Historical Book of Mormon under Siege

[_Kishkumen]

I'm liking this guy more and more all the time:

Reading the responses to my recent columns on the Book of Mormon, I have been bemused by the absolute nature of some of the views expressed, both by Mormons and ex-Mormons. The attitude goes like this: “Either every syllable of the Scripture is true, or else the whole religion is a vicious lie. Well, maybe we can allow an errant syllable or two due to mistranslation, but otherwise, it’s a hundred percent true or a hundred percent false.” That is, in other words, the attitude of nineteenth and twentieth century fundamentalism at its crudest and most simplistic. Obviously, I don’t accept it in the context of any faith-tradition. That doesn’t just mean I think it’s a bad idea, it’s a deluded and naïve way to approach history.

And yet some people wonder why I and others have classified the insistence on this false dilemma as "fundamentalism." Heh.

He continues:

A religion – any religion – is vastly more than a single scripture. It is composed of the traditions and history accumulated by believers over the centuries, their experiences and memories, their shared daily realities. It is a matter of culture, and when I say that, do not take it as meaning something trivial or dismissive. Isn’t culture a vehicle for progressive revelation? As I say, I am speaking of any and all religions, Christian and otherwise.

And again,

Religious narrative is simply different in kind from sober mainstream history, and teaches truth in ways that go far beyond painful literalism. If, for example, we were to reject the existence of Abraham as a historical individual, we still find immense value in the stories surrounding him.

That distinction is even more accurate when we deal with religious narratives that scarcely bother to claim historical roots. Even for many who reject the Bible’s religious claims, the Book of Job is an immensely valuable exploration of human dilemmas, not to mention the work’s stunning literary qualities. In that sense, then, it is absolutely true, even if Job himself never existed – as he presumably did not. As a sober historical treatment of tenth century Scotland, Macbeth fails miserably, but it is a miraculous source of truth about human behavior and political ambition. Would any critic be silly enough to reject the play’s value because of its historical deficiencies?

[_Tobin]

I too have said the following a few times, though less eloquently:

Let me begin with a basic principle of using evidence. I have no obligation to disprove the Book of Mormon, or indeed any religious text, because logically, nobody can prove a negative. I do not need to pick through the book and highlight every anachronism or error, sparking trench warfare with apologists who have built up elaborate defenses against every charge and cavil. Rather, it is up to anyone who believes in that Book to justify its authenticity, by producing positive arguments in its favor. If you are basing statements on the evidence of mystical gold plates that are not available for scholarly examination because they were taken up to Heaven, then you are making utterly extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. I am open to the concept of miracle, but the burden of proof clearly rests with the person making the claims.

I don't buy into his idea of the necessity of producing "extraordinary evidence," when evidence will do. Otherwise, he is spot on.

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/mormons-and-new-world-history/.

But "extraordinary evidence" is precisely what is required here because there is no historical evidence of Lehites (or Jaredites) at all. And the key piece of extraordinary evidence, the gold plates, was supposedly removed by no-less than God. For the Book of Mormon to start to be believable as an actual historic record, those gold plates would need to be returned and any return would be an extraordinary event. Otherwise, I believe Mormons have a rather impossible task to prove the Book of Mormon is historical and should acknowledge that the preponderance of the evidence clearly shows it is a work of fiction. There just are no credible historical facts to back up their claims and they look more and more foolish fronting them.

[_Kishkumen]

I am blushing here. Unbeknownst to me, our distinguished Dean Gadianton P. Robbers made his own valuable contribution to the comments on the third post:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/ordinary-faith-and-extraordinary-history/#comment-2040795442

Interestingly, I think the Church leaders understand precisely what Professor Jenkins is talking about. There has not been mention of Book of Mormon evidence from headquarters in decades. In fact, there has scarcely been mention of any doctrine whatsoever. If you want to know what the Church teaches on any subject, the last place you'll find an answer is from Church headquarters. The Church leaders are increasingly, accomplished professionals -- pragmatists -- from all white-collar venues. Many, and perhaps most, are totally unfamiliar with Bible studies, philosophy, theology, and Book of Mormon apologetics or apologetics altogether. They know marketing, real estate (although not as well as they think), investments, law (corporate law!), accounting, banking, and sales. A little digging around the web reveals the general tactics taught to the missionaries for reeling in converts is now an actual trademark registered to Bonneville Communications called "HeartSell". It doesn't matter what your business trades in, these tactics really work for any product.

Now, please accept the following insight in the spirit it's intended as I'm not looking to derail our topic. Some may object and point to the hardline stance the Church has taken on same-sex relationships as evidence that doctrine does matter to church leaders. I don't buy it. I think that once a person has established himself or herself as a successful international business person in a secular context, that it's unlikely small-town values mean so much. I think Church leaders see tremendous opportunity to gain favor with the religious right. Ultimately, the payoff is in an expanding business.

Before my post is deleted for straying too far away from Book of Mormon historiography and what it means to the average member, allow me to show why the diversion is relevant. Imagine a church running entirely from a pragmatic marketing angle for decades, and then all of a sudden, something as odd as Book of Mormon historiography matters to its members. Not to all members, but to some members who really do matter.

We have Rod Meldrum, who recently burst onto the Book of Mormon evidence scene with his Heartland Model , a 'limited geography' that puts the Book of Mormon right in the North America Columbus discovered, as prophesied about, where the constitution was written, and the whole package rides under the banner of the art of Jon Mc Naughton. They have a few things to say about the academic model that puts the Book of Mormon way down in intellectually-fashionable Mesoamerica. This has become a significant movement. The word "FARMS" would mean nothing to my TBM relatives, but at my last family reunion Red Meldrum was brought up in two independent contexts, and I was shocked to learn that one of my relatives has a business roll in his organization.

But strangely, the leading lights of the Mesoamerican model who hailed from the Maxwell Institute at BYU are no secularized intellectuals. They are every bit as conservative and fundamentalist in their Mormon values. They are Romney supporters basking in the opportunity of a trickle-down economy. It's really, a matter of geography.

But we're not done yet. In 2012, the Maxwell Institute was purged of its traditional apologists who were little known to academia and the general membership alike. A new wave of thinkers have taken root at BYU, and they represent the liberal side of the equation. This younger generation of scholars represent the quasi-postmodern perspectives of 'religious studies'. Whereas old-school apologists flirted with postmodernism in order to score rhetorical points against critics, labeling them fundamentalists and positivists steeped in 19th century secular humanism, the new generation is fully invested. They actually publish Derridean readings of the Book of Mormon, which is impressive to me given I was once told by a faithful philosophy professor that such a thing wasn't possible. Heck, the Old Guard that used to make fun of Christians citing Revelations 22:17 against the Book of Mormon are now citing Bible passages as evidence of its own divinity against the New Guard's dismissal of the Bible's infallibility (based on results of source criticism etc.)

Rest assured, the old guard is tough as nails and they aren't taking this laying down -- they have connections everywhere. Meldrum is tough and he's got one massive private organization. The new generation is tough, and they have new inroads to academia which could mean publicity and $$$ for the Church. Their peers look for novelty and equality rather than spade-in-dirt truth, and it's a whole new come-together atmosphere that is quite compelling.

These three groups are making their wakes, Book of Mormon geography and evidence is explicitly and implicitly vital to their projects, and all have some kind of connections to SLC headquarters. So does evidence matter? Well no, but, maybe yes? And how are the Brethren, who are ill equipped to deal with theology let alone history and geography going to settle all of this? Will they let it play out on its own? Will they step in and "stand for something?"

I honestly have no idea. But I have my bag of popcorn open and I'm prepared to call out the play-by-play as it happens.

No wonder Professor Hamblin was foaming at the mouth.

[Guest]

The fourth post begins in this way:

I have been discussing the historical credentials of the Book of Mormon, in order to illustrate the differences between mainstream and fringe scholarship. Briefly, the history that the book supplies of the pre-Columbian Americas is wholly fictitious, and should never be treated as literal historical truth. We are free to discuss its merits as spiritual or symbolic history.

A critic might say that, well, that is your opinion, but many apologists defend the historicity of the Book and would challenge every individual criticism that I might make. Actually, though, there is a larger issue at stake, which involves how scholars work.

In an earlier post, I remarked that “Scholarship is what scholars do, and if they don’t do it, it’s not scholarship.” In modern times, no reputable mainstream scholar, no mainstream archaeologist, has ever published a word supporting pre-Columbian settlement from the Middle East of the kind described in the Book of Mormon. Look at all the high-profile learned journals devoted to New World history or archaeology, such as the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, American Antiquity, Latin American Antiquity, Journal of Anthropological Research, Journal of New World Archaeology, or Contributions in New World Archaeology. None has ever published an article of that kind. Ditto for the many fine journals on historical linguistics. That fact is, or should be, a terminal problem for Book of Mormon apologists.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/what-scholars-do/

[_Kishkumen]

You’ll note that I stress the role of mainstream, reputable publications. I regularly see attempts to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon by citing out of the way articles from very dated and fringe publications, which we can easily dismiss. Self-published books also surface frequently. If those are the best sources that can be marshaled in the cause, things are dire indeed.

If anyone believes in the Book of Mormon as a historical source, I would ask: why do you think we find that total academic silence? Is it because those many academics are part of a conspiracy of silence? Are they incompetent? Are they phobic about using evidence from religious scriptures? Are they afraid of Mormon religious claims? Are they deliberately suppressing evidence that might support the Mormon scheme of things?

I do not mention any of those options as serious possibilities, but rather to show how outrageous is any attempt to explain away that scholarly silence, and how far you have to wander into conspiracy theories. If a New World archaeologist ever found anything as anomalous as that suggested in the Mormon story, such as a confirmed Semitic inscription on American soil, he or she would be partying for days to celebrate a career-making find. That has, though, never once happened.

In fact, it is really remarkably easy to distinguish between real scholarship and pseudo-scholarship.

[_Kishkumen]

Unfortunately, Professor Jenkins has received some abuse from zealots:

Not surprisingly, my posts called forth a sizable number of comments and reactions, many quite intense, and a small number abusive and obscene. Here, though, I would like to react to some of the more substantial arguments, as I think they say a lot about modes of religious thinking and argument generally, rather than anything specific to Mormons. Many of these comments apply just as strongly to debates over (for instance) wacky claims about alternative gospels.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/06/myth-history-and-real-history/

[_Kishkumen]

On DNA:

The LDS church’s official site has a page on The Book of Mormon and DNA Studies, which is filled with countless holes, contradictions, and wiggles. For instance “Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples,” except that, surely, they were from the Middle East and would share the general patterns of that region? I love the second part of the sentence in question, “and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected.” No there aren’t.

I also like this one: “It is possible that each member of the emigrating parties described in the Book of Mormon had DNA typical of the Near East, but it is likewise possible that some of them carried DNA more typical of other regions…. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples.” Getting desperate, here?

The biggest single problem with this page, though, is that it simply ignores the way in which limited populations groups leave their enduring genetic footprint in a wider population. As it says, “What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America.” That’s fair enough, but even so, it would be indelible, and would have been found long since.

I also like this sentence: “a 2013 study states that as much as one-third of Native American DNA originated anciently in Europe or West Asia and was likely introduced into the gene pool before the earliest migration to the Americas. This study paints a more complex picture than is suggested by the prevailing opinion that all Native American DNA is essentially East Asian.” Ooh, that sounds promising, until you check the study in question, which shows that the DNA in question was carried by the earliest settlers over ten thousand years ago, traveling through Siberia across Eastern Asia. The implication that it came direct from Europe or West Asia is not permissible, and it should not have been written thus.

There is a huge amount written on the genetic bases of archaeology, and it is easy to get overwhelmed. If you want to break into this literature, and see how it applies to studying past population movements, you might start with Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith and K. Ann Horsburgh, DNA for Archaeologists (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2012), or with Jean Manco’s highly accessible Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling Of Europe From The First Venturers To The Vikings (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2013). Much more heavy-duty, indeed off-putting, is Terry Brown and Keri Brown, Biomolecular Archaeology (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). Those are of course just a few illustrative samples.

