Each week, FAIR volunteers will look at the Sunday School lesson and identify relevant apologetic issues and other related insights, and then compile them into a single, easy to use quick-reference guide with links to additional information. Organization will follow the same structure found in Gospel Doctrine manual, with main headings that correspond with the main sections on the lesson. This should make it easy to identify how any particular item relates to the lesson material. Additional information related to the chapters in the Book of Mormon being covered by the lesson, but which do not fit neatly into the lesson’s structure, will be placed at the bottom of the page. Main sections will be broken down into three sub-sections:

• Helpful Insights: These include various tidbits of information that might be helpful or interesting to discuss as a part of your lesson. They will come from scholarly studies and other sources.
• Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information: These include potential criticisms that may arise during the lesson, or that are relevant to the topics and themes being discussed, along with information on how to respond with faith supporting information. These are made available so that teachers and students can gain some familiarity with these issues and be prepared should these or similar concerns arise in class.
• Faith Affirmations: Here we will make note of various items of evidence for the Book of Mormon along with other information that supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and promotes faith in its teachings.

The great German literary demigod Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once remarked: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” My reading of Bethany Blankley’s recent Huffington Post article has confirmed Goethe’s fear as being my own. In the doleful cacophony that sounds forth from the ranks of fundamentalist Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ms. Blankley is more than suitable at playing first-chair violin. She is an adept Konzertmeisterin who plays with a zealous gusto that is by no means forced into a decrescendo by facts or evidence.

The accusation that Latter-day Saints are not Christians is not new, and it is not it likely to go away anytime soon. So long as fundamentalist Evangelicals dominate the religious landscape of modern America, the benighted Mormons can anticipate this Hydra to rear its ugly heads incessantly. All of the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to quell this tired assertion will almost certainly be in vain, as misinformation, misrepresentation and outright calumny continue to capture the imagination of an ignorant public with scandalous tales of the moral and theological debauchery and baseness of the Mormons.

Ms. Blankley, thankfully, withholds from her readers lurid and fanciful tales of polygamy and blood atonement and instead refuses to call members of the Church of Jesus Christ “Christians” on theological grounds, viz.:

1. The Ministry of Jesus: “According to the first four gospels of the Bible, Jesus Christ lived and ministered in the region of modern-day Israel. He never appeared in the Americas.”
2. The Virgin Birth: “The Mormon Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus through sexual relations with God the father.”
3. The Spirit World: “Mormons believe that God, angels and humans are the same.”
4. Jesus and Satan: “The Mormon church explicitly teaches…that Jesus Christ and Satan are both sons of God and are not only spirit brothers to each other but are spirit brothers to humans and angels as well.”

By way of introduction, Harold Bloom has previously written on Mormonism, to which he gives the crowning title “the American religion”.[1] Bloom is positively enamored with Joseph Smith, whom he cordially refers to as an “authentic religious genius”, and is amazed at the power of Joseph Smith’s revelations. Granted, it appears that Bloom’s admiration for Joseph Smith and his revelations is on a sort of quasi-literary level; I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to say that Bloom would place Joseph’s revelations on the same level as great poetry or literature, but nothing more. Notwithstanding, Bloom is a first-rate intellectual who has given us some probing, albeit somewhat flawed, writings to explore.[2]

That is why Bloom’s most recent piece in the New York Time was simultaneously rewarding and disappointing. On the one hand, Bloom offers sagacious insights on the importance of a Mormon participating in the upcoming presidential election, yet he also makes several blunders in both fact and interpretation. Given the nature of this blog, I will defer from offering an analysis or response to Bloom’s political forecasts. Instead, I wish to clear up a few mischaracterizations in Bloom’s piece that detract from the quality of his article.

For starters, I am not convinced that President Thomas S. Monson is “indistinguishable from the secular plutocratic oligarchs who exercise power in our supposed democracy”. Nor am I in agreement that the Church is an “empire of corporate greed has little enough in common with the visions of Joseph Smith”. Although this charge has been leveled at the current Church administration by others,[3] I find it to be little more than a meaningless caricature.[4] Furthermore, I take exception to Bloom characterizing the Church as an “empire of corporate greed”. For one thing, Church enterprises are not designed to make anyone rich but rather to ensure the long term financial viability of the Church and pay for current programs that benefit many people. Furthermore, except for a few exceptions at the top of Church hierarchy, and those with careers in Church education facilities and programs, the people on the ground who actually run the Church are unpaid volunteers.

What Professor Bloom likewise fails to report is that the “empire of corporate greed”  has provided over 1 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to 167 different countries and untold thousands of individuals since 1985, regardless of religious, political, or cultural identity. I say this not to brag, though the Church’s humanitarian services are indeed praiseworthy, but rather to point out a flaw in Bloom’s characterization. Contrary to what Bloom portrays, the Church leadership is not amassing personal wealth from tithing and other donations. Instead, tithing money and other charitable donations go towards maintaining Church programs and property as well as the Church’s humanitarian efforts.

Ultimately, however, this discussion is highly subjective, as there is no empirical means by which to objectively prove or disprove Bloom’s characterization of President Monson or the modern Church leadership. (Although, as previously indicated, I believe that a strong case can be made against such a characterization.)

“The accurate critique of Mormonism,” continues Bloom, “is that Smith’s religion is not even monotheistic, let alone democratic. Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer openly describes their innermost beliefs, they clearly hold on to the notion of a plurality of gods. Indeed, they themselves expect to become gods, following the path of Joseph Smith.” I have a few problems with this characterization. First, I find it difficult to accept that the modern Church “no longer openly describes” the doctrine of exaltation or human deification when the subject is included in official Church magazines, manuals, and study guides.[5] Indeed, a search of the word “exaltation” in the search engine on LDS.org yields an impressive 2,040 results. Joseph Smith’s famed King Follett Discourse, wherein the Prophet elucidated the doctrine of human divinization, has been reprinted in the April and May 1971 editions of the Ensign. But perhaps the most disappointing mistake made by Bloom is his statement that “Mormons earn godhead though their own efforts, hoping to join the plurality of gods, even as they insist they are not polytheists”. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the LDS doctrine of exaltation. By no means do Latter-day Saints expect to earn exaltation “through their own efforts”. Rather, they insist that only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ by obedience to His Gospel and His commandments can they hope for eternal life and exaltation (Articles of Faith 1:3-4). As President David O. McKay once said:

I am not unmindful of the scripture that declares: ‘by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.’ (Ephesians 2:8.) That is absolutely true, for man in his taking upon himself mortality was impotent to save himself. When left to grope in a natural state, he would have become, and did become, so we are told in modern scripture, ‘carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature.’ (Alma 42:10.) But the Lord, through his grace, appeared to man, gave him the gospel or eternal plan whereby he might rise above the carnal and selfish things of life and obtain spiritual perfection. But he must rise by his own efforts and he must walk by faith. ‘He who would ascend the stairway leading upward to eternal life must tread it step by step from the base stone to the summit of its flight. Not a single stair can be missed, not one duty neglected, if the climber would avoid danger and delay and arrive with all safety and expedition at the topmost landing of the celestial exaltation.’ The responsibility is upon each individual to choose the path of righteousness, of faithfulness and duty to fellow men. If he choose otherwise and as a result meets failure, misery, and death, he alone is to blame.[6]

Thus, although obedience to the Gospel is indeed an essential element to achieving salvation and exaltation, the Latter-day Saints do not believe that they can earn such through their own efforts or on their own terms.[7]

Finally, a brief note on the following comment by Professor Bloom:

There are other secrets also, not tellable by the Mormon Church to those it calls “Gentiles,” oddly including Jews. That aspects of the religion of a devout president of the United States should be concealed from all but 2 percent of us may be a legitimate question that merits pondering. When I wandered about the South and Southwest from 1989 to 1991, researching American religion, I was heartened by the warmth that greeted me in Pentecostal and Baptist churches, some of them independent indeed. But Gentiles are not allowed in Mormon temples.

I can sympathize somewhat with Bloom here. On my mission in New England and through various correspondences with non-Mormon friends and acquaintances, I encountered many individuals who felt uneasy with the secrecy surrounding the ordinances of the temple. It also doesn’t help that Mormons can, at times, be unnecessarily reticent in relaying the details of the temple ordinances. However, I hope that Professor Bloom will appreciate the fact that for Latter-day Saints the ordinances of the temple are of the utmost sanctity. As such, in harmony with ancient biblical precedent, only those worthy of the Lord’s presence, either ritually in the temple or literally in theophany, are allowed to enter the most sacred confines of the Lord’s sanctuary (e.g. Psalms 15, 24:3-4).

As an aside, if Professor Bloom feels especially eager to learn what goes on in the temple, nothing is stopping him from simply consulting the omniscient information caches Google and/or Wikipedia. Plenty of exposés of the temple ceremonies have been publicized by dissenters. (Although, one would expect Professor Bloom to have good enough taste to not consult the profane renderings of the temple ceremonies as found in anti-Mormon tabloids.) Notwithstanding, the Latter-day Saints will continue to be circumspect when it comes to relaying the details of the ceremonies of the temple. In spite of those who profane the temple ceremonies, Professor Hugh Nibley explained the importance of keeping the temple sacred:

Why are these temple ordinances guarded with such secrecy when anyone who really wants to can find out what goes on? Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is. For my covenants are all between me and my Heavenly Father.[8]

Again, I do not wish to devolve into a discussion of Bloom’s political arguments. In summary, despite its flaws I welcome Bloom’s analysis over the frothy polemics offered by other self-certified “experts” of Mormonism. If nothing else, I got a chuckle out of this apt observation:

Mormonism’s best inheritance from Joseph Smith was his passion for education, hardly evident in the anti-intellectual and semi-literate Southern Baptist Convention. I wonder though which is more dangerous, a knowledge-hungry religious zealotry or a proudly stupid one?[9]

[P.S. Joanna Brooks has written a few words on this topic, which can be read here. So too has Michael De Groote, which can be read here.]

Notes:

[1] Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992).

[2]: For a consideration of Bloom’s work, see Alan Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement: Harold Bloom’s Mormons,” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993): 96-108, found online here.

[3]: Daymon M. Smith, The Book of Mammon: A Book About the Corporation that Owns the Mormons (Seattle, WA: CreateSpace, 2010).

[4]: A reading of the recent biography of President Monson will reveal a complex individual who is, above all else, genuinely concerned for the welfare of others and is sincerely dedicated to serving the Church. See Heidi S. Swinton, To The Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010).

[5]: See, for example, “Exaltation,” in Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2009), 275-280.

[6]: David O. McKay, Conference Report (April 1957), 7, quoted in The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978), 350-351.

[7]: For an excellent exploration into the LDS view of deification, see  Jordan Vajda, “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization (Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), located online here.

[8]: Hugh Nibley, “Return to the Temple,” in Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, ed. Don E. Norton (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 64.

[9]: It may just be a bit of Schadenfreude within me, but I am not at all disappointed to hear a Yale scholar refer to the folks who gave us such gems as The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints as “semi-literate” and “proudly stupid”. But, as demonstrated at length by Professor Daniel C. Peterson, “What Certain Baptists think They Know about the Restored Gospel,” FARMS Review of Books, 10/1 (1998): 12-96, online here, this description by Professor Bloom is rather charitable.

There is not a single piece of archaeological evidence that confirms the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

Sectarian critics of Mormonism usually throw in the following addendum to the aforementioned claim:

There is not a single piece of archaeological evidence that confirms the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Bible, on the other hand, has been repeatedly proven by archaeological evidence. Because the Bible has been proven archaeologically, we can accept it as the word of God. Because the Book of Mormon has no archaeological evidence, we should reject it as scripture that can be relied on as a reliable source of God’s truth.

Joel Kramer of Living Hope Ministries has created a popular anti-Mormon DVD that makes this claim titled The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. In it, Kramer attempts to validate the authenticity of the Bible on archaeological grounds, whilst simultaneously attempting to disprove the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds. Because, according to Kramer, the Bible has been verified archaeologically we can turn to it as the infallible word of God, unlike the Book of Mormon. The same line of argumentation is also brought up by the producers of the 2007 video Jesus Christ vs. Joseph Smith. Many additional examples could be multiplied, but the above should be enough to convey the general argument of sectarian critics.

Besides the highly debatable claim that the Book of Mormon has no archaeological evidence to support its authenticity,[1] the sectarian reasoning that the Bible can be accepted as the word of God because of archaeological verification is highly suspect. In two reviews of Kramer’s DVD, David Bokovoy and Brant Gardner repeatedly demonstrate the fallacious reasoning behind this critical claim.[2] And it is not only the Latter-day Saints who are aware of this fallacy. Alfred Hoerth and John McRay, two non-Mormon biblical scholars, for example, have urged caution amongst believers of the Bible who try and use archaeology to prove biblical theology.[3] As William J. Hamblin effectively summarized:

Even if every historical event in the Bible were to be archaeologically verified, it still would not prove that God exists or that Jesus is the Christ any more than the discovery of archaeological sites mentioned by Homer in the Iliad has proven that Zeus is the King of Heaven.[4]

Unfortunately, this is compelling point of Hamblin’s is routinely overlooked or ignored by sectarian critics.

Furthermore, it has recently occurred to me that this argument used by sectarians is severely undermined by a wonderful book of Latter-day Saint scripture entitled the Doctrine and Covenants. Permit me, if you will, a few moments to explain how, following the logic of sectarian critics of Mormonism, archaeology proves beyond any doubt that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record and the word of God.

The D&C contains several references to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Take, for instance, this declaration of the Lord in D&C 17:6:

And he [Joseph Smith] has translated the book [the Book of Mormon], even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.

Consider also D&C 42:12, which reads:

And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

And finally, here is D&C 1:29:

And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

Here are only three examples of many throughout the D&C that affirm the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Latter-day Saints believe these declarations to be the will and word of the Lord. They accept on faith the theological claims made in the D&C regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

One may be wondering how this archaeologically proves that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture and the word of God. It is simple, really. The Doctrine and Covenants has been overwhelming verified by archaeological evidence as an authentic text of the 19th century. Consider the following:

• The D&C mentions American place-names such as Harmony, New York City, Albany, Boston, Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, Fayette, Manchester, Hiram, Salem, Far West, Ramus, and Salt Lake City. Every single one of these locations has been indisputably verified archaeologically. You can locate any of these places on a map of the United States.
• The D&C details the geography of states such as New York, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Other portions of the D&C were received in Nebraska and Utah. Each of these states is still in existence today, and there is no question from the archaeological evidence that they existed in the 19th century. Thus, altogether, the geography of the D&C is 100% archaeologically verified. Contrast this with the Bible, which still has ambiguous geography that is open for debate amongst scholars and archaeologists. Some of the geography of the Bible, i.e. the Garden of Eden, is doubted by many scholars to have even existed, and is increasingly being deemed mythological. Not so with any of the geography of the D&C.
• The D&C names individuals such as Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Brigham Young, David Patten, Joseph Smith, Sr., and countless others. Every single individual mentioned in the D&C has been proven archaeologically to have actually existed in the 19th century. We have their journals, their personal belongings, photographs, eyewitness descriptions, census records, birth-date and death-date records, living descendants that can be verified through DNA evidence, etc., all confirming without any question that these were real people. And unlike many of the biblical prophets, there is no debate amongst scholars whether Joseph Smith was a real person or merely an idealized personification of the archetypal prophet. Unlike the biblical figures Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, among others, scholars are not debating whether Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or John Taylor actually existed. There is no debate amongst scholars whether Brigham Young actually led thousands of Mormons across the American frontier. Wish that were so with Moses and the reported Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, as the historicity of the Exodus story is hotly contested by scholars.
• Unlike any of the biblical books, we have the original autographs for many of the revelations contained in the D&C. And, we have multiple extant copies of manuscripts of the D&C that date to years, or even months, after the original, unlike the extant copies of the biblical texts which date decades or even centuries after the autographs were written.
• Today, in Salt Lake City, artifacts belonging to the people mentioned in the D&C and manuscripts of the D&C can be found in the Church History Library and the Museum of Church History and Art. What’s more, we know these artifacts actually belonged to individuals named in the D&C. That includes books, clothing, utensils, tools, and other trinkets. Thanks to names inscribed on the artifact (how many examples of handwriting do we have from any biblical figure?) and other evidence we can be absolutely positive than certain artifacts once belonged to certain individuals mentioned in the D&C.

By now the point should be obvious. The Doctrine and Covenants has been overwhelming proven archaeologically. The events of the past that it reports, and the people, places, and things is describes have been proven archaeologically. If we follow the argument of sectarian critics, then the theological claims of the D&C have also been proven because its historicity has been proven. And because its theological claims have been proven, the Book of Mormon therefore has been proven to be ancient scripture since one of the theological claims of the D&C is that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

If the critics are going to be consistent, and not trap themselves in a double standard, then they must concede that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The D&C has been proven archaeologically. The D&C testifies that the Book of Mormon is authentic. Ergo, the Book of Mormon is authentic.

Now, of course, I am not seriously arguing that the question of the Book of Mormon’s historicity is settled because the D&C has been proven archaeologically. That debate is still very much open to differing opinions and arguments. Nor am I seriously arguing that the theological claims of the Doctrine and Covenants have been proven true because of archaeology. (Likewise, I will mention in anticipation to possible future objections by any Evangelical critics that I am not attempting to attack the Bible. It is not my goal in this post to try and disprove the Bible.) My point is to show the double standard used by sectarian critics. If we follow the logic of the critics, viz., archaeology proves the theology of the Bible, then it follows that archaeology also proves the theology of the Doctrine and Covenants, which in turn proves the Book of Mormon is scripture.

Therefore, the sectarian argument that archaeological verification = theological verification needs to be put to rest.

[Kerry Shirts, the lovable Backyard Professor, has produced a video putting forth an identical argument that I have put forth here. See his YouTube video "The Power of Archaeology for the D&C", online here.]

Notes:

[1]: For starters, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Many more samples could be provided; on such, see here.

[2]: David Bokovoy, “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon: Still Loosing the Battle,” FARMS Review 18/1 (2006), 3-19, online here; Brant Gardner, “Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion,” FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), 145-195, online here. See also the FAIR produced video “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon: A Close Examination”, online here.

[3]: Alfred Hoerth and John McRay, Bible Archaeology: An Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizations (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 11-12.

[4]: William J. Hamblin, “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (Spring 1993), 186. The entire article, which can be accessed online here, is worth reading with special attention.

Mr. Hitchens’s most recent offering on Slate.com unsurprisingly attacks Mitt Romney for holding “weird and sinister beliefs.” What, pray, is so “weird and sinister” about Mormonism? Hitchens offers us an answer in eight paragraphs. Let us explore Mr. Hitchens’s reasoning and see if his assertions can withstand the inscrutible gaze of the facts.

Hitchens begins his piece by pondering “whether Pastor Robert Jeffress is correct in referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more colloquially known as the Mormons, as ‘a cult.’” (Hitchens himself has already answered this question, as in the opening chapter on Mormonism in god is Not Great he referred to the Church as a “ridiculous cult”.) According to Hitchens, Mormonism does exhibit cult-like behavior:

The Mormons have a supreme leader, known as the prophet or the president, whose word is allegedly supreme. They can be ordered to turn upon and shun any members who show any signs of backsliding. They have distinctive little practices, such as the famous underwear, to mark them off from other mortals, and they are said to be highly disciplined and continent when it comes to sex, booze, nicotine, and coffee. Word is that the church can be harder to leave than it was to join. Hefty donations and tithes are apparently appreciated from the membership.

Two things. First, the President of the Church, (who, incidentally, is never referred to as the “supreme leader” within the Church), while venerated as a prophet, seer, and revelator, is hardly “supreme” in Mormonism. That right belongs solely to the Godhead: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. In May 2007, the Church released the following:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

So much for Hitchens’s assertion that the sole word of the prophet is “supreme”. But what of Hitchens’s claim that Mormons “can be ordered to turn upon and shun any members who show any signs of backsliding”? Has President Thomas S. Monson been known as an austere autocrat who has compelled his peons to shun the unbeliever? Far from it! Here is President Monson’s recent words of counsel for how members of the Church should interact with less-active or struggling members:

My dear brothers and sisters, ours is the responsibility, even the solemn duty, to reach out to all of those whose lives we have been called to touch. Our duty is to guide them to the celestial kingdom of God. May we ever remember that the mantle of leadership is not the cloak of comfort but rather the robe of responsibility. May we reach out to rescue those who need our help and our love.

This has been a common refrain throughout President Monson’s administration in the Church: reach out in love to those who have, to borrow Hitchens phrase, shown “any signs of backsliding”.[4]

Secondly, how does living a morally clean life qualify one as belonging to a cult? So what if Mormons are counseled by their leaders to abstain from pre or extra-marital sex, alcohol, tobacco, etc.? How on earth does Hitchens convert that into behavior that resembles cultishness?

Moving on, we get to the meat of Hitchens’ concerns. “What interests me more,” says Hitchens, “is the weird and sinister belief system of the LDS, discussion of which it is currently hoping to inhibit by crying that criticism of Mormonism amounts to bigotry.” Right out of the gates Hitchens attacks Joseph Smith as “a fraud and conjurer well known to the authorities of upstate New York.” Presumably Hitchens has in mind the 1826 Bainbridge, New York trial, wherein a young Joseph Smith was brought before a court hearing on the grounds that he was a “disorderly person” for engaging in “glass looking”. However, what Hitchens doesn’t seem to be aware of is that Joseph Smith was not found guilty at this court proceeding. I am no legal expert, but I am sure that being brought before a judge does not automatically make one guilty of an offense.[5]

Perhaps we can forgive Hitchens for this and other mistakes he commits throughout his article. After all, his only exposure to Mormon history seems to come from the work of Fawn Brodie, who wrote over half a century ago. Had he bothered to take time to read up on more current literature, he might have stumbled across Richard L. Bushman’s magnificent award-winning biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, which has replaced Brodie’s antique as the definitive biography of Joseph Smith.[6] He may also have avoided making proposterous claims such as this:

Smith also announced that he wanted to be known as the Prophet Muhammad of North America, with the fearsome slogan: “Either al- Koran or the Sword.” He levied war against his fellow citizens, and against the federal government.[7]

Undeterred by the facts, Hitchens presses on:

Saddling itself with some pro-slavery views at the time of the Civil War, and also with a “bible” of its own that referred to black people as a special but inferior creation, the Mormon Church did not admit black Americans to the priesthood until 1978, which is late enough—in point of the sincerity of the “revelation” they had to undergo—to cast serious doubt on the sincerity of their change of heart.

Unfortunately for Hitchens’s credibility, the Church never actually “saddl[ed] itself” with pro-slavery views,[8] and the Book of Mormon never speaks of black people as “a special but inferior creation”. Hitchens is simply repeating (with some embellishment) a common trope that blurs the more nuanced and complex nature of the Church’s past views on race.[9] Why is he doing so? I suspect it is to score polemical points, not to engage in serious scholarship.

Besides historical errors,[10] Hitchens also egregiously misunderstands LDS theology. Consider his description of the LDS practice of baptism for the dead:

More recently, and very weirdly, the Mormons have been caught amassing great archives of the dead, and regularly “praying them in” as adherents of the LDS, so as to retrospectively “baptize” everybody as a convert.

Hitchens bemoans this practice as “a crass attempt at mass identity theft from the deceased.” Notwithstanding this degenerate slur, when we turn to LDS.org to give a succinct explanation of this practice, we read the following:

Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.

Lest there be any lingering confusion, the article goes on to explain:

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

But Hitchens need not rely only on the explanation given by the Church. Given his penchant for deep scholarly investigation, I am sure Hitchens would be more than willing to pursue the voluminous writings of Latter-day Saint doctrinal authors and historians on this subject.[11] Or, if he is feeling especially bold, he could even go right to the primary sources themselves that clarify this practice and the attending LDS belief of preaching the Gospel to the dead in the spirit world (Doctrine and Covenants 127, 128, 138). Hitchens might even discover that this practice is not recent (it has been around since 1840) and is not, as he profanely puts it, “a crass attempt at mass identity theft from the deceased.”

More could be said concerning this dreadfully uninformed article by Christopher Hitchens. However, whenever I am confronted with the unenviable task of reading and responding to the highly suspect opinions of Christopher Hitchens, I am reminded of the wise words of the Preacher:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?… The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us (Ecclesiastes 1:1-2, 9-10).

Indeed, nothing has changed with regard to Christopher Hitchens’s self-assured bigotry. He continues to spout the same nonsense under the same self-assumed, holier-than-thou authority that is a hallmark of his career as a commentator on religious topics. What Professor William J. Hamblin has said with regards to Hitchens’s knowledge of the Bible is also true with regard to his knowledge of Mormonism:

Hitchens’s understanding of [Mormonism] is at the level of a confused undergraduate. His musings on such matters should not be taken seriously, and should certainly not be seen as reasonable grounds for rejecting belief in God.[12]

Notes:

[1]: Christopher Hitchens, Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens (New York, NY: Twelve, 2011), 41, 415, 502, 694-695.

[2]: See Hugh Nibley, “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”, in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, ed. David J. Whittaker (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 495-499.

[3]: Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: God and Mr. Hitchens”, FARMS Review19/2 (2007), xi-xlvi; William J. Hamblin, “The Most Misunderstood Book: christopher hitchens on the Bible”, FARMS Review 21/2 (2009), 47-95.

[4]: A cursory glance through President Monson’s recent biography should show how, contrary to what Hitchens would like us to believe, the “supreme leader” of Mormonism has long been emphasizing the importance of reaching out to struggling members in charity, patience, and understanding. See Heidi S. Swinton, To The Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), passim.

[5]: On this matter, see Gordon A. Madsen, “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting”, BYU Studies 30/2 (1990), 91-108. See also the handy FAIR Wiki article on this subject.

[6]: Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).

[7]: Hitchens is fond of putting words in Joseph Smith’s mouth, including the infamous “al-Koran or the sword” quote. For more on this, pursue the following link.

[8]: In fact, Joseph Smith ran for the presidency of the United States on an explicate anti-slavery platform. See Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 515-517.

[9]: For starters, consult the following link.

[10]: Hitchens’s detailing of Ezra Taft Benson’s involvement with the John Birch Society and the Church’s attitude towards such is highly garbled. On this subject, consult Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2005), 279-357.

[11]: For a mere sampling of such, see H. David Burton, “Baptism for the Dead”, in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillian Publishing Company, 1992), 1:95-97; Susan Easton Black, “‘A Voice of Gladness for the Living and the Dead’ (D&C 128:19),” in The Religious Educator 3/2 (2002), 137–149; Leland Gentry, “Redemption for the Dead (D&C 2),” in Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Craig K. Manscill (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 92–102; Matthew McBride, A House for the Most High: The Story of the Original Nauvoo Temple (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 28-34, 112-114; Kendal J. Christensen, David L. Paulsen, and Martin Pulido, “Redeeming the Dead: Tender Mercies, Turning of Hearts, and Restoration of Authority”, Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20/1 (2011), 27-51. Many more examples of LDS scholarly writings on the subject of baptism for the dead could be furnished, but the above should suffice for our present purpose.

[12]: Hamblin, “The Most Misunderstood Book”, 95.

This episode begins with a few biographical details about Bushman’s education and early experiences as a Mormon. Bushman shares her interesting perspectives on feminism, women, and the priesthood. We also discuss her recent publication Pansy’s History: The Autobiography of Margaret E. P. Gordon, 1866-1966.

Above all, Bushman emphasizes the unique utility of oral history. She reads a few excerpts from the Claremont Graduate University’s on-going “Mormon Women’s Oral History Project,” and gives a few tips for listeners who want to gather oral histories from their own family members.

Above: Blair Hodges, Claudia Bushman, Richard Bushman

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.

Runtime:

82:41

Download:

To download, right click the “Download” link above and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the FAIR Podcast in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Unfortunately, Ms. Erickson has been given yet more air time on CNN to prattle away on the nefarious machinations of the “Mormon Church” and Mitt Romney, the prominent Mormon candidate for the presidency. Fortunately, a voice of reason, in the embodiment of CNN Belief-Blog co-editor Eric Marrapodi, was allowed to participate in the discussion between Erickson and Tim Foreman, who challenged Erickson to show a single example of a Mormon making a negative political policy choice on the basis of his commitment to Mormonism. (Not surprisingly, Erickson failed to provide any such example.)

One of the arguments Ms. Erickson used in her assault on the faith of the Saints and Governor Romney was the claim that Mormons are on a campaign to dominate the world (why else are there any Mormons who hold political offices?) and that according to Mormon doctrine the second coming of Jesus will include the establishing of a Mormon totalitarian regime based out of Jackson County, Missouri. And if that isn’t enough to disqualify Romney or any other Mormon from being president, also remember that Mormons, including Romney, believe they will become gods and have their own planet! I was especially offended at this misrepresentation of my faith. Only one planet? Egoistical/self-aggrandizeing Mormon that I am, I am not shooting low for only one planet but a universe of endless worlds to populate through endless Celestial sex with my many goddess wives. Or at least that is what Ed Decker has repeated told me through his sensationalistic video The God Makers. Considering that Ed Decker is one of Ms. Erickson’s primary sources on Mormonism, I am surprised that she conservatively restricted Mormon aspirations of godly dominion to only one planet in the hereafter. Get your facts straight, Ms. Erickson!

This is the second time that CNN, a respected news agency, has provided precious air time for a crank to spout off nonsense against the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Ms. Erickson has finally exhausted her time with CNN. We need less sensationalism and more serious journalism on the relationship between religion and modern politics. And we need it now especially with this upcoming election, wherein we have not one, but two potential Mormon candidates for the presidency. If ever there was a time when we as a people should look at the interplay between religious values and political policy that time is now. Ms. Erickson has now demonstrated twice that she cannot provide that nuanced and informed investigation. As such, we are compelled to look to others to answer this pertinent question.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

At least one of Signature’s criticisms may have a degree of merit, perhaps my plots and graphs are too hard for the average reader to understand. That is one of the downsides of using methods found in academic demographics journals to reconstruct marital statistics in 1840 Illinois. I think Signature writers may have been a bit hasty in drawing conclusions from the data, but their loyalty to George D. Smith (whose opinion is critiqued in our article) is commendable.

The plots and tables in our chapter were meant to place the age distribution of Joseph Smith’s wives in as large of a context as possible. The statistics on marriage vary greatly across US regions and across decades. The average reader should be able to tell that Joseph Smith’s teenage bride’s ages compare reasonably well with frontier area dynamics, with the exception of the percentage of 14 year olds. The same reader could also focus on the data from recent times or from Northeastern states and argue that those should figure more prominently in their judgments against Joseph Smith.

Marriage Cohorts from the 1880 Census

For me the fairest test I could put Joseph Smith to was to 1) recover as best I can, the frequency distribution of first time brides who married in Illinois in 1840 and 2) to follow a common statistical method for evaluating a hypothesis, in this case evaluating whether it would be normal to find two fourteen year old brides in a set of 33 wives selected at random using statistics from the first step. In my test I utilized a worst case scenario for Joseph Smith wives. Using George D. Smith’s 1994 enumeration of 43 plural wives including 9 teens and 1 14 year old would have led to an even more favorable comparison for Joseph Smith. The numbers in the press release would fall somewhere in between.

So how does Joseph Smith’s teenage brides stack up against their 1840 Illinois peers?  With the exception of 14 year olds they actually trail the cumulative frequency distribution:  14 (6.1% to 1.9% ),  15 (6.1% to 6.7%), 16 (15.2% to 15.6%), 17 (21.2 to 27.4% ), 18 (21.2% to 40.3%), and 19 (30.3% to 52.6%). If you were to select 33 brides at random many different times at these rates and track the number of 14 year olds, Joseph Smith’s brides would rank between the 86th and 98th percentile. Either edge falls below common 2 tailed-thresholds for testing hypotheses (the 2 standard deviation rule or the 5% rule.) In other words, it turns out that Joseph’s profile is not significantly different than that of his ambient society, hence one can safely conclude it was normal.

Now I realize that some readers might not be able to follow that analysis. The bar chart below might help conceptualize the experiment described above.  Although the sample sizes vary widely, Craig  Foster randomly selected some counties, mostly from the Illinois-Iowa region. I charted those in comparison to my Illinois Census reconstruction,  of marriage cohorts in 1850 and 1880, and against some Mormon marriage cohorts. For good measure we added a county more out on the frontier (Hitchcock, Nebraska) that had about the same sample size as Joseph’s set. Not surprisingly, it had a higher frequency of 14 year old brides than those married to Joseph Smith.

While the Signature press release does make a number of good points, readers can find a fuller contextualization and discussion of those points within the original article itself. The Signature reaction failed to engage my statistical definition of marital age normalcy at all. My co-authors and I spent considerable effort collecting and analyzing data and surveying the relevant literature, so I would plead with the historical community to give us a fair hearing.  I will have considered it time well spent if individual Latter Day Saints ^Latter-day Saints [hat tip Ardis] take a position on the issue that falls somewhere in between Todd Compton’s and ours.  While Compton disagrees with us on how normal the 14 year old plural brides were compared to their monogamous peers, he has a brilliant way of explaining what he regards as an abnormality (Helen Mar Kimball’s marriage).  We also seem to be in agreement that extremist commentary on the subject has been a  disservice to the public.

So where did the office of Bishop in early Christianity come from? Hugh Nibley found the office of bishop (as an overseer appointed by a higher authority) to be ubiquitous throughout the ancient world. In particular, Nibley accepted parallels between synagogue and church structure as evidence of borrowing. In common with Protestant scholars, Nibley saw the later dominance of a three-fold Catholic hierarchy (bishops, elders, and deacons)–inasmuch as it borrowed from secular or from non-optimal Jewish sources–as a decline from earlier Christianity.

However, Nibley argued that a well differentiated church hierarchy existed during the apostles’ lifetimes, taking aim at pervasive social theories that authority based on spiritual manifestations (revelation, prophecy, miracles, etc.) can’t coexist with authority based on office, routine or tradition. A Protestant view, sometimes described as “the consensus,” argues that at least some Christian communities were more originally egalitarian and charismatic. While Nibley agreed that there was a devaluing of spiritual gifts such as prophecy as time passed, for him, the early Church became less hierarchical and more chaotic with the passing of its top leaders, the apostles.

