Analysis of the Historiography of Joseph Smith and Mormonism
Throughout the history of America, perhaps the most controversial religion followed by its people has been Mormonism. Mormonism, founded by its prophet Joseph Smith Jr., has been at the epicenter of a barrage of mockery from both the media and many central figures in the culture of our nation. This constant ridicule has been attributed to many accounts. Some of these include the alleged assault by the media on presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith along with the famous South Park episode that depicts Joseph Smith as a crackpot. Despite this frenzy, Mormonism has exploded in terms of adherents. As of April 2012, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the primary denominational church of Mormonism, reported a whopping 14,444,346 members across 176 countries in the world. Those that consider themselves to be intellectuals must wonder why such a consistently targeted religion would appeal to so many people. Perhaps by examining and evaluating the historiography of Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. and Mormonism as a whole, this question can be answered to a satisfactory extent.
When looking at the writings of Mormon history, a mammoth problem sticks out like a sore thumb. The vast field of historians that have studied Mormonism and the life of Prophet Joseph Smith predominantly identify themselves as Mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This unfortunate finding is particularly troubling primarily because if the objective history of Mormonism itself is battered by historical claims that insult the historians that study them, the historians would be incentivized to cover up the truth about their faith and pass their studies along as impartial.
Despite nearly unanimous consent of those in the Mormon history community to deem the historical reports of Mormonism to be 100% valid without question, outspoken atheist and former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Dan Vogel has taken aim at the subject. In his 1998 peer-reviewed article “The Prophet Puzzle” Revisited in the Journal Dialogue: a Journal for Mormon Thought, Vogel slams Mormon historian Jan Shipps for her complete disregard for accurate historical reporting. In this piece, Vogel stated the following:
“My intent is not to rehash evidence on both sides of the prophet/fraud issue, but to suggest a possible solution to Shipps’s “prophet puzzle.” Unraveling the complexities of Smith’s character and motives is difficult, but before the puzzle can be solved, all the pieces, or at least the most significant ones, must be gathered and correctly interpreted.
Some of these, in my opinion, have been overlooked, ignored, or mishandled — pieces which I believe reveal previously hidden features of Smith’s complex, conflicted, and gifted personality. Throughout, however, one would do well to bear in mind Marvin S. Hill’s warning that those who attempt such endeavors “must write with courage, for no matter what they say many will disagree strongly.””
Right off the bat, Mr. Vogel gets his hands dirty by claiming it is necessary to look empirically at information if true interpretations of the history of Joseph Smith Jr. and Mormonism are to be revealed. It seems that Vogel has taken a rather formal and impartial stance on the subject. It should be respected that even though his reputation among Mormon scholars could be tarnished, he prioritizes the absolute truth over his potential personal loss.
Following his calm introduction, Vogel contrasts two very different ideas among historians. One idea, being that Joseph Smith Jr. was a perfect and flawless man was compromised with the second idea. The second idea is a polar opposite, explaining that Joseph Smith was a complete buffoon that only wrote the Book of Mormon because he was a scoundrel with fraudulent intentions. Vogel’s stance is comparatively realistic:
“Smith may have engaged in fraudulent activities while at the same time believing that he had been called of God to preach repentance in the most effective way possible. In fact, this was the thesis of Lutheran minister Robert N. Hullinger’s 1980 book, Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon.3 Responding to Shipps’s complaint that the Book of Mormon “has by and large been neglected as a source which might facilitate a better understanding of Joseph Smith’s early career,”4 Hullinger attempted to discover Smith’s motives for writing the book by examining the book’s rhetoric, and concluded: “Joseph Smith … regarded himself as [a] defender of God.”5 “Even if one believes that Joseph Smith was at best a scoundrel,” he observed, “one still must account for the Book of Mormon.”6 Indeed, the book’s religious appeal — its defense of God, Jesus Christ, and spiritual gifts, and its call to repentance — argues strongly against presuming that Smith’s motives were malicious or completely self-serving.”
