A Dynasty Of One

[Duncan]

well, how many records exist from when was this 600 BC or before? and no one knows where all this stuff took place 

[jkwilliams]

well, how many records exist from when was this 600 BC or before? and no one knows where all this stuff took place

That's why it's so problematic, to put it mildly, to try and establish a connection between the Jaredites of 1500-2000 BC and the Maya of 700 AD. It wouldn't even be a good argument if the names matched, but they don't. Akish != Kokan.

[ttribe]

well, how many records exist from when was this 600 BC or before? and no one knows where all this stuff took place 

 

R. Meldrum and his followers think they do...

[canard78]

Most apologists I am familiar with (Kevin and Brant I know, but who is this Robert?) acknowledge that there's little if any evidence of the Nephite civilization. Some people haven't received the memo, apparently.

Robert F. Smith. He's been telling me off for having unreasonable expectations.

 

E.G.

[jkwilliams]

Robert F. Smith. He's been telling me off for having unreasonable expectations.

 

E.G.

As I said, I've been enjoying Philip Jenkins's series on pseudoscience. He explains quite well what historians consider to be reasonable evidence and how that would or should apply to something like Ancient Book of Mormon Studies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/i-want-to-believe/

[stemelbow]

There's a whole thread of 20-pages or so where the question my question about "no archaeological evidence" is yet to produce anything particularly impressive.

Robert, Kevin and Brant have chided me for expecting to find anything.

I suppose the Jaredites and Nephites could have left no discernible trace of ever having been there... I suppose...

There is, of course, the split gravel courtyard that pinpoints Zarahemla. I wonder if that would impress Phillips (it didn't me but who knows...)

I think it's worth asking, what is scripture. if scripture in ancient times is pseudepigrapha, a term often used to described non-scriptural accounts but in all likelihood describes all of scripture, then the BoM presents something fairly unique in the corpus of scripture. In the end it may mean it our expectations are way misplaced. If pseudepigrapha, which as I said describes what is scripture as far as we can tell, then how do we put an expectation of historicity, in any sense, on the BoM? If the BoM is scripture and it came through Joseph, how can we expect to know the stories in it are anything other than tradition. even that, how can we know what the story suggests has any bearing on what really happened. Afterall, it seems the flood was not worldwide and perhaps didn't happen at all. Moses most likely did not part the red sea. The Israelites probably did not migrate from Egypt and wonder. the Tower of babel was probably not literal.

I think the story is compelling but perhaps even Lehi and Nephi's journey is more to teach us metaphorically--even if people did come from the Middle eastern lands to the Americas at some point.

[jkwilliams]

I think it's worth asking, what is scripture. if scripture in ancient times is pseudepigrapha, a term often used to described non-scriptural accounts but in all likelihood describes all of scripture, then the BoM presents something fairly unique in the corpus of scripture. In the end it may mean it our expectations are way misplaced. If pseudepigrapha, which as I said describes what is scripture as far as we can tell, then how do we put an expectation of historicity, in any sense, on the BoM? If the BoM is scripture and it came through Joseph, how can we expect to know the stories in it are anything other than tradition. even that, how can we know what the story suggests has any bearing on what really happened. Afterall, it seems the flood was not worldwide and perhaps didn't happen at all. Moses most likely did not part the red sea. The Israelites probably did not migrate from Egypt and wonder. the Tower of babel was probably not literal.

I think the story is compelling but perhaps even Lehi and Nephi's journey is more to teach us metaphorically--even if people did come from the Middle eastern lands to the Americas at some point.

 

The controversy arises, one would assume, over whether the Book of Mormon is ancient pseudepigrapha or nineteenth-century pseudepigrapha. I know quite a few believing, active Mormons who don't believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. It doesn't matter to them because, as you've said before, its value lies in its being the revealed word of God, not in its validity as a historical record. 

