People have sent me links to series of articles in the
Interpreter that purport to provide a Bayesian statistical analysis to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I haven't commented on them because the methodology consists of making assumptions and applying statistical analysis to reach the desired outcome. It's pure circular reasoning, akin to the "black box" method of stylometry (word-print analysis) we've seen over the years from M2C apologists.
All of this is fine for bias confirmation--and people can believe whatever they want--but it's completely unpersuasive in terms of fact and logic.
I'm commenting on the latest one because of the astonishing number of logical and factual fallacies in the assumptions.
The number of fallacies takes this out of the category of mere misinformation into the realm of disinformation. Being published in the Interpreter is another indicia of disinformation, given the editorial stance of that journal.
Here's the article:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/estimating-the-evidence-15/
In the first place, of course, so-called "anachronisms" are problematic primarily because so many LDS scholars now assume Joseph didn't really translate the plates but instead merely read words that appeared on a stone in the hat (SITH). If the English words were given to Joseph purely by revelation, whether they appeared on the seer stone or in vision, then the English words were provided by the MIST (mysterious incognito supernatural translator) and errors are inexcusable and inexplicable (except where Joseph misread the words or the scribes misunderstood the dictation). This is the essence of the criticisms by CES Letter and others who share the same assumption as Royal Skousen, Jack Welch, and their students and followers (and donors).
On the other hand, if Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates (as he and Oliver claimed), then we would expect the language of the translation to reflect Joseph's own lexicon and environment, making anachronisms expected, not problematic. Evidence of composition is also evidence of translation.
Because this article was published in the Interpreter, we can be sure that it passed the peer-approval process that assures readers that their faith in SITH (and M2C) will not be challenged. As we'll see, the Interpreter's orthodoxy enforcement team was not asleep at the wheel.
After a bizarre introduction, the article's labeled introduction offers some promise.
[original in blue, my comments in red]
As we considered last time, the archaeological evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon does little to convincingly settle the question one way or the other. But the trajectory of that evidence—how the state of such evidence has changed over time—may tell a different story.
The trajectory presented in the article reflects changes in the interpretation of the text to match Mesoamerica more than any archaeological evidence.
Critics have spent decades highlighting the book’s apparent weaknesses. Yet, line upon line, many of those criticisms have fallen by the wayside, the evidence turning unexpectedly in the Book of Mormon’s favor.
We can't tell what it means for evidence to be in favor of the Book of Mormon when the most basic criticism--that the text is not a real history but instead an imaginary tale--is constantly reinforced by LDS scholars who promote SITH.
Critics are decidedly slow to give the book any credit in these cases, and instead tend to move on to the next available line of attack.
This statement misses the basic criticism. Finding real-world evidence that supports M2C and SITH is like finding real-world evidence that corroborates Lord of the Rings (which, unlike the Book of Mormon, does mention volcanoes).
The only real-world evidence that matters is evidence that corroborates what Joseph and Oliver claimed.
Evidence that corroborates the M2C interpretations of the text by modern scholars is not only irrelevant (and circular) but counterproductive. M2C and SITH both insist that Joseph and Oliver misled us. Compiling evidence to prove they misled us hardly supports the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
But if those past criticisms could be addressed, why not the ones we currently face? Why not the ones that will inevitably turn up in the future?
The past criticisms have been amplified, not addressed, by M2C and SITH.
In this post, we build on some intriguing work tracking the criticisms leveled against the Book of Mormon over time, and how those criticisms have fared as additional evidence has come to light. We ask what that evidence could look like in the years to come. We then gauge how likely it is that a fraudulent work could show the “trajectory” we observe with the Book of Mormon.
Sounds great. Let's see what happens in the article.
The article starts by citing and describing Matt Roper's 2019 presentation, which you can see here:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/time-vindicates-the-prophet
The article lists criticism of the Book of Mormon based on alleged anachronisms, starting with those in Mormonism Unvailed. However, the anachronisms were a bit of a red herring. Even in the 1830s, people knew the Bible contained anachronisms (e.g., candles instead of lamps), but anachronisms that arise from translation are understandable, even expected. Translators use their own lexicon and culture to translate; otherwise, their work wouldn't be a translation. Anachronisms didn't prove the Bible was false.
The overriding objection to the Book of Mormon was that it was not a translation.
Which, perversely, is what LDS scholars are trying to prove today!
The title of Mormonism Unvailed makes this clear. The only time the book refers to the "vail" is when it asks, what was behind the vail (or curtain) when Joseph was dictating.
