Queries & Comments

012

Is Mormon Mythology Different from Other Mythologies?

The exchange of letters on the Book of Mormon (Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06, and earlier issues) has been fascinating reading, but why are your correspondents so hard on Mormon mythology?

After all, most of your writers would profess the bodily assumption of Christ into the ether. Those of the Roman Catholic persuasion would add to that the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Or those of the Islamic faith would profess the assumption of Muhammed—and his faithful horse!—into Heaven. Why is the Book of Mormon more outlandish than claims like these?

People who outgrow the need to believe that Santa Claus rides a sleigh across the sky still believe in these other myths. If the Mormon myth does not accord with their myth, can they look at their own myth objectively?

Some of your readers will find this letter blasphemous, but no more blasphemous than I find those letters which state that the Bible was dictated word-for-word by God.

To even imagine that the Creator of all mankind has singled out a tiny portion of His creation and inscribed their history to the detriment of all other histories is blasphemy itself. The internal inconsistencies and self-contradictions in the Bible do not reflect favorably upon the God who allegedly dictated His Word. Surely, God, and humanity, deserves better than this.

The Book of Mormon Provides Enrichment and Hope

I very much appreciate the pursuit of truth, manifested by your subscribers’ scholarly scrutiny of the Book of Mormon (Nephite/Lamanite culture) in response to Dr. C. L. Sainsbury’s letter in Queries & Comments, BAR 14:04.

I have read the Book of Mormon several times from beginning to end. I have also read the Bible from beginning to end more than once. I have come to conclude that the Book of Mormon relates nothing that is contrary to, and/or does not conform to, the high standards of moral conduct and sacredness exemplified in the Bible.

It is my personal experience that the Book of Mormon offers the same ennobling and purifying effect to a sincere reader as the Bible does. Both these books testify of the goodness and love of God for all mankind, and of a redeemer. They are the prime source for continuous hope, enrichment, self improvement and salvation.

Has the Bible Been Proved?

Our own beloved Bible has not even had the luxury of so great an amount of proof as the Book of Mormon. And yet, the world continues to believe it without question or reproach. How interesting.

I enjoy your publication and will be renewing my subscription to your fine magazine. Remember, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members are deeply embedded in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and though there are some important differences in our doctrine from the main-line churches, we are all brothers and sisters in need of helping each other toward loftier goals. To heck with church bashing! Shouldn’t we all be interested in practicing the pure love of Christ and searching for truth?

Where’s the Evidence for the Flood?

Congratulations on your very fine response at the end of the Mormon letters in Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06. As you so aptly point out, all scripture must first be accepted by faith. Then comes the evidence.

Is it any more appropriate for Bible believers to accept the Bible as true, despite the fact that they have no evidence from archaeology to support the creation and the Flood, than it is for believers in the Book of Mormon to accept events for which there is no acknowledged evidence?

Archaeological evidence is not to convert people, but to confirm that faith is not in vain.

The Evidence May Yet Come

When I read in your letter column that no Book-of-Mormon names, cities, bones, artifacts, etc., have been found I mentally add, “Not yet.” For how many years was Biblical geography and history uncertain? And how many present theories will be changed because of on-going excavations in Israel?

When the final inscriptions are unearthed in Mexico, Central America, Egypt and Israel then we can say, “We know.” Until then we must say, “We have found, so far, … ”

Mudslinging by the Unwashed?

The letters regarding the “Mormon issue” in Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06, make me wonder why the church still exists. Are so many people as are in the church so gullible as to ignore the obvious? Or is this reportage simply more mudslinging by the jealous, the disenfranchised and, perhaps, the unwashed?

Going Too Far?

After reading letters from readers in Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06, I can only say WOW! Do I praise you for courage and integrity, or condemn you for biting off more than you can chew? Anyone daring to openly challenge Mormon divinity is either braver than I’ve ever met, or more foolish! In the past, BAR has taken great pains to present all dimensions of problems, even 014when this is cause for great controversy. I have greatly admired you for this sense of fairness, but I’m honestly wondering if you went too far on this one!

