From last Thursday’s Salt Lake Tribune:
It has been more than half a century since the last big shift in thinking about Book of Mormon geography.
Judging from the commotion in the blogosphere and on rival theorists’ Web sites, a dramatically different—and disputed—theory is gaining traction among some of the LDS faithful.
The theory, popularized by Rod Meldrum and Bruce H. Porter in the past three years, suggests that Book of Mormon events took place in the heartland of the United States, east of the Mississippi River from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. They have popularized the idea at firesides and conferences, on tours of the Midwest and in DVD sets and books.
Next week, Meldrum, Porter and colleague Wayne May will conduct two conferences exploring the heartland model, which they believe answers the question that has enthralled generations of Mormons: Where did the historical events of The Book of Mormon take place?
Meldrum expects 300 to attend his conference Thursday and Friday at Zermatt Resort in Midway, just before the church’s General Conference.
Porter says 600 already were signed up 10 days in advance for the conference sponsored by LDS Promised Land, a travel company, at SouthTowne Expo Center in Sandy. That conference also is Thursday and Friday.
The latter was promoted with an ad blitz, including blurbs by Mormon talk-show host Glenn Beck on the radio and the Internet.
“The word is out now. There is a movement going through the church,” says Porter, a former LDS institute teacher who lives in Arizona and leads tours for LDS Travel, a company associated with LDS Promised Land.
“It just rings true to a lot of people,” says Meldrum, a Provo businessman who quit his job to focus on research and promotion of the heartland model.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints long has held that God has not revealed Book of Mormon geography. The church has no official position on where, in the Americas, the civilizations of the Nephites and Jaredites lived and died out centuries ago.
For its first 100-plus years, most Mormons assumed the civilizations ranged over the entire Western Hemisphere, and that the “narrow neck” between “land north” and “land south” described in scripture was the isthmus of Panama.
But, in the 1950s, careful reading of the text led scholars to propose a more limited geography and since then, most of the dozens of theories have focused on “Mesoamerica,” a region that includes southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and the northwestern part of Honduras and El Salvador in Central America.
Most LDS scholars still believe that region is more plausible because it fits the scriptural text and archaeological and anthropological evidence has been found through the years.
Meldrum and Porter come at the question from a different angle, and that’s the source of the controversy.
They claim archaeological and DNA evidence for their model, but they start with what they say are 36 clear “prophecies and promises” in The Book of Mormon and statements by Joseph Smith, indicating he believed the history unfolded in what would become the United States.
For scholars to cling to a Mesoamerican model, Porter says, they must disregard what the church’s founding prophet said.
The above is a good overview of the debate within the church over BoM geography. The article does however neglect to mention some interesting fringe perspectives. LDS author Embaye Melekin asserts that “the Book of Mormon is an African book and its content and prophecies are exclusively about Africans.” And Dr. Ralph A. Olsen proposes a “more promising land of promise”—a Malayan/Southeast Asian geography for the Book of Mormon.
In my opinion, searching for a BoM geography will be as futile an endeavor as scouring the universe for the planet Kolob. But I nonetheless find the debate interesting. So much so, in fact, that my undergraduate thesis paper deals with popular Mormon beliefs about BoM historicity and geography.
But interested or not, I hope you at least find this cartoon amusing (if you can read it):
Hat-tip to Main Street Plaza for catching the Trib article.
But there is no evidence for any of the miracles in any holy book. There is plenty of historical evidence supporting the Doctrine and Covenants, and yet more people are converted by the Book of Mormon then the D&C. If we did have historical proof of the Book of Mormon, it would be unique among all holy books because it would be evidence for the miracle of its translation by Joseph Smith. Even though we do have some historical evidence of some of the people and places in the Bible, it requires faith to accept any of the miracles therein. And there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship between how believable a claim is, and how tenaciously the faithful hold on to that belief. After all, that is why god created this world – to send us down here and test our powers of credulity: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” So, all you skeptics out there, repent, and “doubt not but be believing.” Here is the first step, found in Alma 32:27: “But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.” So you just have to want to believe. Never mind that this is a good recipe for self-deception – just do it anyway. Take Pascal’s Wager to heart: if it is true and you do follow it, you just saved yourself from an eternity of burning in hell!
“Never mind that this is a good recipe for self-deception.” Not only that, but it is proven to work, regardless if it has anything to do with religion or belief in gods/god.
I want to believe, but I want to believe in Catholicism. Is that going to be a problem?
Nope, no problem at all. Jesus said to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” Which means, essentially, “Congratulations, you are the first Pope.” Here is a way to start believing in Catholicism. Repeat the following over and over. While you are doing so, try to picture Mary listening to you compassionately.
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
After a while, you will begin to feel warm and peaceful. You will begin to believe.
