My ideas for this post come primarily from Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel and from a discussion of this book on Episode 67 of the Mormon Expression podcast. Diamond's book attempts to answer the question of why some societies become much more advanced than others. He dispels the racist notion that it has anything at all to do with the inherent intelligence of a particular race or ethnicity.
The title of the book refers only to the proximate causes. The ultimate causes came earlier. The proximate causes of European domination of much of the world were their superior military capabilities, and their immunity to communicable diseases. Those abilities were developed because of their agrarian lifestyle which brought them together into cities where they developed industrial complexes. The disease immunity came from their close proximity to farm animals from which the diseases originated, and close proximity to each other which allowed the diseases to spread. The spread of disease encouraged the survival of those with immunities, while hunter-gatherer societies, never being exposed to the diseases, developed no such immunity.
Diamond takes the causal chain back one step further to address the question of why some groups developed agriculture while others remained primarily hunter-gatherer societies. Diamond's argument is complex and nuanced, but the gist of it boils down to having domesticable plants and animals available and having adjacent regions of similar climate for crops to spread to other regions. The east-west orientation Europe and Asia provides this latter requirement much better than the primarily north-south orientation of Africa and the Americas. Diamond argues that not all animals and plants are equally domesticable and that all that are have eventually been domesticated.
The idea that I found most relevant to a critical examination of the Book of Mormon as a genuine historical document has more to do with the proximate causes than the ultimate causes that answer Diamond's central question. What happens when an technological, agricultural society moves into a region dominated by hunter-gatherers? We have the post-Colombian, European conquest of the Americas as an example. First, the indigenous populations were decimated with disease for which they lacked immunity. Disease alone reduced the native populations of many regions by as much as 90 percent. The second effect is that European technology spread among the natives that remained.
The Book of Mormon proposes that a group of people who were relatively technologically advanced, from an agricultural society came to the Americas around 600 BC. They brought their steel swords, farm animals, and crop seeds with them. They presumably also brought their diseases, just like the later Europeans. We know that the continent was already inhabited. There should be some evidence that the technology Lehi's band brought with them spread to the native populations, but there is no evidence of steel production, nor the spread of crops and animals brought from the middle east. There is no evidence either that the population was decimated with disease. This is just one more example of where the Book of Mormon story does not bear out with what is known about ancient America.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Part 12 - Unconvincing Characters
The content of this post is based more on my own thoughts and my experience observing Mormons discussing the Book of Mormon than on any particular external evidence. I contend that many characters in the Book of Mormon are not believable as real people. I further contend that Mormons unwittingly acknowledge this in their discussions and analyses of the Book of Mormon.
The first example I want to discuss is Nephi. Nephi is always represented as doing the right thing. At various points in the journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem across the Arabian peninsula, Nephi uses the word "murmur" to describe the behavior of practically everyone in the party. There are several definitions of "murmur," but the one Nephi (or Joseph Smith) likely meant is "a mumbled or private expression of discontent."
Nephi describes the following people as murmuring in the indicated passages: Laman and Lemuel (1 Nephi 2:12), the sons if Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:20), and even Lehi (1 Nephi 16:20). The word "murmur" is used 20 times in 1 and 2 Nephi, most often describing the behavior of Laman and Lemuel. The only time Nephi uses "murmur" in referring to himself is to point out that he did not murmur, as in 1 Nephi 18:16. In describing his Mother, Nephi does not use the word murmur but says that she complained against Lehi in 1 Nephi 5:2.
Nephi represents himself as above reproach, while all those around him have flaws. This might not be so surprising since Nephi supposedly wrote the book and is probably biased. At least that is how we might interpret his writings if we were actually thinking of him as a real person. But that is not at all how believing Mormons interpret Nephi's writings. They tend to take them completely at face value and accept Nephi at his word. I am certain that they would not be so generous if, for example, they were reading the autobiography of a contemporary author.
Calling Nephi's writings biased is understating the issue. If we were reading similar words from a contemporary author, we might think he had serious problems with objectivity. I don't think we would think of him as a great man, they way Mormons think of Nephi. Great men usually show more humility and self deprecation. They also show more compassion to others and understanding of their weaknesses. Many characters in the Bible, even the greatest prophets and kings, by contrast have some serious character flaws.
The other character I want to discuss is a relatively minor character. The following is most of his contribution, taken from Omni 1:1-2.
