Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[oxcoug]

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 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.

No worries, Dan you'd have to work much harder to cause offense. If you're worried about the tender testimony of someone else on this board I'd love for you to summarize the 'weight of evidence' in a boardmail.

[oxcoug]

Hah well

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.

Sloganizing with phrases like "the truth will make you free" doesn't mean you've got a handle on the truth CC.

Your representation that the BOM mentions "all kinds of plants animals and technologies not present" in pre-Colombian America is itself selective and makes broad assumptions - sure, it appears that there is no currently established evidence that some of those things were there. But the capacity of evidence to simply disappear or be swallowed up in new cultures (or jungles) is vast. I've talked to a few archaeologists who weren't LDS who concede that with a "yeah, obviously, most stuff just gets lost" expression. And there is the problem of someone trying to translate unfamiliar ancient objects with 19th century vocabulary, which poses a wide range of problems.

Even the absence of any 'reformed Egyptian' writings (at least in what has been discovered to date) in pre-Colombian archeology is nearly meaningless reference point for making any definite claims. The vastness of unexcavated jungled space, combined with the capacity of a new civilization to remove and replace the markings of a previous civilization make it impossible to draw conclusions on this point. We also don't know how many records the Nephites would have left or how widely they would have been disseminated (or perhaps concentrated in a few places).

As one example - what do we know about the precursors to the Inca, which Incan tradition describe as being tall, fair-skinned and blue-eyed and to whom the Inca attribute the foundations of their complex network of highways?

Nothing.

Literally nothing other than that Inca say they were there and that their oral and written histories credit them with major technological contributions.

So all we know is that (a) they were there and (b) they were remarkably advanced on several fronts technologically and (c) at some point they were no longer there and that (d) there seems to be no surviving records from them. So they were advanced enough to engineer complex mountain roadways but not advanced enough to leave some record? Unlikely.

We know too little, in other words, for you or anyone to make definitive claims about what is known or unknown of pre-Colombian civilization in Latin America.

And in those gaps there is plenty of space for the real possibility of the historicity of the fundamental storyline of the BOM to be real. Anyone who says otherwise is claiming far more than the evidence will actually support.

[Solon]

Sloganizing with phrases like "the truth will make you free" doesn't mean you've got a handle on the truth CC.

Your representation that the BOM mentions "all kinds of plants animals and technologies not present" in pre-Colombian America is itself selective and makes broad assumptions - sure, it appears that there is no currently established evidence that some of those things were there. But the capacity of evidence to simply disappear or be swallowed up in new cultures (or jungles) is vast. I've talked to a few archaeologists who weren't LDS who concede that with a "yeah, obviously, most stuff just gets lost" expression. And there is the problem of someone trying to translate unfamiliar ancient objects with 19th century vocabulary, which poses a wide range of problems.

Even the absence of any 'reformed Egyptian' writings (at least in what has been discovered to date) in pre-Colombian archeology is nearly meaningless reference point for making any definite claims. The vastness of unexcavated jungled space, combined with the capacity of a new civilization to remove and replace the markings of a previous civilization make it impossible to draw conclusions on this point. We also don't know how many records the Nephites would have left or how widely they would have been disseminated (or perhaps concentrated in a few places).

As one example - what do we know about the precursors to the Inca, which Incan tradition describe as being tall, fair-skinned and blue-eyed and to whom the Inca attribute the foundations of their complex network of highways?

Nothing.

Literally nothing other than that Inca say they were there and that their oral and written histories credit them with major technological contributions.

So all we know is that (a) they were there and (b) they were remarkably advanced on several fronts technologically and (c) at some point they were no longer there and that (d) there seems to be no surviving records from them. So they were advanced enough to engineer complex mountain roadways but not advanced enough to leave some record? Unlikely.

We know too little, in other words, for you or anyone to make definitive claims about what is known or unknown of pre-Colombian civilization in Latin America.

And in those gaps there is plenty of space for the real possibility of the historicity of the fundamental storyline of the BOM to be real. Anyone who says otherwise is claiming far more than the evidence will actually support.

The beauty of apologetics is that all you have to demonstrate is possibility and then you can go home happy.

Anything's possible I guess.