Cautious Mormon Scholar on the Beit Lei Inscriptions

In Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06, is a box headed “Is the Mormon Figure Lehi Connected with a Prophetic Inscription Near Jerusalem?” There you indicate that “A number of papers by Mormon authors have appeared that attempt to connect these inscriptions with the travels of one Lehi. … ” Then you list an article by Joseph Ginat. Please know that Ginat is not a Mormon. He is an Israeli who received a Ph.D. in anthropology, and has taught at Tel Aviv University. You listed Vernon W. Mattson, Jr., who represents that group of Mormons who like sensationalism.

You will not find Brigham Young University scholars agreeing with either Mattson or Ginat. I have personally done much research and on-site examination, and I am in disagreement with these two writers you quote.

My own research [which concludes that “any connection between this burial cave and the Book of Mormon [is] highly unlikely”] will indicate that we are not all caught up in the sensational. There is not enough evidence that the caves at Khirbet Beit Lei have anything to do with the Lehi of the Book of Mormon.

I love your BAR, and I hate to see it become an “anti-Mormon” periodical. Not all Mormons are “sensationalists.”

Thanks for a super periodical.

Some Answers

I would like to answer some of the letters in the November/December BAR regarding the Book of Mormon.

First, the letter of Mr. Ronald L. Puening of Littleton, Colorado:

1. He says, “No Book-of-Mormon cities have been located.” So what! The Book of Mormon has never claimed to be an atlas of the Americas. In fact, the leaders of the church have told the members to be careful in making any radical claims that this or that city is a Book-of-Mormon city. We cannot substantiate any claims like this because the Book of Mormon is not a complete enough history in this respect and has never claimed to be!

2. He says, “No Book-of-Mormon names have been found in New World inscriptions.” This is a real laugher. It was thought that some of the names in the Old Testament were wrong because some of those names have not been found and every once in awhile, by golly, they find one to substantiate the Old Testament. Will you kindly give time for real archaeological work to be done in the New World that has had the money, the time, the manpower that the Old World has had? Of course not, you have to spread your hate around!

3. He says, “No genuine New World inscriptions have been found in Hebrew.” This depends on who you read. I have read several articles that claim to have found such inscriptions.

4. He says, “No genuine New World inscriptions have been found in Egyptian or anything similar to Egyptian that could correspond to Joseph Smith’s ‘Reformed Egyptian.’” Again, it depends on whose material you read.

5. He says, “No ancient copies of the Book of Mormon scriptures have been found.” I suppose Mr. Puening is going to tell me all the books of the Bible have been found. Has even one original book of the Bible been found?

Ms. Karen Galley’s letter says that the Book of Mormon contains some of the exact wording of the King James version, 1611 edition, of the Bible. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I believe that the Lord, when he talked to Joseph Smith, told him exactly the way He wanted the plates translated, and the Prophet did exactly as he was instructed by the Lord! The Book of Mormon is NOT an exact replica of the King James version. There are many notable exceptions.

As for Mr. Wilkins letter, I don’t believe the Smithsonian has the answers to all the questions in the world. The Mormon church has never asked the Smithsonian to verify the Book of Mormon! The Lord gave it to the church—not to the Smithsonian—to verify, produce, believe and to publish as HIS revealed word through HIS church to the world!

We, as members, accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God—supporting the Bible. We believe both books contain the word and work of God! We also believe the head of the church to be a man who communicates directly with the Lord (a Prophet), as one man speaking to another man. We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be the head of the church, guiding it at every moment. People may belittle the living Prophet just as they did in the Bible but when you come before the judgment bar of our Redeemer, we will see whether or not all of these Latter Day prophets are 015telling the truth and I would hate to be one of those who are found on the other side!

Spalding’s Romantic Novel and the Book of Mormon

I have followed with interest the recent debate in the pages of BAR regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), and the origins and authenticity of a book that this group holds to be scripture, the Book of Mormon, purportedly an account of ancient Israelite-based civilization in the Western hemisphere.

