SERIOUS flaws in Mike Ash's 'Shaken Faith Syndrome'

[_Mercury]

The main premise of his book is that the LDS corporation is what it claims to be. Starting with such a premise is the first mistake.

Of course one cannot prove that Mormonism is true. Quite to the contrary, it is indefensible.

I wonder if the FLDS could also use this book to further subjugate its prisoners.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks to The Dude for bringing Mike's "explanation" to our attention:

Well, perhaps I could have phrased that sentence a little differently. The point was that-- according to Dr. John Clark's list-- most of those things mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not known to exist in the Americans in 1830. Today, most of those things listed are known to have existed in ancient America. Therefore, the things listed in the Book of Mormon have been verified by archaeology.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that rephrase just as big of a lie as the original paragraph?

But at the end of the day, yeah, I guess everyone who's chimed in on this topic so far is right--Shaken Faith Syndrome isn't about contributing to the corpus of human knowledge. It isn't about leading anyone to the truth. It's all about giving people excuses to remain invested in Mormonism--whether those excuses have even the remotest grounding in reality is of no concern whatsoever.

[_The Dude]

Thanks to The Dude for bringing Mike's "explanation" to our attention:

Well, perhaps I could have phrased that sentence a little differently. The point was that-- according to Dr. John Clark's list-- most of those things mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not known to exist in the Americans in 1830. Today, most of those things listed are known to have existed in ancient America. Therefore, the things listed in the Book of Mormon have been verified by archaeology.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that rephrase just as big of a lie as the original paragraph?

The correct phrase would be "Therefore, a select number of things listed by John Clark have been verified by archaeology." That's not much of a claim.

[_Dr. Shades]

Let me guess: John Clark is a Mormon, right?

[_Fortigurn]

The whole 'translation' issue is what brings the Book of Mormon to a grinding halt before it get started. I've seen Mormon after Mormon founder on these rocks. The LDS Church teaches that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from certain 'golden plates'. However, there is no evidence that the text of the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates

* The reasons for this are:

(1) There is no evidence for the existence of the plates
(2) There is no evidence that the plates contained the information in the Book of Mormon
(3) There is no evidence that whatever was on the plates was translated by Smith
(4) There is evidence contrary to the claim that Smith translated the plates:

(i) Most witnesses describe the plates as completely absent during Smith's writing of the Book of Mormon, or else as not being viewed by him during the writing of the Book of Mormon
(ii) Even witnesses recording Smith's alleged interaction with the plates describe a process which is not translation (Pratt, Whitmer)

* There are alternative sources to the plates which contain a significant amount of the information in the Book of Mormon, constituting either identical or near identical material (local geography, over 200 names and a considerable amount of text from the KJV Bible, plus text from the Spaulding Manuscript the View Of The Hebrews, and possibly others), which has been acknowledged and documented by General Authority BH Roberts:

It is the noted Mormon historian, B. H. Roberts, who first pointed out the amazing correspondence between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In two unpublished manuscripts released by his family after his death, this eminent scholar presented a short list of parallels between the two books.

In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet. An imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American Antiquities of the times, supplimented [sic] by such a work as Ethan Smith's, View of the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is." (Part 1, Chapter 14, p. 250)

* It can be demonstrated that these alternative sources exist, and the information in them was available to Smith, which cannot be said for the plates

The fact is that we have no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates by any means, still less by translation (and much evidence against a translation process). We must therefore look for another source. There are a number of sources (already mentioned), in which a significant amount of the material in the Book of Mormon can be found.

The case that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from these sources is therefore considerably more credible than the case that the material was translated from the plates.

If we are to believe the Mormon source, it must be acknowledged that most of the witnesses to the writing of the Book of Mormon insist that the plates were not present, or weren't even viewed by Smith when they were. Sometimes Mormons will claim that these witnesses were only describing part of the translation process, not the whole. The problem is that a number of the witness accounts sound like they are describing the entire process of 'translation', not merely one incident of many (Cowdrey claims he wrote the entire Book of Mormon 'save a few pages', as it was translated through the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' by Smith, Journal of Reuben Miller 21 October 1848, in Richard Anderson, "'By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7:9 (1977), 80). This would mean that some of the accounts contradict each other.

