Science and the Book of Mormon
A few months ago, Sunstone had an article on LDS apologetics that was widely discussed at various blogs. The basic theme of the article was that those writing LDS apologetics are too critical and take criticism too personally. And why would a religious person would want to do apologetics? Aren’t faith and belief enough? The author saw three groups: Believers, who would believe what they believe regardless of any scientific evidence (often adopting readings that were incompatible with science). Critics, who would disbelieve Mormonism regardless of any evidence, since it would always fall short. Then there was this crazy group in the middle that kept trying to reconcile science and Mormonism, using each to interpret the other.
I bring this up not because I think apologetics is necessarily a good thing, nor to necessarily disagree with all the comments of the author (although I do think apologists often personalize things too much, if not to the degree they are often accused of). Instead, I bring up apologetics because it shows a common view of truth as inherently scientific and sees the tools of science as useful for interpreting scripture. I say common because historically we can see this going all the way back to Joseph Smith. Joseph seemed quite willing to use whatever evidence was available to improve his ability to read scripture. And he was also willing to use the evidence of his day to defend the scriptures. Perhaps the evidence of the day was misleading. One can’t help but wish he hadn’t kept pointing to local Indian ruins as evidence of the Book of Mormon. But at least the principle is there.
ALL OF THIS IS A RATHER LONG INTRODUCTION to this week’s topic: Science and the Book of Mormon. The basic idea I wish to get at is that science is useful for helping us understand the scriptures. Along the same lines, science helps us see that typically we don’t read the scriptures very closely. For instance, I think most would now agree that the distances given in the Book of Mormon require a fairly limited geographic area. In fact, the book requires it if we accept its descriptions. Yet it is also true that for most of the history of the Church both Mormons and other commentators read it as applying to the Americas as a whole. I think it was primarily believers, who had a hard time reconciling this naïve reading with what they were learning in science, that brought the Church around to actually pay closer attention to what the text actually says.
In effect, most Book of Mormon apologetics ends up questioning the text scientifically and also using the text to ask scientific questions of the world around us. I think that this has been one of the more exciting changes in how we read scripture now. Obviously I’m biased, but I think Pres. Benson’s criticism of how the Church read the Book of Mormon was dead on. Since the 1980s, we have seen a renaissance in Book of Mormon scholarship.
Having said all this, there are still a few areas where apologists have not been as successful in answering questions as they might have wished. I will touch on a few of these areas this week, then expand on them next week.
Animals
While several problems have been raised regarding the names and descriptions of plants and animals in the Book of Mormon, they are all similar. The one we’re all familiar with is the problem of horses. According to all the evidence we have, horses went extinct thousands of years before Lehi arrived on the shores of the Americas. It is possible there were horses during the relevant time period and their bones simply haven’t yet been found, but frankly that position gets weaker as time goes on. Steve Jones of BYU tested a lot of bones that looked promising, but all came out post-Columbian or pre-Jaredite, as far as I know. The other alternative, going back at least to Sorenson, is to recognize that many texts translate objects using the nearest common word. Sorenson speculates that any animal that could be ridden might have been translated as “horse.” He has some evidence for this in Spanish texts, but I think most people roll their eyes at the thought of chariots led by deer. While some of these problems are more a result of our expectations than of the text, I think even the strongest apologist would admit that this is a problem area. There really needs to be more evidence for either the “Sorenson substitution approach” or the “actual horses in pre-Columbian America” approach to be fully satisfying. The same goes for elephants and other problematic entities. For those interested in more discussion on the topic, I suggest the FAIR pages on animals and plants.
DNA
DNA is the most recent issue, but it’s primarily a problem for the old naïve views rather than the work of more recent apologists. A lot of critics bring it up without mentioning that mainstream apologetics long ago moved away from the positions they are attacking. Still, there are more sophisticated versions of the argument, often tied to mitochondria or other evidence. The basic idea is that if the Nephites were of Jewish descent, we ought find genetic evidence of this in indigenous peoples and ancient bones. We don’t. The typical response is that we don’t know what the Lehite DNA was like — especially if the Lehites were of the northern tribes — and there were only a handful of people mixing into an existing population in the millions.
While I think the apologists can easily handle the weaker forms of the DNA argument, the more sophisticated formulations may pose real challenges. The basic question is the same: Given modern technology, shouldn’t we expect to find some genetic evidence of the Lehite population? I’m not convinced we should, but this is clearly one of the biggest areas of debate at the moment. For those interested, Mel Tungate has a good page on the topic with all the pros and cons of the debate. FAIR offers the best apologetic response.
Weapons and Metals
Next up is the old weapons debate. Steel is mentioned, but I think the apologists have a fairly strong hand given the fact that there were sword-like weapons in Mesoamerica. They were called swords by the Spaniards. Steel mentioned in the KJV is actually bronze. And there are similar materials in the region, even if they aren’t technically what we would call steel. How convincing you find this really depends upon how committed you are to the Romanesque paintings and movies that Mormons insist on putting out. If we accept a large KJV influence and don’t require Joseph’s translation to convey the proper picture in the reader’s mind, then I don’t think there is much of a problem here.
There are other problems, but by and large these are answered by the standard apologetic view of a small group of people finding a lot of people already here. Yes, such a meeting isn’t explicitly presented in the text, but there are passages that can be read in such a way. On the other hand, I think even defenders of the text would agree these passages are somewhat ambiguous. The bottom line is that only the limited geographic model seems to fit the Book of Mormon text. This doesn’t mean that Sorenson’s placement of the events described in the Book of Mormon near southern Mexico is correct, but I think that something like Sorenson’s view is necessary to support the view of the book as historical.
Just a note for the above. There is an interesting new science discovery out this week. Mormanity has a brief writeup on it.
The basic gist is a DNA marker that indicates people coming from the middle-east region but not Spain, Portugal, etc. (Although those regions have some of the market due to contact with the middle-east and north Africa)
A quote:
B*21 (10.4%). Old World occurrences of B*21 are concentrated in regions of
strong Arab presence or influence. Frequencies of more than 15% are
confined to populations in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia (Tigre), and
Jordan-Palestine, but influence extends across North Africa and into Spain,
Portugal, and Italy (5-6%). In America, 84% of occurrences are clustered in
four Uto-Aztecan populations (Papago, Pima, Nahua, and a Central Amerind
composite).[9] The Papago have the fourth-highest frequency in the world,
comparable to that of Tuaregs and Berbers.[10] CS’s Central Amerind
composite sample is unique in that all of its “non-Indian” HLAs are of the
Afro-Asiatic set (B*21, A*30, A*32). Thus, significant Afro-Asiatic contact
with western Mexico and/or the Caribbean almost certainly occurred, probably
from Arabia or North Africa.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 26, 2005 @ 11:06 am
Sword-like weapons with sharp obsidian edges don’t seem to account for all the features mentioned in connection with swords. Ether 7:9 says “did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him”—metalworking, clearly. Such rusted swords were later found serendipitously by wandering Nephites recovering material associated with the final battle (e.g. Ether’s records). This shows the metalworking was not limited to an early generation of Jaredites, but was spread throughout Jaredite history, and sufficiently widespread to be easily found by luck. As a separate point, the sword-like obsidian-edged objects pictured by Sorenson in “Images of Ancient America” do not have sharp points on the end, as indicated in the passage where a Nephite holds up a Lamanite scalp on the point of his sword.
Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — May 27, 2005 @ 7:41 am
I don’t think that swords can be totally discounted (which is why I included it in the problem section). However I stand by the claim that the apologists are on much stronger ground here than say with horses. For the metal swords, we don’t have to assume there were large amounts nor that they lasted for very long. (Perhaps losing an easy supply of metal)
With regards to the end of his sword, I think that the points going down like a jagged hedge clipper still would work. The point is at the end, but isn’t a tip point like in a European or Asian sword.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 27, 2005 @ 9:37 am
Just a note on that “paper” I linked to. I think there are good reasons to doubt it. I checked out the web site and it isn’t an academic site. Further the paper is apparently a few years old.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 27, 2005 @ 11:45 am
Clark,
Did you get a sneak peek at the newest issue of Sunstone? Both Ostler’s and Quinn’s pieces on the BoM are strangly similar to yours.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — May 27, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
No. But then I think the issues of the Book of Mormon are pretty well known. Those were the big three, as I see them.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 27, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
Animals, DNA, Weapons and Metals, whole populations with no archaeological evidence…perhaps one should just accept what the facts are saying: the book is not a history but a story borne out of the 19th century frontier/millenialist milieu (Indians as Hebrews, Jesus in the New World).
Comment by Sean — May 28, 2005 @ 8:20 pm
The DNA really isn’t a problem since it merely confirms what the FARMS folk have been saying for 30 years. (And which among people educated about issues in the BoM already accepted – small people of unknown racial/genetic background going into a continent already inhabited by millions)
The weapons, as I said, really aren’t that big a deal. The rust with the Jaredites is the only real problem.
In any case, these few problems are clearly not sufficient to cause Mormons with a testimony to doubt. Acknowledging problems (as I’ve done here) doesn’t entail the problems to imply falsehood.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 30, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
Apologetics are the defence of the faith. True they can get personal but that is the fault of those who discuss apologetics not the apologetic approach itself. The fact remains that the Bible is used by science and anthropology as a guide book. The further science moves the more and more the Bible proves true. The book of Mormon has never experienced such scientific certanity and most likely never will. Where explanations must be given as far as animal names, metals etc in the book of Mormon no such explanations are needed for the Bible. The most famous case of course is the Pilate stone. Up until the 1960′s it was believed that Pontius Pilate never existed. Until the unearthing of many markers bearing his name in the area of Jerusalem. This has not happened nor is it happening with the book of Mormon.
One must also note. Apologetics is the asking and hopefully answering of questions. Only those who never intended to answer questions discourge apologetics.