Steve,
You’re urging people to want to believe in something, and then try to convince themselves it is true. You’re also ok if they choose Mormonism or Catholicism (although choosing one might put you in hell for the other).
How do you suggest someone make the initial choice of what to want to believe in if either one will work?
What I am trying to say, with my poor attempt at sarcasm, is that religious faith is and exercise in self-deception. Faithfulness is the ability to believe on bad evidence. If you truly have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is the word of god, your faith will not be affected by a lack of physical evidence. You will just say to yourself “With God, all things are possible.” Perhaps that is why many Mormons like the limited geography interpretation of the BOM. It is less falsifiable.
As an atheist, I think religious faith is a bad methodology that hinders people from seeing things as they actually are. But I think many religious people aren’t too concerned about the literal truthfulness of their tenets. They withhold judgment about whether or not the metaphysical is literal, and enjoy the rituals, sense of community, shared stories, and other benefits religions provide.
A mistake I think is being made here: often atheists treat faith as a series of propositions or tenets for which there is insufficient evidence. But faith cannot be reduced to a series of propositions. Faith is first and foremost about relationship. While loving relationships can be articulated in terms of some propositions (Amy is my wife, we have 2 children with 1 on the way, … …), they cannot be reduced to those propositions. In other words, faith is not a “methodology”. It is a relationship of love.
I don’t ask for “evidence” that my wife exists and I don’t ask for evidence that she loves me. Because of the relationship, the first question is just nonsensical (to say God exists is to say the least interesting thing there is to be said about Him). And the second question is misguided – love cannot be proven, and anyone who asks for proof is not in love. See Kierkegaard’s masterpiece, ‘The Works of Love’.
Point is: faith is not a “methodology” nor is it reducible to a series of propositions or tenets. Any argument that argues against it as a methodology or a body of propositions is not understanding the thing it is attempting to disprove.
Can you have a relationship with god if he does not exist? That certainly seems possible. Does it really even matter that much if he exists or not? I knew my wife literally existed before I formed a relationship with her. A relationship with god is formed without this certainty.
My point was that relationships don’t ask for this kind of “certainty” (and I should note that I think we have considerably less certainty than we often pretend – are you really “certain” of anything?). In other words, I think you are asking for an epistemology of faith that doesn’t make sense within the faith relationship. I use the husband-wife example in an attempt to show that no one, not even the hard nosed skeptical atheist, expects this kind of certainty within personal relationships.
What is a proper epistemology of faith? How does it differ from a guess? There are so many strongly held yet opposing religious beliefs out there that one is lead to conclude that most, if not all of the faithful are wrong. Does faith function outside of reason, and if so, is it even appropriate to use words like ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ to describe it? I really want to know – all sarcasm aside. I know and respect many faithful people, and yet I can’t wrap my head around faith. Is it a gift from god that some have and some don’t? The best I can make of it is that it is self-deception that brings desirable results that can only be had through self-deception.
This will sound like a dodge, but I cannot take the time here to do some kind of comprehensive exegesis of the nature of faith or the relationship between faith and reason (and there are, of course, a wide range of views on this). A few thoughts (not well organized or developed):
My first response is that you seem to think you have an epistemology that is entirely devoid of faith (which is a “self-deception”). But I am skeptical of this. What certain truths do you have? What is the basis of your trust, say, in science? You can’t empirically prove empiricism. Empirical science is based on an assumption that cannot itself be demonstrated on its own grounds (see Hume). Is your “data set” somehow “pure” and uninterpreted? Is there any such thing as an uninterpreted experience? Point here is, atheists like to pretend they are agents of pure reason (as if there is such a thing) while theists are “guessing” and believing all sorts of things for no reason. That is just a caricature. Everyone has starting points that cannot be proven. We all find ourselves in a “hermeneutic situation”.
The starting point of faith is a personal relationship. Faith is a personal act, a free response to a divine initiative. It is a response to “data” that has been given. It is not scientific data, it is relational data. Belief in God is not like our beliefs about the planets and rivers. You don’t need faith with those because you see them. But you do need faith to believe in the goodness of your friends. Faith in God is more like that. But we all believe things that we cannot see in this sense. It is frankly ridiculous for some to pretend they don’t.
I expect your response to this will be: ‘But there are so many religious opinions, they cannot all be right.’ Agreed. But from this you conclude that none of them can be right. But why conclude that? First of all, that conclusion does not logically follow. The mere fact that there are lots of skewed data sets out there does not prove that none of the data bears truth. Sure, one cannot prove in any scientific sense one religion over another. We’ll have to appeal to other modes of discernment. Going will be, I expect, quite tough. But I cannot scientifically prove that my wife loves me or that I love my children. Does this mean there is no truth? Of course not. I just discern the truth of that love through another mode of disclosure.
