Do you have a question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Submit it online.
Q. The Book of Mormon recounts centuries worth of events purporting to have taken place in the New World prior to Columbus, and as far as conventional history can determine, there doesn’t appear to be any match-up between the two. To what extent is this issue of where the BoM events were supposed to have taken place, and how actual places like the North American native cultures or even Mayan city states are supposed to fit in with any of that, a subject of internal discussion in Mormon circles?
– Jim Downard, your faithful faithless atheist blogger
A. Thanks for the question, Jim! This topic is more important to some Mormons than to others. Though in my experience, I would say relatively few members of the LDS church concern themselves with trying to nail down specific locations and are far more focused on trying to live the teachings of Christ contained in the scriptures. There are companies and individuals who offer “Book of Mormon tours” to Central America and/or Mexico, and there are several schools of thought on where the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations were, but it is generally a scholarly or intellectual pursuit, disconnected from the spiritual aspects of the Book of Mormon.
If you cornered a Latter-day Saint and asked about the mismatches between the text of the Book of Mormon and our current knowledge of ancient American civilizations, you would probably get one of two answers, or a combination of both.
First of all, when you translate from one language to another, you introduce error and limitations to the text. If there is not a word in one language that exactly matches a word in the other language, you have to do the best you can within the confines of the language. For example, take the German noun, “Schadenfreude.” It does not have a one-word English equivalent, but translated literally, it is something like “damage-joy” which does not make a whole lot of sense. So when someone translates “Schadenfreude” into English, they have to describe it and use a phrase like “pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others,” which mostly captures the idea of the original word. Joseph Smith had a very limited education and perhaps he simply used the closest word he could come up with in early 19th century English to describe what he was translating (i.e., ‘silk’ for a luxurious fabric or ‘wheat’ for a staple grain) when he did not have a perfect match at his disposal.
Another explanation Mormons may propose is that we just have not learned enough yet. Archaeological discoveries are still being made all over the world that challenge earlier beliefs about ancient cultures. (I’m in the middle of reading a fascinating book right now called 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann that talks about how our knowledge of indigenous cultures in America has changed over the last few decades and how archaeologists and anthropologists expect it to continue to change.) There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of native populations and cultures all across the Americas over the past several thousand years. It is unlikely that we already know everything there is to know about all of those varied peoples, and it is to be expected that we will learn things in the future that contradict our current understanding.
I would be extremely skeptical of anyone claiming to have found incontrovertible evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity. The Book of Mormon is not meant to be a comprehensive historical text. Its purpose is to testify of Christ. The historical and cultural details are peripheral to that central message.
Do you have a question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Submit it online.
So Joseph Smith was mistranslating the tablets or we haven’t yet discovered the revealed truths of his teachings.
Is there a third option? The two answers you have given are clearly not exhaustive of all the possibilities. Why did you leave the other possibilities out of your analysis? What would it cost you (personally) to even consider the possibility that Joseph Smith was simply giving you false information?
I don’t mean this as a rhetorical question. I really would like to know. What would be the personal cost to you if you were to openly discuss the possibility that Joseph Smith was wrong? Would your family disown you? Would you lose your status in the community? Would it your effect your chances of getting into heaven?
And if the answer to any of those questions is “yes,” can you really say that you are free to believe anything other than what you do?
Ideologies (religious and otherwise) are a way of belonging. But what this means is that if we question our ideology, we call our loyalty into question. The reality is that ALL ideologies are wrong. This includes Mormonism. Not completely wrong of course, but still all human knowledge is limited. When you give only two possible answers to the reasons for the inconsistency of your sacred text, you are practicing the socially sanctioned blind spot of your ideology. You are denying the possible wrongness of your belief system.
This is how ideology limits thought.
Paul –
The purpose of this column is to answer questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a faithful LDS perspective. Of course, I’m going to answer the questions through that lens, and not even attempt to be “exhaustive of all the possibilities.” That would take up far more time and column space than I have available and it’s simply not the purpose of a feature entitled “Ask a Mormon.”
