The following is in response to an e-mail I received from a person who had read my letter to the Tanners. For those unfamiliar with Usenet quoting standards, the ">" represents a quotation. Since I did not alter in any way the gentleman's original words (except to interpolate my responses in the appropriate places), I am only including my response -- since in it you will find the whole unsnipped context of the exchange. I received no further responses from the gentleman on these issues.
Subj: Re: the Tanners and the book of Mormon
Date: 3/30/98 4:53:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: PACumeni9
To: hriver@(snip).net
In a message dated 3/25/98 5:07:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, hriver@(snip).net writes:
> Greetings, Pacumeni.
BackAtcha...
> I've just visited your homepage and appreciate some of the work that you
> have put into it.Thank you.
> I am not a member of the church of latter days saints
> but have been a student of the book of mormon for many years.>You mention in your pages that you "especially appreciate a good debate"
> but I am not writing to debate you in the fullest extent of the word -
> just to ask for some clarification on things in your article. You
> certainly do not have to be obliged to answer my e-mail any more so that
> your unsolicited mail to the Tanners demanded a reply, but I must say
> that some of your ideas are ones on which I wouldn't mind some further
> discussion.Fair enough. In passing, I would just like to say that any one who publishes material - the Tanners or
myself or whoever - are placing themselves in a position in which they invite critical review. In
that my letter was unsolicited is a moot point - so also is much of their work.I also welcome vigorous criticism of my public writing, as that is an important way for me to be able to
improve my arguments and throw out those which I utilize which may be outdated or fallacious in some way.
I merely wish the Tanners did the same - but experience indicates otherwise. As to my letter to the
Tanners, so far, no one has as yet addressed the central issues I raise in it,
but instead write me about issues such as steel, silk, barley, swords, chariots, etc. This tends to bolster my view that the
Nahom/NHM and Bountiful/Wadi Sayq correlations are logically firm - otherwise folks would inundate me
with criticisms about how NHM could in no way be Nahom - or how JS had access to this
information, etc.> (By the way you certainly can publish any correspondence from me that
> you feel is helpful or otherwise)I would very much like to do that, thank you very much.
> Here are some points that you can help me with:
> 1. Notwithstanding the anachronastic mention of "steel" or "silk" found
> in the pages of the book of Mormon, you mention that in "the Book of
> Mormon [there are] literally hundreds of identifiable ancient
> characteristics, most of which do not rely upon the Bible for their
> source, and most of which have had, to date, only very lame attempts by
> the detractors to debunk them. " Can you supply me with a list of at
> least a hundred unique and identifiable ancient characteristic that mark
> the Book of Mormon as the testament of Jesus Christ. I would like see
> to which characteristics you are referring.As you have said that you have been a student of the Book of Mormon for many years, I will assume
that you have read literature from both sides of the issue, and that therefore you are well aware of the
body of evidence as espoused by Book of Mormon adherents.
In light of that probable fact, I will pass on taking the burdonsome time to accommodate
you on this first point at this time - but rather I will
acknowledge that many of these identifiable Book of Mormon characteristics
are still open for debate. However, I will try
to accommodate you on this point later on, and as time permits, by adding this list to my web site.> 2. A base argument when a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints
> discovers something intelligent in the manuscript, is that he
> juxtaposes this with the sentence claiming Joseph Smith's ignorance (as
> you do i.e. " The Book of Mormon hits its bull's-eye time after time after
> time, though the shooter Joseph Smith had never before handled
> firearms") so as to show that someone as ignorant and uneducated as JS
> could write such a thing. This may be an argument but it is faulty,
> circular logic. You have the burning in your bosom to prove that Joseph
> Smith wrote the book in its entirety through different mediums, but this
> would not hold up in a logical argument. What of those like me who lack
> this very burning and have to judge by evidence? Would not, then, this
> be a wasted type of argumentation for those who can show, with due
> respect, that Joseph Smith had very little to do with the writing of the
> manuscript but it was in fact written by others and adapted wholely by
>JS? You would disagree with this and that's alright - but you can't use
> the ignorance postulation as a nonbiased argument.
