While part of the debate about historicity might be about beliefs (and speaking as someone from the sciences I don’t think that a bad thing to worry about) I think it also heavily shapes the way we read the text.

“So, no, most do not care about trying to find out what actually happened in ancient North America. But they will stand their ground against any idea that supposedly falsifies Joseph Smith’s claims about history.”

Steve, this is exactly my point. Ninety-eight percent of the LDS community does not care about the history of North America. What we really care about is whether our beliefs are being validated or “attacked.” I hope no one reads this as a criticism of the LDS people. Everyone has deep psychological commitments to beliefs, on all sorts of different topics.

The debate about historicity is not a debate about evidence. From my point of view, the debate is in our minds. It’s about what we do with evidence that tends to disprove a treasured belief, and how that evidence is presented to the “true believer.”

Johnathan seems to have it right above when he suggests that the only way forward is with kindness, gentleness, and charity. And, probably a good dose of humility. And, maybe a decent sense of humor.

(This is my last comment on this thread, though I’ll continue reading other’s thoughts.)

True. There is a general disinterest in history, except when it seemingly challenges the traditional Mormon narrative about history. I wouldn’t be surprised to find someone feeling that their beliefs are slightly threatened by the presence of a book on Native American migration lying on a table in a church house lobby. I could imagine them saying things in reaction to that book such as, “oh, we’ll find out everything in the hereafter,” “science and history textbooks are constantly changing,” and “that’s just some historian’s theory.” A believer who was more well-read on the topic of Native American origins might say something to the effect of, “yes, many Native Americans probably did cross the land bridge, but others came by boat” and “this talks about the origins of only some Native Americans.”

So, no, most do not care about trying to find out what actually happened in ancient North America. But they will stand their ground against any idea that supposedly falsifies Joseph Smith’s claims about history.

“Rational criticism can be fruitful when the participants agree to be persuaded,” and when the participants are emotionally capable of being persuaded.

I suppose my modest contribution to this thread is that religious truth claims are not premised on logic, and cannot be unmade by logic. As soon as BoM historicity depends on supernatural events (angels, 1000-year records etched on gold, translation with stones, etc.) just as soon as we make that leap, logic can never undo the myth because the true believer will be able to imagine a set of facts to fit the conclusion. “I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.” That’s exactly true.

You’re right that people can use reason within that framework–people can make assumptions and draw conclusions within the myth–but reason cannot ultimately unravel the myth.

It’s my opinion (completely subject to change at my own whim) that the reason that some of us are able to be “true believers” is based on the structure of our minds. Some of us are psychologically capable of maintaining a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. These true believers seem to live happy, meaningful lives. Their beliefs give them strength and success. So why on earth would I want to interfere with that by trying to persuade someone that really there were no horses in North America? Hell, for years I’ve made a genuine effort to join the true believers.

“If we found someone committed to this story’s veracity, a village elder, would it make sense to try and persuade him using logic that his story wasn’t accurate?”

Yes, if he or she agreed to some framework for rationally criticizing that belief. If, for example, I found nine other village elders of the same culture and tradition, who told the same, mutually exclusive, alternative version of the story, he might be convinced he was in error.

Likewise, we have Latter-day Saints with pre-rational commitments to both science and the Gospel. How, then, do we reconcile, say, horses in the Book of Mormon? Several solutions have been proposed that exclude neither commitment. Rational criticism can be fruitful when the participants agree to be persuaded.

Some Latter-day Saints have pre-rational commitments to secular social and political ideologies, such as liberalism, racism, or capitalism. Criticism of the Church ‘s position on LGBT rights, by its members, is predicated on a commitment to a secular ideology (or several of them). Either these critics-members lack a commitment to the Gospel, and have a merely cultural affiliation to it, or they privilege their commitment to a secular ideology above their commitment to the Gospel. Truly, no man can serve two masters.

I object to the article’s assertion that criticism of an ahistorical approach to religion “drives” people out of the Church. Nonetheless, the author criticizes not only several ideas, but singles out Latter-day Saints for abuse. By his own standard, isn’t he driving *them* out of the Church?

What if I use the word “detachment”? There is a detachment between the emotional/psychological/spiritual strength people find in the BOM and BOM historical claims. As I said above, it is not my intention to say this in any derogatory sense.

What I’m trying to say is that there is a general disinterest in history. For example, if I left a copy of a book about Native American migration on a table in the church house lobby, I would be surprised to find someone thumbing through it.

Let me try one more thought … We’re more interested in validation, affirmation than we are in genuinely trying to piece together whether something happened.

Josh, why do you think that? For nearly all people I encounter it’s a huge issue and not an issue they are ambivalent about in the least. Certainly most investigators I baptized the issue was whether there were really Nephites and not whether it’s some inspired fiction.

I think claiming Mormons are ambivalent or apathetic is itself a strong claim requiring strong evidence.

“Religious claims are neither proved nor disproved”

The rationalists who have gone throughout India exposing the magic tricks that gurus, sadhus, and yogis (such as Sri Sathya Sai Baba) are pulling on people to make them believe that they have magical powers are undermining the ability of many Indian holy men to attract and keep followers. Many are being shouted out of town. Science has had the effect of watering down many religion’s bold claims to supernatural power. Religious people are being led to doubt their traditional beliefs because of rational arguments all the time.

Ahistorical approach to religion.