Belonging is important, and I don’t believe it’s limited to ideologies, religious or otherwise. The better we understand each other and our various “wrong” ideologies, as you put it, the more compassion we can have for each other and the more we belong to each other, regardless of the diversity of our beliefs. Of course all ideologies are limited; they are filtered through imperfect human beings! (Mormon theology explicitly recognizes this, by the way.)
You have absolutely no basis for the assumption that I haven’t seriously considered the possibility that my belief system is wrong or that Joseph Smith was wrong. I believe that I’ve received my own answers to that question, direct from God, and I also believe that everyone else has to receive his or her own answers, which I fully recognize may or may not be the same as mine.
Emily, you are right, I have over-stated my case. I apologize. I made an assumption that was wrong. Clearly you have thought about the possibility that your position is mistaken.
Just to be clear, when you say:
“I believe that I’ve received my own answers to that question, direct from God, and I also believe that everyone else has to receive his or her own answers, which I fully recognize may or may not be the same as mine. “
Are you referring to the conflict between JS and the historical record, or are you referring to something else? I’m sure you realize that the historical veracity of a truth claim is not a matter of personal opinion. A claim is either true or it is not. We can see from ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ON EARTH that God-given insight is a not a reliable strategy for arriving at the truth about historical claims. At best so called divinely inspired histories are right about as often as guesses.
As someone who has given this subject some thought, what process do you use for deciding the truth of the matter? Or to put it another way, when you received your answers “direct from God,” what was that experience like for you?
Now, just to be clear here, I am fully aware that this line of questioning is considered by theists to be “disrespectful.” I am holding your feet to the fire about your religious/historical views. I mean no disrespect. This is considered rude because we live in a culture that says “the sacred must not be challenged.” Still I find I get my dander up. The problem is, I have my own version of the sacred, and your position IS a challenge MY sacred values. My sacred value is intellectual honesty. Knowledge is sacred. Revelation is not a valid form of knowledge. I know this from the study of history.
And history is not determined by fiat, divine or otherwise.
So please, answer my question. When God revealed the truth to you, what was that experience like? What process did you use to verify your experience as valid? What truth was revealed and how does it apply to Joseph Smiths version of history? I really want to know.
First off, I don’t think this line of questioning is necessarily disrespectful or rude at all. It’s all how you approach it, Paul. 😉 I also don’t think that intellectual honesty and spirituality are exclusive values.
You’re absolutely right that facts, historical or otherwise, are not determined by fiat. But there has to be an element of humility coupled with intellectual honesty that recognizes that there are some things that it simply isn’t possible to gain empirical knowledge of whether because of our own limitations or because of the nature of the thing itself. There are also some things where different perspectives yield seemingly contradictory statements that can both be, nonetheless, true. For one trite example, there’s that old parable about the blind men who each felt a different part of the elephant, its ear, its trunk, its leg, and insisted that their description was accurate (which was true), to the exclusion of the others (which was not). In order to be truly intellectually honest, we have to leave space for the as-yet-unknown and even the unknowable.
I would however disagree that revelation is not a valid form of knowledge. Revelation is not a substitute for scientific knowledge, but it’s absolutely valid for gaining spiritual knowledge.
Spiritual experiences are, by definition, individual, personal, and subjective. They can be difficult to put into words that others can understand and practically impossible to explain fully. I have no problem with others who find *my* revelation and experiences to be an unacceptable source of knowledge for *them*. But that doesn’t make them less real or valid for me. Disrespect and rudeness become a factor when others claim that because *my* revelation and experiences don’t work for *them*, they can’t possibly work for *me* either.
When I said “I believe that I’ve received my own answers to that question, direct from God, and I also believe that everyone else has to receive his or her own answers, which I fully recognize may or may not be the same as mine.” I was initially referring to Joseph Smith, as that’s what we were discussing. But it certainly applies to other aspects of my faith as well. Also, to clarify, the answers that I feel I’ve received aren’t the two possible explanations I outlined in the original post. Those are my own (and others’) offerings as reasonable theories for the discrepancies. The answer I received was, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of the original post, that the historical and cultural details of the text are of far less importance than the central message of Jesus Christ and the spiritual teachings contained in the Book of Mormon that help me draw closer to Him.