While there are many competing theories about how the office of Bishop took shape in early Christianity, I would like to pursue two strands that Nibley mentions just in passing:

1. “In the Damascus Covenant there is in each camp an ‘inspector [mebaqqer]’ ‘He will love them as a father his children … as a shepherd his flock.’
2. “The concept [of an overseer] is most at home among the Persians, whence the Jews seem to have derived it. […] There was no Persian institution better known to the West in ancient times than that of the ‘King’s Eyes’ and the ‘King’s Ears’-the royal spies who told the divine king all that was going on in the world.”

B. E. Thiering [2] has done an excellent job showing similarities between the Christian Bishop and the Essene Mebaqqer. Both communities exhibited an inner and outer hierarchy that can be described in geographical terms.  The inner circle was represented by the ideal, temple-oriented, central governing location (Jerusalem and Qumran, respectively). The outer circle was populated by the scattered congregations which were depicted with more temporary terms (sojourner churches and camps, respectively.) Thiering argued that the Essenes had two grades of priests: “(1) sons of Aaron, the true priests, the superiors; (2) the sons of Levi, levitical priests, members of the second class in the community, thus inferior to Aaronite priests” and distinguished them from lay Levites and lay non-Levites.

The mebaqqer resided locally within the geographic confines of the camp of laity that he presided over. He was drawn from the ranks of the lesser priests, which freed the higher priests to dwell in the central, holy place to perform their ritual responsibilities. When a problem arose in a camp that exceeded the mebaqqer’s authority to resolve, an Aaronic priest had to sent for. Thiering drew parallels between the apostles and their companions that came from Jerusalem to supervise Bishops and lay members in scattered locales when needed. The mebaqqer was a shepherd over the local flock, he was the spokesman for the community to outsiders, he was in charge of initiating new members, in judging disputes, in collecting and distributing charitable contributions, and in presiding over community councils. The mebaqqer wielded an impressive amount of authority, and in being an intermediary between the people and the Aaronic priests, he basically straddled the higher and lesser priesthood.

There is a fair amount of skepticism to the idea that the mebbaqer was the prototype for the early Christian bishop. It can be difficult to explain why Christians would have borrowed from leadership patterns from a sect outside the mainstream of contemporary Judaism. The two groups pined for effective forms of leadership to be restored from Israel’s glorious past and shared a disdain for the mainstream Jewish leadership of their day. R. C. Steiner, cautiously connects the mebaqqer found in Qumran documents to a related word used in Ezra 7:14. Ezra was given a commission by Persian king Artaxerses to oversee the codification of Israel’s laws and to establish a judicial system there. The functions of the Persian overseer were adopted by the Greek episcopos about the same time (5^th century B.C.). These observations, I think, tend to strengthen Nibley’s observation that the Christian bishops (“episcopos”) loosely have roots in Persia although a direct connection remains elusive.

[1] For example Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. Ben Lomond, Calif.: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999 writes “It is clear from the foregoing citations, however, that bishops and others were considered ‘priests’ after the order of Melchizedek, if not ‘high priests.’”

[2] B. E. Thiering, “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Mar 1981, 100:1 pp. 59-74

[3] R. C. Steiner,  “The MBQR at Qumran, the episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of LBQR in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project” Journal of Biblical Literature, Winter 2001, 120:4

This has been the latest installment of a series examining early Christian church leadership structure:

Deacons Then and Now (I introduce David Horrell’s theory why stationary bishops took over for traveling apostles).

Bowman on Ordination (Response to an evangelical critic, where I argue that ordination is necessary for apostleship. It is interesting that Sullivan and some other Catholic scholars have made concessions to EV scholars that all early bishops could not necessarily trace a chain of ordinations back to the apostles. Some of Father Sullivan’s positions have been criticized by Father Michael McGuckian.)

The Apostolic Foundation (I survey some scholars regarding the expections for apostles derived from the OT and Qumran texts. More importantly check out Baptist’s R. A. Campell’s arguments that apostles were meant to be continually replaced, well after Matthias and James.)

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity , The Editors’ Preface and Introduction (Some early attempts to summarize Nibley’s book on my Mormon and Catholic blog).

The Apostolic Decree and Missionary Work (An examination of how the council described in Acts 15 addressed differing visions of how to conduct missionary work in the early Church.)

A Missionary Guide to the Apostasy (A revision of a response I gave MTC missionaries wanting to understand the early Christian apostasy.)

Literature on Early Christian Literature (A survey of Mormon scholarship.)

Seixas, James, and the Rock (Some notes from articles on Matthew 16:17-19 and on James, the Lord’s brother)

Blair Hodges will continue hosting lengthier interviews on religious issues with a variety of scholars. His episodes will now be called “FAIR Conversations.” All of these categories will fall under the new umbrella name for the FAIR Podcast: “The FAIR-Cast.” The details are subject to change, but this is the overall gist of the direction we’re headed to provide a more frequent and diverse offering of podcast episodes.

This episode of FAIR Conversations features Kevin Christensen. Kevin, a technical writer in Pensylvania, is a good representative of what Hugh Nibley acclaimed as “the day of the amateur.” Kevin has published over twenty articles in the FARMS Review and other journals from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He’s also presented at numerous Sunstone conferences and published works in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Recently he co-authored a piece on the Book of Mormon in Oxford University Press’s book, Joseph Smith, Jr: Reappraisals After Two Centuries, edited by Reid L. Neilson and Terryl L. Givens.

Kevin joined host Blair Hodges via Skype to talk about his experiences with LDS apologetics.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.

Runtime:

55:19

Download:

To download, right click the “Download” link above and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the FAIR Podcast in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Miscellaneous References in this Interview:

Hugh W. Nibley, “Old World Ritual in the New World,” An Approach to the Book of Mormon.

Stephen D. Ricks, and John W. Welch, eds., King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom”.

Kevin Christensen, “Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets,” fairlds.org.

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Anthony A. Hutchinson, “A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21 (Winter 1988): 11-74.

Kevin Christensen, “New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 24/3 (Fall 1991): 121-29.

Kevin Christensen, “Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, A review of ‘Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon’ by Dan Vogel,” FARMS Review 2/1, pp. 214-57.

Kevin Christensen, “Paradigms Crossed, A review of ‘New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology’ by Brent Lee Metcalfe,” FARMS Review, 7/2, pp. 144-218.

Kevin Christensen, “Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel’s Approach to the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 16/1, pp. 287-354.

The Book of Abraham seems like one of the most difficult subjects to get an academic grip on in Mormon studies. Brian Hauglid tries to untangle some of the knots while situating his new book within the ongoing conversation about the Book of Abraham. Listeners might also be interested to check out the 2004 FAIR Conference presentation by Michael Ash and Kevin Barney, “The ABCs of the Book of Abraham” on youtube.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.

Runtime:

50:15

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download it in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Throughout The Book of Mormon, we begin to see hints of what “exceedingly numerous” actually means. Throughout this sacred text we see repeated mentioning of thousands 2, and tens of thousands 3 of Lehites in regard to lives lost in war, conversions, or armies. In the last battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites around 400 b.c., these numbers increase to hundreds of thousands people 4. James E. Smith, one of the creators of the Cambridge model for estimating historical populations noted that “With a moderately positive population growth rate of .1 percent per year, a population of 300,000 in Zarahemla in 87 B.C. would produce 450,000 in Mormon’s day.” 5

Any candidate for consideration to be Book of Mormon people must have a large civilization with tens and hundreds of thousands of people. If the population was not there to match these numbers, then they could not be Nephites and Lamanites.

Some groups who promote a Great Lakes setting (or Heartland Model) for The Book of Mormon, claim that the ancient Hopewell culture centered in Ohio and Illinois is the civilization explained in The Book of Mormon. I would like to examine this claim using a few requirements that any civilization must possess to be Book of Mormon populace. It is important to examine the Hopewell *during* the period of time when the majority of The Book of Mormon took place (600 BC-400 AD). Some advocates of a Great Lakes setting for The Book of Mormon use structures, events, war, etc… of later cultures that existed centuries, sometime millennia after The Book of Mormon ended, as evidence for their claim. This is nothing short of dishonest on their part. Much of the evidence they provide does not remotely come close to the time periods when they should have happened. I will be pulling evidence from the Middle Woodland period (between 1 and 500 AD), which is the same time period of the Nephites when they are most advanced, and have the largest population. This would be the best time period to find the evidences we are looking for, if the Hopewell qualify as a candidate to be the Nephites and Lamanites.

The first requirement The Book of Mormon people should have is a very large population. Do the Hopewell meet this requirement with thousands, tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of people? The answer is a resounding, no.

The Hopewell lived from “around 100 BC and lasting to AD 500.” 6 (compared to the Lehites who lived between 600 BC and 400 AD), and centered in the river valleys of Ohio and Illinois. 7 They were an advanced civilization that is known for building large and elaborate mounds, and their long-distance trade. It has been said that they were the most advanced ancient North American society. As advanced as they were, no Hopewell group increased a population enough to fill a small village, which had no more than a few hundred people residing in it during Book of Mormon times. This is even the case in the communities in the heart, and origin of the Hopewell culture.

Timothy R Pauketat, a North-Eastern archaeologist and expert on the Hopewell states:
“Middle Woodland populations were not large by modern standards. For example, estimates based on human remains and settlements in the lower Illinois River valley are in the range of 1,290 to 4,500 individuals for a 140-mile stretch of river (and a region of 2,800 square miles), a population density of between .46 and 1.6 persons per square mile. A similar estimate has been derived for Southern Ohio (Pacheco and Dancey n.d.)….population density was probably the highest along the major waterways and the overland trails that probably crisscrossed to the east.” 8

Additional research gives a similar population density:
“the maximum density range of 0.22 to 0.33 persons per square kilometer was reasonable (Asch, 1976:59)..it is interesting to note that this estimate for the Illinois Valley population density during the interval from 150 B.C. to A.D 400 is comparable to levels reported in the Southeast during historical times.” 9

In the nucleus of the Hopewell culture, we find that the Hopewell not only lack the population to match the numbers throughout The Book of Mormon, but they did not even have enough people to have fought one major battle mentioned in The Book of Mormon.

Cities-

The Book of Mormon speaks of many cities throughout the text, and rarely mentions what could be considered smaller villages. These cities are very large, and hold thousands and tens of thousands of people. Did the Hopewell build permanent large cities that hold many thousands of people? Again, the answer is no.

During The Book of Mormon period, the Ohio “Hopewell settlements were small villages or hamlets of a few rectangular homes made of posts with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs” 10

These small villages were generally made up of immediate and extended families that would either be sedentary, or be a seasonal camp, always moving to a new location. 11

While some of these ancient Indians would congregate into a small village, there were many households that were “dispersed over the landscape rather than concentrated within villages.” 12

“Overall, the Ohio Hopewell appear to be compiled of small groups most likely extended families, who practiced early horticulture and lived in small dispersed communities.” 13

In the Illinois Valley, which many scholars believe to be the origin of the Hopewell, we find a similar situation. Their “villages could not have held more than a hundred people.” And their living quarters were “rectangular or oval shaped;” and “were built of wooden posts and were probably covered with mats or with sheets of bark, like the wigwams of contact period Indians.” 14

They also lived in “small, sedentary, one to three-household hamlets, rather than large villages” just as in Ohio and elsewhere. 15

Therefore, what are we to think of the great earthen works that this culture built? Wouldn’t there have to be a city of people to work on these massive mounds? Scholars had originally thought that the “Ohio Hopewell resided in large complex villages adjacent to, or within, the monumental earthwork/mound centers. After extensive site survey and limited excavation in the central Scioto Valley, Prufer rejected the existence of such villages. Instead, he characterized the Ohio Hopewell settlement pattern as an example of what he termed the Vacant Ceremonial Center-Dispersed Agricultural Hamlet pattern. By this he meant that the earthwork/mound complexes were isolated ceremonial centers surrounded by interacting networks of small farming settlements. The members of these dispersed ‘earthwork societies’ interacted at the centers but did not live there on a permanent basis.” 16

In other words, some of these small villages and hamlets “During the summer months when food sources were at their highest, the Ohio Hopewell would gather at the ceremonial areas to work on the mounds.” 17

This is verified in an area with the biggest and most elaborate groups of mounds called Mound City, located in Chillicothe, Ohio, was excavated and archaeologists expected to find evidence of a large permanent city nearby. Instead, they “found low-density clusters of Hopewellian artifacts but no nucleated village debris…Similarly, a survey of the Hopewell site and environs by Seeman (1981) produced no evidence of nucleated sedentary village debris.” These archaeologists also stated that the lack of sites found was not due to “modern land use”, but only that they simply did not exist. This was also the case in several other mound sites.” 18

WAR-

War is a common theme in The Book of Mormon. Commencing soon after the arrival of the Lehites into the New World until it caused the destruction of the entire Nephite population. Book of Mormon wars lasted for years, sometimes decades at a time, with casualties that reached over a quarter-million people. If you are looking for Book of Mormon people in a certain group of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, extensive war is something that you should find.

The Hopewell do not match this Book of Mormon description. As mentioned earlier, they did not have the population that The Book of Mormon requires for battles or civilizations, but they also did not have wars. They were generally a peaceful people, and since they lived in such small groups, no large wars or battles are even recorded during Book of Mormon times.

In Ohio, it may be that there were no battles because “Most [clans] were roughly similar in size and wealth, and had fairly equal access to the social roles of importance of one kind or another… because there is no evidence of interpersonal or intercommunity violence, which social competition might produce.” 19

If your neighbor did not have something you wanted, and you were equal with them pertaining to goods, then what would be the reason to go to war against him which you would lose some of the very few, valuable men in your small village?

Proponents of the Heartland geography theory that centers around the Great Lakes area claim that enclosure mounds among the Hopewell were used as military fortification against raiding Lamanites. While The Book of Mormon does speak about the Nephites casting up dirt walls to protect a city 20 , this rudimentary look at the Hopewell mounds does not align with the evidence that trained archaeologists have found. They are learning that many of these Hopewell mounds were not built in a hurry to thwart off invading enemies, but were slowly built over several centuries, and used for worship purposes. Archaeologists have come to the conclusion that “it is unlikely than any of them would have been effective militarily.” 21 especially since these enclosures were not complete, but had several large gaps in them, which would expose the defenders to the enemy. 22

In relation to war, the Nephites and Lamanites used the bow and arrow as a major weapon in their battles. One should be able to find evidence of this common weapon, in the right time period, among Book of Mormon peoples. But again, the Hopewell do not pass this test. While the bow and arrow were used by later civilizations, the Hopewell did not have a knowledge of the weapon until after Book of Mormon time period. 23

Scholars have noted that “The invention of the bow and arrow was too late in time to be relevant to the end of the Scioto Hopewellian lifeways. Moreover, signs of violence and death by bow and arrow are missing from the Scioto Hopewell record.” 24

This major weapon of war that is mentioned throughout The Book of Mormon, wasn’t adopted by Great Lake cultures until after the disappearance of the Hopewell Indians.

Finally, the end of the Nephite civilization came because of years of bloodshed and war, ending the Nephite civilization desolate abruptly within a few years. What we find among the Hopewell is a very different story. “The great Hopewell culture thrived for 600 years. Then, around 500 AD., the culture disappeared with no signs of violence.” 25 and seems to have “dissolved” rather “than collapsed.” 26

The Hopewell have been shown to fail the test as a qualifying society for The Book of Mormon by lack of population, lack of cities, no large wars, destruction not coming from war, mounds not used for military functions, and no knowledge of weapons of war mentioned in The Book of Mormon. The list could go on, but just one of these points disqualifies the Hopewell culture.

The question must be asked, if the Hopewell do not line up with the description of The Book of Mormon civilization, then who does? If we take this same list of qualifiers and apply them to the Mayan people, who most LDS scholars believe to be, or at least be part of, Book of Mormon people, we find that they parallel each other in many ways.
Mesoamerican cities during Book of Mormon times were large enough to hold hundreds of thousands of people. “The region politically controlled by Teotihuacan extended beyond the Basin of Mexico, but it’s core area was probably only 25,000 to 50,000 square kilometers, with a population perhaps around one-half million to one million…there is strong Teotihuacan presence in the Tula region, and a major center at Chingu. Control may have been strong in the Valley of Toluca, but it probably did not extend much farther north or west.” 27

Contrasted with the .22-.33 people per square kilometer among the Hopewell, Mayan cities like El Mirador had “548-570 persons per square kilometers.” 28 These kinds of numbers would are consistent with the numbers mentioned in The Book of Mormon.

Many of the Maya lived in these large cities which sometimes spanned up to 8-square miles, but controlled smaller cities hundreds of miles away. War among the Maya seems to have been a constant problem for them. There were wars for power, goods, trade, and sometimes just to get captives to use as sacrifice. To prevent invading armies from overtaking their city, some Mayan cities would cast up a dirt wall around their city and would even place a timber palisade on top of the mound. 29 “Southern lowland sites with defensive walls include Tikal, Calakmul, Becan, El Mirador, Dos Pilas, Aguateca, and Punta de Chimino, among others. Dahlin describes a defensive wall around Chunchucmil in relation to walls around nine other sites in the northern Maya lowlands.” 30

Erecting defensive fortifications of dirt is exactly what Moroni was doing while preparing for war. He caused that the Nephites “should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities…And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.” (Alma 50:1-2)

Some of these defensive mounds completed the task of warding off the arrows that were shot by the Lamanites (Alma 49:2). So, candidate civilization must have a knowledge of the bow and arrow during the right time periods. This is exactly what we find . “Paul Tolstoy, claims that there is evidence for “the limited use of the bow and arrow in central Mexico” during Book of Mormon times. In fact recent archaeological findings confirm that the bow was used in parts of Mesoamerica as early as the time of Christ.” 31

In summary, the Hopewell were a well advanced culture in North America, but cannot be Book of Mormon peoples for many reasons, a few of which have been shown here. While we do not know exactly what ancient groups were the Nephites and Lamanites or where they lived, we can look for parallels between The Book of Mormon and ancient cultures. Thus far, the evidence seems to be in favor of the Mayan civilization.

