Ruben:
Hello Professor Jenkins:
You write: “Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”
Interesting question, worth investigating.
Addressing a related issue, but not really directly addressing your question, I would like to inquire: Can you assume, for the sake of a thought experiment, that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Namely a book brought forth by the power of God that is a record of a people that actually existed?
If you can assume that much, just for a moment, I would ask, what would you see to be the impact on humanity of the discovery of archaeological evidence that every non-Mormon archaeologist agrees establishes, without question, for example, the historical existence of a city having the name of Zarahemla in Meso-America, that fits descriptions in the Book of Mormon? Would such a discovery serve as a mandate that every single person in the world, not only believe in God, but believe in the Book of Mormon, and in Joseph Smith?
If your answer to that last question is no, why would you answer so?
philipjenkins :
Let me give you an honest answer.
If really credible evidence supporting the claims of Book of Mormon started showing up - in the form of, say, archaeological sites, inscriptions etc - I would have no obligation but to take the LDS very seriously indeed. If you assume a case (again as a thought experiment) where such claims became simply irrefutable, then I would approach that church as a very serious option. I can't speak for the whole world, just for myself.
The thought of joining the LDS church itself does not appall or terrify me, and I observe many people living very well and happily under its auspices, and leading excellent lives.
I have already said that if a member of my family joined the church, I would wish them well.
I might ask for an exemption about coffee…
But here is my problem. After many years of digging and seeking, nobody has ever made what I consider a vaguely plausible case for a single aspect of the Book of Mormon, or the claims of that church. That gives me terminal doubts about its claims.
Ruben:
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your fastidious responses to the many visitors on your blog.
Begging your indulgence again, in the thought experiment I proposed, if the archaeological claims for the existence of say, Zarahemla, were simply irrefutable, how could belief in the Book of Mormon be only "a very serious option"? What is the rationale for there being room for any doubt from anyone, anywhere?
philipjenkins:
In the scenario you offer, there would be no doubt.
Ruben:
Yes, I would agree with your take on that.
Again, thanks for your indulgence.
Continuing along that line of thought experiment (Book of Mormon is what it claims to be) -- Believing what you do about the nature of God, and God's ways and purposes and expectations with respect to the events and human experience on this earth, what would you think (I understand it is speculative) would be the will of God with respect to mankind's discovery of irrefutable archaeological evidence unquestionably establishing the existence of, for example, Zarahemla? Would you say that God would be neutral on that issue? Or, that such a discovery would actually be contrary to his will? Or, rather, that God would want such discoveries to be made? What would be the reason(s) for your choice?
philipjenkins:
My final word here: I believe that Reason and inquiry are divinely inspired, and we are here to discover the Creation.
Ruben:
Okay, thanks for that thought, I think it worthy of consideration. However, I don't see it as an answer to my questions. I assume that you don't contend that it is, and I take it that you are not interested in answering the questions. Correct me if I am wrong on those points.
philipjenkins :
I did answer. My answer means that I think God does not mean there to be insoluble mysteries out there.
Ruben:
While you did answer, I do not see your answer to be a response to the questions I posed. I also do not see a general principle stated that, if applied, could suggest an answer to the questions I posed.
As I understand your statement, to say that God does not mean for there to be insoluble mysteries, is to indicate your position about whether God desires for it to be impossible for mankind to come to knowledge of mysteries.
However, my questions, in the context of the thought experiment I introduced, addressed the complete opposite extreme of the spectrum: whether God would desire or care about a scenario where it would be, in essence, impossible, considering the irrefutable archaeological evidence available, for mankind NOT to come to a knowledge of, in this case, the existence of Zarahemla.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... m-follies/
