Jenkins 14: On Faith

Last updated on: July 3, 2015 at 7:06 am by William Hamblin

Jenkins 14: On Faith 2015-07-03T07:06:54-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

From Prof. Jenkins (My comments added in blue)

==============

Following a moment of insight amounting to a conversion experience, I have decided that Dr. Hamblin’s argument is (mainly) correct, and that I am near total agreement with it. What I doubt, though, is whether believers in the Book of Mormon wish to hear that.

Let me explain.

When our exchanges began, I expected that he would be producing supposed historical or archaeological proofs of the objective reality of the Book of Mormon, specifically its claims in the New World, and I would have fun demolishing them. As time has gone on, he has done no such thing. Rather, he has suggested repeatedly that this or that kind of evidence is irrelevant and does not apply, that the same is true of essentially all attempts at objective proof. No, there won’t be inscriptions, no there is no pottery evidence. Any such attempt at testing or verification is “naïve” (a word he loves). On occasion, he has referred me to Sorenson’s book MORMON’S CODEX, which similarly offers no concrete objective proofs, but instead offers a lengthy series of supposed (and utterly unconvincing) “parallels.” There is not a word there that is vaguely plausible to anyone who was not already thoroughly convinced of the case.

But let’s pursue this to its logical conclusion. What Dr. Hamblin is arguing is simply that no forms of objective proof or evidence should be demanded for the Book of Mormon’s view of the New World, because none exist. There is nothing open to examination discussion by historians or scholars, and almost certainly, that situation will never change. This is just not a matter for any kind of scholarly examination or discussion.

So why should you believe a word of it? And I stress that question. Without such solid objective evidence, why should I, or anyone, believe a view that is utterly at odds with the views of pretty much the entire academic profession dealing with New World history and archaeology, American history, Biblical studies, genetics, linguistics, and so on, not to mention all measures of plausibility? Why should anyone go so very far out on a limb? The answer is simple. Faith. He believes it on religious grounds of faith, from which all follows.

As I say, I come close to sharing his view entirely. I agree that no objective evidence exists for the Book of Mormon, not a word, and it never will. While he has not yet said it explicitly, his answer to my persistent requests for one single form of credible proof for any aspect of the Book of Mormon is that no, he will not and never will supply it, because none exists. I can hammer as hard as I like on that point, but he will not produce. While his refusal to answer my questions might seem like waffling and prevarication, he really believes that what he is arguing is outside the realm of provable objective fact. It is all a matter of individual faith, which is immune to proof or testing. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Nor, for a second, do I disparage faith. We all live by various forms of faith. But here is the problem – for him at least, not for me. For me, the total absence of objective evidence for the Book of Mormon’s New World poses no difficulty, because the whole thing is fictitious. He, however, believes in that whole scenario, but can offer no objective evidence whatever for its existence, no reason other than faith why anyone should believe it. He cannot prove or substantiate a word, or even offer a plausible case to any non-believer.

What that means is very simple. Nothing Dr. Hamblin says on these matters touches at any point on the worlds of scholarship, history or science. It is all a matter of radical subjective faith. That is a very curious form of apologetics, but this is as I say his problem not mine.

If I am wrong on this, then he might choose to offer forms of proof or confirmation that we can discuss and verify. But he won’t.

I was in error when I complained about his insistence on defining our epistemological approaches. What he was not saying overtly was that his argument is wholly based on faith, and has no pretenses whatever to objective scholarship of any kind, historical, archaeological or any other. Had we known that at the outset, we would have had no argument whatever.

So Dr. Hamblin, you are correct. This is a matter for faith, not scholarship. But please – don’t pretend for a second that this is a scholarly debate. When you examine the ancient Near East, you are a fine and reputable scholar. When you discuss the Book of Mormon, you are an evangelist. How you reconcile those two roles is a mystery I cannot fathom.

I think it might be more fruitful for you to actually ask me what my opinions are, rather than speculate. At any rate, I have faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is there to help us come unto Christ, not for us to have faith in a book, in an Evangelical sort of bibliolatry. The fact that you can’t understand how I can be a “a fine and reputable scholar” of the Middle East, but a pseudo-scholarly crank on the BOM reflects more about you than me.

Ancient Studies

Book of Mormon

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Previous Post

June 29, 2015

Jenkins 13: short comments

Next Post

June 29, 2015 Jenkins 15:

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah Elisha Jeremiah Elijah