Although the origins and veracity of the Book of Mormon remain an open question, you do your readers a disservice in publishing letters such as the one from Philip Jackson, who alleges that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a plagiarism of the Rev. Solomon Spalding’s unpublished romantic novel, the “Manuscript Story.”^a Current scholarship is unanimous in its opinion that there is no connection between Spalding’s romance and Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon.

The so-called Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis of the Book of Mormon runs something like this: The Rev. Solomon Spalding (1761–1816) wrote in the early part of the 19th century a fanciful historical romance that he hoped to publish and thereby solve his financial difficulties. The protagonists of his story were Romans living about the time of Constantine, blown off course on a voyage to “Brittain.” Through the “tender mercies of God,” this band reached the east coast of North America. The “Manuscript Story” deals with this group’s arrival in North America and their encounters with the Deliwan, Kentuck and Sciotan Indians.

Those with even a passing familiarity with the Book of Mormon will realize that its story line differs dramatically from that of the “Manuscript Story.” Aside from an emphasis on wars, there are virtually no similarities in episodes, characters or themes between Spalding’s manuscript and what is found in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the style of writing in the two works could not be more different. As Fawn M. Brodie, the noted biographer of Joseph Smith, stated in No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, p. 450:

“Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns—villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor—thickly encrusted with 018the tradition of the noble savage. The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap cliches and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story.”

How, then, do proponents of the Spalding-Rigdon theory allow for the manuscript to fall into Joseph Smith’s hands? Spalding died in 1816, when Smith was only 11 years old. The “Manuscript Story” remained during Smith’s life and thereafter a manuscript: It has never been published. The connection between Spalding and Smith is allegedly found in the person of Sidney Rigdon, a Campbellite minister who converted to Mormonism in 1830. Rigdon, it is claimed, pilfered Spalding’s manuscript from the Pittsburgh printing office of Lambdin & Patterson sometime in 1823 or 1824. He retained the manuscript, while searching for a strawman through whom he could foist the novel on the world as lost scripture. Sometime in 1827 or 1828, Rigdon is alleged to have found Joseph Smith, and the two of them concocted the Book of Mormon as an expansion of Spalding’s secular historical piece.

This, then, is the meat of the Spalding-Rigdon theory that Mr. Jackson advocates. There are several serious flaws in this fantastic history:

1. There is no credible witness linking Rigdon with the printing firm of Lambdin & Patterson. In fact, Lambdin’s widow and family disavowed any knowledge of Rigdon, as did employees of the firm. The most that can be said is that Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh in 1822, when he preached at the First Baptist Church.

2. There is no credible evidence that Smith and Rigdon ever met before Rigdon’s conversion to Mormonism in November 1830. There is, on the contrary, abundant proof that between September 1827 and June 1829, when Smith was writing the Book of Mormon, Rigdon was a successful Campbellite preacher in northern Ohio. If he was conniving with Joseph Smith, three hundred miles east in New York, Rigdon was so accomplished a deceiver that none of his intimate friends ever entertained even the slightest suspicion of these activities. Even Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, denied that Rigdon was the man behind the Book of Mormon.

3. Protagonists of the Spalding-Rigdon theory do not explain why, if Rigdon was the man behind the Book of Mormon, he was content to let Smith found the Mormon Church and hold absolute dominion over it until Smith’s death in 1844. In fact, Smith was so secure in his position that he several times threatened Rigdon with excommunication when Rigdon opposed his policies, something he would hardly have done if Rigdon had been the repository of this very dark secret.

4. After Smith’s assassination in 1844, Rigdon became disaffected with Mormonism and renounced it altogether. Yet he denied the Spalding story and his supposed role therein throughout the rest of his life.

In summary, Mr. Jackson’s theory that Solomon Spalding’s manuscript was the impetus behind the Book of Mormon has been thoroughly discredited by contemporary scholarship and historical research. The “mass of evidence” that Mr. Jackson alludes to in support of this theory is in reality a mass of nothing at all.

