I’m excited to have a Mesoamerican expert on the show. Brant Gardner is an antropologist, and he tells why he thinks the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. We’ll talk about anachronisms, and Brant will give his take on the other theories, from Africa to Baja to Heartland. Can a faithful person believe in evolution and an old earth? Brant will answer. Check out our conversation…
Hemispheric Model
GT 14:14 Okay. Interesting. It seems like, and I remember reading John Sorensen’s book. I can’t remember the name of it, the blue book.[1] One of the things that he said, it seems like in the early days of the church, people thought it was more of, like, Panama was the narrow neck of land and North America was the land of Nephi, and South America was where the Lamanites lived. I talked to Shannon Caldwell Montez, recently, and she said in 1922 there was the, I think it was Ivins was one of the first people to propose more of a limited geography theory and more Mesoamerica. I also remember, there’s a revelation or something. I don’t know how to describe it. But there’s something written down where Joseph Smith said that Lehi landed 30 degrees south latitude, which we would call Chile, probably. So, can you talk about how Sorenson and/or you reconcile some of those statements and the history of Book of Mormon geography?
Brant 15:42 You start off with trying to find out what Joseph believed. And it’s pretty obvious as you read what Joseph said, what we have from other people, that they began as believing that the entire hemisphere was–the entire New World was the Book of Mormon land. And if you look at any map, it’s really obvious. You get down to Panama, and you’re going to go, “Okay, yeah, that’s a pretty narrow neck.” And you obviously have a land southward. You obviously have a land northward. And they pretty much believed that. The other thing that they, obviously, believed is that because Book of Mormon lands encompassed all of that, any Indian that they found was going to be a Book of Mormon related Indian. And so, they would preach to the Lamanites as they went off, because their worldview was that everybody was explained by the Book of Mormon. That begins to change a little bit. Even at the times when Joseph Smith learns about Mesoamerica and he gets excited about it. He gets excited about it, because they’re really cool ruins. The Book of Mormon said there were civilized people. And everybody was saying, “Well, yeah, the North American Indians don’t appear all that civilized to me.”
Digging into Meso
GT 22:36 Okay. I know there was another reference to some ruins found in the Yucatan Peninsula. How far is that from Guatemala? Is that relatively short distance, or it seems like it’s a little bit farther than that.
Brant 22:52 Guatemala is the heel of the boot, and everything that you’re talking about is the Peten, which is the toe of the boot. So most of what we see is the foot. That’s up into where the Usumacinta goes. There’s a lot of Maya ruins up in there. Particularly, it’s called the Maya lowlands. You come out of the highlands of Guatemala, there’s a mountain range. Then, you drop down into the lowlands. And down into the lowlands is where you start getting the famous forests. And so those are the places where there were really big Maya civilizations. And so, it’s really tempting to say that the Book of Mormon took place there, because you have really cool ruins there. It’s sort of like saying, the New Testament must have taken place, maybe in Egypt, or Greece, because all of the ruins are really cool there. And they’re not nearly as cool in Israel. My reading of the Book of Mormon is that Zarahemla was not necessarily as sophisticated as its cousins around it. Because it’s the Book of Mormon and we love the Book of Mormon people, we like to think that any pretty ruin is Nephite, and an ugly ruin is Lamanite. But I think it was probably the reverse.
DNA Problem
Brant 32:20 Yeah, I mean, let’s just take the hypothesis that the Nephites landed on the Gulf Coast of Guatemala, somewhere in the ballpark, of 600 BC. How many people did they have in the boat with them? Sorenson suggests that, maybe 30. And that’s including people that are not named, some servants and some other people that might have been there that weren’t named in the family. So, maybe 30 people. They land on that coast. You’ve got 30 people who have to learn how to survive in a new area, in a new world where they don’t know the plants. They don’t know which ones will kill you, if you eat them. They don’t know the animals. They’re not sure which of the snakes are poisonous. And there are snakes all over the place. I mean, they’ve got a problem of how to live in this brand-new world. So, obviously, they’re going to learn what they can from the people around them. And in 600 BC, in the foothills of Guatemala, that could have seen the approaching sail, we’ve got six different communities of at least 1000 people. So, who do you go to? Well, what do you do? So you start with 30 people, and at some point in time you would like to procreate. Your children would like to have spouses. Do they take their brothers and sisters as spouses? Well, no. Who do you take as a spouse? You take people who are around you. You take the other population? Of course, you do, which means that very, very quickly 30 people’s DNA gets mixed into millions of people’s DNA. How much of that is available to us to trace 1000 years later? And the answer is [that it’s] unlikely that you’ll find anything. And the other reason is, we don’t know to whom to compare it [to.] Again, we don’t have a lot of DNA that is specifically, well, in the case of Lehi, related to the northern tribes, because he was one of the northern tribes. So, we’d have to get DNA from the North, but we don’t know where the sons of Ishmael would have come from.
…
GT 40:32 The other thought that comes to my mind are the Lemba tribe in Africa. Are you familiar with them?
Brant 40:38 Yeah.
GT 40:39 So, tell us about the Lemba Tribe.
Brant 40:43 I mean, the Lemba are people who claim Jewish heritage, and they migrated down into that area. You’ll have other places, and they can trace some of their DNA back. So, the comparison is, people will say, “Well, why don’t the Lemba create a comparison to what happened with the people in the Book of Mormon?”
GT 41:09 Right.
Brant 41:10 Here’s a people–and in the real reason is, the immigration group was significantly larger. When the Lemba come down, they come down as a large community. And it’s a sufficient community where you can be insular and marry within the community, rather than have to go outside, so they can keep themselves separate. And they did. So, we find the genetic lineage there, because they were able to keep themselves separate. Why were they able to do that? They had a large enough immigrating community, that they could consistently keep themselves separate from everybody else, and still generate the progeny. Thirty people aren’t going to do that. You just don’t have enough of the people of Lehi to do that. The other indication that we have coming from the Mulekites. Again, is it’s a small population. So, the only place where we have a possibility of a larger one is with the Jaredites. But, again, that gets far enough back into history that it’s, again, difficult to trace, not to mention the fact we’re not exactly sure where they came from.
GT 42:20 So you think the Lemba Tribe was much larger than 30 people?
Brant 42:22 Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think it moved as a large community,
GT 42:27 Because they look like just your typical black Africans.
Brant 42:31 Oh, yeah, sure.
GT 42:32 It’s strange that they have, I guess, Cohen DNA or whatever, the Cohen haplotype.
Brant 42:39 Yeah. And the way you keep that is that you have a more persistent lineage. So, you marry and other people. But if you have a large enough population, you can keep that that DNA line going. But you have to have a large enough population. For example, the Cohen lineage is going to–that marker, if I remember correctly, is passed down through male lines. What happens if you’ve got 30 people and of the 30 people,15 are male. And out of the 15 males, six of them–let’s call it five, so I can do the math. Five of them only have daughters. Well, now I’ve got 10 left for the sons, but the more daughters you have, and the fewer males that produce sons, the fewer are going to pass on the patriarchal lineage and the paternal DNA. Everybody has mothers, and so that’s why maternal DNA is usually where things are traced. Because that’ll go from daughters, to sons, to everybody. So, maternal DNA, usually, works better. Paternal tends to be shorter, because you have those breaks when you don’t have a son. But, again, the DNA doesn’t really bother me, because you have so many reasons why that small population coming into a larger population, over 1000 years, it just isn’t going to persist.
