore than newlyweds can consider their gaudily decorated car neutrally. To enter is to become conspicuous and a scandal.

Have you listened to Peter Novick's Sunstone talk? A completely objective and disinterested person, he says, approaching ANY historical question (let alone something as inherently radical as the Book of Mormon) without any preconceptions whatsoever, would have no idea where to even begin to select, arrange, and frame the zillions of bits of relevant information.

 

 

The problem is that the question before us is not even close to that posed by the parable of the Partisan. The question "Did the Nephites exist?" is not a matter of life and death. And as I have pointed out previously, accepting the Nephites existed would not necessarily call for any change in one's thinking, behavior, commitment, sacrifice or effort. Accepting Lehi existed is one thing, accepting what he taught about the Fall of Adam is another. People accept that Jesus existed, perhaps that he was even raised from the dead, without it having any effect on their thinking, behavior, commitments, sacrifices, or efforts.

 

canard78's hypothetical neutral non-Mormon doesn't require complete objectivity and total disinterest or to approach the question without any preconceptions whatsoever. It only requires, as he put it, that the person have "no dog in the fight." They would only need to approach the question the same way you and I would approach the questions "Did Elves exist?" or "Did the Hittites exist?" They would only need to select, arrange, and frame the zillions of bits of relevant information according to the same rules and using the same standards we would apply to those questions. What they do once they've answered the question is still up to them.

[ERayR]

 

Its not that there are no evidences. It is that there is no evidence that you accept. Big difference.

That's not correct. I have said in this and several other threads that I accept many of the evidences for the Book of Mormon. I'm simply saying that the archaeological evidences are scant and unconvincing.

 

 

   Yep just what I said, Its not that there are no evidences. It is that there is no evidence that you accept. Others see them, you not so much.

 

Question:  How many would it take to convince you?

[Bob Crockett]

Assuming the Book of Mormon is historical, Sorenson's model may well be the "most plausible" of the alternatives, and if so, that is an entirely valid reason to accept it--at least pending further data.

 

Assuming there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, perhaps it is plausible to conclude that the Soviet Union was involved. 

 

Sorenson's work does not build his argument upon the assumption the Book of Mormon is historical (well, at some point he assumes historicity).  He uses his "most plausible" argument to argue that it is historical. 

 

I assume the Book is historical but find that Dr. Sorenson's work tends to undercut the assumption. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

Sorenson's work does not build his argument upon the assumption the Book of Mormon is historical (well, at some point he assumes historicity).  He uses his "most plausible" argument to argue that it is historical.

I have always understood the concept of plausibility to be the reasonable position given the inability to prove anything related to the Book of Mormon and history. Perhaps another word might have been better, but there is a point where the evidentiary case is sufficient to understand historicity even though it cannot be proven. To those who don't believe in the Book of Mormon, accepting the evidence as a plausible case may be the best we can do.

Having said that, I do have some methodological disagreements with Sorenson, but much more in the types of cultural information he associates with the Book of Mormon and his assumptions of the fundamental interrelationship of Book of Mormon peoples and the rest of their neighbors.