Loyd EricsonREL 439 Approaches to Mormon ScriptureProf. Richard BushmanMay 11, 2010Apologetics and Friendly FireIn his book

Religion and Friendly Fire

, D.Z. Phillips argues that contemporary

philosophers of religion (or “philosophical friends of religion”) are guilty of inadvertently

attacking and weakening the beliefs of Christians, whom they have been trying to defend. Thishappens when they rely on certain philosophical assumptions, which ultimately open up

Christian beliefs for unnecessary criticisms and possible defeat. “Apologetics,” according toPhillips, “is guilty of friendly fire when it says more than it knows.”

A similar act of friendlyfire, I believe, is occurring with Mormon apologists and their defenses of Mormon scripture. Intheir attempts to defend scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham, they are saying more than they know by assuming that the historical authenticity andreligious truthfulness of these texts can be defended (and shown) through contemporaryempirical methods.In this paper, I will show that while the apologists may claim that they are not trying to

“prove” the truthfulness of the script

ures, their basic method of defending the texts supports andencourages a view that the historical authenticity of these scriptures can be empirically tested andverified. Such an assumption is flawed because the scriptures as we have them today arenineteenth century English texts which cannot be read and used as ancient documents.Furthermore, because there is no clear connection to original sources for these scriptures, nor didthey arise from any traditional process of translation, it would be more appropriate to understandthese scriptures as revelations that are religious in nature and which may or may not reflect any

ancient primary source. Because of the revelatory nature of these scriptures, the only historicalcontext that they must have is the nineteenth-century culture and language in which they havebeen given. Thus, any attempt to defend the text with the apologetic assumption that they can be

empirically shown to be anything more than that, “says more than it knows” and unnecessarily

sets expectations and qualifications for the scriptures. Because these apologetic arguments arenot just for the historicity of the texts, but for the religious truth of the scriptures, the friendly firefrom these presumptuous expectations can damage the faith of believers when they are notfulfilled. The narrow intent of this paper is not to argue for or against the historical authenticityof these Mormon scriptures, nor is it meant to argue whether or not a belief in their historicityshould be had by those who believe in the truthfulness of these scriptures. Rather, my intent ismerely to show that the apologetic turn to empirical verifiability is ultimately misguided andpotentially damaging to both the scriptures and Mormon believers.Underlying nearly all apologetics for Mormon scripture is the assumption that thehistoricity of the texts can be verified using empirical methods. This assumption primarilyexpresses itself in two forms. On the more aggressive end there is view that the historicalauthenticity of the scriptures can be proven using archaeology and other tools. For example,Thomas Ferguson, one of the fathers of modern Book of Mormon apologetics, once argued that

archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica would one day “constitute

[a] final and complete

vindication of the American prophet, Joseph Smith.”

On the more passive end is the stancetaken by those involved with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies(F.A.R.M.S., now the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship). They insist that they

are not trying to “prove” the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. . . . But we also

recognize that it may be important for young people or others who wonder about thesethings to know that the most serious scholarly students of the Book of Mormon are led toconclusions exactly opposite those of the book's critics. Faithful scholars have turned up

evidence that refutes most of the criticisms, and they have found mountains of evidencefor the book's ancient origins

—

evidence that is rarely confronted squarely by critics.

While these latter apologists explicitly state that they are not trying to

prove

that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are true, their research implies that the texts should neverthelesspass empirical tests to support their historical authenticity.This apologetic assumption can be better seen when it is examined within the context of apologists responding to criticisms of Mormon scripture. For example, the typical criticism of

the Book of Mormon‟s historicity goes as follows: (1) If an anachronism is present in the Book

of Mormon, then the Book of Mormon is not an authentic historical text. (2) X is ananachronism. (C) Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not an authentic historical text.

In otherwords, if something in the Book of Mormon can empirically be shown to be an anachronism,then such an anachronism would disprove the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.The apologetic response is to use empirical means to criticize the purported anachronism andthus nullify the argument. Such a response cannot prove the historicity of the text, but can onlyshow that the critical proof does not hold. For example, a critic of the Book of Mormon mightclaim that domesticated barley in the Americas was not introduced until after the Europeancolonization of the Western Hemisphere, and that therefore barley in the Book of Mormon isanachronistic and evidence that the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 7:22) is not an authentic history.

In response, the apologist defends the historicity of the Book of Mormon, arguing that barley isnot anachronistic as there is empirical evidence of possible pre-Columbian domesticated barleyin the Americas. Because domesticated barley in the Book of Mormon may not be anachronistic,then the criticism does not show that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic history.

While thisdefense does not act as a proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the apologist