Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[oxcoug]

Nice post Utah Dan I'd only observe

I think that is the key point that folks should not miss in what you are saying. We have actually talked about this issue in a fair amount of depth, so some of what I am about to say will be repetitive.

LA Ute, whose opinion I respect, has said something to the affect that it doesn't all have to make rational sense but it can't make no sense at all. It cannot be utterly absurd. I think what you are saying is that these things are ideas that allow people to not view it as utterly absurd, even if the evidence never approaches the level of independently satisfying any sort of burden of proof (which ever one wants to use).

I have described these as being very similar to the notion of reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial, I am not necessarily trying to set up a convincing alternative view as much as I am trying to make a juror ask them self whether they can really know for sure if the allegations are true. Is there a reasonable doubt? Have all the reasonable hypothesis of innocence been excluded. Similarly, such evidences, mostly circumstantial, don't attempt to independently set up a convincing alternative view, they are simply holding the door open that, from an evidentiary standpoint, the book might be an ancient record. There is a reasonable doubt that the critics are wrong on the evidence.

This of course excludes spiritual evidences (however one wants to define those, people certainly differ) which are in my opinion the only evidences that matter. I don't believe that it is necessary for belief to be plausible on the evidence because in my view there is such a paucity of non-spiritual evidence in favor of, and such formidable counter evidences and arguments, that trying to hold that door of plausibility open is more of a willing delusion than a reasonable view of available evidence. I also think that it frequently sets people who are new to the evidentiary arguments up for disappointment.

Why it should be that the non-spiritual evidences tilt so far in one direction, I cannot say. Certainly there are familiar explanations. But to me what is tough to deny is that Moroni's promise works for many, many people. The spiritual benefits and evidences are significant, even if they themselves are delusions in the eyes of some. I don't view them that way, not my own experiences nor those of others. That is not to say that I know we are right to be see them as evidence of the BOM or the divine or what have you, but I try to nurture that hope inside of me that they are that we call faith. For me this is a choice (though I know that some say faith is a gift and there is authority for that idea). Faith is the ultimate exercise of my free agency. For me that is enough because practicing my faith is sufficiently rewarding for me and my family.

What I believe comes from subjective experience that I think I share with others; it appears to me that I do. That doesn't whitewash any of the panoply of problems that people raise and often lose their testimonies over nor does it invalidate the spiritual experiences of people like Faith who believes that the spirit led her out of the church. That is okay, because these ultimate questions are questions I can only attempt to answer for myself. Only I can set the bar for how much evidence and what kind is satisfactory. I share all that only to make that point that I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of objective evidences, or of plausibility as you put it, if that is important to them. I only say that it appears to me that serious pursuit of such things is hurtful more often than it is rewarding from a faithful perspective.

- and I expect you'd agree - that different people have different needs when it comes to the development and exercise of faith, and for more than a few plausible historicity of sacred texts is a precondition, because the alternative to plausible historicity is some combination of forgery, fantasy and fraud. Not likely to inspire faith.

As for "reasonable views of available evidence" or the notion that "non spiritual evidence" is overwhelmingly against historicity - you or someone else would have to make the case on this one. So far all I see here are people here throwing that around as fait accompli without bothering to make the argument.

[oxcoug]

Well I'm glad these were your "quick thoughts" because if they were your "deeply considered exegesis" I'd worry....

The existence of the place Nahom is only potentially "astonishing" given the entire context which I addressed but you didn't. (1) That it's been located on what is the only plausible route down and across the Arabian Peninsula that Team Lehi could have taken, (2) that of all the places Team Lehi stops on its flight from Jerusalem it is the only one that stands out as already being called something as opposed to be named something by the nomads, (3) that the place in question was a site known anciently for burials and this is where they bury Ishmael. Subtract those items from the equation and yeah, I'm with ya - not so interesting.

Re Tvedtnes - who cares who's paying him when he's given you an easily falsifiable quote? "The use of Egyptian symbols to transliterate Hebrew words and vice versa is known from sixth century B.C. texts discovered at Arad and Kadesh-Barnea." And how do you leap from my citation of Tvedtnes to the conclusion that there are no scholars that support the conclusion?

You say Pahoran isn't of Egyptian derivation - on what grounds? William Foxwell Albright, as quoted, said otherwise. Why should I take your word over his? And why do you get to dismiss a Tvedtnes reference and then just say, without any support or citation, that Pahoran and Korihor don't have Egyptian parallels?

