Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

Until I see archaeological evidence that clearly supports the Book of Mormon, I see no reason to buy arguments for its antiquity. Read these authors, by all means. As scholars well familiar with the text they will have worthwhile things to say about it, but the whole notion that the book relates actual ancient events (aside from references to Biblical events) is a non-starter.

[_Runtu]

Until I see archaeological evidence that clearly supports the Book of Mormon, I see no reason to buy arguments for its antiquity. Read these authors, by all means. As scholars well familiar with the text they will have worthwhile things to say about it, but the whole notion that the book relates actual ancient events (aside from references to Biblical events) is a non-starter.

If you are like me, you started out predisposed to accept positive evidence, however tenuous. That even those of us so motivated now see nothing but a lack of archaeological evidence says something.

[_Kishkumen]

The story of the book's provenance can't be ignored, and that story militates against any claim that the book is ancient. The story is so obviously one of imposture that the beginning assumption should be one of skepticism. Only the solidest archaeological evidence for ancient Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites could possibly redeem the story from the Smith's obvious fiction.

[_Runtu]

The story of the book's provenance can't be ignored, and that story militates against any claim that the book is ancient. The story is so obviously one of imposture that the beginning assumption should be one of skepticism. Only the solidest archaeological evidence for ancient Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites could possibly redeem the story from the Smith's obvious fiction.

Pretty much this.

[_Gadianton]

No, I don't maintain that one must delve extensively into the literature supporting various fringe theories before one can rightly dismiss them. So why have I apparently resorted to the "Courtier's Reply" with respect to the Book of Mormon?

I'd be a bit softer here than EA. While I don't think it's necessary for people to reject a wide range of religious and pseudoscientific ideas after intense research, if nothing else, out of consideration for a finite number of hours in the day, I do believe that if one takes up the cause to rebut such ideas, then one should become as familiar as possible with them, failure to do so, gives the apologist ammunition. Now, EA himself has never given much ammo to anyone, in practice. I think we have to admit though that if PZ Meyers got sloppy, he'd do a great disservice to the cause, even if he's technically justified by "Courtier's reply" to not take ID seriously.

I've taken a hardline position many times demanding the evidence for the Book of Mormon to be ignored, but my reasoning isn't per the "Courtier's Reply". First, over the years, the apologists have taunted critics for not having the credentials to question apologists who do. In other words, even if a critic is willing to read every book on Mesoamerica, the apologists boast that the critic doesn't have a Phd in the field and is not qualified, as is the apologist. Therefore, rather than waste all the effort, if the apologists insist that the battle is among properly trained academics, then fine, as an unqualified layman, I can't agree or disagree with Sorenson, but I can insist that there is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon until the academic world is convinced that there is, or that it's plausible. I'm merely insisting the apologists stick with the implications of their own criteria.

Second, over the years, the apologists have invoked Kuhn more than any other philosopher, heck, he may be the only philosopher ever mentioned. They want a situation where a paradigm shift can happen, such that an unpopular idea like a historical Book of Mormon can overturn the wisdom of the establishment. Fine, but before a paradigm shift can happen, there must arise a competing paradigm. Kuhn says that a science operates by a single paradigm, and that scientists should NOT try to overthrow the establishment, they should submit to the paradigm. At some point, evidence may not fit cohesively within the paradigm and some may interpret it one way and others another way, until strain results in a single field with two competing paradigms, and the new one either succumbs or the reigning paradigm shifts. Since there is no stress within the archeological world created by the Book of Mormon, the LGT can't even rightfully be called a "paradigm" the way Kuhn intended. Kuhn is highly debatable, but he's the guy they use to beat up critics, so as far as I'm concerned they're stuck with the Kuhnian implication that their work should be ignored.

I thoroughly agree with EA's point that even though he and many here have not read all these books, we're pretty familiar with the arguments from the boards, blogs, shorter papers, and under the assumption that say, Brant, brought his A-game to the boards, those of us who took part in the discussions should have an idea of how much depth is really necessary to better understand and address the theory. A person has to decide whether the next six books is going to worth the investment. And well, as Beastie proved, perhaps it's better for them that we stay ignorant.

[_Kishkumen]

The truth of the matter is that rebutting obviously bogus claims is pointless in the first place. All one has to do is point out why the claim is obviously bogus and move along. If one is incapable of seeing exactly why the story of the Book of Mormon's discovery is a tall tale, then no amount of refutation of the literature supporting the imposture will help.

[_Kishkumen]

One claim from Smith damns the whole edifice:

The angel took back the plates.

QED.

[_Runtu]

The truth of the matter is that rebutting obviously bogus claims is pointless in the first place. All one has to do is point out why the claim is obviously bogus and move along. If one is incapable of seeing exactly why the story of the Book of Mormon's discovery is a tall tale, then no amount of refutation of the literature supporting the imposture will help.

In the last few days I have thought pretty much the same thing. Despite what apologists say, the evidence is overwhelming and no one bothers to engage the apologists unless they have an emotional or spiritual investment one way or the other.

Maybe I'm just getting older, but I just don't see the point anymore. It's sort of like a soap opera: I could walk away for 3 years, 5 years, maybe, and the same people would be talking about the same things. I don't want to go to my grave and say that I spent years of my life discussing trivialities about an obscure nineteenth-century hoax.

[_Nevo]

The story of the book's provenance can't be ignored, and that story militates against any claim that the book is ancient. The story is so obviously one of imposture that the beginning assumption should be one of skepticism.

I agree that Joseph Smith's claims should be approached with skepticism, but I don't see the story of the book's provenance as clear evidence of imposture. On the contrary, the book's provenance is something I can't easily account for.

Although the Book of Mormon contains elements consistent with an 1820s New York origin, I have great difficulty picturing Joseph Smith as the author. I find it even less conceivable that Solomon Spalding or Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery or a cabal of Dartmouth graduates wrote it. It is so unlike everything around it (yes, even The Late War) that I find its very existence mystifying.

Even the historian Walter McDougall has noted that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's production of "a manuscript of 275,000 words in just seventy-five days . . . does not seem humanly possible, especially considering that Smith was barely literate and no expert in ancient Hebraic culture." He adds in a footnote: "Yes, the Book of Mormon is repetitive, but deserving of attention from scoffers, seekers, and the merely curious. That Smith had a poetic (i.e., Romantic) soul cannot be doubted. If the book did emerge unaided from the head of this young, untutored man, he must have soaked up influences both ancient and modern like a sponge" (Walter A. McDougall, Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era, 1829–1877 [New York: HarperCollins, 2008], 181, 644n15).

Whether Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon himself or translated an actual ancient text, its coming forth seems to me charged with the miraculous and numinous.

[_Themis]

Wow, I sound more hardened on this than I feel, but ultimately, if a plausible case can be must be made, it must be based on sound methodology and absolute integrity. That's what I find lacking in current Book of Mormon apologetics.

It will always be lacking for the same reason it will be lacking from YEC apologia, or Big Foot. I find it interesting is almost every apologist is terrified to deal with the Book of Abraham. We can test Joseph in more then just the Book of Mormon claims. The Book of Abraham is such an open and closed case no one really wants to defend anymore. When you have the source text for the claimed translation it's over.