[stemelbow]

The controversy arises, one would assume, over whether the Book of Mormon is ancient pseudepigrapha or nineteenth-century pseudepigrapha. I know quite a few believing, active Mormons who don't believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. It doesn't matter to them because, as you've said before, its value lies in its being the revealed word of God, not in its validity as a historical record.

It could be a mix of both (and frankly anything else in between, I suppose)--ancient and nineteenth century.

And of course we'd have to assume there's value in it to begin with, I suppose.

Edited July 29, 2015 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

It could be a mix of both (and frankly anything else in between, I suppose)--ancient and nineteenth century.

And of course we'd have to assume there's value in it to begin with, I suppose.

 

The most important question, at least to me, is whether it is God's revealed word. If it is, historicity doesn't much matter, does it?

[stemelbow]

The most important question, at least to me, is whether it is God's revealed word. If it is, historicity doesn't much matter, does it?

nope. We have to assume the same with the Bible because as it turns out much of what are the stories of the Bible are borrowed myths from different cultures. We have to say, "ok, but there must be something we get out of this" else we lose the ability to believe, I suppose.

[jkwilliams]

nope. We have to assume the same with the Bible because as it turns out much of what are the stories of the Bible are borrowed myths from different cultures. We have to say, "ok, but there must be something we get out of this" else we lose the ability to believe, I suppose.

 

No argument here.

[CA Steve]

The most important question, at least to me, is whether it is God's revealed word. If it is, historicity doesn't much matter, does it?

I have to disagree here and I do not think the comparisons to the Bible are relevant. We do not have a substantial back story involving specific miraculous events regarding the production and composition of the entire Bible and nor is it claimed as a record maintained by an unbroken line of authors. Additionally we LDS do not claim the Bible to be inerrant, though certain foundational events in the Bible are historically necessary for Mormonism.

On the other hand with coming forth of the Book of Mormon we have this entire 19th century back story claiming direct involvement with God and his messengers. How is it possible to dismiss the historicity of the Book of Mormon and maintain a literal belief in the rest of the the events claimed by Joseph Smith and what kind of God would create such an intricate story both in the Book of Mormon and the 19th century efforts to produce it? So perhaps claims that it is merely divine fiction solve some of the perplexing problems of direct physical evidence demanded by Jenkins for believers but, in my opinion, such a defense places the rest of what Joseph did in a more precarious position.

[jkwilliams]

I have to disagree here and I do not think the comparisons to the Bible are relevant. We do not have a substantial back story involving specific miraculous events regarding the production and composition of the entire Bible and nor is it claimed as a record maintained by an unbroken line of authors. Additionally we LDS do not claim the Bible to be inerrant, though certain foundational events in the Bible are historically necessary for Mormonism.

On the other hand with coming forth of the Book of Mormon we have this entire 19th century back story claiming direct involvement with God and his messengers. How is it possible to dismiss the historicity of the Book of Mormon and maintain a literal belief in the rest of the the events claimed by Joseph Smith and what kind of God would create such an intricate story both in the Book of Mormon and the 19th century efforts to produce it? So perhaps claims that it is merely divine fiction solve some of the perplexing problems of direct physical evidence demanded by Jenkins for believers but, in my opinion, such a defense places the rest of what Joseph did in a more precarious position.

 

To me, the backstory (I like that, btw) of the Bible establishes only that it is an ancient book but is silent on the issue of whether God created the world or Jesus is the Savior. What we have with the Book of Mormon is different, as it can't be established as an ancient record, and a lot of evidence in and out of the text suggests pretty strongly that it's a nineteenth-century production. Sure, that does call into question the whole story of angels and plates, as it should. But if people want to believe that God reveals "inspired fiction," I don't have much to say about it. 

[rodheadlee]

I have to disagree here and I do not think the comparisons to the Bible are relevant. We do not have a substantial back story involving specific miraculous events regarding the production and composition of the entire Bible and nor is it claimed as a record maintained by an unbroken line of authors. Additionally we LDS do not claim the Bible to be inerrant, though certain foundational events in the Bible are historically necessary for Mormonism.

