[This article is a response to the second article in a four-part debate for Public Square on Mormonism. You should probably read that article before continuing here]The Book of Mormon: Religious Fiction or an Inspired Ancient History?
By Richard Packham (Second installment, Third in the debate)The sole issue in this discussion is whether a document (the Book of Mormon, or BoM) is an actual, ancient historical document, or whether it is a work of more modern fiction, or perhaps even a fraud or hoax.
How does one distinguish between a document which is genuine and authentic, and one which is not? Rodney Meldrum’s answer is to use faulty logic, ignore evidence to the contrary, and place faith in verifications that have yet to materialize. All of it adds up to a theory that can be taken seriously only by those who already believe.
Applying The Scientific Method
One of the first principles of testing a hypothesis or a claim is that one cannot examine only the evidence in support of a claim. One must also examine all the evidence that damages the claim. Only after all the negative evidence available has been refuted should one accept the claim as true. This is the "scientific method," and it is applicable to any search for truth.Meldrum seems to be unaware of this fundamental principle, since he completely ignores the evidence I gave to show that the BoM is not a historical document, and contents himself with suggesting evidence for it.
And even at that, the evidence he presents to support the BoM is no different from evidence that would support any piece of historical fiction as true history. Using Meldrum's kind of argument, one could prove that Gone With The Wind is accurate history: there really was a Civil War in America; the events depicted are similar to those we know actually occurred; etc.
We cannot recognize fiction (or a hoax) by examining only the elements which appear authentic. A fiction claiming to be historical, however clever it may be, will be uncovered by little slips and inaccuracies. Internal contradictions, anachronisms, exaggerations (such as I pointed out in my first article)1 . And it only takes a few.
Meldrum's Theory ad absurdum
Suppose I show you a typescript that I found among my grandfather's papers. It appears to be a diary. I tell you that it is a copy of an original diary - now lost - that my grandfather acquired. The title page says "Journal of Gen'l George Washington." As you read it, it appears indeed to be a diary of George Washington, the "Father of our Country." What a treasure! It sounds authentic. Its language is typical of the late 18th century, when Washington lived. It contains material hitherto unknown to historians, but consistent with what we do know, including details about his adventures during the French-Indian War. If this is authentic, it will be prized by historians, since it sheds new light on Washington's life.But as you continue to read it, you notice some odd things. The diary refers to his wife as "Sally," but you know that Washington's wife was named Martha. At one point, the writer (supposedly Washington) says he received a telegram. We know, however, that the telegraph was not invented until the following century. (This kind of error is called an "anachronism.") Then he says at one point that he is going to return to Pennsylvania and spend time at his estate there, Mount Vernon. You know, of course, that Mount Vernon is in Virginia, not Pennsylvania. The diary recounts an exploit in which he killed a band of 350 Indians single-handed, without suffering a scratch. That does not sound believable - it is a "tall tale."
Are you going to say that this document is not historical, based on those few items? Or will you let me use a Meldrum argument, and urge you to look only at all the items that are correct and factual (of which there are many)? No? If I assure you that I personally believe that future evidence will turn up, showing that Mrs. Washington's name was really Sally, that the telegraph was available to George, and that Mount Vernon really was in Pennsylvania, would that persuade you? I doubt it.
Suppose I tell you that the original diary was given to my grandfather by an angel, who told him that it was authentic? That should convince you, shouldn't it? If I assured you that my grandfather was an honest man, and was greatly ridiculed by his friends over this diary, and yet he maintained it was authentic until his death, because of the assurances of the angel? You would be convinced then, I am sure. No? But Mr. Meldrum might, perhaps?
Of course, such a document would not be reliable, whether it was simply an attempt at historical fiction, or a deliberate hoax for some purpose. Even Mr. Meldrum, I hope, would recognize that this journal was not authentic. The kind of evidence against this diary is no different from the evidence against the authenticity of the BoM, and my arguments defending the diary are no different from Mr. Meldrum's arguments defending the historicity of the BoM.
Affirming The Consequent
Meldrum lists what he wants us to accept as accurate elements in the BoM. He asserts that all of these elements are found among the peoples of the Hopewell civilization in what is now the eastern United States. He lists: "a highly advanced civilization, ... that had a written language, used metals, built cities with connecting roads, and were agrarian."Let us examine each of those Hopewell characteristics in more specific terms, that is, how they compare to what the BoM describes as Nephite civilization.
Yes, the Hopewells had a highly advanced civilization. The Nephites are also described as having a highly advanced civilization. Meldrum seems to be using the following reasoning:
- If an alleged history of ancient America is authentic, it will describe a highly advanced civilization.
- The BoM describes a highly advanced civilization.
- Therefore, the BoM is an authentic history of ancient America.This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent," and proves absolutely nothing. It is a false argument. As I hinted above, using the same reasoning, Gone With The Wind would be proven to be authentic history. For that matter, the unpublished novel of Solomon Spalding from about 1810 titled "Manuscript Found" (which many critics have suggested as a possible source used by Smith for the BoM) could also be proven authentic history, using this reasoning, since it, too, describes a highly advanced civilization. And in the area of the Hopewells! Would Mr. Meldrum grant that Spalding's manuscript qualified as authentic history?
That type of basic syllogism is useful in logic only to prove that an alleged history is NOT authentic. All of Meldrum's proposed evidences suffer from this same fallacy of logic (and other errors, as I will show).
Hope In The Hopewells
The next authentic element listed by Meldrum is a written language. First of all, I have found no reliable evidence that the Hopewells had a written language. But that may be simply my own ignorance. What Meldrum fails to mention is that the Nephites' written language was a form of Egyptian (or perhaps Hebrew - Mormons are in disagreement on the specifics). 2 Did the Hopewell peoples leave writings in any form, especially a form of Egyptian or Hebrew? No.Then Meldrum lists the use of metals. The BoM describes the Nephites' use of metals to include the manufacture of steel 3 and the use of pieces of metal (coins?) as currency.4 They also kept records by inscribing them onto metal plates.5 Is there evidence that the same can be said of the Hopewell peoples? No. The Hopewells did not have steel,6 and they did not use metal as an exchange currency. They certainly did not keep records on metal plates.
The building of cities is Meldrum's next item, which fails as another example of the fallacy of "affirming the consequent."
What about "connecting roads"? Meldrum fails to mention that the Nephite roads were used by chariots and horses.7 Is there evidence that the Hopewells had chariots and horses? No. There were no horses in America between the end of the Ice Age about ten thousand years ago and the arrival of the Spaniards. Nor were there any chariots,8 or wheeled vehicles of any kind. None. Nowhere in the Americas. Perhaps we are all mistaken about that, in which case Meldrum can provide us with the evidence that the Hopewells did indeed travel on their roads using chariots and horses.
The last item is Meldrum's assertion that both the Hopewells and the Nephites were "agrarian." Again, that is true, and again it fails as proof by affirming the consequent. But the major problem is that Meldrum neglects to mention that the agrarian culture of the Hopewell peoples was quite different from that described in the BoM, and in major ways. The Nephites are said in the BoM to have cattle, oxen, "flocks," "herds" and other domesticated animals (in addition to the horse).9 Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any ancient American civilization had domesticated animals such as those mentioned in the BoM. Some cultures domesticated the dog, or the coatimundi. But all the others were unknown. Or perhaps Meldrum can point out the evidence that the Hopewell peoples did have "flocks" and "herds"?
The Nephites cultivated wheat and barley, which were staples of their food supply.10 Barley was even "price-controlled."11 Can Meldrum provide us evidence that the Hopewell peoples did so? I don't think so. Wheat was never cultivated in America until it was introduced by Europeans. One strain of barley has been found in ancient New Mexico, but there is no evidence that it was cultivated in the area of the Hopewells. What did the Hopewell peoples eat, then? They cultivated sunflower seeds, squash, pumpkins, maize (yes, "corn" is mentioned in the BoM as a Nephite food); they ate wild game (turkey, deer, rabbit) and fish. Oddly, the BoM does not mention most of those.