But even granting that the writing of the Book of Mormon was written over time, in different places, using different scribes, and even granting that the 'translation' method was different each time, we are left with the fact that the vast majority of accounts, covering the vast majority of the 'translation' sessions, record very plainly the fact that the plates were not used in the 'translation' process, and that often they weren't even present.

According to the Mormon sources themselves, there is no evidence that an actual translation process took place. A translation process requires the reading of one language and the transmission of its meaning into a different language. Mormon sources claim Smith had no knowledge of the language on the plates, and therefore couldn't read it. In order for a translation process to have taken place, he would have had to have been able to read the text. If he had been granted a Divinely bestowed knowledge of the language on the plates, and then transmitted the meaning of that text into English using this gift, that would have been translation.

But that is not what Mormon witnesses say. On the contrary, they give us a variety of different accounts:

* Smith, using the seerstone, saw the 'Reformed Egyptian' (which he could not read), and the English underneath it, and dictated the English

* Smith, using the seerstone, saw simply the English (not the 'Reformed Egyptian'), one word at a time, and dictated the English

* Smith, using the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' like spectacles, looked directly at the 'Reformed Egyptian' on the plates, and instead of seeing the 'Reformed Egyptian' actually saw English

None of these, not even the last, is a description of translation, by any definition.

Despite Mormon claims, the 'eye witnesses' didn't actually see a 'translation' process. They wrote down words which Smith spoke. The 'translation' process (if any), was not actually visible.

For example:

* They couldn't see in the hat, so they had no way of verifying if anything was being shown on the seerstone

* They couldn't use the 'Urim' and 'Thummim', so they had no way of verifying if it actually made the 'Reformed Egyptian' characters turn into English when used

* They couldn't read 'Reformed Egyptian', so they had no way of verifying if what was on the plates was being translated into English

* Most of them didn't even see the plates present during the 'translation' process

What they saw was Smith sitting and staring into a hat with a stone in it (most witnesses), or looking at plates with the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' used like spectacles (Cowdrey). In fact FARMS Mormon apologist Stephen Ricks makes the point that the accounts of Harris and Whitmer are not reliable ('However, several things argue against their explanation of the translation process', source).

Most of the witnesses say that what was revealed to Smith was English, which means that no translation took place. This is revelation, not translation. If you are shown a book written in English, and you read it aloud, you are not translating anything. You are reading English.

Even prominent Mormon apologists are uncertain as to exactly what the alleged 'translation' process was, and cannot come to an agreement on it. In fact they cannot even agree that it can be described as 'translation'. The fact that the plates were entirely unnecessary to the process of writing the Book of Mormon shows that the information was not being taken from the plates - it was being supplied by direct revelation.

Very tellingly, the Mormon witness accounts are so damaging to the claim of 'translation' that some apologists even try to dismiss them all as inaccurate. In this FARMS article, apologist Stephen Ricks attempts to address this by basically discounting all the witness accounts which describe such a process. The fact is that there is no evidence that the plates were necessary for the translation, and the eye witness accounts claim that the information came from the seerstone, not the plates.

The problem is that the eye witness accounts demonstrate that the plates were unnecessary to the process of writing the Book of Mormon, leaving them without a purpose. Smith didn't need them, because he was shown English, which he read. God didn't need them, because He didn't need to read what He already knew. The plates then become redundant.

The eyewitnesses simply confirm that they saw Smith looking into a hat, and talking to them. That tells us nothing about the source of Smith's words. If you look into a hat and start talking, claiming you are 'translating' a text which other people can't even see (let alone read), there is no evidence whatever that you are doing what you claim, and certainly no way anyone can say they saw you translating anything. they just saw you sitting with a hat, talking to them.

[_The Dude]

Let me guess: John Clark is a Mormon, right?

Yes he is a Mormon and he has two of his degrees from BYU where he is now a professor as well. The list Mark was referring to was presented at a BYU devotional in 2005 (?)

Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief

If I recall correctly, Beastie had an email exchange with John Clark where he admitted his lecture was generous to the faith, but the venue called for it. You know, a devotional is supposed to lead to greater faith.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

If I recall correctly, Beastie had an email exchange with John Clark where he admitted his lecture was generous to the faith, but the venue called for it. You know, a devotional is supposed to lead to greater faith.

Typical for Mormons. Any half truth, hearsay, assumption, etc is A double o.k. if it leads the listeners to greater faith.