On the other hand with coming forth of the Book of Mormon we have this entire 19th century back story claiming direct involvement with God and his messengers. How is it possible to dismiss the historicity of the Book of Mormon and maintain a literal belief in the rest of the the events claimed by Joseph Smith and what kind of God would create such an intricate story both in the Book of Mormon and the 19th century efforts to produce it? So perhaps claims that it is merely divine fiction solve some of the perplexing problems of direct physical evidence demanded by Jenkins for believers but, in my opinion, such a defense places the rest of what Joseph did in a more precarious position.

Of course, even one little piece of evidence proving the BoM to be ancient would cause many a paradigm change. So all evidence must be refuted. 

[stemelbow]

Of course, even one little piece of evidence proving the BoM to be ancient would cause many a paradigm change. So all evidence must be refuted.

I think that's a fair point. it does seem from an outside perspective if something is going to touted as evidence it better be pretty impenetrable, precisely because the story is so incredible when you try and place it in the ancient world as we know it. I'm not sure that's the best way to evaluate it, but I think that's where we are now.

[jkwilliams]

Of course, even one little piece of evidence proving the BoM to be ancient would cause many a paradigm change. So all evidence must be refuted. 

 

Paradigm shifts happen when there's evidence that can't be refuted. Yes, scientists can be resistant to paradigm shifts, but they happen all the time. If there were solid evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, the paradigm would have to shift accordingly. Of course, such evidence hasn't emerged, so there's no reason for a paradigm shift.

[canard78]

Of course, even one little piece of evidence proving the BoM to be ancient would cause many a paradigm change. So all evidence must be refuted.

One little piece of evidence would be nice. So far we've got:

- NHM/Bountiful

- ...

There's the 19thC evidences too (witnesses, Joseph's (in)ability to write it himself).

The question Jenkins asks though is whether the BoM can be considered a volume of ancient American history?

Edited July 30, 2015 by canard78

[CA Steve]

One little piece of evidence would be nice. So far we've got:

- NHM/Bountiful

- ...

There's the 19thC evidences too (witnesses, Joseph's (in)ability to write it himself).

The question Phillips asks though is whether the BoM can be considered a volume of ancient American history?

I think Jenkins question is more specific than whether or not it can be considered ancient American history. I think Jenkins is asking "if there any actual credible evidence or research supporting Ancient Book of Mormon" claims? The difference is small but important to Jenkins. He does not care if people what to believe that it is actual history, but if they are making claims in scholarly areas that it is, he wants to see that evidence. IOW he is challenging the credibility of scholarship in the field of study called Ancient Book of Mormon studies.

[jkwilliams]

I think Jenkins question is more specific than whether or not it can be considered ancient American history. I think Jenkins is asking "if there any actual credible evidence or research supporting Ancient Book of Mormon" claims? The difference is small but important to Jenkins. He does not care if people what to believe that it is actual history, but if they are making claims in scholarly areas that it is, he wants to see that evidence. IOW he is challenging the credibility of scholarship in the field of study called Ancient Book of Mormon studies.

 

Yep, that is the question he has repeatedly asked. He's outlined what constitutes evidence (see the Daubert Standard), and has asked for New World evidence supporting the Book of Mormon that meets that standard. So far, Hamblin has been unable to provide any such evidence. Instead, he has asserted that evidence is subjective and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. Jenkins has expressed surprise that a history professor would make such an assertion.

[rodheadlee]

Paradigm shifts happen when there's evidence that can't be refuted. Yes, scientists can be resistant to paradigm shifts, but they happen all the time. If there were solid evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, the paradigm would have to shift accordingly. Of course, such evidence hasn't emerged, so there's no reason for a paradigm shift.

Dr Jenkins is an EV from Baylor, for him to admit even one tiny little piece of evidence that the BoM is ancient would cause him to have to admit the rest is true, regarding Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the first vision etc.. That's not likely to happen, no matter what the evidence.

[canard78]

Dr Jenkins is an EV from Baylor, for him to admit even one tiny little piece of evidence that the BoM is ancient would cause him to have to admit the rest is true, regarding Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the first vision etc.. That's not likely to happen, no matter what the evidence.

What, specifically, about his argument do you consider to be weak and influenced by his religious bias.

If someone's religious bias invalidates ones historical conclusions doesn't that also mean that Sorenson, Gardner et al should also be disregarded?

[jkwilliams]

Dr Jenkins is an EV from Baylor, for him to admit even one tiny little piece of evidence that the BoM is ancient would cause him to have to admit the rest is true, regarding Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the first vision etc.. That's not likely to happen, no matter what the evidence.

 

He's been pretty clear: provide evidence that meets evidentiary scholarship. Hamblin hasn't provided any, so willful Evangelical blindness can't come into play yet. (Besides, your post is an ad hominem fallacy of the "guilt by association" variety.)

[stemelbow]

What, specifically, about his argument do you consider to be weak and influenced by his religious bias.

If someone's religious bias invalidates ones historical conclusions doesn't that also mean that Sorenson, Gardner et al should also be disregarded?

Everyone should be disregarded. It's all about the content that matters. The issue remains, the BoM could be scriptural and non historical, or at least not considered doing any sort of historicity. or it could be that there is something already present that meets the demands, but no one aside from Mormons wants to admit it.

Did a family and a few others leave Jerusalem 2600 years ago? How would we know? Follow their described trail. It matches in Arabia a bit. But that's not good because Joseph could have just made that up. What do we find? next to nothing. NHM is presented as interesting but that's rejected as even the slightest bit of evidence because it could be that Joseph saw something like Nihm on a map and decided to use it at the exclusion of anything else. But then we have the issue of what map? No one knows but it must be because Joseph couldn't have gotten from another source since such a source existed somewhere.

Evidence it seems isn't the issue when the discussion turns these types of directions to me. it seems whether that which is claimed evidence can have other explanations. Evidence is evidence but some seem to suggest it can't be evidence if there remains other explanation. I think that's kind of a weak position to take, but I welcome Jenkins and co to take it. As someone said, they must else admitting even the slightest piece really hurts, or something.

[stemelbow]

He's been pretty clear: provide evidence that meets evidentiary scholarship. Hamblin hasn't provided any, so willful Evangelical blindness can't come into play yet. (Besides, your post is an ad hominem fallacy of the "guilt by association" variety.)

Sure it can. that is to say anything that is presented as evidence is rejected as even being evidence if he thinks there can be other explanation for the something. Thus, he's saying it's not evidence because it doesn't really stand up to my assumptions (not really under scrutiny though because he can't provide evidence his assumptions hold water, as in say, NHM being found on a map that Joseph or whoever wrote it was privy too).

[jkwilliams]

Sure it can. that is to say anything that is presented as evidence is rejected as even being evidence if he thinks there can be other explanation for the something. Thus, he's saying it's not evidence because it doesn't really stand up to my assumptions (not really under scrutiny though because he can't provide evidence his assumptions hold water, as in say, NHM being found on a map that Joseph or whoever wrote it was privy too).

 

He's explained how the scholarly approach works, given references and examples of how it works properly and how it contrasts with pseudo-scholarship. It's not as if his description of archaeological and historical methodology is out of left field or in any way related to his religious beliefs. The NHM example you use is illustrative, as it's a question of parsimony: given that Nehem appears on numerous maps available in Joseph Smith's day, is it more likely that the name came from one of those maps or from a supernatural translation of a lost record on gold plates? But even then, Jenkins was asking for New World evidence, so Nehem doesn't apply. In the absence of any such evidence, there's no evidence to reject, so willful Evangelical blindness doesn't come into play.