In the closing comment of his review, Roper observes that, “Whether one accepts the

Spalding explanation or some other theory, one still has to explain not only if, but how

Joseph Smith or any other candidate could write such a book, a point upon which critics

have never agreed and probably never will agree.” In reply, let us first say that we have

offered a historically viable explanation for how The Book of Mormon came to be

written—every bit as historically viable as that offered by the LDS. As to whether

“critics have never agreed and probably never will agree,” surely Mr. Roper can

appreciate that when he makes such a statement, he is at the same time tacitly admitting

that the LDS’ official response to the Spalding enigma is neither inspiring nor

particularly convincing.

Consider the thoughts of Edward H. Ashment:

“...Unfortunately there is no direct evidence to support the historical

claims of the Book of Mormon—nothing archaeological, nothing

philological. As a result, those for whom Truth is the product of spiritual

witness, not empirical inquiry, resort to developing analogies and

parallels to defend the book’s historical claims. That is the apologetic

historical methodology.... When challenged, some Mormon apologists do

not deal with the evidence adduced. Rather they dismiss it out-of-hand

and denounce with ad hominems anyone who arrives at a conclusion

unacceptable to them, accusing them of already having made up their

minds according to a faith-position; of arriving at false and

misperceived conclusions; of being enemies; of being anti-Mormons.”

(“A Record in the Language of My Father: Evidence of Ancient

Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon,” in Brent Metcalfe, ed.,

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ch.IX: 373-374, and n.54).

It is truly unfortunate that one so erudite as Mr. Roper has allowed himself to fall in with

such company.

Perhaps Mr. Roper reveals more of himself than he intends, when he writes, “The Book

of Mormon will always be an enigma for the unbeliever. The Latter-day Saint, of course,

already has an explanation that nicely circumvents that puzzle.” In two short sentences,

he admits, first, that The Book of Mormon is a “puzzle,” and second, that the only way to

solve the puzzle is to be a “believer.” As non-Mormons, and hence, in Mr. Roper’s eyes,

as non-believers, we respectfully beg to differ. In our opinion, the enigma surrounding

the origin of The Book of Mormon has been largely exposed, the solution to the puzzle is

clearer than it ever was, and it is only the believers, in their constant efforts to circumvent

the puzzle, who cannot see which way the preponderance of evidence is pointing. We

have nothing to defend, Mr. Roper. ALL of our evidence is on the table. More will no

doubt be uncovered as time passes.

It is our belief that an authorship theory of this type will prove predictive—in other

words, that the accumulated evidence gathered thus far in its support will help us predict

the content of future finds of hitherto unknown evidence. As additional historical

testimony, documents, public records, and circumstantial connections are uncovered, we

believe that most of the “new” information will dovetail with what we have already

compiled. We are thus willing to challenge Dr. Peterson, Mr. Roper, and the people at

FARMS to a prediction: We predict that more future evidence will be uncovered, and

published, in support of the Spalding-Rigdon explanation (such as a certain 1829 letter

from Oliver Cowdery, perhaps), than will be uncovered for a Nephite civilization in

ancient America, or examples of Reformed Egyptian on golden (or any other) plates, or

seer’s stones set in silver bows and attached to ancient breastplates. If The Book of

Mormon’s city of Zarahemla is excavated before the pages of Manuscript Found turn-up,

then of course we will be proven wrong. It is a challenge we are willing to revisit in ten

or twenty years, in order to see which theory in the enigma has gained the most ground. Meanwhile,

we have advanced our hypothesis—we have provided a viable alternative

explanation for the origin of The Book of Mormon, an explanation supported by a

considerable volume of historical evidence. Mr. Roper, and his esteemed editor, Dr.

Peterson, on the other hand, bring nothing new to the table, but only seek to defend that

which cannot be defended except on a belief-through-faith level. We readily admit they

could be right. They refuse to acknowledge they could be wrong. For those who have

patience, we are confident the truth will eventually prevail.