The book claims Joseph was reading from the Spalding manuscript. Joseph and Oliver said he was translating the plates. The presence of the "vail" was never in dispute; it was implicit when Joseph explained that he was commanded not to display the plates or the U&T.
Mormonism Unvailed ridiculed the idea that Joseph read words off a stone in the hat (SITH), pointing out that if Joseph didn't use the plates, then the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses was irrelevant. That's a point the modern SITH-sayers don't have an answer to, just like they have no answer for the identity of the MIST, or an explanation for why Joseph said he translated the plates when, according to them, he did no such thing.
BTW, Mormonism Unvailed also clearly distinguished between the "peep stone" and the "Urim and Thummim," a point overlooked by certain LDS scholars/historians who continue to insist that when Joseph and Oliver referred to the Urim and Thummim they (Joseph and Oliver) intentionally misled people because they knew that Joseph used only SITH to produce the text we have today. The best known proponent of that idea is probably Royal Skousen, as I've discussed elsewhere.
_____
Getting back to Brother Roper's list of anachronisms, Roper sets up his theses to show a trend toward more confirmation of anachronisms in recent years.
The article explains three hypotheses. I agree with the idea of multiple working hypotheses and it's good to see it here. Unfortunately, the article focuses on only two.
Anachronisms have been overturned due to the historical and archaeological evidence catching up with the statements made in the Book of Mormon—According to this theory, all of the anachronisms that have been put forward are based on the misunderstanding or (justifiable) lack of information on the part of critics, with new information coming to light and gradually overturning those anachronisms over time. The trajectory of confirmed items should thus mirror the trajectory of increasingly thorough and accurate archaeological examination taking place in presumed Book of Mormon areas.
As we'll see below, the article conflates "statements made in the Book of Mormon" with interpretations of the text. It also simply takes for granted the "presumed Book of Mormon areas" in Mesoamerica.
Anachronisms have been overturned on the basis of chance—This hypothesis asserts that anachronisms are based on the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction, and that as such it should offer plenty of tell-tale anachronisms that would be traced to the misinformed imaginings of Joseph Smith. Some anachronisms may have been put forward by critics out of ignorance, and as such could be overturned by new information, but such instances should be rare, with confirmations occurring by chance as new information happens to coincidentally align with what the Book of Mormon posits. The trajectory of confirmed items should mirror what we observe for other known frauds or other examples of inaccurate ideas.
This hypotheses is laden with questionable assumptions. There's no reason why it would be "rare" for new information to confirm alleged anachronisms because of the breadth and depth of new information. For example, there is far more new information about Mayan culture that contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative than new correspondences. The choice of "other known frauds" is also determinative.
There is a third option worth discussing briefly: It’s possible that confirmations aren’t due to new information aligning with the Book of Mormon, but interpretations of the Book of Mormon changing to fit the available evidence.
This is not only possible, but expressly embraced by M2C theorists, such as John Sorenson's shift from assuming the Book of Mormon people were mostly illiterate to his later assertion that they were highly literate, the claim that the Book of Mormon describes vast populations in the multiple millions, the claim that the text describes large stone pyramids (towers), etc. That this article discusses this option only "briefly" betrays the inherent bias behind the article and its publication.
The move from a continental to a limited geography model is a good example of this—even if the Book of Mormon isn’t authentic, it would be easy for the number of confirmations to increase suddenly and dramatically just by finding a geography where the anachronisms no longer apply.
That is a good example, albeit not in the sense the article intends, as we'll see below.
A good test for that idea is to look at anachronisms that apply specifically to Old World archaeology and geography. Faithful scholars can readily alter their view on where the Book of Mormon took place in the New World, but with the Old World anachronisms they’re pretty well stuck—we know where Jerusalem was, and the Book of Mormon describes travel through the Old World in sufficient detail that interpretations aren’t likely to change. By looking at these Old World anachronisms we can thus get a sense of whether the Book of Mormon’s move to a limited geography is creating a misleading picture of its trajectory.
Fair enough.
The article proceeds to review the past probabilities of ancient authorship, including the Early Modern English charade that is used by certain LDS scholars to prove Joseph not only didn't but couldn't have translated the plates into English.
Next, the article explains the assumptions behind inferring and projecting the trajectory of confirmed anachronisms. This is the "guesses dressed up as statistical probabilities" section. Then we have a break down of anachronisms based on Old World vs New World.
Old vs. New World anachronisms. As mentioned above, it’s also worth breaking down the proposed anachronisms by whether they make reference to items in the New World (e.g., metallurgy in the Americas), or in the Old (e.g., a reference to the “Land of Jerusalem”). If the increased plausibility of the Book of Mormon has come largely from relocating New World theories to a limited area in Mesoamerica, we should see nearly all of the confirmed anachronism coming from ones applicable to the New World, and almost none from the Old. But that’s not what we see, as shown in the table below.
The article creates a straw man here by claiming "we should see" almost no confirmed anachronisms coming from the Old World, despite the enormous amount of archaeological work being done there. This analysis ignores the obvious problem that the volume and variety of new information from archaeology can confirm, refute, or remain neutral regarding Book of Mormon claims. If there are 1,000 discoveries, and 2 confirm the Book of Mormon while 20 refute it, is it reasonable for Roper and this article to count only the confirming discoveries?
The article acknowledges that scholars have "relocated" the Book of Mormon "to a limited area in Mesoamerica." The explicit motivation for this relocation is to find "correspondences" between the text and real-world settings. It sets up a circular argument that the article seems oblivious to. Because M2C scholars "relocated" the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica to address alleged problems of anachronisms, it is hardly significant that alleged problems of anachronism are addressed in Mesoamerica.
This should be obvious from the charts in the article that show a higher percentage of the Book of Mormon being "confirmed" just as the M2C scholars, based on their M2C interpretation of the text, "relocated" the events to Mesoamerica.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the data is broadly consistent with our hypothesis. Book of Mormon anachronisms started to be confirmed at a dramatic rate after 1965, as archaeological work exploded over that same time period, which is exactly what we’d expect from an authentic Book of Mormon.
It's difficult to believe the author, or peer reviewers, of this article didn't recognize the circular reasoning at play here. As the article points out, the alleged anachronisms were identified beginning in the 1830s. The 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon addressed some of the geographical issues in the footnotes. Questions of geography were debated in both the LDS and RLDS church in the late 1800s and early 1900s. L.E. Hills, largely in response to anachronisms and geography issues, published his M2C map in 1917. In 1920, the LDS edition removed the 1879 footnotes. B.H. Roberts compiled his list of anachronisms. Scholars looked throughout the Americas for an area that best resolved the alleged problems. Eventually LDS scholars adopted the Hills M2C approach, adopting an interpretation of the text that fit Mesoamerica.
To now say we would expect "an authentic Book of Mormon" to be confirmed by archaeological work in the area chosen specifically to resolve the perceived problems requires readers to pretend this intellectual history never took place. Furthermore, the assertion has the same problem as Old World evidence; i.e., how much of the "new information" confirms vs refutes the claims of the text? That question is never addressed in the article.
Next we have the inevitable "flat earth" thought experiment that is endemic in M2C apologetics. But that is followed by a very strange analysis.
If doesn’t take much to turn an authentic book into a fraudulent one—all you have to do is change its purported setting. If, for instance, I took the Popul Vuh and claimed that it took place in Outer Siberia, I’d instantly have a fraud on my hands. I could then document all the various problems that could have been leveled against that theory, and track how many of those criticisms would have been overturned over time.
I infer the point is that the Popul Vuh contains references to foods, fauna, archaeology, geography, geology, and culture foreign to Outer Siberia. The creation scene, for example, refers to animals that I assume are not native to, or even found in, Outer Siberia. But the M2C scholars face the same problem when they place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, so they just assume the translation was wrong and should have read "tapir" instead of "horse."
We can do that with the Book of Mormon. For most of the Book of Mormon’s history people had assumed that, say, a small, archaeologically insignificant drumlin in upstate New York was the site of a massacre of hundreds of thousands of people.
Here we see either or both the inherent bias and factual fallacies typical of this article.
"Small" is a relative term, of course, and the NY Cumorah is actually the largest hill in the area (after all, it's Hill Cumorah, not Mount Cumorah). The text does not state or imply that the hill should be "archaeologically significant;" it was merely the site of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, the last of numerous such battles. Nevertheless, Heber C. Kimball visited the site after he was baptized in 1832 and said he could still see the embankments around the hill.