On some issues, you might have a point, but I very much feel that you miss my point when I make this
statement in the context of the Arabian connection. Much of the Book of Mormon/Arabian correlations
which are now documentable were simply unknown in th 1820's and 30's. Please demonstrate to me that any
eminent expert in Near Eastern studies of the early 1800's would have known this specific package of
evidence. Any quotations will suffice. Further, of that which was known - such as the existence of a place
name called NHM - was known only by a very narrow and specialized group of people, hardly the crowd
surrounding Joseph Smith, and hardly information known or accessible to the masses of the time. Thus,
when I make my analogy of the marksmanship, with Joseph Smith as a complete novice with firearms hitting
the bulls-eye *time after time after time*, I was not trying to suggest, as you say, this dichotomy of an
ignorant farm boy saying something intelligent, so much as I was trying to suggest the fact that *nobody*
in 1830 knew this particular set of facts. I then *juxtaposed* this fact with the Tanner's so-called
*sourcebook*, where it didn't say the first thing about these two locations - even though it was written by
an expert in the field.My analogy was merely trying to illustrate the very long odds - looking at the issue humanistically -
that Joseph Smith could have accurately described this material as he did (since absolutely no one
else of the time knew it).So my question to the Tanners becomes valid: How on earth do you justify pushing this book as source
material for the NHM and Wadi Sayq correlations, when in fact their *sourcebook* contains absolutely no
information or allusion to these locations?Based upon ONLY this problem, I think my closing comments about their *illusory arguments* are
valid.> 3. Why has the Smithsonian Institute - perhaps the most widely respected
> purveyor of world history and events - released a statement that says,
> in part "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon
> in any way as a scientific guide...When a place name has been identified, then they will use it. This Statement has been discussed at
length in numerous places on the Internet and in books. We do not even know for a certainty the region of
the Americas where our Book of Mormon history unfolds, and until we uncover a verifiable site, there is no
use for utilizing the book in this way. On the other hand, since we have several known starting points in our
Old World scenario, with directional indicators to boot, we have been able to verify the existence of at least
one site - Nahom/NHM - and very probably another - Bountiful/Wadi Sayq. Also, I find that the statement
by the Institution that they *have never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide* to be
rather irrelevant, since I highly doubt if they have ever had any of their qualified personnel do a methodical
investigation of the book's central physical, historical, and textual claims. This assumption on my part is
vindicated by the numerous errors and shortcomings of the Statement itself (see below).The Smithsonian archeologists see no
> direct connection between archeology of the New World and the subject
> matter [of the Book of Mormon]...True, although, again, I see no value in making a judgement call on the Book of Mormon based upon
New World archealogists' claims, since they have never performed in depth analysis of the book. The list
above and below of physical shortcomings - though food for thought for the discriminatly careful - must be
revised to accurately reflect what the Book of Mormon actually says, as well to reflect more up to date
scientific understanding of New World research. For instance:> as well, contrary to the Book of Mormon, "iron, glass...
Glass is mentioned only once in the Book of Mormon, but it is in an Old World Jaredite context, and it is
used metaphorically - so this item should be stricken from the Institution's list, if they are to have a credible
list of Book of Mormon problems.>steel and silk were not used in the New World prior to
> 1492.Silk derived from the same process as the Chinese silkworms was, of course, not a pre-columbian
product. However, a textile from Guatemala made from the wild pineapple plant, as well as a product made
by the Aztecs from rabbit hair served to make a substance almost indistuingishable from traditional
silk. Silk-like fiber was gathered from the pod of the Ceiba tree in Yucatan and spun. Some of the
early Spanish conquerors referred to these substances as "silk." Certainly, any number of such
substances could fit the Book of Mormon designation of silk. The Smithsonian list fails to consider
linguistic blurrings such as this which are not uncommon when a document is subjected to the
translation process. While I do not have a problem with this item being included in their list, they really
ought to either remove it or add a clarifying point to remain balanced.(For the full text of this letter see
> http://www.irr.org/smithson.htmlActually, as I have said above, there are numerous points in the Smithsonian Institutions statement
which need revision - either to accurately represent what the Book of Mormon *actually* says, or
to fall into line with current scientific understanding. In light of the Statement's real shortcomings, a
couple of which I have noted here, it is interesting to note that the Statement has been revised -
thus making your above URL and attending text obsolete. The new and revised statement reads as
follows:Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use
of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the
Office of Communications.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide.
The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research
and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.Sincerely,
David J. Umansky
Director of Communications
Smithsonian InstitutionPlease note that the above statement is fully in line with the facts, and I therefore am in full accord with
its wording as currently constituted. I would therefore hope that those who continue to rely upon
the Smithsonian's statement use the current text, or acknowledge that they are using outdated material.Now if the Smithsonian cannot rely on
> the Book of Mormon as historically accurate,This above statement becomes rather ironic in the light of just a few of the inaccuracies of this now
obsolete Smithsonian Statement I have noted herein.why should we who are less
> educated in these matters (barring, of course, the burning in the bosom
> and doing what some elders have told me, "Don't argue with the prophets:
> the evidence may disprove the prophets, but what is that to you? You
> must be obedient to the church.."I do not doubt your honesty here, but I must say that in my lifetime membership in the Church, and in
dealing with many a LDS member's and nonmember's doubts, I have never myself said or heard
another say such a thing. On the other hand, I have heard many criticics and anti-mormons say they have
heard this said. It causes me to wonder about the Urban Myth syndrome...> 4. Why would the same Smithsonian Institution circulate a similar
> statement in regard to the Old and New Testament - far from being a
> scientific text - as being a record worthy of study and research,
> stating in part "the historical books of the old testament are as
> accurate historical documents as any we have some antiquity and are, in
> fact, more accurate than many other Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek
> histories...if there are conflicts between present archaelogical
> evidence and historical reports, that may result from lack of
> information on our part or mistakes by the ancient writers."Yes, there are indeed serious problems with Biblical archeology, such as the habitation and historical
accounting of the city of Jericho, the Israelitish movement and overtaking of Palastine, the great
deluge, ect, etc. Far from causing Christian converts en masse, most modern biblical scholars
remain atheists or agnostics. That we can now verify many biblical sites is largely due to the fact that we
have had the biblical texts in our hands for many centuries. We also have many known sites for
purposes of cross referencing unknown sites. Book of Mormon New World studies lack these
benefits. Conversely, Book of Mormon Old World studies have also had the benefit of using known sites
to extrapolate approximate areas for examination - which has, as a result, yielded fruit in just the
same way as biblical research has.> How can the older documents (ie the old testament) be seen as more
> reliable that the "other testament of Jesus Christ" which is the most
> perfect book ever written?See above. There are also the problems of paradigm assimilations. Modern Western civilization has
emerged from a milieu of Christian/Biblical foundation - and as such, the Bible has benefited for its
wide and enduring distribution. From the beginning of the scientific era, it was quite naturally a
focal point of study. Therefore, the man hours belaboring this one document soars into the untold
millions. Due to this abundant work, there has been enough corroberation that the document
becomes a point of interest even for the non-believing student.On the other hand, the Book of Mormon faces a stigma not unlike UFO enthusiasts, or Egyptian
pyramid conspiratorialists who preach that extra terrestials built the pyramids. Such lunatic fringe issues are
hardly studies where respected scholars would expend time and money to verify. These things are
simply tossed off as irrelevant and superstitious. And most of the time, such instincts are valid.
