Question for Romney and Huntsman

I believe that some of the fundamental tenets of Mormonism are testable...and in fact have been tested...and in the testing have been shown to be false. Specifically, the Book of Mormon's entire story about pre-Columbian America--a story on which the faith rests, in substantial measure--has been shown by secular scientists and historians to run counter to the best available evidence, which evidence is pretty damn good.

In my mind, then, to accept the version of history that appears in the Book of Mormon is, in intellectual terms, roughly equivalent to rejecting the theory of evolution.

Soooooo, just as it would be fair game to ask a presidential candidate to defend his or her rejection of evolutionary theory, I think it's fair game to ask Mitt Romney and John Huntsman to defend their acceptance of Mormon history.

I'll see if I can get a press credential...

Footnote: By the way, one or both of them might very well say, "Actually, I don't think the Book of Mormon gets pre-Columbian American history entirely right. As you know, all religions contain elements of myth, and fable, and pure invention. In my mind, though, the value of religion doesn't depend on a completely accurate presentation of historical facts. Instead, the value of religion depends on the connection it helps you make to God, to your family, and to the broader community. By that standard, Mormonism has been immensely valuable to me."

Who just got goosebumps?

Anklenote: Here's another possible answer, which probably applies to most people when it comes to the more controversial claims of their respective faiths: "I've never really thought about it that much. I was always taught that it was true, but I've never researched it or anything, if that's what you mean."

That one, though, isn't going to give anyone goosebumps.

Comments

[Robert Richards]

Perhaps you should better educate yourself on the stories you refer to as "pre-columbia mormon history". What you've posted Is absolutely flawed. As for evidence that the Pre-colonized americas Does coincide with the book of mormon, prehaps you should do some research on the "Hopewell Indians".

Aside from this particular posting I do enjoy your blog.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Hi, Robert. Thanks for reading, thanks for the compliment, and thanks for your comment.

I've read pretty extensively in the field of Mormonism as history--relevant passages from the Book of Mormon (though not the entire book by any stretch), criticisms of Mormonism as history, defenses of Mormonism as history, and so on. After all of that, I believe what I said I believe in the post.

Even so, there's always room for greater education on my part. Recognizing that, here's a challenge I've put forth before, and one that I will offer to you: Can you refer me to a non-LDS historian who embraces the basic story of pre-Columbian history that appears in the Book of Mormon?

In my reading, the only professional historians I've found who embrace that history are members of the LDS church, or individuals who are at least personally or professionally affiliated with the church. If you could point me to a disinterested, non-LDS historian who embraces the Book of Mormon as history, that would go a long way toward persuading me.

If you want a more manageable challenge, then I'd ask you to find a non-LDS historian who believes in, and can muster evidence in support of, a relationship between the Hopewell Indians and any peoples described in the Book of Mormon.

Footnote: Have you read the statements by the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? I understand that there is some controversy associated with these, that there have been subsequent revisions, that the Mormon church has thoughtful responses to them, and so on. Having said all of that, they remain pretty persuasive to me:

http://irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html

http://irr.org/mit/national-geographic.html