It has been suggested that I send you a copy of a spoof I wrote in March 1996 and sent to Tom Key, after he had sent me a copy of the 14th edition of his A Biologist Looks at the Book of Mormon.  Because my BA is in anthropology, I used the term "anthropologist" in the title instead of "biologist."  Neither term is relevant to either Key's work (most of which does not deal with biological issues) or mine.  Tom and I get on quite well and he enjoyed the laugh.  He wrote brief responses to each item on the following list, and guess what.  Many of those responses were very much like the kinds of responses "Mormons" give to criticisms of the Book of Mormon.  For some reason, it never occurred to him that responses he considered valid for the Bible could also be valid for the Book of Mormon (e.g., miraculous events).  As you read through the spoof, you will consider many, if not all, of the criticisms to be ridiculous, because of your faith in the Bible.  Those are the same feelings we have when reading the kinds of criticisms found in Tom Key's booklet.  Neither list of criticisms is to be taken seriously.

[Note: The spoof referred to can be found by clicking on the title below:]

An Anthropologist Looks at the Bible
by B. Ware Kee

What an exquisite piece of satire!  Your point is well taken. Dr. Key, whom I have never met, does get carried away quite often in his analyses.  However, he does make a point or two along the way that begs for further contemplation.

The lack of concrete archaeological evidence for certain Book of Mormon animals within Book of Mormon lands during the chronological period demanded by the text comes to mind.

I have recently read Stan Larson's Quest For The Gold Plates, which I found to be most interesting.  As an archaeologist, I would be most interested in your opinion of his work --- and that of Tom Ferguson as well.

Sincerely,
Dennis A. Wright

At 08:59 PM 5/5/98 -0500, you wrote:

>What an exquisite piece of satire!  Your point is well taken. Dr. Key,
> whom I have never met, does get carried away quite often in his
> analyses.  However, he does make a point or two along the way that
> begs for further contemplation.

Well, I have met Tom and really like him as an individual, while disagreeing with his approach.  We have had some good conversations, and I am gratified to see my prayers answered in regard to his health.  He was expected to be dead by now.

I found no really valid points in the booklet, only statements made out of ignorance of the facts.  One that comes to mind immediately is his contention that bees were unknown in the New World until after its discovery by Columbus.  Even if this were true, it would be non sequitur, since the Book of Mormon speaks of the Jaredites carrying bees during their wilderness travels, but never indicates that they brought them on board the barges across the ocean.  But the fact is that there were bees and that the Aztecs were proficient at beekeeping.  When Matt Roper presented this evidence to Key, he replied by saying that there were no bees in New York State at the time, despite the fact that there is a general consensus among LDS scholars that Book of Mormon peoples lived in Mesoamerica.  So he declined to change the argument and instead changed the venue, ignoring the fact that the Book of Mormon itself makes no claim for bees in the New World--something that in itself invalidates the argument, regardless of whether the Aztecs or anyone else kept bees.

>The lack of concrete archaeological evidence for certain Book of
> Mormon animals within Book of Mormon lands during the
> chronological period demanded by the text comes to mind.

Reminds me of the lack of archaeological evidence for the Bible until fairly recent times.  Are you aware, for example, that there had been no archaeological excavations in the Holy Land until 1864?  That only since the 1930s have any biblical sites in the Holy Land been identified by in-situ inscriptions, and that only seven of them can so be identified, the last such inscription being discovered as late as the summer of 1996.  People did not come to believe in the Bible because of archaeological evidence; they first believed in the Bible, for many centuries before there was any such evidence.  Only this year have archaeologists finally begun to suggest that there really was a Nazareth, and even then the evidence is slim.  Did any of us wait until 1998 to begin believing in the New Testament story of Jesus?