Throughout this article, Vogel is constantly trying to make the point that although most Mormon historians are somewhat honest when it comes to Joseph Smith’s personal religious views, they lack complete accountability of Smith’s troubled, criminalist past. Vogel goes ahead and does what most historians of this subject refuse to do. He finds a happy medium that is the truth about Joseph Smith. Smith didn’t use religion in order to be scandalous as his faith was almost certainly genuine. However, in other times of his life he had legal trouble and was considered both scandalous and fraudulent by some people.
Those familiar with Mormonism and the beliefs that complement it should be familiar with the story of the anciently engraved plates. For those who are unfamiliar, the original texts from the Book of Mormon were translations by Smith from golden plates that he allegedly found during one of his many treasure hunts. This story is a key tenet of Mormonism, and it too has not escaped ridicule. Vogel deviates from his usual calm self and really hits Mormon fundamentalism right in the groin. Here is what he has to say on this subject:
“…there are three possible interpretations, none of which fits comfortably with traditionalist views of Smith and his subsequent work as a translator: (1) Smith saw a treasure chest in his stone that was not really there; in other words, his visions and revelations were the product of his imagination; (2) Smith saw nothing in his stone but only pretended that he did; and (3) Smith saw a real treasure chest in his stone which, no matter the explanation, was never recovered. Thus, to be consistent, apologists must either accept the treasure-seeking lore of Smith’s day as reality — including belief in seer stones, mineral rods, guardian spirits, bleeding ghosts, enchanted treasures that slip through the earth, and the like — as D. Michael Quinn has done,16 and thereby reject rationalist categories of historical investigation, or come face-to-face with a Joseph Smith who either consciously or unconsciously deceived.”
This reporting is what truly shows us that Vogel is without a doubt on a search for the truth. He isn’t using the same tactic over and over again to resonate with other historians. When he can, he makes compromises to discover the truth. When he needs to, he makes ultimatums such as this to point out the incompetence of the typical Mormon historian. It is entirely unlikely that a single Mormon academic has replied to Vogel regarding this list of interpretations. As Vogel presses on, we see more and more of the truth about Mormonism and Joseph Smith begin to unfold.
In a small tidbit at the end of the sixth page of his article, Vogel directly addresses how Mormon historians distort truth and therefore do not demonstrate valid historiography. Most Mormon historians interpret some events that they don’t like to accept as things that should either be of a lesser deal or ignored completely. Vogel tries to persuade them into accepting the truth by stating, “If Mormon historians remain unpersuaded by the preceding analysis, as I suspect they will, they will at least better understand the dilemma of which Shipps speaks.”
Vogel concludes his article by stating what should be accepted as the truth when it comes to Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Here is his final appeal:
“I suggest that Smith really believed he was called of God to preach repentance to a sinful world but that he felt justified in using deception to accomplish his mission more fully. Like the faith healer who uses confederates to create a faith-promoting atmosphere in which true miracles can occur, Smith assumed the role of prophet, produced the Book of Mormon, and issued revelations to create a setting in which true conversion experiences could take place. It is the true healings and conversions that not only justify deception but convince the pious frauds that they are perhaps after all real healers or real prophets.”
Dan Vogel has offered a spark of life in the endless debate about Joseph Smith and Mormonism. That isn’t to say that the traditional Mormon historians haven’t had their own retaliations against their counterparts. As we dissect the historiography of Mormonism and Joseph Smith, we must look at all sides of the issues before us.
On October 29, 1993, a Mormon historian by the name of Elder Dallin H. Oaks presented a letter at the annual dinner of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. This paper, entitled “Worthy of Another Look: The Historicity of the Book of Mormon”, was then included in the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture: Volume — 21, Issue — 1 where it was peer-reviewed.
