FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Doctrine

Mormon FAIR-Cast 124: Controversies Regarding the Nature of Christ

by

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

One of the primary reasons some claim that Mormons are not Christians is because the Mormon view of the trinity differs from that of most modern Christians. Mormons claim that their view of the Godhead is correct and that the view of God as set forth in various creeds, such as that which was proclaimed at the Nicean Council, is a corrupt version of the truth. Some modern Christians counter that the concept of the trinity as believed by most Christians today was already considered doctrine by the time of the Council of Nicea and the council was simply held to address other heresies. So what really happened? Why does the majority view of the nature of Christ differ from the view of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on September 2, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses these issues.

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.

Trusting Imperfect Prophets

by

An important part of the mission of FAIR, as part of defending the faith, is to promote and defend the credibility of the Brethren in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, authorized to lead and guide the Church in the Latter-days. For some, the notion that the prophets or apostles might at times be wrong is just too earth shattering. “They speak with God,” so the thinking goes, “and therefore cannot be wrong.” This leads them to the conclusion that since they are sometimes mistaken, they must not be prophets. Others may perhaps come away with a distorted view of prophets, with an inordinate focus on their imperfections that erodes their faith and confidence in them as men of God. Our hearts go out to those who have had, or do have, similar concerns and struggles.

With that in mind, I would like to offer a few suggestions that have helped me maintain faith in the prophets and apostles and other leaders despite my awareness of their imperfect and fallible status.

[Read more…] about Trusting Imperfect Prophets

Mormon FAIR-Cast 92: Deification as understood by the Greek Orthodox Church

by

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Mormons have been criticized for believing that they can become like God. But are they alone among all the religions of the world in this belief? In this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on March 25, 2012, Martin Tanner interviews Dr. Tom Roberts, Academic Dean, St Elias Seminary and Graduate School. They discuss the way in which the Greek Orthodox Church views the concept of deification.

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.

Review: No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues

by

Review of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues
Edited by Robert L. Millett
Published by BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2011

Rather than focusing primarily on the methods commonly used by critics as other recent books of this genre do (such as Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome, which I also highly recommend), this book contains essays that address some of the most common issues that are used to attack the faith of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of these topics in a faith-promoting, but scholarly and honest environment, against the flood of misinformation available online today. Indeed, the editor notes that “The Internet is filled with thousands of pages of anti-Mormon polemic, and it is extremely difficult for people to receive an honest and fair appraisal of Mormonism without significant effort on their part” (page viii).

Besides those by the editor, Robert L. Millett, the book contains contributions by Daniel L. Belnap, J. Spencer Fluhman, Steven C. Harper, Brian M. Hauglid, Daniel K. Judd, Kerry Muhlestein, Ugo A. Perego, Brent L. Top, and John W. Welch. They are split into four categories: Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saint Church History, Scriptural Perspectives, and Doctrinal Teachings. The topics include what it means to be a Christian, the various accounts of the First Vision, the Smiths’ involvement in money-digging and the supernatural, the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith’s youngest plural wife, DNA and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and Jesus Christ and salvation, among many others. Many of the topics are written by experts in the area – for example, a population geneticist discusses DNA and the Book of Mormon, two Egyptologists discuss the Book of Abraham, and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers tackles the subject of multiple versions of the First Vision. I would like to concentrate on a few topics of particular interest to me in order to give an idea of the overall book.

Kent P. Jackson’s cleverly titled “Are Christians Christians?” discusses what it means to be a Christian from the point of view of mainstream Christianity and where it came from. He examines statements from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches that declare us to be unchristian. He explains why their definition is unbiblical, and happily admits that we should not be included in it. “We, of all people, should not be offended that other churches consider our baptisms invalid and do not recognize the authority of our priesthood holders to officiate in their ordinances. Since the first days of our church’s history, we have denied the validity of the authority and ordinances of all other churches (see D&C 22). We concede that we are not members of the historic Christian church that includes our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. But to consider us not Christians on issues of belief is another matter” (page 55). He then goes on to explain that our definition of the word Christian is scriptural (although we have no official statement of such), and that by that definition we would also include those of other faiths previously mentioned.

Steven C. Harper, an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, wrote about the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, saying it “may be the best documented theophany (vision of God) in history.” He finds the five different known accounts in eight statements (plus contemporary hearsay) to be “rich documentation” and “a good reason to believe him” rather than being evidence of an inconsistent and evolving story as others contend. (Page 63.) He describes how Fawn Brodie and Wesley Walters shaped the criticisms that are popular today, and did not reconsider their interpretations even when new evidence against them came to light. He points out that “those who share the skeptics’ assumptions will likely arrive at the same conclusions as the skeptics. But those who are open to the possibility that Joseph told the truth can discover other meanings from the same facts” (page 71).

