Back to Mormonism Researched Page

A Discussion Panel Analyzes External Evidences for Scripture

Excerpts selected by Kerry A. Shirts

Paul R. Cheesman and C. Wilfred Griggs edited a symposium into the book "Scriptures for the Modern World,"BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984, which I have enjoyed through the years. In re-reading it, I am particularly struck by the panel discussion that was held concerning external evidences of scripture. I usually deal with this aspect of the scriptures as well as the history involved. The discussion was a nifty one since it involved those professors who are involved in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible and how they see the relationship between external evidences and scripture, and the purpose of both are.

The subject of external evidences is both interesting and dangerous. Eccentrics who claim Book of Mormon evidencs in artifacts from Alaska and South America simultaneously need to be very cautious before attributing everything found to the Book of Mormon. Many thousands of people have reported the process that through external evidences they became interested in seeking a spiritual experience, though they were not spiritually inclined in the beginning.

Noel B. Reynolds was asked about the relationship of internal and external evidences for the Book of Mormon. He responded:

The BofM exists. It has been published, distributed, taught from, etc. That it exists is not much up for debate, the main issue is the explanation for the book's existence. The answer to who wrote it is interesting. If the official explanation is correct, then there is evidence that God exists, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith was the prophet chosen to translate the book into modern English for our sakes. The hypothesis of a 19th century origin says nothing about the existence of God, angels or prophets.

Whenever we have competing hypotheses, which purport to explain the facts, the most effective use of evidence is to falsify or refute one of the explanations. This is why critics of the official explanation of the Church focus on facts, which, if established, would contradict or falsify the official explanation.

One theory is that Joseph Smith was an epileptic, who produced the BofM while in an epileptic fit. Another explanation is Solomon Spaulding is the original inspiration for the BofM. Another explanation is that the BofM is merely a borrowing of 19th century American concerns.

So, similarly, the strongest line for Mormon apologists would be a direct attack on the fraud thesis. This is what happens when it is argued that

The BofM contains large numbers of authentic names and phrases from the ancient Middle Eastern world which would not have been known or available to 19th century conspirators. The BofM also contains much excellent Hebrew poetic forms that were unknown in 1830. Another angle is that wordprint studies shows at least 24 distinctions between BofM authors, none of which are identified with Joseph Smith or any of his associates.

Another angle is to show that no epileptic writings have occurred during seizures, eliminating that possible explanation. The Solomon Spaulding theory shows no remote resemblance to the BofM, it being an obvious fabrication and makes no other pretense.

Bushman has demonstrated that the politics in the BofM bear no resemblence to politics in 19th century America at all, but rather reflects the ancient notions of kingship, as it should, were it an ancient book.

John Sorenson has demonstrated a plausible Mesoamerican setting for the BofM, demonstrating that the archaeological evidence or lack of it, is not as strong as critics imply or even directly claim. Hugh Nibley's demonstration of extensive ancient Near Eastern cultural tracks in the BofM offer a formidible refutation of the fraud hypothesis.

Paul Cheesman then comments that the preface to the BofM is to teach us of Jesus Christ. So the question is how persuasive is it to nonbelievers in seeing external evidence?

John Sorenson answered that the external evidence in most cases is not central. It is not a question for which nonbelievers feel they have to have an answer for. Mormons usually use trivial evidences, hence trivial evidences have a boomerang effect once the education of the relatively uneducated gathers steam. That is why it is so dangerous to use only external evidences.

Then the question arises are the external evidence more in favor with those who already have testimonies as opposed to those who don't.

Arthur Wallace answered that yes, this is in large part true. The Lord does not expect his people to live, believe, and serve in an intellectual vacuum. Knowledge of tangible evidences can add inspiration, confidence, and determination. And since it is difficult to obtain a testimony which is usually as fleeting as a moonbeam, the tangible evidences help members to do the necessary things to keep in tune with the Spirit. Tangible evidences do not replace the spirit. Some members who can be turned off by the tangible evidence perhaps cannot be turned on by the Sprit either. Often it is a matter of their attitude and how they are approached. And in line with the tangible evidences it is wise to keep in mind the value of D&C 20:8-13, Alma 32, and 2 Corinthians 13:8.

