Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[Ray Agostini]

She spoke openly about the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005. Have you read or listened what she said?

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/barker/josiahsreform.htm

The BYU Studies publication has a bit more. She has links to the FARMS website from her own, acknowledging the LDS interest in her work, especially in relation to The Great Angel. And she and I collaborated on an essay for Terryl Givens and Reid Neilson's collection of essays on Joseph Smith, Jr: Reappraisals After Two Centuries, from Oxford University Press in 2009. Our essay is called "Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition." When I sent her a copy of Paradigms Regained in February of 2002, she emailed back her appreciation, thanking me for writing the book. She said that before that, she had no idea that her work would be of such interest to Mormons. After I sent her a draft of my Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem essay, she sat down and read the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price in one day, and said, "I was amazed at how much I recognized." I sent her a copy of John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount. That led directly to this:

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&isbn=9780754651642&lang=cy

Too many scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, have commented along these lines to dismiss it out of hand. The Book of Mormon reads like a mixture of antiquity and myth, IMO. There are clear parallels to Biblical stories that occurred later than the BoM. And whatever position Ostler now holds, he pointed out anachronisms in his 1987 Dialogue essay. Perhaps it could be "a modern expansion of an ancient work". That would still be problematic for a literal history.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Pointing to Oslter is interesting because he once help much more to an "expansion" model for translation and further and closer research has changed his earlier views quite significantly. I wish he'd publish a part 2 to that early paper of his.

[mfbukowski]

Presumably, your "anyone" includes the Lord's prophets who have repeatedly--literally thousands of times in speeches and writings and electronic formats--declared the BOM to be exactly what it purports to be: an historical account of ancient civilizations that lived somewhere in the Americas. Have you--or anyone else--heard those leaders hedge about the accuracy of the declared historicity of the BOM?

The suggestion that the inspired leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not know the true history of the BOM--even while they testify of it to millions worldwide--is, forgive me, shameful IMO.

You are either not understanding me or not listening, and appear to be rather persistent in not understanding. I affirm that the Book of Mormon is an historical account, and have a testimony that it is true.

My point is an epistemological one about the value of attempts to PROVE the historic contents of any document in a SCIENTIFIC sense, which I take to be the objective of some. We must take it on faith, not science, and the only proof we can have is the non-scientific proof of a spiritual witness which is just as "valid" as a scientific truth, however it is NOT scientific truth.

Go back and read my posts and you will see this is about the third time I have said this. In fact on one of my previous posts, I showed concern that some would not understand my position. Sometimes I don't know why I bother- I thought I was expressing it as clearly as possible.

But I would still like to explore how the context would change if we assumed scientific validity.

[staccato]

Well, lookie there. Two threads, one response.

You keep your brand of subjective/relative truth, and I will sleep well with the ideal that truth is something with more substance than a product coming from inside a person's head.

Using the mental exercises employed in this post, one can also believe in the "literal truth" [definition used liberally] of Santa Claus. Or the Easter bunny.

[mfbukowski]

Not just me.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=56a6ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

Ok, well I guess no one is getting it, I guess it's me. Regardless, it is not communicating so I will shut up.

[Ray Agostini]

Pointing to Oslter is interesting because he once help much more to an "expansion" model for translation and further and closer research has changed his earlier views quite significantly. I wish he'd publish a part 2 to that early paper of his.

Well I'd be interested to read what he has to say. I understood through some sources that he had a change of mind on some things. Incidentally, I should point out that the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with me leaving the Church. When I left I still believed it was historical, and certainly "true". I could be a die-hard Whitmerite I began seriously questioning historicity in 1994, seven years after I left, and my rebaptism in 1995 came about for one main reason: The Book of Mormon. And this is what I told the authorities. No Book of Mormon, and Mormonism is finished.

[mfbukowski]

Well, lookie there. Two threads, one response.

You keep your brand of subjective/relative truth, and I will sleep well with the ideal that truth is something with more substance than a product coming from inside a person's head.

Using the mental exercises employed in this post, one can also believe in the "literal truth" [definition used liberally] of Santa Claus. Or the Easter bunny.

