Of the many Mormons I have known in my life, I can think of none who would not qualify for inclusion of the rubric of “he/she is among the finest people I know.” Whether I think of Tammy, my childhood neighbor and friend who lost her battle to cancer over three decades ago; Betty, who volunteered time to run the base youth group when I was a kid; Beth, one of my high school/college sweethearts; friendly neighborhood commenter and blog-buddy T. F. Sterns; or my Mormon colleagues at school, I cannot ever think of a time that I have questioned the character or integrity of any of these individuals.

That said, I must respectfully say that I do not accept the distinctive tenets of their faith, which I did explore during my college years. Much of my skepticism comes from my own love of history, and my inability to reconcile the contents of LDS scriptures with the historical record as I understand it. I therefore found this article to be striking, especially insofar as it addresses the conflict between revealed knowledge, faith, and the scientific/historical record.

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Now let me say that the rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, and I found it fascinating. At the same time, I found it somewhat one-sided, and were I a member of the LDS church I suspect I might be seriously offended by the stance it takes. The article certainly raises a serious issue, but at the same time, it strikes at sacred things. I don’t doubt that there will be letters to the editor and commentary of LDS blogs (and others) regarding the article, regarding the accuracy of what appeared in the LA Times. I know the LDS Church has already responded.

And that is where I see a critical contrast. We have, over the last few weeks, seen violent convulsions over a dozen editorial cartoons of questionable artistic and journalistic merit, based upon the complaint that they misrepresent the Islamic faith. There have been boycotts, demands for government (or international) censorship, threats, property damage, violence, and killings in response to the alleged blasphemy of depicting Islam’s so-called prophet. I have not, as of this posting, heard news of marauding Mormon mobs in the streets of Salt Lake City protesting the publication of the article.

And therein lies the difference. When one compares the cartoons and the article, it is clear that the LA Times article on the challenge of science to the beliefs of Mormonism touches on the essentials of that faith every bit as seriously as the cartoons do on the essentials of Islam, if not more so. Furthermore, the publication of the LA Times article (which is not necessarily compellingly newsworthy) was a much serious attack on the Mormon faith (if not more so) than the republication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, which could be seen as essential to understanding the current violence and controversy. Yet the Times chose to run the article on the challenge of science to LDS doctrine, while it refrained from publishing the cartoons. More importantly, the article is likely to offend more people in this country than the Danish cartoons. One has to ask, then, why such decisions were made.

Could it be that the editors of the LA Times know that Mormons, no matter how offended, are unlikely to respond with violence to an unpleasant presentation of their faith? Might it be that a conservative religious group like the LDS church is not subject to the same sort of PC protexction as Islam, with its anti-American radical cachet? I think we all know the answer to those questions.

UPDATE: Interesting interview with the article's author on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Adam's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Blue Star Chronicles, Everyman Chronicle, Uncooperative Blogger, Right Track, Cao's Blog, Don Surber, NIF, Right Wing Nation, Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, A Tick in the Mind's Eye, Point Five, Bullwinkle, Samantha Burns