But not always.Consider the Mesoamerican Grolier codex. It was considered by the consensus of conventional
archeologists to be spurious for several years, do to its *mysterious* and unauthorized discovery in the
early 1970's. No scrutiny was given it, as it was put in the ballpark of the *loony*. It wasn't until
Michael Coe came to bat for it that a battle ensued over its possibilities. Coe was agitated regarding
the contemptuous and slashing dismissal of the document. No one bothered any serious
study of it to determine if it was in fact authentic, but merely set it aside a priori as a forgery. With
justified satisfaction, Coe then describes the process of the codex's subsequent vindication. He
comments upon the irony of the situation, that if the codex had a more *orthodox* origin, it would
have been lock-stock-and barrel considered the genuine article. Thus, professional peer-pressure
exerts formidable obstacles in breaking the conservatively based nature of scientific advancement.
As Sorenson says, pardon we Mormons for a moment of dejavu. (see Michael Coe's *Breaking the
Maya Code* for the first hand account of the story).As to your comment about *the most perfect book ever written*. Consider this a call for references. To
whom can you attribute this statement? And to what context?> If you say, Pacumeni, that, really, the lack of extant archeological
> sites and lacking exterior evidence for the Book of Mormon accuracy are
> really unimportant in the scheme of things, why do things like this
> obviously matter to you?What matters to me is that evidence is considered fairly. I am willing to be called on the carpet for my
overly enthusiastic statements. I am also willing to tone down my rhetoric. The Tanners as critics
have consistently misapplied, misrepresented, and fabricated evidence in their quest to debunk a
work which does them no harm whatsoever - and yet even when shown specific, irrefutable
instances where they are simply wrong - they choose to pretend that their position is unassailable.As such, they are simply not credible in many issues. This is not to say they do not offer new research
which has real value. Only that their bias is a trifle (to put it mildly) too extreme to go unopposed.> 5. Finally, if historical and geographical evidence for the Book of
> Mormon is in so much abundance -Never have I said that the historical and geographical evidence was in abundance. I have said that the
Book of Mormon has hundreds of identifiable ancient characteristics. Most of this is internal and
textual in nature. Some of it is archeological - such as the NHM and Wadi Sayq discoveries.
However, I have never made the claim that any evidence served up as irrefutable proof that the Book of
Mormon is an authentic ancient document. After all, absolute proof would in essence destroy the
*faith* aspects of the book, causing doubters to be put in the position of either having to accept
the book's divine message without the benefit of exercising faith - thereby negating the real purpose
of the book anyway - or of having to reject the book even in the face of such evidence.No, as I said in my Tanner letter, that evidence will not come until it is too late anyway. The purpose of
publishing the Tanner letter was not to convince you, Mr. Rivers, that the Book of Mormon is true.
Rather, it was to provide insights and thinking points to those who might have otherwise believed
and exercised faith in the Book of Mormon, were it not for some of the shoddy treatments, like this
particular Tanner article, which are read and taken at face value by so many.and I do hope you will send the
> list of hundreds of verified historical evidences as you claimI will let you know when I have posted it - along with this dialogue - to my web site. And rest assured, I
will not wait over six months, as did the Tanners, to reply with some pathetic one paragraph form letter.- why
> would the National Geographic Magazine - no great fan of Christianity
> by the way - release a statement that says in part "Although many Mormon
> sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by
> archeological findings,I know of no current leading (aka FARMS) scholar who makes this assertion, and challenge you to
provide me with a quote. Remember, asserting *probability* arguments are of a whole different genre then
those articulating *proof* - which is what the above National Geographic quote implies. This, then,
becomes something akin to a straw man argument.these claims have not been scientifically
> substantiated. However, several locations in the Bible have"? (For the
> full text of this letter see http://www.irr.org/natgeo.htmlSee above.
> Well, I'll leave you with this,
> Regards,
> H River
Thank you,
Pacumeni