The text does not require the "massacre of hundreds of thousands of people." Oliver Cowdery made this point in 1835 in Letter VII, explaining that only "thousands" of Jaredites died there and "tens of thousands" of Lamanites and Nephites combined. The text enumerates the last 3 days of the week-long Jaredite battle; simple numerical extrapolation produces a combined army of under 10,000 people, consistent with what Oliver wrote. Mormon said only that he could see, from the top of Cumorah, the dead from his "10,000" and the 10,000 led by his son Moroni. No one suggests this was a specific number, as if he would have written nine-thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine if he was one short. It's obviously a military unit, like a modern company in the Army, or like Xenophon's 10,000, which, by the end of the Anabasis, included only around 6,000 men. Readers have long inferred that, from the top of Cumorah, Mormon saw 23 companies of 10,000 each, but that's not what the text says. Such a reading is highly implausible anyway when the largest army in the text that was actually enumerated was in 330 AD when 42,000 Nephites withstood 44,000 Lamanites. And this was after Mormon had gathered in his people in one body. (Mormon 2:7, 9). Of course, that was 50 years before the final battle, but the years leading up to Cumorah were characterized by retreat and carnage, not fecund prosperity.
We can state rather confidently now that such isn’t the case.
"We" here apparently refers to M2C activists, who are uninformed or misinformed about the teachings of the prophets, the relevant archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc., and the interpretations of the text that reconcile the two. Obviously, readers of the Interpreter are never exposed to this approach because of the editorial stance of the journal, but is that really an excuse for this ignorance?
But what if that was still the dominant theory? What if the faithful consensus was that the Book of Mormon took place predominantly in the central or northeast United States?
Another way to say this is, what if people still believed the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures?
Various people have tried and continue to try to make that argument, while others have leveled criticisms against it. By taking a look at those criticisms, we can get a sense for how the Book of Mormon would be faring if it was an incorrect or fabricated document.
This is a good opportunity for comparison.
If so, much of Roper’s analysis would still apply—the entire trajectory up to 1965 would apply just as much to that theory (which I label here as the “Original Assumptions” theory) as it would to the current consensus.
Really? The imprecision of the term "Original Assumptions" as used here lets the article get away with an army of straw men. For example, the Pratt brothers assumed North America was the land northward, while South America was the land southward. That's not a "faithful consensus that the Book of Mormon took place predominantly in the central or northeast United States," which is a description of the Heartland model (writ large). As we'll see below, this "cursory search" allows the article to superficially dismiss a fundamental error in the analysis.
It’s the period from 1966-2019 that would change. To figure out how it would change, I started by going through Roper’s set of anachronisms, conducting a cursory search to see how many of those anachronisms would still be in force if applied to the Indigenous peoples of ancient North America (you can see the Appendix for a list of which ones I see as confirmed under that theory). I then scanned through some additional criticisms that faithful scholars have applied to that theory as it’s generally argued today. If you’re curious, you can see the list of criticisms that scholars have applied specifically to one or more versions of the original assumptions theory in the table below.
Let's go through the table next. The amount of ignorance and misinformation in this table is stunning (but again, typical of those who depend on the M2C citation cartel for their information).
| Table 3. Criticisms Presented by Faithful Scholars Against an “Original Assumptions” Model |
|---|
| # | Type | Feature | Notes |
|---|
| 1 | Geography | Cultural leader with continent-level influence | Alma 22 requires that the King the Lamanites is able to send messengers throughout the entirety of his lands, extending from the Sea West to the Sea East, which in the Original Assumptions model would have to be the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans
If the "Original Assumptions" model is the Pratt brothers' model, we still don't know the latitude involved. If "Original Assumptions" means the Heartland model, then the land would consist primarily of the modern southeastern US, connected by rivers. |
| 2 | Geography | Messengers traveling continent-level distances | Alma 22 requires that the King the Lamanites is able to send messengers throughout the entirety of his lands, extending from the Sea West to the Sea East, which in the Original Assumptions model would have to be the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans
Same as above. |
| 3 | Geography | Narrow strip of mountainous wilderness close to southern Illinois | The “head” of the Sidon river, which is identified in some models as the place where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers meet, needs to be located in a narrow strip of wilderness, as noted in Alma 22:27.
The John Sorenson translation of the Book of Mormon inserts the "mountainous" requirement that is not found in Joseph Smith's translation. "Narrow strip of wilderness" is a good description of a large river that runs dry in the summers, as the Ohio River did before they built the dams. |
| 4 | Geography | Long-distance march from east sea to southern Illinois | Alma 43:22 notes a Lamanite march from Antionum, which Alma 31:3 places near the “seashore”. In the relevant models this would have to be near the Atlantic, necessitating a march of at least 500 miles. There’s no evidence that armies of this period could feasibly travel this far.