The first example I want to discuss is Nephi. Nephi is always represented as doing the right thing. At various points in the journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem across the Arabian peninsula, Nephi uses the word "murmur" to describe the behavior of practically everyone in the party. There are several definitions of "murmur," but the one Nephi (or Joseph Smith) likely meant is "a mumbled or private expression of discontent."
Nephi describes the following people as murmuring in the indicated passages: Laman and Lemuel (1 Nephi 2:12), the sons if Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:20), and even Lehi (1 Nephi 16:20). The word "murmur" is used 20 times in 1 and 2 Nephi, most often describing the behavior of Laman and Lemuel. The only time Nephi uses "murmur" in referring to himself is to point out that he did not murmur, as in 1 Nephi 18:16. In describing his Mother, Nephi does not use the word murmur but says that she complained against Lehi in 1 Nephi 5:2.
Nephi represents himself as above reproach, while all those around him have flaws. This might not be so surprising since Nephi supposedly wrote the book and is probably biased. At least that is how we might interpret his writings if we were actually thinking of him as a real person. But that is not at all how believing Mormons interpret Nephi's writings. They tend to take them completely at face value and accept Nephi at his word. I am certain that they would not be so generous if, for example, they were reading the autobiography of a contemporary author.
Calling Nephi's writings biased is understating the issue. If we were reading similar words from a contemporary author, we might think he had serious problems with objectivity. I don't think we would think of him as a great man, they way Mormons think of Nephi. Great men usually show more humility and self deprecation. They also show more compassion to others and understanding of their weaknesses. Many characters in the Bible, even the greatest prophets and kings, by contrast have some serious character flaws.
The other character I want to discuss is a relatively minor character. The following is most of his contribution, taken from Omni 1:1-2.
Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy—Wherefore, in my days, I would that ye should know that I fought much with the sword to preserve my people, the Nephites, from falling into the hands of their enemies, the Lamanites. But behold, I of myself am a wicked man, and I have not kept the statutes and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done.I once brought up in a church class that I thought this guy was probably not so bad. He was a patriot and a war hero, and on top of that he was very humble. All I got for this comment was blank stares. Once again, most of the class interpreted the words at face value and did not try to analyze the psychology behind the words. If I met people like Nephi and Omni in real life, I think I would like Omni better. Nephi comes across as self-righteous while Omni seems more down to earth and not so full of himself. I do not believe that genuinely great men would write like Nephi, nor do I believe that genuinely wicked men admit to their wickedness the way Omni does. Yet it appears that Joseph Smith intended for the words of these characters to be taken at face value, and most believing Mormons oblige. I do not at all find them believable as real people.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Part 11 - Reformed Egyptian
There are two passages in the Book of Mormon that imply a
Nephite-Egyptian connection. The first one is in 1 Nephi 1:2 where
Nephi explains the record he engraved on gold plates was written in
Egyptian, but based on Jewish knowledge.
While the failure to find Egyptian-like artifacts in the Americas does not by itself disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, such finds would be very welcome to Mormon apologists and believers in Book of Mormon historicity. No connections have yet been found. An internet search turns up only message board discussions and highly spurious articles. Mormon apologetic sites do not display any solid evidence of an American-Egyptian connection either. Any such finds would immediately jump to the top of their evidence lists rather than the NIHM inscription I discussed in part 6 of this series.
My second point turns out to be even more damaging to Book of Mormon historicity claims. When the Book of Mormon was written, it was widely believed that Egyptian hieroglyphs were pictographic, meaning that a single symbol represented an idea worth many words. This assumption makes sense of Moroni's justification for using Egyptian because of limited space on the gold plates.
The discovery of the Rosetta stone by Napoleon's army in 1799 provided the key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. The stone contained the same text in three languages: Greek, Demotic, and hieroglyphics. The deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphics turned out to be much more difficult than expected because there was not a simple correlation. Therefore, the ability to read hieroglyphics was not mastered until the mid 19th century, well after the publication of the Book of Mormon. More information can be found in this article.
It turns out that hieroglyphics are not strictly pictographic but have phonetic elements as well. Furthermore, hieroglyphic writing is often redundant in order to reduce ambiguity. This is a rather technical subject that I do not wish to cover in great detail. More information is available in this article. The main point I am making is that the use of Egyptian rather than Hebrew would not have resulted in any appreciable space savings on the gold plates, making Moroni's explanation meaningless. In other words, statements about Egyptian in the Book of Mormon represent early 19th century misconceptions rather than the knowledge of an ancient writer who actually knew how to write ancient Egyptian.
Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.The other passage is in Mormon 9:32 where Moroni explains that the written Egyptian language had been altered by the Nephites. This is the only passage in the Book of Mormon that uses the term "Reformed Egyptian"
And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.In the very next passage, Moroni explains the justification for writing in Egyptian rather than Hebrew as well as why the Nephite record contained imperfections.
And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.There are two points I want to explore regarding this Nephite-Egyptian connection. The first point is that archeological artifacts connecting ancient America with Egypt would support Book of Mormon historicity claims. The second is that Egyptian writing should be more concise than Hebrew for Moroni's justification for the use of Egyptian on the gold plates to make any sense.
While the failure to find Egyptian-like artifacts in the Americas does not by itself disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, such finds would be very welcome to Mormon apologists and believers in Book of Mormon historicity. No connections have yet been found. An internet search turns up only message board discussions and highly spurious articles. Mormon apologetic sites do not display any solid evidence of an American-Egyptian connection either. Any such finds would immediately jump to the top of their evidence lists rather than the NIHM inscription I discussed in part 6 of this series.
My second point turns out to be even more damaging to Book of Mormon historicity claims. When the Book of Mormon was written, it was widely believed that Egyptian hieroglyphs were pictographic, meaning that a single symbol represented an idea worth many words. This assumption makes sense of Moroni's justification for using Egyptian because of limited space on the gold plates.
The discovery of the Rosetta stone by Napoleon's army in 1799 provided the key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. The stone contained the same text in three languages: Greek, Demotic, and hieroglyphics. The deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphics turned out to be much more difficult than expected because there was not a simple correlation. Therefore, the ability to read hieroglyphics was not mastered until the mid 19th century, well after the publication of the Book of Mormon. More information can be found in this article.
It turns out that hieroglyphics are not strictly pictographic but have phonetic elements as well. Furthermore, hieroglyphic writing is often redundant in order to reduce ambiguity. This is a rather technical subject that I do not wish to cover in great detail. More information is available in this article. The main point I am making is that the use of Egyptian rather than Hebrew would not have resulted in any appreciable space savings on the gold plates, making Moroni's explanation meaningless. In other words, statements about Egyptian in the Book of Mormon represent early 19th century misconceptions rather than the knowledge of an ancient writer who actually knew how to write ancient Egyptian.
Part 10 - Plants and Animals
The Book of Mormon mentions a number of plants and animals not known
to exist in the Americas during the period it covers (600 BC to 421 AD
for the Nephites and Lamanites and 2200 BC to 600 BC for the
Jaredites). The following lists are taken from the appendix of the
book, Quest for the Gold Plates,
by Stan Larson, and originally appeared a paper written by Thomas
Stuart Ferguson, a lawyer and amateur American archeology enthusiast who
actively promoted and participated in research in the 50s and 60s.
Plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon:
The plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are all domesticated food crops. Domestic crops that are know to be native to the Americas during Book of Mormon times include corn, squash, beans, chilies, avocados, tomatoes, and chocolate. Of these, only corn is mentioned in the Book of Mormon with three references. However, it is not clear whether these cursory references to corn indicate maize native to the Americas, or simply generic references to grain as found in biblical passages.
A list of animals native to the Americas is too extensive to cover here, as can be seen on this website. However, as with plants, it is useful to consider domesticated animals since these should have been familiar to the Nephites or Lamanites and it is reasonable to expect some of them to be mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Native Americans domesticated very few animals, mostly because animals suitable for domestication either did not exist or went extinct shortly after the first arrival of humans. Jared Diamond addresses this in his book, Guns, Germs and Steel. According to Diamond, animals domesticated in America include turkeys, llamas, dogs, Muscovy ducks, and guinea pigs. Of these, only dogs are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. There are six references to dogs, all of which are either biblical quotes or refer to wild dogs metaphorically for teaching purposes.
I have looked at the issue of plants and animals in two directions: plants and animals mentioned in the text that are not native to the Americas, and plants and animals know to be native to the Americas that are not mentioned in the text. In both directions there is a disconnect that, in my view, discredits the Book of Mormon as a genuine historical account.
Brant Gardner, author of The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, addresses some of these issues in a Mormon Stories podcast found here. According to Gardner, this disconnect between ancient America and the contents of the Book of Mormon mostly has to do with the translation process where Joseph Smith used elements familiar to him to explain the less familiar aspects of the original Nephite text. However, Gardner's views presuppose the idea that there was actually something to translate. Since there are no gold plates for us to examine and compare with the Book of Mormon text, specific views on translation are highly speculative and generally matters of faith.
Descriptions of Joseph Smith translating by looking into a hat with a stone in it do not make it clear that he was actually translating anything rather than inventing the story or recalling a previously invented story from memory. Therefore, discussions of translation the way the term is understood today do not seem very relevant to the creation of the Book of Mormon. I have little choice but to accept the words of the Book of Mormon at face value, and this type of analysis reveals very little connection at all with ancient America.
This is just one data point that demonstrates the improbability of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. There are many others including some I have already written about and some that I will write about later. Each of these probabilities would need to be multiplied to determine the overall probability that the Book of Mormon is historical. Multiplying probabilities less then one (with 1 being certain and 0 being impossible) produces an overall probability that gets smaller and smaller with each improbability until finally it is so close to zero that we can consider it nearly impossible.
Plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon:
- Barley
- Figs
- Grapes
- Wheat
- Ass
- Bull
- Calf
- Cattle
- Cow
- Goat
- Horse
- Ox
- Sheep
- Sow
- Elephant
The plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are all domesticated food crops. Domestic crops that are know to be native to the Americas during Book of Mormon times include corn, squash, beans, chilies, avocados, tomatoes, and chocolate. Of these, only corn is mentioned in the Book of Mormon with three references. However, it is not clear whether these cursory references to corn indicate maize native to the Americas, or simply generic references to grain as found in biblical passages.
A list of animals native to the Americas is too extensive to cover here, as can be seen on this website. However, as with plants, it is useful to consider domesticated animals since these should have been familiar to the Nephites or Lamanites and it is reasonable to expect some of them to be mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Native Americans domesticated very few animals, mostly because animals suitable for domestication either did not exist or went extinct shortly after the first arrival of humans. Jared Diamond addresses this in his book, Guns, Germs and Steel. According to Diamond, animals domesticated in America include turkeys, llamas, dogs, Muscovy ducks, and guinea pigs. Of these, only dogs are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. There are six references to dogs, all of which are either biblical quotes or refer to wild dogs metaphorically for teaching purposes.
I have looked at the issue of plants and animals in two directions: plants and animals mentioned in the text that are not native to the Americas, and plants and animals know to be native to the Americas that are not mentioned in the text. In both directions there is a disconnect that, in my view, discredits the Book of Mormon as a genuine historical account.
Brant Gardner, author of The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, addresses some of these issues in a Mormon Stories podcast found here. According to Gardner, this disconnect between ancient America and the contents of the Book of Mormon mostly has to do with the translation process where Joseph Smith used elements familiar to him to explain the less familiar aspects of the original Nephite text. However, Gardner's views presuppose the idea that there was actually something to translate. Since there are no gold plates for us to examine and compare with the Book of Mormon text, specific views on translation are highly speculative and generally matters of faith.
Descriptions of Joseph Smith translating by looking into a hat with a stone in it do not make it clear that he was actually translating anything rather than inventing the story or recalling a previously invented story from memory. Therefore, discussions of translation the way the term is understood today do not seem very relevant to the creation of the Book of Mormon. I have little choice but to accept the words of the Book of Mormon at face value, and this type of analysis reveals very little connection at all with ancient America.
This is just one data point that demonstrates the improbability of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. There are many others including some I have already written about and some that I will write about later. Each of these probabilities would need to be multiplied to determine the overall probability that the Book of Mormon is historical. Multiplying probabilities less then one (with 1 being certain and 0 being impossible) produces an overall probability that gets smaller and smaller with each improbability until finally it is so close to zero that we can consider it nearly impossible.
Part 9 - DNA
In my previous post I presented information about metallurgy that was
most instrumental in convincing my wife that the Book of Mormon is not a
genuine ancient historical record. In this post I discuss the evidence
that first convinced me.
All three migrations mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon were from the Middle East to the Americas (Jaradites around 2200 B.C.; Mulekites and Lehites around 600 B.C.). The populations resulting from these migrations are all connected. The Lehites split into the Nephites and Lamanites. The last surviving Jaradite lived his final days among the Mulekites, and the Nephites eventually merged with the Mulekites. No other encounters with natives already here are mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
I remember hearing a story on NPR sometime in the late '90s that described using DNA analysis to track human migrations. As a believing Mormon a light bulb went on in my mind. If Native Americans could be demonstrated through DNA analysis to be related to Semitic peoples, that would lend a great deal of credibility to the Book of Mormon. At the time, I had a dream of someday proving that the Book of Mormon was a genuine ancient historical document. Little did I know that this analysis had already been done on over 20,000 natives, but the results do not support the Book of Mormon story.
I will not get into the technical details of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome analysis and how ancestry can be tracked this way. Instead, I will recommend Simon Southerton's book, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Southerton, an Australian molecular biologist, resigned his position as a bishop for the Mormon church after he had read a number of scientific papers describing DNA analysis on Native American populations that failed to find any Middle East connection. Southerton tells his story to John Dehlin in a series of podcasts available from Mormon Stories.
The results of DNA analysis show that Native Americans overwhelmingly originated in Central Asia. The few non-Asian markers are from Europe and Africa. There is no connection whatsoever with the Middle East. DNA evidence correlates nicely with linguistic and archeological data to show that three major migrations took place across the Bering land bridge, the most recent about 12,000 years ago, as described in this article.
Southerton points out that apologists do not even agree among themselves in their responses to DNA evidence, and that the church considers none of their responses official. The church itself has not officially commented on this issue. The Maxwell Institute published this review of Southerton's book to which Southerton responded in his blog here.
Southerton made another salient point in his Mormon Stories interview. Leif Erickson first landed in Newfoundland with a crew of about 35 in 1001 A.D, only 580 years after the end of Nephite civilization. Archeological evidence confirms this landing, and yet not a trace has been found of any of the millions of Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites who were supposedly here according to the Book of Mormon. Neither DNA markers nor archeological evidence supports the existence of these groups. How could such large populations disappear and leave no evidence for ever having been here? The simplest explanation is that they never were here and that the Book of Mormon account is fictional.
Update (11/18/2014): Since I wrote this post, the church has published an article that addresses this issue at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies. This is part of a series of essays that the church has begun publishing on its official website to address problematic areas of doctrine and history. This particular article argues that DNA evidence is not conclusive and explains how relevant DNA markers could have plausibly disappeared from the population. No positive evidence is presented for the existence of the Nephites in the Americas. The article merely presents a few possibilities that may explain the lack of evidence. Most apologetic defenses of the Book of Mormon are in this vein, justifying the lack of evidence rather than presenting any positive evidence. This serves to confirm that the critics are basically correct about the lack of evidence. While this may satisfy some who already believe in Book of Mormon historicity that there is not sufficient evidence to change their beliefs, it does not provide any reason at all to adopt a non-existent belief. It all depends which assumption is accepted as the null hypothesis. Since Book of Mormon historicity is an extraordinary claim, it makes much more sense to adopt the null hypothesis that it is a 19th-century creation. After 184 years of searching for corroborating evidence nothing has been found that justifies rejecting this null hypothesis.
All three migrations mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon were from the Middle East to the Americas (Jaradites around 2200 B.C.; Mulekites and Lehites around 600 B.C.). The populations resulting from these migrations are all connected. The Lehites split into the Nephites and Lamanites. The last surviving Jaradite lived his final days among the Mulekites, and the Nephites eventually merged with the Mulekites. No other encounters with natives already here are mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
I remember hearing a story on NPR sometime in the late '90s that described using DNA analysis to track human migrations. As a believing Mormon a light bulb went on in my mind. If Native Americans could be demonstrated through DNA analysis to be related to Semitic peoples, that would lend a great deal of credibility to the Book of Mormon. At the time, I had a dream of someday proving that the Book of Mormon was a genuine ancient historical document. Little did I know that this analysis had already been done on over 20,000 natives, but the results do not support the Book of Mormon story.
I will not get into the technical details of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome analysis and how ancestry can be tracked this way. Instead, I will recommend Simon Southerton's book, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Southerton, an Australian molecular biologist, resigned his position as a bishop for the Mormon church after he had read a number of scientific papers describing DNA analysis on Native American populations that failed to find any Middle East connection. Southerton tells his story to John Dehlin in a series of podcasts available from Mormon Stories.
