Historical Book of Mormon under Siege

[_Maksutov]

Excellent thread, Reverend. Please continue.

On another but related thread, it would be interesting to continue with Jenkins' concept of a "Lost Mormonia". Where are all of these Mormonias, who are their advocates, why and how did they develop as propositions and what do they tell us about the Book of Mormon and its believers? All of the temples, Priesthood keys and prayers won't provide these answers to questions posed by Joseph's "treasure".

[_Kishkumen]

So there you have it, folks--one of the most devastating takedowns of the both the Book of Mormon as a history of an ancient civilization and of the apologetics of classic-FARMS. The delicious irony here is that Professor Hamblin has cited Professor Jenkins' apparent enthusiasm for the Maxwell Institute's new direction as evidence that the enemies of the Church rejoice over the absence of his brand of apologetics on BYU campus. If anything, these posts show that the expulsion of classic FARMS was past due. It was only a matter of time before some non-LDS historian with a good deal of sympathy toward the faith itself would offer a final death blow to any lingering sense that FARMS scholarship on the antiquity of the Book of Mormon was convincing in its attempts to defend the claim of its literal ancient date.

It is absolutely crucial to note that Dr. Jenkins has done this not as an attack on Mormonism but as an attack on pseudo-science and pseudo-scholarship. FARMS-style apologetics just happened to be an ideal example of those things. Jenkins knows fundamentalist literalism when he sees it, and he sees it in spades in the attitude that insists the Book of Mormon be a literal ancient historical account of an actual Nephite civilization or a Satanic deception. The latter attitude is well represented in the statements of FARMS scholars and their supporters. Unfortunately, a few Church leaders blazed the trail.

The ultimate question is this: Is it necessary to follow these lapses just because well-intentioned leaders perpetrated them? Or is it possible to dismiss this fundamentalism as an unfortunate byproduct of a larger fundamentalist movement of the times? I would say that the latter must be the case. And anyone who bears positive will towards the LDS Church and its future better hope that the Church will not hitch itself to the disastrous pseudo-scholarship of classic FARMS. To do so would be a fatal mistake.

[_Kishkumen]

Excellent thread, Reverend. Please continue.

On another but related thread, it would be interesting to continue with Jenkins' concept of a "Lost Mormonia". Where are all of these Mormonias, who are their advocates, why and how did they develop as propositions and what do they tell us about the Book of Mormon and its believers? All of the temples, Priesthood keys and prayers won't provide these answers to questions posed by Joseph's "treasure".

I thought he coined a wonderful term there: Lost Mormonia. Maybe we will find Mehenites in one of these Lost Mormonias?

[_Chap]

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?

In a way, yes, certainly. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face to say "I do not believe that the claims made by religion X about the origin of the world, the eternal destiny of human beings, the intervention of a deity or deities in the world, the benefits of prayer and ritual in bringing about such things as the recovery of the sick (or whatever else the religion teaches) are true. Therefore I shall pay no attention to its scriptures as a possible way of learning about interesting or insightful ways in which other human beings have dealt with the human predicament".

In another way, a point may be being missed here. Perhaps I may explain my views a little crudely by saying that it does indeed seem to me that some religions have fundamentals that, if you do not accept them, make the religion no longer worth bothering with as a religion. By that, I mean something whose promises strengthen you in the worst moments, something you might die for, or something you might cling to on your deathbed as a hope for something more to come. Something you might feel obliged to teach to others even at great cost to yourself.

I don't (see above) mean that you might not still want to bother with it for other reasons.

In the case of mainstream Christianity, the religion I used to believe in, I tend to think that if you do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but was simply taken down from the cross to rot in a common grave with the other criminals, there is not much point in believing in it any more as a religion. Now that is just, as the Dude would say, my opinion, man. That will not stop me reading Christian texts for other reasons, of course. I would however only expect that taste to be shared by those who also share my kind of upbringing; there may be a few explorers from other cultures, but they will have resources of their own to draw on. I actually avoid attending Christian services, because I do not want to give the impression of believing in something I have rejected, and I do not find it uplifting to act out solidarity with people who I differ from on things they consider core values of their world-view.

