FAIR

Apologetics

Apostles and Apologetics: Doers of the Word

by

Devotional-Elder ChristoffersonBack in April, I did a blog post on some of the apologetically relevant statements from General Conference, including the instruction, from Elder Robert D. Hales, to “protect and defend the kingdom of God.” Well, as with most things our leaders teach us to do, they are also doers of the word who practice what they preach.

In a recent devotional address at Brigham Young University-Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed some criticisms of the Church and made other apologetically relevant comments. Elder Christofferson opens up by briefly relating the visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith, and noting how Moroni told Joseph Smith that both good and evil would be spoken of him throughout the world (see Joseph Smith—History 1:33). This is an appropriate way to start, not only because it allows for the discussion of the good and the evil said about Joseph Smith and the Restoration today, but because Elder Christofferson was giving his address just days after the 190th anniversary of Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith. What an appropriate occasion to discuss the fulfillment of that prophecy! As Elder Christofferson remarks,

to think that this boy growing up in a poor family, in the smallest of small towns, in a country of limited influence and prestige in the world should come to such prominence that his name would be had for good or ill among all nations, kindreds, and people—it was truly (to use an overused word) incredible. Nevertheless, it is a prophecy that has been fulfilled in significant measure and that is more fully realized year by year.

Elder Christofferson talks about the monumental Joseph Smith Papers Project, as research initiative by the Church Historical Department intent on publishing every document written or commissioned by Joseph Smith. He notes that this “expanding access we enjoy to the Prophet’s work and teachings fills previous voids in our knowledge, confirms some things we already knew or thought, and supplies answers to questions we might have had. The information also raises new questions and highlights new areas of inquiry to pursue.” He also stresses that, “we ought not to expect in this life to know all the answers (or for that matter, all the questions).” This wide access to information of Joseph Smith, however, facilitates both aspects of Moroni’s prophecy – both the good and the evil to be spoken of Joseph Smith. Elder Christofferson reminds his audience of this, and offers three important principles to be applied when encountering the “evil” that is spoken of the prophet, his work, and his teachings.

You know, of course, that as prophesied by Moroni, there are those whose research relating to Joseph Smith is not for the purpose of gaining added light and knowledge but to undermine his character, magnify his flaws, and if possible destroy his influence. Their work product can sometimes be jarring, and so can issues raised at times by honest historians and researchers with no “axe to grind.” But I would offer you this advice in your own study: Be patient, don’t be superficial, and don’t ignore the Spirit.

First, be patient. Under this heading, Elder Christofferson reminds us that “while some answers come quickly or with little effort, others are simply not available for the moment because information or evidence is lacking. Don’t suppose, however, that a lack of evidence about something today means that evidence doesn’t exist or that it will not be forthcoming in the future. The absence of evidence is not proof.” John E. Clark, a professional archaeologist, is in agreement, as he once wrote:

Given current means of verification, positive evidence is here to stay, but negative items may prove to be positive ones in hiding. “Missing” evidence focuses further research, but it lacks the compelling logical force in arguments because it represents the absence of information rather than secure evidence.

As an example of this, Elder Christofferson cites a FairMormon blogpost by Book of Mormon scholar Matt Roper, which deals with steel in ancient Israel and the Book of Mormon. While no evidence supported the idea of a sword of “most precious steel” existing in 600 BC Jerusalem at the time the Book of Mormon was published (a lack of evidence that persisted for more than a century), it is now an accepted fact that the steeling of iron was known to Israelites well before Nephi’s time, and steel swords contemporary to the Book of Mormon account have been unearthed in the area. This is but one of many examples that could be given.

John E. Clark has collected sixty examples of alleged anachronisms that have been used against the Book of Mormon since 1829 and found that about sixty percent of them have now been verified by archaeology, while suggestive evidence has emerged for another ten (of the sixty) criticisms, though this evidence remains inconclusive. All in all, this means that evidence is more favorable to some degreenow than it was in 1830 in seventy-five percent of the sixty cases. Researcher Kevin Christensen recently reevaluated a Book of Mormon critique from 1982 to make the same point: with time (and research), many claims made against the Book of Mormon begin to look out-dated as new evidence offers support.

In a footnote to his address, Elder Christofferson also addressed the claim some critics have raised that Joseph Smith was wrong when he said there were religious revivals in the area of Palmyra in 1820. Elder Christofferson cited this FairMormon article and explained that greater access to original sources has revealed not only that revivals were common, but “that revivals were common enough that often they garnered no coverage in the newspapers unless something out of the ordinary occurred such as a death.” As with the Book of Mormon, historian Steven C. Harper has shown that criticisms of the First Vision have faded with time.These and the many similar examples underscore Elder Christofferson’s message of patience: “Where answers are incomplete or lacking altogether, patient study and patient waiting for new information and discoveries to unfold will often be rewarded with understanding.”

This leads well into Elder Christofferson’s second point, to not be superficial. Accepting the claims of critics or, as Elder Christofferson calls them, “insincere seekers,” at face value can be ill advised. Drawing on the words poet Alexander Pope, Elder Christofferson advises us to “drink deep” from the fountain of knowledge. Serious inquiry requires the time and patience mentioned above, and it rarely, if ever, assumes the “obvious” from quick and superficial study.

