The "Grolier Codex" worth revisiting?

[tagriffy]

There are established Mormon arguments for the lack of evidence for Nephites: they were a small society and all their stuff rotted away in the jungle. There are established arguments for the miraculous "coming forth": you either believe in the power of God, or you don't, and if you do, then Smith's tale becomes plausible. Critical arguments based only on the content of the Book of Mormon itself are probably harder for Mormons to evade, however, because they can't evade what the text says. So if the case of the Grolier Codex can draw even a faint question mark over critical qualms about whether an ancient text sounds authentic, this might mean a lot to worried Mormons, even if it seems moot to non-Mormons.

That is the rub, isn't it? I have actually found myself starting to have growing sympathy for historicity proponents. It started when I learned of the Jenkins/Hamblin debate. How do you "prove" a work is genuinely ancient when all you have is a purported translation and no solid evidence whatsoever? You have to find it in the text--a text that has to be acknowledged as problematic. That is not an enviable task.

[Marcus]

...There are established Mormon arguments for the lack of evidence for Nephites: they were a small society and all their stuff rotted away in the jungle....

To be more accurate, these are fairly recently established arguments. Prior to the DNA evidence being established, Mormons cited Book of Mormon scripture that stated god gave the Nephites the land as a reward, that no one else was there, and that they filled the land with Nephites and Lamanites, who were the ancestors of Native Americans.

[Marcus]

There are established Mormon arguments for the lack of evidence for Nephites: they were a small society and all their stuff rotted away in the jungle. There are established arguments for the miraculous "coming forth": you either believe in the power of God, or you don't, and if you do, then Smith's tale becomes plausible. Critical arguments based only on the content of the Book of Mormon itself are probably harder for Mormons to evade, however, because they can't evade what the text says. So if the case of the Grolier Codex can draw even a faint question mark over critical qualms about whether an ancient text sounds authentic, this might mean a lot to worried Mormons, even if it seems moot to non-Mormons.

That is the rub, isn't it? I have actually found myself starting to have growing sympathy for historicity proponents. It started when I learned of the Jenkins/Hamblin debate. How do you "prove" a work is genuinely ancient when all you have is a purported translation and no solid evidence whatsoever? You have to find it in the text--a text that has to be acknowledged as problematic. That is not an enviable task.

I find myself curious why you have "growing sympathy for historicity proponents." Do you mean in the sense that one might have sympathy for those with the insurmountable task of supporting their flat-earth beliefs? If so, I can understand a sympathy for the strain on their mental well-being, but I wanted to confirm.

...How do you "prove" a work is genuinely ancient when all you have is a purported translation and no solid evidence whatsoever? You have to find it in the text...

You have to? Why?

[tagriffy]

I find myself curious why you have "growing sympathy for historicity proponents." Do you mean in the sense that one might have sympathy for those with the insurmountable task of supporting their flat-earth beliefs? If so, I can understand a sympathy for the strain on their mental well-being, but I wanted to confirm.

Yeah, that's basically it. Think about this for a moment. Creationists actually have an easier job. There are currently unexplained anomalies in the geological record they can point to. Sure, it's cherry picking, but at least it's something. Historicity proponents don't really even have that. Sure, they can point to pre-Spanish wild barley to make the Book of Mormon's claim the people farmed it seem a little less implausible, but what you really need is that these people really existed. Without that, pretty much anything can be dismissed as coincidence if nothing else. Without a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, they've really got nothing.

...How do you "prove" a work is genuinely ancient when all you have is a purported translation and no solid evidence whatsoever? You have to find it in the text...

You have to? Why?
[/quote]

What else is there? None of Book of Mormon's cities can be put on a map. No object found at any archaeological can be linked to its peoples. No other document or inscription mentions them--not even so much as a pottery shard. The genetic data is overwhelmingly against their existence.

What is left then to even try showing the text is historical? Just the text. So, chiasmus. Hebraisms. How well the text fits (or can be made to fit) either the ANE and/or Mesoamerican pre-conquest culture. Parallels with biblical pseudepigrapha. Anything to try to get you to ignore the elephant that isn't in the room.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tagriffy, are you still LDS?

[tagriffy]

Tagriffy, are you still LDS?

I am still technically a member of the Church, but have not attended for decades. I consider myself a Mormon, but tell people not to confuse me with a Latter-day Saint. I consider myself a believer in the sense that Mormon mythology plays an important part of my worldview. I obviously don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, but still regard it as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Anything beyond that, you'd have to ask more specific questions.

[Marcus]

I find myself curious why you have "growing sympathy for historicity proponents." Do you mean in the sense that one might have sympathy for those with the insurmountable task of supporting their flat-earth beliefs? If so, I can understand a sympathy for the strain on their mental well-being, but I wanted to confirm.

Yeah, that's basically it. Think about this for a moment. Creationists actually have an easier job. There are currently unexplained anomalies in the geological record they can point to. Sure, it's cherry picking, but at least it's something. Historicity proponents don't really even have that. Sure, they can point to pre-Spanish wild barley to make the Book of Mormon's claim the people farmed it seem a little less implausible, but what you really need is that these people really existed. Without that, pretty much anything can be dismissed as coincidence if nothing else. Without a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, they've really got nothing.

...How do you "prove" a work is genuinely ancient when all you have is a purported translation and no solid evidence whatsoever? You have to find it in the text...

You have to? Why?

What else is there? None of Book of Mormon's cities can be put on a map. No object found at any archaeological can be linked to its peoples. No other document or inscription mentions them--not even so much as a pottery shard. The genetic data is overwhelmingly against their existence.

What is left then to even try showing the text is historical? Just the text. So, chiasmus. Hebraisms. How well the text fits (or can be made to fit) either the ANE and/or Mesoamerican pre-conquest culture. Parallels with biblical pseudepigrapha. Anything to try to get you to ignore the elephant that isn't in the room.

Lol. The elephant that ISN'T in the room. Well said.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tagriffy, are you still LDS?

I am still technically a member of the Church, but have not attended for decades. I consider myself a Mormon, but tell people not to confuse me with a Latter-day Saint. I consider myself a believer in the sense that Mormon mythology plays an important part of my worldview. I obviously don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, but still regard it as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Anything beyond that, you'd have to ask more specific questions.

Interesting, thank you.

[Philo Sofee]

...We're not going to be able to study Joseph Smith's golden plates, so nothing like the pigment analysis of the Grolier codex is going to happen for the Book of Mormon. And Mormon apologists are probably not going to want to dwell on the principle that physical artefacts Trump theoretical argument in archaeology, since this only leads to Jenkins's insistence on a Nephite potsherd...

And yet, amazingly enough, a recent and thoroughly
bizarre BYU Education week presentation attempted to get around even that by somehow arguing that a nonexistent artifact has "provenance" the way a painting does.

It's not a positive reflection on BYU that it hosts this kind of nonsense.

The gift that keeps on giving... Mormons trying to make their scripture relevant to and in antiquity.