Ugo A. Perego, who holds a PhD in genetics and biomolecular sciences, handles the question of whether DNA proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. He goes into great detail explaining how DNA is used in research, the current theories about migrations into the Americas, and describes the various theories for and against the Book of Mormon based on available DNA evidence. He points out the problems with each of these theories (such as evidence showing up in the wrong time period, wrong assumptions being used, and misunderstandings of the limitations of DNA research) and arrives at the conclusion that DNA evidence can neither be used to prove nor disprove that the people in the Book of Mormon actually existed. (In fact, he points out that it can’t even be used to prove that Jesus existed.) He says that “I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. …Anyone using DNA to ascertain the accuracy of historical events of a religious nature – which require instead a component of faith – will be sorely disappointed” (page 208).

One of the essays on the Book of Abraham is by Kerry Muhlestein, who has a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA. He begins by explaining how he got interested in the Book of Abraham, and why Egyptologists outside the church dismiss it. He also found that many members of the church who struggle with the issues involved with the Book of Abraham aren’t looking for an excuse to leave the church, but have “encountered well-written (though not necessarily well-documented or researched) arguments…and did not know how to answer the questions posed by these arguments.” He found that those publishing critical information are generally unaware that it is “based on incorrect information and bad assumptions. They are misled by the mistakes, lies, and trash put out by a few, and they unwittingly pass the information along without really looking into their sources” (page 219).

He then goes on to debunk some of the misinformation, such as the idea that there was no human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. He also found that one of the words supposedly made up by Joseph Smith (Olishem) has been discovered in two ancient texts. He discovered that Egyptians had access to biblical stories by 200 BC (which was the right time period for the papyri), and were particularly interested in Abraham. He presented this information to a conference put on by the Russian Academy of Science and received positive reviews. He talks about evidence that what we actually have possession of today was a very small part of what Joseph had, and gives reasons why it likely was not the source of the Book of Abraham, other than Facsimile 1. He also briefly discusses the mystery of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which were not likely to have been used in the translation process, as some critics have claimed. Another important point he makes is that “written by his own hand, upon papyrus” does not mean that the actual papyrus we have was written by the hand of Abraham, but that it is a copy of the original that Abraham would have written on much earlier. He also devotes several pages to Facsimile 1, pointing out many evidences (and some possible theories) for the authenticity of the interpretations provided by Joseph Smith.

Overall, I thought the book was quite good, although some essays were better than others. Some of the more doctrinal ones, in particular, presented a few points as given that not all members would agree on. But such is the nature of Mormonism. The book could be used to answer questions for oneself, to help a member friend or an investigator, or for inoculation against misinformation and half-truths encountered in a hostile environment. It would be useful reading for those preparing to serve a mission, for families, and for any individual interested in learning more about these issues or defending the church.

This book is available at the FAIR bookstore here.

FAIR Questions 2: Recognizing the Voice of the Spirit

by

Podcast: Download (10.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

FAIR Questions features a question that was submitted to FAIR volunteers through the FAIR website at fairlds.org. The answer in each episode is compiled from the various responses provided by the volunteers.

And now for the question:

How do I find a way to not only discern the Spirit from emotion, but how can I become convinced that the Spirit is actually real? How can I come to know that spiritual experience is not just a product of chemical processes in the brain? I mean, I’ve prayed about the truth of the Book of Mormon and the gospel and I have gotten answers to my prayers, but how can I come to know whether or not this is from God, and not just either a part of my subconscious or a delusion.

And now for the answer:

John taught us that there are a variety of influences, or “spirits,” that can be mistaken for revelation. He taught us that we should put these various influences to the test to see if they are of God. (1 John 4:1.) Similarly, Paul taught us to “Prove all things.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) Christ Himself warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15.)

In order to put the various voices we hear to the test, it is first important to learn how the Spirit communicates with us. The Spirit can manifest itself in a number of ways. In the account of the two disciples who met the resurrected Savior on the way to Emmaus, one of the believers said, “Did not our heart burn within us?” (Luke 24:32.) We are all familiar with the counsel given to Oliver Cowdery as he attempted to translate the Book of Mormon. He was told that, after he studied it out in his mind, and prayed about it, he would experience a “burning in the bosom” if he was right, but a stupor of thought if not. (D&C 9:7–9.)

On another occasion, Oliver was told that, if he needed further confirmation regarding the truth of the work in which he was engaged, he needed to simply remember the peace he experienced in his mind that came to him when he had earlier prayed about it. (D&C 6:23.)

