We shook hands and entered the small, and very stuffy, radio studio. There was hardly room for all of us, but we managed to squeeze ourselves around a tiny table. We began taking out our resource books — Bibles, copies of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) Scriptures, reference sources, and so forth. We also brought out the books we were going to be discussing live on the air on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City, the Sunday evening after the semi-annual Mormon General Conference: my own book, Letters to a Mormon Elder,1 and the book Offenders for a Word, coauthored by one of my debate opponents that evening, Dr. Daniel C. Peterson.2 Peterson was joined by Dr. William Hamblin. Both are professors at Brigham Young University and are leading figures in The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). This was not my first encounter with FARMS. I had just received a copy of the 1993 Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, a publication in which FARMS contributors review recently published works that touch on the Book of Mormon. Thirty-six pages of this volume were devoted to an article by L. Ara Norwood in review of my book. Having read the review, I could only hope the discussion this evening would take a much higher road.3
At this point Dr. Hamblin handed me his newest book, Warfare
in the Book of Mormon,5 and chided me for making such statements without
reading his book first. To the listening audience, it must have seemed as if he had
won that point in the debate. For the convinced LDS person, FARMS came through again. But,
did it really? The remainder of this article evaluates the merits of FARMS research and
argumentation and exposes its inadequacies. WHAT IS FARMS? Based out of Brigham Young University, FARMS is the leading LDS "apologetics" organization today. While primarily concerned with defending the Book of Mormon as a historical document, FARMS publications often go beyond that narrow focus to provide a wider apologetic for Mormonism. Since the principal contributors to the effort of FARMS are among the leading LDS scholars, the materials carry an air of scholarly authority and acumen. Many of the publications are closely focused. An impressive range of hard-bound, professionally packaged books adds to the perception that FARMS is providing a scholarly, researched response to the critics of the Mormon faith in general and the Book of Mormon in particular. According to information made available electronically from FARMS:
FARMS publishes books relevant to Book of Mormon studies as well as other related areas of interest. The group also sends out a newsletter to subscribers on a bimonthly basis, Insights: An Ancient Window.7 This publication provides brief reports on seminars and research done in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. FARMS also produces the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. FARMS is the main distributor of the LDS apologetic writings of Dr. Hugh Nibley. Eugene England of BYU has said that "Nibley is the finest scholarly defender of our [LDS] faith in our time."8 Nibley undertook the monumental task of trying to defend the Book of Abraham, for example, when the Egyptian papyri from which founder Joseph Smith claimed that book of LDS Scripture was derived came to light three decades ago. The FARMS catalog of materials lists no fewer than 13 books by Nibley and 27 articles. Nibley is quite aged now, and other, younger LDS researchers
and writers have begun to emerge from his shadow to take leading roles. The names of Dr.
Daniel C. Peterson, Dr. William Hamblin, Dr. John Sorenson, and Dr. Stephen D. Ricks all
appear regularly in FARMS publications. Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for
the Book of Mormon has become quite popular among LDS readers, despite presenting what
is known as the "limited geography" viewpoint of the Book of Mormon — a
view we shall examine later. Peterson and Ricks have produced the popular-level LDS
apologetic work mentioned above. Many laypeople in the LDS Church look to FARMS as the
final authority on matters regarding the Book of Mormon and other LDS Scriptures such as
the Book of Abraham. Those involved in evangelizing Mormons know that young missionaries,
when faced with difficulties in their Scriptures, are quite likely to turn to FARMS
materials for help, even though they are often unable to understand those materials
fully. FARMS OUT OF CONTROL FARMS is virtually alone in the scholar’s field of apologetic defense of Mormonism, and this fact has led to what many feel is an attitude of smugness on the part of FARMS contributors.9 FARMS writers are not afraid, for example, to use improper ad hominem argumentation when it suits their purpose. Evangelical researchers Jerald and Sandra Tanner, frequently the targets of LDS apologists, were treated to the customary FARMS charm in a review of their work, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon.10 In that review, found in the fifth volume of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,11 Tom Nibley, son of Hugh Nibley, spared no words in making clear that he was condescending even to comment on the Tanners’ work. Note the language used in this "scholarly" FARMS review: "our sagacious swamis" (275); "our super sleuths" (276); "our learned mentors" (276); "our gallant pedagogues, the Tanners" (278); "the febrile brains of our dedicated cognoscenti" (278); "our honored exegetes" (279); "our meritorious mentors" (280); "our learned oracles" (282); "our revered gurus" (283); "our perspicacious pedagogues" (283); "our canny counselors" (283); "our erudite educators" (284); "our formidable savants" (285); "our transcendent tutors" (287); and so on. It is difficult to work through Nibley’s review, as nearly every sentence drips with sarcasm. Likewise, L. Ara Norwood seems to have attempted to come up to Nibley’s "standards" in his review of my own book, contained in the same volume (317-54). Norwood speaks of me as "merely an anti-Mormon clone, maintaining the same shape of bigotry and shallowness that inevitably come from the anti-Mormon cookie-cutter" (321); I am "a desperado who needs to win every argument at any cost, no matter how trivial" (320). And even when complimenting me, he manages to