———————————————

1. The logistics of this kind of population growth will not be dealt with here, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1&id=141. However, it wasn’t uncommon to find large population growths in Mesoamerica. “A considerable population increase (350%) is suggested from the Middle to Late Preclassic periods in northern Belize…”Ancient Mesoamerica: a comparison of change in three regions By Richard E. Blanton pg 170

2. Words of Mormon 1:14, Mos. 9:18, Alma 4:5, Alma 23:5, Alma 24:22, Alma 26:13, Alma 28:10-11, Alma 37:9, Alma 37:19, Alma 49:23, Alma 50:22, Alma 51:11,19, 56:27, 57:6, 57:14, 60:7, 62:5,12, 17, 63:4, Hel. 3:24, 5:19, 11:6, 3 Nephi 4:27, 17:25, Mormon 2:9, 4:9

3. Alma 2:19, Alma 3:26, Alma 28:2, 60:22, Hel. 3:26, 3 Nephi 3:24, 4:21, Mormon 1:11, 2:25

4. Mormon 6:11-14, 220,000

5. Nephi’s Descendants? Historical Demography and the Book of Mormon, James E. Smith, FARMS Review vol. 6.1 pg 255-296

6. Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology By Barbara Ann Kipfer Springer; 1 edition (April 1, 2000), pg 242

7. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, Volume I: To 1500, Craig A. Lockard, Wadsworth Publishing; 1 edition (January 10, 2007)pg 245

8. North American archaeology, Timothy R Pauketat, Diana DiPaolo Loren, Wiley-Blackwell (January 4, 2005) pg 113 emphasis mine

9. Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, ed. Herbert Edgar Wright, Prentice Hall Press (June 1984) 2:258, emphasis mine

10. http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hopewell/who_were_hopewell.html

11. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group. PhD Dissertation by Lisa A. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, 2003. Pg 13

12. The Scioto Hopewell and their neighbors: bioarchaeological documentation and Cultural Understanding (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology)
By D. Troy Case, Christopher Carr, Springer; 1st Edition. edition (July 24, 2008) pg 8

13. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group. PhD Dissertation by Lisa A. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, 2003. Pg 30

14. Prehistory of the Americas By Stuart J. Fiedel, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (May 29, 1992) pg 242

15. Hamlets “are characteristic of Middle Woodland/Hopewell settlement systems in Ohio, the lower Illinois river valley, the American Bottom of the Mississippi river valley, and the Duck river valley of central Tennessee.” Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual and Ritual Interaction (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology), Community Organizations in the Scioto, Mann, and Havana Hopewellian Regions, by Bret J. Ruby, Christopher Carr, and Douglas K. Charles. Edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pg 132

16. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, William S. Dancey, Paul J. Pacheco, Kent State University Press (January 1997) pg 42

17. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group. PhD Dissertation by Lisa A. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, 2003. Pg 13

18. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, William S. Dancey, Paul J. Pacheco, Kent State University Press (January 1997) pg 16

19. The Scioto Hopewell and their neighbors: bioarchaeological documentation and Cultural Understanding (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology) By D. Troy Case, Christopher Carr, Springer; 1st Edition. edition (July 24, 2008) pg 25

20. Alma 49:2, 53:4

21. North American archaeology, Timothy R. Pauketat, Diana DiPaolo Loren Wiley-Blackwell (January 4, 2005) pg 123

22. ibid

23. “In most of eastern North America, a shift from notched or stemmed to triangular bifaces occurred between 1500 and 1200 B.P. This shift is commonly linked to the introduction of the bow and arrow to the region (Blitz 1988:131; Christenson 1986a; Griffin 1978:254; Hall 1980; Justice 1987: 224-229; Kelly et al. 1984; Morse and Morse 1990; Muller 1986). That is, small triangular bifaces are considered prima facie evidence for the adoption of the bow and arrow. This adoption is believed to involve a corresponding abandonment of, or at least a drastic reduction in the use of, earlier device.”
Spears, darts, and arrows: late woodland hunting techniques in the upper Ohio Valley. Article from: American Antiquity | July 1, 1993 | Shott, Michael J

24. The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Bioarchaeological Documentation and Cultural Understanding (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, by Daniel Troy Case, Christopher Carr, C.A. Johnston, and B. Goldstein Springer; 1st Edition. edition (July 24, 2008), pg 319

25. Archaeological Society of Ohio By Archaeological Society of Ohio, Ohio Archaeological Society, Ohio Indian Relic Collectors Society, Volumes 44-45, pg 17

26. North American archaeology, Timothy R. Pauketat, Diana DiPaolo Loren Wiley-Blackwell (January 4, 2005) pg 131

27. Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia , by Susan Toby Evans, Routledge; annotated edition edition (November 27, 2000), pg 729. While Teotihuacan spanned over a half of a century in Book of Mormon times, it should be noted that the end of its society post-date The Book of Mormon. The population would no doubt be very large, but may not be as high as the figures stated.

28. Past and Present in the Americas: A Compendium of Recent Studies, edited by John Lynch, Manchester University Press (September 1984), pg 132

29. “Bruce Owen discusses such fortifications at Becan in central Yucatan (5 meter deep moat, a 12 meter high earth embankment, with a timber palisade on top), and at other settlements” http://bruceowen.com/worldprehist/3250s18.htm Ross Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica (1992), 219 n. 34

30. The Ancient Maya: new perspectives, By Heather Irene McKillop, ABC-CLIO (August 19, 2004), pg 189

31. Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Pt. 1, 282-283, quoted in William J. Hamblin, “The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon,” Warfare in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company and FARMS, 1990), 379.

Runtime:

41:56

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Peters joined me through Skype from his home in Iowa for this two-part episode on Mormonism and Communication. Media technology can be understood as issuing a call to action in the world, and Peters discusses the some of the ethical questions media can raise. We talk about the role media has played thus far in the restoration of the Church, through print, radio, and television. Peters also brings a unique perspective to the possibilities and problems of witnesses.

*By way of correction, in part one of this interview I mentioned Wilford Woodruff’s testimony as having been recorded in 1898. The correct date is March 19th 1897.

Runtime:

53:36

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Shalom Goldman, “Joshua/James Seixas (1802-1874): Jewish Apostasy and Christian Hebraism in Early Nineteenth-Century America” Jewish History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 65-88

This article oddly came up while searching JSTOR for early Christian ordination, which is a topic I have blogged about in the past. The major reveal of the article is that Seixas had secretly converted to Unitarian Christianity (observed by John Adams as the denomination that would provide the smoothest transition for Jews to convert to Christianity) before being hired to teach Mormon students Hebrew in Kirtland. Seixas was a well connected scholar. He collaborated with Moses Stuart, who was regarded as “the dean of Biblical studies in America”  and communicated with Unitarian James Walker, who later served as President of Harvard. I have previously cited Stuart’s work as a contemporary of Joseph Smith who also connected the white stone of Revelation 3:21 with the Urim and Thummim.

Myllykoski, Matti. 2007. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II).” Currents in Biblical Research, 6:11-98. LINK

BYU professor, S. Kent Brown, wrote a 1972 dissertation on early Christian sources regarding James. As Myllykoski’s literature survey jumps from topic to topic, Brown’s treatment is often the first to be cited. (On a personal note I just discovered Dr. Brown’s wife is a once removed second cousin of mine.) James deserves more attention by LDS scholars. Legend has James associated with temple worship, the Melchizedek priesthood, Davidic succession, and a gnostic endowment. Was he an apostle or presiding bishop? Did he maintain a quorum of 12 in Jerusalem while others of the original 12 conducted missionary abroad? As a pillar of the early Church did his authority rival Peter’s? Did his policies placing minimum requirements on Gentile converts while personally conforming to Mosaic laws create a split in Christianity? I recommend Myllykoski’s 2 part series as a good primer to understanding the work that has already been done on these questions.

Hans Kvalbein, “The authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19; A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose” in Jostein Adna ed. The Formation of the Early Church Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany 2005 p. 145-174 LINK

This is a Protestant take on the old proof text. Writes Kvalbein “A majority of exegetes from all denominations support the view that Peter is the petra: the rock or foundation stone on which Jesus will build his church.  But a similar majority from all confessions, including Roman Catholic scholars, do not support the traditional Roman Catholic view that this text introduces the idea of an apostolic succession pointing to the primacy of Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This is in fact, a late interpretation and application of the text, which gained broader support in the Roman Catholic Church only from the time of the Reformation and Counter Reformation.” In common ground with Mormon exegetes, Kvalbein links Jesus’s blessing to Peter’s confession based on divine revelation. However Kvalbein has a fairly limited view of how revelation sets Peter apart from other disciples (from apostles down to the little children of Matt 11:25 and Matt 10:40-2) who receive revelation. He argues that Matthew supports a low, democratic church structure, while being aware of his anachronistic terms.

Given my LDS background, I associate the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose more in line with 1) the right to direct the earthly church via revelation and 2) the authority to seal covenants made through earthly ordinances such that they will be honored in heaven (D&C 132:7). It is not easy to establish the first point from non-LDS sources (but a prior essay of mine might be a good start), let alone confining myself to Matthew. Kvalbein primarily associates binding and sealing with the forgiveness of sins and counters another tendency to associate it with the right to interpret the law and declare something forbidden or not (based on later rabbinical usage). Again he argues that this doesn’t make Peter or the apostles all that special because Matt. 18 extends the need to forgive to all brothers and disciples. Secondarily, he associates the forgiveness of sins with ordinances like baptism (for which Peter and the other apostles are given the great commission in Matt 28) and the Lord’s supper. However he sees this type of setting apart as a consequence that some believers are in different stages of maturity in the faith than others. Peter was just the first to receive the revelation and keys.

The perspective set forth in Dallin H. Oaks’s recent conference talk was helpful to me. He distinguished between a personal line of revelation and a hierarchical, authoritative line of revelation and pled for a balance between the two within the LDS Church. To oversimplify, Protestants tend to exclusively emphasize the personal line at the expense (at least from a Mormon perspective) of the hierarchical on.

Richard Lyman Bushman is an award-winning American historian, currently serving as the Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University and Gouverneur Morris Professor of History emeritus at Columbia University. He is also a general editor of the ongoing Joseph Smith Papers project. Bushman sat down with host Blair Hodges for an extended two-part interview. Part one discusses Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling. We discuss polygamy, seer stones, gold plates, and other Joseph Smith-related questions.

Runtime:

61:15

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be added to the comments section here, or emailed to “podcast@fairlds.org.”

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Mesoamerica is known for its “abundance” in precious ores 3, which is why it was an area of such focus of the conquistadors. They raided and conquered entire civilizations in order to get gold and silver. “When Cortes reached Mexico with his army in March, the gold and silver he saw led him to conclude that ‘it is entirely possible that this country has everything which existed in that land from which Solomon is said to have brought gold for the Temple.’” 4

David, in preparing the Temple of the Lord, gathered 100,000 talents of gold, and a million talents of silver among many other valuable metals 5. A talent is roughly 75 lbs, which would make about 7.5 million pounds of gold and 75 million pounds of silver. I doubt that Cortes did the math, but he did know that he was finding A LOT of gold and silver.

Mesoamerican Indians also used a gold and copper (and sometimes silver) alloy called “tumbaga”. This mixture makes a strong product, but is still malleable, and is a much lighter weight than pure gold. Some scholars believe this is what the Gold plates were made out of 6. This was a common metal alloy that Mesoamericans used. When the conquistadors stole gold items from the natives, they would melt them down into bars and ship them back to their homeland. One of these ships was sunk in the Bahamas, and 200, 5.66 lb. tumbaga bars were found in the sunken ship 7. In order to make large amounts of tumbaga, there must be an abundance of both gold and copper in the area.

What about the Great Lakes? Well, it does not stand up to the test as well as Mesoamerica does. Lund writes “An exhaustive search of all twenty-six states east of the Mississippi found copper in Michigan, Wisconsin and one unproductive copper mine in New Jersey. Gold was found in South Carolina, Georgia and Maryland, and only trace amounts of gold in the Adirondacks and trace quantities of silver in the Appalachians. This hardly qualifies as abundance. Furthermore, these areas are separated by distances so great as to exclude the possibility of being in the five hundred to six hundred and fifty mile limitation imposed by the internal restrictions of The Book of Mormon.” 8

Mesoamerica also fits The Book of Mormon description of having Precious stones 9. The Maya had turquoise, emeralds, obsidian 10, and a quality of jade 11 that surpassed that of the Chinese jade 12. Earthquakes 13 are also mentioned several times within the text, so one would expect to find seismic activity in Book of Mormon lands. This is exactly what we find in Mesoamerica. The Motagua fault line runs through several Central American countries and has been active since the Mayan times, as well as the Chixoy-Polochic fault line. Volcanoes, a result of seismic activity, are also found throughout Mesoamerica. Lund finds that “There are sixteen active volcanoes in Mesoamerica and none east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States. Current scientific evidence for the past three thousand years has not found in the Great Lakes area the kind of seismic activity reported in The Book of Mormon.”14. He also notes that the Book of Mormon peoples would have a written language 15, and vultures 16 to fit the description in The Book of Mormon. Both of which, are found in Mesoamerica.

———————————————

1. Nephi 18:25, 2 Nephi 5:15, Jacob 2:12, Jarom 1:8, Helaman 6:9-11, Ether :17, Ether 10:23
2 . John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg 128
3 . Elizabeth H. Paris, Metallurgy, Mayapan, and the Postclassic Mesoamerican World System, Ancient Mesoamerica, 19 (Cambridge University Press , 2008), 43–66
4. Jayne A. Sokolow, The Great Encounter: Native Peoples and European Settlers in the Americas, 1492-1800, (M.E. Sharpe, December 2002), pg 74
5. 1 Chronicles 22:14
6. “Of What Material Were the Plates?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume – 10, Issue – 1, (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2001) pg. 21
7. Warren Tucker, HWCA World NY Coin Auction 425 Catalog Vol. 2 (New York, New York, RSM Press, 2006) pg 251
8. John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg. 132
9. Alma 17:14
10. Sharer, The Ancient Maya, pgs. 454-455, 730
11. John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg 132
12. Mosiah 27:11, Helaman 5:27-31, 3 Nephi 8:6-19
13. Mosiah 27:11, Helaman 5:27-31, 3 Nephi 8:6-19
14. John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg 135
15. The Book of Mormon people had a written hieroglyphic language (Mormon 9:32) as well did the Mayan. The Hopewell culture had no written language.
16. Alma 2:37-38, The Turkey vulture, a native to the Americas lives year round in Mesoamerica, but only in the Great Lakes area between May and August. Odds are the vultures mentioned were in Mesoamerica, John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg. 135-136

However, the cold is not what we hear about. Instead, we hear phrases like “heat of the day” 3, without any indication of a cold climate one would expect to see if The Book of Mormon took place in the North Eastern United States. The Lehites came from the Middle East, travelled years through the vast Saudi Arabian deserts, and then we only hear about the heat of the new land. If it were a new, colder climate, it would most certainly be mentioned.

There are several events in The Book of Mormon that just could not have happened in the Great Lakes region. In Alma14, Alma and Amulek were stripped naked and suffered “many days” 4. It has been stated that Amulek set the date as the ‘fourth day of the seventh month’ 5. The 7th month and the 4th day on a lunar calendar of twenty-nine or thirty days per month would be around September 27th. The day they were delivered from prison was ‘on the twelfth day of the tenth month’ 6. This would have been approximately ninety-six days later. This date corresponds to around the first week of January. The minimum amount of time they would have spent in that condition would have been five days 7. The average temperature in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the area where some place Zarahemla which is by the Genesee and Niagra rivers, two rivers some interpret to be the river Sidon, has an average temperature of 31 degrees F during the day, with a nighttime average of 19 degrees F. This is hardly an area that would sustain life for someone cast into a cold prison without any clothing or blankets for “many days”. However, the average temperature in the Mesoamerican lowlands is in the mid-sixties. This temperature would make it much more plausible for someone to survive in extreme conditions. 8

Also, the clothing mentioned in The Book of Mormon is not consistent with the climate of North America. To the contrary, we read about them wearing “loincloths”, “leathern girdles”, etc… This kind of clothing would not be conducive to the cold climate of the Great Lakes region. The Lamanites would not have survived, or even thought about wearing a loincloth in battle, in an area that is known for it’s freezing winters, and copious amounts of snow. Enos describes the Lamanites as “wandering about the wilderness with a short girdle about their loins.” 9 Zeniff portrayed the Lamanites as having “their heads shaved and they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins.”10 Alma said the Amlicites “had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites. Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins.” 11. Zarahemnahs army is described as being “naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins, yea all were naked save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites.” 12
Because of this “nakedness”, the Lamanites were exposed and had a higher death rate than the Nephites 13. Moroni said this of speaking about the Nephites:

“Behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites.” 14

Giddianhi, the leader of the Gadianton robbers, and his army wore “…lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn…” 15

These wars were not seasonal, but sometimes lasted for years as one continuous war 16. In one particular war, the Lamanites came to war in the sixth month 17, in the commencement of the year 18, and at the end of the year 19. In the “second month”, the fathers of the stripling warriors brought them provisions 20 before a commencement of a battle in the “seventh month” 21.