As a part of this, Elder Christofferson urges us to check our assumptions about the Church and it’s leaders. “When I say don’t be superficial, I mean don’t form conclusions based on unexamined assertions or incomplete research,” he says, and notes that, “We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be.” Elder Christofferson quotes some of the many times in which Joseph Smith himself acknowledged his imperfections. Elder Christofferson then helps provide some of the big picture that critics often fail to see as they wade in the minutia of Church history: “Joseph Smith was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming, divinely- appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and undeniably good.”

In his address, Elder Christofferson contrasts this patient, deep mode of seeking with the tactics of those whom he terms “insincere seekers,” and distinguishes them from the honest researchers who may also raise serious, even if troubling, questions. He says:

While some honestly pursue truth and real understanding, others are intent on finding or creating doubts. Their interpretations may come from projecting 21st Century concepts and culture backward onto 19th Century people. If there are differing interpretations possible, they will pick the most negative. They sometimes accuse the Church of hiding something because they only recently found or heard about it—an interesting accusation for a Church that’s publishing 24 volumes of all it can find of Joseph Smith’s papers. They may share their assumptions and speculations with some glee, but either can’t or won’t search further to find contradictory information.

Most importantly, however, Elder Christofferson advises that as we seek answers to historical puzzles, we do not neglect the Spirit:

Finally, don’t neglect the Spirit. As regards Joseph Smith, we seek learning both by study and by faith. Both are fruitful paths of inquiry. A complete understanding can never be attained by scholarly research alone, especially since much of what is needed is either lost or never existed. There is no benefit in imposing artificial limits on ourselves that cut off the light of Christ and the revelations of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit has an important role in the process discussed above of exercising patience and “drinking deeply.” It is by the assurance of the Spirit that we can proceed to act in faith as we patiently seek answers about this or that historical issue. Elder Christofferson uses the example of the Mark Hoffman forgeries, and then stresses:

In matters of faith, a spiritual witness is essential if one is to avoid being “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. [Eph. 4:14]”  With a Spirit-derived assurance in place, you can go forward in the Lord’s work and continue deepening your relationship with your Heavenly Father while pursuing or awaiting answers. If you determine to sit still, paralyzed until every question is answered and every whisper of doubt resolved, you will never move because in this life there will always be some issue pending or something yet unexplained.

Ultimately, some answers will never come in this life. Faith is a principle of action, and it is in the acting that we often gain our testimonies. We must not let unanswered questions keep us from exercising our faith.

After discussing how to approach historical issues, Elder Christofferson goes on to remind us of what it most important:

Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling is key to our religion. Without his commission from the Father and the Son, without his priesthood ordinations and the keys he received at the hands of duly appointed heavenly messengers, without the fullness of the gospel restored through his visions and revelations and his translations of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, what we would have is something much less than true Christianity. It is critical that we gain a witness of these things by study and above all, by the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

He also adds that, “Despite all this, however, I remind you that Joseph Smith is not our foundation—it is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. Joseph Smith, Jr. was called of God ‘to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and a prophet.’ [D&C 124:125]” While Elder Christofferson may seem, to some, to have departed from apologetics, I think here Elder Christofferson actually does something that is an important part of good apologetics: rather than just respond to objections, or talk about how to handle criticisms, Elder Christofferson also seeks to build faith. He does this by discussing the important things Joseph Smith accomplished as a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ, and bearing testimony of those things. In apologetics, we must do more than simply address the negative. We must also provide the positive. We must give people reasons to believe. This can be done in a number of ways; bearing testimony, sharing evidences, or telling personal experiences of how the gospel and the Church have blessed you are only some examples. The exact method (or combination of methods) should probably be adapted based on circumstances, but it is always important to try and give the person who is doubting something positive to build on.

As an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ speaking in a devotional setting, it is appropriate that Elder Christofferson used his own and Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Savior, the witness of Christ in the Book of Mormon, and the martyrdom of the prophet to serve as faith promoting points to build on. As the apostles often do, Elder Christofferson closes with his own testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I bear witness of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, and to his magnificent revelation of Jesus, I reverently add my own testimony of the Christ. I too know that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. He stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is the Redeemer, and His grace is sufficient. I pray that all may receive the testimony of Joseph Smith and come unto Christ, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The Atonement and the Prodigal Son

by

In working with individuals who struggle in their faith because of sincere unanswered questions, criticisms they encounter, or because of incongruities between their lives and the standards they hold, I have found a need to constantly draw such people back to the foundational principles of the Gospel. Foremost among them is of course faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some, their lack of answers undermines their confidence in the overall gospel plan. For others, criticisms cause them to reconsider once deeply held beliefs. For others, their struggles to live standards they accept create a wedge between them and their Heavenly Father. In all of these cases, however, the result is a sense of distance from the Father that loves them, and who patiently invites them home.

The path out of such situations is often a long path requiring patience and persistence. Such individuals need to re-anchor themselves to foundational principles, and most importantly regain a spiritual connection with Heavenly Father. It is through such a connection that they can find strength to persist through their questions, doubts, or the process of repentance.

In going through such struggles, I often find that once unsettled, the most basic of principles get called into question. Once confidence is undermined, even the most basic of concepts we hold true become open for debate, and the uncertainty started by unrelated struggles can spread and undermine the most fundamental gospel principles.