The next question concerns tangible evidences and whether they confirm anything about the existence of God.

Noel B. Reynolds answered that Empirical evidence never proves anything absolutely. They can only be used to confirm or refute theories. Basically the only way to avoid the conclusion that God must exist is simply to assume that he does not exist and assert that all the evidence to the contrary is wrong and should be disbelieved. But this kind of faith has no more to recommend than the faith that God does exist. Determined atheism is a religion.

So what about when some asserted evidence is proven invalid?

John Sorenson answers that this is often. Evidences should not be presented as proof. There is great variation between any two people as to what evidence means, especially as regarding proof of something or other. I would prefer to call these evidences, whatever they are, facts that provide illumination or enlightenment about the scriptures for me.

Another important point is that scientific results are always going to change. Surely 100 years from now we will consider that what we knew in the 1980's was extremely limited. Why should we take it all that seriously? We have to be a little sophisticated about the tentativeness of science. Good scientists, are in fact, tentative. That is why this argument about evidences for and against the scriptures are usually with nonscientists or poor ones. They have not learned how unreliable current knowledge is.

Another thing we have to keep in mind is that if we find patterns or comprehensive pictures that fit the scriptures, that is much more reliable than individual items where the external evidences matches Book of Mormon statements. Because even though some individual items may change, the overall pattern will not. If the patterns are right, then your position holds up. You can find additional support and additional facts that fit a pattern, even though your initial facts may be superseded.

Finally, all external evidences prove soft. The final question is the spiritual question.

So, can Mormonism be proven experimentally?

Arthur Wallace noted that the BofM has never been disproven scientifically. The interesting thing is that if it were false, the task would be relatively easy.

Paul Cheesman noted that many Mormons take the BofM to contain the history of all the ancestors of the American Indian. This is not what the BofM itself says however.

And Noel B. Reynolds then notes that for Christians, the proofs of God's existence are derived from the definitions of God's goodness and greatness. They are logical exercises. But the BofM puts an entirely different spin on the issue. The very existence of the book constitutes a claim that God has intervened in the natural order, producing effects that science cannot explain without recognizing that intervention.

Finally, a dated question to be sure, concerning what strides are being made to decipher the Mayan hieroglyphics, and would this illuminate the BofM?

John Sorenson notes substantial strides in the 1980's. And since the Mayan hieroglyphs which have been translated don't say very much except for local events, they are not all that illuminating, as of yet, for the BofM.

Do non-Mormon archaeologist agree with Book of Mormon archaeology?

Sorenson again answers no non-Mormon scholar has paid enough attention to the BofM yet to have much substantial to say about it. Non-Mormons scholars don't care. They consider the BofM a dead end, because that is what they have been told.

Why was there no communication between the Nephites and the Old World?

The real question on this topic however is did the BofM people communicate on a world scene? Apparently not. They felt they were isolated. There was no lengthy communication between the Old and New Worlds before the time of Christ anyway. It is overoptimistic to suppose that the Nephites were highly civilized in the sense of being technological giants. Furthermore, missionaries are sent out to teach what they know. There is not 1 in 10,000 who know enough about archaeology to say anything significant about it. I think they therefore ought to be quiet about it.

Finally, the last question concerns the earthquakes in the BofM. Didn't they rearrange the land masses? Cities sank into the earth, mountains were formed, etc. How can we then attempt to pinpoint the land that was talked about in the BofM by using descriptions earlier in the book?

Paul R. Cheesman answered that It is true that some land masses were changed, but Mormon, the abridger of the BofM, both earlier and later identified a narrow neck of land, which apparently remained a fixture in the land as he knew it. What we must remember is that the BofM was not written as an archaeological record, but as God's dealings with these people, to teach us that Jesus is the Christ. The BofM is a spiritual record and must be perceived as such.