This paper by Oaks starts off with a short letter from the editor of the journal. It reads:
“The issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon highlights the difference between those who rely solely on scholarship and those who rely on scholarship as a complement to revelation and faith. Those who rely on that faithful combination can see and understand the complex issues of the Book of Mormon record and answer the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, those who rely solely on scholarship and reject revelation can only focus on a limited number of issues, neither proving nor disproving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon with secular evidence and methods.”
Before even reading the actual paper, we can predict with nearly 100% certainty that it will contain a nearly endless amount of biased reporting. For some reason, the editor of the journal sincerely believes that you need to transcend empirical measures to determine the true historicity of the Book of Mormon. This insane attitude will likely be in arms with terrible historiography, as it is unlikely that the Mormon historians will interpret historical events in Mormonism dishonestly and without the science of empirics. This should offend any student or teacher of history, because the truth of the matter is that the actual happenings in the past are what dictate what happens in the future. The inability to accurately interpret events influences everybody.
Right after the editor finishes his anti-true history rant, the author embarks on his own:
“The historicity — historical authenticity — of the Book of Mormon is an issue so fundamental that it rests first upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the first principle in this, as in all other matters. However, on the subject of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, there are many subsidiary issues that could each be the subject of a book. It is not my purpose to comment on any of these lesser issues, either those that are said to confirm the Book of Mormon or those that are said to disprove it.”
Why would the historical authenticity of a holy book rest upon the faith of a God? How exactly is a scientist or historian supposed to measure faith? Faith is neither quantitative nor qualitative. Given that there is no direct way to measure faith, how could one possibly attribute any of it to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Prepare for the author to launch into a tirade that uses the “faith card” whenever trying to answer a truly legitimate question regarding the historicity of the Mormon holy book.
As Oaks progresses through his finely-written essay, it becomes more than apparent that he is ready to ignore any evidence or rationality those who disagree with him may have. Oaks again, plays the “faith card” and expects those who are well educated in history to believe him:
“In these remarks I will seek to use rational argument, but I will not rely on any proofs. I will approach the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of faith and revelation. I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation. Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi’s prophecy that in the last days men “shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” (2 Nephi 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography, horses, angelic delivery, or nineteenth-century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues — the content as well as the vocabulary, the revelation as well as the excavation.”
This wording can be quite confusing. Allow me to elaborate the author’s points. He first indirectly admits defeat on the subject when he says he won’t rely on proofs for his argumentation. If a historian isn’t using proof beyond a reasonable doubt to report historical events, we see the same abuse of the practice historiography. Plainly citing revelation or faith as a justification for telling a historical event the way you want it to be told won’t change the truth of that particular happening. For elaborative purposes, assume hypothetically that one would possess faith in the idea that a small, dwarfish man named Seymour ruled the universe alongside Mickey Mouse. The door, unfortunately for the Mormon fundamentalists, swings both ways when it comes to faith. Faith is not something that should be taken seriously by any historian when reporting events. The fact that Oaks actually considers this approach to be rational should disturb anybody that belongs to any possible realm of the academic world.
Oaks continues to make an astonishing appeal to the reader of his article:
“Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You do not prove a negative by prevailing on one debater’s point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments.”
Oaks outlines his intent to screw with his opposition in broad daylight with the preceding quote. First, he makes a ridiculous claim that he can understand reality better because he is employed as an advocate. This is completely unwarranted. Also, Oaks requires his opposition to prove a negative when they claim the Book of Mormon is not an accurate depiction of events. Proving a negative is impossible by any logical standard.
If one was to ask Oaks to prove that Muhammad of Islamic faith didn’t communicate with the angel Gabriel, he would be unable to produce a single independent piece of evidence that supported his default position-Muhammad was not a prophet of God. The knife cuts both ways for this argument as well. Although he believes it to be so, Oaks does not stand on the higher ground in the debate between the average Mormon historian and the truly skeptical historian because of faith or his “prove a negative” argument.