That said, I think natural reason can give us some reasons to disbelieve some religious teachings, and might give us some reason to believe others. I think there is a faith-reason synthesis, I think a genuine conflict between a true faith and right reason is impossible.
A few more thoughts on why faith is not a “methodology” or a set of beliefs. Beliefs are acts of the mind, faith is an act of the will. The object of a belief is an idea, the object of faith is a person. In faith, a person says to another person: ‘I choose to trust and believe in you.’
Now you might say, ‘Believe in who? You don’t even know if God exists!’ But, again, this pretends that you have certain knowledge in your relationships when you don’t. Aping Descartes, perhaps you are just dreaming and are not actually married to this woman you call your wife. People of faith have a personal conviction about a relationship they have been called to enter (all people are called to enter it, some don’t listen at all and others don’t hear well).
Two more thoughts:
- Augustine says that faith seeks understanding. In other words, faith should ever be apathetic or anti-reason.
- If you are genuinely interested in the relationship between faith and reason, there is LOTS that you could read. A first stop, read Pope John Paul II’s brilliant encyclical Fides et Ratio (faith and reason). It is a powerful defense of both faith and reason:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Steve says:
“And there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship between how believable a claim is, and how tenaciously the faithful hold on to that belief.”
As coined by Hitler, the Big Lie is a distortion of reason so egregious that it leave a person hearing it credulous since they can’t bring themselves to think such an absurd claim could merely be an artifact. They fish in A LOT of people and explain why, perversely, the more outrageous the aspect to religion, the more fervent the acolyte. So you have people who actually believe there were semitic tribes wandering North America in the middle ages.
“People of faith have a personal conviction about a relationship they have been called to enter (all people are called to enter it, some don’t listen at all and others don’t hear well).”
Please back this up and explain further. You say “people of faith” which implies anyone of any faith. Are you saying that everyone is called to enter a relationship with a deity that is culturally relevant? Or are you saying that everyone is called to enter a relationship with Jesus, and that people of other faiths get this confused with other deities?
Also, you disregard science as a reasonable approach, claiming “Empirical science is based on an assumption that cannot itself be demonstrated on its own grounds.” Sure, I’ll grant that, but are we not smart enough to make reasonable assumptions about the natural world around us? The scientific method is the best approach to finding truth about the universe.
To demonstrate my point, I’d like to employ the difference between a pure field such as mathematics, and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer may calculate a formula as it approaches a certain number. The formula dictates that the number will never be reached exactly, just get infinitely closer. The mathematician may say that it is pointless, because the number will never be reached. The engineer will say “close enough” and move forward with designs. These designs work, despite not being purely proven. This is what I view your argument about science as. You will say that the scientific process cannot be proven, so it is baseless. I would say “close enough” and move forward based on reasonable assumptions made with reasonable observations. And yes, we reach incredible heights with science. Many theists disregard any sort of process and just start with the idea that their god exists. I don’t know how you can equate these two methods for finding truth. Maybe you have seriously thought out good reasons for your belief in a god, but I argue that most do not. Most do not understand their faith, just that they must believe. They do it for base reasons.
I keep getting this “god of the gaps” feel to many of your arguments. Perhaps it is not this way. It would be great if you can do a lengthy argument for why you believe what you do. Maybe ask an admin to do a guest post on this blog? I’d be very interested to read that. I’d like to hear an argument for god first and then followed by the belief in Catholicism/Christianity.
As an admin, I would certainly approve such a guest post by Kleiner.
I should clarify: The Abrahamic faiths are about relationships. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all seem to have this in common. And all pretty much agree that they are all relating to the same God … though there is considerable disagreement about the complete revelation of that God. Sorting these matters out will be tough going since revelation is “charged with mystery” (FR). We’ll have to rely on various modes of discernment. Perhaps I should have restricted myself to the Christian view of faith, though even there it is such an enormously broad term that it is hard to do it any justice on a blog.
I am not making a god of the gaps argument. I hate those arguments almost as much as you all do. But SHAFTers should be cautious – it is not the case that anytime anyone tries to reign in the hubris of scientism that they are making a god of the gaps argument.
And I did NOT disregard science as a reasonable approach to understanding things. I have never done that. My point was two-fold. (a) science is not the only way of knowing things. And (b) the materialist/atheist/empiricists on this blog don’t have a very good reason for thinking it is a way of knowing things. It is you SHAFTers that have the problem here, not me. Look, I think scientific inquiry is grounded – I am not a Humean skeptic. My point here was that atheists don’t have any reason to not be Humean skeptics. SHAFTers carry on and on about “knowing this” and “knowing that” through science. But, on their own grounds, they should not call any of it knowledge since it is all based on an assumption that cannot be demonstrated. Again – I don’t think SHAFTers take the two most profound atheists – Hume and Nietzsche – nearly seriously enough.
