Cult News

A Mormon scholar says the Book of Mormon, which is supposedly historical, is actually only “inspirational fiction,” reports Christianity Today.

Thomas W. Murphy is a Mormon, but also the chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, Washington. Murphy wrote within a published paper “DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans.”

This college professor like other Mormon scholars before him, who have questioned the historicity of their faith’s scriptures, is now subject to excommunication and expulsion for his views. This has frequently been the fate of Mormon academics that in some way question the church’s teachings.

Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon from ancient “golden plates,” which conveniently later disappeared. Smith claimed these plates were the historical record of an ancient people that once thrived in America. However, no archaeological or historical evidence has ever proven this.

Nor does science substantiate Smith’s claim that ancient Hebrews migrated to North America. Murphy wrote, “To date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.”

So what do you do if you are a faithful Mormon?

Denial seems to be the preferred response.

Mormon leaders continue to spin apologetics to explain their lack of historical proof. Though increasingly it seems like they are running on empty.

In a prepared response to Murphy a professor at Brigham Young University stated, “We didn’t think the arguments were good enough to respond to,” reports BYU News. He then spun apologies rather than respond to the substance of Murphy’s points.

Needless to say that most faithful Mormons seem willing to accept whatever their leaders say. One BYU student who sat through the presentation commented, “I thought it was very effective.”

Here is the rub.

If Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, which appears to be the case, where does this leave the religion he created that now includes millions of adherents?

This would mean Smith was not a “prophet,” but rather a clever con man. And Mormonism’s claim that it is “the restored Word of God,” based upon Smith’s revelation, then collapses.

Certainly Mormons have the right to believe whatever they want, but history is based upon proven objective facts, not subjective beliefs.

When Mormonism entered the realm of purported history it became subject to the type of scrutiny not typically applied to spiritual claims.