Cult is as cult does.

[_EAllusion]

I was perusing the relevant thread at MA&D, and some items were transcribed from the new book Shaken Faith Syndrome and brought to Mike Ash's (the author's) attention:

"From page 29 - 'This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator himself remains in his translation ... It's likely that Joseph used familiar language and terminology to dictate the intent of what was on the plates.'"

MY COMMENTS: This is a fatal apologetic flaw, and makes me seriously wonder just how rigorous his research and conclusions were, to whit: Anyone even remotely familiar with this issue knows full well that Joseph didn't do any literal "translating;" he merely read aloud the words that were written on the seer stone. Therefore, any words written on the stone were God's words, not Joseph's.

I think this should be rewritten into a less ambitious criticism. There is a great deal of evidence that the translation process was represented as a "tight" process where Smith read the text off of the seer stone. An honest, serious assessment would require going through this evidence and contrasting with the case in favor of a loose translation method that does not rely on starting from the unshakeable premise of the Book of Mormon being ancient.

"It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World Archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon" (page 67). "As things stand at the moment, current New World Archaeology evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon."

MY COMMENTS: As pretty much all of us know, that is an utterly, blatantly false statement. It might be able to fool rank-and-file members who are in no way familiar with the issues, but it can't fool the rest of us who know a little bit about Mormon studies.

Yeah, that is absurdly false. DCP might have provided a helpful suggestion in how to deal with such statements. You might voice your disapproval of flat-earthers, but do you feel the need to refute them point by point? My habits of mind end up with me arguing about the age of the earth with creationists, but that's a matter of personal interest. Plus they are far more influential than those who think the earth is flat or that New World Archaeology tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon.

[_beastie]

If I recall correctly, Beastie had an email exchange with John Clark where he admitted his lecture was generous to the faith, but the venue called for it. You know, a devotional is supposed to lead to greater faith.

Dr. Clark did give me permission to share our correspondence, so here is the portion of the letter I believe dude is recalling:

You have a very good eye and have picked a few spots in the talk
that have caused me to question my own text in its various revisions. A
published version is coming out in a few days in the Journal of Book of
Mormon Studies with some changes, but none to the issues you raise.
Since it is being published as a record of the talk I gave, I have not
fiddled with it much.

Let me start with the last point first, my lack of qualifying
statements. This was simply not the kind of talk where I could qualify
anything, so the statements are clearer and stronger than scientists are
comfortable with. Minimal qualifications for what I said would take
several days of talking. I think I could do it for each point, so I
stand by my list of assertions.

This is open to interpretation, of course, but it really would not have taken several days of talking to qualify his questionable points at all. All it would have taken would be a sentence or two qualifying the statements that he knew his academic peers would take issue with. This is the same type of thing that Brant Gardner has done in the past. They make these statements that they KNOW their academic peers would challenge without warning their audiences that they are making an assertion that is not accepted by the mainstream. That's all they would have to say - they can add that they feel confident that they could successfully defend these assertions, but integrity requires that they warn their audiences that mainstream scholars would NOT accept this particular assertion. Instead, they make a blanket statement that makes it sound like accepted science, and the audience doesn't have enough background knowledge to know better. It is a very misleading approach.

Now, to the question of whether or not clark really could successfully defend these assertions: I don't think he could, and I think that he has tried with his colleagues already. The following is a transcript of part of the Q/A period after his original archeology devotional at BYU:

[Mp3 Time: c. 24 mins.]
[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.

[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

[Mp3 Time: c. 41 mins.]

[John Clark:] Well, for example, you had this flap about DNA recently. ... The DNA question is never going to be a problem. It only works one way, and in our favor. But the only reason that it looked like a flap or a problem is because they say: Well, Mormons believe (first of all they tell us what we believe) Mormons believe that all Indians in North and South America descended from these people who came over that are described in the Book of Mormon. I grew up believing that—but that's false, that's absolutely wrong.

And so once you say there were other people here, you say: OK, where were the Nephites, and how many more people were here. We have all kinds of other DNA signatures to worry about all of a sudden. It may be that we never find any Hebrew DNA (whatever that looks like) in the New World. ... But if we do find some, that's fine; if we don't find some, that's fine too. There's no way that negative evidence on that hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over.

[_Mister Scratch]

Topping for Bro. Ash.