GT 44:16 I mean, you said they were insular. Sorry, go ahead. Say that again.
Brant 44:20 I think the Lemba is a more unusual case, because they were able to keep culturally and, obviously, highly genetically separate.
GT 44:32 So you think they were insular as they came down, and then…
Brant 44:37 Yeah.
GT 44:38 How big do you think they were when they came down?
Brant 44:40 Oh, yeah. I mean, I’m not an expert on them, so, I would be totally guessing. So, I have no clue. But the very fact that there’s a population of them that continue to exist and continue to hold the same stories of their ancestry tells me that that’s a community that has persisted. You have to have a community that persists in order to have that. The other thing we have, again, in the Book of Mormon, that we keep forgetting about is we have the end of the Book of Mormon where it says the Lamanites were purposefully trying to wipe out anybody who is Nephite. So we don’t know–what we know is that by the time they become Lamanite, they’re not insular enough to even remember what their lineage may or may not have been. So, even in that, they’re different from the Lemba. Or there was a group of Jews from the Diaspora, I think, who went to India, and were found. Again, they sort of kept together. So, we find those kinds of groupings, but we don’t find any evidence that any of that happened in the new world. And in the Book of Mormon, there’s really no indication that that should have happened. There’s just, genetically, [it’s] too rare to find that lineage.
Not Narrow Neck? Extermination?
GT 46:12 Okay. So, let’s jump back to the boot, if I can remember that. And I don’t know my geography as well as you do. So please correct me if I make any mistakes here. So, Guatemala is kind of the toe. is that right? Is that what you said?
Brant 46:29 The heel.
GT 46:30 The heel of the boot.
Brant 46:31 Yep.
GT 46:32 Okay, so that’s the heel, then it kind of goes up into the Yucatan. Is that right?
Brant 46:37 Yes.
GT 46:37 And then [west,] I guess.
Brant 46:41 The really thin ankle up there is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. And that’s what’s considered the narrow neck of land.
GT 46:50 Oh, I was going to ask that. Because when I look at the Yucatan Peninsula, I’m like, that’s not very narrow.
Brant 46:55 No, and the people who use the Yucatan, in that model, like it best, because they like the north-south orientation, but it’s really hard to redefine a narrow neck. And, again, that’s one of the reasons why I like better what’s happening in Sorensen’s [model] is you’ve got a narrow neck there. The difficulty with the narrow neck is, and frankly, the difficulty with anything that we do, looking at ancient geography, we cannot help but be modern people and look at modern maps. The ancient world didn’t have modern maps. They didn’t have anything that looked at all like what we have. They may or may not have even understood what those general relationships were. If you get ancient maps, at least in Mesoamerica, they’re very stylistic. It’ll say, “Here are these four mountains, and we’re here in the middle.” Well, yeah, you can find those four mountains. But that’s a really interesting map, because it isn’t trying to tell you how to get somewhere, it’s trying to say, “I am defining myself in this particular area of the world.” But the other thing about looking at the maps from our perspective, is we look at the isthmus of Tehuantepec, “Well, that’s too big. It should be narrower than that.” And the reason is, we have these units of distance of a two-day’s journey for a Nephite. It’s a distance of a day and a half. And it takes longer than that to get across the isthmus of Tehuantepec. But those come because of defensive lines. The descriptions there are, this is a defensive line across this narrow neck. In Book of Mormon times, it wasn’t that the neck was any narrower. It’s that a large portion of the Gulf of Mexico side was marshland, which is really difficult to get through. And it serves as its own barrier. So, you don’t really have that.
We’ve just reviewed the Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon with Brant Gardner. Now I’m going to ask Brant to review other theories, including Baja, Malay, Africa, & Heartland. We’ll also discuss faith and science. Check out our conversation…
Strengths/Weaknesses Heartland
GT 02:55 Even though you’re not interested, do you see any strengths and or weaknesses that you’d like to share with the Heartland theory?
Brant 03:11 The strengths and weaknesses of the Heartland theory?
GT 03:13 Yes, of the Heartland theory.
Brant 03:15 I think it has two strengths. One is it allows people the culturally historical ties to the New York Hill as the Hill Cumorah. Without question, that was a theme in the early Church. People believed that. And the fact that they make a geography that fits, that allows them to keep that, that’s a strength. It’s a strength that it fits the most common reading of certain prophecies about Promised Land. I probably read those very differently, but they’re very much in line with the way they have been traditionally read. And I think that also is a strength. I think the weakness is everything else. Let me give you an example. The last time I remember looking at the [Heartland] geographic model, you have to find a narrow neck of land. Every Book of Mormon geographer knows you have to find a narrow neck of land. And if I remember correctly, they were looking at a narrow neck of land just north of like, Buffalo and the Great Lakes. There’s a narrow neck that kind of leads up, fits narrow neck really, really well. It doesn’t fit the Book of Mormon text, because that narrow neck is northwest of the Hill Cumorah in New York. And so that puts the Hill Cumorah to the southeast of the narrow neck. In the text of the Book of Mormon, it says you have to go north of the narrow neck and then east in order to get to Cumorah. So, it’s completely contrary, you’ve got the wrong narrow neck, if that’s your narrow neck. And I don’t know where you’re going to find a narrow neck anywhere south of that. So the narrow neck doesn’t work. Distances have a problem. There are no horses to ride on. So, you’re on foot traffic.
Brant 03:56 I mentioned that to Jonathan, and he said, “Well, you’ve got rivers, right?”
Brant 05:23 Yeah. And he does river travel. There was an article that I know about and will not mention until it’s published, but I’ve read the draft. And it looks at the idea of river travel. And, absolutely, river traveled down river helps. Upriver, it’s faster to walk in many cases. So, the rivering idea is really good if you only have to move in one direction. So, if they’re always going downstream, it works. As long as nobody ever goes in the other direction, it works. Except they always go in the other direction. So, it’s just not going to work in the article that will give the documentation on that–well, the way publication works, you won’t see it for a year, but somewhere a year from now.
Uto-Aztecan Language
GT 16:51 Very good. You mentioned Aztec culture. I believe, if I remember right, Brian Stubbs, do I have his name right?
Brant 17:02 Yes.
GT 17:03 He’s done some work on languages.
Brant 17:05 Yes. Uto-Aztecan.
GT 17:07 Say it again.
Brant 17:09 Uto-Aztecan.
GT 17:10 Yes, and so he’s found some Semitic origins, (can I say it that way?) with Uto-Aztecan, which is not Mayan.
Brant 17:22 It’s a very different language sect.
GT 17:24 Yeah. And so, I was wondering if you could comment on that.
Brant 17:30 Briefly, briefly. I’m not a fan.
GT 17:36 Oh.
Brant 17:37 It is the best work that has been done and the only work that has ever been done that does the correct linguistic work to try to get sound changes. So, it looks the best of anything that’s ever been done. I have some discomfort with some of the methodology. I have some discomfort with the way he’s developed certain explanations, datasets used. I have a big problem with the language group. The Uto-Aztecan family includes Paiute, Ute, so it’s a language group that is very much Western Rocky Mountain, Southwestern, and then moves down into Mexico. All of the indications are that it’s not moving into Mexico until after the time of the Book of Mormon. So, from everything I can tell about the Book of Mormon, no matter how good it looks, it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. So that leads me to wonder about the rest of it. I know that Stubbs does look at some evidence for Uto-Aztecan being further south at an earlier time period. I think that still makes it extremely difficult to figure out how any kind of Semitic word language change affects the entire group, because you have to go way back into, again, the origins of these languages to get them to spread through all of the families. It does not impress me. Now, I’m not as good a linguist as I would need to be, to be able to give you really good reasons. I can just say I don’t think that works.
GT 19:47 Because the time period is off and then the location’s off.
Brant 19:49 And the location, yeah. I think it’s really interesting stuff for the wrong place at the wrong time.
Baja Theory
GT 21:20 I was wondering if I can get your opinion on a couple other theories, too, Baja, California.
Brant 21:30 Baja.
GT 21:30 That’s relatively close to Mesoamerica, right?
Brant 21:33 Yeah.
GT 21:34 Plus, it’s a peninsula, a narrow neck of land.
Brant 21:38 Yeah, I mean, geographically, and I’ve seen some good agricultural information that may work. And so, there’s some interesting strengths about it. It has one big drawback. Nobody ever lived there. So, I have a hard time putting Book of Mormon people, and the populations and the movements of populations and the wars, I can’t put it there, because there’s zero evidence, archaeologically, that that ever happened. So, yeah, geographically, it’s a nice theory. But that goes back to what I said about geographies. The problem with geographies is everybody can come up with one. Once you have a geography, you have to go somewhere else to try and find out whether or not that geography actually works. And where do you go? Well, you go to the text, and how well the text interacts with what we know of the culture at the time and in that place. And if they match, that’s good. If they don’t match, we’re going, “Okay, that’s a disqualification.” So, I think the fact that there were no good populations there, I think that’s a real drawback to that report.
GT 22:56 Even if it was just 30 people that came? (Chuckling)
Brant 23:01 With the Book of Mormon, where you’re talking about how many people are fighting, I mean, the fact is, the Book of Mormon explains lots of cities and lots of big cities and lots of population. [There’s] zero in Baja. So, yeah, as a geography, it’s really interesting. As a correlation to the real world, it doesn’t work.
Malay TheoryBrant 25:09 And Malaysia has some really interesting correlations.
GT 25:11 That’s where I was going next.
Brant 25:12 Malaysia is interesting. I wrote a review of that.
GT 25:17 I knew that, yeah.
Brant 25:20 Although it’s very interesting. Geographically, it’s got some other problems. It doesn’t have as many cultural [problems], because it does have cities and populations. What you have is a very difficult time–and I think the worst of it, it is very difficult to explain the destruction in 3rd Nephi. We don’t have any way of doing it. Krakatoa is there. But the island of Java is in between, and so Krakatoa, any tsunami that’s going to hit, is far enough away that Java is going to disperse it and it’s not going to get up into the Malaysian peninsula. So, yeah, there were a couple of other things where I was looking at it and the geography didn’t seem to work. Interesting, because there are some cultural things that work better than Mesoamerica. You get elephants. That’s kind of nice.
GT 26:19 Yeah.
Brant 26:20 But, yeah, some of the other geography–and again, there’s no way to explain 3rd Nephi. I don’t think you can explain 3rd Nephi and Baja. I know that the Heartlands try to explain 3rd Nephi with the Madrid Fault. The problem with that is, that’s a fault and it creates an earthquake. Earthquakes are very quick. Jerry Grover is the best geologist on this, and it has written about it in his book on the Geology of the Book of Mormon. It is essential reading for people who really want to know stuff. And since he’s a geologist, I’d say, two thirds of it is really dry, which I would say to his face, and then he would laugh and say, “Yeah, you’re right.” Jerry is extremely self-aware. He knows his stuff. But you’ve got to have it in order to be able to get to the interesting parts. And as he points out, he says, “The problem with the description in the Book of Mormon is they last for hours. Earthquakes are over quickly in minutes.” So, yeah, you can have a terrible earthquake–and it talks about the shaking of the ground in the Book of Mormon. But everything that’s going to happen with the shaking around, it’s minutes, and it’s over. You may get an aftershock. We know earthquakes. Many people have been through earthquakes. And they’re quick. [They’re] terrible, but quick. They don’t last for hours on end, which is the definition we get in the Book of Mormon.
We cover other theories, including Middle East and Africa. What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
If you want a good model for the Book of Mormon that fits closer to what the Book of Mormon requires and the archaeology of the land, you should consider this: http://bookofmormonlands.org/
I was kind of taken aback with the bad blood between the mesos and heartlanders, he wouldn’t even go to their conference! As someone who believes the BOM was not historical, this all seems like such petty nonsense. Bottom line: Joseph Smith and all the early Church taught that the Hill Cumorah was the Hill Cumorah in New York, that the BOM took place in North and South America and that the narrow neck of land was Panama. Everyone back then accepted this at face value and it has not held up to scholarship and scrutiny. To make geography work, people have found the one spot in Central America that works with the geography but have had to make the huge leaps of saying the Hill Cumorah was not the Hill Cumorah in New York and that the whole theme about America and the land of promise really was talking about the greater continent. Hogwash!
Three possibilities:
1. Heartland
2. Mesoamerica
3. Fiction
I report you decide.
“I would be totally guessing.”
“So, I have no clue.”
“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.” Dr. Michael Coe
Reference: 1972 Dialogue Magazine
(Micheal Coe is the Charles J. MacCurdy professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University and curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the school’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place.)
The above quote is 50 years old. Nothing’s changed – zip, zero nada. Maybe time to move on. Believe the science.
Here’s an open letter to Michael Coe from John Sorenson:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe
We should remember that while Michael Coe was certainly an expert in his field he was not an expert in the Book of Mormon.
Malay, Baja, South America, and Africa are other possibilities Josh. Don’t forget.
Vajra, nice out of context quote. I fail to understand the reason some are so contemptible of believers.
Jack, Sorenson’s letter amounts to arguing that, unless you dig up the whole of North and South America, you can never be sure that the Nephites and Lamanites didn’t live here. It ignores the fact that there is zero support in the archaeological community for the idea that the Book of Mormon represents any part of the actual history of the two continents, and it further ignores what ancient Americans have written about themselves (to the extent we are able to decipher it). If there are archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon to be historical, they certainly don’t publish those ideas in peer-reviewed journals.
Not a Cougar, the real experts in Book of Mormon archaeology are Latter-day Saint scholars–because they’re experts in the BoM as well as in their respective academic fields. So they know what they’re looking for. Even so, the fact that no secular institution accepts the BoM as historically viable means that getting any of their work peer-reviewed is not likely to happen.