Another straw man argument, because "seashore" can include the shore of any large body of water. It does not require an ocean. |
| 5 | Geography | Southern Illinois as an important gateway to Independence | Alma 43:22 requires that Manti, which is placed at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, be an important entrance to Zarahemla, placed in some models as Independence, Missouri. Going through Manti at that location would be a significant detour rather than a required gateway.
Impossible to determine what geographical theory is being described here. |
| 6 | Geography | Narrow neck south of Cumorah | The Book of Mormon clearly places the Hill Cumorah north of the narrow neck of land, which cannot be squared with the Great Lakes narrow neck within these models.
This is the perennial straw man argument that conflates the "narrow neck of land" in Ether 10:20 with the "narrow neck" and "small neck" in Alma. It also assumes a "narrow neck of land" can only be an isthmus, contrary to common usage. |
| 7 | Geography | Lack of volcanic activity | There was no known volcanic or earthquake activity in the U.S. region during the time specified.
Another straw man argument that actually contradicts M2C because the text never mentions volcanic activity or volcanoes. Instead, it describes a land devoid of volcanoes. Meanwhile, the largest known earthquake in the continental U.S. was at the New Madrid fault along the Mississippi. . |
| 8 | Fauna | Poisonous serpents at narrow neck | There are no known poisonous serpents plausibly occupying the area around the narrow neck of land.
Impossible to know which "narrow neck" this refers to, but poisonous serpents are known throughout the midwestern and northeastern states even today. |
| 9 | Military | Swords | There is a lack of sword-like objects used in battle by area peoples.
Although any iron weapons would be long since rusted away, there are copper sword-like weapons in museums and private collections. |
| 10 | Military | Headplates | There is a lack of head-plate objects serving as feasible armor.
There are headplates dating to Book of Mormon times in museums throughout Ohio. |
| 11 | Technological | Cement | There is a lack of limestone mortar or any type of cement dating to the correct time period.
Hopewell cement is not only well known, but was used with wood as described in the text (which does not mention using cement with stone). |
| 12 | Geography | Lack of mention of snow or cold climate in the New World | Aside from a metaphorical reference by Nephi (who would have been familiar with snow and blizzards from the Old World) the Book of Mormon never mentions the type of snow or cold that would have seasonally characterized relevant U.S. areas.
Another perennial straw man because the text rarely mentions weather. By this standard, Paul never visited Turkey because the New Testament doesn't mention snow but it snows in places that Paul visited. Besides, the Lamanites wore "very thick garments" (Alma 49:6). Also, the BofM mentions snow more than it mentions volcanoes, but M2C turn this on its head by saying that means the BofM took place in an area without snow but with volcanoes. |
| 13 | Geography | Columbus did not visit the contiguous United States | A key feature of the theory is that the “promised land” is entirely within the contiguous United States, while in the Book of Mormon an explorer, usually labeled Columbus, is specifically said to have visited (and smote) descendents of the Lamanites in the promised land.
First, the text doesn't mention Columbus; that was a later spin on the text, which could have referenced Cabot or other explorers. Second, Columbus never visited Guatemala or Mesoamerica. Third, post-BofM populations migrated and intermarried throughout the hemisphere, including the Caribbean islands. |
| 14 | Cultural | Two separate cultures living in close proximity | The Book of Mormon requires two cultures, living adjacent to but separate from each other within a similar timeframe. The Adena and the Hopewell don’t fit these criteria.
This one is so confused I can't tell what it means. Adena = Jaredites and Hopewell = Nephites/Mulekites. There were several regional Hopewell cultures that fit the BofM timelines. |
| 15 | Cultural | Numerous cities within the dated timeframe | I was unable to identify evidence of the numerous cities noted in the Book of Mormon between 200BC and 400AD.
What is a city? There were sites mentioned in the Bible as cities that had as few as 2,000 inhabitants. There were around 1 million mound sites in North America, of which around 100,000 still exist. Which were cities, towns, or villages is difficult to determine. |
| 16 | Geography | Lehi’s landing on the West coast | Lehi’s landing is definitively identified as on the west coast, far from relevant areas.
The only "definitive" identification was the coast of Chile, which contradicts M2C and was likely based on Frederick G. Williams assuming "30 degrees latitude" meant south, when it actually meant north. Any other "definitive" identification is based on the musings of M2C activists. |
| 17 | Geography | Metals in great abundance | There is a lack of necessary ore deposits in relevant areas.