Oaks begins to address his opponents directly: “Some Latter-day Saint critics who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon seek to make their proposed approach persuasive to Latter-day Saints by praising or affirming the value of some of the content of the book. Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. I have never been able to understand the similar approach in reference to the divinity of the Savior. As we know, some scholars and some ministers proclaim him to be a great teacher and then have to explain how the one who gave such sublime teachings could proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead. Proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead.”
This all-or-nothing argument used by Oaks is completely nonsensical and has no relevance in real world discourse. Oaks claims that if one is to acknowledge Christ’s good deeds and the miracles he performed; they must also acknowledge that he is the Son of God.
Personally, I’m not quite so sure that Oaks knows that Jesus condones slavery in addition to Christ being a self-described violent individual. However, the argument fails anyway because not all good things are completely good and not all bad things are completely bad. For example, cars are great for transportation but they also kill the environment. Also, Ted Bundy decapitated at least twelve people and kept their heads as mementos. Bundy was actively involved in local and state politics which resulted in him becoming the assistant to the Chairman of the Republican Party of Washington State. He was a noble statesman in addition to being a murderous psychopath.
You can also see Oaks fail miserably at making the same argument here:
“The new-style critics have the same problem with the Book of Mormon. For example, we might affirm the value of the teachings recorded in the name of a man named Moroni, but if these teachings have value, how do we explain these statements also attributed to this man? “And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire” (Mormon 8:17). “And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?” (Moroni 10:27).”
The more one reads this peer-reviewed article, the more the theme of the paper reveals itself. The theme the author implements in this article is the attempt to allow the reader to hear what the reader wants to hear. The average person who reads an article about Mormonism and the faith behind it is likely to be a Mormon. Oaks was directing this literature at people of his own faith in order to reinforce their views and denounce those who oppose them. It is of genuine doubt that Oaks wrote this strictly for the viewing please of the skeptical historians that disagree with him on such a wide variety of issues.
Oaks continues:
“Scholarship and physical proofs are worldly values. I understand their value, and I have had some experience in using them. Such techniques speak to many after the manner of their understanding. But there are other methods and values too, and we must not be so committed to scholarship that we close our eyes and ears and hearts to what cannot be demonstrated by scholarship or defended according to physical proofs and intellectual reasoning.”
Yet again, Oaks is wrong. Physical proofs are not worldly values. Physical proofs are in fact validations of real-world physical activity and true happenings. Oaks also insists on purely unscientific reasoning when discussing “opening our hearts”. Although this is a figurative statement, it goes to show how uneducated Oaks really is. Historiography is the interpretation of events, and when Oaks uses faulty logic and evidence to back up his extraordinary claims, it is just plain bad historiography.
Oaks goes on:
“Human reasoning cannot place limits on God or dilute the force of divine commandments or revelations. Persons who allow this to happen identify themselves with the unbelieving Nephites who rejected the testimony of the prophet Samuel. The Book of Mormon says, “They began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying: That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come” (Helaman 16:17–18).
Persons who practice that kind of “reasoning” deny themselves the choice experience someone has described as our heart telling us things that our mind does not know.7
Sadly, some Latter-day Saints ridicule others for their reliance on revelation. Such ridicule tends to come from those whose scholarly credentials are high and whose spiritual credentials are low.”
Equating anyone with Biblical beings definitely does not make for a convincing argument as human beings are proven to be real and Biblical beings are not. By this point in the article, it appears that Oaks has finally run out of emotional appeals and other unworthy arguments. He has begun to repeat them.
Finally, Oaks concludes:
“To put the matter briefly, a scholarly expert is a specialist in a particular discipline. By definition, he knows everything or almost everything about a very narrow field of human experience. To think that he can tell us something about other scholarly disciplines, let alone about God’s purposes and the eternal scheme of things, is naïve at best. Good scholars understand the limitations of their own fields, and their conclusions are carefully limited to the areas of their expertise. In connection with this, I remember the reported observation of an old lawyer. As they traveled through a pastoral setting with cows grazing on green meadows, an acquaintance said, “Look at those spotted cows.” The cautious lawyer observed carefully and conceded, “Yes, those cows are spotted, at least on this side.” I wish that all of the critics of the Book of Mormon, including those who feel compelled to question its historicity, were even half that cautious about their “scholarly” conclusions.”
This article is rather depressing and underwhelming as a manifesto for the typical Mormon historians to look upon. To begin, Oaks relies on the assumption that God has an eternal scheme of things. This is probably not true. Furthermore, it is seen that Oaks fails to recognize that empirics serve as much better evidence than faith and revelation because they are quantitative and/or qualitative. The worst thing about Oaks’s analysis is that he doesn’t really provide any historical citations our sources for review. He does however offer some shoddy verses from the Book of Mormon. Perhaps as this investigation into the historiography of Joseph Smith Jr. and the Mormonism continues, we will begin to find a stronger defense of the average Mormon historian position.
The last peer-viewed article that will be analyzed in this paper is entitled, Two Perspectives on the Life and Times of Joseph Smith. It was written by Richard Lyman Bushman and Jed Woodworth. It was published in Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought in Vol. 39, Number 4 for the Winter of 2006. This article was peer reviewed by Newell G. Bringhurst, Professor of History and Government, College of the Sequoias, Visalia, California.
The single greatest thing about this particular article is the fact that it presents two historians. One of them is a Mormon (Bushman). One of them is ex-Mormon (Marquardt). This exemplary format allows for a considerate outsider to find common ground in this debate, much like the skeptic Dan Vogel that was referenced a multitude of times previously in this paper.
The article begins:
“Both Bushman and Marquardt note how their differing perceptions of Mormonism’s truth claims influenced their respective presentations. Bushman acknowledges his personal quandary as a “believing historian” — a life-long, practicing Latter-day Saint — in dealing with the myriad controversies involving Joseph Smith. His religious orientation, notwithstanding, Bushman, in his own words, attempts “to look frankly at all sides of Joseph Smith, not ducking any of the problems” (xix). Marquardt outlines his own religious odyssey. He converted to Mormonism in 1961 after being “introduced to the story of Joseph Smith’s visionary experiences.” Following baptism he commenced his study into Mormon origins. Such research, however, caused doubt and ultimately disbelief. As Marquardt frankly states, “Fifteen years later, I resigned my [LDS Church] membership” (v). Marquardt’s work is scholarly and based on careful research into a variety of primary sources. He sought to evaluate “the various conflicts that involved the Mormons” — this giving him “a better understanding of the social, economic, and political happenings at the time discussed in the book.”
Historiography could not possibly be better analyzed when two opposing historians with the same goal are brought together. Both Bushman and Marquardt are seeking the truth about Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. As stated in the article, both of these scholars provide valuable insight into the life of Mormonism’s prophet and founder.
Bushman breaks down his insight on Joseph Smith and his religiosity:
“Bushman’s biography breaks new ground in a number of areas. Particularly valuable is his careful consideration of the Mormon leader’s “religious thought.” While conceding that it is not easily encapsulated or analyzed,” Bushman states: “His teachings came primarily through his revelations, which like other forms of scripture, are epigrammatic and oracular.” Smith “never presented his ideas systematically in clear, logical order; they came in flashes and bursts,” while “his most powerful thoughts” take the form of “assertions delivered as if from heaven.”
Any legitimate historian should love what was said here. Even for a Mormon historian, it’s good citing that the historical evidence about Joseph Smith’s teachings is rather unfit for serious consideration.
Bushman continues about Smith:
“Bushman confronts the 1820 First Vision, providing his own explanation for Smith’s three seemingly conflicting accounts of this foundational event. In the first (1832) account, the vision came as a result of Joseph’s devout prayer for the forgiveness of his sins, resulting in “a personal conversion” — one in which Smith “saw the Lord in the light and heard his words of forgiveness” (39). But at the same time, it represents an “abbreviated form” of Smith’s total religious experience. As “Joseph became more confident, more details came out” (40). In the 1835 and 1838 accounts, Smith recalls seeing two distinct divine anthropomorphic personages — the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. There was also a shift of emphasis in God’s message from one of “personal forgiveness” to concern over the “apostasy of the [existing] churches.”
