American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Essays on Mormonism Series) (Paperback)

Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel take a different approach. They present a number of articles from scholars who have attempted to get at "the truth" of the Book of Mormon in a totally different manner. They apply the tools of the scientific method, historical research, and logical analysis to formulate hypotheses and draw conclusions. As a result, people who use logic and science to resolve issues are likely to be impressed by this book. On the other hand, those who believe in a religion purely because of faith and answers they have received in prayer are not likely to be impressed by this work, or to want to read it for that matter.

The articles are quite interesting. My favorite three included the one on "automatic writing", Tom Murphy's article on DNA and the Lamanites (which he came close to being excommunicated for writing), and the article on former "Seventy" B.H. Roberts and what he really believed about the Book of Mormon.

What comes through to the educated person is that many things that have long been presented "as facts" by the church are not. The truth is far more complicated. One can read the Book of Mormon and conclude that Nephites and Lamanites were supposedly the only groups present in the Americas between 600 BC and 400 AD. However, DNA testing shows this is simply impossible. The vast, vast bulk of Native Americans are related to groups in Asia that crossed the Bering Straits into this continent 10,000 to 50,000 years ago. In fact, its virtually impossible to find any connection between Native Americans and either Jews or Egyptians as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

The article on automatic writing challenges the allegation that it would be impossible for one uneducated person to "invent" or "write" the Book of Mormon by himself. In fact, such things have been documented to have been done several times in the past and perhaps on a more impressive scale.

This is a good book for a scholarly person who has questions about Mormon doctrine and seeks an answer that is not "faith-based". Whether all the writers have arrived at the correct conclusions or not, it does stimulate alot of powerful thinking.

Firmage provides his own de-conversion account, showing that he lost lost faith over issues that show his misreading and impatience, which is ironic in light of his title, "Historical Criticism and the Book of Mormon." For example, "are we to believe that centuries before the Old Testament was translated into Greek (Septuagint), Lehi's kin had privately sponsored the translation of the entire Hebrew canon into Egyptian?" (page 4) The "private" sponsorship is entirely Firmage's speculation, unsupported by the text, a poor choice as anchor for one's faith decisions. The Septuagint itself was commissioned by Ptolomy II, the Egyptian King (285-247 B.C.) for his royal library. The ties between Egypt and Israel around 600 B.C. are conspicuous.

Vogel provides two essays. One defends the Masonic/Gaddiation equation, notably ignoring any comparisons to New World secret societies, as discussed by Mesoamericanists, John Sorenson and Brant Gardner, and making inadequate notice of Old World parallels, notably Welch and Tvedtnes. The other claims that Joseph Smith hypnotized the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. He does a lot of "reading into" selected texts, and documents this (his note 60) via an 1857 letter which actually reports a second-hand rumor that Joseph Smith learned the craft from a German peddler. His note 59 refers to a 1975 BYU Studies article in which the curious are rewarded with a discussion 1856 novel by Maria Ward, which first launched the "mesmerism" hypothesis by reporting that Smith had learned the craft from a German peddler. I think it hilarious that Vogel inadvertently documents the fictional 1856 source of his 1857 rumor.

In his fascinating "Automaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon", slightly updated from its 1985 appearance in Sunstone, Scott Dunn surveys a number of accounts and examples of automatic writing, and makes comparisons to the translation and content of the Book of Mormon. While providing some interesting observations, Dunn also makes some missteps, and has not having kept on with Book of Mormon scholarship. Dunn aptly refers to W.F. Prince's studies of Pearl Curran channeling Patience Worth to produce a novel of Christ called "The Sorry Tale", and to Prince's 1917 essay about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but not to Theodore Schroeder's scathing 1919 response to Prince in the same academic journal. He mentions Richard L. Anderson's essential 1986 essay, ""Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry," but Dunn fails to come to terms with it's implications. Nor will it do just to quote a "few awe struck reviews." (Anderson, 61) If The Sorry Tale, or any of the others, have substance to compare with the Book of Mormon, Dunn does not display it. Anderson observes that "Depth and dimension permeate Third Nephi but are notably absent from the spurious later gospels. Most are thinly disguised special pleading-making Christ a precursor to Mohammed, promotor of a natural health program, an Eastern mystic, or a cosmic spiritualist. These books mix strange code words and jargon with the well known teachings of the Lord. But they are also disconcerting even in the portions that do not conflict with the Gospels, for they trivialize Jesus into a wordy moralizer. So the fictitious gospels, must hazard two dangers: contradictions, or flattening of dynamic events and vital personality. The gospel forger stands at the cross roads of too much novelty or too little substance." (Anderson, 80.)
George D. Smith's article rehashes material that he and Brigham Madsen and derivative critics have published repeatedly. He claims that B.H. Roberts 1921 study raises important questions, but reveals his slanted agenda by failing to even reference John Welch's 1985 essay called "Answering B.H. Roberts Questions."
Murphy reports that "So far, DNA has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Instead genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins. This research has substantiated an already-existing archeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence. While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date, no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon."

As a paradigm shifting event, the recent DNA studies come late. In light of the "already-existing archeological, cultural, linguistic and biological evidence" and a consequent re-examination of the Book of Mormon text, informed LDS opinion had already long since shifted. President Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929 cautioned "The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15) I easily found similar arguments in several LDS sources. Murphy challenges LDS pop culture; not LDS scholarship. DNA transmitted only via female lines (mDNA) or Y-chomosone (male only) inherently censors the vast majority of the possible contributors.

Finally, Price entertainingly appreciates Joseph Smith as "inspired" as Biblical pseudepigrapha, but does little reading of the Book of Mormon or LDS scholarship.