Prodigious Prime: Doc enlighten us,
What methodology do they need to understand in order to scientifically evaluate the Book of Mormon and its claims?
Doc: Perhaps I could give you an excerpt from Dr. Sorensen's paper
"If an intelligent criticism is to be made of any position, the critic must be well prepared regarding both, or all, sides of it. Rendering a judgement on whether or how the Book of Mormon relates to the result's of scientific study on ancient America is no different. It requires knowledge of both sides of the potential equation. The most erudite archaeologist who has not also mastered the cultural and geographic content of the Book of Mormon cannot sensibly compare it to archaeological findings (exactly as if the book were some other purported American Indian book, say, the Walarn Olum or Popol Vuh).
The Book of Mormon has never been analyzed as a record reporting ancient cultures on anything like the scale and with the intensity that it deserves, The text needs to be examined in full detail for what it saysand does not sayabout customs, the rise of cities, warfare, etc., which it attributes to the peoples it treats. The only analysis even moving in that direction was published in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon,1 but even it only begins the requisite investigation. Meanwhile most Latter-day Saints characterize the cultures of the Nephites and other peoples treated in the volume unsystematically and uncritically, on the basis of informal traditions rather than sound scholarship. Yet what non-Latter-day Saints have claimed the Book of Mormon says about ancient America is equally unreliable. Even the few non-religious scholars, like those on the SI staff, who purport to have looked at the scripture in the light of archaeology sufficiently to make a statement about it have
failed to investigate this complex record more than superficially.
In studies of ancient American culture history no comparison is worth anything unless it refers to the right place and the right time. For instance, if researchers should examine the question of the origin of a particular architectural form mentioned in a central Mexican document, they would only look foolish if they wasted effort surveying buildings in Ecuador. On the same principle, talking about the precise where and when the Book of Mormon speaks of is a requirement if one wishes to be taken seriously in a discussion of that volume in relation to archaeology.
In recent decades LDS scholars have established three important facts about the Book of Mormon text that define how it must be compared with external, scientific information. The first point is that the Book of Mormon itself presents the events in the New World which it reports as taking place in a territory of limited extentnot more than 500 or 600 miles long and considerably less in width. This territory is also characterized as lying on both sides of an isthmus separating the major oceans. This scale is contrary to what many Latter-day Saints and virtually all critics of the Book of Mormon have assumed. For generations they have supposed that the entire western hemisphere was the scene for Book of Mormon events. But careful studies of hundreds of interlocking details in the text about topography, hydrographic features, climate, settlements, and cultural patterns have produced general consensus that the Book of Mormon peoples lived in all or a portion of Mesoamerica, that is, the area occupied anciently by the civilized peoples of southern and central Mexico and northern Central America.
The second point is that the book reports events and cultures confined almost totally to the "Pre-Classic" or "Formative" era, prior to about A.D. 300.
Third, it is a record kept by and about only a segment of Mesoamerican societya particular noble "lineage" according to one frame of reference. It was written to explain and justify events that affected the descendants of a ruler (Nephi) who lived in the sixth century B.C., probably in southern Guatemala. It does not purport to be and manifestly is not the story of a whole "'nation," let alone a full "culture" or "civilization." Neither does it tell us systematically about portions of Mesoamerica or beyond that were not involved with the fate of its particular descent line.
It is also important that the Book of Mormon is only incidentally and incompletely a record of culture. Its primary purpose is religious or ideological; only cryptic information is offered about such matters as technology, political structure, or social structure, even for that segment of the population about whom it speaks. The brevity means that whole centuries and substantial territories are passed over with no more than a handful of words to characterize the events or cultures involved.
On the basis of this characterization of the Book of Mormon and its peoples and lands,
we can see what kind of expert is qualified to comment usefully on how or whether the Book of Mormon account relates to the findings of scientists. Our expert ought to be as highly-informed about the archaeology, art, biological anthropology, linguistics, and history of southern and central Mesoamerica in the Pre-Classic period as possible, with emphasis on relating the results from dirt archaeology to an esoteric sacred text. At the same time, our expert needs to be conversant with the cultural content of the Book of Mormon record, concerning which a significant body of secondary literature has been developed by Latter-day Saint analysts in recent years. Needless to say few, if any, experts are qualified in these terms.
None of the handful of Smithsonian archaeologists is even a Mesoamerican specialist, let alone a Pre-Classic specialist. Nor is there a hint of any of the staff having examined the Book of Mormon in a sophisticated manner that would ensure helpful comparison with scholarly results. One wonders, then, who are the knowledgeable sources prepared to stand behind the SI statement regarding the Book of Mormon.
Prodigious Prime: If you have no alternative methodology to scientifically evaluate the Book of Mormon then surely LDS possesses compelling evidence that either the rest of us have not seen yet or refuse to evaluate.
Doc: Who said that there was ot metholodolgy to scientifically evaluate the Book of Mormon?
Prodigious Prime: By the way, that website seems pretty dishonest. Careful reading of the page you posted clearly shows that The Smithsonian Institute continues to hold to the claim posted above. The only difference now is that they stress that the BoM is a religious document, not a scientific guide or used as a guide for archaeologists (In other words, they're trying not to offend you in view of your beliefs).
Doc: You apparently did not read the website very closely. The website demonstrated that the statement
by the Smithsonian were untenable.
Prodigious Prime:Should I believe The Smithsonian Institute or a Church that has yet to present compelling evidence? Hmmm...
Doc: Have you read John Sorensen's book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon"? That would be a great start.