Until the time when a more plausible theory of the origins of the Book of Mormon is put forward, Joseph Smith’s own explanation for the book’s origins is more tenable than the Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis.

Bibliography:

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (Alfred A. Knopf, 1983).

055Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon (Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

L. E. Bush, Jr., “The Spalding Theory Then and Now,” Dialogue (Autumn 1977), pp. 40–69.

Is the “World Timeline” Like Laetrile?

This will be a brief, further communication on the Mormon-sponsored “World Timeline.” I urge you to discontinue the advertisements for this product. I will give you an analogy to my own profession. Medical journals do not exercise censorship over advertisements, nor do they claim to stand behind every single claim made in the advertising section. Nevertheless, they will not accept an advertisement from a product that some tiny group believes to be valid, but that is generally regarded as being misleading or untrue. For example, they would not argue the faith of the laetrile manufacturer, nor would they attempt to refute his claims; they would simply state that they will not publish his advertisement. Your Editorial Board knows that the historic claims of the Mormon Church are outside the mainstream of any accepted scholarship. You are not setting yourselves up to question the belief of the Book of Mormon—but you need simply to decline to run this advertisement. It is distinctly unfair to your readership to do anything else.

Why People Cancel Their Subscriptions to BAR

I would like to make a comment in defense of some who have cancelled their subscription to Biblical Archaeology Review.

The problem stems from the word “Biblical” in the name of your magazine. According to the dictionary, Biblical means “pertaining to or in harmony with the Bible.” It most likely means the same thing to these people.

As an example, certain statements in articles such as Victor Furnish’s “Corinth in Paul’s Time,” BAR 14:03, would be in contradiction to this. To the person who believes that the Bible is true in all that it says, a statement about Acts being “more or less dependable” would be anything but Biblical. Or the response of Professor Jack T. Sanders (Queries & Comments, BAR 14:05), 056“Acts has to be approached with the utmost caution and is normally to be rejected wherever a parallel account appears in Paul’s own writings.” This is a reader’s comment, but Professor Furnish states that he agrees with Professor Sanders. Statements like these would be very unsettling to someone who is convinced the Bible is God’s Word.

I’m sure these people feel like they have been misled, and rightly so. Their expectation of a magazine with such a title to reflect the definition of “Biblical” has not been fulfilled.

With this in mind, who can honestly blame them for cancelling and wanting their money back?

B.C.E. and C.E.

I am a new subscriber to BAR, and appreciate its articles, photography and general approach. One thing, however, immediately jumped out to offend me, and I cannot let it pass without writing you.

I am surprised and perplexed that BAR still uses “A.D.” and “B.C.” to designate eras. I’ve been under the impression that at least in scholarly works addressed to both Jews and Christians the common use was “C.E.” and “B.C.E.”

Is BAR going to change its policy on this? If not, I would appreciate hearing of your reasons for retaining what to some of us is outdated semantics.

For the record, I’m a Christian theologian.

We’re going to change in some cases. The problem is that many readers are unfamiliar with the terms “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era) and “C.E.” (Common Era).—Ed.

BAR Used in Fifth Grade

I am an elementary teacher in a very deprived neighborhood in the Los Angeles area. I have a special room for science instruction which is filled with activities, books, magazines, etc. The students like BAR as much as they like National Geographic.

Last school year, a group of fifth grade students became excited about archaeology and asked to make a science project. I ordered some materials from “The Collection” [BAR’s merchandise catalogue], but otherwise we read everything we could and collected “artifacts” from home to make a “dig.” The students pored over maps of the Near East, ancient and modern, and decided 057on a location named “Nur.” When the school district Science Fair was held, the students each won a blue ribbon, and the project itself was rated outstanding. When our School District Museum is complete, this project will be placed as an exhibit—rough as it is.

Thank you for BAR—I am able to enjoy the magazine and transmit exciting information to my student groups.

BAR Brings Added Joy

It was with great pleasure that I read “Rediscovering the Ancient Golan,” BAR 14:06.

