Assumptions of evidence

[Hagoth]

I get the impression that most members assume that there is compelling archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. I had a couple of experiences this week that brought this to mind.

First was a discussion with a high councilman from our ward who, when I told him I'm studying archaeology, just assumed that it had something to do with the Book of Mormon. He told me that he has a relative who is working on an archaeological dig somewhere. I asked him what kind of archaeology she's doing and he said "I don't know but I'm pretty sure it's something to do with the Book of Mormon." I pressed him for more information because I know that the church has been burned the few times they actually sponsored expeditions and even BYU won't touch it with a ten foot pole, but he didn't know any details.

Then, just yesterday, I was talking to one of our grad students here at the UofU who had just volunteered at the natural history museum's behind the scenes open house, showing artifacts from the collection. He's not LDS and was perplexed that almost every question he got was about how the artifacts relate to the Book of Mormon. I had to explain to him that it's just assumed by there's a mountain of Book of Mormon evidence out there, considering that there's a local cottage industry built around giving Book of Mormon tours.

I sometimes hear people make offhanded comments about all of the evidence coming out of Central America and I wonder where they're getting that impression. Does it come from remembering old filmstrips like Ancient America Speaks, or from seeing the FARMS books on the shelf at Deseret Industries, or from the simple fact that there are tours to visit supposed Book of Mormon locations? My SP's wife told me that she had stood on the very spot where King Benjamin gave his address. Or is it just easier to assume there must be abundant evidence because they "know" it's true?

[Corsair]

The early LDS church had a full century of assuming that all the evidence was out there just waiting to be found. So by the time that Thomas Murphy embarked on his philosophically ill-fated Book of Mormon expeditions it was ingrained in LDS culture. The "Ancient America Speaks" film only reinforced this to more recent generations. My seminary teacher was confident that the evidence would start piling up in favor of the Book of Mormon and other LDS truth claims. He told us that the truth of the LDS church would end up being so obvious that the only thing we would have to argue about with all the "not true and living churches" would be basic questions of authority.

I opened up about my skepticism of the Book of Mormon to a close friend a year or so ago. She was astonished that anyone could seriously doubt the historicity of the Book of Mormon. She certainly called my testimony into question. In contrast, I made the masochistic decision to listen to the latest FairMormon podcast on the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon, "Braving Nephi’s Isaiah with Joseph M. Spencer". Joseph M. Spencer acknowledged the historicity problems with Deutero-Isaiah, but thought they were overshadowed by the profound teachings in the Book of Mormon. He felt that "some" scholars don't consider this as big of a problem as others might. I wanted to check if any of these scholars were employed by BYU.

This appears to be the current strategy about Book of Mormon historicity. Acknowledge that a problem exists, claim that it not as big of a problem as you might think, then ignore it going forward in favor of how awesome is the doctrine of the Book of Mormon.

[mooseman]

I think it's because of the echo chamber. For generations, all the information has been filtered through Mormon lens and other view points ignored. EVERYTHING was given the slant, the understanding that it was all literal so OF COURSE there is supporting evidence. For a simpler example, look at Bigfoot, ghost, or UFOs. Millions believe in such things, and honestly feel there is evidence. Videotapes, footprints, wrecked aircraft. What exist however, doesn't hold up on independent investigation, and there are literally many more boring, simple answers and explanations. But conformation bias prevents them from honestly examining it, and sees any attempt to do so as a threat.

[Obadiah_Dogberry]

Well there is a 2 hour movie about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8-rVAdPug

This movie was shared with the GD class in January when we started teaching the BofM. The teacher went into great detail about all the evidence. I just sat there getting more and more agitated as smart people ate it all up. Believing members have to believe that there is lots of evidence out there or their cognitive dissonance would destroy them.

What I find interesting now though as a known unbeliever and skeptic is that people are way less likely to bring up unsubstantiated claims about the BofM in front of me. I have never criticized it publicly, but they aren't comfortable making claims in front of me. I think more people are realizing that there isn't good evidence for it and are staying purposefully ignorant.

[ulmite]

Everyone reading this thread now can safely assume Mooseman exists. We got a picture!

This got me thinking about the 3rd Nephi catastrophes = volcanic eruption theory and I did some research:
Mount St Helens darkened the sky for around 1 day and that was a 5 on the VEI scale. (log scale like Richter for earthquakes)
I'm quite sure the only way to get 3 days of darkness is a prolonged eruption, not a larger eruption because time constants in the physics won't depend on the mass of ash ejected. Either way, we need to look for something at least a 5, because 4 is 10 times less powerful and won't cut it. The Smithsonian Institute's database gives 3 major eruptions circa 30 AD :

-Massive eruption of Apoyeque in Nicaragua, dated 50 BC give or take 100 years. Would fit most theories well except for the date, but 30 AD is within the standard error of margin. Assuming datation is 2-sigma result we get a 5.5% chance for historicity here

-Large eruption of Ambrym dated 50 AD give or take 100 years in... Vanuatu. Not gonna do anything noticeable to Central America.

-Massive eruption of Mount Churchill in Alaska dated 60 AD give or take 200 years. Makes sense if Lehi wandered all the way across Asia and then crossed the Bering Sea (no need for a super fancy boat) and then BOM happened in Alaska.

Additional problem I noticed doing this research : Jesus was not 33 years old when he died by any modern scholar's reckoning, so much for 3Ne 8:2.

So there's some more "evidence" that one can squeeze a bit to justify BOM historicity, though it strongly leans towards concrete proof of inaccuracy.