Jack, I’m afraid Book of Mormon archaeologists have the same problem Biblical “archaeologists” had (but to a much greater extent) when in the late 1960s and 1970s Bill Dever and others started to discover a whole lot of ruins and artifacts in the Holy Land that didn’t line up with what more senior people in the field expected to find given their expertise in the Bible. That in turn fundamentally changed how we view the origins of the Israelites. It’s not too much to say that only in the last 50 years has “Biblical archaeology” has truly moved from the seminary to the archaeology department.
As for getting something peer-reviewed, to the extent that the scientist is doing good science, there are plenty of outlets willing to publish. Thus, if they aren’t getting published, I don’t think it’s the fault of the secular journals.
Not a Cougar, I’d say that shifting from an hemispheric model to a limited model–particularly in Mesoamerica– was a product of the same kind of rigorous research that changed the face of Biblical archaeology.
As to your second point–I’d like to think that science was that objective but I’m doubtful. I believe most scientists try to be true to the facts as they see them–but there’s a certain kind of stigma that’s difficult to get around. I don’t think most scientists would consider BoM archaeology any more viable than something like astrology. IMO, it’s gonna take more than good science to bridge that gap–indeed, if it can be bridged at all.
Of course if you are talking at a continental level it’s easy to identify the narrow neck of land and such because there are only so many options. When you make the geography small enough than it seems like it could be any of a large number of places, although the narrow neck is probably the hardest to explain.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if Mormon had etched a nice little map on one of the plates? But you can’t blame him, with the limited plates and cartographic tools he probably had. And he didn’t have the whole genre of modern fantasy books as an example. Oh well.
It’s nice that Brant Gardner is willing to engage in discussion. As apologists go, he’s on the pragmatic as opposed to the zealot end of the spectrum. And with a degree in Meso-American anthropology, he is at least qualified to talk about the subject and even engage in apologetic speculation about Book of Mormon sites.
On the other hand, that’s not really archaeology. Archaeology doesn’t start with a literary text and then go searching the globe for a geographical location that fits a few clues in the narrative. No, you start with a site, analyze found artifacts, then see whether and to what extent these new artifacts add to the existing knowledge (by other scholars, from digs at other nearby or related sites) about the race or civilization or people that lived there and left the artifacts. These might include inscriptions on stone artifacts or, in a place like the Middle East, even some preserved papyrus scrolls. That’s archaeology. If you start with a literary text and work backwards, that’s just literary speculation, not archaeology. Most of what passes for “Book of Mormon archaeology” is just literary speculation.
Furthermore, consider the state of the discussion, such that faith-leaning participants, even informed ones like Brant, can say “Meso, maybe. Heartland, maybe. Malay, maybe. Baja, maybe.” That suggests there is really very little evidence guiding or constraining the discussion. They might as well say, “Mars, maybe.” A zealot apologist would say, “Hey, you can’t rule out Mars until you have done a global dig there, looking for Book of Mormon evidence.”
When Kerry Muhlestein is publicly saying that he assumes the Book of Abraham is historically accurate and then trying to fit archeological evidence into that paradigm, expressing skepticism about the objectivity of science is an absurd position to take.
Glad to hear that Brant Gardner is not a fan of Brian Stubbs. Jonathan Green, a German linguist, over on Times and Seasons wrote a critique of Stubbs’ work expressing similar doubts. A very good read. And this is significant coming from Green, who is about as blindly obedient/Iron Rod/full-on apologist as they get.
Generally speaking, people who think that Christians existed in the pre-Columbian Americas do not take into consideration enough context or history that would repudiate such a theory. They seize on anomalies and loose parallels to construct a highly unbelievable hypothesis and to justify their traditional religious beliefs of their culture. The religions of all pre-Columbian American groups ever since they arrived in the Americas shows striking differences with Christianity, and this is obvious from even the most cursory of glances. There is zero evidence of Christian practice. The idea that a resurrected Jesus, or some sort of spirit Jesus just before resurrection, actually appeared in the Americas and was recognized as such is preposterous in the extreme. The idea that people spoke of and worshipped Jesus Christ before he was even born is similarly ridiculous and unfounded. And Jesus’s actual physical appearance in the Americas is not something that can be turned into a metaphor without seriously compromising traditional Mormon beliefs.
Curiously, however, the apologists never address evidence of Christianity in the pre-Columbian Americas head-on. It’s all extrapolation from seeming parallels such as: “there is some NHM inscription in southern Yemen that seems to match Nahom in the Book of Mormon (which is curiously very similar to the Hebrew Bible Book of Nahum, but that’s just a simple coincidence), therefore we have evidence that Jesus appeared to ancient American Jews.” Um, no. The apologists want to force skeptics and doubters into a position where they have to accept a lot of seeming parallels as coincidence in order to maintain the integrity of their skepticism. But it is a double standard, for the arguments that draw parallels between the Book of Mormon narrative and 19th-century discourse, geography, the KJV, and Joseph Smith’s personal experiences force the apologists into a position where they have to accept an insane number of parallels between the 19th century and the Book of Mormon as coincidence. Plus, we can go through each and every parallel drawn between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world (be it Malaysia or Mesoamerica) and show that the parallels are extremely loose and insignificant. I’ve heard apologists claim that Joseph Smith couldn’t have possibly known about guerrilla warfare. What the hell are you talking about? The American Revolution was fought with the patriots using guerrilla warfare. The Native Americans in Joseph Smith’s environment, which was on the frontier mind you, used guerrilla tactics to fight. I’ve heard apologists gush about how there is chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and in ancient Hebrew literature, which is supposedly very hard to construct. No. 1) Chiasmus appears inadvertently all over the place. 2) It is not at all difficult to construct. Secondly, apologists ignore just how much the KJV influenced the Book of Mormon. We know Joseph Smith had a KJV, read it extensively, and was well acquainted with its text. So, no apologists, don’t gush to me about the so-called significance of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon when those Hebraisms were readily available and knowable to Joseph Smith from simply reading the text of the KJV and copying it. The appearance of Hebraisms is extremely insignificant.
Gardner appears to be an apologist who has studied anthropology rather than an anthropologist. If he is claiming to be an anthropologist, I would run, not walk, from any “study” or “research” he has done,
Jack, I’ve read the open letter to Dr. Coe several times. In typical apologetic fashion it is lots of words but no substance. It actually doesn’t refute Coe on most of what he says. Granted, there are a couple of things where Coe is wrong. For instance, Coe says, “[The Jaredites] go back, what, something like four, five hundred BC.” Clearly here, Coe is simply unaware of Book of Mormon timeline stuff especially as it pertains to Jaredites. OK, no big deal. Coe also says, “Joseph Smith “claimed that it [the Book of Abraham] was in reformed Egyptian and that he could read it.'” Here Coe either misspoke and meant to say Egyptian and not reformed Egyptian, or he was just unaware of the claim that the Book of Abraham was written in Egyptian. Again, no big deal. These small mistakes in no way undermine the thrust of Coe’s larger points.
Some of Sorenson’s “refutations” are just plain stupid, and I can’t think of any other adjective that would aptly describe the quality of his assertions better than that. For instance, Coe correctly says, “They had the compass to navigate by.” This is true. The Book of Mormon talks of a compass. Sorenson’s response: “Not at all. What they had was a device that gave Lehi’s original party travel instructions, but it worked by “faith,” not on any mechanical (“compass”) principle.” So according to Sorenson, it wasn’t a compass that functioned on magnetism, but a “compass” that functioned on “faith.” Oh wow, that just makes it all the more believable then.
Coe says, “Silk. Nothing.” Sorenson’s response: “The Spaniards described at least five Mesoamerican varieties of what they termed “silk” or its equivalent; none of them used the species of silkworm that prevailed in East Asia.” OK, so Sorenson agrees with Coe. There was no silk in the ancient Americas.
Coe says: “Pig. Zero. Not one pig bone has ever shown up in pre-Columbian excavations.” Sorenson’s response: “Oh, come now. Peccaries were hunted, kept, and even herded, and they surely are ‘pigs.'” Right, Sorenson, and the Nephites mistook tapirs for horses.
Coe says: “There is no writing for the Olmec, ‘which is peculiar if these people came from the Middle East.'” Sorenson then claims that there are indeed Olmec inscriptions. Right. But here he is deliberately misconstruing Coe. Are there any long tracts of writing as you see in the ancient Near East or Greece, such that it would be believable that the ancient Olmecs could produce something like a Hebrew Torah or Jaredite plates? Not in the least. These people didn’t write beyond inscriptions. Same goes for pre-Roman Celtic groups in Western Europe. They made inscriptions, and lots of them. But they didn’t write beyond that. Consequently what we know about their cultures comes mostly from ancient Greeks and Romans, who did write.
Coe says: “The Aztecs could field fairly good-sized armies, but never that size [hundreds of thousands].” Sorenson responds by citing the loose and exaggerated estimates of Spaniards who claimed that the Aztecs “could muster a force of 400,000.” Come on, Sorenson. These are clearly exaggerations.
Coe says: “There are no Semitic words whatsoever in it [Mayan]. It’s got no relation whatsoever with any languages that we know of in the Old World.” Sorenson then cites Brian Stubbs, in whose “research” a number of apologists themselves have expressed doubt.
Coe says: “Land bridge into Asia—this is something the Book of Mormon archaeologists don’t really like to talk about.” Sorenson then responds with a red herring, saying, “Not a single archaeologist I know, or of whom I have heard, does or would call him- or herself a ‘Book of Mormon archaeologist.'” Oh for luck’s sake, Sorenson. Give me a gd break! You can’t refute the point that Coe was making so you resort to identity politics. Just pathetic.
Coe says: “‘The whole business of . . . Book of Mormon archaeology [is] to find Zarahemla, to find the plates of gold that were inscribed at the last trump, so to speak.” Sorenson says: “This deserves to be called nonsense, without the slightest basis in fact.” Haha! Just so stupid. Like believing apologists haven’t tried to find where Book of Mormon events took place. Please. That’s all they’ve ever done. And the notion that they’ve never tried to find the Golden Plates? Give me a break, pal. Talk about a hissy fit. Sorenson is not nor will ever be the man that Coe was.
John W,
I read the letter a bit differently. Sorenson’s responses are, for the most part (IMO), spot on. Even so, to those looking in from the outside there might be a sense that the two are talking past one another. But I think some of that (at least) comes from how much goes unsaid by two people who are discussing a topic that they (both) know very well. For example, Sorenson doesn’t have to say much more than he does on the topic of pigs because both he and Coe already know that peccaries look a lot like wild boars–and that it would’ve been the most natural thing in the world for a group of immigrants to call them pigs in their own language. IMO, there’s a lot of that intuitive under current in the letter.
Jack, the purpose of Sorenson’s open letter is to refute some of what Michael Coe said in an interview with John Dehlin. Other than a couple of instances that I mentioned (Jaredites and Book of Abraham being translated from ancient Egyptian), it is unclear where Sorenson actually refutes Coe. At the same time, they’re not talking past each other at all. Coe’s point is very straightforward: the argument that the Book of Mormon is historical is undermined by the fact that it talks of elements of material culture and animals that didn’t exist nor would conceivably exist in the Americas 2200 BCE-400 CE given what we know through archaeological research up until now. Sorenson tries to address this directly, but has no answers. Coe states that there is no evidence of compasses, coins, silk, seven-day calendars, chariots, pigs, elephants, no King Benjamin-like figures, no writing (beyond inscriptions), no armies in the size of hundreds-of-thousands, and no Semitic words in indigenous languages in the pre-Columbian Americas. And he’s right on all accounts. And Sorenson pretty much agrees with him. What Sorenson argues, instead, is that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually claim a lot of these things. But such an argument is extremely disingenuous. After all, the Book of Mormon goes out of its way to talk about the existence of cureloms and cumoms. We should be able to expect that steel should actually mean steel, chariots actually chariots, and elephants actually elephants. What Sorenson actually shows is that he himself either doesn’t understand the Book of Mormon, or that he is disingenuously claiming not to understand it in order to fit circular pegs into square holes.
Jack, one more point. You state that the Book of Mormon archaeologists are the only real experts on the question of evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity because “they’re experts in the BoM as well as in their respective academic fields.” What you’re implying is that just as we take other experts’ words on other subjects because they’ve studied those subjects for a long time, we should take the BYU/BYU-affiliated apologists’ words for it. Two problems with that. 1) Most leading apologists face possible job loss, divorce, church discipline, ostracism, and social shaming for taking the position that the Book of Mormon isn’t historical. 2) Mormon apologists don’t appear to be convincing their non-Mormon peers that Christianity was practiced in the pre-Columbian Americas. Mormon apologetics has been around for decades. Scholars in a variety of fields are indeed aware of Mormon truth claims and have been for some time. The finding of Christianity being practiced in the pre-Columbian Americas would be an absolutely huge, ground-breaking discovery that would completely reshape how we viewed the a key piece of the past. And yet Mormon apologists haven’t even come close to spreading the idea among experts in their fields outside Mormonism. That tells us something: which is that Mormon apologists are fringe “experts” much like the extremely small minority of climatology “experts” who deny climate change, and aren’t worth our time. Plus, apologist arguments are just really poor, and easily fall apart under just minimal scrutiny.
“Coe states that there is no evidence of compasses, coins, silk, seven-day calendars, chariots, pigs, elephants, no King Benjamin-like figures, no writing (beyond inscriptions), no armies in the size of hundreds-of-thousands, and no Semitic words in indigenous languages in the pre-Columbian Americas. And he’s right on all accounts. And Sorenson pretty much agrees with him. What Sorenson argues, instead, is that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually claim a lot of these things.”
Again, I agree with Sorenson. Coe had no where near the depth of understanding of the BoM that Sorenson had. And so he based much of his argument on false assumptions without knowing how far off the mark he was. I think we all know that the Book of Mormon never–not once–mentions coins. It speaks of currency in terms of weights and measures–but not coins. The idea of “coinage” was added in the “help text” (chapter descriptions) in later editions of the Book of Mormon and was never part of the original text. So with all do respect to Michael Coe that was a blunder on his part. And many of his other criticisms are blunders–from one degree to another.
We could go on like this for a this forever I suppose. But let me just say–there’s not enough forthright scientific evidence to convince anyone of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon–IMO. And I think that ‘s the way the Lord wants it to be for now. He doesn’t want to coerce or intimidate anyone one into believing in the BoM. Even so, I think it’s quite possible that over time — perhaps not until we’ve nearly crossed the broad threshold of the Millennium — scholars will be able to build a solid case (to the scientific community) for the BoM as an authentic ancient text. But the time isn’t yet.
Jack, the pre-Columbian Americans used a weights and measures system, indeed. They did not use a weights and measure system that was made out of silver and gold. They used silver and gold for jewelry, ornaments, and decoration. Not as coinage. And most certainly not to make their weight system. Alma 11 may not mention “coin” but it is describing a monetary system where certain measures of gold and silver have different values attached to them. To claim otherwise is really disingenuous and denialistic.
Here is the text from Alma 11:
[5] Now the reckoning is thus — a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.
[6] A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.
[7] A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.
[8] Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.
[9] And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.
[10] And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.
[11] And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.
[12] And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.
[13] And an onti was as great as them all.
[14] Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning —
[15] A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.
[16] And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.
[17] And a leah is the half of a shiblum.
[18] Now this is their number, according to their reckoning.
[19] Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.
To me the plants and animals are a side show.(and is the entrance fee paid for in senine or senum? A shiblum for cotton candy?) The spread of Christianity can be documented from it’s origin in Palestine into North Africa and Europe. Into Persia and India. Into Central Asia and into China and Mongolia. There is no material evidence for Christianity in the New World until Europeans invaded.
According to the BofM, there was massive destruction at the Death of Christ, followed by a Christian golden age with extensive rebuilds. A major Christian power center. A super power of righteousness. So where is it?
There were trade networks between Mesoamerica and the American southwest. Scarlet Macaws and cacao beans can make the trip. Ball courts can be built. But nothing Christian ever emerged from that teenie tiny spot in the jungle.
John, I’m no expert–but I’m pretty sure that, while the Maya may have used a wide range of items — almost anything really — in their system of bartering, they did use gold and other precious metals as well.
That said, we have to remember that the Nephites weren’t necessarily a “Mayan” people in terms of their own self identification. Of course, from our modern perspective it’s difficult to differentiate between the two if all we have to go with are relics that are of the more common variety. It’s like digging in Utah a thousand years from now hoping to find something that would identify the area as the seat of ancient Latter-day Saints. But what you find–more than anything else–are household items that might have been used by any number of different peoples from overlapping cultures.
That said, as it relates to precious metals being used in some sort of exchange system–how would we know for certain that no such system ever existed? Especially when the metals were not minted into coins? Barley is mentioned in the description of the Nephite monetary system. But surely we would be hard pressed to find any evidence from relics of the plant itself indicating that it was used in an ancient bartering system–it’s possible but highly improbable. I think the same would hold true for precious metals in their raw form.
And so there can be a lot of complexity involved in accurately identifying “markers” from the Book of Mormon. Even so, there have been many discoveries that weigh in favor of the BoM’s claims–with the obvious caveat that there’s still a lot that we don’t know and may never know.
I highly recommend this presentation by John Clark:
Suzanne,
IMO, there are two things to keep in mind: First, according to the BoM text the Nephite civilization was completely wiped out. I’m of the opinion that the Lamanites destroyed every vestige of Nephite identity and culture that they could find. Second, Mesoamerica is very wet–and therefore certain kinds of evidence is difficult to come by either because of the rapid rate of decay or the immense tropical overgrowth. Only as small percentage of the area has been excavated. Who knows what wonders wait to be found underneath that canopy of tens of thousands of square miles.
Jack, Aztecs used gold ingots in their trade system. Sure. Did they use ingots if different sizes? Did they use silver along with it? No evidence of that. The Book of Mormon clearly describes something more complex than what there is evidence for.
“what you find–more than anything else–are household items that might have been used by any number of different peoples from overlapping cultures.”
You clearly haven’t read much archaeological research. For archaeology is able to show distinctions in cultures dating back over 5,000 years ago. For instance, megaliths appear in Britain (Stonehenge) as well as Spain and France, but not Germany. This tells us that the most western parts of pre-Celtic Europe had a shared religious culture that didn’t manifest itself in Germany. Different cultures create different jewelry, art, forms of religious expression, earthenware, tools and all sorts of arrays of distinct artifacts. If Christianity (a relatively recent religion if we consider how long humanity has existed) existed in the pre-Columbian Americas, it would be pretty readily apparent. You say that the Lamanites erased everything or that the jungle climate erased everything. And yet we know a tremendous amount about pre-Columbian Mayan religion and life from archaeology. The jungle didn’t erase everything. The ancient Romans did everything in their power to stamp out the Carthaginians. Some scholars call Rome’s destruction of Carthage the world’s first genocide. And still we have all sorts of evidence of Carthage’s district culture and religion. I can’t imagine a group who hates the US more than Al-Qaeda, and yet they gladly use US Dollars. It’s not like the Lamanites would stop trying to benefit from Nephite advancements.
You say, how do we know it didn’t happen. I counter your question with another question. How do we know the Book of Mormon didn’t take place in Malaysia, or Mars? Sorry, the burden of proof is on the Mormon church and the apologists. Not the skeptics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the church and the apologists fail that test miserably when it comes to Book of Mormon historicity.
I watched John Clark’s video. It is the same mumbo jumbo and intellectually dishonest logical fallacies I’ve long heard from other apologists. These guys have gotten to a point where it is just socially easier for them to keep up the con than call it out. If they point out the emperor has no clothes, the social punishment they stand to suffer will inevitably be crushing.
The idea that a group of 30 people landed in the Americas and proceeded to build huge civilizations with massive armies and temples is a hard sell. But an even harder sell is them accomplishing this by intermarrying with pre-existing indigenous peoples and then never mentioning them once. The entire Book of Mormon is about conflicts between groups competing for resources, culture, and religion. And somehow they supposedly peacefully assimilated entire communities and never wrote down a single word about them?!
I used to think, like Jack, that the Lord meant for there to be no evidence of Book of Mormon historicity to test our faith and to compel us to gain a testimony through spiritual means rather than empirical ones. However, there is now such an abundant amount of data on both Mesoamerica and 19th century New England, it is clear that God would have to be deliberately deceitful for that to work.
He would have to purposefully plant a bunch of fake evidence and red herrings—The Late War, View of the Hebrews, Captain Kidd and Camorah, Deutero-Isaiah, Pauline quotations, to say nothing of the whole of Mesoamerica—to throw us off the trail and confuse us. This is the God of Truth we’re talking about. That would be inconsistent with His character and He would cease to be God.
The cold truth of the matter is that Nephites and Lamanites are fictitious. And the attempts to replace ACTUAL Native cultures and histories with stories of White Israelites is, at the end of the day, racist—a manifestation of the same Native erasure that was rampant in Joseph Smith’s time and continues today.
John: “How do we know the Book of Mormon didn’t take place in Malaysia, or Mars?”
I use the “Mars” example all the time. It might’ve happened there for all I know–but it’d still be true. I find Sorenson’s model very compelling–but I’m open to the possibility that he could be wrong.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on John Clark’s presentation. I think he lays out the facts in a straightforward manner without any spin. Of course, his thesis can’t prove that the BoM is true–and he knows that. But it plainly demonstrates that over time many of the criticisms leveled at the book have turned out to be untrue. And that trend continues today. We’ve learned recently through LiDAR mapping that our estimates for population sizes in certain areas of the Yucatan were way too low. We’re now pretty sure that they numbered in the millions instead of thousands in those areas.
That said, this trend is not likely to amount to enough evidence to convince anyone of the book’s truthfulness–at least not for a while yet. The only way to know that it’s true is to do as the book suggests: ask God with a sincere heart.
Kirkstall: “The idea that a group of 30 people landed in the Americas and proceeded to build huge civilizations with massive armies and temples is a hard sell.”
I have to agree. But I don’t think it’s any more of a stretch than imagining a nation springing from Jacob and his twelve sons.
I don’t believe that God is “planting fake evidence and red herrings” either. But there are many forces at work–and many opinions–and the only way to sift through it all vis-a-vis the BoM is to receive revelation. Empirical evidence is emerging–little by little. But it’s not enough to constitute proof–for which we should be grateful. Because if it were it would condemn the world.
Kirkstall – agree 100%
Not sure prophets Kimball or Benson believed that we need to settle for no BOM evidence. As a missionary in Europe 1990-92 we would always share freely from the intro pages to the BOM (without their later alterations due to DNA findings etc).
I fell out of my chair at a faint whiff of nuance (revelation v. translation) shared by Elder Soares Gen Conf April 2020
Jack, there are some recurring themes in your reasoning:
1) There is still a lot that we don’t know and that we’re still discovering about the ancient Americas, therefore we can’t rule out the Book of Mormon as not historical.
My response: you’re looking at the question backwards. The question shouldn’t be where is the evidence that absolutely disproves the Book of Mormon historicity hypothesis. You can’t prove a negative, although the counterevidence against the historicity hypothesis seems incredibly massive and formidable. The question should be what the evidence is for a historical Book of Mormon. To add to that question, should we expect on what basis would any dispassionate observer of the ancient Americas who hasn’t heard much about the Book of Mormon or makes it a major focal point to arrive independently at the idea that Christianity existed in the pre-Columbian Americas? No. There have been many such observers who have studied the Americas in depth and nothing they write remotely suggests that Joseph Smith was right in his views of the ancient Americas.
2) The Book of Mormon can’t be proven true anyways, the only way you can know that is by praying about it and feeling the spirit.
This is more of the classic apologist doublethink maneuver which goes as follows: say that the Book of Mormon can be proven on its merits where convenient, and then say that the Book of Mormon can’t be proven when convenient. I’ve heard over and over from apologists that there is all sorts of evidence of the historicity of the BoM only to say in another context that the only way to know it is true is by praying about, thereby indirectly conceding that they don’t really have any evidence. Act like a truth absolutist where convenient such as at a testimony meeting in front of other believers where you testify that you know, just know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the BoM is “true” (meaning historical), and then in another context act like a truth relativist and claim, “hey, can we really nail down most historical claims as ‘true’ anyways.” Let’s make no mistake. The church has long encouraged certainly around a body of truth claims including the claim that the BoM is historical. It has long frowned on uncertainty and doubt and has said that those are weak positions.
3) I’m open-minded to Sorenson and other apologists being wrong.
OK, sure. Commendable. Likewise, I’m open to the Book of Mormon being true. New evidence could emerge that shows it to be true. I think that is extremely unlikely. I don’t think that LiDAR reveals anything particularly favorable to the idea of a historical BoM. But I am waiting for that evidence to emerge before changing my position. However, when it comes to the question of who is more open-minded, I see the apologists and the church as greatly more closed-minded than secular researchers of the ancient Americas. The reason being that they regularly have expressed throughout their lives absolute and uncompromising certainty that Jesus appeared to ancient American Jews. Secular researchers don’t gather and hold testimony meetings where they declare with utmost solemnity that they know, just know, that the Book of Mormon is false. They didn’t serve missions in tight-knit cult-like environments where they were under incredible pressure to testify of the BoM’s falseness.
With regard to your first two points we have to keep in mind that there is a distinction between evidence and proof–and I’m sure you understand that. But I think some of that distinction is getting lost in our discussion. Latter-day Saint scholars generally agree that there isn’t enough evidence to constitute proof vis-a-vis BoM historicity. Even so, they do believe that much of the evidence is compelling and should be received as such–even though it may not as yet be convincing on purely secular grounds. So, yes, there is good evidence for historicity–enough perhaps to peak our interest and get us to further investigate the BoM. Even so, there isn’t enough empirical evidence yet to seal the deal. We will need to rely on a different epistemological approach to learn that the book is what it says it is.
As to your third point–that’s an interesting perspective. Even so, it’s difficult to argue one way or the other when we’re talking about two different ways of knowing. Perhaps secular scholars are more open-minded in the way you suggest–but the problem is their methodologies don’t in any way address the supernatural. So they may be open-minded within a certain epistemological framework–but they don’t venture beyond it. And that creates a logistical problem with communication between two groups with vastly different paradigms.
Jack
Before Nephite civilization was wiped out, it was a mighty Christian civilization. The Byzantine empire didn’t last, but the Hagia Sophia is still there.
There are two words I’m going to say–Cultural Diffusion. (I was going to add a third–syncretism, but I didn’t know how to spell it.)
As for wet jungles temples, the most famous is the Buddhist Angkor Wat in Cambodia. It started out as a Hindu temple.
But I was really thinking of the country with the largest Muslim population–Indonesia. Before Islam showed up, Hinduism and Buddhism were the dominate religions. With thousands of temples across the islands. Today only Bali is majority Hindu.
But when I look at the Maya region of Mesoamerica, the religion isn’t Hindu or Buddhist but Mayan. Go figure.
I would like to stay and chat, but now that Halloween and the Day of the Dead are over with, I need to get ready for Turkey day. Head out to the farmers market and pick out some nice sweet potatoes and cranberries. Maybe I can find some purple potatoes to mash cuz they look cool. After that I need to pick out a Christmas tree. Already have the mistletoe.
And if a thousand years, some future archaeologist dug in Utah, hummm. Besides the countless houses containing Mormon Kitsch, there is Temple Square( plus other Mormon temples and Stake Centers) and BYU. But what I am thinking of, are the thousands and thousands and more thousands of graves containing people in unique religious attire. I’m athinkin’ that future archaeologists won’t have any trouble identifying the dominate culture of 20th century Utah.