take shots at others (326).12 One might object that Tom Nibley and Ara Norwood are not representative of FARMS as a whole. Yet, the editor of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon is none other than FARMS Board of Directors member Daniel C. Peterson. Peterson contrib-uted an 86-page review in the same volume, critiquing Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. While much more soberly written than the articles by Nibley and Norwood, it also sets the tone for how FARMS responds to literature critical of the LDS position.13 Peterson’s language is only one example of how FARMS views those who oppose its work. The words of Hamblin, another member of the Board of Directors, reflect the same sentiments. A few years ago a book critical of the Book of Mormon was published titled New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.14 Admittedly, editor Brent Metcalfe and the book’s other contributors would not be identified as conservative Mormons; that is, Mormons who adhere closely to the earlier Mormon teachings and Scriptures. Their scholarly articles provide a real challenge to much of what FARMS accepts as gospel regarding the Book of Mormon. When I pulled this book out of my bag during the radio debate, however, Peterson laughed at it. Hamblin personifies the FARMS attitude, especially as it
relates to challenges presented by scholars such as Metcalfe. In what is probably the most
infamous mock in the history of FARMS, Hamblin included a hidden message in his review of
Metcalfe’s work in the 1994 Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. When the
first letters of each paragraph of Hamblin’s review before publication are put
together, they spell, "METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD." Hamblin has insisted that it was
just a joke for the sake of Daniel Peterson, the editor,15 but the fact is that
the acrostic message was kept in the article all the way into the printing process. At
that time cooler heads prevailed, and the project had to be called back from the presses
and redone to eliminate this childish name-calling. FARMS METHODOLOGY How does FARMS go about providing a defense of the Book of Mormon against the overwhelming evidence that points to it being the creative product of Joseph Smith, Jr., rather than the historical record of an ancient culture? A few observations are in order. First, one will find a tremendous amount of effort being put into the citation of non-LDS scholars. FARMS wants the acceptance of the scholarly community outside of Mormonism, and therefore every effort short of acknowledging Mormonism’s deficiencies is made to establish scholarly credibility. FARMS writers go to great lengths to document that they have done their homework in non-LDS scholarly literature covering such subjects as archaeology, anthropology, and linguistic studies. Unfortunately, the untrained reader may think that this indicates a wider historical and scholarly support for specific and unique LDS beliefs or claims than actually exists. A careful reading of the sources used will reveal support outside of the LDS community for only nondisputed issues that are not, therefore, at issue when it comes to the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the validity of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. Another item that can give a false appearance of scholarship to the reader of FARMS materials is what I will call "mutual citation" — the leading LDS experts will often be found citing . . . themselves. Nibley is cited by just about everyone. Then Robinson will cite Sorenson, Sorenson will cite Hamblin and Ricks, and Peterson will cite them all. While it may present an imposing list of sources on paper, in reality this self-citation does not provide a meaningfully wide spectrum of the scholarly community. FARMS regularly promotes an image of scholarship, but serious
problems with FARMS scholarship readily appear when they attempt to defend specific and
unique elements of the claims of Mormonism. We will focus on two examples of how FARMS
works to provide Mormons with a reason to continue believing in Joseph Smith’s
prophethood despite all the evidence to the contrary. We begin with John Sorenson
and his views on the Book of Mormon. WHERE IS THE HILL CUMORAH? Sorenson suggests that the Book of Mormon story took place in a relatively small area16 in Central America. The theory that focuses attention on Central America itself has been around in Mormon circles for quite some time. Many have pointed to the area around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as a likely spot. FARMS even publishes Sorenson’s The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (1992), which presents maps of where cities theoretically might be located, where battles took place, and so on. One major objection to this idea comes from the necessary relocation of the Hill Cumorah, to somewhere in Central America. This hill in upstate New York is where Joseph Smith allegedly found the "golden plates" on which the Book of Mormon was written. It is also supposed to be the site of the final cataclysmic battle between the ancient Nephites and Lamanites. Sorenson provides citations in his Source Book (371-90) regarding the viewpoint of the past leaders of the LDS Church on the location of Book of Mormon events and of the Hill Cumorah. Not only have leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith spoken out against the limited Central American view,17 but the evidence is decidedly against such a theory having been espoused by Joseph Smith. Quite to the contrary, Smith’s own story of "Zelph, the White Lamanite" lays to rest any theory that limits Book of Mormon events to a small area in Central America. Joseph Smith recorded how, while walking near the Illinois River, he and his followers came to a mound of dirt:
The significance of this story from Joseph Smith is striking. He obviously believed that the events of the Book of Mormon, including the great battles recorded therein, took place, not just in a small portion of Central America, but in the upper reaches of North America as well. In light of this "revelation" Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It is absurd for anyone to maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this northern land."18 Yet FARMS apologists — ready to abandon such an idea, since there is no supporting archaeological or historical evidence from North America — come up with two different Central America locations for "Cumorah," all in the effort to maintain the historical reality of at least some of Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination. What we have here is a rewriting of Mormon belief in a form