Christ called the Holy Ghost “the Comforter.” (John 14:26.) Paul also taught that the Spirit brings peace. It can also fill one with love, joy, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. (Gal. 5:22-23.) The Spirit may sometimes give us a sense of constraint so that we will feel that we should do something, or not do something that is contrary to our natural inclinations. (See, e.g., 1 Ne. 4:10; Alma 14:11.)

The spiritual experience of the Nephites following King Benjamin’s famous speech teaches us how the spirit actually softens our heart, makes us willing to covenant with God, and diminishes our disposition to do evil. (See Mosiah 5:1-5.) This is a wonderful yardstick to use. If you feel no desire to do evil, but to do good continually, and your heart is softened so that you are willing to make covenants with God, then you can rest assured that it is the Spirit that is working upon you.

While the Spirit often communicates in the language of emotion, people have reported hearing an audible voice, or at least words that pop into their minds. Enos reported that while he was “struggling in the spirit, . . . the voice of the Lord came into [his] mind.” (Enos 1:10.) The Spirit has been described as a “still small voice.” (1 Kings 19:11-12.) As it speaks to our minds, as well as our hearts, it may bring things to our remembrance. (John 14:26.) Joseph Smith, before receiving revelation on baptism for the dead, reported that the subject seemed “to occupy [his] mind, and press itself upon [his] feelings the strongest.” (D&C 128:1.) The Lord told Oliver Cowdery, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.” (D&C 8:2.) Alma taught that as the Spirit helps a person to recognize the truth of God’s word, that person will notice that God’s word “beginneth to enlarge [his] soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten [his] understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to [him].” (Alma 32:28.) Joseph Smith explained that “A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon.” (TPJS, p. 151.) As the Lord promised, “I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul with joy.” (D&C 11:13. See also D&C 6:15.)

So, how are we to know if those feelings, thoughts or words are from God? John taught us that “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” (1 John 4:2-3.) After warning us of false prophets, Christ gave us the way in which they may be tested: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:16. Compare Alma 32:27-43.)

In answer to the question, “How do we recognize the promptings of the Spirit?” President Hinckley read in Moroni chapter 7, and then said: “That’s the test, when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God. . . .

“If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. . . . And if you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your heart what the Spirit is saying to you.

“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 260–61, referencing Moroni 7:13, 16-17.) Similarly, Hyrum Smith was taught that the Spirit leads us to “do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously.” (D&C 11:12.)

It is important to note that it will be difficult to recognize the voice of the spirit if our actions are not conducive to spirituality. The Savior taught, “If any man will do his will, he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17.) The Spirit often accompanies activities such as prayer, scripture study, fasting, the performing of ordinances, worship through song, instruction, meditation, and temple attendance, expressions of love and service. It is more difficult for the Spirit to communicate with one who is engaged in activities of lust, anger, or greed, or even simple noise and confusion.

Furthermore, God’s house is a house of order. (D&C 132:8.) God will not inspire His leaders to give certain instructions, and then inspire His children to disobey those instructions. Therefore, one of the ways to verify the voice of the Lord is to test the inspiration one received for consistency with the words God has already spoken through his leaders in the scriptures, at General Conference, or in a private meeting with a bishop.

We can also know that a prompting is not of God when we feel to direct the affairs of another person over whom we have no authority. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has taught, “only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. … When one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility … you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord” (“Revelation,” New Era, Sept. 1982, 46).

Of course, God has His own timeline, and His ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8.) We cannot force the hand of God either in immediately providing revelation or in sending us revelation that simply conforms to our own preconceived notions or desires. We should be careful in following feelings that simply confirm our own biases. In contrast, if we are feeling prompted to do something that challenges us to grow, and something we may not have otherwise chosen for ourselves, this may be an indication of authenticity. In short, a humble and submissive soul is more susceptible to the whisperings of the Spirit. We should follow the example of Christ who asked that he might be spared from drinking from the cup of the atonement, but afterward said “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39)

Could it all just be brain chemicals? We should be careful not to confuse the effects of the Spirit with the Spirit itself. As the Spirit brings peace, joy, motivation to do good, etc., these will be experienced in the brain like any other thought or emotion. However, just as an event that brings us joy is not joy itself, the fact that the Spirit can bring us joy does not mean that the Spirit is a mere emotional effect or process of the brain. It takes more effort to believe in the Spirit than in something we can sense with touch or sight, but that does not make the Spirit less real. While we cannot see gravity, we can observe its effects. Similarly, we can seek true revelations and observe their effects.

Like any other talent, discerning the voice of the Spirit takes practice. It also involves a process of trial and error. One member of FAIR reported that he went through a couple months in his teenage years where he thought he was receiving all kinds of revelations on all kinds of topics. As time went on, and many of the impressions turned out to be false, he learned valuable lessons on how to tell the difference between the Spirit, and other influences. As he has gained experience, he says that he has more confidence in sorting out his feelings.

