Podcast: Download (13.9MB)
Subscribe: RSS
I
n August of 2011, Mormon dissident John Dehlin interviewed mesoamarican scholar and non-Mormon Dr. Michael Coe about “Book of Mormon archaeology” on Dehlin’s podcast called “Mormon Stories.” In response, the Mormon mesoamerican scholar Dr. John Sorenson has drafted an open letter to Micahel Coe. It points out a variety of matters where Dr. Coe’s (and Dehlin’s) characterizations of both the discipline of Mesoamerican archaeology and the Book of Mormon account are either erroneous or greatly oversimplified. After quoting statements from the podcast, the “open letter” draws attention to technical literature that contradicts or modifies faulty claims, lest the errors be repeated. Instead of being a record that can be lightly dismissed, the Book of Mormon deserves to be studied with an open mind as a primary, if unconventional, source from an early Mesoamerican setting.
The full text of the letter can be found at fairlds.org.
The opinions expressed in this letter do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Letter-day Saints, or of FAIR.
The huge problem is not that Dr.Coe comments could be challenged, but that besides that we are still NOT getting enough data that confirms, in any other possible way but blind faith, about the facts depicted at the Book of Mormon
manuelgerardomonasterio:
First of all, you are wrong. There is evidence that allows for the confirmation level of the Book of Mormon to rise above “blind faith.” (See, e.g., preceding podcast episode on chiasmus.) Second, if there were evidence that compelled belief in the Book of Mormon, it would undermine the validity of the test of faith to which we are all subjected in this life. There is enough evidence on both sides of the issue for reasonable people to differ. The question then becomes, what do you want to believe? When we make our choice, based on faith, it reveals the true desire of our hearts.
Steve Densly Jr. is right on both points:
1) There is much in the way of evidence which supports the Book of Mormon. Not only Chiasmus, but many others which range from the confirmation of 2 Nephi 12:16 by the Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah 2:16, the Lehi’s Trail information, particularly Nehom and Bountiful, linguistic studies like that of Brian Stubbs and Charles William Johnson, and other cultural correlations and more.
2)Proof is in the eye of the beholder. What is proof to one person is not to another. There’s the old saying “He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Therefore, in the end, archeology, science, and scholarship, cannot prove or disprove spiritual truths.
God allows the voices in favor of Him and the voices against Him to be about equal in persuasiveness. That’s on purpose. If God came down and showed Himself to everyone or did some other miraculous thing to prove His existence to everyone (or that the Book of Mormon is true) it would ruin the test. People would be compelled to believe. That’s not God’s purpose.
God is testing us and He set things up so that there are compelling voices on both sides. The test is: what do we choose when presented with compelling arguments for and against? What do we want the truth to be? We think we are testing the evidences but the evidences, or the persuasive voices from both sides, are really testing us to see which way our hearts lean.
Many say “prove it to me and then I’ll believe” and they then promptly reject any evidence presented to them no matter how good the evidence is. But Jesus taught that obedience comes first and then the results follow (John 7:16-17).
I am sorry, but both answers to my comment are clearly inconsistent and out of line in relation to my point. Hundreds of places and situations depicted at the Bible have been found on grounds of archeology, history, several different accounts from diverse sources. Nothing of the sort comes even short in relation to the Book of Mormon. Nobody is denying the right of believe in the Book of Mormon despite the lack of sufficient proof besides absolute faith. But I understand your answers, I am completely used to this kind of response from the part of Mormon believers.
manuel: I believe that you’re missing the point. As dhrogers points out, there is very solid evidence for the ancient background of the Book of Mormon. Most of it is its relation to the ancient Near East such as chiasmus, Israelite covenant renewal festivals, legal procedure and various narrative forms that are very exacting and that Joseph Smith could not have known about. There is solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American codex. There is solid evidence that there is a place on the Arabian peninsula, Nahom, that is just where the Book of Mormon explains it should be found that is otherwise unknowable to Joseph Smith. It also has exactly the right semitic meaning as it is used in the context of the Book of Mormon.
However, you are correct that no places or records have been found that indisputably tie to the Book of Mormon in MesoAmerica. The question is what weight to give to this lack of evidence. Sorenson argues that demanding such evidence is misplaced given the nature of the New World where evidence rarely survives in contrast to the dry Near Eastern climate that preserves a great deal. So there is not a “lack of proof,” but it may just be that there is a lack of corresponding knowledge about MesoAmerica. There is sufficient to provide for a rational and well-founded belief that is not mere “blind faith” as you charge. However, the evidence is certainly not indisputable and leaves room for doubt — if one so chooses.
Required reading — before anyone opines on the differences between Biblical and Book of Mormon archaeology — is Bill Hamblin’s essay, “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon” (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 [Spring 1993], 161—97).
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=39
This open letter was great! I would really like to see Dr. John Sorenson go onto Mormon Stories if he is willing. From the episodes of Mormon Stories I have listened to, John Dehlin can be quite antagonistic so I understand if he wouldn’t be interested, but I would love to hear him respond to Dehlin and my guess is that Mormon Stories would be glad to have Dr. Sorenson on as well.
meekmildmagnificent: Thank you for your kind and sober answer.
Manuel