I’ve been reading the work of one Michael R. Ash, an apologist with the Mormon Times. He may have overcome ‘shaken faith syndrome’, but he’s made the mistake of embracing the more dangerous ‘True Believer syndrome’ — a troublesome but common condition that involves the epistemological gymnastics you perform when you’ve decided to defend a belief system no matter what, instead of trying to find out what’s actually true.
In his latest posting, he tries not to advance a theory of Book of Mormon geography — that would require the use of pesky facts — but instead to dismiss inaccuracies in Book of Mormon geography. The title: ‘Dismissing Book of Mormon geography inaccuracies‘.
One issue that relates in important ways to Book of Mormon geography is the human composition of the ancient Americas. The traditional LDS folk-belief asserts that the Lehites arrived to a nearly vacant New World, with the possible exception of some Jaredite survivors and the Mulekites. This tradition implies that virtually all Native Americans are descendants of exclusively Book of Mormon peoples.
Folk-belief. I remember LDS folk-belief, but it was always stuff like “If you’re fat, you’ll be resurrected as a fat person.” or “An elephant’s spirit looks like an elephant.” Can it still be folk-doctrine if it’s in the scriptures? Or taught by Joseph Smith, or someone else that you could be accused of apostasy if you ignore. Well, to Mr Ash, if a prophet said it, and then reality contradicts it, the prophet wasn’t wrong — it was ‘folk-belief’ all along.
I must say, I find his approach a bit prestidigitatious. Like cherry-picking in reverse.
Okay, so how did Mormons get the silly idea that place was vacant except for migrating Hebrews?
1. The Book of Mormon narrative never mentions anyone but the putative Hebrew inhabitants. If the place was crawling with people before any Hebrews arrived, the Mulekites and Nephites never ran across them.
2. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the knowledge of the land was kept from other people.
And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
3. Church leaders taught it. Two examples of many:
“We beleive that the existing Indian tribes are all direct descendants of Lehi and his company, and that therefore they have sprung from men all of whom were of the house of Israel.”
– Apostle James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p.293“With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.” Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971
Were they wrong? Mormon apologists like Ash would like us to think so (and in fact I agree, but for different reasons). But if Mormon leaders are considered to be authoritative on many other matters pertaining to Mormon doctrine, doesn’t it seem a bit convenient to downplay only some of the things they say just because they’ve been refuted by evidence?
Back to the article.
Early American settlers were fascinated with the fact that the New World was already inhabited by indigenous people. From where did these people originate? A number of frontiersman theorized that the Indians were remnants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. At first blush, this theory seemed to fit fairly well with the overall story of the Book of Mormon, however, the Book of Mormon peoples did not purport to come from any of the “lost tribes.“
More sleight of hand. It’s true that the Book of Mormon doesn’t say they’re from the ‘lost tribes’, but it does say that they’re Hebrews. And if that’s the case, why don’t we see (for example) Hebrew or Egyptian writing on artifacts, any evidence of sacrifices pertaining to the Mosaic law, or any evidence from genetics, linguistics, anthropology, or archaeology?
If Mr Ash wants to do something useful and advance knowledge, he can come out and give his list of the most likely candidate sites for any aspect of Book of Mormon geography, according to the best evidence we have. If he can get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal, so much the better. But I doubt he will. Apologists don’t try to advance ideas. They just try to hide from the facts, take refuge in uncertainty, sing the faithful to sleep, and scrub the record of any statements from authorities that have turned out to be wrong.
Recent Comments