The results of DNA analysis show that Native Americans overwhelmingly originated in Central Asia. The few non-Asian markers are from Europe and Africa. There is no connection whatsoever with the Middle East. DNA evidence correlates nicely with linguistic and archeological data to show that three major migrations took place across the Bering land bridge, the most recent about 12,000 years ago, as described in this article.
Southerton points out that apologists do not even agree among themselves in their responses to DNA evidence, and that the church considers none of their responses official. The church itself has not officially commented on this issue. The Maxwell Institute published this review of Southerton's book to which Southerton responded in his blog here.
Southerton made another salient point in his Mormon Stories interview. Leif Erickson first landed in Newfoundland with a crew of about 35 in 1001 A.D, only 580 years after the end of Nephite civilization. Archeological evidence confirms this landing, and yet not a trace has been found of any of the millions of Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites who were supposedly here according to the Book of Mormon. Neither DNA markers nor archeological evidence supports the existence of these groups. How could such large populations disappear and leave no evidence for ever having been here? The simplest explanation is that they never were here and that the Book of Mormon account is fictional.
Update (11/18/2014): Since I wrote this post, the church has published an article that addresses this issue at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies. This is part of a series of essays that the church has begun publishing on its official website to address problematic areas of doctrine and history. This particular article argues that DNA evidence is not conclusive and explains how relevant DNA markers could have plausibly disappeared from the population. No positive evidence is presented for the existence of the Nephites in the Americas. The article merely presents a few possibilities that may explain the lack of evidence. Most apologetic defenses of the Book of Mormon are in this vein, justifying the lack of evidence rather than presenting any positive evidence. This serves to confirm that the critics are basically correct about the lack of evidence. While this may satisfy some who already believe in Book of Mormon historicity that there is not sufficient evidence to change their beliefs, it does not provide any reason at all to adopt a non-existent belief. It all depends which assumption is accepted as the null hypothesis. Since Book of Mormon historicity is an extraordinary claim, it makes much more sense to adopt the null hypothesis that it is a 19th-century creation. After 184 years of searching for corroborating evidence nothing has been found that justifies rejecting this null hypothesis.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Part 8 - Metallurgy
My wife became convinced that the Book of Mormon is not historical
primarily because of metallurgy. The Book of Mormon mentions many metal
objects including steel swords, chariots, brass plates, gold plates,
silver coins, and gold coins. The working of several kinds of metal are
mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:15.
Each of the metals mentioned requires its own set of tools and skills to mine, process, and form into metal objects. Even without examining the archeological data, the story itself is extremely implausible, but the archeology also fails to support the specifics of the Book of Mormon. While metallurgy did exist in ancient American, the most predominant metal artifacts are hammer-formed gold, silver, and copper trinkets. Some areas of South American show evidence of smelting and casting, but the metal objects formed were still primarily ornamental rather than practical. No evidence for steel production has ever been found. More information is available in this article.
The lack of artifacts connecting the Book of Mormon with ancient America is most pronounced in case of coins. Nephite currency is described in Alma 11:5-19
So where are all these coins? Not a single Nephite coin has ever been found. No gold or silver coins of any kind have been found from pre-Columbian times in America. Contrast this with the case for Roman coins during roughly the same time period as Mormon and Moroni. This article describes the discovery of 10,000 Roman coins dating from 240 AD to 320 AD by a single amateur with a metal detector. A casual perusal of sites such as this one and this one gives us an idea of the number and variety of coins that have been found in the old word, some dating from as early 2700 years ago.
Another point relative to metallurgy relates to the great battle mentioned above where 230,000 were killed. The Book of Mormon describes the use of steel swords, chariots, and armor throughout the book. Where are all the metal artifacts from this final battle? No steel swords, chariots, or metal armor have ever been found from pre-Columbian times in America.
The case of metallurgy alone is a slam-dunk case against the Book of Mormon. However, this is only one of many topics I will explore in these posts, each one just as convincing against the case for Book of Mormon historicity. One flaw in the apologists' approach is that they address these issues one at a time. It is their cumulative effect that makes it virtually inconceivable that the Book of Mormon is any more than a 19th century creation.