Even the atonement of Jesus Christ is not immune from such questioning. Those going through periods of questions and doubts about the restoration might begin to ask themselves why a loving God cannot simply forgive and forget and accept us as we are. Why would it be necessary to send someone else to suffer in order to compensate for our suffering? Is God not able of his own accord to forgive? If so, why do we need another to rescue us?

The foremost principle I follow when trying to understand gospel principles like the atonement is this: Father does nothing because He needs it, but because we need it. We aren’t told to pray because without it God doesn’t know what we want, but because by praying we learn to adjust our will such that we want what He wants. We don’t gather to worship because God has low self-esteem and gets angry if we don’t give Him attention, but because in gathering we unite in our common cause of service to each other, and as King Benjamin would say, our service to our fellow being puts us in the service of our God. It is in that service that we learn the nature of God – His mind and heart! Even the ordinances of the Church are intended not for God to secure an assurance of our commitment, but for us to signal to ourselves that we accept the covenants He extends to us.

As for the atonement, many theories of the atonement are based on penal substitution or some form of deficit compensation required by God. Such theories presuppose a need on the part of God to have the “books balance”, implying that God is otherwise incapable of forgiving the individual. As such, there is an implied limit on the ability of God to forgive unless some external requirement is met, thereby implying that God himself is not omnipotent when it comes to forgiveness.

This notion similarly runs counter to the God that I know. The God who reveals himself to me through scripture and spiritual experiences is a fatherly God. He asks that we refer to him as our Heavenly Father, implying paternal affection towards us that we would recognize in our earthly relationships. As such, I feel that I can understand something of His nature by looking closely at what I would consider to be the ideal father on earth.

I find examples of such an ideal in the father of the prodigal son, as taught by the Savior when accused of eating with the publicans and sinners. Teaching a principle of humility that one could argue is more about the faithful son who was critical of the father’s willingness to so quickly forgive the prodigal, Christ reveals an ideal that I believe instructs us on the nature of our Heavenly Father.

In the parable we have a son who squandered the great gift his father gave him, and found himself in the lowest of circumstances – working the field where unclean beasts were fed. He had sunk to the lowest point, and could sink no further. Fully stripped of pride, with no pretense of deserving more, the prodigal sought out his father with the humble hope that he might simply be a servant in the a place he had once called home. So, he approached his father’s comfortable estate, unsure what reception he might receive.

His father, who was apparently watching for the return of the son he loved, saw him afar off. He ran to him, fell on his neck and without reservation or condition kissed him. His son, confessing his sins against heaven, implored acceptance as a servant. But the father rather killed the fatted calf, rejoiced in his return, and treated him again as a full son, replete with the symbols of honor including robes, shoes, and a family ring.

This example teaches me much about Heavenly Father if he is like the father of this prodigal. He has not only the willingness, but eagerness to accept home any wayward child who would again wish to live as a son.

If this is the case, then the need for an atonement does not come because Heavenly Father requires it, but because without it we would be unwilling ourselves to take the painful steps away from the earthly field of feeding swine towards our Heavenly home of acceptance and welcome. It is what enables us to let go of the guilt within us that condemns us, and allows us to receive the forgiveness openly offered.

In the scriptures, we learn that sin causes us to withdraw, and even wish that rocks would fall upon us and hide us from our Father, not so that we are protected from his wrath, but so that we would not have to face our own sins which would be unavoidable in the full light of His goodness and glory. In other words, we fail in our confidence before God because the scales of justice within our hearts reveal to us that we have fallen short. In essence, we withdraw not because Father would not receive us, but because we feel inadequate because of the willful, disobedient choices we have made.

Father and Christ know this about us. They realize that we need an anchor for our faith so that we can once again regain our self-confidence before God despite having done wrong. In response, Father provided, and Christ volunteered, for one beyond reproach to come and experience what we naturally experience when we sin. Christ, upon his knees in Gethsemane, contemplated our condition as being alone in our sins, much like Alma and Ammon and the sons of Mosiah felt contemplating the seared conscious of regret they themselves felt knowing the great wrongs they had done. He felt our sorrow and our shame. He felt our anguish and pain that causes us to withdraw from Father. In essence, his experience was a universal feeling of empathy for the entire human family, for every sin of every person committed and yet to be. He felt the collective shame of the world, causing Him, the very Son of the Father, to tremble because of pain and bleed from every pore.

Realizing this, we find an escape for our shame – a way to release the guilt that binds us and prevents us from openly returning to Father where the full acceptance of a beloved son once lost but now found can be felt. Realizing within ourselves that the consequence of shame formed by the imbalance of justice we cause has already been realized by one who himself has no reason to feel shame, we are able to let go of our own guilt, trusting that Christ has already suffered, and we need suffer no more. With such a realization, we can take those critical steps out of the worldly “field of swine” and approach again Father who anxiously awaits our return. Indeed, it is our faith and confidence that the suffering of guilt and shame has already been paid that allows us to let go and in fact forgive ourselves. In such a state we can accept the unconditional forgiveness Father anxiously waits to give us as soon as we take the steps towards home.

Of course, the steps home are necessary, just as the wayward son had to take the journey back. We must come to humility and realize our faults, just as the prodigal realized his fallen condition. With that realization, we must commit to leave the field of unclean things, and persist in a path homeward. In a gospel sense, it means that we must put behind us our old life, and start anew, as if we were reborn as a rightful son and heir. All this is symbolized for us, like all ordinances, through the outward act of baptism and partaking of the sacrament. Indeed, the sacrament itself could be considered a symbolic feast of the fatted calf for the wayward son now home!

The capstone of the atonement is what happened at Golgotha. His death and resurrection turned the key for the human family to escape the consequence of Adam and Eve’s choices in the garden. Without condition, the whole human family can escape death and again live with Father in immortal, glorified bodies.

So for me, the atonement is not necessary because God requires it, but because without it we would be unable to let go of our guilt, accept Father’s forgiveness, and remain with Him as a son and an heir. With it, we can confidently move forward away from our past, and use our mistakes to solidify our commitment to righteousness. We thereby gain the benefits of the fall of Adam (knowing good from evil), and lay hold on the invitation of Father to learn and yet come home as a son or daughter.

For me, the atonement compensates for the weakness within us, not some inability of God to forgive.

The story of the prodigal son gives us another lesson that we would be wise to consider. The older, faithful son who criticized his father was gently chastised when the father called him not to resent the welcomed prodigal, but to rejoice in his return. It is a tempting reaction we all can encounter to feel critical of those who question, struggle, or sin. In so doing, our resentment turns to judgment, and our own reaction may prove a barrier to those who would otherwise be homeward bound. We would be wise to not judge, so that we ourselves are not too harshly judged of the weaknesses we have but perhaps do not so outwardly display. We would do well to welcome any who come to the altar of humility seeking reconciliation with Father, and do all that we can to ease them from their wandered path and invite them home again as sons and daughters, and full heirs of salvation.

Indeed, we should eagerly look to the horizon of the lives around us, watching prayerfully for the prodigals to return. And when they do, not hesitate to invite them in, but rush to them while they are yet afar off, and embrace them with love reflective of the kindness of the Father. In so doing, we will make ourselves a little more like Him as we thus gain not only His mind, but also His heart.

For those struggling in the midst of questions, doubt, or unresolved issues in the standards you live by, I encourage you to re-anchor yourself in the foundational principle of the atonement. Recognize that Father loves you unconditionally, and will gladly welcome you home once you are ready to make the journey. The Savior loves you such that he felt your pain. It was his love for you that compelled him to feel what you now feel. I encourage you to trust in that love. Recognize that your discomfort, anxiety, and possibly even shame can all be overcome simply by trusting that you need not remain in such a state. Anchor yourselves in the atonement so that you can eventually make the path home and be welcomed by a Father ready to great you with a warm embrace and genuine rejoicing. In so doing, you will find the strength to persist until your questions are answered, your doubts are resolved, and your life is made right again.

Joseph Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the Language of Translation

by

The atheist controversialist Richard Dawkins has, on a few occasions, centered Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in his polemical crosshairs. When he does speak about Mormonism, Mr. Dawkins typically brings up the Jacobean English of the Book of Mormon as evidence against its authenticity. In his aggressively anti-religious bookThe God Delusion, for example, Mr. Dawkins dismisses Joseph Smith as the “enterprisingly mendacious inventor” of the Book of Mormon, which Mr. Dawkins sneeringly writes off as “a whole new bogus American history, written in bogus seventeenth-century English.”1

This line of argumentation has been repeated by Mr. Dawkins on a number of occasions. When he ambushed the Latter-day Saint rock star Brandon Flowers on Swedish television, Mr. Dawkins once again repeated his favorite criticism against the Book of Mormon. “I have to say that when I read the book of Mormon recently, what impressed me was that this was an obvious fake,” he informed an unsuspecting Flowers. But what made it as such an obvious fake to Mr. Dawkins? “This was a 19th century book written in 16th century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of charlatanry.”2

Finally, as he addressed a group of unknown size, Mr. Dawkins, who could hardly contain his bewildered disdain, exhaustedly complained that people in this day and age still believe the “mountebank” Joseph Smith, “who wrote a bogus book–––the Book of Mormon–––[and] although he was writing in the 19th century chose to write it in 17th century English.” “Why don’t people see through that?” Mr. Dawkins asked in perplexity.3

Thus, for Mr. Dawkins, the King James idiom in the Book of Mormon somehow disproves it’s a translation of an ancient document.4 Although Mr. Dawkins has not afforded us a thorough explanation backed with evidence and logic as to why he subscribes to this belief, and has offered nothing more than dogmatic assertions, he’s made his opinions very clear.5

I’ve always found this criticism amusing, if for no other reason than it betrays the fact that Mr. Dawkins doesn’t seem to have much experience translating languages (if he has, I’d be happy to be corrected). There is a very simple explanation for why Joseph Smith would have rendered his translation of the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, which has been discussed elsewhere.6 But all amusement aside, and instead of focusing on the question of why the Book of Mormon was translated into early modern English, which has been more than adequately explained by others, I want instead to draw attention to biblical scholar E. A. Speiser’s translation of the celebrated Akkadian creation myth Enuma Elish, and ask Mr. Dawkins a few questions.

Speiser, who has also provided us a valuable translation of the book of Genesis,7published his translation of the Enuma Elish in 1958 with Princeton University Press.8 What follows are a few pertinent excerpts.9

Speiser’s translation contained in Pritchard’s abridgement begins at the call of the god Marduk to be the champion of the divine council against the evil chaos monster Tiamat.

Thou art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy command is Anu.

Thou, Marduk, art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy word is Anu.

…

O Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger.

We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire.

When in the Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme.

When the gods praise Marduk, they speak as follows.

Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.

Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.

Open thy mouth: the cloth will vanish.

Later we read of the terrible battle between Marduk and Tiamat, wherein the angry chaos goddess lets forth a cry.

Too important art thou for the lord of the gods

to rise up against thee!

Is it in their place that they have gathered, or in thy place?

An impatient Marduk returns Tiamat’s insult with his own.

Why art thou risen, art haughtily exalted,

Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict,

. . .  sons reject their own fathers,

Whilst thou, who has born them,

hast foresworn love!

…

Stand thou up, that I and thou meet in single combat!

Marduk eventually defeats Tiamat and from her spoiled carcass fashions the cosmos. Addressing the moon, Marduk gives his orders to the heavens.

Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days,

. . .

When the sun overtakes thee at the base of heaven,

Diminish thy crown and retrogress to light.

At the time of disappearance approach thou the course of the sun,

And on the twenty-ninth thou shalt again stand in opposition to the sun.

The myth concludes with Marduk being exalted and praised in the divine council for his majesty and power in defeating Tiamat and establishing the cosmos.

With the preceding in mind, my questions for Mr. Dawkins are as follows:

1. If we’re to reject the Book of Mormon as a fabrication because it’s a purported translation that reads in Jacobean English, what are we to do with Speiser’s translation of the Enuma Elish?

2. Does Speiser’s Jacobean English translation of the Enuma Elish bring into doubt the antiquity of the text, as Joseph Smith’s Jacobean English translation of the Book of Mormon supposedly does? Indeed, is Speiser’s translation “a work of charlatanry” because he produced it in the 20th century and yet wrote it in 17th century English, which is “not the way people talk” these days?10 (Incidentally, as it turns out people actually did “talk like that” in the 19th century, both in religious and non-religious discourse.)11

3. Why would Princeton University publish a translation of an ancient text rendered in Jacobean English if such was an illegitimate maneuver?

4. Do you allow Speiser to utilize Jacobean English in his translation because he’s translating an indisputably ancient text, whereas you do not grant Joseph Smith the same courtesy because he claimed to translate a text of disputed authenticity? If so, why? On what rational grounds do you create this exception?

There are more questions that come to mind, but these four should be sufficient for now. I hope the point of this brief article is clear. If we’re to allow Speiser to render his translation of an ancient text into King James idiom in the 1950s (!), then surely we must also allow Joseph Smith to do such in the 19th century. Not to do so is to employ a tremendous double standard.

There are legitimate questions one can raise about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, including questions about Joseph Smith’s method of translation, but Mr. Dawkins’ naïve and uninformed criticism on this point is not one of them.12 Those looking for a rigorous analysis of the translation and language of the Book of Mormon would do well to look elsewhere.13

*This entry also appears at Interpreter.

  1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2nd. ed. (Great Britain: Mariner Books, 2008), 234. [↩]
  2. Katherine Weber, “Brandon Flowers of ‘The Killers’ Defends Mormon Faith Against Richard Dawkins,” online at http://www.christianpost.com/news/rock-star-brandon-flowers-defends-mormon-faith-to-richard-dawkins-81826/.
  3. See “Richard Dawkins talking about Mormonism and Joseph Smith,” online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d95M8jk3mv0.
  4. Actually, I genuinely wonder if Mr. Dawkins is aware of the fact that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation. His routinely slip-shod comments on the book have only shown he’s aware that it was published in the 19th century, but not much more.
  5. That Mr. Dawkins would hold to such dogmatism is odd, considering how much he esteems himself to be a man of science and reason.
  6. See generally Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), passim, but especially 302 (available here); Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 212–218 (available here); Daniel L. Belnap, “The Kind James Bible and the Book of Mormon,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 162–81. On the English of the Book of Mormon, see also Royal Skousen, “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 25, no. 5 (2005): 2–6. If Mr. Dawkins wants to be taken seriously, I’d advise he quickly brush up on this literature.
  7. E. A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964).
  8. James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: Volume 1, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1958), 31-39. As the copyright page indicates, Speiser’s translation in this volume is an abridgement found in another Princeton publication, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, published in 1950.
  9. I have, for the sake of readability, silently omitted Speiser’s critical notations of the text.
  10. Incidentally, Speiser is not the only modern translator to render his translation of an ancient text into Jacobean English. See Matthew Roper, “A Black Hole That’s Not So Black,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 165–67; John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith’s Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality?” FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 334–37; Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 217–218. John A. Tvedtnes, “Answering Mormon Scholars,”Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 235–37, also shows how the language of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was influenced by Jacobean (KJV) English. We might ask Mr. Dawkins if he considers Abraham Lincoln a faker because “people didn’t talk like that” in the 19th century.
  11. Eran Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’: Pseudo-Biblicism and the Early American Republic, 1770–1830,” Church History 79/4 (2010): 800–826. Shalev devotes a few words on the Book of Mormon. “The tradition of writing in biblical style [in the early 19th century] paved the way for the Book of Mormon by conditioning Americans to reading American texts, and texts about America, in biblical language. Yet the Book of Mormon, an American narrative told in the English of the King James Bible, has thrived long after Americans abandoned the practice of recounting their affairs in biblical language. It has thus been able to survive and flourish for almost two centuries, not because, but in spite of the literary ecology of the mid-nineteenth century and after. The Book of Mormon became a testament to a widespread cultural practice of writing in biblical English that could not accommodate to the monumental transformations America endured in the first half of nineteenth century.” Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’,” 826, footnotes silently removed.
  12. The careful reader will note that Mr. Dawkins is not claiming the Book of Mormon is false because of apparent textual dependency on the KJV for the Book of Mormon’s biblical citations. (I’d be surprised if his understanding of the Book of Mormon was informed enough to even recognize such.) Rather, he’s arguing that it’s false by the mere fact that it’s imitating KJV language. There is a world of difference between these two criticisms. One is legitimate and worthy of careful analysis. The other is bogus, and is perpetuated only by those who are ignorant of how translations work.
  13. I suggest that the reader begin (but not end) with the work of Royal Skousen, which can be conveniently accessed online here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=57. Other useful material by Skousen can be accessed here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/25-years-of-research-what-we-have-learned-about-the-book-of-mormon-text/. Since he has made himself a commentator on the language of the Book of Mormon, I am particularly interested if Mr. Dawkins could address the information uncovered in Skousen’s research concerning non-English Hebraisms. See Royal Skousen, “The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994): 38. “What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith’s upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. . . . [T]he potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.”

FAIR Has New Name/Shaken Faith Syndrome Updated.

by

Ash-newer-Picture2“There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.” (Neal A. Maxwell)

In 1997 a group of Latter-day Saints who frequented the Mormon message boards of America Online found that they were responding to the same LDS-critical arguments over and over. They decided to form a non-profit organization so they could share information and create a repository of responses. That organization was The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, or FAIR. In 1999 FAIR held their first conference in Ben Lomond California. A large percentage of the few who attended this first conference were the speakers themselves. Two weeks ago FAIR held their fifteenth annual conference in Provo, Utah, with about 400 attendees.

Through the years many people have questioned the meaning of the word “apologetics” in FAIR’s title. Why are Mormons apologizing? What are they apologizing for? The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek “apologia” and is used four times in the Greek New Testament. It means to “defend” one’s believe or faith. FAIR is not apologizing for anything, but rather defending LDS beliefs from critical attacks.

A lot of things have changed through the years in the FAIR organization. While the group was originally formed because of the combative nature of the message board atmosphere, FAIR eventually separated themselves from the contentious message board environment and focused on “educative apologetics.” As Gerald Bay once said, “You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief.”[i]

FAIR is focused on helping or educating members who struggle with challenging issues, or investigators who are searching for answers to anti-LDS accusations. While FAIR will always be an apologetics organization, the confusion over the word “apologetics” has prompted a more recent change in the FAIR title. It was announced at the 2013 FAIR Conference that FAIR will now be known as FairMormon with the tag line: Critical Questions, Faithful Answers.[ii] As Steven Densley (newly appointed Vice President of FairMormon) explains, “We have changed our name and are updating our websites in order to make them more easily accessible. The name has been simplified. Instead of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, it is now simply FairMormon. Hopefully this will be easier to remember and will allow us to spend more time doing apologetics rather than spending our time explaining what apologetics is. Our mission has not changed, but hopefully, with the name change and the changes with the websites, our organization will be more effective.”[iii]

We’re not going to argue someone back into the Church, but we can help inoculate members against LDS-critical arguments through better education, and—for those whose testimonies are faltering—we can set the record straight on false anti-LDS claims or offer logical alternative views which fit within a framework of belief. I’ve attempted to do both in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.

It’s been 5 years since Shaken Faith Syndrome was first released. We ran out of copies at the end of last year—couldn’t even fill our Christmas order for Deseret Book. It was decided, since another printing was needed, that we would introduce a 2nd edition which would fix typos and mistakes as well as update and add material that had changed since 2008. The result is the 2nd edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome.

For those of you who already have Shaken Faith Syndrome 1, I want to quickly note some of the changes made in the 2nd edition (in addition to new front & back covers). First, I reshuffled several of the chapters and material from some of the chapters to create better flow and continuity. It has a vastly improved index making it tons easier to find what you are looking for. I added a fair amount of additional material. The page count for the first edition was 301 pages; the second edition is 358 pages and has a slightly smaller font to accommodate all the extra material without making the page count excessive. 15 of the 28 chapters (if we include the Foreword) has additional material—some chapters with more additional material than others.

Some of the additional material includes more info on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon geography, a section addressing geographical influences from Joseph Smith’s environment which are claimed to have impacted the Book of Mormon narrative. It also includes more information on Book of Mormon anachronisms, more discussion on cognitive dissonance and former Mormon exit narratives, brief reviews of the competing geographical models and the scriptures which seem to suggest that the United States fulfills some Nephite prophecies, and updated info on the DNA issue. I draw upon new information from Don Bradley’s 2011 FAIR presentation on my chapter regarding the Kinderhook Plates, and I’ve also added a new chapter on Race & the Church.

What the two books have in common are what they attempt to achieve and the fact that they are both divided into two major sections. Section 1 addresses the basic problems which create and foster doubt as well as the assumptions which can turn into stumbling blocks when faced with challenging issues. This first section (which constitutes approximately 1/3 of the new edition) tries to deal with the root of the problems that can cause Shaken Faith Syndrome. If members can grasp the principals expressed in Section 1 they should be apply those principals to any LDS-critical argument they might encounter. Section 2—relying on the material in Section 1—engages most of the more common LDS-critical accusations such as DNA, the Book of Abraham, Plural Marriage, the First Vision, Joseph Smith and treasure digging, Masonry & the Temple, and lots more.

There is a growing problem with members encountering information on the Internet that conflicts with what they thought they knew about Church history and Shaken Faith Syndrome attempts to put this information in a context of belief which demonstrates that, as the Lord told Joseph Smith in D&C 71:9, “there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.” Once we can put challenging issues in context, they no longer become stumbling blocks.

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Gerald Bray, “Man’s Righteousness and God’s Salvation,” Evangel, the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.

[iii] Personal communication, 9 August 2013.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 160b: Don Bradley and Dan Peterson Taking Questions

by

Podcast: Download (28.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.

This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is the second of a two-part interview.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 160a: Don Bradley and Dan Peterson Taking Questions

by

Podcast: Download (30.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

BradleyDonWhy do people leave the Church? What was in the missing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon? How do we explain the appearance of horses in the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith make up the story of the first vision long after it was supposed to have occurred? Is there any evidence that supports the authenticity for the Book of Abraham? Does the mention of grains in the Book of Mormon provide evidence of its truthfulness?

Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.

Don Bradley is a writer, editor, and researcher specializing in early Mormon history. Don recently performed an internship with the Joseph Smith Papers Project and is completing his thesis, on the earliest Mormon conceptions of the New Jerusalem, toward an M.A. in History at Utah State University. He has published on the translation of the Book of Mormon, plural marriage before Nauvoo, and Joseph Smith’s “grand fundamental principles of Mormonism” and plans to publish an extensive analysis, co-authored with Mark Ashurst-McGee, on the Kinderhook plates. Don’s first book, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Missing Contents of the Book of Mormon, is slated to be published by Greg Kofford Books.

 

DanPeterson

A native of southern California, Daniel C. Peterson received a bachelor’s degree in Greek and philosophy from Brigham Young University (BYU) and, after several years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo, earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Dr. Peterson is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU, where he has taught Arabic language and literature at all levels, Islamic philosophy, Islamic culture and civilization, Islamic religion, the Qur’an, the introductory and senior “capstone” courses for Middle Eastern Studies majors, and various other occasional specialized classes. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on Islamic and Latter-day Saint topics–including a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007)—and has lectured across the United States, in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and at various Islamic universities in the Near East and Asia. He served in the Switzerland Zürich Mission (1972-1974), and, for approximately eight years, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also presided for a time as the bishop of a singles ward adjacent to Utah Valley University. Dr. Peterson is married to the former Deborah Stephens, of Lakewood, Colorado, and they are the parents of three sons.

This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is the first of a two-part interview.

A Gathering of Study and Faith

by

Ash (newer) Picture“…as all have not faith,” the Lord told the members of the early Restored Church, “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

In the early 1980s I struggled for a brief time with my own personal testimony, brought on by exposure to LDS-critical material for which I had no answers. I was stunned, confused, and anxious. In my search for answers I stumbled upon the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)—a newly formed (1979) organization of LDS scholars. The handful of writings and reprints produced by this LDS scholarly group was exactly what my fledging testimony needed.

I joined their mailing-list, purchased every publication they had, and became aware of other sources for academic studies of LDS issues—sources such as BYU Studies,Sunstone, Dialogue, and the writings of Hugh Nibley. I bought used back-copies of everything I could get my hands on to feed my craving for learning more.

In the FARMS newsletters I would occasionally get invitations to attend a lecture or other event hosted by the scholars who contributed to LDS studies. These were always held in Utah, but I was a young family-man in Colorado without the means to travel these events. In 1985 BYU hosted the first Ramses II exhibit and in my FARMS newsletter I received an invitation to attend a tour of the exhibit with Hugh Nibley as the guide. Since Dr. Nibley was my hero at that stage in my life, I was devastated that I was unable to attend.

My wife and I were convinced that we needed to move to Utah, in part, so I could be closer the Mecca of LDS scholarship. Once we settled in Ogden (north of Salt Lake City) I attended virtually every event the FARMS offered. In 1999 the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) was created.

Like the original FARMS (now-defunct and replaced by BYU’s Maxwell Institute) FAIR was organized by a group of grass-roots Latter-day Saint volunteers who were interested in LDS studies. FAIR, however, was dedicated to educative apologetics (“apologetics” means to defend one’s beliefs). With a policy of non-confrontation (they didn’t want to engage in “Bible-bashing”) FAIR’s goal was to apply scholarly research and answers to the anti-LDS accusations of the Church’s critics.

Since its inception as a non-profit organization, FAIR has grown into a multi-national organization of volunteers who draw upon the best latest scholarship, and has produced books (such as my Shaken Faith Syndrome), DVDs, YouTube Videos, podcasts, a Wiki, and hundreds of articles. In 1999 FAIR held its first conference in California. In 2000 the venue was moved to Utah where it has remained ever. I attended the first Utah FAIR Conference and haven’t missed one since.

There are a few annual events I eagerly anticipate—Christmas with my family, Halloween, 4th of July, and the annual FAIR Conference. Some of the brightest LDS scholars have spoken on some of the most interesting topics ranging from such issues as Egyptology, DNA, Race Issues, Women’s Issues, the First Vision, Same-Sex Attraction, Plural Marriage, and more. The FAIR Conferences are consistently one of the highlights of my year.

This year, the 15th annual FAIR Conference will be held August 1 and 2 and promises to continue the standard of interest and excellence that has drawn increasingly larger crowds. The first FAIR Utah Conference was held in Alta. The next few years were held in Provo to provide for a greater number of attendees. For the past several years the FAIR Conference was moved to a venue in Sandy, and this year (because FAIR has outgrown the Sandy venue) it is being moved back to Provo to the Utah Valley Convention Center.

The list of speakers this year is fantastic. This year’s line of up scholars includes Ronald Barney of the LDS Church historical department who will speak on “Joseph Smith’s Visions.” Morris Thurston will present the “Kidnapping” at Palestine Grove: Missouri’s Final Attempt to Extradite Joseph Smith. Don Bradley will speak on The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative: 1820s or 1830s.

Salt Lake Tribune humor columnist, Robert Kirby will present, Why It is Important to Laugh at Ourselves, and Lynne Wilson’s topic will be, Was Joseph a Product of the Second Great Awakening? Dr. Mark Alan Wright, a specialist in Mesoamerian Archaeology will present, Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography. Rosalynde Welch will discuss “Disenchanted Mormonism,” and Seth Payne will speak on “Why Mormonism Matters: Pastoral Apologetics and the LDS Doubter.”

Ralph Hancock will reflect on “Mormonism and the New Liberalism: The Inescapability of Political Apologetics,” Maxine Hanks will present, “Working With the Church: Another Narrative,” and Daniel Peterson (a perennial favorite) will address, “Toward a More Effective Apologetics.”

In addition to this awesome list of speakers and subjects, the FAIR Conference will host two panel discussions: Charity Never Faileth: Seeking Sisterhood Amid Different Perspectives on Mormon Feminism, with Neylan McBain, Valerie Hudson, Wendy Ulrich, Kris Fredrickson, and Maxine Hanks.

The second panel is entitled, The Loss and Rekindling of Faith, and will include panelists, Bill Reel, Don Bradley, Janet L. Eyring, and Maxine Hanks.

Anyone interested in Mormon studies should attend. Early-bird discounts are still available until July 28 but even if you miss the discount, the “study and faith” you’ll gain from this assemblage of speakers will be worth far more than the price of the ticket. You can get all the info here, and I hope to see you there.

*This article was also published in Meridian.

Best of FAIR 16: A Joseph Smith Miscellany

by

Podcast: Download (27.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

bushman-01Richard Bushman, author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, discusses the issues that loomed in his mind as he wrote his books on Joseph Smith. One conclusion he has reached is that “we will not always be able to give satisfactory answers to our critics. We will never placate our critics completely and we should not seek to do so. If we placate them completely we are making our gospel, our history, conform to their sense of what life should be and what the path should be. In a sense, we’re caving in if we become too pleasing to those around them. We have to state it as we see it and recognize that there will be differences from what our critics expect of us and of what actually happened to our people.”

The text of his presentation can be found here. The video can be seen here.

Richard Bushman is the and Gouverneur Morris Professor of History emeritus at Columbia University. He is currently the Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He also serves as one of three general editors of the Joseph Smith Papers.

The opinions expressed in this address do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FAIR.

To purchase tickets to the 2013 FAIR Conference, visit this page. This short video clip also provides more information: FAIR Conference video clip.

Maxwell Institute Interview with Terry and Fiona Givens

by

Podcast: Download (35.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

The Maxwell Institute has started a podcast and subscribers to the FAIR Blog will especially enjoy this interview with Fiona and Terryl Givens. They talk about their recent book, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, and also discuss their recent string of firesides and symposia discussing the navigation of faith crises. Former Mormon FAIR-Cast host, Blair Hodges, conducts the interview as they cover subjects like the character of God, the pre-earth life and human agency, the balance between faith and the intellect, individuality and Mormon culture, and many other topics.

This recording is used here by permission of the Maxwell Institute and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 156: Defenders Beget Defenders

by

Podcast: Download (8.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Christian minister George MacDonald, a primary inspiration to C.S. Lewis, once said “It is often the incapacity for defending the faith they love, which turns men into persecutors.” Adding to this, Elder Neil A. Maxwell said, “Defenders beget defenders and one of the significant side benefits of scholars who are devoted, . . . is that we will at least reduce the number of people who do not have the capacity to defend their faith and who otherwise might ‘grow weary and faint in their minds.’”

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on July 14, 2013 Martin Tanner and Steve Densley, Jr. discuss the need to defend the faith and the way in which FAIR and the FAIR Conference can help prepare people to respond to attacks against the Church.

To purchase tickets to the 2013 FAIR Conference, visit this page. This short video clip also provides more information: FAIR Conference video clip.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.