As it turns out, there are several plausible suggestions for Book of Mormon sites in Guatemala and southern Mexico.  You may object to the fact that there is no proof for these sites, but let's note again that, in the Holy Land, only 55 sites have been identified with any degree of certainty, mostly in the last century.  A vast amount of archaeological exploration has been carried on in Israel during that time, while very little has been done in Mesoamerica.  One Mesoamericanist told me that less than 1% of all the Preclassic Mesoamerican sites (the time period of the Book of Mormon) had even been touched by archaeologists.  By the time Mesoamerica has seen as much of the archaeologist's spade as Israel did by the mid-1930s, I expect we'll have a lot more to go on.  I should note that, just during the time I lived in Israel, the presumed location of at least three prominent cities of the Bible changed several times.  One of these was Debir, whose identification is still in dispute.  Another, Ekron, has been identified with five different sites over the years, until 1996, when the name was found on an inscription at the latest guess, Tell Miqneh.  Archaeology isn't what amateurs think it is.

I suppose you'd like to see evidence of horses in the New World in Book of Mormon times--one of the major criticisms often leveled against it.  A fair number of horse bones have been found in precolumbian archaeological contexts, but only two, as far as I know, have been radiocarbon dated, and both are from centuries before the arrival of Columbus.  The earliest, from ca. 100 B.C., was found near Jacksonville, FL. Neither of these, however, is from Mesoamerica.  Some Mesoamerican horse bones found in association with precolumbian remains will soon be tested at a facility in Arizona, and we'll have to see what results.

But let's look again at the Bible.  David and Samson killed lions in the Holy Land, and a prophet mentioned in 1 KIngs was killed by a lion.  Jeremiah mentions lions and lions are attested in the Jordan River Valley as late as the 16th century A.D.  But until 1983, not one single lion skeleton had ever been found in Israel.  Did people throw away their Bibles in disgust because of this lack of evidence?  So why should we throw away the Book of Mormon because one or more of the animals named therein has not been found?  And why should we expect better preservation in the acidic soil and humid climate of Mesoamerica than in the dry land of Israel?  Two lion skeletons were ultimately found in Israel in 1983.  A lion-like feline has been spotted several times since the 1960s in Mexico and two specimens have actually been killed by ranchers and put on display.  Presumably, there are others.  Are you aware that, in the past three decades, dozens of large animals previously unknown have been discovered in various parts of the world, including the world's largest bovine, living in the forests of Vietnam?  There's an entire book that has been written on this subject.  So don't give up on the Book of Mormon so quickly.

>I have recently read Stan Larson's Quest For The Gold Plates,
> which I found to be most interesting.  As an archaeologist, I would
> be most interested in your opinion of his work --- and that of Tom
> Ferguson as well.

I long ago lost interest in Ferguson's work.  He was a well-intentioned amateur and most of what he wrote has little bearing on the Book of Mormon, even when he was trying to provide evidence for it.  Larson, on the other hand, is a much more serious scholar, and I have enjoyed some of his work.  His gold plates book has two major flaws.  The first is that he uses Ferguson as a vehicle to express his own doubts about the Book of Mormon.  Most of the arguments are Larson's, not Ferguson's, and it seems to me that the subtitle of the book deceptively suggests that Ferguson had all the concerns mentioned.  The second flaw is that Larson lists what he considers to be problem areas and totally ignores all the research that wipes away some of these problems.  When the book came out, he sent me a letter noting that he had referred to me in a footnote and suggested that I would want to purchase the book because my name appears in it.  But the footnote is a nondescript and insignificant item.  He didn't refer to any of my substantive research on the Book of Mormon.  He did the same with a number of other people.  I see nothing wrong with books that give preference to one side of the story, but it seems to me that once an argument has been adequately refuted, even if one continues to accept the argument, it behooves the author to acknowledge the opposing view and, if possible, respond thereto, rather than suggest that his is the final word.  This is Stan's greatest failing.  The situation is identical to the Alma fiasco at UMI, where not only did no one have the courage to acknowledge that the argument was invalid, but they continued to repeat it without even noting the refutation and trying to respond thereto.

Well, I've rambled on much too long, but I hope I have given you insights into my appraisal of these matters.