I was a member of the volunteer team that excavated at Qatzrin in the summer of 1984.

In addition to the increased knowledge and special friendships that resulted from that dig, because of your article I now have the added joy of knowing that due to our efforts, bar mitzvahs and weddings are once more being celebrated at the ancient synagogue of Qatzrin.

Thank you, BAR.

BAR was Right to Publish It

In “Was BAR an Accessory to Highway Robbery?” BAR 14:06, you ask whether BAR should have published the beautiful photograph of the ivory pomegranate? By publishing this report, BAR unwittingly drove up the price. But was this wrong? Certainly not! This artifact may be all the world will ever see from the Temple of Solomon, in that most glorious period of Israel’s history. This tiny piece of tangible evidence does so much in bringing a far-off world much closer. Thank you, BAR!

Was BAR an accessory to highway robbery? This reader believes that once the artifact was discovered, you could do no less than to write of it. The issue you raise is an ethically troubling one, but I would suggest no self-flagellation. Although the Israel Museum may be out a (donated) half-million dollars, your readers are the richer for having been educated to this relic.

Flinder Is No Amateur

The general tenor of Professor Robert Hohlfelder’s review of my book Secrets of the Bible Seas (Books in Brief, BAR 14:05) is such that I cannot allow it to pass without strenuous comment, particularly as he chooses to categorize me as a diver “not professionally trained” and presumably not fully competent to engage in archaeological research without assistance.

No doubt as a compliment, the reviewer refers to my work as “a model of what can be done by a dedicated and directed diver.” May I remind Professor Hohlfelder that I am a Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and in the course of my studies specialized in the history and techniques of Greek and Roman architecture. My work has consisted predominantly in the study of submerged and coastal architecture and maritime structures such as ports, harbors, Roman fish-tanks and marine defense installations. This work has involved detailed surveying and analysis and interpretation in maritime terms. As such I consider that I am both professionally qualified and scholarly equipped to undertake this study 060and to publish my findings and conclusions.

Degrees in closely allied disciplines have long been regarded as acceptable prerequisites to the practice of marine archaeology, subject of course to adequate training and experience in the field in this demanding and exacting subdiscipline. Indeed, I believe that Professor Hohlfelder himself is not a trained archaeologist as such, but an ancient historian, and one of his distinguished co-directors on the Caesarea Harbor Project, Dr. R. L. Vann, is, as I am, an architect with special interest in classical architecture.

Professor Hohlfelder describes me as “long a leader in the sport-diving community of Britain,” but he fails for some reason to mention that I was one of the founders of nautical archaeology in Britain, being an original member of the Council for Nautical Archaeology, the Founder-Chairman of the Nautical Archaeology Society, a Founder Trustee of the Mary Rose Trust and the longest serving member of the British government’s Advisory Committee on the Preservation of Historic Wrecks. What he totally fails to comprehend is how a holder of these archaeological distinctions can simultaneously be a leader in sport-diving. Your readers may be interested to know that virtually all the leading British underwater scientists learned their diving within the ranks of the British Sub-Aqua Club.

Having commented on my lack of professional training, the reviewer condescendingly acknowledges that by “working closely with scholars in the field, he proved to be a productive and valuable participant.” The truth is that when I worked with Israeli colleagues I did so often either as director or co-director and in all cases as field archaeologist.

I think that Professor Hohlfelder owes me and your readers an explanation.

Robert L. Hohlfelder replies:

I was a bit surprised at Alex Flinder’s umbrage over what I felt was a very favorable review of a well-written and enjoyable book.

His concerns seem to center on my failure to acknowledge his credentials and accomplishments fully. While we obviously disagree over the definition of a professional or an amateur archaeologist, I certainly did not intend to disparage or question his achievements in the diving community of Great Britain or in the science of underwater archaeology. Like another English architect before him—Michael Ventris who deciphered Linear B and opened a new window to Greek Bronze Age civilization—Mr. Flinder has made extraordinary contributions to a discipline other than his own field of formal or vocational training. He has earned a place of honor as a pioneer of archaeology beneath the sea—a position I recognize and respect. In addition, no individual has done more to create opportunities in his own country for sport divers to participate in underwater archaeology. I wish we had someone of similar stature today in the U.S. to help mend fences between these often adversarial camps.