The only mention of heavier clothing is as a form of armor in battle. Alma calls this “thick clothing” 22, and “very thick garments” 23. However, this is not common clothing worn by the Nephites and Lamanites, and is only mentioned in context of warfare as a protection. This may seem out of place in a warm climate, but “thick clothing” was used as a type of armor among the Mayan 24, and matches The Book of Mormons definition.

1. 1 Nephi 11:8 , “It should be noted too that many Old Testament scriptures which pre-date the Lehi colony’s departure also use the term “snow,” (the Hebrew word sheleg appears 20 times in our Old Testament” This means it is not surprising that Lehi and Nephi (who knew Israelite scripture well) would use the term.” http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Snow accessed May 20, 2009)
2. John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007) pg 205
3. Alma 51:33
4. Alma 14:21,23
5. Alma 10:6
6. Alma 14:23
7. Alma 14:18, 20, 23-28
8. John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg 207
9. Enos 1:20
10. Mosiah 10:8
11. Alma 3:4-5
12. Alma 43:20
13. Alma 43:37
14. Alma 44:18
15. 3 Nephi 4:7
16. Alma 51-62
17. 3 Nephi 4:7, September according to the Hebrew calendar
18. 3 Nephi 2:17 April according to the Hebrew calendar
19. 3 Nephi 4:1; 3 Nephi 2:17; Alma 56:20; March, according to the Hebrew calendar
20. Alma 56:27
21. Alma 56:42
22. Alma 43:19
23. Alma 49:6
24. William J. Hamblin, “Armor in the Book of Mormon”, p. 413; in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, edited by Stephen D. Ricks & William J. Hamblin, (Provo, Utah: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990); This article can be read online at: http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738 accessed 5/25/09

As it turns out, we have a solution for people in just such a situation. We will be providing online streaming of the conference, so you can listen to it anywhere that you have a computer and an Internet connection – it may even work on your iPhone or Android phone, although we have had limited success in testing (please have a computer available to use as a backup in case it doesn’t work for you).

This service will cost $15 for both days combined. We will be providing audio, and if all goes well there may also be some video and/or slideshows available. You can order the service at http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1085

Instructions regarding access and feedback will be emailed to all participants shortly before the conference begins. A high-speed Internet connection and PC or Mac are recommended.

The earliest known published reference to the Book of Mormon, ca. 1829.

Matt Roper from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (formerly FARMS) has managed to track down, compile, and scan 556 publications discussing the Book of Mormon from between 1829 and 1844. The collection, called “19th-Century Publications about the Book of Mormon (1829–1844)” (also known as the “Kirkham project” after Francis W. Kirkham), is available for digging through online at the Harold B. Lee Library Digital Collections.

The collection includes facsimile copies as well as .pdf transcriptions of each publication. It seems to be an exciting resource for researching the reception and analysis of the Book of Mormon in early American print culture. The collection is described as follows:

“Since its publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been cast in a variety of roles by both Latter-day Saint and non–Latter-day Saint readers. Published literature relating to the book that appeared during the Prophet Joseph Smith’s lifetime is one of the best historical windows for understanding how this ancient American scripture was interpreted, used, and understood by early readers. This collection represents an effort to gather together that body of literature and make it available to those interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon.”

The cropped image above is an excerpt from The Wayne Sentinel, Palmyra, New York, 26 June 1829. It is the earliest known publication mentioning the Book of Mormon. Here’s part of the provided transcript:

Just about in this particular region, for some time past, much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through superhuman means, of an ancient record, of a religious and a divine nature and origin, written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been imparted by inspiration. It is generally known and spoken of as the “Golden Bible.” Most people entertain an idea that the whole matter is the result of a gross imposition and a grosser superstition. It is pretended that it will be published as soon as the translation is completed. Meanwhile we have been furnished with the following, which is represented to us as intended for the title page of the work–we give it as a
curiosity:—
“The Book of Mormon, an account, written by the hand of Mormon upon plates, taken
from the plates of Nephi—

See the collection here: http://lib.byu.edu/dlib/bompublications/. Having these sources in one place is great. I hope it grows, too.

“Readers have no way of knowing which critical claims have already been discredited, and the anti-Mormon sponsors are certainly not going to tell them right there on the site,” he said.

The democratization of ideas sometimes confuses the reader as to what is true and what is not, as all ideas are presented horizontally and as fact, thus positioning the blogger’s flippant opinion alongside the scholar’s well-researched dissertation.

Last week on a message board someone took note of Dr. Gregory Smith’s article that reports statistics from the 1850 Census and from pre-exodus Nauvoo that shows that age differences between spouses were substantial back then. There was some thoughtful discussion taking issue with GLS’s plea to avoid presentism and some brought up aspects of Joseph’s plural marriages that would have been unacceptable even for that time (like bigamy, which I have actually blogged on recently.)

Then the discussion went backwards, when one poster, despite the statistics to the contrary claimed “”the age of marriage in 19th Century America was probably later than it is now and teenage girls that did marry usually did so to boys more their own age and not men 20+ plus years older.” Even though this forum does not allow any defense of the Church I thought that posting some objective numbers would be helpful.

As far as average age, 1980 was close to 1840, but there has been a lot of movement since.
1840 SMAM 22.4
1980 SMAM 22.9
2008 SMAM 26.6
SMAM = Singulate Mean Age At (first) Marriage [1]

10% of 2008 brides were teens compared to 43% in 1840. [2]

1850 grooms aged 34-38: wife averaged 10.1 years younger, 19% were teens
Joseph Smith: wives averaged 6.7 years younger, 30% were teens.

USA Long Term Age Dependent Cumulative Marriage Rates

The poster making the claims I addressed, helpfully linked to some items thought to call the statistics I presented in question. Otherwise, the ad hominem reaction I received brought Hafen’s remarks into focus for me.  In a sense, it doesn’t matter how well I research and publish statistics in forthcoming scholarly venues on 19^th century nuptiality. Anti-Mormon sponsors will hardly ever acknowledge that a criticism has been addressed or seriously engage empirical that does not support their paradigm. Wanting to not reciprocate, below I will address one of the statistical claims made in my interlocuter’s supporting links.

Claim: “ In Utah (1850s to 1890s), the average age of a 2nd wife was 17 (husband average age early 30s) and the average age of a third wife was 19 (husband average age mid to late 30s). The average age in the USA for a first marriage in the late 19th century was about 22.”

I want to be the first to acknowledge when an ex-mormon researcher gets something right. The numbers given for USA average is in the right ballpark for female first marriages. The given typical ages for husbands depending on marriage scenario are also probably defensible, even if they lack context. For example they could have addressed how serial monogamists or older single men in their 30s married back then. To return to my earlier point, using 1850 “marrinyr” data from IPUMS, men aged 34-38 married women 10+/-6 years younger than themselves. Using all men lessens the gap to 5+/-6. I am reporting mean and standard deviation to the nearest integer. Men in their 40s were 13+/-10 years older than their wives (11% teens).

Let’s move on to testing the claims about wives’ mean ages being 5 years below the national average during the plural marriage era. The table below analyzes the 1880 census. It shows that Utah’s overall average and its Coale-McNeil minimum age was very close to that of the West.

1880 10% Census Sample [3]

Many scholarly papers [4] have made use of the massive Utah Population Database. Regarding marital ages depending on wife order, it has been found that the mean of the ages of the first and second wife of a polygamous man is roughly the same as that as the average age of all monogamous wives. Put more simply, in a mixed polygynous/monogamous the society the ages of each sub-group track each other. Over time, first wives can be up to a year younger than monogamous wives and second wives up to a year or so older than monogamous wives. Contrary to the claim above, third wives were typically older than 23. In short, the 1880 census numbers above support the average ages being around 20.5 and not 17. On the other hand, Kathryn Daynes [5] estimates that during the Mormon Reformation in Manti average marital ages got much lower (~16.5 years). However the situation soon corrected itself and returned to above 20.

Bean and Mineau [6] divided Utah men into 3 birth cohorts. The last one (1840-1859) is of the most interest since it was the most active group around 1880.

[1] SMAM calculated using Hajnal’s method on raw data extracted from IPUMS. 1840 SMAM estimated using procedure outlined in previous blog entry and comments.

[2] % take into account age structure. More information about my methodology can be found in the link immediately above. Some adjustments have been made. 1) I assume a more conservative Coale-McNeil minimum age for 1800-1840 of 13.8. 2) I have added constraints in my numerical optimization routine to not overestimate the marriage rate at 14.5 years (to prevent minimum age from being underestimated). This sometimes results in an increase of about 0.3 years. 3) After 1940 I use a general log-gamma distribution on the first pass to get a tighter fit than the Coale-McNeil distribution. The result is that teen percentage in 2008 is actually closer to 8.5% rather than 10% as reported above.

[3] Census Division Map at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

Min Age = Coale-McNeil minimum age of eligibility. Equal to AI Mean – 1.73 X standard deviation

AD Mean = Age Dependent average (takes population pyramid into account, closer match to marriage year cohort, county records )

% are cumulative percentages of brides in marriage cohort married by the end of the designated age. For instance 21.5% were married as teens in New England.

I should note that the chart shows a worst case comparison for Utah by not allowing the optimization routine to underestimate Min Age. If Utah had been processed like the other regions its Min Age increases to 14.0.

[4] Some papers I have found to be useful are:

G. P. Mineau, L. L. Bean, M. Skolnick, “Mormon Demographic History II: The Family Life Cycle and Natural Fertility,” Population Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Nov., 1979), pp. 429-446

Lee L. Bean, Geraldine Mineau, Douglas Anderton, “ Residence and Religious Effects on Declining Family Size: An Historical Analysis of the Utah Population,”  Review of Religious Research, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1983), pp. 91-101

[5] Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 107.

[6]  L. L. Bean and G. P. Mineau , “The Polygyny-Fertility Hypothesis: a Re-evaluation,”   Population Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 67-81 see the table on p. 72. The other birth cohorts had higher age differences as plural marriage was phased in.

Reviewed by Trevor Holyoak

This is the second book to be released in the Joseph Smith Papers
project, and the first volume of the Revelations and Translations
series. It is a “facsimile edition” of Revelation Book 1 (also known as
“Book of Commandments and Revelations”) and Revelation Book 2 (“Book of
Revelation” or “Kirtland Revelation Book”). It is quite large, measuring
approximately 9.25 by 12.25 inches and weighing nearly 8 pounds. This
means it won’t quite match the previously released Journals volume on
your shelf (which it effectively dwarfs), but apparently there will be a
few other volumes of the same size to go along with it, so the finished
set of 30+ volumes should end up looking quite nice together, in spite
of the two sizes. And there is a very good reason for the larger size –
the body of the book consists of photographs of each page of the two
books, with the photos on the left side, and a transcription running
parallel on the right.

Both manuscript books were used for keeping revelations, which were
written into them by scribes such as Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde, W. W.
Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, John Whitmer, and Frederick Williams, as well as
Joseph Smith. The books were also used in publishing many of the
revelations in the church’s first newspaper (“The Evening and the
Morning Star”), the Book of Commandments, and the Doctrine and
Covenants. Most of the revelations contained in the books are the
earliest extant versions. There are also some of which no other copy is
known to be in existence. Nine of them have never been published as
scripture.

This volume contains general reference material similar to what was in
the previously published Journals volume, such as a timeline of Joseph
Smith’s life, maps, and series and volume introductions. It also has a
scribal directory and tables showing where each item has been published
in “The Evening and Morning Star,” the Book of Commandments, and
Latter-day Saint and Community of Christ editions of the Doctrine and
Covenants, where applicable. What it does not contain is historical or
contextual information for each revelation. Instead, it contains
detailed information about what is on each page, with color-coded
transcriptions to identify each scribe who wrote anything on the page or
made changes. There will be a Documents series that will concentrate on
the earliest and best versions and will put each revelation into
context, whereas the present series helps us to see all the changes that
were made in each revelation, as they were composed and then prepared
for publication.

One of the revelations contains valuable information to help us
understand the process of reception and recording of revelation: “I am
God & have spoken it[.] these commandments are of me & were given unto
my Servants in their weakness after the manner of their Language that
they might come to understanding.” Although the revelations were from
God, there were limitations inherent in expressing them in the language
used by the people receiving them, and appropriate changes were made to
many of them prior to publication, which are easily studied in this
volume. [1]

Each manuscript page was photographed in high enough resolution to
produce a file of about 229 megabytes in size and the process is
described in detail. The photographs in the book have been reduced
significantly for print, but the original files are still available for
research. Techniques such as multispectral imaging were used to reveal
things that were invisible to the human eye, such as a notation that had
been written in graphite and then erased. Between the transcription and
the annotations, everything on the manuscript page is thoroughly
described, down to pinholes in the paper.

I found it very enjoyable to be able to see and read the revelations I
am already familiar with from the scriptures, in the handwriting of
people like Joseph Smith and Olivery Cowdery. I also found the material
which had not been canonized to be very interesting. One such item is
apparently a song:

Sang by the gift of Tongues and Translated
age after age has rolled away, according to the sad fate
of man. Countless millions [for] ever gone at length the
period of time has come that oft was seen by a prophetic
eye and writen too by all holy men [Inspired] of the Lord
a time which was seen by Enoch of Old at a time when
he stood upon the mount which was called the mountain
of God as he gazed upon nature and the corruption [of]
man and mourned their sad fate and wept
and cried with a Loud voice and heaved forth
his sighs Omnipotence Omnipotence o may I
see thee- and with his finger he touched
his eyes and he saw heaven he gazed on
eternity and sang an Angelic song and
mingled his [voice] with the heavenly throng
Hozana Hozana the sound of the trump around the throne
of God and echoed & echoed again and rang and
reechoed until eternity was filled with his
voice he saw yea he saw and he glorified
God the salvation of his people his city
caught up through the gospel of Christ
he saw the beginning the ending of man
he saw the time when Adam his father
was made and he saw that he was in
eternity before a grain of dust in the
ballance was weighed he saw that he em
-enated and came down from God he saw
what had passed and then was and is present
and to come therefore he saw the Last days the Angel
that came down to John and the Angel that [is]
now flying having the everlasting gospel to com
mit [unto] men- which in my soul I have recivd
and from death and bondage from the Devil
I’m freed [and] am free in the gospel of Christ
and Im waiting and with patience Ill wait
on the Lord hozana loud sound the trump cause
eternity to wring hozana for ever Im waiting the coming
of Christ a mansion on high a celestial abode a seat
on the right hand of God Angels are coming the holy
Ghost is falling upon the saints and will continue to fall
the saviour is coming yea the Bride groom prepare
ye prepare yea the cry has gone forth go wait on
the Lord the Angels in glory will soon be descending
go join you in singing the praises of God the trump
Loud shall sound the dark vail soon shall rend
heaven shall shake the earth shall tremble and
all nature shall feel the power of God, gaze ye
saints gaze ye upon him, gaze upon Jesus
hozana loud sound the trump his church is
caught up hozana praise him ye saints they
stand at his feet behold they are weeping they
strike hands with Enoch of Old they inherit a
city as it is writen the City of God, Loud sound
the trump, they receive a celestial crown hozana
hozana the heaven of heavens and the heavens
are filled with [the] praises of God Amen
Given February 27- 1833- [2]
This volume should be helpful for scholars as well as anyone interested
in church history or the production of modern scripture. Reading the
revelations in the handwriting of those involved is a different
experience from reading the typeset versions in our scriptures. I have
found it to be a spiritual experience, which will lead me to treasure
the book for more than just the educational interest it originally held
for me.

Footnotes:

[1] The volume introduction discusses the appropriateness of editing
revelations beginning on page xxvii, where the quoted portion appears
which later became D&C 1:24. It is then discussed further on pages 6 and
7. For another good explanation of how revelation can be received and
then revised to better communicate what was intended, see “To Acquire
Spiritual Guidance” by Elder Richard G. Scott, given in General
Conference, October 2009 (
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-2,00.html ).

[2] Pages 509-511. The accompanying annotation says “No other version of
this item exists to provide additional detail about its creation, so its
authorship is unknown. This item was never canonized.” According to the
color coding, the original inscription was by Frederick G. Williams and
Joseph Smith made a few corrections.

William Hamblin’s own summary of methodology:

If one wishes to discuss divergent models for the origin of the Book of Mormon, the proper methodology to be followed is: 1—Assume that the book is an authentic ancient record and analyze it from this perspective; . . . 2—Assume that the book is a nineteenth-century document and analyze it from this perspective; 3—Compare and contrast the successes, failures, and relative explanatory power of the results of these studies; 4—Attempt to discover which model is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the text

From Hamblin’s critique of Nibley:  (I am trying to put things in my own words, though)

1. Parallels should come from the right time. It doesn’t do to assume uniformity of thought and culture for a given area.
2. Parallels should come from the right place. A hemispheric region for an ancient setting is overly broad, just as a modern setting that Joseph Smith studying foreign and European literature is also overly broad.
3. Anti-parallels should not be ignored.
4. A multi-dimensional approach should be used: for example use tools from both from comparative literature and historical reconstruction.

From Brant Gardner’s review of Wirth [I am not quite as skeptical as Brant G. is about the worth of Spanish parallels]:

1. Be very cautious in the uses of secondary sources. (discern reliability of cited scholars, recognize the influence of mediating cultural layers that add distortion. Example, Spanish christianizing Mesoamerican legends.)
2. Similarity in elements is not necessarily evidence of  an indication of a historical connection. Further argumentation is required: show that paralleling elements have unique “features that would be difficult to replicate by independent invention.”
3. Do deal with anti-parallels, but be wary of using a “silly putty” classification scheme for parallels and anti-parallels. For example, having a scheme where parallels represent the original deposit of faith while anti-parallels are a result of apostasy or mistransmitted oral traditions. (Popper: “theories that explain so much and that seem to be immune to falsification ought to arouse our suspicion.”)
4. See Hamblin’s #1 above (#2 is less of a problem for Wirth (narrower area), but there are still problems with some ideas crossing over between antagonistic cultures in the same area).
5. Recognize that rhetorical skill can artificially strengthen or weaken a parallel.

From Poulsen’s review of Norman:

1. Control for “the Light is better over here” phenomenon. Recognize that more information is available for some settings than others, which increases the odds of getting false positives.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have some reservation about some of O’Donovan’s treatment.  In my indirect review of the Walker Lewis article,  I disagreed with his take that if Brigham had had his way, Danites would have offed a mixed race couple. O’Donovan presents his case about blood atonement a little better this time around, but I will argue in PART II that it is still lacking. I have also been concerned when O’Donovan imputes various emotions to persons.

I noticed that, but not in writing, that O’Donovan made a lengthy aside about William Smith’s infidelities in the Lewis bio that seemed to serve no purpose other than to embarrass a general authority. I didn’t see much point in covering Brigham Young’s marriage with Augusta Cobb, which has no direct bearing on interracial marriages. That isn’t to say that  no insight can be gained by comparing one form of historically forbidden marriages to another. However, I think O’Donovan handling of the Cobb-Young marriage clouds any insight that could potentially be gained. I don’t think I am helping matters much by focusing a good chunk of this review on it.

The Cobb-Young Marriage

O’Donovan asserts that “church leaders forbade any LDS man from marrying a woman who was not single, widowed, or divorced.” That may have been the general rule but there are notable exceptions to it, some even legal.

• Some 50 years earlier the Jackson-Robards marriage had created quite a stir.  Robards had separated from her husband in Kentucky December 1790 and, believing herself to be divorced, eloped with Andrew Jackson to Mississippi the next August. Although technically illegal, telling Andrew Jackson that he or his wife was an adulterer would likely land one in a duel (AJ had at least 13) or even killed (1 duel casualty).
• A legal, church sanctioned remarriage occurred between Newell Knight and undivorced Lydia Bailey (believed not to be a widow) in Ohio [4]. A woman abandoned by her husband for over three years could remarry without a formal divorce according to an 1824 Ohio bigamy statute. It had been recently bumped up to five years, but the clerks and parties involved were unaware of that.
• The 1831 Illinois bigamy law had clause that allowed remarriage without a divorce like Ohio after a five year absence of the spouse.
• “Serial bigamy was a form of marital refashioning …. A divorce became necessary only when there was a significant amount of property to be divided. Because of its criminal connotations, a divorce sometimes offered a useful mechanism for allowing the ‘innocent’ victim of the guilty spouse to reclaim honor and an identity within an established community. … The characteristic forms of marital escape, however, were abandonment and desertion—unsullied by any public state action. A husband or, less often, a wife would leave and go elsewhere, probably to remarry” [5]
• The Pratt-McClean marriage created quite a scandal within and without Mormonism. The ex-husband resorted in extra-legal violence rather than rely on marriage laws.

O’Donovan’s contention that Brigham Young’s Nov. 1843 marriage with Augusta Cobb was considered adulterous by Mormon standards falls flat. I will grant that a two month separation from her ex-husband is well short of Illinois’ five year separation period for allowing remarriage without a divorce. It is also short of meeting residency requirements and two years of marital separation[6] for filing for divorce in Illinois, had Augusta Cobb desired to do so on that basis. Divorce laws in the frontier Midwest were the most liberal in the country [7] and even were designed to attract migrating married women separating from their husbands. The frontier had imbalanced male-female ratios and employed competitive strategies to increase the marriage pool.

Only Mormons who were unaware or unreceptive of Joseph Smith’s 1843 plural marriage revelation (esp. D&C 132:61-63) would think that Brigham Young had entered into an adulterous relationship after leaving her legal husband.  Polyandrous marriages could be authorized under certain conditions provided that wife wasn’t “with” or “vowed to” (“under this law”) both husbands at once. Brigham Young’s marriage “for eternity” would seem to fit right in with Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriage (especially the subset of wives who had non-Mormon husbands).  Gregory L. Smith [8] and Brian C. Hales [9] have recent treatments on the subject which should be cited and engaged with from now on. Augusta Cobbs’ obituary [10] indicates a high degree of Mormon respect for a woman that gave up everything (including wealth and family) for the Gospel’s sake.

O’Donovan calls the judges handling Mr. Cobbs’ divorce hearings in Massachusetts as the activist judges of their day. However, they do not appear to be doing anything ground-breaking beyond their own state with Cobb v. Cobb, despite the publicity it received.  It appears to be an open and shut case as adultery was accepted grounds for divorce there. I am not familiar with the particulars of testimony in the case as O’Donovan is, but there is reason to be skeptical that Brigham consummated the plural marriage before the divorce.  A non-Mormon descendant takes the position that was the case even after the divorce [11]. Outside of Massachusetts’s jurisdiction, Brigham Young and Augusta Cobb were minimally affected by the eventual ruling. Thus Brigham had no reason to take out his marital frustration on so-called “inferiors” as O’Donovan imagines.

[1] Connell O’Donovan, “‘I would confine them to their own species’: LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks”, Sunstone Symposium West (2009).

[2] There was somewhat of a parallel debate on whether the offspring of plural unions were inferior to that of monogamous couplings. Dean Jessee in “Brigham Young’s Family: the Wilderness Years,” BYU Studies 19:4 (Summer 1979)  gives an  anecdote of one of Young’s wives being told her child was smarter because of plurality, much to that wife’s annoyance.

[3] Connell O’Donovan, “The Mormon Priesthood Ban & Elder Q. Walker Lewis: ‘An example for his more whiter brethren to follow,’” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (2006).

[4] M. Scott Bradshaw, “Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio,” Brigham Young University Studies 39:4 (2000): 7–22. PDF link.

[5] US Historical Encyclopedia, “Divorce and Marital Separation”

[6] Neal R. Feigenson, “Extraterritorial Recognition of Divorce Decrees in the Nineteenth Century” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 119-167

[7] Timothy Crumrin, “Women and the Law in Early 19th-century Indiana,” (Publication Forthcoming).

[8] Gregory L. Smith, “Joseph Smith and Polyandry” (Publication Forthcoming).

[9] Brian C. Hales,  “The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.

[10] Obituary,  Deseret Evening News (Feb. 4, 1886)

[11] Mary Caple, “She Who Shall be Nameless,” American Heritage Magazine, 16/2 (Feb. 1965)

One article about 19th century marriage statistics and Joseph Smith’s plural marriages that is widely used by critics is found at i4m.com. It is poorly researched, but provides a. reference section that gives to the unwary that it is well documented.  The few sources appear to have been  cobbled together by some anti-Mormon message board poster and backs up almost nothing in the article’s main text.

Where can one find accurate information on 19th century marital trends? I recommend the following:

J. David Hacker.  ”Rethinking the ‘Early’ Decline of Marital Fertility in the United States” Demography Volume 40, Number 4, November 2003, pp. 605-620

Michael R. Haines. “Long-term marriage patterns in the United States from colonial times to the present” History of the Family 1996, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. 15–39

Catherine Fitch and Steven Ruggles. 2000. “Historical Trends in Marriage Formation.” In Linda Waite, Christine Bachrach, Michelle Hindin, Elizabeth Thomson, and Arland Thornton, eds., Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 59-88.  http://tinyurl.com/yhc9sc5

The Foster, Keller, Smith paper will extend the methods for data collecting, analyzing, and reporting found in these works. One important extension is that we will look at marriage cohorts in addition to birth cohorts, the latter being more typical in the demographics literature. A marriage cohort is a set of females married in a year’s time frame,  which can then be broken down by age. A birth cohort is a set of females that were born the same year, which can then be broken down by the age at marriage (though it was typical for 7-8% of a birth cohort that reached 50 to have never married).

Marriage cohorts had lower average marital age than birth cohorts because a larger amount of the total population resides at the younger ages. Visualize a demographic pyramid with a wide base. Marriage cohorts therefore have a higher percentage of teens than birth cohorts. These breakdowns more closely approximate marriage market dynamics and provide a better comparison to the age profile of Joseph Smith’s wives.

In demographic literature, the two types of statistical breakdowns are called age-independent (for birth cohorts) and age dependent (for marriage cohorts). When data is collected from US Census it is most usually reported age-independently. When county records are summarized age-dependently. When good records about both birth and marriage are available (genealogical databases) generally age-independent reporting is preferred. So age-independent breakdowns dominate demographics literature.

It is possible that my method that I developed to convert age-independent Census data to age-dependent data will be of interest to the wider academic community (outside of Mormonism) . I won’t go into details here, but main tools for the job are the widely used Coale-McNeil model and a generalized extension presented in this article:

Ryuichi Kaneko. “Elaboration of the Coale-McNeil Nuptiality Model as The Generalized Log Gamma Distribution: A New Identity and Empirical Enhancements” Demographic Research 2003 Volume 9  pp. 223-262 http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol9/10/9-10.pdf

The Coale-McNeil model is also used in Haines (1996) article above. With the appropriate assumptions and extensions the Coale-McNeil model is extremely useful for estimating marriage trends for 1800-1840 and for providing a age breakdown if the mean marital age is known. Furthermore it makes it easier to adjust for age population dynamics (due to high birth and death rates) that make the actual marital age lower than the age-independent census data does.

Now with the backing of this recent scholarship let me dissect some of i4m’s accusations.

i4m: “There is no documentation to support the idea that marriage at fourteen was ‘approaching eligibility.’”

This should probably be changed to i4m has not found any documentation. Yet such documentation is easily found. Coale’s model has established a statistical benchmark for the minimum age of eligibility (which turns out to be the mean minus 1.73 times the standard deviation). Haines (1996) above tabulates estimates from Sanderson for years 1800-1920 for the minimum age and it ranges from 14.0-14.3. I get a little lower using better data and a maximum likelihood estimation technique (~13.5 in 1800).

i4m “Actually, marriages even two years later, at the age of sixteen, occurred occasionally but infrequently in Helen Mar’s culture. Thus, girls marrying at fourteen, even fifteen, were very much out of the ordinary. Sixteen was comparatively rare, but not unheard of.”

Here i4m is describing marriage at 14, 15, and 16 in Helen Mar Kimball’s culture, but have not quantified anything. Suppose we take HMK’s culture to be 1840 white America (more refinements could be made based on region married in, region born in, region parents born in, rural or urban, etc.). Then based on my latest estimates if one were to attend 100 random weddings involving first time brides in 1840: 1.9 brides would be 14 or younger, 3.8 would be 15, and 6.7 would be 16.

i4m:”American women began to marry in their late teens;”

This statement is false. From above 12.3% married before turning 17. By Coale’s benchmark, which he described as the “the earliest age of a significant number of first marriages,” and noted that this age “depends on age laws, the onset of menarche, and traditional community standards. As noted earlier, empirically this age was around 13.5 or 14.0 in the mid 19th century.

i4m: “around different parts of the United States the average age of marriage varied from nineteen to twenty-three.”

This might be the most defensible number or characterization that i4m makes. For 1880, Hacker (2003) writes that  “SMAM [an age-independent measure of the mean] ranged from 21.4 in the Mountain and Pacific regions to 24.6 in New England.” He calculated the national mean to be 23.3. Nationwide a reasonable compromise presented in Haines (1996) is that the marital age was 21.0, but as i4m notes Sanderson estimated 19.0. I use the conservative compromise in my estimates but 19.0 sounds about right for some of the more frontier regions of the country.

However i4m misuses the mean in their analysis. In the Coale-McNeil model 60% of a birth cohort have been married by the mean age. This is standard regardless of census year data used. After adjusting for population increase the mean age drops in 1880 to 22.4 and 38% of first time brides were teenagers. Note that I am switching to age-dependent statistics. For 1840, I estimate teenage brides in 43% of all [first time] weddings. The most frequent marrying age was 18. This is a far cry from marriage beginning to occur in the late teens as i4m portrays.

i4m: “In the United States the average age of menarche (first menstruation) dropped from 16.5 in 1840 to 12.9 in 1950.”

No papers are cited to support this claim. One should take pre-1900 numbers with a large dose of salt. Peter Laslett wrote (p. 215) “almost nothing is known about age of sexual maturity for any society before the 20th century.” http://tinyurl.com/yfhnzrf

Here is a part of a brief survey that Craig Foster has compiled:

J. B. Post. “Ages at Menarche and Menopause: Some Medieval Authorities.” Population Studies 25:1 (March 1971): 86. claims that medieval manuscripts placed menarche around the age of twelve to fourteen.

EliseDe la Rochebrochard. “Les âges à la puberté des filles et des garçons à partir d’une enquête sur la sexualité des adolescents,” Population 54:6 (NOV-DEC 1999): 938.

Age at menarche in France
1750 – average of almost 16 years
1850 – a little over 15 years
1900 – 14 years
2000 – 12.5 years

Joseph Jacobs and Maurice Fishberg. “Menstruation,” JewishEncyclopedia.com

Menarche statistics during mid to late-19^th century:

Slovenia
Jewish girls – 13 years
“Slavonian” girls – later

Hungary
Magyar peasant girls – 15-16
Jewish girls – 14-15
Slovak girls – 16-17

Strasburg
Both Jewish and non-Jewish girls began to menstruate between ages 14 and 17.

New York City
Average age for Jewish Girls – 12.7 years
American-born – 12.1 years
Foreign-born – 13.2 years

In the Laslett link I gave also gives numbers in the 16-17 range for 19th century Europe. For America my current best guess for 1850 would be around 15.5, but I won’t waste time arguing why. The exact mean age, even if it could be precisely determined is not all that important as I will now show.

Laslett (p. 232) also conjectures menarche ages  have a  normal distribution with a standard deviation between 1.7-1.9.  The Coale-McNeil model also assumes age of eligibility is normally distributed. So even if we were to take i4m 16.4′s number as the 1840 mean and 1.7 as a standard deviation, 17% of all females aged 14.7  would have reached the age of puberty. This provides plenty of eligible females into the marriage market to account for the 1.9% [age dependent] or so that get married before age 15 reported earlier. There is no evidence that a statistically significant number of pre-pubescent girls were getting married in 19th century America.

i4m: “The mean age of first marriages in colonial America was between 19.8 years to 23.7, most women were married during the age period of peak fecundity (fertility).”

Studies on mid to late 19th century Mormon data shows the most fertile married cohort was the 15-19 age group. I could see no evidence that the younger brides in that group had a longer interval to their first birth or infant mortality rates were higher. Note that 19th century Mormon cohorts average marriage age was around 19.0 . Yet still no evidence a significant number of teens were marrying before menarche.

See D. L. Anderton and L. L. Bean. “Birth spacing and fertility limitation: a behavioral analysis of a nineteenth century frontier population.” Demography. 1985 May 22(2): 169-83.

i4m: “The psychological sexual maturity of Helen Mar Kimball in today’s average age of menarche (first menstruation) would put her psychological age of sexual maturity at the time of the marriage of Joseph Smith at 9.1 years old. (16.5 years-12.8 years =3.7 years) (12.8 years-3.7 years=9.1 years)”

Most theories of marriage timing  note the increase in the mean marital age over time suggest that teens are psychological less mature now than back then. The phenomenon has been called “extended childhood” in the literature.

“The fact is Helen Mar Kimball’s sexual development was still far from complete. Her psychological sexual maturity was not competent for procreation.”

Even if sexual relations could be proved (even Todd Compton, IIRC, argues this marriage was “dynastic” and likely not consummated); i4m has presented no evidence that Helen Mar wasn’t one of the 17 percent (using i4m’s mean and Laslett’s standard deviation) at the 14.7 age mark that had already reached menarche. I take the general US trend to not marry pre-pubescent girls (sometimes their was engagement understandings in place) is evidence that Helen wouldn’t even been considered for marriage by her parents. Helen remarked (hat tip Cal Robinson) “I had grown up very fast and my father often took me out with him and for this reason was taken to be older than I was.”

