Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The inability to distinguish Book of Mormon artifacts from regular artifacts isn't Jenkins' problem.

It certainly is his problem.  He is the one asking for "Book of Mormon artifacts."

Let me illustrate: Let's say that you gave me three quarters last week, and I returned home and put them in my piggy bank.  Today you come to my house and ask me to return one of those quarters, explaining that it has great sentimental value for you.  I say "Well, here's my piggy bank.  It has dozens of quarters in it.  Which one is yours?"  Would you get angry with me?  Would you refuse to respond to my request for clarification, and again insist that I pick out your specific quarter?  Would you resent my request that you differentiate your quarter from the others?  Would you say "The inability to distinguish my quarter from all of your quarters isn't my problem?"

Hamblin had a point, and Jenkins didn't address it.

Quote

If I told you that I firmly believed that several thousand years ago, a group of aliens with advanced technology landed on Earth and encountered the ancient Roman empire and lived among them for a thousand years, you would presumably ask me if there is any evidence of this happening.  If I told you that there would have been, but the aliens quickly lost their advanced technology and lived exactly as the Romans so all the alien artifacts just looked like regular Roman artifacts, you might admit that my explanation was air-tight, but that doesn't negate the fact that I still don't have any evidence.

Except that we aren't suggesting that we "don't have any evidence."  It just may not be in the form you prefer.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

To an outsider, all of Joseph Smith's claims look equally Prophetic. 

"To an outsider" being code for "to someone who is generally uninformed about the subject matter."

Joseph Smith never claimed to be "equally prophetic" in everything he said.  He taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."  (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:265).

Are you really claiming that "outsiders" are entitled to insist on construing everything and anything that Joseph Smith said as "prophetic," even when he specifically disclaimed such an idea?

Quote

If the first thing they have to do to study The Book of Mormon is learn to figure out which of Joseph Smith's claims were "Prophetic" and which were him just making stuff up, then you may have just answered the question from the original post.

Not really.  It's lazy thinking to take an all-or-nothing approach to Joseph Smith, particularly when he himself differentiated between prophetic and non-prophetic utterances.

Quote

The problem is that Joseph Smith's words and the text of The Book of Mormon have to be narrowly interpreted in a specific way in order to point to Mesoamerica. 

Not really.  I don't think proponents of the LGT/Mesomerican theories rely on "Joseph Smith's words" much, likely because Joseph Smith did not claim to always be functioning as a prophet.

Quote

Or, they can be interpreted to point to the Heartland (and to an outside observer, I guarantee you the Heartland interpretation is the much more obvious interpretation). 

Sorry, but I'm not going to privilege the uninformed opinions of neophytes as the starting point to discuss Book of Mormon geography.  

Joseph Smith never made any prophetic claims about the geography of the Book of Mormon.  Many faithful Mormon scholars do not feel bound by non-prophetic statements he made here and there.  

Quote

And this doesn't account for the possibility that a researcher might actually look at the Church website and the words of the men LDS look to as Prophets and Apostles to figure out what the preferred geography is.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  The Church does not have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It certainly is his problem.  He is the one asking for "Book of Mormon artifacts."

Let me illustrate: Let's say that you gave me three quarters last week, and I returned home and put them in my piggy bank.  Today you come to my house and ask me to return one of those quarters, explaining that it has great sentimental value for you.  I say "Well, here's my piggy bank.  It has dozens of quarters in it.  Which one is yours?"  Would you get angry with me?  Would you refuse to respond to my request for clarification, and again insist that I pick out your specific quarter?  Would you resent my request that you differentiate your quarter from the others?  Would you say "The inability to distinguish my quarter from all of your quarters isn't my problem?"

Hamblin had a point, and Jenkins didn't address it.

Except that we aren't suggesting that we "don't have any evidence."  It just may not be in the form you prefer.

Thanks,

-Smac

That’s not what’s going on. Imagine you say you put 3 quarters in a jar of nickels. I ask you to show me the quarters, and you instead tell me how much nickels look like quarters. 

There isn’t any evidence in the material culture of Mesoamerica for an influx of Hebrews, let alone any who were politically and culturally dominant for a thousand years. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm convinced Zelph is just an account of Joseph talking about the native Indians that got blown out of proportion. Lamanite by then was being applied to all native Americans. So to assume it refers to the Book of Mormon narrative seems dubious. Even if one accepts the additions as the tale was repeated, nothing says it was thousands of years old rather than a few centuries or so except the Kimball & Woodruff account. (He unlike everyone else appears to tie it to the final destruction of Nephites - although there is some vagueness even there). Kimball's account is problematic for various reasons including being 10 years after the fact. He has Joseph present whereas most others have Joseph absent. The other account tying it to Nephites is Woodruff writing 59 years later. That of course becomes deeply problematic textually. Again there are many elements in the Woodruff account, such as the steps, we know are false.

1

As far as the native Americans being called Lamanites, I'm not sure we shouldn't take the references in D&C to Lamanites as literally intended, but we can agree to disagree.

Nice point on the issues with the tower. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s not what’s going on. Imagine you say you put 3 quarters in a jar of nickels. I ask you to show me the quarters, and you instead tell me how much nickels look like quarters. 

There isn’t any evidence in the material culture of Mesoamerica for an influx of Hebrews, let alone any who were politically and culturally dominant for a thousand years. 

What "influx of Hebrews"? Lehi's comparatively tiny colony? And who says they "were politically and culturally dominant for a thousand years"? Many apologists argue persuasively that there were other peoples besides Lehi's colony.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

What "influx of Hebrews"? Lehi's comparatively tiny colony? And who says they "were politically and culturally dominant for a thousand years"? Many apologists argue persuasively that there were other peoples besides Lehi's colony?

 

Yes, and they also argue that the Nephites quickly assimilated and became dominant. I just watched a video last night wherein that was argued. And it was people like John Sorensen, Brant Gardner, and Daniel Peterson making that argument. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

As far as the native Americans being called Lamanites, I'm not sure we shouldn't take the references in D&C to Lamanites as literally intended, but we can agree to disagree.

Nice point on the issues with the tower. 

 

It could still be taken literally. After comparatively few generations, descendancy gets dispersed far and wide. I have no reason to doubt that after a number of generations, virtually every indigenous person in the Americas was descended from Lehi.

Are you familiar with the everyone-is descended-from-Charlamagne mathematical model? Briefly stated, descendants increase geometrically with each passing generation.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, and they also argue that the Nephites quickly assimilated and became dominant. I just watched a video last night wherein that was argued. And it was people like John Sorensen, Brant Gardner, and Daniel Peterson making that argument. 

Link, please, preferably with a time stamp to make it easier to locate. A transcription would be even better.

Meanwhile, we have this from the Church's "Gosepl Topics" essay:

Quote

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.⁶

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, pottery would have benefited from the high-heat technology Nephi describes. We don’t see that anywhere in Mesoamerica. 

They don't mention pottery though do they?

It seems like Nephi and Lehi might have been metal traders of some sort with ties to the lost northern kingdom but often traveling to Egypt. That'd explain the religious differences from what P and D give us during and after the exile. But it'd also simultaneously explain why they didn't know about pottery. I agree pottery is quite an important technology and it's interesting Nephi doesn't mention it. We get two metaphoric uses of pottery referring to the body and then 2 Ne 27:27 which is an expansion of Isaiah 29. I don't think metallurgy implies a solid knowledge of pottery.

While I think metal is the biggest problem for apologists particularly Mosiah 8:11, I'm not sure metal working really persists long after Nephi despite 2 Ne 5:!5. It's interesting that by Jarom 1:8 items that seem more traditional American weapons are listed rather than swords. While I don't think it really explains in the least the continued reference to copper and iron, it does suggest something odd has happened.

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a very easy way to distinguish between the prophetic statements and the ones that aren’t.  All the statements that are obviously erroneous weren’t prophetic.  

That is the traditional OT approach.

The problem with many of Joseph's texts is figuring out what context out of which to interpret them. Critics for understandable reasons prefer 19th century Biblical literalist context. Apologists for equally understandable reasons prefer contexts where the text could plausibly line up with the purported times and peoples. They then interpret the text in light of the scientific understanding of such contexts.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Link, please.

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They don't mention pottery though do they?

It seems like Nephi and Lehi might have been metal traders of some sort with ties to the lost northern kingdom but often traveling to Egypt. That'd explain the religious differences from what P and D give us during and after the exile. But it'd also simultaneously explain why they didn't know about pottery. I agree pottery is quite an important technology and it's interesting Nephi doesn't mention it. We get two metaphoric uses of pottery referring to the body and then 2 Ne 27:27 which is an expansion of Isaiah 29. I don't think metallurgy implies a solid knowledge of pottery.

While I think metal is the biggest problem for apologists particularly Mosiah 8:11, I'm not sure metal working really persists long after Nephi despite 2 Ne 5:!5. It's interesting that by Jarom 1:8 items that seem more traditional American weapons are listed rather than swords. While I don't think it really explains in the least the continued reference to copper and iron, it does suggest something odd has happened.

That is the traditional OT approach.

The problem with many of Joseph's texts is figuring out what context out of which to interpret them. Critics for understandable reasons prefer 19th century Biblical literalist context. Apologists for equally understandable reasons prefer contexts where the text could plausibly line up with the purported times and peoples. They then interpret the text in light of the scientific understanding of such contexts.

I don’t think you understand my point. Where high-heat technology (usually associated with metallurgy) is introduced, the local pottery changes as well. What we see in Mesoanerican pottery is low-heat techniques, usually putting the wet pots in a pit and lighting a wood fire on top. There’s no evidence that high heat was ever introduced. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It could still be taken literally. After comparatively few generations, descendancy gets dispersed far and wide. I have no reason to doubt that after a number of generations, virtually every indigenous person in the Americas was descended from Lehi.

Are you familiar with the everyone-is descended-from-Charlamagne mathematical model? Briefly stated, descendants increase geometrically with each passing generation.

Sure. Fair point.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

 

I've started watching the video. I may have to see it in installments. But I'll post snippets as I encounter them and as they relate to our discussion here.

Quote

They found a complex civilization that was already on a trajectory towards what would later flourish as the Maya civilization and other later cultures.

Quote

"The Book of Mormon has many of the same cultural characteristics -- all of the important characteristics -- of Mesoamerican civilization." -- John Sorenson

 

Quote

 

As interesting as it is to talk about the geography and the architecture of Mesoamerica comparing it to the Book of Mormon, there is a much deeper and richer body of data that we can look at when it comes to Mesoamerican belief and Mesoamerican religion as compared to the Book of Mormon. -- Mark Wright

 

 

 

 

Quote

The Book of Mormon peoples would have had to have operated in a culturally complex situation.

 

 

Quote

Everything the Book of Mormon tells us indicates they had to have joined with other peoples. -- Brant Garndner

Quote

In addition to multiple languages, there were throughout MesoAmerica a surprising number of ways of writing.  -- John Sorenson(?)

 

Quote

The spoken language could very well have been changed. It might have still had its basic Hebrew core as English does, I mean if we try to read Beowulf, we can't do it, because the language has changed so much -- John Robertson

 

Quote

Mormon would not have been speaking the same language as Nephi, but he has been instructed in it and is able to communicate in it after a fashion.

 

Quote

One of the most fascinating questions about Lehi and his family coming to the new world has to do with how the transfer of culture is going to happen; what's the direction. And for things that have to do with everyday life the direction [of cultural transfer] has to be from Mesoamerica to their lives [meaning the lives of Lehi's descendants]. -- Brant Gardner

This is as far as I've gotten into the video so far (23 minutes). I may or may not get back to it soon.

So far, I've not run across anything to state that the descendants of Lehi with their indigenous Hebrew culture would have been "culturally dominant for thousands of years," assuming arguendo that these Hebrew elements were indeed preserved in their culture. The Nephite religious beliefs, to be sure, were preserved on plates, but the the scholars in this video so far seem to be drawing a distinction between religion and cultural influence.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think you understand my point. Where high-heat technology (usually associated with metallurgy) is introduced, the local pottery changes as well. What we see in Mesoanerican pottery is low-heat techniques, usually putting the wet pots in a pit and lighting a wood fire on top. There’s no evidence that high heat was ever introduced. 