I also don't see your point on this: "Don't you have to count those other names as evidence against historicity?" No. Not really. Given the sheer capacity of ancient records to simply disappear the fact that a majority of place and personal names from a mixed group that went to a faroff land wouldn't be found all over the Middle Eastern historical record isn't that surprising at all.

I'd add to all of this though - I'm not sure the degrees between "astonishing," "surprising," "interesting," and "compelling" need to occupy much more attention in this conversation.

I concede that some of these things might not be "astonishing" - and it doesn't matter that much. It was a word among several that could have been used and I could have picked a better one.

[ERCougar]

Sorry, ox, to have been a wet blanket on this discussion. It's just that we message boarders *never* pretend to be experts in areas outside our fields.

It's all in fun...let's discuss.

I am curious though (since everyone else has ignored the question)...if we come to the conclusion that based on the evidence, the BOM is not a historical document, would you leave the church?

[CardiacCoug]

Well I'm glad these were your "quick thoughts" because if they were your "deeply considered exegesis" I'd worry....

The existence of the place Nahom is only potentially "astonishing" given the entire context which I addressed but you didn't. (1) That it's been located on what is the only plausible route down and across the Arabian Peninsula that Team Lehi could have taken, (2) that of all the places Team Lehi stops on its flight from Jerusalem it is the only one that stands out as already being called something as opposed to be named something by the nomads, (3) that the place in question was a site known anciently for burials and this is where they bury Ishmael. Subtract those items from the equation and yeah, I'm with ya - not so interesting.

Re Tvedtnes - who cares who's paying him when he's given you an easily falsifiable quote? "The use of Egyptian symbols to transliterate Hebrew words and vice versa is known from sixth century B.C. texts discovered at Arad and Kadesh-Barnea." And how do you leap from my citation of Tvedtnes to the conclusion that there are no scholars that support the conclusion?

You say Pahoran isn't of Egyptian derivation - on what grounds? William Foxwell Albright, as quoted, said otherwise. Why should I take your word over his? And why do you get to dismiss a Tvedtnes reference and then just say, without any support or citation, that Pahoran and Korihor don't have Egyptian parallels?

I also don't see your point on this: "Don't you have to count those other names as evidence against historicity?" No. Not really. Given the sheer capacity of ancient records to simply disappear the fact that a majority of place and personal names from a mixed group that went to a faroff land wouldn't be found all over the Middle Eastern historical record isn't that surprising at all.

If you choose to focus only on those coincidental facts that could support Book of Mormon historicity and ignore the massive evidence against historicity, that's OK with me. It's the way a lot of people think about things, but it doesn't work for me.

You are aware that the Book of Mormon mentions all kinds of plants, animals, and technologies that were not present in pre-Colombian America, right? And that we have the Anthon Transcript which is gibberish. And we have the Book of Abraham facsimiles which have no relationship whatsoever to the "translation" that Joseph provided. You ignore the massive (New World) elephants in the room while you focus on these minor, obvious coincidences like NHM and Paanchi.

The truth will set you free, man. Get your head out of the sand.

[Indy Coug]

And that we have the Anthon Transcript which is gibberish.

Who proclaimed it gibberish? Didn't it take scholars over 200 years to decipher Mayan?

[CardiacCoug]

Who proclaimed it gibberish? Didn't it take scholars over 200 years to decipher Mayan?

Sure, it would be fair to say that it has yet to be deciphered -- I guess that is more neutral.

[Indy Coug]

Sure, it would be fair to say that it has yet to be deciphered -- I guess that is more neutral.

I think that's the only defensible position on the Anthon transcript.

[UtahDan]

- and I expect you'd agree - that different people have different needs when it comes to the development and exercise of faith, and for more than a few plausible historicity of sacred texts is a precondition, because the alternative to plausible historicity is some combination of forgery, fantasy and fraud. Not likely to inspire faith.

I agree that people have different needs, but allow me to suggest that there are lots of options besides "forgery, fantasy and fraud." That is the dichotomy some in the church have set up that often unnecessarily leads people out of the church.

As for "reasonable views of available evidence" or the notion that "non spiritual evidence" is overwhelmingly against historicity - you or someone else would have to make the case on this one. So far all I see here are people here throwing that around as fait accompli without bothering to make the argument.