So i4m’s content on marriage statistics in the 19th century is not very good. In declaring it a myth that it was normal for girls aged 12-14 to marry they are have created propaganda that can easily be falsified by readily available census data. One example of how this propaganda has perpetuated is found in Brian Mackert’s defense of the awful “Search for Truth” video that FAIR reviewed. Mackert borrowed i4m’s material wholesale, even though I think he is competent enough to do his own independent research. I do not wish to create drama with such critics, but rather hope those really looking for the truth will be able to find it here.

& Joseph Knight given at Manchester Ontario C[ounty] New York

Behold I the Lord am God I Created the Heavens & the Earth

& all things that in them is wherefore they are mine & I sway

my scepter over all the Earth & ye are in my hands to will &

to do that I can deliver you o{◊\ut} of evry difficulty & affliction

according to your faith & dilligence & uprightness Before me
Joseph
& I have cov{◊\enanted} with my Servent^ that earth nor Hell

combined againsts him shall not take the Blessing out of

his hands which I have prepared for him if he walketh

uprightly before me neither the spiritual nor the temporal

Blessing & Behold I also covenanted with those who have assisted

him in my work that I will do unto them even the same

Because they have done that which is pleasing in my sight

(yea even all save ◊◊tin only it be one o{l\nly}) Wherefore be

dilligent in Securing the Copy right of my Servent work

upon all the face of the Earth of which is known by you

unto unto my Servent Joseph & unto him whom he willeth

accordinng as I shall command him that the faithful & the

righteous may retain the temperal Blessing as well as the

Spirit[u]al & also that my work be not destroyed by the workers

of iniquity to the{r\ir} own distruction & damnation when they

are fully ripe & now Behold I say unto you that I have coven=

=anted & it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram

Pagee & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea
Copy
even in securing the ^ right & they shall do it with an eye single

to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls

unto me Salvation through mine only Be{t\gotten} Behold I am

God I have spoken it & it is expedient in me Wherefor I say

unto you that ye shall go to Kingston seeking me continually

through mine only Be{t\gotten} & if ye do this ye shall have my

spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things
amen
which is expedient in me^. & I grant unto my servent a privelige
a copyright
that he may sell ^ through you speaking after the manner of

men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts

against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it

lieth in themselves to their condemnation &{◊\or} th{er\eir} salvation

Behold my way is before you & the means I will prepare

& the Blessing I hold in mine own hand & if ye are faithful

I will pour out upon you even as much as ye are able to

Bear & thus it shall be Behold I am the father & it is through

mine o{◊\nly} begotten which is Jesus Christ your Redeemer amen

20 And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—
21 Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr.
22 And it came to pass that Coriantumr repented not, neither his household, neither the people; and the wars ceased not; and they sought to kill Ether, but he fled from before them and hid again in the cavity of the rock.

That this prophecy was well known is attested by Ether 14:24:

24 Nevertheless, Shiz did anot cease to pursue Coriantumr; for he had sworn to avenge himself upon Coriantumr of the blood of his brother, who had been slain, and the word of the Lord which came to Ether that Coriantumr should not fall by the sword.

Shiz is overly eager to kill Coriantumr to falsify the prophecy.

Itemizing the parts of the prophecy we find that:

1. All Coriantumr’s people would be destroyed and that though Coriantumr would live, he would lose his land of inheritance.
2. Coriantumr would live to see another people inherit his land of inheritance.
3. This group would be brought in the same manner that God had brought the first Jaredites. Ether 11:20-21:

   20 And in the days of Coriantor there also came many prophets, and prophesied of great and marvelous things, and cried repentance unto the people, and except they should repent the Lord God would execute judgment against them to their utter destruction;
   21 And that the Lord God would send or bring forth another people to possess the land, by his power, after the manner by which he brought their fathers.

4. This new group would provide a burial for Coriantumr.

These four points constitute a prophecy that Ether was commanded to witness and record. Ether 15:33:

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

Other than report that Ether went forth from the place of the last battle and beheld and recorded in his record the complete fulfillment of this prophecy, Moroni tells us nothing about how they were fulfilled. All we are told is that when they were fulfilled, Ether finished his record and then hid it in a manner that the people of Limhi could find it.

One possible reason for not giving these details may be that Moroni was in possession of the small plates of Nephi that contained the Book of Omni.

In the Book of Omni we find the fulfillment of this prophecy recorded by Amaleki. Omni 1:12-22:

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—
13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.
14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.
15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.
16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.
17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.
18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.
19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.
20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.
21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.
22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.

Unfortunately, The Land of Zarahemla was located in the Land Southward and Coriantumr’s land was located in the Land Northward therefore the group of people discovered by Mosiah could not be the ones destined to fill this prophecy. Fortunately, however, we have records showing that the Zarahemlites were probably a members of a group called the Mixe-Zoque who inhabited the gulf coast at the mouth of the Grijalva river and were composed of native tribes that were present when Mulek and his group came from Jerusalem. Sometime after the arrival of Mulek this group split and one part went north to the Huastec and the other group migrated up the Grijalva river where they were met by Mosiah.

Accorder to the geography described in Ether, the Land of Coriantumr was located west of the seashore of Ripliancum which interpreted was very large sea. The Huastec area is located in northern Veracruz inland and along the coastal plain. Recent investigations in this area at a place called Tomtoc have located ruins that date to the time of the Jaredites.

Although some of this information is speculative, it fits together nicely and supports a Mesoamerican location for the Book of Mormon as suggested by Sorenson.

Larry P

Several shared accounts of their attempts to reconcile their sense of violation by approaching leaders, family members, or close friends with their concerns. Whether real or imagined, these same people indicated that the reaction to their inquiry was too often met with hostility. The very people they felt could help them often responded by either dismissing their concerns or become hostile to them, treating them more as a threat than a cherished acquaintance.

I very much realize that there are two sides to every story. Fears and insecurities may have well led at least some to interpret others’ reactions harshly. However, the insecurities of members may have equally caused their reaction to be less than it could have been.

In discussing such issues, recently sustained member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Quentin L. Cook, made the following comment during his conference address titled “Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children“:

It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.

Such an eloquent appeal to our better natures encourages us to endure in kindness with those in the church who struggle with their testimonies.

Is this not wise advice regardless of the reason someone approaches us with a concern? In raising my children, I have often found that how I respond (my choice of words or my tone of voice) often has a greater impact on their reactions to my advice than what I say. Am I not communicating both with my words and how I use them? I think it important that we never discount a concern that is entrusted to our care, and that we validate the fact that someone has felt their trust violated. To do otherwise is to add to the possible perception of offense and remove out ability to influence them.

In D&C 121:45–46 we read:

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

In other words, if we extend charity to those who come to us, we preserve our influence. It is no assurance that they will agree with us or accept our perspective, but at least we can hope for a day when we can again counsel them down a reassuring path with regards to the restored gospel.

In the end, my foray amongst the disaffected ended in my banishment, not because of my affiliation with FAIR, but because the moderators felt I had violated a trust by not disclosing this information up front. In hindsight, I guess this should have been expected. Still, my kind comportment and respectful dialogue allowed me some choice opportunities to exchange thoughts and ideas with some few who could see that I was not there for anything other than sincere reasons. My lesson was reinforced, and I learned that the virtues of charity and patience can indeed create a dominion of influence where one would not have otherwise existed.

Bennett was a Massachusetts native who had had several encounters with Mormonism during the 1830s. During that time he was a member of Alexander Campbell’s Church of Christ, the same movement from which Sidney Rigdon had emerged. Bennett was a medical doctor, specializing in gynecology, and had risen to high office in the Illinois state militia by 1840. He came to Nauvoo in September 1840 after an exchange of correspondence with Joseph Smith.

In Nauvoo, Bennett helped craft and pass the Nauvoo city charter, which gave the city council near-autonomous powers. Bennett used his contacts in the state legislature and his status in the state militia to move the charter through to approval. His efforts secured for him the confidence of Joseph Smith.

By February 1841 he had been elevated to three of the highest leadership posts in the city: mayor, chancellor of the Nauvoo University, and major general of the Nauvoo Legion. In April 1841 general conference he was sustained as a counselor in the First Presidency.

Eventually, however, rumors began to swirl that Bennett was involved in widespread sexual immorality. Eventually he was caught having secret sexual relationships with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he called “spiritual wifery,” was sanctioned of God and Joseph Smith, that these women were now his wives, and that Joseph did the same.

When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, and produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery. Although he vowed to change, he was caught again. His indiscretions were publicly exposed and he was excommunicated from the Church and stripped of public office.

His rise and fall took place over just 13 months.

After leaving Nauvoo in May 1842, he wrote a tell-all book, The History of the Saints; or, An Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism, and went on a nationwide book tour.

Unlike others who had joined the Church in good faith and then later fell away, Bennett had been a fraud from the start. All his efforts in Nauvoo had merely been a means to and end: To get in the good graces of the Prophet Joseph and thereby obtain power, influence, and (later) sex.

So how, then, do we explain this revelation to Joseph Smith, received 19 January 1841?

Again, let my servant John C. Bennett help you in your labor in sending my word to the kings and people of the earth, and stand by you, even you my servant Joseph Smith, in the hour of affliction; and his reward shall not fail if he receive acounsel. And for his love he shall be great, for he shall be mine if he do this, saith the Lord. I have seen the work which he hath done, which I accept if he continue, and will crown him with blessings and great glory. (D&C 124:16–17.)

First, it strikes me that Joseph Smith was a poor judge of character. He wanted to see the best in people, and when there were “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” he was typically unwilling to believe negative reports about them. This changed somewhat after the Bennett episode; he became more suspicious and took to “testing” individuals’ faithfulness (many of these tests involved introducing them to plural marriage).

In reading D&C 124:16–17, it strikes me how conditional all of Bennett’s blessings were (note the thrice-repeated use of “if”). Contrast that with 124:15, where Hyrum was unconditionally blessed “because of the integrity of his heart, and because he loveth that which is right before me.” No such statement was made of Bennett.

Bennett was told that the Lord had “seen the work which he hath done, which I accept if he continue.” This is probably a reference to Bennett’s work on the Nauvoo charter, which benefited the Saints enormously after the privations they had suffered in Missouri. Were it not for Bennett, Nauvoo would not have gotten off the ground as a city. It’s possible that the Lord was willing to use Bennett for His purposes, and, once they were done, allow Bennett either come clean or self-destruct.

God does not reveal everything to his prophet all the time, only what He needs to advance the kingdom. Sometimes He withholds information because the prophet needs to figure it out on his own, or the prophet needs to be tested, or because the fallout will cause a necessary separation of wheat and tares within the Church, or because the prophet didn’t ask, or for other reasons. Prophets do not walk around with a “spiritual earpiece” that constantly feeds them information about people they encounter.

The Mark Hofmann affair was similar: Hoffman presented documents he had forged to the First Presidency, who accepted them graciously and turned them over to scholars for analysis. There was no reason to mistrust Hofmann, so they didn’t bother to ask. In the end, the Church survived, and we’re a little wiser for the experience.

So with Bennett’s betrayal: As difficult as it was, he served his purpose. If the Lord had revealed Bennett’s true intentions to Joseph in January 1841, any help he was after that would have been preempted and Joseph probably would not have learned a valuable lesson about vetting close associates.

    Now, what does this have to do with Apologetics and defending the Church? I was thinking about times in my life and about experiences from others where they may have felt inadequate to speak up, or else feel they did not accurately answer a question posed to them by a critic, or even a friend. We receive a lot of questions on the FAIR list from Bishops, Ward Mission Leaders, Missionaries, and others seeking answers to questions. One thing to keep in mind, there is always some answer to the question. Another thing to tag onto that last statement is: The answer can be “I don’t know.” There is nothing wrong with this at times. It gives us a chance to learn, explore, research and grow in our knowledge. We can then go in search of an answer to the critic or sincere question. Even if we do put forth an effort to find an answer, there may not be one out in the open. Critics have scoffed at us when we are asked to “shelf” an answer. I will say that there are answers to many questions, there are times in life where “shelving” a question or concern is perfectly OK. If we are not in tune with the promptings of the Spirit when searching for answers, we could bring more problems to our situation than good. It is OK to fail in finding answers right away, it may take years to find the answer, and if we never do, it is alright. We must remember that the core questions of the truth are there, and we must keep faith in them. The rest is gravy to go along with the core building blocks of our faith (Christ Lives, Joseph Smith is and was a prophet, Book of Mormon is true, God speaks to a prophet today). Those are the things I consider vital, I may be missing some, but you get the idea. Failure to answer a critic’s attack or the perceived inability to answer a sneer about what we believe is not the end all. Fair, The Maxwell institute, and others give us great material to work with, and it is there to be utilized in defending truth. We can use these things to succeed where we may have failed before. Combine these resources with those the Church gives and the things that come to us through the Holy Ghost, and we have before us a strong arsenal

 Failure in anything can be seen as a stepping stone for success. This is the same with Apologetics and answering the questions that can and will come to us from others, and even from ourselves. Stay close to the core, eternal truths of the gospel, and with that will come the answers, or else the peace the gospel brings. For those of you seeking answers, I wish you the best, and may you be blessed in your search. For those of you giving answers and who are engaged in the fight for truth, keep your head up, eyes open, your knees worn from prayer, and remember, failure is acceptable in life, as it often serves to make us stronger and more determined in our journey.

**Comments posted here represent my own views, not the views of FAIR, The Church of Jesus Christ, or others who participate on this blog.

Considering my views, it only makes sense that I’ve read and enjoyed Andrew Sullivan’s blog for many years.

But at issue is not my politics, it’s Mr. Sullivan’s over-the-top claim in his October 31st blog post:

Yes On 8 has been bankrolled to the tune $20 million from the LDS church. And their main theme has been the ancient blood libel against gay people (and Jews): that we’re out to “recruit” or abuse others’ children.

Disagreement with another’s political views is one thing; outright dishonesty is quite another.

Believe what you want, Mr. Sullivan, about what’s really in Mormons’ hearts as they go to the polls on November 4th. But no pro-Prop 8 campaign advertising has even come close to using “blood libel against gay people” and fears of gay “recruiting” or abuse of children — let alone made it the “main theme” of the campaign.

Andrew Sullivan is employing the same sort of stereotyping of Mormons that he complains Mormons are doing about practicing homosexuals. And, as someone who usually enjoys his writing, I find it beneath contempt.

…I wonder how they can continue to buy into the idiotic apologistic explanations provided for facts that any logical thinking person should see right through.

…Then there is the whole DNA thing…. [Y]ou don’t even have to be intelligent to understand that one, and yet they just accept the stupid, unintelligent, ridiculous explanations put out by the church and their idiot apologists.

Among the varied and numerous responses to we read the comments of “SusieQ#1″ who assures the ex-Mormon crowd that Mormons believe because of “faith, not…facts.”

It’s very important to remember, the lack of factual evidence of golden plates, angels, or people places or things in the BOM [Book of Mormon], the BOA [Book of Abraham] translations, etc, does not matter. It doesn’t matter one bit. None of those things are necessary for belief by faith. God works in mysterious ways, god [sic] can do all things.

Also, remember that it is a lack of faith that requires evidence and proof. (That’s Biblical!) That is a crucial point. Can’t ignore that important part of belief by faith. The other very important point: Emotional bonding to traditional beliefs even if they are weird superstitions overrides logic and reason if one is constantly immersed in talk that is “truth.”

“Stray Mutt,” another frequent ex-Mormon poster, claims—in response to “Baffeled and Bewildered’s” question—that Mormon’s “believe because they want to. They have a picture of Mormonism in their head. It only vaguely resembles reality but it’s what they want to be true.”

So according to a number of critics (and many similar citations could be given), when it comes to religious beliefs, Mormons are illogical, irrational, and biased. Mormons supposedly support their belief with feelings and disregard logic and evidence because accepting the empirical data would cause their world to collapse.

As I demonstrated in Shaken Faith Syndrome, however, Latter-day Saints not only have rational reasons for believing the truth claims of Mormonism but all people—including critics—often rely on irrational feelings and bias in weighing evidence for important matters such as religion. In chapter 2, for example, I pointed out that, according to an informal 2001 poll of several ex-Mormons, over half said that nothing could cause them to return to Mormonism (p. 13). A recent discussion on the ex-Mormon discussion board solidifies the findings of this poll. On 19 August 2008, one anonymous critic asked his fellow critics:

If genetic anthropologists proved that Native American DNA matched Israeli Jew DNA, what would you do? …[I]f evidence started to point decisively in the direction of [Mormonism]…, would you believe again? …How much evidence would it take for you to concede a point in the [Mormon Church’s]…scientific favor?

Some of the replies were interesting as well as telling. “Randy J.” replied:

No, because the BOM was discredited long before DNA testing existed…. The DNA results merely confirm what we already knew. The only way that any DNA testing could ever support the BOM would be if they were faked or misread. There’s no evidence whatsoever anywhere in the Americas to show that the people and cultures described in the BOM ever existed.

What interesting circular logic. According to this critic, DNA science proves that the Book of Mormon is fictional. If DNA science were to confirm the Book of Mormon, then the DNA science must be fake or misread because we already know that the Book of Mormon is fictional. “FlattopSF” likewise responded:

No. Even if there was evidence for EVERYTHING, I would not. I am logic and science oriented, but there is another whole dimension of this that you are not presenting: Mor[m]onism is a murderous fascist cult. What amount of “factual evidence” can possibly justify that?

