Noah's Ark was round

[Stifle Tower]

Flood, shmud.. can't we just worry bout dat tank?

Jazz ship is sinking...time to flee for the life rafts!

 

[colton]

As always colton, I suspect we're going to go deeper on Mormon topics than everyone else.

Apologies for the delayed response, I've been pretty sick the last two weeks. And yes, prepare for a lengthy response.

Let me reiterate some points.

Actually, let's start from the assumption that you and I are equally smart, equally well-read on the topic, and equally understand science. Fair enough? (Actually, I believe that I have a better grasp of science, have probably read more than you on this, and that I'm smarter. But I'm willing to go with this assumption if you are. )

So, with that assumption, let's consider what we're both saying. You're saying that the Book of Mormon has so few historical "hits" so as to render them meaningless in the face of all of the "misses". I'm saying that there are many valid hits, enough so that the misses don't especially trouble me. And you're saying that's only because I am biased whereas you are not.

But is that accurate? Is my bias really that much greater than your own? Let's consider factors that are creating bias.

Some factors impacting Colton's bias: if I were to conclude the Book of Mormon is pure fiction, and leave the church...
* I would be disappointing family
* I would have to change my world-view
* I would lose a community of similarly-believing people
* I would have to change employment... but I'm discarding this item since the bulk of my investigation into the authenticity of the Book of Mormon occurred before I started working at BYU

On the plus side,
* I would gain 10% income
* I would gain 3 hours on Sunday
* I would gain an additional 3-10 more hours per week (by not having a church calling)
* I would presumably gain a different community of similarly-believing people

Some factors impacting kicky's bias: if you were to conclude the Book of Mormon is true, and join the church...
* You would have to change your world-view
* You would lose a community of similarly-believing people
* You would lose 10% income
* You would lose 3 hours on Sunday
* You would lose an additional 3-10 hours per week

On the plus side,
* You would gain a community of similarly-believing people


I may have left out some things, but I tried to hit the most major ones. Notice how many of these things in our lists are identical. If we focus on the differences...

* If I'm wrong I disappoint family but gain 10% income and 6-13 hours/week.
* If you're wrong you LOSE 10% income and 6-13 hours/week.

Now, which of us truly has the larger built-in bias supporting our personal views? I'm thinking it's you. I actually may well have a built-in bias to DISBELIEVE the Book of Mormon, because that would free up a good chunk of money and time. At any rate, if you really think that you do not have as big of a built-in bias in this as I do, you are deluding yourself. That's where I was coming from with my "look in the mirror" comment earlier in the thread.

Apologetics, by definition, comes with a set perspective that is unchangeable. FAIR can never acknowledge doubts as to the historicity of the Book of Mormon because it starts from the perspective that it's true and accurate. As a result there is virtually nothing that you can ever post from FAIR that will be convincing to anyone but the already converted.

I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems like you just said that you automatically discount anything written by organizations dedicated to defending the LDS church. My experience is that impartial organizations/individuals are very few and far between--almost without exception groups/individuals are on one side of the fence or the other. So by discounting those defending the LDS church, you are creating a humongous selection bias in your own analysis.

I posted both the pre and post 1997 statements in that link.

That said, the Smithsonian statement was used as an exemplar, specifically with problems of using religious texts as archaeological evidence of faith-based beliefs. I'd be curious as to which portions of the old Smithsonian statement related to various historic problems with the book of Mormon you disagree with.

My main issue was the implication that scientific evidence disproves the Book of Mormon. It doesn't. As far as specific errors in their statement, I'm not an expert in this but John Sorenson is. You can read his response to that letter here, outlining a number of issues with and faulty assumptions in the Smithsonian statement: https://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=964&index=1. And apparently his response was convincing to them because (if the FAIR site is to be believed, which I think it is in this case) his debunking of their claims was the main reason they changed their statement. Plus, the people who wrote the statements were neither experts in ancient American archaeology and sociology, nor were they experts on the Book of Mormon. I liked Sorenson's statement towards the end, that "Mormons and non-Mormons alike ought to leave the Smithsonian folks alone and let them get on with the technical work for which they are qualified. The myth deserves smothering that they are closet Mormons, on the one hand, or highly-informed specialists on archaeology relevant to the Book of Mormon, on the other."

I always find the tendency to run from McConkie amusing. There is probably no more regrettable apostle in modern church history for those that seek to be apologetic to the faith. That said, saying this is just McConkie is incorrect. This was a view repeated by Spencer W. Kimball for example. Countering the view that the Native Americans were genetically linked to Lamanites was met with threats of expulsion from the church for Thomas Murphy, an LDS anthropologist, and actual ex-communication for a former LDS microbiologist named Simon Southerton. https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ge-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all

To say that this is one man's view rather than the official position of the church for decades is an incredibly selective reading of the facts, especially given that it was a page included in the primary text of the church.

