Does Celeb Mormon Archaelogist Rich Hansen Believe the Book of Mormon?

[Guest]

I was contacted recently by someone who felt that a somewhat old MD&D post was worth a closer look:

Rich Hansen,

The scriptures are a spiritual guide in our lives. We don't need to know where the Book of Mormon events happened to get from it valuable lessons for our lives. However, I am very curious about your opinion, and I hope you have the time to answer some of my questions. Do you believe Mesoamerica is the best candidate for the Book of Mormon geography? Why? How do you feel about Sorenson's work? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is literally true? Why? What is the best Book of Mormon evidence? Perhaps you don't have an answer to some of my questions, and it would make sense because you have said very little about the Book of Mormon in your career as a professional archaeologist. I would really appreciate a response because it would help many of us.

Thanks,

P.L.

P.L.

I am currently doing research at sites in Guatemala as part of my affiliation with Disney and am pressed for time, but thought I would make a quick response.

Like Stephen Hawking, who famously said that he doesn't answer God questions, I don't answer Book of Mormon questions. (I wish I could say that the way Hawking does.) I am sorry I can't give you a better response than that.

I will say, however, that as a consultant to the Indiana Jones movie series, an upcoming movie may include some references to Book of Mormon places or artifacts. The average viewer may not be able to understand the references, but most Mormons should pick right up on them.

I hope that helps.


Rich Hansen

Huh. Actually, this *is* rather interesting. For those who don't know, Hansen is an archaeologist who gained notoriety after serving as a consultant on Mel Gibson's 2006 film, Apocalytpo. And now, it would seem, he is consulting on a possible Indiana Jones movie sequel. Quite interesting! This is one of these cases where a Mormon is in a position to represent the LDS Church in a more secular venue, and, as he himself points out, he may have enough influence to make it so that "Book of Mormon place or artifacts" will actually show up in the film. Can you imagine? Will Indy himself actually go to some place called "Zarahemla"? Will he lop off a Nazi's head with a machuatuitl?

Of course, the other interesting element of this is Hansen's refusal to answer faith-based questions. What do you suppose his reasons are for not answering? Does he not actually believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Does he fear that declarations of faith might alienate the folks at Lucasfilm and Disney? Regardless, you have to admit that it seems interesting that the fictional world of the Indiana Jones series would mesh so well with material from the Book of Mormon. And I cannot help but be reminded here of Grant Hardy's epic denial of the importance the Book of Mormon's authenticity in front of the entire FAIR Conference audience a couple of years ago. Just recently, (Stem, I believe) linked to a posting on Sic et Non wherein the proprietor of the blog was insisting that all Mormons have a holy obligation to defend the Church, and yet here we have a very prominent "Hollywood insider" Mormon who is publicly refusing to do so! And, he's doing it on what is arguably the marquee message board for Mopologetic inquiry. Quite interesting, in any case.

[_Johannes]

I will say, however, that as a consultant to the Indiana Jones movie series, an upcoming movie may include some references to Book of Mormon places or artifacts. The average viewer may not be able to understand the references, but most Mormons should pick right up on them.

I thought that Philip Jenkins had established that there aren't any Book of Mormon artefacts.... Perhaps Indiana Jones will ride in on a tapir in the first scene. A little cerebral joke or hommage for the old FARMS crew.

[_Dr. Shades]

Does he fear that declarations of fair might alienate the folks at Lucasfilm and Disney?

Freudian slip, Doctor Scratch? :-)

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does he fear that declarations of fair might alienate the folks at Lucasfilm and Disney?

Freudian slip, Doctor Scratch? :-)

Ah, good eye, Dr. Shades! I’ve gone ahead and fixed the error. In other news: boy, Professor Peterson was quite vicious towards you in his blog entry! Calling you a “hidebound reactionary” and what have you. Plus, he is completely distorting your main point. Old habits die hard, I reckon.

[_Stem]

What would he possibly give anyone if they asked him for evidence from the new world supporting Book of Mormon historicity? I think he realizes it’d be a loss for him if he went all bill hamblin on everyone and suggested there is evidence without Being able to supply any. That could mean he rejects Book of Mormon historicity or he accepts it but can’t afford to be considered a kook.

Good for him either way. by the way thanks for information on him. I didn’t know a thing about this Mormon but I do believe I’ve seen him chime in over at md&d.

And I was the one who pointed out the Peterson call to arms for all Mormons. My son is topless staring at me covering his nipples right now.

[_Gadianton]

linked to a posting on Sic et Non wherein the proprietor of the blog was insisting that all Mormons have a holy obligation to defend the Church, and yet here we have a very prominent "Hollywood insider" Mormon who is publicly refusing to do so!

Can't there be some interpretation on what it means to defend the Church? Wasn't the New MI also criticized for not mounting a defense against critics? I'd think any activity that does material good for the Church is a defense, and the best defense might not always to be a direct response to critics. In fact, as I've noted before, the New MI is little more than an apologetics institution, it's just a different kind of apologetics, and not always aiming a .50 cal at a critic. Even if there can be shown to be material critical of the Church, is that because honest inquiry is running loose or because to maintain credibility, a concession has to be made? Like, giving up a bump stock because nobody really cares about it.

It seems to me that cryptic references to the Book of Mormon in fiction is a great way to promote the Church. The not so vague references to Mormon Doctrine in Battlestar alone has probably done more net good for the Church than FARMS has. I'm sure the apologists are good with all of this, by the way. I haven't read the fine details of the covenant that binds members as conscripts, but a guess is that the problem is more about binding members to activities that promote FARMS. Not directly, but if members are bound to defend Book of Mormon archaeology directly, and if FARMS knows more about archaeology than anyone else, then one is implicitly bound to support FARMS.

It would be interesting to know if Mormons on the whole ended up adopting the Heartland model and answered critics that way, if that would constitute defending the Church.

[_moksha]

What would he possibly give anyone if they asked him for evidence from the new world supporting Book of Mormon historicity?

Rich Hansen's answer to that question on Mesoamerica seemed prudent. If he is a serious archeologist, he would have more than various movie studio's opinion to consider.

I suppose if he was tall or wide enough, he could simply have suggested that such knowledge was not possible without being able to fit in the back of a wardrobe closet (if a bit smaller perhaps such knowledge would be available to the King and High Priest of Cair Paravel in Mesoamerica).

[_Polygamy-Porter]

LDS Inc should be wary of the phrase they seem to push.

Soon, "it doesn't matter where the Book of Mormon occurred", could likely matter.

Thanks for the entertainment LDS Inc!

[_Themis]

Of course, the other interesting element of this is Hansen's refusal to answer faith-based questions. What do you suppose his reasons are for not answering? Does he not actually believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I would say he does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It would be very obvious to any archaeologist not vested in a huge way to believe in it's historicity. Getting a degree in archaeology gives one a good base to understand how the real world works with archaeology and history. The major clue is not getting involved or answering Book of Mormon questions. Another motivation would be to avoid colleagues potentially seeing really poor arguments he would have to make for a historical Book of Mormon, and having amateurs embarrass him.