I think 95%+ of the LDS community is completely ambivalent about the BoM’s historical claims. I fault no one and I don’t blame anyone, but there is widespread ambivalence about whether Nephites and Lamanites genuinely roamed North America 2500 years ago. When I go to church, I hear people say, “I know the Book of Mormon is true,” or “I know the Book of Mormon contains the word of God,” or “I know Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.” Whatever this means, it’s my impression it is not a claim about history. This may just be my experience, but the folks I know and love in my congregation don’t give a rat’s rump about the history of North America. Again, I’m not fault finding. I think BoM history claims is an intellectual debate, but the lion’s share of the faith is ambivalent.

Reason and religious claims.

The Potawatomi (a native American tribe) have a story about the origin of different colored peoples. According to them, the Earthmaker took clay and baked it in an oven. He didn’t leave the clay in long enough, it was half-baked, and became white people. Earthmaker tried again. This time Earthmaker fell asleep and the clay burned. These became black people. Earthmaker learned his lesson and cooked a third batch for just the right amount of time. These became the red people and they spread out as different tribes in North America.

If we found someone committed to this story’s veracity, a village elder, would it make sense to try and persuade him using logic that his story wasn’t accurate? I imagine the elder could look us directly in the eye and say, “I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Earthmaker.” And he would be right, no?

Religious claims are neither proved nor disproved. One can only believe or disbelieve.

(Disclaimer: This is only my opinion, and my opinion is only worth .02.)

But I agree with the points you make otherwise. A good analogy would be whether arguments and examples apologists have made for the Book of Mormon are evidence of a sort that changes the probabilities for critics in how they see the likelihood of there being real Nephites. My sense is that it hasn’t. Yet more formally, clearly the evidence however weak is better than before. However it’s so weak in terms of what is perceived to be needed that critics see no difference.

Does that make sense? I really wasn’t trying to make a stronger argument than that and I fully acknowledge the points you make regarding possibilities and likelihoods. They make a difference to me which is why I find such arguments important.

“No. Rational argument rarely persuades a person when it comes to that person’s religious truth claims.”

I agree: and this is true for all kinds of claims. Where reason tends to persuade is where the parties involved agree to be persuaded by reason.

The point of the article is (it seems to me) to forbid (rational) criticism of the ahistorical approach to religion. According to the article, such criticism “rejects” some faithful saints, and constitutes a “wedge issue” which (by design?) is “driving” people from the Church. I think this is nonsense, and you seem to agree, though for reasons different than the ones I stated.

If people are rarely persuaded by reason, then any amount of rational criticism of their religious ideas should come to naught. I’m curious: do you agree with my assessment of the article? If so, do you agree with the author? Should criticism of an ahistorical approach to religion be forbidden?

“This super-lawyer applies logic to every area of his life, and yet, he completely abandons reason when it comes to his faith’s historical claims.”

I have to disagree here.

Disciplines like Law and Science rely on pre-rational commitments to rules, paradigms, or both, and practitioners of those (and similar) disciplines agree with one another to be persuaded, or at least behave as if persuaded, by reason.

I’d be nonplussed by my attorney said to my trial judge, “what’s so great about Anglo-Saxon law anyway? I demand my client be tried by ancient Sumerian law.” The practice of law includes a framework of rules, and reason is used within that framework to determine guilt, innocence, etc. The same for science. A scientist who rejects the pre-rational commitment to reproducible experiments won’t publish much.

A pre-rational commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can easily include reason within that framework. If you’re talking about Dallin H. Oaks, he has rationally evaluated (and made statements to that effect) regarding a limited geography for the Book of Mormon, rather than a hemispheric model. I see no evidence that any of the Apostles have abandoned reason, completely or otherwise, with LDS religious-historical claims.

Finally, many Latter-day Saints agree to be persuaded by reason. I have learned a lot by rational criticisms of my own ideas. That’s why I post these comment: so they can be criticized. Then I can revise my beliefs, ideas, and practices to better conform to reason.

By modern mainstream scholarly standards, it is more reasonable to believe that Moses actually existed than Nephi. This is because the people who transcribed the story of Moses were culturally and ethnically similar to the characters of the story. It is a common pattern in ancient societies to give oral histories of their pasts that contain stories of heroes who kept them together as a people and defeated enemies. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that the transcribers of the Torah were basing their accounts on oral histories (which may not have any truth to them, but it is nonetheless possible). Joseph Smith was culturally and ethnically very far from the characters of Nephi and Mormon described in the Book of Mormon.

“There’s no evidence the Egyptians spoken of in Exodus are the Egyptians historians talk about”

The Torah talks of the Pharaoh, and the Egyptians’ tradition of referring to their rulers by the title of Pharaoh during the 1500s BCE is well established by outside sources. This, in and of itself, is enough evidence to maintain that the Hebrews (at least the transcribers) interacted with the very Egyptians that historians talk about, at least enough to know the term Pharaoh.

“By oral traditions I mean…”

OK, I see what you mean, but this seems irrelevant to what we were talking about. It isn’t like Joseph Smith went and consulted Native Americans and they told him of their oral traditions about Mormon and Moroni and that the Book of Mormon was based off of these natives’ oral traditions, or at least corresponded with them. On the other hand, the Torah in all likelihood has its origins in ancient Hebrew oral tradition which was eventually written down. By mainstream scholarly standards, which discount the spirit as a valid source of knowledge, the origins of the BOM are most likely from Joseph Smith’s head, or burnt-out district sermons and texts available to him in that area which were filtered through and formatted in JS’s head. There is no evidence of or really any reason to believe (again, following mainstream standards) because of external evidence or trends in human behavior that the BOM had its origins in the written and oral traditions of ancient Hebrews.

“However my point is that the situations are the same”

You’re ignoring the cultural and ethnic proximity issue between alleged original narrators and transcibers.