DCP claims no one has refuted LDS archeological evidence in the past 3 decades

[Marcus]

An excellent book. I have this quote from it hanging over my laundry sink:

"Now do come and stay with me. We'll have so much fun together. There are things to fill and things to empty, things to take away and things to bring back, things to pick up and things to put down, and besides all that we have pencils to sharpen, holes to dig, nails to straighten, stamps to lick, and ever so much more.

Why, if you stay here, you'll never have to think again - and with a little practice you can become a monster of habit, too"

The Phantom Tollbooth

[Kishkumen]

The claims for the Book of Mormon are completely empty. No one need waste a moment on them. No evidence means no case means nothing to argue about. If you can't produce the plates or anything ancient that is definitively connected with the Book of Mormon translation in any way, you have nothing to argue about. Everything you have to say will be pure assertion and speculation. No one needs to do ANYTHING with such claims. And for the most part, they don't. Wisely so.

This is why no non-LDS scholars waste their good time on LDS claims. There is no "there" there. Absolutely nothing.

All that scholars can do with the text is to treat it as nineteenth century American literature. Once properly categorized, the text can be very useful for addressing a lot of interesting questions. Treating it as an ancient text is total waste of time.

[dastardly stem]

Mormon apologetics isn't exactly doing much more than saving the old lady in Parowan or defending against slam dunks, but it's also not so much a waste as many things done in this world, particularly for those who believe in Mormonism. The effort to defend a position is worth it, if for nothing else than giving everyone else a good reason to reject the position. Getting more Mormons looking into it realizing the weakness of calling it an ancient book of actual history will be a good thing and could get DCP and co a gold star for accomplishing something they simply didn't realize they could accomplish.

But I do agree with Kish that the Book of Mormon is much better off, itself, as being treated as a 19th century work rather than being twisted up and turned upside down to fit a time and place it simply doesn't fit. It'd be nice if the Church outright stated the book is a 19th century work and be done with it. "Let's appreciate it for when it came and move along with our religion". That'd be the easy go..but I'm afraid the average Mormon folk are going to have to be the reasonable ones here first. Get enough of them then the leaders will have to follow suit.

In this sense I say, keep up the good work DCP and co.

[hauslern]

On Dan's blog I asked the question if one checks the CVs of the faculty of archaeology or anthropology at BYU they do not seem to be publsihing in journals any papers on the Book of Mormon.

His response:

"Check the CVs of the faculty of the BYU archaeology department, Noel.

First of all, you'll find that it's actually a department of anthropology.

Secondly, you'll discover that not all of the faculty are even archaeologists.

Thirdly, you'll learn that, of the archaeologists, some don't even focus on the Americas at all.

And you need to look beyond the Department of Anthropology. Look, for example, at Kerry Hull (https://religion.BYU.edu/di... and at Mark Alan Wright (https://interpreterfoundati..., whose professorial career, alas, has been cut short by serious health issues."

I did a google scholar search on Mark Alan Wright and most of his publications seem to be in LDS journals.

Hulls students like his classes which seems to be mainly religious: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor?tid=1842370

[drumdude]

It’s just a complete coincidence that they aren’t out there in the field finding evidence for the Book of Mormon.

They picked which areas of the world to research out of a hat. With a stone in the bottom of it.

[Kishkumen]

Mormon apologetics isn't exactly doing much more than saving the old lady in Parowan or defending against slam dunks, but it's also not so much a waste as many things done in this world, particularly for those who believe in Mormonism. The effort to defend a position is worth it, if for nothing else than giving everyone else a good reason to reject the position. Getting more Mormons looking into it realizing the weakness of calling it an ancient book of actual history will be a good thing and could get DCP and co a gold star for accomplishing something they simply didn't realize they could accomplish.

But I do agree with Kish that the Book of Mormon is much better off, itself, as being treated as a 19th century work rather than being twisted up and turned upside down to fit a time and place it simply doesn't fit. It'd be nice if the Church outright stated the book is a 19th century work and be done with it. "Let's appreciate it for when it came and move along with our religion". That'd be the easy go..but I'm afraid the average Mormon folk are going to have to be the reasonable ones here first. Get enough of them then the leaders will have to follow suit.

In this sense I say, keep up the good work DCP and co.

I reject the idea that the date of the Book of Mormon should be at all important, anyway. For some reason, it is very important to people, but I view it to be of negligible importance. At the end of the day, claims of miracles are subjective.

To say there was a guy named Jesus who walked the streets of Jerusalem in 33 AD does not make him God or the savior of the world or a miracle worker. The fact that the Tanakh is more ancient than the Book of Mormon does not make it more historically useful (its greatest use relates to the historical context of its composition and its subsequent impact on culture in both cases). Each text tells us much, much more about the people who wrote it and the time in which it was written than it tells us about the reality of miracles. Miracles are subjectively experienced, in my view. Because accepting something as a miracle is ultimately a personal decision. No one can compel you to accept the spontaneous remission of cancer as a divine miracle. You can see it as such, or you can choose not to.

Apologists are not really saying much more than that the Book of Mormon is miraculous and critics are simply saying it is not. If we look at each side carefully and over a long period of time, it all boils down to that. The only thing that makes the antiquity of the Book of Mormon at all an issue for certain believers is the importance placed on it as a witness that the resurrected Jesus went on international manifestation voyages. At the end of the day, I don’t find that a very compelling argument. He could go on those trips in 33 AD, or he could go on them in 1820 AD. You either believe that he did so, or you do not. It is all a personal choice.

Arguments of this kind can rage on forever and go nowhere.