Right and my reply was that whatever the Nephites were doing by Jarom it's gone. So it may not have persisted long enough to affect other things. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've started watching the video. I may have to see it in installments. But I'll post snippets as I encounter them and as they relate to our discussion here.

 

Just looked. It’s about 16 minutes in. They say Nephi united Kaminaljuyu under one culture and religion to accomplish great things. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Right and my reply was that whatever the Nephites were doing by Jarom it's gone. So it may not have persisted long enough to affect other things. 

But the Jaredites were melting ore into steel for a very long time. No high heat pottery there, either. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think "facile" would be better.  Hamblin asked Jenkins how he would propose to identify and differentiate a "Book of Mormon" artifact from any other.  No answer.

Debates can get heated.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Kinda sad it got turned around like that.  Jenkins made the challenge to he who had the burden of proof.  Hamblin didn’t supply evidence to answer the burden but instead tried to make the point if one assumes historicity then we can also assume anything we find in terms of artifacts could be nephite/Lamanite (how would we know otherwise?)  that’s not to say it’s not possible any little artifact found couldn’t have one day been in the hands of a lamanite, the problem is making that connection.  Showing it was in the hands of a lamanite.  If there’s no connection then there’s no evidence.    Otherwise any claim is supportable.  Ghegis kahn ruled Greenland (anything we find is really just his stuff); Jesus was a dinosaur who was reincarnated as a man;  my pants don’t fit me.  And other such nonsense.  

In the end the burden was not met.  And the debate ended, unceremoniously.  

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right and my reply was that whatever the Nephites were doing by Jarom it's gone. So it may not have persisted long enough to affect other things. 

Are you saying your evidence of such technology is that it died out after Jarom?  Or because it dies out there is no evidence?  Any reasoning is fine I suppose to explain why there’s no evidence, but again that doesn’t mean there suddenly is evidence because it’s possible things disappeared, right?  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Kinda sad it got turned around like that.  Jenkins made the challenge to he who had the burden of proof.  Hamblin didn’t supply evidence to answer the burden but instead tried to make the point if one assumes historicity then we can also assume anything we find in terms of artifacts could be nephite/Lamanite (how would we know otherwise?)  that’s not to say it’s not possible any little artifact found couldn’t have one day been in the hands of a lamanite, the problem is making that connection.  Showing it was in the hands of a lamanite.  If there’s no connection then there’s no evidence.    Otherwise any claim is supportable.  Ghegis kahn ruled Greenland (anything we find is really just his stuff); Jesus was a dinosaur who was reincarnated as a man;  my pants don’t fit me.  And other such nonsense.  

In the end the burden was not met.  And the debate ended, unceremoniously.  

Yup. It’s just fascinating that they can claim Nephi walked into Kaminaljuyu, organized and unified the people, and yet left no trace that he was ever there. 

The Jenkins debate was all about why we shouldn’t expect to find any evidence in the New World, which works because there isn’t any. 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s not what’s going on. Imagine you say you put 3 quarters in a jar of nickels.

Then we'd be able to differentiate quarters from nickles.

But Hamblin's point is that we are being asked differentiate quarters from nickels, but quarters from quarters.  And I think he's right.  If you think he's wrong, then I invite you to answer the question he posed to Jenkins about pottery sherds.  

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I ask you to show me the quarters, and you instead tell me how much nickels look like quarters. 

Nope.  You (and Jenkins) are refusing to explain how we differentiate coins.

How do you know what a piece of "Nephite" pottery looks like?  How would you differentiate it from any other piece of Mesoamerican pottery?

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There isn’t any evidence in the material culture of Mesoamerica for an influx of Hebrews, let alone any who were politically and culturally dominant for a thousand years. 

Alas, there are all sorts of assumptions packed into this statement.  "An influx" of how many Hebrews?  A few dozen, at most?  Introduced into a population of how many millions?  How long would they have remained culturally distinct from the indigenous folks?  How long before their cultures intermingled?  How long did the descendants of Lehi retain language, dress, practices, etc. from Jerusalem?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then we'd be able to differentiate quarters from nickles.

But Hamblin's point is that we are being asked differentiate quarters from nickels, but quarters from quarters.  And I think he's right.  If you think he's wrong, then I invite you to answer the question he posed to Jenkins about pottery sherds.  