It would not matter to “FlattopSF” if all the evidence incontrovertibly pointed to the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Because he/she believes that the Church is a “murderous fascist cult,” none of that evidence would matter. “FlattopSF” would still reject belief in the prophetic abilities of Joseph Smith because “factual evidence” could not possibly justify what he/she sees as the atrocities supposedly committed by the Church.

Above, I quoted “SusieQ#1” who claimed that Mormons override “logic and reason” and ignore “facts” because they believe that any evidence contrary to their belief is simply God’s way of working in “mysterious ways.” When she responded to the query regarding hypothetical DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, however, she said:

Any evidence (DNA or otherwise) that supports the BOM will be strictly coincidental. Imaginary people do not have DNA! The BOM is about imaginary people, places and things that are believed by a testimony by faith and “spiritual eye” witness.

Just because other people believe it, does not make it factually true. There are no evidences for the BOM. There never will be. That’s the beauty of it!

So according to “SusieQ#1” there can be no real evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Why? Because the Book of Mormon is fictional. How do we know that it’s fictional? Because there are no real evidences in favor of the book. What do we make of “any evidence” in favor of the Book of Mormon? It’s merely “coincidental” because the Book of Mormon isn’t true.

It seems odd that people who claim that Mormons are illogical and simply rely on “feelings” refuse to accept any logical, rational evidence in favor of the Church because they already know it’s not true. It gets worse, however. As I noted in my book:

Some ex-members have even claimed that if there was irrefutable evidence that Mormonism was true, they would still reject the Church and rebel against God because of the things they found distasteful (p. 13).

Readers may have wondered if, in writing the above, I was engaging in hyperbole. Some of the comments to the DNA-as-evidence question, however, demonstrate that such a hatred of Mormonism and LDS beliefs is so strong that there really are people who would reject God even if they knew that the LDS faith was true. As “Heresy” wrote in response to the query:

I left before I knew of any historical issues. I left because I didn’t want to worship a God with such an ego that He demanded worship, and needed so many silly rituals and ordinances. …I also didn’t like the idea of a God who would speak directly to old white guys and not me. The history problems are just icing on the cake.

It wouldn’t matter to “Heresy” if the LDS Church was true. I wouldn’t matter if God really spoke to Joseph or that Jesus visited ancient America. S/he does not like—what s/he understands to be—the characteristics of the Mormon God, and therefore would reject the Church even if it was true.

Earlier I quoted “Stray Mutt” who claimed that Mormons believe “because they want to.” Mormonism, s/he assures the ex-Mormon crowd, only “vaguely resembles reality” but is accepted by Mormons because of their desire for the teachings to be true. In other words, Mormonism is not true; it’s a figment created by the false hopes and the desires of gullible Mormon members. However, in the thread asking if ex-members would believe again if DNA evidence favored the Book of Mormon we discover that for “Stray Mutt” truth is irrelevant.

Long before I decided the BOM was fake, I realized…I couldn’t embrace the foundations of LDS or Christian theology. It doesn’t matter to me whether the BoM people actually existed. Even if Jesus and God were to appear to me, I’d say, “Sorry, but your system is screwed up and you’re [&#@%]…. In fact, punishing me forever for being true to my convictions instead of pretending I love you guys just shows what [&#@%]…you are.”

Apparently “Stray Mutt” has such a distaste for what s/he perceives as the characteristics of God, that s/he would not only reject such supreme beings (despite their existence) but “Stray Mutt” would like to tell such divine beings that they are not as smart as s/he is. Their way of running the universe, according to “Stray Mutt,” is “screwed up.” It’s interesting, in light of such arrogance, that the English word “apostasy” comes from the Greek apostasia which means to “defect” or “revolt” and has even referred to political rebels.

While Mormons are often accused of rationalizing their beliefs, it becomes apparent (as I argue in Shaken Faith Syndrome) that there is much more to belief as well as disbelief than feelings and empirical evidence.

I suspect, but cannot say for sure, that the piece was authored by Simon Southerton, of Losing a Lost Tribe fame, who of late has been trying to polarize apologists and others who promote various theories about the Book of Mormon. (The only link in the article to any publication offered by Signature Books is a link to Mr. Southerton’s book. This, despite the fact that the “news” being reported has nothing whatsoever to do with his book.) Such news stories are consistent with Mr. Southerton’s avocation these days.

The news story appears to have been hastily prepared and posted, as it includes several interesting errors that even a cursory reading should have corrected.

• The article refers to “Rod Meldrum and his traveling show called DNA Evidence for the Book of Mormon.” While a series of firesides could, indeed, be derogatorily referred to as a “traveling show,” the news writer demonstrates his or her lack of attention to detail in the name given to Mr. Meldrum’s publication. It is not entitled “DNA Evidence for the Book of Mormon,” but “DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.”
   
• We learn in the news story that there is an emeritus general authority named “Harman Rector Jr.” I know of no general authority—living, dead, current, or emeritus—by this name. Of course, the article could be referring to Hartman Rector, Jr., who the author says “accompanies Meldrum around the country to stage symposia on the topic.” This is, undoubtedly, a case of intentional hyperbole as there have, to my knowledge, been only a few out of the dozens of Mr. Meldrum’s firesides that have been attended by Elder Rector. (He certainly wasn’t at the one I attended.)
   
• Interestingly, Mr. Meldrum apparently “responded by accussing FAIR.” I looked high and low in Mr. Meldrum’s responses to my blog post, and I didn’t see any cussing at all. Perhaps the news writer at Signature Books is aware of some extant cursing of which FAIR should be apprised.

Beyond these easy-to-catch errors (perhaps the regular editors or proofreaders at Signature Books were on vacation?) there are other errors that belie the thinking of either the author or various people at Signature Books.

• The article starts off with a bold declaration, without evidence, that “Traditionally, LDS faithful have assumed that all or most Native Americans are descendants of Lehi and Mulek.” While there are numerous quotes that could be trotted out to evidence such a narrow reading of history, there are also many quotes that could be trotted out to show that such a narrow reading is not warranted. Apparently the news writer has voted for narrowness in his choice of approach without taking the full breadth of LDS thought into account.
   
• An equally interesting assertion, again without evidence, is that “Meldrum has the backing…of Mormon bishops who send mass e-mails to their congregations trumpeting Meldrum’s claims.” While such e-mails may exist, it would be interesting to see if there was actual “trumpeting” going on. But, perhaps such statements are to be understood, again, as unwarranted hyperbole on the part of the news writer.
   
• One comment I found personally interesting was that “Allen Wyatt from FAIR ridiculed Meldrum in a formal statement.” I, of course, did no such thing; I simply reported that there are problems with Mr. Meldrum’s presentation, provided a cursory overview of those problems, and directed readers to where they could find more information. There was no ridicule made or intended on my part.
   
• The comment that Orson Scott Card has penned “his own screed to end all screeds” is amusing. Mr. Card will no doubt be pleased to hear that his writing has achieved the ultimate among screeds. (Do they give awards for such writing excellence?) No doubt there will be, in the future, additional writings that rise to the synonymous level of screeds: essays, discourses, diatribes, etc. What, then, of Mr. Card’s writing? Will it be relegated to simply a “screed to almost end all screeds?” Perhaps a future Signature Books news story will fill us in.

Hyperbole aside, what passes for news at Signature Books—edited or not—seems little more than caricature of a reality that the news writer wishes existed.

-Allen

Update: It appears that the editors and/or proofreaders are back from vacation at Signature Books—the three easy-to-find errors I mention above have been corrected as of 6:45 am on July 11. The more substantial errors remain.

The trouble is that there are no contemporary first- or second-hand accounts of Joseph advocating polygamy [edit: in the early 1830s]. By that I mean there are no documents written by Joseph Smith himself (first hand), or by someone who personally heard Joseph say something (second hand) and wrote it down at the time (contemporary), that advocate the restoration of polygamy.

When it comes to verifying historical events, these criteria are important. Late reminiscences (things written from memory years later) and third-hand reports (“I heard Sidney Gilbert say that Joseph told him…”) are and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Memory is pliant and frequently influenced by later impressions and feelings, and stories passed from one person to another all too often take on a character remarkably unlike the original. One clear example of this is a late remembrance of W. W. Phelps of a supposed polygamy revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1831.

William Wines Phelps was converted to the restored gospel in 1830. He arrived in Kirtland from New York on 15 June 1831 and requested a revelation from Joseph. Joseph revealed that the Lord wanted Phelps to be baptized and ordained, and to accompany Joseph to Missouri to serve as a printer for the Church. (This revelation was canonized as D&C 55.) Phelps was baptized the next day, and on 18 June he left with Joseph, Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, Edward Partridge, Joseph Coe, and Sidney Gilbert for Missouri. The party arrived in Independence on 14 July 1831.

Joseph received several revelations while he was in Missouri, four of which are part of our Doctrine and Covenants (sections 57, 58, 59, and 60). In 1861 — thirty years later — Phelps wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which he revealed, word-for-word, a previously unknown revelation to Joseph, purportedly given 17 July 1831, proclaiming that the men in the group should eventually take Native American wives. The key portion of the document states:

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

In a note appended below the revelation, Phelps explained:

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph privately, how “we,” that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the “natives” — as we were all married men? He replied instantly “In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation — the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.”

Phelps’ letter is in the Church archives, and was eventually published in H. Michael Marquardt’s book, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, never ones to pass up an opportunity to beat the Church with any stick available, accuse the Church of “suppressing” the revelation, and triumphantly present the document as evidence of the inherent racism of Mormon beliefs.

The problem is that Phelps wrote this revelation, quoting Joseph Smith word-for-word, thirty years after the words were allegedly spoken. The Tanners try to dodge this by claiming, without any evidence, that there is an earlier transcript of the revelation, and Phelps was only quoting from it. But Phelps’ 1861 letter remains the only evidence of a July 1831 polygamy revelation.

I ask the reader, can you remember — word-for-word — any conversation you had thirty years ago? It quite obvious that this document is not a reliable record.

In fairness to Phelps, he had good intentions. In 1861 the Church was under pressure from Mormon splinter groups — including the Reorganized Church, formed just the previous year — to prove that polygamy was taught by Joseph Smith, and not an invention of Brigham Young. For various reasons, Joseph was very secretive about plural marriage, and the practice only became public when the Church announced it in August 1852. The Church responded to the charge that polygamy was a Utah creation by gathering affidavits from early converts who heard Joseph Smith teach it.

And that’s where we need to be cautious: It’s clear from eyewitness testimony that Joseph Smith was teaching the impending restoration of plural marriage in the early 1830s. But it’s irresponsible to go so far as to say that the Phelps document — written thirty years after the supposed events and colored by the necessity of defending polygamy in 1861 — represents the actual words of Joseph Smith on 17 July 1831.

There was a different type of joy that was felt by some non-members outside Temple Square yesterday evening, as well. You see, there was a small contingent of protesters outside Temple Square, joyfully wielding what they view as a club with which to bludgeon the faithful. In television coverage from KSL-TV, at about 1:45 into the clip, you can see Aaron Shafovaloff walking across North Temple street waving a sign and cheerfully calling out “Hope you guys hear an apology tonight.”

While Shafovaloff wasn’t the only protester in attendance (the Salt Lake Tribune reports there were about ten), I find his theatrics consistent with past behavior; my personal experience with him is that he isn’t interested in civil rights, he is only interested in tearing down. It is significant that the website referenced on Shafovaloff’s placard (SeedOfCain.com) redirects to Mormonism Research Ministry, a professional anti-Mormon website. A further click on the site leads to an article written by Shafovaloff entitled “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology or Explicit Renunciation.” This is an article directed at tearing down the faith of others rather than preaching whatever Shafovaloff views as the Word of God. He isn’t inviting people to Christ; he is criticizing others who have already accepted such an invitation with which he disagrees.

It is also interesting that we don’t see Shafovaloff (and fellow born-again Christian Tim Oliver who also apparently lays claim to the SeedOfCain.com site) talking about the racist past of Christianity as a whole. It is easy to point at the perceived mote in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own, yet pathological anti-Mormons (such as Shafovaloff and Oliver) seem content to do just that. Perhaps they just don’t feel the need to accept the actions of their religious ancestors, yet are gleeful to insist that the LDS must accept the actions of theirs. They are loathe to admit that it was evangelical Christians who were the most vocal in defending the “curse of Cain” theories in support of slavery, it was their Christian brothers who donned white sheets to welcome their newly emancipated neighbors, and it was their theological compatriots who praised God while shutting the church-house doors to those of different colors.

For a scholarly review of such Christian behavior, read When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War by John Patrick Daly (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2002) or Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery by Stephen R. Haynes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). You quickly find out that the “Curse of Cain” was not a vestige of Mormon doctrine, as critics pretend, but an inheritance of antebellum Protestantism.

Was such teachings and behavior wrong? Yes, it was. Does the fact that the larger universe of Christianity practiced institutional racism for generations somehow justify what we may now view as racist behavior within the LDS Church? Of course not. But it does draw into question the hypocrisy of those who cast stones from within their own glass houses.

Shafovaloff and his ilk also don’t seem to see a need to protest against any other religious organization except the LDS. Are there not other organizations that they accept as fellow Christians who routinely exhibit the continued cankers of racism? The critics are silent on such present-day racism, preferring to focus on events thirty years in the LDS past rather than present-day Christianity. The hypocrisy is glaring.

Would critics be happier if the Church issued an “institutional apology” in some form or another? Doubtful. You see, these critics cherry-pick statements by past and present General Authorities and confer canonical status to those statements in an effort denigrate the Church. Yet when those same General Authorities make statements that disavow what was done before the lifting of the ban or when those same General Authorities make statements that condemn racism in the strongest terms possible, the critics minimize those statements and say that more is somehow needed. In other words, they use a double-standard in how they choose to use the words of latter-day apostles and prophets.

The sign that Shafovaloff carried as he marched through the crowds last night said “Integrity requires an apology.” Perhaps Shafovaloff would like to demonstrate his integrity by apologizing for his continued misrepresentation of LDS theology and history.

-Allen

The Court’s decision can be found in a PDF file here. It is 28 pages long, but basically says (as the District Court did) that UTLM has no case against any of the defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition or cybersquatting. (These are the two issues on which UTLM decided to appeal their case.)

The wheels of justice grind slowly; it has taken just over three years to get to this point. I have no doubt that Sandra Tanner will choose to view this decision as an injustice (rather than justice) and to play the victim. It will be interesting to see how UTLM reacts to today’s decision. I can report, however, that in the Wyatt household there is much joy.

-Allen

One interesting matter which they raise is their reported discovery of a court case brought by Chauncey Higbee against Joseph Smith (chapter 13 in their book). They reportedly found these in Nov 1962.

“In 1962 when we first examined the papers pertaining to this case, no copier was available in the circuit court office where the documents were deposited. We used slide film to photograph the documents, but when the film was processed, the text was not legible. We also made typed copies of the papers, including Joseph’s affidavit, which we proofread again and again to be sure we had copied it correctly…

“In 1968 we returned to the Carthage Courthouse to try to obtain photocopies of these official papers, since a copier was then available. We requested permission to examine this file again and it was brought to us, but Joseph Smith’s affidavit (Document Number 1 above) was missing!…

“In June 1998 we went once more to Carthage to search for Joseph’s affidavit, but it had not been returned. When Richard went to view the papers, on June 22, 1998, he found none of the documents of this case in File Box 18…

“The clerks did say that all of the Joseph Smith papers had been recently microfilmed, and that they may be available through the Mormon Church. The clerks did not disclose the name of the person or persons who took the documents to Utah for study…

“It is important to be aware that the Mormon Church did not address The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee case in its official history. It mentioned Chauncey’s promiscuity, but refrained from giving details of the case…[because] the Saints would have [thereby] discerned that Joseph was not a polygamist—and that the entire polygamy doctrine and practice was a fraud.”

Thus, the Prices report finding these papers, including an affidavit of Joseph Smith’s. The court documents (again, reportedly) make it clear that Higbee intended to call Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, and other women from Nauvoo as witnesses–presumably to rebut Joseph’s claims about plural marriage being taught.

It’s unfortunate that the Prices didn’t do one of:
a) get legible photos of the documents;
b) get notorized copies of the documents they made in the 1960s;
c) publish their work at the time

But, it was a different time. If we grant that their story is true, I’m sure they’re kicking themselves too!

Being in the wilds of Canada, I don’t have easy access to the Church archives, so I’ve not yet checked to see if microfilm copies exist there. I’ve seen no reference to them anywhere else, however.

I don’t buy the idea that the LDS Church has “suppressed” this issue, simply because Joseph’s affidavit isn’t that surprising:

…one Chancy L. Higbee has slandered and defamed the character of the said Joseph Smith, and also the character of Emma Smith, his wife, in using their names, the more readily to accomplish his purpose in seducing certain females, and further this deponont saith not.

This is consistent with Joseph either not practicing polygamy, or insisting that the version given out by Higbee and John C. Bennett was false.

If the story is true, one wonders if they’ll show up in the Joseph Smith Papers project.  So, does anyone know anything else about this court case? Anything else about these documents?

Important Note: I do not believe that anyone is currently authorized to practice plural marriage. Any comments arguing that plural marriage should be taught or practiced by the LDS Church (or anyone else) will be deleted without further warning.  Get your own blog.