There's enough to dissect within the text of the Book of Mormon itself to keep us all busy for years without getting into what might or might not lie under the jungles of Central/South America or the hills of upstate New York.

But hey, carry on. I won't bog down this thread.

[oxcoug]

Sorry to have missed this earlier

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?

Didn't really think of you as a 'wet blanket' so no need to apologize.

It's a tough hypothetical to address because part of me knows it will never happen. But to the extent that I can pretend that it could....

The answer is almost certainly no.

But as long as I'm reaching for hypotheticals here I'll reach for an extreme one - if it were established because we found an absolutely authenticated late life journal entry from Joseph Smith expressing remorse at having made up a bunch of stuff a duped thousands of people and describing how he did it and how he was motivated by the prospects scoring both absolute power and a lot of ass..... something jacked like that would probably make me become Baha'i (my second choice after Mormonism).

But that ain't gonna happen.

So I guess I'd have to see a scenario for the BOM being 'disproven' before I could give the scenario a real go.

[oxcoug]

That's one way to spin it

The beauty of apologetics is that all you have to demonstrate is possibility and then you can go home happy.

Anything's possible I guess.

There's enough to dissect within the text of the Book of Mormon itself to keep us all busy for years without getting into what might or might not lie under the jungles of Central/South America or the hills of upstate New York.

But it's not just about 'possibility' for me, though it might be for others.

But I agree - that the actual content of the BOM is enough to occupy most or all of our attention on the topic for a long time.

[SeattleUte]

oxcoug,

Normally I don't find these types of debates very interesting or helpful to anyone (don't let me disuade you; I just want you to know my perspective). Like Elder McMurrin, I just don't believe the world works the way the Book of Mormon says it does. You can call it a feeling. I submit that implicitly or explicity the Book of Mormon requires me to accept the Bible for what it purports to be on its face. That I cannot do, so I don't even get to the types of issues you're addressing here. When I left the Mormon faith, I was no expert on such things like the Book of Abraham scrolls, or Book of Mormon historicity arcana. I'm still not.

Generally speaking, I think Mormonism and other faiths born on American soil around the time of Mormonism's birth have been a predictable reaction to what was going on in Europe and urban parts of the U.S. with the Enlightenment, modernism, etc. (the very currents that gave birth to our country!), from the traditionally literalitist view of miracles, etc., to the extreme social conservativism. Add to that the traumatic and galvanizing effect of the persecutions, trek out west, etc., and you have Mormonism's extraordinary attraction to a majority of its members, and durability in the face of society's increasing skepticism about religion, and relgion's ever diminishing importance at least in the West. But I think even Mormonism is starting to feel the toll of the Enlightenment, modernism, and associated societal values that brought about the forming of republics, etc., and are now dominant in the West.

Like I say, the foregoing is just by way of introduction, not to start an argument. Just so you know my perspective. Let's just leave it at that, except for the folowing:

How do you account for the complete absense of even scholarly curiosity in our universities (outside the LDS orbit) in the Book of Mormon qua ancient document (I recognize there is scholarly interest in the LDS movement and the book of Mormon as a historical and societal phenomenon begninning in the 19th Century)? Related to that, how do you account for the low scholarly regard for, or perhaps more accurately the near complete lack of scholarly interest in, the Book of Mormon as literature?

I don't know your profession or the focus of your studies in school. Maybe you can teach me something in this regard.

[Rosebud]

It's a tough hypothetical to address because part of me knows it will never happen. But to the extent that I can pretend that it could....

The answer is almost certainly no......

......But that ain't gonna happen.

This reasoning is a classic demonstration of why scientifically-minded people are not attracted to apologetics. Science doesn't claim to know the outcome before the data gathering is done. Apologetics already know the outcome before they gather data.

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

If you're used to knowing the answer before asking the questions, it can be kind of like standing on your head. Trying to see the world from a new, upside down perspective can be a productive mental exercise.

Doing so might look risky to those who are used to walking around right-side-up, but the truth is that taking a chance and doing it for long enough to answer a hypothetical doesn't mean that someone will never be able to walk on her/his feet again.

Take a risk peoples!

oxcoug,
Like Elder McMurrin, I just don't believe the world works the way the Book of Mormon says it does. You can call it a feeling.