And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.Keep in mind also that this was very early in the Book of Mormon when the total population of Lehi's band could not have been much more than 25 adults plus children. This article on the Recovery from Mormonism website goes into more detail about the absurdity of expecting that such a small group could have possessed the expertise and industrial complex necessary to work so many different kinds of metals. The author holds an MS degree in metallurgical engineering.
Each of the metals mentioned requires its own set of tools and skills to mine, process, and form into metal objects. Even without examining the archeological data, the story itself is extremely implausible, but the archeology also fails to support the specifics of the Book of Mormon. While metallurgy did exist in ancient American, the most predominant metal artifacts are hammer-formed gold, silver, and copper trinkets. Some areas of South American show evidence of smelting and casting, but the metal objects formed were still primarily ornamental rather than practical. No evidence for steel production has ever been found. More information is available in this article.
The lack of artifacts connecting the Book of Mormon with ancient America is most pronounced in case of coins. Nephite currency is described in Alma 11:5-19
5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.These verses make it clear that the Nephites used gold and silver coins for currency. If we combine this claim with an estimate of the size of the Nephite of civilization at its peak it is clear that there should have been many millions of Nephite coins produced. In Mormon chapter 6, Mormon describes some of the final battles that led to the complete annihilation of the Nephites. Verses 13 and 14 name 12 separate military leaders along with their 10,000 soldiers who were all killed (except for Moroni who survived even though the 10,000 under his command were all killed). Verse 15 states that 10 more groups of 10,000 were killed. These 22 groups of 10,000 along with Mormon's own 10,000 (mentioned in verse 10) makes a total of 230,000 Nephites killed in this final battle. I will not address how absurd it is to have 230,000 killed in a battle until a future post. This is just to get an idea of the size of Nephite civilization. This chapter mentions that they also had the women and children with them, but it does not make clear whether they or older men were counted in the 230,000. This means that there were anywhere from 230,000 to several million Nephites prior to this last battle. Presumably there could have been even more earlier because of the attrition caused by years of war with the Lamanites. Furthermore, the Lamanites are always described as being more numerous than the Nephites. If they also used coins for currency then there are even more coins to discover.
So where are all these coins? Not a single Nephite coin has ever been found. No gold or silver coins of any kind have been found from pre-Columbian times in America. Contrast this with the case for Roman coins during roughly the same time period as Mormon and Moroni. This article describes the discovery of 10,000 Roman coins dating from 240 AD to 320 AD by a single amateur with a metal detector. A casual perusal of sites such as this one and this one gives us an idea of the number and variety of coins that have been found in the old word, some dating from as early 2700 years ago.
Another point relative to metallurgy relates to the great battle mentioned above where 230,000 were killed. The Book of Mormon describes the use of steel swords, chariots, and armor throughout the book. Where are all the metal artifacts from this final battle? No steel swords, chariots, or metal armor have ever been found from pre-Columbian times in America.
The case of metallurgy alone is a slam-dunk case against the Book of Mormon. However, this is only one of many topics I will explore in these posts, each one just as convincing against the case for Book of Mormon historicity. One flaw in the apologists' approach is that they address these issues one at a time. It is their cumulative effect that makes it virtually inconceivable that the Book of Mormon is any more than a 19th century creation.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Part 7 - Joseph Smith Background
In a previous post,
I argued for the plausibility of Joseph Smith as the sole author of the
Book of Mormon. In this post I will revisit this topic by examining
Joseph Smith's background. Believing Mormons contend that Joseph Smith
could not have possibly written the Book of Mormon given his humble
circumstances and lack of formal education. The usual figure describing
Joseph Smith's formal education is that he had three years or that he
had a third grade education. Sometimes his education is described as
being equivalent to the sixth grade level.
Statements about Joseph Smith's formal education are misleading. The Mormon Think website examines this issue along with other issues relevant to Joseph Smith's probable authorship of the Book of Mormon on this page. While three years of formal schooling may be technically accurate, it does not represent his entire education. Everyone in his family was literate. His parents valued education. Much of his education likely took place at home.
Joseph Smith knew the bible very well. His family read the bible regularly. It is difficult for modern minds to grasp the depth of familiarity that an early 19th century pious individual would have had with the bible. Modern life bombards us with too much information. People are no smarter today and our minds are divided in so many different directions that it is not possible for our biblical knowledge to run as deep. Direct biblical quotes, paraphrases, and other biblical influences permeate the pages of the Book of Mormon.
Passages in the Book of Mormon that are not highly influenced by the bible have other early 19th century precedents. This page on the Mormon Think website identifies some of these influences. The idea that Native Americans are part of the lost tribes of Israel originated as early as 1649 in the travel log of Portuguese explorer Antonio de Montezinos. This idea was very prevalent in Joseph Smith's immediate environment. Mormon historian B. H. Roberts identified Ethan Smith's 1823 book View of the Hebrews as a likely source of ideas for the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith lived in the same town as Oliver Cowdery who served as a scribe for most of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon contains many ideas that were important in early America such as religious liberty, representative democracy, and separation of church and state. Many of the war strategies in the Book of Mormon were those employed by the American army in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. For example, some American cities fortified themselves by digging a ditch around the city, building up a mound with the contents of the dug-out ditch, and building a picket fence on top of the mound with periodic watch towers, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon of the defense of Nephite cities. Lehi's and Nephi's tree of life dream is very similar to a dream Joseph Smith Sr (the father of Joseph Smith) had when Joseph Smith was 5 years old.
What is lacking in the Book of Mormon is anything that would be surprising in the context of the early 19th century America. If the Book of Mormon were a genuine ancient document, I think we could expect to find at least some surprises. The only elements of the Book of Mormon that give it any of the flavor of antiquity are those copied or paraphrased from the bible. The creation of the Book of Mormon seems well within the abilities of an intelligent, creative individual immersed in the ideas of early 19th century America, such as Joseph Smith. Even church historian B. H. Roberts admitted that Joseph Smith could have plausibly created the Book of Mormon.
Statements about Joseph Smith's formal education are misleading. The Mormon Think website examines this issue along with other issues relevant to Joseph Smith's probable authorship of the Book of Mormon on this page. While three years of formal schooling may be technically accurate, it does not represent his entire education. Everyone in his family was literate. His parents valued education. Much of his education likely took place at home.
Joseph Smith knew the bible very well. His family read the bible regularly. It is difficult for modern minds to grasp the depth of familiarity that an early 19th century pious individual would have had with the bible. Modern life bombards us with too much information. People are no smarter today and our minds are divided in so many different directions that it is not possible for our biblical knowledge to run as deep. Direct biblical quotes, paraphrases, and other biblical influences permeate the pages of the Book of Mormon.
Passages in the Book of Mormon that are not highly influenced by the bible have other early 19th century precedents. This page on the Mormon Think website identifies some of these influences. The idea that Native Americans are part of the lost tribes of Israel originated as early as 1649 in the travel log of Portuguese explorer Antonio de Montezinos. This idea was very prevalent in Joseph Smith's immediate environment. Mormon historian B. H. Roberts identified Ethan Smith's 1823 book View of the Hebrews as a likely source of ideas for the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith lived in the same town as Oliver Cowdery who served as a scribe for most of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon contains many ideas that were important in early America such as religious liberty, representative democracy, and separation of church and state. Many of the war strategies in the Book of Mormon were those employed by the American army in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. For example, some American cities fortified themselves by digging a ditch around the city, building up a mound with the contents of the dug-out ditch, and building a picket fence on top of the mound with periodic watch towers, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon of the defense of Nephite cities. Lehi's and Nephi's tree of life dream is very similar to a dream Joseph Smith Sr (the father of Joseph Smith) had when Joseph Smith was 5 years old.
What is lacking in the Book of Mormon is anything that would be surprising in the context of the early 19th century America. If the Book of Mormon were a genuine ancient document, I think we could expect to find at least some surprises. The only elements of the Book of Mormon that give it any of the flavor of antiquity are those copied or paraphrased from the bible. The creation of the Book of Mormon seems well within the abilities of an intelligent, creative individual immersed in the ideas of early 19th century America, such as Joseph Smith. Even church historian B. H. Roberts admitted that Joseph Smith could have plausibly created the Book of Mormon.
In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet. An imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American Antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's, View of the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.One last significant point to be made is that Joseph Smith did not produce the Book of Mormon alone. We know that he used the services of scribes, some of which were quite competent writers. Furthermore, much of the original language has been refined and corrected over the years. This site provides an introduction to some of the 3,913 differences between the first edition and the current edition. Those examining the Book of Mormon objectively to determine if Joseph Smith could have plausibly written it should look at the first edition, not the modern edition with all its corrections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)