My general pattern for receiving answers to spiritual questions is very different from seeking out answers that are scientifically available. My process – and it varies some – is that I do a lot of reading and studying scriptures, sometimes discussing ideas with others to get their perspectives, and praying and meditating. Sometimes the answers come quickly, most often for me as a feeling of confirmation or peace. Sometimes the process takes a long time, days or even months or years.
I’m afraid this will be an incredibly unsatisfying answer for you, Paul, but at some point it takes faith. I believe there is a God. I believe He knows the truth of all things, so I believe that there’s a way to reconcile all truth, even the parts that look contradictory according to our current limited knowledge.
Paul, I have no idea whether or not Emily will choose to respond to your last question, but in my opinion you are crossing a line. I don’t believe the purpose of this website, or the ‘Ask a …’ columns, is to allow questioners to probe into writers’ most intimate and personal experiences and then pass pronouncements as to whether those experiences are ‘intellectually honest’ or meet any other individually imposed criteria. And simply because you want to know something doesn’t give you the right to ask. That is not intellectual honesty, that is being confused about boundaries.
Why does it bother you so much that people have experiences outside your own categories of acceptability? You are free to believe anything you want, and you need to allow others the same privilege. If you want to change people’s minds, you will get much further by explaining your own beliefs rather than probing, dissecting and disapproving others’.
Paul, I just realized that you are the same person who wrote such a kind and empathetic response to one of my postings (eternal life.) Even if you weren’t, but especially because you were, I wish I had written a softer response, above – hitting that “post comment” button is just too easy and I tend to dash off responses very quickly. So while I stand by the general content of what I wrote, I apologize for the lecturing attitude, and for being too personal in my criticism.
I’ve been impressed with Emily and how she’s handled comments on the Ask A Mormon feature, and on her Hell on Wheels post: https://favs.news/2013/08/12/hell-on-wheels-and-its-portrayal-of-mormons/. Religion is one of those things you aren’t supposed to talk about, but she’s willing to and has been graceful in her approach. Thanks Emily!
Emily,
I want to say that I am feeling really good about this thread right now because it really gets to the heart of an issue that I care very deeply about. Religion is a loaded topic for a reason. Religion is the realm where our irrationality comes to play. This is not a bad thing. Human beings are gloriously irrational creatures, and our religious traditions offer us ways for forming communities around the values we feel most passionate about. Religions are rather famously BAD at helping us to understand how the world works however. The Incan belief that cutting hearts out of chests was needed to make the sun rise is a rather gory example of this. I’m sure we can all think of many, many more.
I agree that intellectual honesty and spirituality are not mutually exclusive (If I did I would simply ignore the SpokaneFAV blog as irrelevant), but I do think that people have a long and often bloody tradition of clinging to their spiritual tradition in the teeth of contradictory evidence. I have made a formal study of this phenomenon, and I am writing a dissertation on this topic. Here is the thing: Human beings form models of the world. We learn these models through the narratives, values and relationships of our culture, and we use these models to form our identities and our support system. Because of this practice, we have very real personal, political and economic commitments to our models. However, this creates a dilemma for us, because at some level, ALL of us have incorrect models of the world, and challenging our models means challenging not only our identities, but our very strategies for survival.
This is, I think, at some level the crux of the biscuit of the original question you have taken on. “Conventional History” is the name for a set of models of the world that are based on a long cultural tradition of using various lines of evidence (including first-hand accounts, archeological artifacts and so forth). Conversely, Joseph Smith has offered a model of history that is based on his (and only his) interpretation of a set of (now missing) golden tablets that NO ONE has EVER been able to verify or corroborate. A single authority is claiming to write history on the basis of his (and only his) analysis of a single piece of now missing evidence. This is in fact a FIAT version of history. Where is the “element of humility” in this?
You said that revelation is “absolutely valid for gaining spiritual knowledge.” Ok, I’m not going to try to discredit your subjective experience, but we are not talking about subjective experience. We are talking about historical record. I think you are trying to sneak revelation into a realm of knowledge where it is clearly NOT valid. I asked you to clarify what your revelation refers to, and you have not done so.