I didn't mean to imply McConkie was the only one to hold this view. It was certainly the dominant LDS view for most of the 20th century. But it wasn't the only LDS view. And it's natural that the dominant view would shift as scientific advances lead to a greater understanding. You are implying that it's NOT natural that this would occur, but I don't understand that point of view at all. And it's not even YOUR point of view, it's your projection of what the LDS point of view "should be". Their are few things that are less productive in discussions between LDS and nonLDS, than for the nonLDS to tell the LDS what he/she should believe. That violates Colton's Rule #1, see here: https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/personal/lds/speak.htm

Regarding Southerton--you can read his account of his excommunication here: https://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_simonsoutherton.html. Among other things, he makes it clear that he hadn't had anything to do with the church in 7 years, that he had had an extramarital relationship, and that he was actively trying to tear down the church. His Wikipedia article says "the members of the church disciplinary council contended that the excommunication had nothing to do with the [Losing a Lost Tribe] book", but that he himself believe "he was excommunicated for being too vocal regarding the results of the Genomics Project DNA." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton. I haven't read his book, so I don't know if he says that DNA evidence shows that Native Americans did not descend from solely Israelite ancestors (which would be accurate), or if he says that the DNA evidence shows that the Book of Mormon account is impossible (which is not accurate). But it seems to me that it's likely the latter, which would potentially be grounds for excommunication.

Regarding Murphy, his Wikipedia article says that he was teaching that DNA proves the Book of Mormon was fiction. Well obviously untrue (imho), that would certainly be grounds for excommunication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Murphy_(anthropologist)

Bottom line: neither of those individuals--and indeed NO individuals of whom I'm aware--were excommunicated/threatened with excommunication for DNA research, or even for publicizing correct implications of DNA research. They took it a large step past that and started actively working against the church.

Also, the Church still states that that the Lamanaties are "among the ancestors of the Native Americans." This is a one word change away from the "primary ancestors of the Native Americans" language. You and I both know that it's logically impossible to prove a negative, that said the DNA evidence on this issue provides that there is no evidence of Middle Eastern, and specifically Jewish, heritage in Native Americans. Either the Lamanites died out entirely with no intermingling with parallel populations (which the history of humanity tells us is incredibly improbable) or they're simply not an ancestor of Modern Native Americans.

That's an incredibly false dichotomy. You're saying that there's no way the Lamanites could have intermingled with the neighboring populations in such a way that their DNA would be unidentifiable today??? Rather than there being no way for that to happen, my understanding of DNA science tells me that's the expected outcome. Tell me, what does your understanding of DNA science predict will happen if a group of ~20 people were to land in the midst of hundreds of thousands of other individuals? Would the DNA from those 20 people be discoverable thousands of years later? If you really believe the answer is an undisputed Yes, I think I'll take back my assumption number 3 above.

I'm curious what you believe, if anything, is a historical issue of fact that is under dispute that points to the historical accuracy of the BoM.

I'm not quite sure why you say "under dispute" there. Don't you really mean, what historical issues NOT under dispute do I think point to the accuracy of the BoM? If that's correct, I'll make a partial list of things that are not under dispute that to me are "hits" regarding the accuracy of the Book of Mormon.

Of the top of my head, in no particular order:

* extensive use of Hebrew idioms in the text
* extensive use of correct Hebrew names (including ones not found in the Bible), and lack of use of non Hebrew consonants in the Nephite names
* discovery of the burial place NHM (Old World) in precisely the location specified by the Book of Mormon
* discovery of an area that fits the description of Bountiful (Old World) in precisely the location specified by the Book of Mormon
* description of cement being used in the New World
* description of the BoM people's sociology matching the Mesoamerica region
* appropriate usage of brief introductory passages at the start of the books within the BoM (sorry, I forget the technical term for such passages)
* the idea of important ancient books having been written on metal plates

I could go on. And similarly I could make a list of "misses". That's why my view is that there is some evidence for, and some against. But also telling, from my point of view, is the fact that with each passing year there seem to be more hits and fewer misses. For example, I think the case for the historical accuracy is much greater now than when I was born. And I think it was much greater when I was born than when the book was published. To me it seems that the more we know about the ancient Americans, the more historically accurate the Book of Mormon becomes. Now there may be things that arise from time to time such as the DNA evidence that cause us to adjust some of our views, but whenever science can help us understand religion a little more, that's a great thing in my opinion.