In a recently posted list of questions (which does not interact with LDS responses [although the author knows the responses as he is familiar with the works of Brant Gardner et al--strike one for lack of intellectual honesty from the get-go]) one reads, among other things, the following:
If the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Israelite prophets living in a Native American society, why do they address so many theological and cultural issues of early nineteenth-century Anglo-American society (atheism, Calvinism, costly apparel, Deism, infant baptism, whether the age of miracles and revelations is past, paid clergy, secret societies, Unitarianism, universalism, etc.) but not issues that have dominated Christianity in the past two centuries since it was published (evolution, religious pluralism, biblical criticism, socialism and Communism, abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism, feminism, genetic engineering, Islam and Islamic terrorism, nuclear war, relativism and postmodernism, etc.)?
This assumes that such issues are unique to the 19th century; many issues, such as Universalism and infant baptism, are issues that were debated in antiquity, too.
On the issue of universalism, see Martin Tanner, Is There Nephite Anti-Universalist Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon?
As for infant baptism, Matthew P. Roper, in his review of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, wrote the following:
Infant Baptism The Tanners cite evidence showing that infant baptism was discussed in Joseph Smith’s day. They assert that this concept is strangely out of place in the Book of Mormon. “It is true,” they say, “that the practice of baptizing infants prevailed from a very early period upon the Eastern continent. But here in this Western world during olden time, the Latter-day Saints [i.e., the Nephites] had things their own way from the very beginning. The instructions upon the mode and the subjects of baptism were plain and unmistakable from Nephi down to Mormon” (pp. 65-66). But such an assertion is unfounded since the Nephites were clearly in the minority (Mosiah 25:2-3) and there were likely many other significant influences in Mesoamerican culture. The Book of Mormon gives subtle indications that much of the backsliding in Nephite history was due to the influences of other, non-Nephite cultural traditions and beliefs, which may have been well entrenched long before Nephite society even began.31 In fact, contrary to the Tanners’ notion, several forms of infant baptism were practiced by pre-Columbian Mesoamericans when the Spanish arrived in the New World. “Doubtless because of her permanent contact with the celestial spheres,” notes Laurette Séjourné, Chalchiuhtlicue, the goddess of the waters, “is invested with the high faculty of purifying. It is she who in the baptismal ceremony frees the newborn child from impurity.”32 In Aztec religion, notes Burr C. Brundage, “Newborn children were commonly passed through the flames of the hearth and lightly singed as a form of baptism and an acknowledgment of their affiliation with the fire god.”33 It is not difficult to imagine that Mormon and Moroni were resisting similar cultural traditions which were making dangerous inroads into the Nephite church of Christ (Moroni 8:1-30).
Notes for the Above:
31. “The initial political amalgamation reported in Omni seemingly did not lead to genuine cultural integration but masked a diversity of lifeways that sometimes came forth in beliefs and behavior. . . . The periodic reemergence to public view of the ‘old time religion’ with strong Mulekite elements in it may have constituted a large measure of the ‘falling away’ so often lamented by the Book of Mormon leaders.” John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Mulekites,’ ” Brigham Young University Studies 30/3 (Summer 1990): 16-18.
32. Laurette Séjourné, Burning Water: Thought and Religion in Ancient Mexico (Berkeley: Shambhala, 1976), 136; cf. 9-11, 61.
33. Burr C. Brundage, The Fifth Sun: Aztec Gods, Aztec World (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979), 22; cf. 183.
So, the passing reference to infant baptism in Moroni 8 is consistent with the Mesoamerican context of the Book of Mormon.
With respect to the other issues (e.g., macro-evolution), such issues post-dated the Nephites. Furthermore, if the Book of Mormon did address such issues, the author would have used such discussions as further proof that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, due to the anachronistic nature of the issues being addressed (e.g., Islam). Damned if you do; damned if you don’t, basically.
To see how silly many of these “arguments” from this “biblical scholar” are, consider:
Why wasn’t Joseph able to find out what happened to the 116 manuscript pages that Martin Harris lost? He supposedly had a seer stone, frequent meetings with an angel, and revelations from God.
On the 116 pages, click here, for instance. Don Bradly’s forthcoming book on the 116 pages (to be published by Greg Kofford) will be informative, too, I am sure.
Also, one could reverse the stupid comment in bold with the following:
How could Joshua not know that the Gibeonites were fooling him (Josh 9)? After all, he was Moses' successor and had access to divine revelation from God.
The same applies to the unnamed prophet in 1 Kgs 13. But who cares about consistency, eh?
We also encounter this “criticism”:
[There is] no polemics against polytheism, idolatry, human sacrifice, and the like?
Utter nonsense is the nicest way of putting this. Consider, for instance, Alma 34:11:
Now, there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brothers? I say unto you, Nay.
Also, Mormon 4:14:
And they did also march forward against the city Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods.
To see a response to a previous article by the same author, see this paper by Daniel McClellan (to be fair, he has admitted that he would have changed a number of things since he wrote his original [and dreadful] piece).
To the ignorant (which is the target audience of this article), this list of questions will seem impressive; to those who are informed about the issues and have studied both the Book of Mormon and the relevant literature, they will find them to be rather pathetic. To read actual scholarly discussions of the Book of Mormon, see, for instance, Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter Foundation.
Support Scriptural Mormonism
Support Scriptural Mormonism