The intent of my review was not to diminish the man, but to applaud one of his more recent popular successes. I commend his past efforts and encourage any future projects he may undertake. For any unintended slights, I most certainly apologize.

His pique at me notwithstanding, I still urge BAR readers to enjoy Secrets of the Bible Seas, his personal account of his various diving adventures in and around Israel. In addition to all his other accomplishments, he tells a good story.

Father Jamme Attacks Professor Negev

I deeply regret the presentation of the new Oboda inscription discussed by A. Negev in his article, “Understanding the Nabateans,” BAR 14:06. It should never have been printed. The exceptional value of the new Oboda inscription compels me to send you my contribution to a better understanding of the text. [See below as to this text.—Ed.]

A. Negev’s inconsiderate pages should have been thoroughly edited and revised for accuracy. His dilettantism is illustrated by his unacceptable map. Compare the locations he gives there to Taymâ’, Egra, Dedan and Leuke Kome with the map of the geographer H. von Wissman in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband XII, 1970, col. 958.

His irresponsibility is demonstrated by the printing of his own opinions on Safaitic and Thamudic of which he does not even know the ABC.

The commentary of the Arabist S. Shaked also is startling. He did not see the obvious, viz., the manifest parallelism of the two pairs of verbs.

The photo of the new Oboda inscription published in the Israel Exploration Journal 36 (1986), plate 11B, unfortunately is of poor quality; and that of BAR is useless. Such an important text deserves nothing but the best. Either the stone should be photographed in three sections (because of the strong bend in the upper half of the stone) to be later assembled in one composite photo OR it is the squeeze that should be photographed. The inscription should be known as perfectly as possible so as to give scholars the possibility of deciphering it completely. I wish to take advantage of this letter to ask you to be so kind for the sake of research as to do your utmost so that a clear photographic documentation be obtainable, and I would very much like to acquire such documentation, that is, the duplicates of the black-and-white negatives or (even better) of the color diapositives.

Unfortunately, the article (text) that Professor Jamme submitted with his letter is much too technical for BAR. We suggest he submit it in response to the technical and scholarly publication of the Oboda inscription in the Israel Exploration Journal.

We did send a copy of Professor Jamme’s letter to Professor Avraham Negev, who replied as follows:

“Thank you very much for sending me a copy of Father Jamme’s letter. I don’t think that I have to react to it. Let him publish an article in which he will discuss his scientific claims.

“As far as photographs are concerned: You are not the appropriate address for a slide or black-and-white photograph of the inscription. There is a way to ask for it, and I suppose that Father Jamme knows the procedure.

“Thank you for the beautiful way you presented my article. A letter has come already from the USA praising it.”

—Ed.

BAR’s Polybags

Biblical Archaeology Review recently adopted the use of clear plastic mailing wrappers for shipping their magazines through the mails. I have been very disappointed to witness this change.

Perhaps from your point of view there is an excellent reason for the use of this nondisintegrating material for shipping individual issues of your magazine, but I cannot think of one that is biologically or ecologically sound.

As you must know, the world is awash in plastic waste. Land fills are filling up, and our lakes, streams and oceans are starting to become choked with it. Marine and terrestrial animal life is threatened by it.

If you feel that mailing wrappers are essential for the delivery of your publication, I urge you to go back to using paper wrappers for shipping. Paper is adequately protective, but it is also biodegradable. And I, as a consumer, will not have to feel that, by subscribing to your publication, I too am contributing unnecessarily to one more of the world’s wasteful habits.

Is Mormon Mythology Different from Other Mythologies?

The exchange of letters on the Book of Mormon (Queries & Comments, BAR 14:06, and earlier issues) has been fascinating reading, but why are your correspondents so hard on Mormon mythology?