No-one is required to know this literature, or the broad issues it covers, and there won’t be a pop quiz. If you don’t know it, though, and don’t understand why its implications are so ruinous for the apologists, you have zero basis on which to comment on anything relating to the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/06/myth-history-and-real-history/

[_Kishkumen]

On the distinction between real scholarship and pseudo-scholarship:

What we are seeing here, then, is a classic scholarly debate. People point to evidence that apparently does not fit the existing consensus. They then develop a new hypothesis that, in their view, better fits that evidence. All this, moreover, takes place within the approved channels of scholarly debate, in peer-reviewed journals, in papers at major professional conferences, and in books from prestigious presses (which are also subject to peer review).

Both sides work within known and approved methodologies. Both sides then debate the case, pointing to weaknesses and inconsistencies in their opponents’ arguments, and refining their own beliefs. Both sides return to the specific evidence cited to see if it is as solid and impregnable as it originally appeared. As in any scientific endeavor, skeptical testing is the rule of the day. Books are reviewed, articles are subject to rebuttal, scholarly papers provoke arguments. As new evidence emerges, each side tries to incorporate it into their own case. Ultimately, chiefly based on that evidence, either the insurgent view establishes a foothold in mainstream opinion, or it does not.

Equally, look at what did not happen in this instance. An activist did not present his or her innovative views in the form of self-published books, of youtube clips, or rants on a blog. That person did not present a case in terms of claiming to overcome a sinister consensus supposedly pledged to suppress the truth. S/he did not cite controversial evidence dredged up from sources that were doubtful, outdated, discredited or spurious. His or her main argument was not founded on the principle of “This is something I would really like to believe.”

That is what separates real scholarship from its disreputable distant cousins.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/06/academic-heresy-and-atlantic-ice/

[_Kishkumen]

Capping off the series is his delightful treatment of Nahom:

One other critical point seems never to have been addressed, and the omission is amazing, and irresponsible. Apologists argue that it is remarkable that they have found a NHM inscription – in exactly the (inconceivably vast) area suggested by the Book of Mormon. What are the odds!

By the way, the Arabian Peninsular covers well over a million square miles.

Yes indeed, what are the odds? Actually, that last question can and must be answered before any significance can be accorded to this find. When you look at all the possible permutations of NHM – as the name of a person, place, city or tribe – how common was that element in inscriptions and texts in the Middle East in the long span of ancient history? As we have seen, apologists are using rock bottom evidentiary standards to claim significance – hey, it’s the name of a tribe rather than a place, so what?

How unusual or commonplace was NHM as a name element in inscriptions? In modern terms, was it equivalent to “Steve” or to “Benedict Cumberbatch”?

So were there five such NHM inscriptions in the region in this period? A thousand? Ten thousand? And that question is answerable, because we have so many databases of inscriptions and local texts, which are open to scholars. We would need figures that are precise, and not impressionistic. You might conceivably find, in fact, that between 1000 BC and 500 AD, NHM inscriptions occur every five miles in the Arabian peninsular, not to mention being scattered over Iraq and Syria, so that finding one in this particular place is random chance. Or else, the one that has attracted so much attention really is the only one in the whole region. I have no idea. But until someone actually goes out and does some quantitative analysis on this, you can say precisely nothing about how probable or not such a supposed correlation is.

And to make an obvious point once more: the burden of proof on this – and the chore of crunching the numbers – belongs to the people making the claims. Nobody has an obligation to disprove anything.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... m-follies/

[_Kishkumen]

And the coup de grace:

The apologists’ stance on these matters involves some deep ironies. They go to inordinate lengths to stress the improbability or (allegedly) the impossibility of Smith having access to any such maps or other materials. Just to make this clear, then. Issues of plausibility, probability, evidence, good sense and conformity to logic and science are vitally important in analyzing any matters potentially harmful to the Book of Mormon: we need to be hyper-cautious, hyper-critical, and eschew any speculation not grounded in precise documentation. If applied by scholars attacking that book, though, then such criteria are unacceptable, because they ignore the faith on which it is based, and which is higher than mere reason. In fact, such critical methods are probably a clear symptom of anti-Mormon bigotry. Got that?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... m-follies/