more readily defensible. For the Mormon who agrees with the statement "Mormonism
stands or falls with Joseph Smith,"19 recognizing the obvious fact that
Smith’s story is not historically sound is simply not an option — hence the
tremendous effort to select and rework the facts to fit a foreign reality. Indeed, the
fact that Mormon scholars go to such lengths is an indication of how important the
integrity of their prophet is to their entire religious system. ABOUT THOSE SWORDS, DR. HAMBLIN In our radio debate Hamblin graciously provided me with a copy of his book on warfare in the Book of Mormon. Included in the work is an article by Hamblin and A. Brent Merrill titled "Swords in the Book of Mormon."20 The authors struggle mightily to find in known Mesoamerican culture some parallel to the swords described in the Book of Mormon. The wording is mercilessly plain: 1 Nephi 4:9 describes Laban’s sword, saying:
No problem here, for the context is still Old World. But, we read in 2 Nephi 5:14-15 (which moves the context to the New World):
So far we have here swords that are sheathed and made of precious steel. Note that Nephi makes many more of these "after the manner of" Laban’s sword. Laban’s sword itself remains a popular item for a long time in the Book of Mormon (Words of Mormon 1:13, Mosiah 1:16). In Alma we read of men running upon swords and dying, a most understandable result of running into a sword like Laban’s. 2 Nephi 24:19 likewise speaks of some being "thrust through with a sword," an obvious reference to being impaled by a blade. While this passage is a citation from Isaiah, it clearly was considered applicable within the context of Book of Mormon events. Then in Alma 17:37 we read of Ammon’s exploits with his sword:
Here we have another obvious reference to a steel-bladed sword, just like the sword of Laban. What is more, we read in Alma 1:9 of a man who "drew his sword." This is perfectly understandable, since the sword of Laban had a sheath and was carried like any other sword. In Alma 44:12 we read further:
Two important items should be noted: first, the swords in the Book of Mormon have "hilts," just as the sword of Laban. Also, Zerahemnah ends up getting scalped in the process of the fight, an event understandable when fighting with swords. But the Book of Mormon is even more plain, as it states in the next verse:
Here the scalp is placed upon the point of the sword, and shown to the crowd. All of this is perfectly understandable, is it not? Why have I labored the obvious fact that the Book of Mormon portrays warfare throughout its history that includes as part and parcel metal swords with blades, hilts, and sheaths? Well, recall what Dr. Hamblin said to me on the air in Salt Lake City concerning swords in pre-Columbian America. He affirms their existence, but in so doing he is engaging in the most egregious redefinition of terms. As anyone can see by reading Warfare in the Book of Mormon, Hamblin’s means of rescuing Joseph Smith is to attempt to draw a parallel between the clearly Old-World sword of Laban, and hence of the Nephites, with the Aztec macuahuitl or macana. Hamblin describes it: "The ‘macuahuitl’ was constructed from a long staff or large paddle-shaped piece of wood. Sharp obsidian flakes were fixed into the edges of the wooden blade, giving it a deadly cutting edge" (338-40). Note the illustrations accompanying this article comparing the sword of Laban and the macuahuitl. Here Hamblin tries to tell us that what the Book of Mormon is really talking about is a war club with sharp rocks embedded in it! He then has to work very hard to explain how such a club could scalp someone while fighting, why the Book of Mormon refers to the "hilt" of these swords (the macuahuitl doesn’t have a hilt), and how such a war-club can be "drawn" from a "sheath." (He suggests that "these references could describe grasping or brandishing a sword before combat rather than actually ‘drawing’ it from a sheath" [343].) Moreover, Hamblin has to explain how such swords could have been made "bright" (Alma 24:12), and what Nephi was talking about when he said he made their swords after the pattern of Laban’s sword. I heartily recommend the reading of Hamblin’s article as
a classic example of the apologetic methodology of FARMS. As anyone knows who has read
Nibley’s attempted defense of the Book of Abraham, or Sorenson’s attempt to find
the horses of the Book of Mormon,21 Hamblin is simply following those who have
gone before him in doing his best to rescue a false prophet from the singular verdict of
history. Once again, such attempts reveal the importance that Mormon apologists attach to
Joseph Smith. They also reveal the sheer desperation of their cause. THE FUTURE AND FARMS FARMS is expanding its facilities and its outreach. It is moving into the Internet and making its information available to a wider audience. Those who are involved in evangelizing Mormons need to be aware of the apologetic materials produced in Provo under the FARMS banner. The example of FARMS should challenge orthodox Christians to
seek, by contrast, the highest level of accuracy and integrity in the work of witnessing.
What is more, as in all apologetic work, we should be reminded to look very closely at the
arguments presented by those who deny the gospel of grace. In a culture accustomed to
sound bites and surface-level thinking, we need to learn to look below the surface and ask
logical, insightful questions. When such thinking is applied to the materials produced by
FARMS in defense of Joseph Smith, the result is clear. No veneer of scholarly acumen can
make a culture appear in history that was not, in fact, there. And no amount of work by
FARMS can make Joseph Smith something he was not: a prophet of God. NOTES 1James White, Letters to a Mormon Elder
(Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1993).
|
OF CITIES AND
SWORDS:
