Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Gadianton]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

I'm starting to think you're a critic trolling us again. I didn't think you could come up with a line surpassing your sentiments on the physiology of working women but mission accomplished.

Anyway, who shoulders the "burden of proof" is no more a science discussion than it is a liberal arts discussion. We could educate you on somewhat related discussions from the philosophy of science which might help, but there are no serious discussions that I'm aware of over "the burden of proof" as an epistemic principle. Yeah, people online charge each other with the burden of proof all the time, as they justify themselves by appealing to Ockham's razor or science and reason, without accomplishing anything.

The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence. Moreover, in the opposite vein, your religion is one that does!

This is profoundly immature. If the Book of Mormon is a translation of a historical record then the events should find a place in the ancient world. Attempts at Book of Mormon geography need not any specific faith/critic context at all. As Sorenson and Gardner undertake the task, you can start with how far people can walk in a day, jot down relative locations of places, and try to get an internal model of the lay of the land, look at potential areas on a real map where the internal map could fit, and then go on to identify vegetation, animals, technologies, and whatever else. If you've got your spot selected, and the Book calls for deer, and there are no deer, then that's a challenge for the model.

[_Res Ipsa]

Gotta say that Water Dog's description of the burden of proof is the strangest I've ever heard. All I have to do is claim something is true and then say "you have the burden of proof to show that what I claim is false because I've never tried to prove that it's true." The Book of Mormon claims to be a history of people in the Americas. It has the burden of proof that what it purports to be is what it really is. The burden exists whether anyone tries to meet it or not.

[_Nevo]

It looks like Nevo is still disturbed by the LW.

As far as I can tell, this board is just about the only place online where this book is still being discussed, and hardly anybody here is still claiming that The Late War is a source for the Book of Mormon. Instead there's a lot of talk about how The Late War's real value is in contextualizing the Book of Mormon and undermining certain apologetic arguments for "hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon—which is pretty much what Rick Grunder concluded in the late 1990s. Moreover, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, even if a close literary relationship between The Late War and the Book of Mormon could be demonstrated, it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the Book of Mormon's claim to be a divinely inspired text. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find so disturbing. But I suppose it's exciting for the DAMU/ex-Mo crowd to imagine that Mormons are deeply troubled by these, uh, developments, so have at it.

[_Spanner]

Where is your uniform theory that explains it all? All you're observing is the nature of science and academics. Is anthropogenic global warming real or not? The science was "settled" we were told and now some of the most famous AGW scientists have become skeptics and changed course. Even the IPCC has started to fall apart. In another thread about elephants a commenter made me ware of an interesting essay written by Sorenson in the past couple years where he talks about this. Read the section "About Archaeology". He lays it out, this is simply the reality of the science. Theories will bounce around and maybe in years to come the accepted theory will be completely different. So what, you still haven't been able to prove the Book of Mormon false.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-ope ... chael-coe/

We don't need a unified theory to explain it all. As I have stated earlier, many of us are interested in the implications of the Late War for different theories of the creation of the Book of Mormon by Smith and others. But just because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that your pet theory is true. There is limited conclusive evidence, mainly because the author(s) of the Book of Mormon covered their tracks. But there definitely is converging evidence pointing to a 19th century creation of the book.

And, there is one common factor to all "critical" theories - there is ample evidence that the Book of Mormon is not consistent with science, history, or reality in general. Positive evidence, not just a lack of confirming evidence.

One common believer reaction to Book of Mormon critics is to pileup a bunch of "how could Joseph know [insert "hit"]" points and items that are compatible with reality. Then expect critics to counter them. That is a waste of time. There only needs to be ONE piece of disproving evidence to show that the book is a hoax. Joseph was attempting to write a book about Hebrews in ancient America. Of course he is going incorporate as much factual material as he can. And where he guesses something, for many things there is a reasonable chance he will get it right. So accurate items prove nothing in the presence of material that demonstrably contradicts reality. "Hits" would only be of use if there were no counter-factual material.

A very shallow (and circular) argument. You rationalize that the questions you cannot answer don't matter because of some question we cannot answer? Questions I'm sure you also can't prove false, but simply reject the answer. How vague and fallacious. Re-read what I've already written on this line of thinking.

Yes - I don't have to challenge every "hit" you think you have found. I am quite happy to concede (for example) that there was indeed some species of bee in precolumbian America. So what? For YOUR claim to be true (the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient America), ALL Book of Mormon claims must stand. If you can back up half of them - great - I don't have to challenge every one of them.

It only takes one critical flaw to expose the Book of Mormon as a hoax. You can fling all the red herrings you want, but if you can't answer the critical questions that falsify the Book of Mormon, then the debate is over.

Deal with it - you believers are the ones making flakey claims and perpetrating a scam. If you sold me a car without a motor, and I complained that it was not a functional car, it would not do for you to point out the wheel, and steering wheel, and bumper etc and claim that of course you had sold a functional car - just look at all the car parts on it! Unless you provide the whole car, it isn't a functional car.

Also, for future reference, labeling something "shallow", "circular", "vague" or "fallacious" means diddly-squat unless you can actually show how the labels apply. You can't do that, so you are just handwaving. You will notice through our interactions that I have pointed out where your argument is flawed, and I have provided numerous links to references backing up my position. You have not done this. You have resorted to handwaving and, at times, outright insults. I see no reason to engage with this sort of interaction; I am just noting that you seem to have picked up this undesirable behavior from some very immature mopologists who think debate involves flinging insults and thought-stopping labels, then doing a victory jig, having avoided any meaningful engagement with the issue on the table.

Here are some links to one critical problem with the Book of Mormon - these actually provide evidence it is false, as opposed to pointing out areas where evidence for the book is lacking:
http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... 04_197.pdf
This is not the only critical problem that falsifies the book - but I only need one.

Don't expect us to engage in discussion about peripheral details - elephants or whatever - for anything other than amusement. Even if you did prove some of your interesting claims, the central problems with the Book of Mormon remain.

[_Spanner]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

This was my reaction as well!

Water Dog has no inkling of the concept of falsifiability, so I doubt very much that he/she has anything to do with research science or philosophy. Maybe Water Dog wants to take up science after graduating from High School.

[_Runtu]

If anything, it seems even BYU has distanced itself from the pursuit of Book of Mormon history. I remember as a missionary, a missionary who had studied most of the FARMS material available at the time, discussing Book of Mormon evidence with a fellow missionary whose father was a professional archeologist, a man who apparently spent so much time digging in South America and Mexico that he developed skin cancer on his forearms. I was eager to get the inside scoop on what to study next, and this missionary told me that his father, allegedly a TBM, had no interest in Book of Mormon archeology, had not read books on Book of Mormon archeology, and would not discuss the subject with anyone, becoming irritated with members who came to him wanting his opinion.

So yeah, mainstream peer-review is an issue, but let's not kid ourselves here that the equivalent level of work exists in Sorenson or that there is a serious internal research paradigm where faithful Mormon scholars are slowly getting the puzzle put together. At any rate, if you are really interested in responses to Sorenson specifically, Beastie's website should keep you busy.

As part of one of my majors at BYU, I took a history class covering ancient America from prehistoric times until the Spanish Conquest. The first day, the professor said that every semester there were at least a few students who took his class because they wanted to learn about Nephites and Lamanites. He advised such students to drop the class, as his was a rigorous history course and he would not be discussing the Book of Mormon at all. He then said, "Let me make one thing clear. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying."

That was 27 years ago, and what I've seen since then has only confirmed his statement.

[_Kishkumen]

As far as I can tell, this board is just about the only place online where this book is still being discussed, and hardly anybody here is still claiming that The Late War is a source for the Book of Mormon. Instead there's a lot of talk about how The Late War's real value is in contextualizing the Book of Mormon and undermining certain apologetic arguments for "hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon—which is pretty much what Rick Grunder concluded in the late 1990s. Moreover, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, even if a close literary relationship between The Late War and the Book of Mormon could be demonstrated, it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the Book of Mormon's claim to be a divinely inspired text. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find so disturbing. But I suppose it's exciting for the DAMU/ex-Mo crowd to imagine that Mormons are deeply troubled by these, uh, developments, so have at it.

LOL.

Yes, Nevo, I am sure that your petulant and argumentative posts emerge from a serene place in your heart. If you didn't come off as petulant, I would not have commented.

But, yes, it is true that I don't see any reason for this to be a problem. Nevertheless, it is clear that some apologists do find it problematic.

Aren't you glad that we do have this thread? Where else could you get in a snit over this?

[_ludwigm]

... at BYU ... the professor ...
He then said, "Let me make one thing clear. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying."

Was he a TR holder?

[_Runtu]

Was he a TR holder?

Must have been, as you can't work at BYU if you don't have a temple recommend.

[_Bazooka]

So are you therefore conceding that you cannot prove the Book of Mormon false? However implausible it may be from your secular perspective, you admit, it could be true?

Actually, you can prove the Book of Mormon false.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

So, if you follow the guidance of Moroni and read the book with the proper intent but don't get a witness from the Holy Ghost, then the book has been proven false.