Jack, the distinction between evidence and proof that you speak of applies only to the hard sciences, where we can demonstrate phenomena empirically by running tests and experiments over and over. There is no empirical proof in historical argumentation. So the distinction you draw is an irrelevant red herring.
“they do believe that much of the evidence is compelling and should be received as such”
If it is so compelling, how come no other non-Mormon experts in their fields validate that Christianity existed in the pre-Columbian Americas? After all, that is what makes an argument compelling. Its ability to actually draw lots of experts to accept certain propositions. The so-called “evidence” that apologists are claiming to show historicity doesn’t convince non-Mormon experts. Therefore it is not compelling.
“We will need to rely on a different epistemological approach to learn that the book is what it says it is.”
Absolutism in the extreme. BoM historicity fails all epistemological approaches considered valid in the larger historical and scientific community. Therefore concoct your own epistemological approach to “learn” (in other words “know”) that the book is historical. I think here you are showing that you aren’t open-minded at all. The BoM is historical and nothing could convince you otherwise. Just a QAnonist who believes that Trump really won the 2020 election. No amount of evidence or counterevidence could convince them otherwise.
“the problem is their methodologies don’t in any way address the supernatural”
Like you or other believing Mormons are willing to accept the supernatural claims that don’t square with your traditional beliefs. How willing are you to accept Christopher Nemelka’s claim that he is the reincarnation of Hyrum Smith and was able to translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon? Have you prayed about that being true? Many have and have come to the belief that his claims are indeed true, including Ida Smith, the great granddaughter of Hyrum Smith who granted Nemelka her burial plot.
Suzanne,
You make some excellent points with those examples. Even so, I think we need to consider the fact that there are some fundamental differences between the “old” and the “new” worlds vis-a-vis research. First off, there’s a lot more historical continuity in the East than there is in the West. And second — and perhaps more importantly — we got a much later start in the West. We weren’t even aware of Olmec artifacts until the mid 1800s–and then it wasn’t until the early 1900s that we learned they were *not* Mayan. And so it may sound like a cop out but (IMO) there are still a lot of secrets in those jungles waiting to be to uncovered.
Sounds like you’re gearing up for a wonderful holiday season. Enjoy!
Whoops. I used the wrong name on that last comment. It should be “Jack.”
John, I don’t think you and I are going to come to an agreement on this theme–though I’ve enjoyed the conversation. And so let me just add a couple of more thoughts–and then I’ll let you have the final word.
Re: Hard sciences and soft sciences: I think where some combination of anthropology, archaeology, geography, geology, history, linguistics, and other disciplines intersect amounts to strong evidence. And I think there’s a fair amount of that occurring in this field of interest–so much so, in fact, that it’s difficult for me not to see. Even so, as I’ve said before, there’s not enough yet to convince most folks on purely secular grounds.
Re: Absolutism: Let me put it this way–I know the Book of Mormon is true to the same degree that I know my wife loves me. That’s a very subjective experience–yes–but it’s knowable. But I cannot say the same about where the Book of Mormon took place. I find Sorenson’s model the most compelling–it feels good to me. But I can’t say that I know it’s correct with the kind of confidence that I know the Book is true in and of itself.
I left a response to Suzanne–but it was under the wrong handle. I think it might be stuck in moderation–so let do it right this time:
Suzanne,
You make some excellent points with those examples. Even so, I think we need to consider the fact that there are some fundamental differences between the “old” and the “new” worlds vis-a-vis research. First off, there’s a lot more historical continuity in the East than there is in the West. And second — and perhaps more importantly — we got a much later start in the West. We weren’t even aware of Olmec artifacts until the mid 1800s–and then it wasn’t until the early 1900s that we learned they were *not* Mayan. And so it may sound like a cop out but (IMO) there are still a lot of secrets in those jungles waiting to be to uncovered.
Sounds like you’re gearing up for a wonderful holiday season. Enjoy!
Suzanne,
I wanted to respond to your other point. The scenario you create about excavating in Utah a thousand years from now is probably the way it would really play out. Even so, what I was trying to do is create a scenario (at that same time and place) that was more in line with what we’re finding in Mesoamerica. And so the question would be more like: how would we be able to identify a “Nephite” potsherd? It’s certainly within the realm of possibility–but it would be like trying to identify a “Latter-day Saint” fork or knife. True, a future archaeologist may find ancient cutlery with the symbol of a beehive stamped on them–but the percentage of those compared to your standard garden variety is vanishingly small.
Jack, on hard on soft sciences, here is the discussion history. 1) I said that apologists engage in doublethink by claiming evidence of BoM where convenient and claiming it can’t be proven where convenient. 2) You then claimed that there is a difference between evidence and proof. 3) I responded by saying that there really isn’t a difference when it comes to historical arguments. 4) You responded by saying that there is overlap between hard and soft sciences (a red herring on your part as the question never was about there being overlap or not between hard and soft sciences). I point out this history to show the rabbit-hole nature of talking with apologists. It is whackamole and endless tangents and red herrings. All kinds of motte-and-bailey tactics where they go out to bailey to experiment with extreme ideas and then when the debaters accuses them of extremism they retreat to the fortress of the motte and claim that they were simply stating an obvious hard-to-refute point and that the doubter was overreacting. They can never be committed to answer simple questions such as where the evidence is of a historical Book of Mormon.
On absolutism, there is another doublethink pivot common in apologist narratives which that we can both know that the Book of Mormon is true and not be able to fully know at the same time. And this pivot is used against counterattacks by positioning the doubter who is asserting counterevidence against BoM historicity as closed-minded and the apologist as open-minded who is willing to acknowledge that we don’t know everything and that we’re still finding out things. After all, according to apologist thinking, how can we say that the BoM is not true. To say it is not true is the real closed-minded absolutism and doubters who claim open-mindedness and demand it from the apologists and believers are nothing more than hypocrites. In reality, the apologist position of us not being able to know for sure the BoM’s untruthfullness/truthfulness is just as absolutist as the assertion that the BoM is absolutely 100% true because of the spirit or personal revelation. For in asserting that we can never be sure that the BoM isn’t true, they are positioning the question of BoM historicity as unfalsifiable. And we must always, always beware of unfalsifiable claims. For on that basis we can just make up anything we want and even construe all kinds of flimsy evidence to substantiate the original claim, and then claim that since a skeptic can’t prove it wrong, we must consider the made-up nonsense as possibly true and to do otherwise would be closed-minded.
It is because of tactics like these that non-Mormon scholars don’t get involved heavily in debates about BoM historicity. They simply let the burden of proof be where it should be, which is upon the shoulders of the apologists.
Amen, John W. I’m really tired of people, like Jack/bagofsand, saying stuff like, “We can’t act by faith if we knew for certain,” on one hand and then stating “I know for certain” on the other hand. Nothing in Jack’s comments support the scientific process, only appeals to ‘spiritual authority’ and ‘supernatural’ methods of knowledge. Again, no wonder their debates go anywhere. Contradictions on one hand and boundaries you can’t argue with on the other. And yet they still demand to be respected in well, respected spheres. Enough already.