Nope.  You (and Jenkins) are refusing to explain how we differentiate coins.

How do you know what a piece of "Nephite" pottery looks like?  How would you differentiate it from any other piece of Mesoamerican pottery?

Alas, there are all sorts of assumptions packed into this statement.  "An influx" of how many Hebrews?  A few dozen, at most?  Introduced into a population of how many millions?  How long would they have remained culturally distinct from the indigenous folks?  How long before their cultures intermingled?  How long did the descendants of Lehi retain language, dress, practices, etc. from Jerusalem?  

Thanks,

-Smac

That’s fine, Spencer, but dont claim there is evidence and then spend all your time explaining why we shouldn’t expect to find any. The Book of Mormon makes specific claims about Nephite material culture. Nothing that is specified shows up in the archaeological record. Kind of strange when a “can do guy” like Nephi manages to become the driving force in the development of a major “seedbed” of a civilization. And the lack of any material evidence doesn’t seem strange to you. 

There’s a reason the OP focuses on tenuous linguistic evidence. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Kinda sad it got turned around like that.  Jenkins made the challenge to he who had the burden of proof.  

And his challenge was facile.  It happens.

Hamblin isn't shifting the burden of proof.  He's suggesting that Jenkins' "challenge" is fraught with assumptions that make it essentially untestable.

Again, what does a Nephite pottery sherd look like?  How are we to differentiate such a sherd from any other non-Nephite sherd?  Can you say?  Can Jenkins?

Jenkins asked Hamblin to show him a needle not in a haystack, but in a stack of other needles.  How do differentiate a Nephite needle from any of the others?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hamblin didn’t supply evidence to answer the burden but instead tried to make the point if one assumes historicity then we can also assume anything we find in terms of artifacts could be nephite/Lamanite (how would we know otherwise?)  that’s not to say it’s not possible any little artifact found couldn’t have one day been in the hands of a lamanite, the problem is making that connection.  

No, I don't think that was Hamblin's point.  He is faulting the question because it's facile, because it's unanswerable.  Not because there were no Nephites, but we presently lack data such as would allow us to meaningfully differentiate Nephite artifacts from any others.

That's a solid point.  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Showing it was in the hands of a lamanite.  If there’s no connection then there’s no evidence.    Otherwise any claim is supportable.  Ghegis kahn ruled Greenland (anything we find is really just his stuff); Jesus was a dinosaur who was reincarnated as a man;  my pants don’t fit me.  And other such nonsense.  

Oh, total strawman here.  Nothing but.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In the end the burden was not met.  And the debate ended, unceremoniously.  

In the end the burdenwas not met because the question was facile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

On 6/23/2018 at 11:11 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, what you said I am trying to understand is not what I am trying to understand. I fully expect that many people will disagree, even when they have all the same information at hand. My purpose is to try to figure out the most common reasons that individuals, especially when they are in the throes of an initial faith crisis,  don't seriously engage with the many lines of evidences uncovered by legitimate LDS scholars which support the historicity of our Restoration texts--an issue that is more scientifically testable than any other when it comes to intellectually (rather than spiritually) evaluating the truth claims of the Restoration.

I have invited a number of people in this situation to engage with this research, and none of them showed much if any interest. Aside from increased spiritual searching, the logical thing to do, for those who are in this situation and value their testimonies and are trying to deal with critical arguments that undermine them, would be to look at evidences which counteract these arguments. And if they wanted to be fair about it all, they would intensely investigate all the major lines of evidence from both sides before ever choosing to reinterpret the spiritual experiences that undergird their testimony. In other words, this is a long court case and they would let the evidence fully play out before reaching a life-altering, faith-shattering, and often (though thankfully not always) relationship-severing conclusion. 

But this isn't how most people approach the issue. The new critical information induces a sense of fear, betrayal, and often anger. I think it is these feelings--especially betrayal and a lack of trust--that cause people to quickly accept the inaccurate caricature of LDS apologetic research which is trumpeted by the critics. They are already feeling distrustful, and so they never really engage.

Why wast your time reading "pseudo-scholarship" right? Especially when other smart people out there have surely read it all and aren't impressed by it. This stuff isn't published an mainstream journals. It's all just like UFO and Big foot. And so on and so forth, from people who for the most part  haven't seriously engaged it themselves. 