In your original post you offered two rationalizations (and they ARE rationalizations, there is no other way to characterize them) for how Joseph Smiths’ fiat version of history might still be valid. My response to your position emerges out of my value for intellectual honesty. I don’t think that it is intellectually honest to pretend that JS’s revealed truths say anything valuable about history. As a person who is committed to your religious tradition, you have a built-in incentive to decide that your cultural tradition is true and then look ONLY for information that confirms your position and to rationalize away all the discrepancies. This is very human and it is a very good strategy for maintaining your identity as a devout Mormon, but it is clearly NOT intellectually honest, and it is not a good strategy for arriving at the truth.
When I saw you rationalizing away the fact that JS’s fiat version of history, I became angry. I became angry because I know that this sort of practice is not harmless. Thousands of children are mis-educated every year as a result of these religious commitments, just as millions of children are mis-educated every year to believe in a biblically literal version of creation. Anyone who uses evidence to decide what is true MUST conclude that these histories are false. The evidence is overwhelming. When I see you rationalizing away the false history offered by JS, I fear for the health of my nation. I fear that we are retreating into supernaturalism and turning our backs on knowledge. This is why I reacted the way I did.
Diane, you asked me a question that I really want to thank you for: “Why does it bother you so much that people have experiences outside your own categories of acceptability?” Believe it or not I have given this question a lot of thought. Because you know what? It DOES bother me. It bothers me a LOT, and figuring out why is only going to help my piece of mind.
Diane, before I go on, I want you to know, that you can ALLWAYS lecture me and correct my misconceptions. PLEASE feel free. There is nothing more loving that one person can do for another than to show that person how they are wrong. Discovering that I am wrong is the greatest privilege of being human. Please do not ever feel that you need to apologize for providing me this service. Just know that I will offer you this same gift.
This get’s into my answer to your question. I am a man with a very special gift to offer. I know that sounds arrogant but it is true. I have worked hard to develop my gift, and have done so at considerable personal cost. My gift is that I am extremely skilled at looking past the assumptions of the culture that I live in, and at understanding the processes at work underneath those assumptions. My value of intellectual honesty has lead me to question many things that people take for granted. This is why I am an atheist: because I understand the limits of my own knowledge.
To put this into the language of theology: This is my spiritual path. And I have to tell you it’s a lonely one. I am an atheist prophet, and like all prophets before me, my message is generally not wanted or appreciated. I post on this blog not because I want to lay the smack-down on theological nonsense (although there is plenty of that to go around), but because I am struggling to learn how to communicate with people who live in a VERY different world than I do. I am struggling to find a way to share my gift.
So that’s my answer to your question. It is a matter of history that Joseph Smith reported that he read some (now missing) golden tablets. What those tables said is a matter of REPORT. It is NOT a matter of history. History is not in the content of the tablets, it’s an analysis of the report in the context of other evidence. This is not debatable, it is a simple statement of fact. It is certainly not a matter of opinion.
Emily has continued to not answer my question: Does her position on divine revelation apply to her understanding of the historical record or doesn’t it? If it does, then she is simply mistaken to believe that revelation is a valid form of knowledge as it pertains to history. This is not about how revelation works, this is about how the history works. History is a human form of knowledge in which trained professionals offer analysis of multiple lines of evidence. This is not what Joseph Smith offers us. There is simply no getting around this.
A single person telling a story about supernatural events is not history. It is mythology. This is not because the content of the story is wrong. It is because the PROCESS for obtaining the story is not a historical one.
Holy long comment, Batman!
Well, I was right in saying that my answers would be incredibly unsatisfying to you, now, wasn’t I? 😉
Again, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, the historical and cultural details aren’t the crux of the Book of Mormon. I’m very well aware of confirmation bias (side note: have you read “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt?) and I offered two possible theories (or rationalizations as you put it) for a way the contradictions could be resolved, but it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the central message of Jesus Christ if the Book of Mormon is rooted in “history” or in “mythology”.
I specifically stated that my revelation did not apply to the scientific realm, but to the spiritual one. I said “The answer I received was, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of the original post, that the historical and cultural details of the text are of far less importance than the central message of Jesus Christ and the spiritual teachings contained in the Book of Mormon that help me draw closer to Him”. So I don’t understand how you can say I didn’t clarify what my personal revelation was about. It may not have been the answer you wanted or expected, but that doesn’t make it not an answer.
No one that I’m aware of is using the Book of Mormon to teach ancient American history. No one is trying to supplant the archaeological evidence by asserting that the Book of Mormon is the authoritative text on indigenous civilizations. As I have mentioned before, the study of ancient American archaeology is a rapidly changing one and we are far from having a complete understanding of it. Mormons – and others who acknowledge “supernatural” religious experiences – are not necessarily “turning their backs on knowledge”, we’re holding space open for what we don’t know and can’t empirically prove. You, however, seem to be claiming that you know for certain it can’t be true, and I would suggest that you aren’t nearly omniscient enough to make that claim stick. Call it a mythology if that makes you feel better, I have no problem with that at all and I suspect that most Mormons won’t either because, again, the historical and cultural aspects are of minimal importance compared to the spiritual and religious significance of the testimony of Jesus Christ.
As for your statement that “There is nothing more loving that one person can do for another than to show that person how they are wrong,” I strongly disagree and would point out that arrogance and condescension are a very odd way to show love.
I wish you well along the path you’ve chosen, Paul. I hope you find joy and satisfaction on your path, as I’ve found on mine.
Paul you said:
“I post on this blog not because I want to lay the smack-down on theological nonsense (although there is plenty of that to go around), but because I am struggling to learn how to communicate with people who live in a VERY different world than I do. I am struggling to find a way to share my gift.”
“Theological Nonsense” lol…you sure know how to make friends, dem dar r fight’n words!!! 😉
Taking on the roll of the Inquisitor is a big job and it also has a violent past, I’m sure you would agree. Heretic hunting has sacred and secular boogie men in the closet. Some of most horrific crimes against humanity have been and are currently perpetuated by such trials and tests. The throne of rightness is soaked in blood.
I think Diane’s question is a helpful practice of self-analysis for everyone. Why do we need to tell other people that their faith, their scriptures, their histories and their practices are wrong, are abominations, incorrect, incomplete or illogical?
When someone sets themselves or their faith, tradition or philosophy as preeminent over all others it ceases to become a path and instead becomes a tool of judgment.
I think your questions need answers to the stent that they are able to be answered. I think you bring up valid points that beg answers.
I am going to bow out of the conversation now, but I did read the last postings, very interesting, all of them.
Ok, much to think about and respond to.
Emily, I think I take your meaning, and I thank you for your patience in addressing my concerns. I get that you are not terribly invested in the truth claims of Joseph Smith’s historical accounts, and that you are more invested in the spiritual teachings. Fair enough. I think I see the space you are working to occupy, and I’m sorry I misjudged you. All that said, I do think my concern is a valid one, even it is not of great consequence to your personal theology. You may not have met anyone who is using the book of Mormon to teach American History, but I have.
As an aside, I recently gave a ride to two women and a girl who were stranded on the side of the road with several bags of groceries. They stated that they were Mormons who had “escaped” (their words not mine) from their husband and father. They were terrified that I was the devil, but they were desperate so they accepted my help. As I drove them home, they explained all the teachings they had received from the church about the evils of the world. I was impressed and moved by the amount of courage it took for them to leave their culture and to move into a world that they sincerely believed was a den of evil. Clearly they must have had it pretty bad to take such a (perceived) risk. They were too paranoid to reason with, so I just comforted them, and dropped them off. I didn’t tell them I was an atheist because I was afraid I would scare them. But I left that encounter asking myself: What sort of community does that to its women? Who uses fear and superstition to control like that?
I am SURE that this troubled family is NOT representative of the whole LDS church, but it was also clear that it was not the husband alone who had conditioned them to fear the outside world. They spoke of their beliefs as the teachings of their church not of their husband. I also know from my work that while these women were not typical, they were also not unique.
I hold YOU, Emily Geddes, accountable to the truth claims of your religion in part in solidarity and compassion for those women. Only a belief system that de-values critical thought can do that to a person. So go ahead and call me arrogant and judgmental all you like.
Eric,
Yes, that’s right, “Theological Nonsense.” The United States is the most religious industrialized nation in the world. We are also one of the most ignorant. For example, we scored 31 out of 32 in industrialized nations on measures of belief in evolution. This level of ignorance is a direct result of religious teachings according to both the Pew research center and the center for science education. Now I’m not going to sit here and claim that all theology is nonsense, but CLEARLY there is a lot of theological nonsense to go around. Creationism is theological nonsense. So is the idea that Joseph Smith offered valid historical knowledge learned from divine revelation.
“Why do we need to tell other people that their faith, their scriptures, their histories and their practices are wrong, are abominations, incorrect, incomplete or illogical?”
Because we live in a world where people of faith spend millions of dollars building creation museums that could have been used to cure diseases. Because we live in a world where we NEED a National Center for Science Education to defend real knowledge against religiously motivated political attacks. Because we live in a world where millions of Americans believe that climate change and ecological degradation are of no concern precisely because Jesus is going to use his divine magic to fix the world IN THEIR LIFETIMES. The ignorance promoted by “theological nonsense” have very real consequences in the world, and my family and I have to live in this world.
We have a tradition in this country that religious beliefs are above reproach. Well, I’m going to reproach them! Some theological beliefs offer moral teachings and narratives that help people to develop meaningful and rich lives. But face it, some theology is just flat out wrong, and demonstrably so. The idea that “you sure know how to make friends…” is besides the point. You call this an inquisition. Are you saying that calling BS on BS is the moral equivalent of mass murder? That seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
That said, I would like your help. If you were to critically evaluate YOUR theological beliefs, what standard would you use to tell the good ones from the bad ones? Jesus said that you will know a false prophet by his fruits. Jesus gave us that standard of evidence.
Forgive me for saying so, but Jesus then got himself crucified, and in doing so founded a religion that has been responsible for both the preservation and the destruction of knowledge, for both the protection and oppression of the weak, and for both hospitals and crusades. By Jesus’ own standards, as a prophet he was a pretty mixed bag.
I’m sure Emily would describe this attitude as one of “arrogance and condescension.” But like it or not, you guys live in a world in which about 2/3 of the people on earth disagree with you about the divine status of your messiah. What standard would you ask US non-Christians to use to judge the validity of your truth claims?
And after you answer that question, please explain to me why I should sit by in silence while people who believe stuff that I find fantastical should have the lion’s share of political power.
And with that statement, I think that I have said all I have to say. I am going to take Diane’s example and bow out of this conversation. But please do respond. I promise I will read whatever you write.
Hey everyone. I do appreciate this conversation. The purpose of this website is to promote dialogue. However, it’s not a place to personally attack my writers. Paul, I like that you’re asking questions, please keep doing so. But I want to remind everyone, please, that this is a safe place where people are respected for their beliefs. It takes courage to write about them on the web and I, for one, am grateful to all 45 of the SpokaneFAVS writers who put themselves out there. We’re here to learn about each other, about our neighbors, not to fight with one another.
My oh my, I did stir up something with this question!
My intent was to learn from a practicing Mormon the extent to which the historicity of the Book of Mormon was a working issue. My experience with ex-Mormons at S3 was that the topic never came up much, and this appears to be a common feature. The issue goes far beyond the absence of any correlation of Mormon stories with precolumbian history; it is also the quite anachronistic elements such as battles involving horse-drawn chariots, or wheat crops and iron tools, mistakes perfectly plausible for the untutored upstate New Yorker Joseph Smith to have made, but hardly cut the mustard if one is asserting that the text as received represents anything like accurate history.
The exchange reinforces my suspicion that believers in religious doctrines that implicitly carry historical baggage find ways to not think too much about that, and this is relatively independent of what it is the believer thinks to be so. John Crossan (who is speaking at Gonzaga tomorrow evening) may be just as likely to not fret too much on the non-event of the global Flood or the linguistically imaginary rationale for the Tower of Babel. The opposite stance is to take all the palaver at full strength (as Young Earth creationists do with the Old Testament) and at least win points for zany consistency.
An aside to Paul (who I know so I can jump on this): aim for more concise comments in a vanue like this, since one can ramble on too easily and forget how hard it is to read, let alone respond to, online. And just as a matter of record, the Andean Inca were not the heart-rippers of note, that was the practice of the Maya and finally Aztecs.
Why thank you Jim, for correcting my error.