I am well equipped for this discussion, but it avails me nothing and has the potential to harm others. In fact, while I don't mind discussing particular issues, there are some cases in life I won't build either as a professional advocate or in my personal life. I stated my view of the non-spiritual evidences as softly as I could and hope I have not caused offense.

[wuapinmon]

Regarding satan as a real dude is a minus 3

I said that evil exists. I didn't call it Satan; call it what you will.

[CardiacCoug]

Here is a quote from Elder Holland in a PBS interview that John Dehlin has posted around on his sites that may be interesting to some here:

"... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ..."

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, LDS Apostle, PBS Interview, March, 2006

[Rosebud]

I agree that people have different needs, but allow me to suggest that there are lots of options besides "forgery, fantasy and fraud." That is the dichotomy some in the church have set up that often unnecessarily leads people out of the church.

I'm starting to think that this dichotomy was unwittingly set up with the establishment of correlation fifty+ years ago. Message boards like this are now facing the fallout of the attempt to clearly define religious truth as if it always has existed and always will exist.

I am well equipped for this discussion, but it avails me nothing and has the potential to harm others. In fact, while I don't mind discussing particular issues, there are some cases in life I won't build either as a professional advocate or in my personal life. I stated my view of the non-spiritual evidences as softly as I could and hope I have not caused offense.

Maybe. OTOH, the church is ultimately going to have to face the fact that our church-correlated educations force most people into an all or none/black or white thought process. The more access people have to information and what used to be considered untouchable, anti-mormon heresy, the more tenuous the correlated position becomes.

I'm not sure whether or not protecting people from thoughts they'll ultimately have to face is more or less harmful than just getting the information out in the open. Until we face the dichotomy you defined (set up IMO by correlation) with both fact AND spirituality, it places our religion in a precarious situation.

Sorry, ox, to have been a wet blanket on this discussion. It's just that we message boarders *never* pretend to be experts in areas outside our fields.

It's all in fun...let's discuss.

I am curious though (since everyone else has ignored the question)...if we come to the conclusion that based on the evidence, the BOM is not a historical document, would you leave the church?

This is an important question. To me it gets to the crux of the problem with the dichotomy. Maybe people aren't answering because, having spent most of our lives thinking in all or nothing terms, answering means committing to being either "black" or "white" and it's therefore an intimidating decision. Maybe the question itself is just an example of the sort of question that arises from our black and white, correlated (IMO) thinking.

****

I just read over this post and realized that I didn't give much context to my thoughts and that it probably doesn't make a lot of sense without reading Daymon Smith's work. Oh well... I'll post anyway. Hopefully it will make sense to somebody.

[Colly Wolly]

Viking, I'd like to solicit a donation from you. Why don't you buy Cougarguard from Laban (much more civilized than Nephi/God's approach) and donate it to CUF. Let's get a five year contract with Waters; minimum x no. of new words from him a day. He can have his own forum.

22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.
23 And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.
24 And it came to pass that we went in unto Laban, and desired him that he would give unto us the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, for which we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.

[UtahDan]

This is an important question. To me it gets to the crux of the problem with the dichotomy. Maybe people aren't answering because, having spent most of our lives thinking in all or nothing terms, answering means committing to being either "black" or "white" and it's therefore an intimidating decision. Maybe the question itself is just an example of the sort of question that arises from our black and white, correlated (IMO) thinking.

If the answer to the question were no, what would the implications be for an individual. Interesting to consider.

[Babs]

If the answer to the question were no, what would the implications be for an individual. Interesting to consider.

Over the years I have seen several members answer similar questions in that manner, and they have said that they find value in the process and in the fellowship associated with the church, and that those aspects would remain 'true' even if her origins were disproved.

[woot]

If the answer to the question were no, what would the implications be for an individual. Interesting to consider.

I'm not sure it's all that dangerous. oxcoug stated in this thread that in order for his continued belief in the BoM, its historicity must be "plausible." However, we've seen what passes as plausible for him. For some people, the earth being 6000 years old must be plausible, and it remains thus for them today. If one ignores enough evidence and conjures up enough "evidence" for one's position, everything is plausible.

I do agree with Rosebud's thoughts on how correlation has caused a lot of this, but I also think it makes sense to have consistency in the teachings of the church, even if it means shoving a lot of prophets under the rug. The point of the church still seems to be providing a place to worship comfortably, and absent correlation, even the least inquisitive individuals would be constantly faced with uncomfortable decisions about who and what to believe from among the contradictory statements by church leaders.