There are abundant deposits (and ancient mines) in Tennessee and Michigan. |
| 18 | Geography | Elevation differences between Manti, Nephi, and Zarahemla | The locations for Manti, Nephi, and Zarahemla must have relative elevation differences, with Manti being the highest and Zarahemla being the lowest.
Can't tell why Manti must be the highest, but we can see that Nephi in Tennessee is higher in elevation than Zarahemla in Illinois/Iowa. |
| 19 | Geography | Mississippi flowing northward | The Sidon river is required to flow north from the narrow strip of wilderness, while the Mississippi, identified as the Sidon by some models, flows inexorably southward.
Yet another straw man. The text implies there is a north flowing river from Nephi down to the land of Zarahemla, but it is not named. The Tennessee River flows north to Illinois. Only the river flowing past Zarahemla is named (Sidon). The text doesn't provide the direction. |
| 20 | Technological | Written languages | There is no evidence for written languages among the Hopewell or Adena during the specified timeframe.
From Enos through Moroni, the Lamanites were intent on destroying the Nephite records. The only records that survived were the ones Mormon put in the Hill Cumorah. Any civilization that has widespread written language that survived does not align with the Book of Mormon. |
| 21 | Demography | Millions of people | There is no evidence for the millions of people residing in the Hopewell and Adena areas during the specified timeframe.
There is no evidence in the text of millions of people. |
| 22 | Military | Massive battles | There is no evidence for massive battles occurring among the Adena or Hopewell during the specified timeframe.
The largest enumerated battle involved an army of 44,000 against an army of 42,000. Later, it was 30,000 against 50,000. In both cases, survivors retreated. Any evidence of such battles would not persist more than a few decades at most. |
| 23 | Geography | Launching Hagoth’s ship in the West Sea | Hagoth’s ship launched in the west sea to explore new territory. If it was the Pacific, there’s no evidence that Hopewell culture extended that far westward. If it was Lake Michigan, they would’ve had to navigate Niagra Falls.
This is ridiculously ignorant for anyone who has looked at the area circa 2,000 years ago. |
| 24 | Technological | Extensive deforestation | It’s hard to characterize the lands of the Great Lakes or other relevant U.S. areas as having been extensively deforested, as indicated by the text.
Deforested areas recover quickly, whether they are burned or cut down. |
| 25 | Geography | Jaredites in the land northward | The Adena do not meet the criteria strongly suggested by the text that the Jaredites inhabited the land northward.
This is so vague no response is possible. |
| 26 | Technological | Cereal agriculture | The Great Lakes and other relevant areas lacked cereal agriculture until 1000AD (according to John Clark).
John Clark's outcome-oriented analysis is cursory and ignores relevant science. |
| 27 | Military | Fortifications within the appropriate timeframe | The area’s fortifications date to after 1100AD (according to John Clark).
John Clark's outcome-oriented analysis is cursory and ignores relevant science. |
| 28 | Technological | Non-hunter gatherers | There is no indication in the Book of Mormon of individuals following a hunter/gatherer lifestyle (aside from Enos’ hunting trip), whereas all the relevant U.S. areas can offer us are societies of hunter/gatherers.
What were the Lamanites if not explicitly hunter/gatherers? How long do farms remain cultivated after being abandoned? |
| 29 | Geography | Sunken cities | The geology and hydrology of the relevant U.S. areas aren’t suitable for that kind of catastrophic event.
Except along the rivers, where flooding and course changes bury infrastructure even today. |
By 2019, how many of those criticisms (including the ones outlined by Roper) would have been overturned if we were operating under those original assumptions?
All of them.
Well, it depends on whether we’re including the anachronisms that don’t specifically apply to a New World location (i.e., those that pertain to the Old World). Common sense should say that we should only include those that apply to the New World, since that’s what the “original assumptions” theory is about. That would mean we’re working with a smaller set of anachronisms (about 152 of them—see the Appendix for more detail). Even then, by my reckoning, only about 24% of those anachronisms would have been overturned, which aligns pretty well with the trajectory we see for the Book of Mormon pre-1965.
The article proceeds with its futile effort to fortify M2C against obvious fallacies. It's difficult to find a more patently ridiculous example of confirmation bias than this article.
Which means it will undoubtedly win an award from the Interpreter editorial staff...
