Mitt Romney’s Mormonism

As the campaign proceeds folks are beginning to wonder when Romney is going to give his “Yes, I’m a Mormon, but its ok” speech like John Kennedy gave a “Yes, I’m a Catholic, but its ok” speech in 1960.

However I think the situation here is a little different. The primary concern back in 1960 was that somehow Kennedy’s faith would force him to follow direction from the Vatican. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Romney is going to take orders from Salt Lake City.

I honestly believe that in this particular case we’re talking about a more fundamental issue. Can someone consider a candidate’s personal beliefs when choosing whether or not he should vote for that candidate?

Conservative author and radio host Hugh Hewitt claims that this would amount to unashamed bigotry and warns Evangelicals uncomfortable with Romney that if purely theological challenges become acceptable, then their theology could be challenged next.

I have to disagree with Hewitt. As much as I find Christian concepts such as the Virgin Birth, the Trinity and miracles absurd, I’m forced to admit that there is no empirical evidence that says they’re wrong. We can argue all day about it, but in the end it’s simply my opinion against yours.

The Mormon beliefs associated with the history of North America and the claim that a tribe of Israel colonized the continent is another matter all together. Apologists are fond of saying that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” but, as an engineer, I can tell you that’s simply not true.

The Negative Evidence Principle (NEP) guides conclusions based upon lack of evidence and consists of three points.

Point #1 – Have you diligently searched for evidence?
Point #2 – Have you found any?
Point #3 – Should you have found any?

If the answers to the three points are Yes, No and Yes, then concluding that a proposition is FALSE is quite rational. This is the logic that has been used by archaeologists to conclude that the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt, as described in the Bible, is a myth.

So let’s consider the three points. The New World Archaeological Foundation, under the auspices of Brigham Young University, was established to do the archaeology and demonstrate once and for all the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Despite initial high hopes, and significant scientific success in general, they never found one shred of evidence to back Joseph Smith’s tale. Neither has any other New World archaeological dig found any evidence that there were pre-Columbian peoples in North America that had knowledge of Old World languages, ore smelting technologies and Old World domesticated animals such as horses and cattle as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Granted that some people, usually Mormons, claim that evidence has been found but it just hasn’t been accepted by mainstream scientists. Precisely, as far as I’m concern evidence that isn’t accepted by objective evaluation is no evidence at all. It’s wishful thinking.

That brings us to Point #3, should evidence have been found? This is usually the hottest point of debate when you use the NEP. In this particular case, as expected, there is again some disagreement. The Book of Mormon asserts that in the final battle at the hill Cumorah, 250,000 Nephite soldiers fell. Such a catastrophic conflict would dwarf the greatest battles of Ancient History and require a civilization comparable in size to such archaeologically prominent civilizations as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and even Ancient Rome!

Hell, people should be literally tripping over Nephite, Jaredite and Lamanite stuff. So where is all the prominent archaeology? Where are the ruins such as can be found in the Mediterranean? Where are the metal artifacts? Where are the remains of the domesticated animals?

They ain’t nowhere that’s where because the story is pure fiction. Note That I’m saying this not out of prejudice but purely based upon my interpretation of the evidence (or rather the lack of evidence). Then there’s the DNA testing that’s been done that indicates NO relationship between any North American peoples and the Semitic peoples of the Middle East.

Mormon apologists spin this stuff like Christian apologists spin issues with Bible absurdities and contradictions. Is it possible that they’re right and either evidence has in fact been found, even though it’s not accepted, or tomorrow someone might discover a Nephite city in the jungles of Guatemala? Of course it’s possible. It’s also possible that tomorrow someone might discover a Jurassic bunny rabbit. But is it probably? I think the answer to that question has to be a resounding no.

So, what to do about a man who believes something is true in the face of seemingly, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence that it is false? Do I want such a man as president of the United States? Do I simply shrug and say, well, it’s only my opinion that the evidence demonstrates the Book of Mormon is fiction, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion? I have to answer both those questions absolutely not. If I can’t make decisions based upon my rational interpretation of the facts, what do I make them based upon?

Before I would consider Romney an acceptable candidate someone would have to convince me that the evidence against the Book of Mormon is not as overwhelming as I think it is.