If apologetic research is interacted with by the person in the faith crisis, it is usually related to "defensive," rather than "offensive" apologetics. They read a few things from FairMormon, MormonThink, the CES Letter, ect., and then feel like they have sufficiently sampled what is there. And then the journey is all into the labrynth of moral issues, and usually doesn't ever swing back very far into the more scientifically testable questions.

Obviously, that is a lot of generalizations and certainly not everyone fits the mold, but that is my best theory so far as to how this process typically plays out and why people don't seriously engage the research at a period in their faith journey when it might help them the most and when it makes a lot of sense for them to do so.   

As for the uniqueness or impressiveness of the Book of Mormon and its ability to compel belief, I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. My position isn't that the evidences compel belief or that they should compel belief. My position is that the evidences are collectively better than the competing evidences in this area, and that this area is the most probative, scientific avenue of research. Someone who hates the church's stance on homosexuality, for example, may not care if the apologetic case for historicity provides the best holistic argument available. We all prioritize what types of evidences are most important to us. I'm trying to figure out why people aren't prioritizing the lines of evidence I discussed in the OP at a time in their lives when it would seem very wise to do so (at least from the perspective of someone who values his or her testimony and wonders if there are legitimate intellectual reasons to hold on to their faith). 

You misunderstand what "legitimate intellectual reasons" are for religious faith

I suggest you learn about pragmatic truth and a good place to start would be with this essay by a brilliant BYU philosopher, David Paulsen.

I will be glad to answer any questions you have. Quite honestly if you are not familiar with this way of seeing the world you have little credibility in philosophy and your case has no merit.

If you are going to talk about "legitimate intellectual reasons" you need to have some yourself. Historical reasons are not legitimate intellectual reasons to accept a religion.  Religion has nothing to do with history. It is not about explaining the world, it is about explaining why the world exists. Unless perhaps you can tell me how history explains why the world exists. Good luck.

 sorry but when someone brings up legitimate intellectual reasons for believing in religion and hasn't a  clue it gets me a little riled especially if he is purporting do have actually read Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

I will also throw in an article on fideism 

https://philarchive.org/archive/PAUTGO

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2004/the-god-of-abraham-isaac-and-joseph-smith-defending-the-faith

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Why not engage the evidence? Because it is irrelevant to " legitimate intellectual reasons" for believing in the gospel.

Your opinion may differ of course. But at least you need to be aware of the fact that there are people who are educated and have very good reasons for believing in the church and ignoring historical evidence.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s fine, Spencer, but dont claim there is evidence and then spend all your time explaining why we shouldn’t expect to find any.

Please review my posts and show me where I have asserted the existence of archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Consider this a CFR in you like.

I haven't been speaking of that type of evidence.  I've been speaking about textual evidences and evidences relating to the Plates.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

The Book of Mormon makes specific claims about Nephite material culture.

Yes.  But the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us what a Nephite pottery sherd looks like.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Nothing that is specified shows up in the archaeological record.

What is it you expect to be "in the archaeological record?"

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Kind of strange when a “can do guy” like Nephi manages to become the driving force in the development of a major “seedbed” of a civilization. And the lack of any material evidence doesn’t seem strange to you. 

Nobody is claiming there is a "lack of any material evidence," only that we presently lack of the means of identifying any extant evidence/artifact as specifically Nephite.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Please review my posts and show me where I have asserted the existence of archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Consider this a CFR in you like.

I haven't been speaking of that type of evidence.  I've been speaking about textual evidences and evidences relating to the Plates.

Yes.  But the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us what a Nephite pottery sherd looks like.

What is it you expect to be "in the archaeological record?"

Nobody is claiming there is a "lack of any material evidence," only that we presently lack of the means of identifying any extant evidence/artifact as specifically Nephite.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m talking about this thread. Supposedly there’s all this mutually corroborating evidence that we critics are just to thick or stubborn to admit. But when someone asks for evidence supporting rather specific historical claims, that’s just facile because the claims are untestable. We’ll posit the city of Nephi was Kaminaljuyu, but don’t ask us to support it with evidence  

Again, this is why engaging apologetics is a fool’s errand.