If you are a retailer, you better believe they are a real force in the economy. They make or break your business every year. So in an economic context, you bet your bippy they are real. For some reason, no one is getting the importance of "context"

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

Putting on my scientist hat for a moment. I agree there is no scientifically verifiable God or religion. We must take it on faith. I guess if you buy into the whole concept of religion, and a LDS perspective, in particular, on religion it all makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

Well I'd be interested to read what he has to say. I understood through some sources that he had a change of mind on some things. Incidentally, I should point out that the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with me leaving the Church. When I left I still believed it was historical, and certainly "true". I could be a die-hard Whitmerite I began seriously questioning historicity in 1994, seven years after I left, and my rebaptism in 1995 came about for one main reason: The Book of Mormon. And this is what I told the authorities. No Book of Mormon, and Mormonism is finished.

I totally agree, which I am sure is odd to most here.

To me, it is like proving the existence of "immaterial matter". Can't be done scientifically. Does it exist? Absolutely! Maybe that will help. Anyway I am monopolizing the thread I am afraid and getting no where. I just wanted to make it clear that the BOM and its truth and historicity is central to my testimony, but the attempt to prove it scientifically is like trying to scientifically prove immaterial matter. Good luck.

[Kevin Christensen]

Too many scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, have commented along these lines to dismiss it out of hand. The Book of Mormon reads like a mixture of antiquity and myth, IMO. There are clear parallels to Biblical stories that occurred later than the BoM. And whatever position Ostler now holds, he pointed out anachronisms in his 1987 Dialogue essay. Perhaps it could be "a modern expansion of an ancient work". That would still be problematic for a literal history.

In 2004, Ostler said this, which he let me quote in my essay in FR 16:1.

Indeed, Ostler states his current view as follows:

As new evidence surfaces indicating that primary ideas previously thought to be Christian were in fact excised from the preexilic text, the content of the plates rather than Joseph Smith's midrashic expansion should grow. In my original article, I suggested, for example, that the phraseology of secret societies in the Book of Mormon seemed to be nineteenth centuryit turns out that a lot of what I suggested was nineteenth century may well be explainable in terms of ancient counterparts. By the way, I don't credit Vogel's theory with any explanatory ability at allthe Book of Mormon does not discuss a Mound-Building culture, and nothing that Vogel has said, even at great length and verbosity, persuades me in the least that the Book of Mormon was addressing the Mound Builders in any waynot even in the sense that they were discussed in the nineteenth century. He's just off the mark in my view.175

I wanted to comment on Vogel's potshot that the expansion theory of the Book of Mormon is ad hoc. A theory is ad hoc if it is not indicated or supported by any evidence but is merely an explanatory device to save a theory from its own problems. However, Vogel hasn't made any attempt to account for the evidence of an ancient source that I discussed. He hasn't provided anything like an adequate explanation of the covenant renewal festivals that are rather clearly present in the Book of Mormon. He hasn't even discussed the Hebrew judicial procedures that are accurately presented in Abinadi's trial and in Samuel the Lamanite's prophetic lawsuit against the Nephites. He has failed altogether to discuss the prophetic call form that I identified. It is easy to call a theory ad hoc if one simply ignores all the evidence that disagrees with one's own position, as Vogel does. His own theorythat Joseph Smith drew on the nineteenth-century culture for Primitivist Christian elements and on Mound-Building theories in particularis extremely weak and doesn't even begin to account for the contrary evidence that others and I have discussed. His judgments are based on his own blinders. I arrived at my theory after taking a look at the evidence and asking what kind of explanation is necessary to explain what I see. In my view, that is how theories are developed. Vogel, on the other hand, started from the commitment that the Book of Mormon had to be a nineteenth-century work and simply went looking for anything that would support his prejudices (that is also a problem with eisegesis).176

In watching how various charges of anachronism have fared over time, I'm not particularly concerned. There are two intertwined issues. What seems given a specific comparison, and the significance, given a view of Joseph Smith. We have a Book of Mormon text that describes itself as written, transmitted, edited, and then translated according to Joseph Smith's language and understanding. We also have a limited set of Biblical material to compare it with, relative to what they had available. The Bible itself lists several lost books. The Book of Mormon cites prophets such as Zenos, who don't show up in the canon. Then we have texts like the Narrative of Zosimus and 1 Enoch that point back to the First Temple period, even though the texts we have came later. And both offer remarkable comparisons to the Book of Mormon. I think Blake's 1987 discussion of translation is still helpful, though much of the rest shows its age. I do think he did a better job of proving the contraries than Duffy who ultimately lets his choice of metaphors do all the heavy lifting. (I started a thread on that topic a while back.)

Regarding parallels to Biblical stories that came later, I've found that it is worth considering what might have come earlier than such Biblical stories, considering how essential allusion and type-scenes turn out to be in Hebrew writing, and how common parallels are in literature and comparative mythology. On this, I've enjoyed Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative, Alan Goff's impressive essays on these techniques in the Book of Mormon, and Ben McGuire's work looking comparing the Nephi/Laban story with the David/Goliath stories, and his response to Palmer's attempt at reading the story of King Lamoni as derived from the New Testament account of Lazarus. Jack Welch's work on the legal background of "it is better that one man should die than a nation should perish in unbelief" is important. Where modern readers tend to spot the New Testament parallel, most tend to be oblivious of issue in Nephi's time. Besides Alter, Eliade is essential on the importance of archetypes, and patterns, and Campbell is very helpful as well. Daniel Peterson's work on the Gaddianton's as Guerilla Warriors, and Brant's on Mesoamerican candidates in the right time and place.

How a person chooses to explore questions that come up has a direct impact on their harvest, soil and nurture for the word affects what grows. That, I found was a recurrent problem in Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah, for example. He'd constantly offer up parallels to Book of Mormon accounts that suggested anachronism, while ignoring alternative precidents that suggested otherwise. And he protested that he had no interest whatsoever in the question of historicity. It seemed to me that he was not interested because he considered the question closed and resolved, and conducted his explorations with that mindset.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ray Agostini]

I think Blake's 1987 discussion of translation is still helpful, though much of the rest shows its age. I do think he did a better job of proving the contraries than Duffy who ultimately lets his choice of metaphors do all the heavy lifting. (I started a thread on that topic a while back.)

I'll go through the essay again and re-read the points he originally made, but I think he covered more than what you've quoted above. In any case, you'll probably be heading off on your "vacation" soon, so it won't be a matter of urgency. I also plan to do more reading on Barker.

[Ray Agostini]

I went to Ostler's site and recovered something I'd read before, but this is from 2005:

Updating the Expansion Theory (Times & Seasons) (There were 205 responses to this and I haven't read them all).

One of the strengths of the expansion theory is that it sees all of Joseph Smithâ??s prophetic translations as being of the same kind. Joseph didnâ??t translate the BofM because he knew Hebrew and/or reformed Egyptian; he didnâ??t translate the Book of Abraham because he read Egyptian etc. Rather, these translations were the same as the Book of Moses and the parchment of John that he translated now contained in D&C 7. He could translate because he received revelation; and the revelation involved his input in explaining, expanding and making sense of what he received. JS felt free to change, amend, add to, delete from and generally edit the revelations that he received in the Doctrine & Covenants â?? and he treated the BofM text in the same way when he made changes to it in 1837. The Book of Mormon cannot be a â??literal translationâ? or JSâ??s changes donâ??t make sense. However, if JS is giving the best expression and explanation that he knows how to give, and later has greater capacity to explain the text or â??translationâ? in a better way, he felt free to do so.

(3) It has now been 18 years since the expansion theory was first published and to date not a single critic of the Book of Mormon has attempted to explain the presence of convicing evidence of antitiquity that I cited in my 1987 article: viz., ancient prophetic call forms, ancient Israelite covenant renewal rituals and forms and formal Hebrew legal procedures. In my view, the presence of these forms is fairly clear in the text of the BofM and they are very difficult to explain on the assumption that it was written by anyone in the 19th century. To date, the only theory that accounts for these ancient forms and the presence of modern expansions that are fairly evidence is the expansion theory.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be: a book translated by the gift and power of God that tells us about the record of an ancient people. However, translation by the gift and power of God isnâ??t translation based upon an isomorphic rendering of an underlying text into English based on a knowledge of the ancient textual language; rather, it is a revelation from God which involves necessarily the limitations of vocabulary, conceptuality and horizons of Godâ??s servant chosen to render it into English for us.

(Emphasis added)

Ostler on Skousen, Nahom and the Maya.

Nate: I am as yet undecided on the finds at Nahom in Arabia. The passage of the Pacific Ocean given currents and length of travel seems so highly improbable that it is not really a good candidate. As for islands - it may be that more than one island is referred to (the Book of Mormon refers to â??islesâ? plural). I donâ??t know what Jacob meant by an â??isle of the seaâ? (but he expressly states that they are on an isle of the sea)â?? but I see no reason that outlying areas like Belize wouldnâ??t work as well. I simply suggest that we keep open about the configuration since the narrow neck of land could be defined by large lakes as well as oceans or seas. So it could be a lot of different areas where there are two lakes that create a narrow neck of land between them (and that opens up a lot of possiblities). One thing I am clear about, the Mayan culture is a not a Book of Mormon culture.

As for Skousenâ??s tight control theory of translation, it just cannot be squared with what we find in the text and real nature of translation. There is no such thing as isomorphic translation and it is evident to me that there is reflection in the text on KJV passages (which would have to be JSâ??s expansions). Further, I canâ??t see how looking at a ms. of the English translation tells us that there was a tight control with the original text (Skousenâ??s entire argument is non-sensical to me).

Rosalynde â?? I agree that there are different underlying texts and sources for Josephâ??s â??translationsâ? â?? but he didnâ??t use these texts as a basis for translation. The Book of Mormon was translated (largely) while the plates remained covered under a cloth on the table and Joseph looked into the seer stone in his hat. The facsimiles of the Book of Abraham are not translations but explanations of â??figuresâ? and illustrations as they relate to Abraham in Egypt. Indeed, none of the Egyptian text gets translated in the facsimiles! The method of translation was revelation â?? how that relates to the underlying text cannot be determined until we get the underlying texts.

Comment by Blake

[Brant Gardner]

From the quotation by Blake Ostler:

how that relates to the underlying text cannot be determined until we get the underlying texts.

Actually, I disagree with this. While it is true that there is much we cannot know without the original, I believe that there are some things that we can know about the original even though it isn't present. Obviously, it requires argumentation, but it isn't completely unobtainable.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I disagree with this. While it is true that there is much we cannot know without the original, I believe that there are some things that we can know about the original even though it isn't present. Obviously, it requires argumentation, but it isn't completely unobtainable.

What are some of the ways in principle that it might theoretically be obtained?

[Ray Agostini]

It appears that Ostler isn't a great fan of Margaret Barker:

My view is that Margaret Barker is hanging weighty conclusions on very thin threads.

Comment by Blake on May 4th 2005 at 3:04 pm

His reply to Kevin:

Kevin: How loud the applause was by a bunch of LDS is beside the point! Barkerâ??s arguments have not been well received by other scholars. Her arguments are flimsy in my view and based on begging the questions constantly. I am quite sure that there is not a large acceptance of her views among scholars because she is long on assertion and short on evidence. The fact the LDS may be enthusiastic because it supports our preconceived idea of what the evidence should say (as I believe it does for her as well), we still need sound evidence â?? and I donâ??t see much that she offers.

Comment by Blake on May 10th 2005 at 2:20 pm

Kevin's final comment:

Well, we are all going to differ on what constitutes sound evidence. Iâ??m enthusiastic with respect to Sorenson and Gardner and Clark on the the Book of Mormon, and you, apparently are not. There is nothing we can do about that but accept each other as doing the best we can according to our lights.

To say that Ostler threw a cat amongst the pigeons in these exchanges is an understatement. I think he overthrew just about every "orthodox" apologetic I can think of. It's worth reading the replies:

Updating the Expansion Theory.

[mfbukowski]

To say that Ostler threw a cat amongst the pigeons in these exchanges is an understatement. I think he overthrew just about every "orthodox" apologetic I can think of. It's worth reading the replies:

Updating the Expansion Theory.

Fascinating stuff

But I must say if anything I find this as total vindication for my position. Everybody has their own theory, none of which can be proven. There is internal evidence of historicity, but really nothing to pin it to one geography or a knowable context. That "it is revelation" is indisputable, that there is evidence that it has historical roots is also to me, indisputable but the rest is unknowable.

[mysteryman]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the view of those who hold the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture but not historical. Some commenters seem to think that this view would make the Book of Mormon as no different than any inspiring story. But those that hold this view do not see it this way, those that I have talked to that hold it believe that Joseph Smith was a real prophet and that God inspired and directed the Joseph in the dictation of the Book of Mormon. Proponents say that the purpose of the BoM was a conversion tool and a way to bring people to Christ, not to teach about the Native Americans (apologists no longer think the Lamanites are really the ancestors of the Indians anymore anyway). Those I know that hold this view have just as strong of testimony to the divine origins of the Book of Mormon as those that believe it to be historical. But some of you that demand it must be historical and preach against those that think it is unhistorical yet inspired scripture are in some ways hypocritical. Many apologists constantly trump that prophets can be wrong and can express their own opinion. Many believe that Joseph and his successors were simply wrong about where the Hill Cumorah was located, BoM geography, the Lamanite ancestry to the American Indians, etc, etc. Many use this statement from FARMS to promote these ideas: http://mi.byu.edu/display/topical.php?cat_id=62. It says, "Although the hemispheric view was popular among early Latter-day Saints, it simply is not clear whether it was the result of prophetic revelation or merely the outgrowth of the personal ideas and assumptions of the Prophet Joseph Smith and other brethren. Historical research indicates that Joseph Smith never claimed revelation on the subject and that the thinking of early church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography was subject to modification as new information came to light. Indeed, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking, attesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had no authoritative stance on what was and continues to be an open issue." Well, since prophets can be wrong about the BoM location and historical events, those that believe in inspired scripture only agree but simply take it one step further and believe the prophets have been wrong in believing it be historical period. There just following that views on the BoM is "subject to modification as new information" comes to light.

[Brant Gardner]

What are some of the ways in principle that it might theoretically be obtained?

Knowing which things appear on the original manuscript and which have been added later is critical. Those on the original manuscript have some connection to the plates. I doubt that we can get at anything like vocabulary, but there are things that appear to survive the translation process. These are usually structural, and the strength of assigning the structure to the plates rather than the translator comes in the nature (and obscurity) of the structure. For example, the names of the books is a structural features. There is a logic behind why they change (at least I see one) but it isn't any logic that Joseph appeared to have known (more on this example in my FAIR Conference talk from last year). I think we can see the nature of the source materials and what they contained if we understand how Mormon selected his material.

I keep telling myself that one of these days I am going to try to "recover" what should have been in the lost pages--purely based on logical assumptions, of course. I think that would be fun. Probably useless, but fun. I think there are some broad outlines of what would have been there and particularly what would not.

[mfbukowski]

Knowing which things appear on the original manuscript and which have been added later is critical. Those on the original manuscript have some connection to the plates. I doubt that we can get at anything like vocabulary, but there are things that appear to survive the translation process. These are usually structural, and the strength of assigning the structure to the plates rather than the translator comes in the nature (and obscurity) of the structure. For example, the names of the books is a structural features. There is a logic behind why they change (at least I see one) but it isn't any logic that Joseph appeared to have known (more on this example in my FAIR Conference talk from last year). I think we can see the nature of the source materials and what they contained if we understand how Mormon selected his material.

I keep telling myself that one of these days I am going to try to "recover" what should have been in the lost pages--purely based on logical assumptions, of course. I think that would be fun. Probably useless, but fun. I think there are some broad outlines of what would have been there and particularly what would not.

I don't think it would be useless at all!

That could be quite revealing!

In this context it would almost seem that Joseph's own lack of knowledge about the translation is actually evidence for its historicity, and I think such an approach would have tremendous value because such a "macro" view might be "big enough" to get around Ostler's expansionist view and give evidence for historicity that we do not have now. It is precisely, I would think, such large structural features which would not be affected by the translational issues his view addresses.

If the goal is to "get back to the plates" I think Ostler's position is really an obstacle to doing so since the connection between the translation and what was on the plates becomes so amorphous. In fact it could render any attempt to "get back" to the original highly suspect to anyone who accepts his view since it assumes such a large gap between what we have now and the "original". If what we have now is an "expansion" how could anyone ever "re-compress" it accurately?

But on the other hand, such macro structural features would be the only features one might expect to "survive" Ostler's view of the translation and "expansion" process.

I think that would be quite exciting because it might be the last hope for providing further evidence of historicity of the BOM, until we find some rusting steel swords with Egyptian hieroglyphics which translate phonetically to "Nephi"!

[Brant Gardner]

If the goal is to "get back to the plates" I think Ostler's position is really an obstacle to doing so since the connection between the translation and what was on the plates becomes so amorphous.

Not really. He posits an authentic core. There are a couple of places where I could see the seams. I think that it happens less that Ostler used to think-- I don't know quite where he would draw the line now.

In fact it could render any attempt to "get back" to the original highly suspect to anyone who accepts his view since it assumes such a large gap between what we have now and the "original". If what we have now is an "expansion" how could anyone ever "re-compress" it accurately?

I think it could be done. It requires a solid translation theory that accounts for the vast majority of the data (there will always be anomalies, but the theory should demonstrate how the text and specific language was produced). With that in hand and an understanding of Mormon as an editor (and a good dose of Nephi), it could be done. With the parameters I have just mentioned, it is a ways away.

I think that would be quite exciting because it might be the last hope for providing further evidence of historicity of the BOM, until we find some rusting steel swords with Egyptian hieroglyphics which translate phonetically to "Nephi"!

Here I disagree. I don't think the reconstruction would demonstrate historicity to anyone who did not accept historicity prior to the reconstruction. Only with that assumption would the reconstruction have any chance of being more than an ingenious argument. There are too many variables to use it for form the basis of any argument for historicity. If it has value, it is in understanding, not proving.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here I disagree. I don't think the reconstruction would demonstrate historicity to anyone who did not accept historicity prior to the reconstruction. Only with that assumption would the reconstruction have any chance of being more than an ingenious argument.

Or dumb luck.

mfbukowski, check out Gardner's FAIR presentation from 2008. It was simply excellent.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008_Mormons_Editorial_Method_and_Meta-Message.html

[Ray Agostini]

I still don't believe the BoM is historical. But I do see some consistent patterns. All of Joseph Smith's scripture came through revelation, not ancient manuscripts/plates. All of them display signs of him being able to "dig up" remnants of antiquity. And all of it is still consistent with my pet theory of how the BoM was produced - by some form of automatic writing. The Joseph Smith as author gives him too much knowledge. Spalding is, and ever will be, nothing but a wild and fruitless Goose Chase. And now even Ostler acknowledges strong BoM similarities to the KJV (including reworking many KJV passages), with some additions by Joseph himself (sometimes even speaking for Moroni), and we all know the BoA story, pretty much the same. I think those who reject the automatic writing theory are those who have not studied it in much depth, nor the variety of methods it encompasses. Joseph Smith, in this regard, is by no means alone in being able to rapidly produce texts, with little knowledge of what he was actually writing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Even if JS dictated the Book of Mormon by "automatic writing" it doesn't indicate whether he did so under the influence of real revelation about real ancient peoples.

Even so, two reviews specifically tackle the issue:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=635

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=15&num=1&id=399

[Ray Agostini]

Even if JS dictated the Book of Mormon by "automatic writing" it doesn't indicate whether he did so under the influence of real revelation about real ancient peoples.

Even so, two reviews specifically tackle the issue:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=635

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=15&num=1&id=399

I've read both of them before. I again submit that those who reject this theory have not studied it in enough depth. Perhaps when I'm off later in the week I'll do a separate thread on the this.

It could involve "real ancient peoples", and some cases do seem to reflect this as far as the evidence is concerned, but more often than not it involves mysterious "spirit personages" doing the communication, who often claim to have lived anciently, and bequeath knowledge to the receiver of which he/she is totally unaware. Now you'll see why this idea is so firmly rejected by those who do not believe in any form of "supernatural" communication (and also the popularity of Spalding because it's a naturalistic theory). The automatic writing theory is right up there with "supernatural nonsense", but it's very difficult to explain if one rejects it from the start, on the grounds that it "cannot happen". We have too many cases showing that it did happen.

[LifeOnaPlate]

But again, there is simply nothing barring God from making use of this phenomena to further his purposes, which can include an actual ancient people.

And again, again, the "automatic writer" in this case made some rather singular pronouncements, some rather interesting stories, and achieved a remarkable level of sophistication. I believe the automatic writers theory itself requires quite a leap of faith.