The purpose of this blog

I originally started writing about some of my views and research on the Book of Mormon on my personal blog here.  I eventually transferred that information to this blog to continue the project here.  I did this because I wanted to keep these posts separate from my posts on other subjects because the potential audience is likely to be different.

None of the information I am writing about is new.  It is available elsewhere on the web and in published books.  My goal is to bring all if this information into one place and to comment on it from my personal perspective.

My intent is to be as objective as possible.  As a life-long Mormon, I have taken the Book of Mormon's claim to be a genuine record of people who actually lived in ancient America very seriously.  The purpose of these posts is not to argue whether or not the Book of Mormon has value as a religious book or spiritual guide.  My sole purpose is to examine the question of historicity

I believe that in time the Mormon church may back off from its insistence on Book of Mormon historicity, but that time is not yet judging from the following excerpt from a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland at the October 2009 general conference.

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

Holland contends that alternate theories (other than the official Joseph Smith story) have failed to account for the existence of the Book of Mormon.  I believe that Holland is off base with this assertion on at least two counts.  First, many of the alternate theories remain at least as plausible as Joseph Smith's official story.  Just because there may not be definitive proof for a particular theory does not discount its plausibility, nor does it make the official Joseph Smith's story more plausible.  Secondly, the question of how the Book of Mormon was created is independent of the question of historicity.  While I do discuss alternate origin theories in these posts, my primary interest is historicity.  Did the peoples described in the Book of Mormon actually exist?  That is the question that interests me.  If they did not, then Joseph Smith and his successors are at best mistaken and at worst outright frauds regardless of how the Book of Mormon came to be.

Holland's comments are not addressed to critics anyway.  They are obviously aimed at the faithful believers in an attempt to prejudice them against the critics' arguments before giving them a fair hearing.  It is a preemptive strike designed to keep the faithful from ever looking at the issues objectively.  To critics and others who have given the arguments a fair hearing Holland's statement appears absurd.  It is not aimed at them.  It is aimed at those who have not yet considered the issues in an attempt to reassure them that they need not bother.  Holland tips his hand by being so adamant.  He would not need to dissuade believers from looking at the evidence if it came down in his favor.  He would welcome open investigation if it supported the Book of Mormon.  He is afraid of what would happen if he encouraged believers to investigate for themselves.

Holland only makes reference to a few controversial alternate theories of Book of Mormon origins.  Even the critics are undecided about the particular theories he mentions.  They are not really fully developed origin theories at all.  Rather, they are influences in Joseph Smith's immediate environment that he could have drawn on in creating the Book of Mormon.  Holland does not bring up any of the evidence that is decisively against Book of Mormon historicity such as DNA, archeology, anachronisms, plants, animals, metallurgy, and others.

Why is historicity such a big deal?  Couldn't the church allow members to interpret the Book of Mormon as an inspired allegory?  That is a question for the church, its leaders, and its members.  The current cultural climate of the church does not allow such an interpretation.  I was not allowed to attend the temple, first wife divorced me, and my bishop asked me to resign all because I could not believe that Nephi was a real guy or that the Nephites and Lamaties were real ancient Americans.  I think it is safe to say that the church is not yet ready to reconsider the question of historicity.  Neither are they ready to let the evidence speak for itself judging from Holland's fervent, emotional appeal.  The full flavor of Hollands words come across even more powerfully listening to the audio of the actual talk rather than just reading the text.

In these posts I will present all the evidence I can find.  Unlike Holland, I will let both sides have a say so that readers can decide what to believe for themselves based on all available information.  I believe that the church may relax its stance on historicity in time.  Hopefully this will be sooner rather than later.  Issues such as this have broken up many families besides my own, which is quite ironic in such a self-proclaimed family-oriented church.  I know from participation in online communities that stories similar to mine have been repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times.

I am not writing this to persuade anyone out of his or her beliefs.  Mostly it is for understanding.  I hope for believing members to become less hostile to those with doubts by realizing how compelling the case against historicity really is.  There is still room for belief, but I also believe that room needs to be made for diversity, tolerance, and understanding in spite of differences.  It needs to start at the top with leaders choosing words other than "pathetic" to describe the alternate theories (and by implication those who subscribe to them).  Those at the top should be building bridges rather than constructing barriers, or their hemorrhaging of thoughtful members and destruction of families is likely to continue.