Notice that what Ben said about science to defend against this charge: “close enough” and “These designs work, despite not being purely proven.” Well that looks an awful lot like what Steve said about faith (though Steve meant it as a criticism): “The best I can make of it is that it is self-deception that brings desirable results that can only be had through self-deception.”
And of course this is what Hume says. Our trust in our “matter of fact” judgments (contingent judgments about the visible world) is based upon a “customary convention” (that is a self-deception) that is ultimately unjustified. Hell, even the claim that “science works” is unjustified – because Hume does not think you have any good reason for thinking you have personal identity over time in order to make that judgment. This is why Huenemann is flirting with “balls to the wall skepticism” – maybe everything is absolutely destroyed and remade at every moment, and the materialist frankly doesn’t have any good reason for thinking it is not this way. I am not saying this – this is what the atheist Huenemann says!
I am actually defending science here against the skepticism that Huenemann has and that you all ought to have based upon your philosophical “worldview”. I think you have more reason to trust your science as a Thomist than you do as as a materialist or an atheist. It is not because God “fills in the gaps”, but because the theist has a ground for the intelligibility of the world (the argument has nothing at all to do with complexity).
Nor I am not “equating” these two modes of disclosure (faith and reason). I am distinguishing them. The scientific method is ONE approach for discerning truth, but it is only the best method for sorting out a certain order of truths.
Here is a relevant passage from Fides et Ratio:
“The truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.(7) Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32).”
Final thing: I appreciate Ben’s interest in what I think. But I am not sure I have the time to produce a “lengthy argument for why I believe what I believe”. That is a pretty tall task (what is your philosophy of everything, beginning with first principles and working all the way out to all the particulars). Perhaps sometime I will get around to doing that, but students would be better off reading books. Blogs are not the best forum for working out comprehensive projects. Forgive my snarkiness here, but if atheists read thoughtful theism more often we could avoid a lot of the arguments we have on this blog. Instead they pick the low-lying fruit and pretend that the tree has been scoured (the commonsense atheist link on the bad args of the new atheists was one of the most intellectually honest atheist posts I have read in a long time).
Read Heidegger’s Question Concerning Technology. I know a number of SHAFTers are very sympathetic to this work. Reading this will seriously humble the view that science is a “master form” of inquiry. If you don’t want to read Aquinas himself, then read Ralph McInerny’s ‘Handbook for Peeping Thomists’ and Ethica Thomistica (both written for a popular audience). Read Machuga’s book. Read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Reading those things would give you a really good idea of where I am coming from.
Intelligent people can disagree about these things, of course. But intelligent people don’t dismiss these works and these views as nonsense. (McInerny was a college professor for 50 some years, you think he has not heard all of your objections a thousand times over? No offense, but Thomism is not going to be upended by the sincere but youthful thoughts of some USU undergrads. I am not discouraging inquiry or even disagreement, just encouraging humility).
But forget about me – this is a SHAFT blog. What do SHAFTers believe? Do materialists and empiricists have any good reasons to trust in science? What about Hume? What is the definition of humanism? Can SHAFTers defend humanism? What about the spectre of Nietzsche? Atheists live under the shadow of these two figures, but their skepticism and anti-humanism is perennially ignored on this blog. I would argue that before you deal with the alleged problems of theism, you should first sort out the extremely serious problems posed by these two atheists! Why aren’t you all “balls to the wall skeptics”, or at least “Huenemanniacs”? Hopefully SHAFT can convince Huenemann to give a talk or two on the “Spectres of Hume and Nz”.
Huenemann will actually be presenting before SHAFT next Thursday (April 8th, I believe). I’ll be sure to advertise it on here and Facebook as soon as I get a room reservation confirmation.
Oh cool, good work. What’s the topic?
About how SHAFTers need to confront the problems that Nietzsche saddled all atheists with.
Hmm…the ever-elusive discussion about BoM geography apparently ha ha. Not a single comment makes reference to the original post. That’s not a problem, of course, I’m just surprised.
Thursday?? Hmm, not to be a jerk but would it be even remotely possible to have it later in the evening or before 4 pm or so? I realize I am only one with his own time constraints, I cannot be held as a standard for all, just throwing my own situation out there.
Sorry; Dr. Huenemann has a tight schedule that day. He thinks 4 or 4:30 would be best. Feel free to petition him, though, Will.
4 would work but I could only stay for the lecture and some immediate questions. I love the after lecture dialog, so that’s why I’m being a whiney theist
Pingback: Link bomb #11 | Main Street Plaza