In the case of Mormonism, it seems to me that the nature of its claims to be the Restored Church of Christ (gold plates and all) cause it to have a much wider and more vulnerable set of fundamentals. if the entire Book of Mormon is just a historical novel decorated with early 19th century New England protestant uplift, and none of it happened, then its prophet was either deluded, a fraud, or (infinitely less probably) a moderately talented parodist who expected too much of his audience's intelligence and did not realize that they took his act quite seriously. And the Book of Mormon clearly is not true in any factual sense. If you want to read the book as literature, or read the sermons of Brigham Young for their delicately nuanced argument, that's just fine, of course. In general, however, I'd expect it to be mainly ex-Mormons who do that. If people still enjoy singing 'Hail to the man', even though they don't believe what the man taught, then well, that is up to them. Different folks, different strokes.

[_sock puppet]

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/.

For me, it would depend on what Jenkins refers to as extraordinary evidence. If as walking to my car to go home after work, someone mentions that there's a car accident blocking an intersection that happens to be on my regular route home, I might require no other evidence to simply take another route home that afternoon. Auto accidents are an occurrence I have myself witnessed, and have reason from experience to believe occur fairly frequently. And, my actions based on it are a relatively slight inconvenience. So with no further adieu, I accept the evidence and re-route my trip home that evening.

On the other hand, if someone even many that I come in contact with daily tell me that a now historical figure that lived in the first half of the 19th Century claims to have been visited by angels, one repeatedly, gave him gold plates, commanded that he translate it, and then return the gold plates after only allowing a handful of others--also whom I've never met, as they too are not merely historical figures--I would require extraordinary evidence for these propositions before I alter the way I live my life daily over the remaining decades of it, in hope of some afterlife reward. After all, I have not had angelic visitations. I know of no one who claims to have. The corporate successors in SLC do not even want to discuss their special witness of resurrected Jesus; "it's too sacred" to testify to in detail. No, before I would base a change of course of how I live for the rest of my life, including forking over 10% of my income and much of my time and attention, I would need extraordinary evidence of these claimed events commensurate with how extraordinary they are.

[_Maksutov]

In the case of Mormonism, it seems to me that the nature of its claims to be the Restored Church of Christ (gold plates and all) cause it to have a much wider and more vulnerable set of fundamentals.

This is an excellent point, one I've seen made by DrW: not only do the Mormon scriptures propose a fanciful civilization in the Americas, they confirm and witness to the global flood, the confounding of tongues and many other Biblical elements that have been refuted with modern scholarship. In their poker game with the evangelicals, they match, raise and call over who has the most miracles. It's a race for the most cognitive dissonance, which is seen as a virtue in the guise of "faith".

The "Burned Over District", for generations, was a Cambrian explosion of Western paranormal culture. Smith emerged and thrived in that environment; when he tried to turn it into a communitarian experiment involving politics, substantial real estate and financial holdings, he ran into the same sort of resistance we saw when the Bhagwan Rajneesh decided to take over a community in Oregon. The fact that so many other frauds emanated from his movement demonstrates the rather unsavory dynamics of cults: they breed other cults. One charismatic person is replaced by another, one text or doctrine by another, but the preservation of the paranormal view of reality--a claim to exception from natural law and logic--continues. And so the failed prophecy of a William Miller did not prevent the rise of Ellen White but in fact facilitated it. The self healing properties of organized irrationality, its potency as a social force, should not be underestimated.

[_Chap]

The self healing properties of organized irrationality, its potency as a social force, should not be underestimated.

Absolutely. I suspect you know this book:


Festinger, Leon; Henry W. Riecken, Stanley Schachter (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 1-59147-727-1.

Reissued 2008 by Pinter & Martin with a foreword by Elliot Aronson, ISBN 978-1-905177-19-6

Nicely summarized at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

This group actually grew stronger and turned to active outreach when its predictions failed in a definitive and public way. Disproof actually gave committed members extra energy!

Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated Keech's group and reported the following sequence of events:

Before December 20. The group shuns publicity. Interviews are given only grudgingly. Access to Keech's house is only provided to those who can convince the group that they are true believers. The group evolves a belief system—provided by the automatic writing from the planet Clarion—to explain the details of the cataclysm, the reason for its occurrence, and the manner in which the group would be saved from the disaster.

December 20. The group expects a visitor from outer space to call upon them at midnight and to escort them to a waiting spacecraft. As instructed, the group goes to great lengths to remove all metallic items from their persons. As midnight approaches, zippers, bra straps, and other objects are discarded. The group waits.

12:05 am, December 21. No visitor. Someone in the group notices that another clock in the room shows 11:55. The group agrees that it is not yet midnight.

12:10 am. The second clock strikes midnight. Still no visitor. The group sits in stunned silence. The cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.

4:00 am. The group has been sitting in stunned silence. A few attempts at finding explanations have failed. Keech begins to cry.

4:45 am. Another message by automatic writing is sent to Keech. It states, in effect, that the God of Earth has decided to spare the planet from destruction. The cataclysm has been called off: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction."

Afternoon, December 21. Newspapers are called; interviews are sought. In a reversal of its previous distaste for publicity, the group begins an urgent campaign to spread its message to as broad an audience as possible.

[_EAllusion]

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/.

He opts for two skeptic cliché's here. I take issue with the first. It's entirely possible to "prove a negative." It's possible to write deductive proofs that have a negative statement as its conclusion and it is possible to prove negative statements in the sense of providing sufficient evidence or argument to compel acceptance by any rational person. "Dodos are extinct" is a negative statement, and it's proven to the extent anything can be emprically proven. What the "cannot prove a negative" notion is grasping towards is the problem of proving universal statements. But proving that no swans are black is as much of a challenge as proving all swans are white when it comes to this phiilsophical problem.

When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince.

The apologists who think they have sound archaeological and linguistic evidence that should convince informed listeners hilariously undersell what they are supposed to be proving. That the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of a heretofore unknown civilization is wild enough, but they also think they have proof of telepathy through careful analysis secular historical evidence. Think about how crazy that sounds for a second. Imagine getting up at a conference and declaring that your linguistic analysis of this pseudo-Biblical tale produced by a 19th century New Yorker demonstrates that telepathy is real.

[_zeezrom]

For me, it would depend on what Jenkins refers to as extraordinary evidence. If as walking to my car to go home after work, someone mentions that there's a car accident blocking an intersection that happens to be on my regular route home, I might require no other evidence to simply take another route home that afternoon. Auto accidents are an occurrence I have myself witnessed, and have reason from experience to believe occur fairly frequently. And, my actions based on it are a relatively slight inconvenience. So with no further adieu, I accept the evidence and re-route my trip home that evening.

On the other hand, if someone even many that I come in contact with daily tell me that a now historical figure that lived in the first half of the 19th Century claims to have been visited by angels, one repeatedly, gave him gold plates, commanded that he translate it, and then return the gold plates after only allowing a handful of others--also whom I've never met, as they too are not merely historical figures--I would require extraordinary evidence for these propositions before I alter the way I live my life daily over the remaining decades of it, in hope of some afterlife reward. After all, I have not had angelic visitations. I know of no one who claims to have. The corporate successors in SLC do not even want to discuss their special witness of resurrected Jesus; "it's too sacred" to testify to in detail. No, before I would base a change of course of how I live for the rest of my life, including forking over 10% of my income and much of my time and attention, I would need extraordinary evidence of these claimed events commensurate with how extraordinary they are.

I agree except that it requires religion to be evidence based instead of faith based. Such an approach would diminish the need for religion altogether, would it not?

[_Maksutov]

For me, it would depend on what Jenkins refers to as extraordinary evidence. If as walking to my car to go home after work, someone mentions that there's a car accident blocking an intersection that happens to be on my regular route home, I might require no other evidence to simply take another route home that afternoon. Auto accidents are an occurrence I have myself witnessed, and have reason from experience to believe occur fairly frequently. And, my actions based on it are a relatively slight inconvenience. So with no further adieu, I accept the evidence and re-route my trip home that evening.

On the other hand, if someone even many that I come in contact with daily tell me that a now historical figure that lived in the first half of the 19th Century claims to have been visited by angels, one repeatedly, gave him gold plates, commanded that he translate it, and then return the gold plates after only allowing a handful of others--also whom I've never met, as they too are not merely historical figures--I would require extraordinary evidence for these propositions before I alter the way I live my life daily over the remaining decades of it, in hope of some afterlife reward. After all, I have not had angelic visitations. I know of no one who claims to have. The corporate successors in Salt Lake City do not even want to discuss their special witness of resurrected Jesus; "it's too sacred" to testify to in detail. No, before I would base a change of course of how I live for the rest of my life, including forking over 10% of my income and much of my time and attention, I would need extraordinary evidence of these claimed events commensurate with how extraordinary they are.

I agree except that it requires religion to be evidence based instead of faith based. Such an approach would diminish the need for religion altogether, would it not?

Knowledge vs gnosis.