Comment by Palamas — May 31, 2005 @ 12:03 am
Palamas, I don’t see how the relationship between science and the Bible in any way confirms the Bible to be true. At best it says that some of the events actually transpired. Whereas for many (i.e. most of Genesis) there is extreme doubt in the scientific community.
But take Pilate. So he lived. Since at least some of the gospels were written within a hundred years or so of when Pilate lived by people in the same general region, this really has little bearing on whether Jesus was resurrected.
To claim that because some events in the Bible turn out to have some evidence in no way establishes the truth of the text, precisely because of the authorial origins of the text. However the lack of accuracy when the text comes from a known location is evidence against its trustworthiness.
Contrast this with the Book of Mormon where if any evidence for Nephites appears then the majority of the religious claims of the text are established, because of the origins of its translation.
It seems that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are on rather different footings in terms of the implications of finding events from the text. (Well, with the Book of Mormon the old world events are less significant – although still moreso that with the Bible)
One problem with Book of Mormon “science” is that the Book of Mormon has only really been taken seriously as a text for 25 years or so. There are a relatively small number of people investigating and no one is yet sure where the text ought be or exactly what its references are. This is in contrast with the Bible where there is a known location to start from as well as a fairly known context. Further thousands upon thousands of scientists have spent the last few hundred years studying the Bible.
That is not to downplay the current problems. Merely to contextualize them.
I’d also add that I tend to see apologetics as establishing how one can believe something rationally in light of current public evidence. While the apologetics offers little compelling reasons for the non-believer to believe, I think it does offer good reasons for why the believer is not being irrational.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 31, 2005 @ 9:07 am
Sean, regarding the “whole populations with no evidence.” I’m not sure that is so. Rather, the issue is how we’d identify a community as Nephites even if we found them.
Certainly if we found something extreme, such as a bronze near-eastern sword, things would be quite easy. But as I expect there to have been few of those, I don’t expect to see such evidence. Likewise I suspect there were few plates/records and that those religious records that would identify neo-Hebrews were likely hid by Mormon and unlikely to be found.
Absent such things, we are left with the typical objects of the community. Consider the average Mormon. Outside of a few books (which would be rare in the ancient world) what would identify someone as a Mormon to achaeologists thousands of years later? Considering the primitive conditions of the Nephites, one would expect the problems to be considerably more pronounced.
Once again, this is in no way to downplay the real issues with the book, which I outlined above. Once again merely to contextualize the issues.
Comment by Clark Goble — May 31, 2005 @ 9:12 am
You know the handy thing about the Pilate Stone? Scholars can read it. There are many inscriptions, carvings and such from South America that cannot be read yet. For all we know, the clues to the history of the Nephites are carved all over temples that the tourists climb all the time. The ancient kingdom of Israel’s existance was established (for scholars) by a rock on which the Pharoh had carved a declaration of his victory over them in some battle. We may find a similar record left by the Lamanites (or another group because it is clear that there were other peoples in the area). Until a South American Rosetta Stone is found, it will be very hard to tell.
Comment by harpingheather — June 9, 2005 @ 6:50 am
“He has some evidence for this in Spanish texts, but I think most people roll their eyes at the thought of chariots led by deer.”
Replace “chariots” with “sleigh” and “deer” with “reindeer”. BTW Laplander reindeer are considerably larger than the 8 tiny ones that we are most familiar with.
My own personal vote is for LLamas (http://www.llamapaedia.com/)
Joseph Smith would have been familiar with both horses and deer but not necessarily llamas. He would not have suggested that horses are “beasts in the forests” (1 Ne 18:25) but plains animals. Also (according to the llamapaedia site) “Llamas truly demonstrate their working ability with cart driving”. Chariots are just specialized carts. I don’t recall any mention in the Book of Mormon of riding these “horses”. Llamas are Not suitable for riding. “An adult’s weight is more than they can carry.” (http://www.llamapaedia.com/uses/pack.html)
Another interesting tidbit from the site: “Llamas are originally from North America.”
Bob Durtschi
Comment by Robert Durtschi — September 9, 2005 @ 8:25 am
If the book of morman is true, What did the Lamanites And Nephites use for money. Why cant we find the remenants of money
thanks
Scott
Comment by Scott — June 28, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
These arguments are very interesting. Aside from the traditional archaelogical things mentioned swords and such and horses there is no way to realy know what things were like, or what was implied. It is true that horses are mentioned and there is the chariot question, however there is not any reference that anybody ever rode them like equine. Furthermore within the Book of Mormon there is made mention of 2 histories being recorded: A spiritual one (today’s Book of Mormon) and a secular one which we do not have. It is interesting to note that in Egypt there is no indication that Moses ever lived according to their historical records. Which is not to say that he didn’t but we have the Old Testament. Some things we must go on faith.
An interesting topic to study would be word print analysis of the Book of Mormon check out the research here with all citations http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_studies
Just another nugget to chew on and consider.
Take care.
Comment by James — December 12, 2006 @ 1:31 pm