Indian Giver
Meldrum makes the strange assertion that in Smith's time the idea that the Indians were of Israelite descent was unusual (implying, apparently, that we should therefore believe that Smith came up with the notion only through the divine assistance of the golden plates). He asserts that "Americans at the time thought that the Indians had always been savages and had never attained the status of 'civilization.'" Meldrum betrays here a gross ignorance of American theories about Indian origins of Smith's time. In my first article I cited Ethan Smith's (no relation to Joseph) book A View Of The Hebrews, published only a short distance from Joseph Smith's home, with two editions, both prior to the BoM. That book postulated the very same premise as the BoM: the Indians were Israelites, they brought civilization and religion with them to America, they divided into two factions, one more civilized, the other became savage, and the savage part eventually annihilated the civilized part. The similarities are so great (the only major difference was that Ethan postulated that the Indians were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel) that a noted Mormon scholar (B. H. Roberts, d. 1933) concluded that Joseph could have produced the BoM based entirely on Ethan Smith's book.12But Ethan Smith's book was only one in a series by authors claiming essentially the same thing: the Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. It was the most prevalent explanation, among scholars and common people alike, for the origin of the Indians. The many Indian mounds, which had been occasionally excavated for many decades, yielded evidence of a higher civilization than what the current natives displayed.13
But whether Smith was a historical and theological innovator (as Meldrum asserts) or whether he got his ideas from available (non-divine) sources is completely irrelevant to whether the BoM is an authentic ancient document. Whether he was persecuted or not is also irrelevant. That he maintained his assertions about the origins of the BoM until his death is also irrelevant. (A good case can be made that he was persecuted not for his new scripture, but for his megalomania and abuse of power, and that almost all of his alleged theological innovations were popular ideas of his time. But that is not the issue here.)
This Is The Role Of Faith?
Meldrum has completely avoided dealing with every single piece of evidence against the BoM's historical authenticity which I presented in the first article. He expresses faith that “evidence supporting this view does exist and may be found.” That's not the way things work. That is not the approach that leads to truth and uncovers untruths.However, I do agree with Meldrum on one issue: with enough faith, one can believe in the divinity and historicity of the BoM. Faith is a wondrous thing - it allows you to believe anything, even things that aren't true.
NOTES
1. See, for example, the article by the Mormon novelist Orson Scott Card, "The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice?" at http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html (accessed 1/11/11), where he shows how to detect fiction, and my comments at http://packham.n4m.org/card-bom.htm. (back)
2. BoM 1 Nephi 1:2, Mosiah 1:4, Mormon 9:32 (back)
3. 2 Nephi 5:15, also the earlier Jaredites made steel swords: Ether 7:9 (back)
4. Alma 11:4-19; see BoM index under "Coins" (back)
5. See "Plates" in BoM index (back)
6. Some Mormon apologists have suggested that the word "steel" is a mistranslation, but that argument denies the fundamental Mormon claim that God inspired the translation. (back)
7. See "Chariot" and "Horse" in BoM index (back)
8. Some Mormon apologists have suggested that "chariot" is a mistranslation, but see note above re "steel." (back)
9. See "Animal," "Flocks," "Herds" in BoM index, plus specific animals: "Cattle," "Calves," "Goat," "Ox, Oxen," "Sheep" (among the Jaredites: Ether 9:18) (back)
10. Mosiah 9:9, Alma 11:7, 11:15 (back)
11. Alma 11:7 (back)
12. See See B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, edited by B. D. Madsen, 2nd edition, Signature Books, 1992. (back)
13. Other popular books that had espoused this idea (all prior to the appearance of the BoM) were: James Adair, The History of the American Indians (1775), Charles Crawford, Essays upon the Propogation of the Gospel... (1799), Elias Boudinot, A Star in the West, (1816), Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature... (1825), Israel Worsley, A View of the American Indians... (1828). In 1825 the local paper in Joseph Smith's home town (The Wayne Sentinel), to which the Smith family subscribed, printed in full a speech by Jewish Rabbi M. M. Noah, promoting the idea that the Indians were Jewish (issue of October 11). (back)
A Mormon response to this article, by Rod Meldrum, as well as the entire debate, is available at The Public Square, which sponsored the debate. Responses from readers are here. Anyone may contribute to the discussion by registering.
Comments? Questions? (Please, no preaching, testimonies, or hate mail!) To send a comment or ask a question, click here.
© 2011 Richard Packham Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included
TO RICHARD PACKHAM'S HOME PAGE
...the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon....if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.- Ezra Taft Benson, Prophet and President of the LDS church
Ensign (official church magazine), November 1986
To search this website or the web: