In student papers, year after year, I’ve seen the same mechanical errors repeated and, year after year, I’ve felt compelled to correct them and to explain why they’re wrong. I’ve devoted entire class periods to subject-verb agreement, the use of apostrophes, consistency in verb tenses and lists, and fundamental logical fallacies. Unfortunately, having to address such simple but important mistakes steals valuable time from the actual topics of my classes on Islam and the Middle East.

So I was delighted, several years ago, to reread William Strunk and E.B. White’s little classic, “The Elements of Style,” and to realize that it covered virtually every recurrent student writing error. I immediately began to recommend it to my classes and, sometimes, even to require it. If they’ll pay close attention to it, I tell them, they’ll avoid most, if not all, of the mistakes that many of them regularly and predictably commit.

I’d love to report that the experiment has been a smashing success, but I can’t. Still, as the saying goes, where there’s life, there’s hope.

I’ve felt much the same way about the fundamental mistakes continually made by many critics of the Book of Mormon. So, to save time, I’ve found myself frequently recommending an article that, if they would read it carefully and learn from it, could spare them (and me) a lot of time and effort:

It is William Hamblin’s “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon” (online at publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=11). It is a product of the old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (known as FARMS) in its heyday, and was published in the “Journal of Book of Mormon Studies” in 1993.

Hamblin, whom I first met in 1979 when we were both graduate students in Cairo, Egypt, is a professor of history at Brigham Young University and the author, co-author or editor of many other books and articles, including “Warfare in the Book of Mormon” (with Stephen Ricks; FARMS, Salt Lake City, 1990), the “HarperCollins College Outline World History to 1648” (with Jay Anglin; HarperCollins, New York City, 1993), “Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 B.C.” (Routledge, London, 2006), “Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History” (with David Seely; Thames & Hudson, London, 2007), and the novel “The Book of Malchus” (with Neil Newell; Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2010).

In “Basic Methodological Problems,” Hamblin argues that many common anti-Mormon criticisms of the Book of Mormon are based upon questionable assumptions about the nature of historical and archaeological evidence, and upon mistakes about what constitutes historical proof.

Using illustrations unconnected with the Book of Mormon, he demonstrates that reconstructing ancient geographies is often much more difficult than general readers might imagine. He also explains that very few names of Pre-Columbian cities and places are known today, and why this represents a unique and significant challenge to both those who want to prove the Book of Mormon true and those who eagerly wish to prove it a fraud.

Hamblin briefly describes the historical development of so-called limited geography models of the Book of Mormon. (The “Heartland Model,” a form of limited geography currently popular in some circles, hadn’t really emerged in 1993.)

A number of critics suggest that such models, which locate the story of the Book of Mormon within relatively small geographical areas, indicate a recent retreat before advancing archaeological and genetic research, a desperate (even panicked) rearguard action by Mormon apologists. But such suggestions are demonstrably wrong.

As Hamblin correctly points out, the “basic concept can be traced back to 1842; it was further amplified by 1887, with the first full presentation of the Limited Geography Model appearing no later than 1917. The driving force behind these developments was by no means an attempt to 'remove … inherent improbabilities and protect the credibility of the Book of Mormon as authentic history' … but because a careful reading of the internal geographical data in the Book of Mormon requires such an interpretation.”

Hamblin’s article closes with an insightful discussion of the difficulties — again, greater than some laypersons might imagine — of properly interpreting ancient texts and archaeological artifacts. His basic point is that many critics of the Book of Mormon have held unrealistic assumptions about it, assumptions that are clearly inappropriate with regard to other ancient texts and peoples.

Even after more than two decades, this article, in my judgment, remains indispensable for those interested in Book of Mormon historicity. And it’s available online for free.

Note: Daniel Peterson co-authors a column with William Hamblin for the Deseret News' Faith section every other week.

Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYU's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify.org, chairs mormoninterpreter.com, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson, and speaks only for himself.