Bushman asserts:
“Joseph’s own salvation gives way to the opening of a new era of history. The promise of forgiveness through faith in Christ was dropped from the narrative, and the apostasy of Christian churches stood as the central message of the vision.””
Finally, we see a Mormon historian that is sounds when it comes to a historiographical aspect. Instead of using faith as evidence, Bushman cites a change in narrative among protestant Christians that caused Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. to completely open up a new era of history. This is the kind of evidence that is methodically sound, especially in the realm of historiography.
Here we see that Marquardt finds some common ground with Bushman:
“Michael Marquardt’s The Rise of Mormonism: 1816–1844, although not a biography, covers much of the same ground as Bushman. Marquardt’s narrative begins with the Smith family’s move to New York in 1816 when Joseph Jr. was eleven. Although Marquardt approaches Smith from a naturalistic perspective, he acknowledges the importance of religious influences on young Joseph — specifically the religious revivals of 1816–17 and 1824–25 — as well as the beliefs of various family members. “Joseph, Jr.’s parents taught religious values to their children.” In the words of Marquardt “Joseph’s religious instruction included hearing sermons, revival homilies, private family worship, and personal Bible studies. Joseph was not uninformed, ignorant, or illiterate””
There is an unlikely agreement between two historians here, which is absolutely a great thing. The religious life of a young Joseph Smith is actually rather unanimously agreed upon among historians of all backgrounds. It is at this point in the article that the theme has revealed itself. This paper’s theme pretty much holds that while there will be small agreements, Mormon historians will likely never agree with their ex-Mormon friends. This is shown here when the
Joseph Smith topic is put to rest and Marquardt breaks down the Book of Mormon:
“Marquardt also differs from Bushman in analyzing the Book of Mormon. Discussing the angelic 1823 visitation informing Joseph of the gold plates, Marquardt asserts that the divine personage who appeared to Smith was “named Nephi in his longest 1838 account” and became Moroni only in his later published accounts of this event (494). In his analysis of the Book of Mormon itself, Marquardt points out numerous “anachronisms [that] mark [it] as a work produced after Jesus was resurrected and the Christian church established” (173). He also notes at length the book’s “literary dependence on nineteenth century events” (191–201). Furthermore, from Marquardt’s perspective, the work also reflects certain crucial autobiographical events, even anticipating the testimony of the Three Witnesses (202–8). “The Book of Mormon evidences a nineteenth-century origin,” writes Marquardt, “and can be identified as an example of early American religious fiction” (209). But Marquardt concedes that its central “message . . . was for others to believe in Jesus.”
After evaluating three peer-reviewed articles regarding Mormonism and its prophet, Joseph Smith, it can be determined that there are heavily contrasting ideas regarding the events that have to do with them. Some Mormon historians are naïve and refuse to report truth and some are willing to find common ground with even the most diehard skeptics.
The question implied at the very beginning of this paper can now be answered.
Mormonism maintains both a large group of followers and a large group of those who ridicule it. This polarization is because of the historiography. There is such disagreement from the people who evaluate sources about the events that the larger population can’t come to a consensus about the events of Mormonism’s history and Joseph Smith. Hopefully, in the near future, historians can become honest and really come to agreement on the origins of such a complex religion.
Sources:
Bushman, Richard Lyman, and Jed Woodworth. “Two Perspectives on the Life and Times of Joseph Smith.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Winter 39.4 (2006): 241–52. Dialogue Journal. Dialogue Foundation. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
<https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V39N04_2 52.pdf>.
Oaks, Elder Dallin H. “Worthy of Another Look: The Historicity of the Book of Mormon.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21.1 (2012): 66–72. Print.
Vogel, Dan. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Fall 31.3 (1998): 1–16. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
<https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N03_1 39.pdf>.