[MalcolmVillager]

Dr Peterson from BYU/FARMS spoke to our ward many years ago and we were so impressed to learn of these great evidences like NHM and chiasmus that testified of the truthfulness. When our LDS guide Laman gave our tour at Tulum we envisioned the Nephites and Lamanites living there with their flocks and hurds. So powerful.

Powerful evidence of confirmation bias!

[Anon70]

We did the same at Tulum

My dad served a mission in NY and swears the farmers there talked about finding Nephite/Lamanite swords and arrowheads when they plowed. I asked where all of this evidence is and if he saw any of it.... Crickets.

[moksha]

I get the impression that most members assume that there is compelling archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Wouldn't it be great if some of those newly discovered bones in the Rift Valley contained Mormon DNA (even better if it was a direct match for Elder Bruce R. McConkie)?

I remember reading the Bill Hamblin-Phillip Jenkins debate on Patheos. I was impressed with Dr. Jenkins willingness to believe in Mormonism if Dr. Hamblin could show him just one piece of Book of Mormon pottery or any other artifact. Alas, Dr. Jenkins remained a non-Mormon.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... pologists/

Woo hoo! Post #100.

[Hagoth]

Well there is a 2 hour movie about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8-rVAdPug

Too bad they have to go all the way to Arabia to find anything that has a remote chance of relating to the Ancient Americans. I only skimmed this movie but I was interested in the extent to which they wrote between the lines of the BoM, like how they stopped frequently to resupply food and water and let the kids run along the beaches, but then nothing about how they resupplied on the big open water crossing of the Pacific Ocean against the Trade Winds, which almost certainly would have been the longest voyage ever undertaken by human beings until the Renaissance (except for maybe the Jaredites, but they had an even worse problem, being sealed up in those tight dishes).

[achilles]

A few years ago I checked out the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C Mann. I highly recommend the book and it's sequel 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Revealed. Anyway, it' filled with cognitive dissonance producing material that I struggled to compartmentalize in order to keep my testimony of Pre-Columbian BoM America. Eventually the weight was too much and I let that shelf fall. I'm glad I did, because pretending that the archaeological evidence exists, or that contradictory evidence doesn't, is just too embarrassing for me now.

Here are descriptions for the books:

In this groundbreaking work of science, history, and archaeology, Charles C. Mann radically alters our understanding of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492.

Contrary to what so many Americans learn in school, the pre-Columbian Indians were not sparsely settled in a pristine wilderness; rather, there were huge numbers of Indians who actively molded and influenced the land around them. The astonishing Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had running water and immaculately clean streets, and was larger than any contemporary European city. Mexican cultures created corn in a specialized breeding process that it has been called man’s first feat of genetic engineering. Indeed, Indians were not living lightly on the land but were landscaping and manipulating their world in ways that we are only now beginning to understand. Challenging and surprising, this a transformative new look at a rich and fascinating world we only thought we knew.

and

A deeply engaging new history of how European settlements in the post-Colombian Americas shaped the world, from the bestselling author of 1491. Presenting the latest research by biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians, Mann shows how the post-Columbian network of ecological and economic exchange fostered the rise of Europe, devastated imperial China, convulsed Africa, and for two centuries made Mexico City—where Asia, Europe, and the new frontier of the Americas dynamically interacted—the center of the world. In this history, Mann uncovers the germ of today's fiercest political disputes, from immigration to trade policy to culture wars. In 1493, Mann has again given readers an eye-opening scientific interpretation of our past, unequaled in its authority and fascination.

[wtfluff]

Or is it just easier to assume there must be abundant evidence because they "know" it's true?

Assumption of evidence is more than enough "evidence" to hold up a "testimony" based on confirmation bias and neurological tingles. Ignorance of real evidence and facts helps a lot too.

BTW, since a few folks have mentioned Tulum: My tour-guide during a visit there in the recent past did exactly the opposite of what most of you experienced and pointed out evidence to show that the folks who inhabited the Yucatan and produced the ruins were in fact descended from Asia. It caused a bit of Cog-Dis in my mormon relatives, and Fluffy sadly did nothing to alleviate the pain, and may have in fact poked the bear a bit.

[Batman]

You can place me in the camp of those assuming there was tons of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
I never really gave it much thought at all and just believed what I was taught about it being historical.

The historicity of the BOM was being discussed on a blog that I read years ago and many people were commenting that they had no problem with the book not being historical. I had a serious moment of cognitive dissonance. I wondered how anyone could still attend church and believe the rest of the restoration story without believing the BOM to be historical. I had not yet connected all the dots. In my opinion, there is no question that it is not historical. Am I willing to change that belief? Yes, but the evidence needs to be solid and abundant. Nahom, chiasmus, and Bountiful in the old world are not going to cut it for me.

A few years ago I took a trip to Mesa Verde in Colorado to see the cliff dwellings and ruins. I was visiting with my Dr. about the trip. He was extremely interested in going and wanted to take his family to see it. He asked if I was LDS and asked me how I thought these people fit into the BOM narrative. Before I answered, I warned him that I was somewhat of an unorthodox member. I told him the people that lived there had nothing to do with the BOM. I went on to say that there was no evidence anywhere for the BOM to have actually taken place. People have looked for it all over, but there is nothing to be found. I told him point blank that I don't believe the book is historical. I hated to burst his bubble, but he asked, and I could not think of something else to say. Maybe I added some weight to his shelf, because he did look very disappointed with my answer. Sorry, but you can't blame me for the lack of evidence!