Some thoughts on the historicity of the BOM

[ERCougar]

Here's another mental exercise for everyone: If you were not a member of the Church and someone told you about the BOM, would you accept it as a historical document?

I'm not interested in conversion stories or spiritual experiences here (although I admit that they may be important)--let's just stick with the evidence. There's no way that I would accept the BOM today. It has all of the hallmarks of a fraud--from Kinderhook plates to gold-digging to DNA evidence to lack of archaelogic remains to retracted false claims by its author about the Lamanites being "the principal ancestors of the Indians". And that's just off the top of my head--give me some time and I could present a pretty good case. Sure, there are answers to all of these, but you get to a point where the totality of the explanations just seem too convoluted, the mental gymnastics too much.

So why do I stay a member if I think that based on a rational treatment of the evidence, the BOM is likely a fraud? Because there's a chance it's not and believing in that chance makes me a better and happier person. For me, it's a bit too hard to read the scriptures with any sort of effort if I think they're completely allegorical/fabricated, but I can respect that approach. I still enjoy church and without exception, come home a better person than I went, if I go with a desire for enrichment and not conflict or criticism. I think the Mormon Church is dead wrong about a few things but for the time being, I can find a place in it. I'm also one of those whom Indy derides who feel that it doesn't matter a lot what creed one belongs to if one is learning the basic principles of a good life (how can it matter when only 0.001% of the population has even heard of the one true church?), so the possibility of being wrong doesn't keep me up at night.

[LA Ute]

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.

I am sorry to do a "drive-by" post but I am really buried today (and was all weekend). Focusing on your question, ER, with all due respect I think it is silly. I could just as easily ask you, "What if you learned, beyond any doubt, that you do not really exist as a human, but are a sentient slug living in a dark room, and an evil genius has fooled you into believing in false details of your human existence?" (You may have encountered a similar question in Philosophy 101.)

Or, what would you do if you awoke from a coma and realized that what you have thought of as your life was really just a dream?

Or, more to your point, what would you do if incontrovertible evidence arose of the Book of Mormon's veracity and historicity?

To me such hypotheticals seem like idle speculation. So that is probably why no one is trying to answer yours.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

This was the conclusion that I came to many years ago. The apologetics and detractors all made reasonable arguments that on the surface appeared plausible.

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

Etc.

The only thing I find interesting about the Anthon encounter is the polar opposite telling of the encounter by Harris and Anthon.

EDIT: Add also the scripture about the learned man not being able to read a sealed book(1 Nephi?)

[ERCougar]

I am sorry to do a "drive-by" post but I am really buried today (and was all weekend). Focusing on your question, ER, with all due respect I think it is silly. I could just as easily ask you, "What if you learned, beyond any doubt, that you do not really exist as a human, but are a sentient slug living in a dark room, and an evil genius has fooled you into believing in false details of your human existence?" (You may have encountered a similar question in Philosophy 101.)

Or, what would you do if you awoke from a coma and realized that what you have thought of as your life was really just a dream?

Or, more to your point, what would you do if incontrovertible evidence arose of the Book of Mormon's veracity and historicity?

To me such hypotheticals seem like idle speculation. So that is probably why no one is trying to answer yours.

Well with all due respect, counselor , I think it's an interesting question, although I like oxcoug's hypothetical phrasing much better. I may be missing something here, but I see your first two questions as weird existential questions that don't have much to do with anything. Your third question is much "more to the point". I'd obviously keep going to church, but the more interesting question is how would it affect my approach to things. From the POV of a believer, God had some reason for not making these things provable, and I wonder if we'd really be any happier with the "proof". Laman and Lemuel weren't (assuming they existed... )

[SeattleUte]

There is always a price. Readinging between the lines, Lehi was a cheap Mormon. I think Viking could offer Waters enough.

[SeattleUte]

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.

In my profession "proof" is often used interchangeably with "evidence". I think if you are sensitive to the ways that "proof" works in the real world (as opposed to Perry Mason) your question both doesn't make much sense and has already been answered.

[ERCougar]

In my profession "proof" is often used interchangeably with "evidence". I think if you are sensitive to the ways that "proof" works in the real world (as opposed to Perry Mason) your question both doesn't make much sense and has already been answered.

Ok...maybe I mean "evidence" that meets a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[SeattleUte]

Ok...maybe I mean "evidence" that meets a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If you put the Book of Mormon on trial you don't think a jury of 12 would find against historicity on that standard? Okay, maybe not, if 12-0 is required. Like Solon said, anything is "possible".

[ERCougar]

If you put the Book of Mormon on trial you don't think a jury of 12 would find against historicity on that standard? Okay, maybe not, if 12-0 is required. Like Solon said, anything is "possible".

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=110

Again, putting me in a box. Of course, DDD's a 9 on your "progressive" scale, so I have no idea how you judge these things.

(Not a knock on DDD at all, by the way, despite the unfortunately positive connotation of the word. I'm just not sure how much he has in common with Cardiac and Sooner, whom I would consider our resident "progressives".)

[UtahDan]

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.

I hear what you are saying Indy. I'm just trying to make that point that most people are relying primarily on spiritual evidences and that when this fact is brought into focus, it makes the "objective" evidentiary arguments less important. I think I am finding, however, that oxcoug and LA are right that plausibility is very important to a lot of people.

[SloanHater]

If you put the Book of Mormon on trial you don't think a jury of 12 would find against historicity on that standard? Okay, maybe not, if 12-0 is required. Like Solon said, anything is "possible".

Don't a majority of people believe the Bible to be a historical document?

[SeattleUte]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=110

Again, putting me in a box. Of course, DDD's a 9 on your "progressive" scale, so I have no idea how you judge these things.

(Not a knock on DDD at all, by the way, despite the unfortunately positive connotation of the word. I'm just not sure how much he has in common with Cardiac and Sooner, whom I would consider our resident "progressives".)

I think you've nailed it in a sort of back handed way. I suppose you do have to answer whether you are a better person continuing to believe despite the "proof" or making a judgment based on the proof (seems to me the world has gotten better since humans returned to doing that habitually, but that's debateable maybe), and/or finding a third way such as historicity doesn't matter.

You don't think the Book of Abraham scrolls would be admissible in such a trial?

[woot]

In my profession "proof" is often used interchangeably with "evidence". I think if you are sensitive to the ways that "proof" works in the real world (as opposed to Perry Mason) your question both doesn't make much sense and has already been answered.

But your profession also thinks that eye-witness testimony is useful! In the real world, there's no such thing as proof. gd lawyers.

Law vs. science "real world" fight!

[UtahDan]

You don't think the Book of Abraham scrolls would be admissible in such a trial?

Don't rise to the bait ER. Let Gracie take this one, he is studying for the bar.

[ERCougar]

I think you've nailed it in a sort of back handed way. I suppose you do have to answer whether you are a better person continuing to believe despite the "proof" or making a judgment based on the proof (seems to me the world has gotten better since humans returned to doing that habitually, but that's debateable maybe), and/or finding a third way such as historicity doesn't matter.

You don't think the Book of Abraham scrolls would be admissible in such a trial?

I have to think about how to answer your first question--whether or not I'm a better person believing despite proof. I know the answer but I'm not sure how to explain it.

And yes, the BoA scrolls would obviously be admissible. My list is hardly exhaustive.
(per advice of my counsel)