BTW Seattle, Daymon Smith calls even Elder McMurrin's writings "correlated." Haven't looked into that yet, though....

[UtahDan]

If you're used to knowing the answer before asking the questions, it can be kind of like standing on your head. Trying to see the world from a new, upside down perspective can be a productive mental exercise.

Doing so might look risky to those who are used to walking around right-side-up, but the truth is that taking a chance and doing it for long enough to answer a hypothetical doesn't mean that someone will never be able to walk on her/his feet again.

Take a risk peoples!

Just to make sure my point was not misunderstood:

I'll throw this out for the group--what if there were some clear unmistakable evidence that came to light that absolutely disproved the existence of Nephi/Moroni/etc? Would you leave the church? I know the answer for Cardiac, I think I know it for SIEQ, I'm curious about everyone else (including myself). Maybe this is a better poll question.

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.

What I was trying to suggest is that if proof (define that however you want for the purpose of the thought exercise) existed that the BOM was a 19th century book rather than an ancient record and that doesn't cause you to leave the church, it means you are a person who rejects the all true/none true dichotomy. If under those circumstances you would stay in the church, then doesn't that mean a person could stop worrying about those issues right now since they don't truly matter? My suspicion is that this is exactly what many, many people have done whether they realize it or not. Not at all saying that is a bad thing.

[Indy Coug]

If the BOM was proven to be a 19th century fabrication, then the only possible reason someone could decide to still be a Mormon is

1. Because of family tradition

2. Because you don't think it really matters which faith you belong to and the ideology suits you as much as any other out there

Neither of which is a particularly compelling reason as far as pertaining to the Gospel of Salvation and the divine right to administer the saving ordinances thereof.

[UtahDan]

If the BOM was proven to be a 19th century fabrication, then the only possible reason someone could decide to still be a Mormon is

1. Because of family tradition

2. Because you don't think it really matters which faith you belong to and the ideology suits you as much as any other out there

Neither of which is a particularly compelling reason as far as pertaining to the Gospel of Salvation and the divine right to administer the saving ordinances thereof.

What if, in spite of the "proof," you still felt you had a spiritual witness of it?

[Indy Coug]

What if, in spite of the "proof," you still felt you had a spiritual witness of it?

I would completely discount the spiritual witness.

[UtahDan]

I would completely discount the spiritual witness.

Seriously? What you can see, hear, taste, touch, feel and reason trumps a spiritual witness for you?

I just think that is interesting because I assume that most people's testimony rests 99% on the spiritual witnesses. It is too fantastic to be believed without them for most. Joseph said so himself.

[ERCougar]

No worries, Dan you'd have to work much harder to cause offense. If you're worried about the tender testimony of someone else on this board I'd love for you to summarize the 'weight of evidence' in a boardmail.

I don't think anyone's worries about tender testimonies here, although maybe we should be. My problem with this type of discussion is the lack of an authentic opposition. SU's not going to do it. woot apparently isn't interested either. Viking's only partially opposed. I suppose part of the lack of interest is due to what Solon pointed out--the task is too large when all you have to do is prove possibilities. You may claim that it's not just about possibilities for you, but your response to the lack of any remains of a 400-year war between two enormous civilizations is that the jungle hides things and that the Incas may have had some connection.

[ERCougar]

BTW Seattle, Daymon Smith calls even Elder McMurrin's writings "correlated." Haven't looked into that yet, though....

Don't want to threadjack, but I need a link here. McMurrin was correlated? If it weren't for DOM's intervention, he would have been excommunicated. And why are we calling him "Elder"?

[Indy Coug]

Seriously? What you can see, hear, taste, touch, feel and reason trumps a spiritual witness for you?

No. If that were the case, I wouldn't be a member of the church.

I am not remotely persuaded by what is presented as "evidence" against the Book of Mormon. What is currently trotted out as counter evidence if evaluated fairly is no more provable than what is trotted out as tangible evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

The mitochondrial DNA argument is not persuasive because we have no definitive evidence what the DNA was for Lehi's party and no evidence that their DNA markers weren't overwhelmed from integrating into an existing population in the Americas.

The characters in the Anthon transcript prove nothing one way or the other.

Etc.