Learning what the Spirit is and how to respond is one of life’s most important lessons. As you follow the impressions you have, don’t be discouraged when you find that they are not from God. Just learn from your experience. As you act on true revelation from God, you will come to better recognize the voice of the Spirit. As you follow the Spirit, its voice will become clearer and revelation will become more frequent.

If there is an issue that you have been wondering about, you can often find the latest answers at the FAIR wiki, found at fairmormon.org. If you can’t find your answer there, feel free to pose your question to the FAIR apologists by visiting the FAIR contact page. Occasionally, such a question will be featured on FAIR Questions. Before questions are used for this podcast, permission is obtained from the questioner.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to p[email protected], or join the conversation at fairblog.org.

Tell your friends about us and help increase the popularity of this podcast by subscribing in iTunes and by writing a review.

Music for this episode was provided courtesy of Lawrence Green.

The opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FAIR.

Allah, Zeus, and Elohim: A Question of Religious Tolerance

by

In his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation, Professor Daniel C. Peterson of Brigham Young University presented a paper on “Mormonism, Islam, and the Question of Other Religions”.[1] Professor Peterson is well qualified to speak on this subject, as he is a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies. A cursory glance of one biographical sketch online will quickly remind the reader that Professor Peterson is not only an authority on Islam, but religious studies in general.[2]

A few months before his presentation at the FAIR Conference, Professor Peterson published an article with the Mormon Times entitled “God’s sheep recognize his voice”.[3] It is something of a reader’s digest version of his FAIR presentation. In both the article and his FAIR Conference Presentation, Professor Peterson essentially argued that regardless of religious or cultural background, “God’s sheep recognize his voice, even when it’s in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.” Thus, we as Latter-day Saints should follow the noble heritage of our predecessors (including Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde, and B. H. Roberts, to name only three) and extend tolerance and understanding towards those of other religious backgrounds in both word and deed. Our world is much too divisive, and religious strife only adds fuel to the fire. Although we should not compromise our uniquely cherished Latter-day Saints beliefs, we should not fall prey to religious dogmatism that can create contention amongst people of differing religious persuasions. Dr. Peterson’s ideas are noble and edifying, and I felt myself  strengthened after listening to his presentation at the FAIR Conference.

However, not everybody is as taken with Professor Peterson’s ideas as I am. One particularly vocal anti-Mormon named Rocky Hulse has made it clear that  Daniel C. Peterson is preaching nothing but rank blasphemy.[4]

Right off the bat Hulse makes it clear that “the first four paragraphs of this article set the stage of falsehood”. What are the shocking paragraphs which Mr. Hulse has in mind?

Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.

They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.

When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn’t mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is “corrupt” means that it has been damaged. We speak of “corrupted texts” or “corrupted files,” intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.

In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.

Hulse continues to blast away at this heresy by asserting that “this attempt at revising the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith is grossly deceptive”. According to Hulse, Joseph Smith’s details of his First Vision disqualify Mormonism from any pretension to inter-faith ecumenicalism.

Here in the “First Vision,” Joseph Smith says the “Personage” who addressed him (later identified as Jesus) told him all churches were wrong and all of their creeds were an “abomination.” The Christian Creeds are Christian doctrine. The word “abomination” is defined as follows: “1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred: LOATHING.” It is quite clear from the text that, according to Joseph Smith, Jesus has “extreme disgust, hatred and loathing” of the Christian creeds and specifically defines all churches as wrong and teaching the doctrines of men. Yet, in the first four paragraphs of this article, Daniel Peterson very deceptively tries to gloss over Mormonism’s absolute attack against all churches, all Christian doctrine and all who profess Christianity.

Hulse then quote-mines the Journal of Discourses for a statement as equally un-ecumenical as Joseph Smith’s brazen assault on Christianity.[5] Notwithstanding, Husle’s arguments in this regard have been thoroughly refuted by Michael Ash, in his article “Does Mormonism Attack Christianity?”.[6] Furthermore, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks have addressed this charge in their book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints.[7]

I mention this only in passing, since I wish to address the more egregiously erroneous claims made by Hulse. He is totally beside himself because of the fact that “this BYU professor and Mormon Apologist goes on in this article teaching that the Allah of Islam is the God of the Bible”. Here is the quote from Dr. Peterson provided by Hulse:

But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?
Jews certainly don’t. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).
But what of Islam? Isn’t “Allah” a false god? No. According to the Qur’an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?

To this incredible blasphemy Hulse replies with certitude:

 To draw the conclusion that “Allah” is the God of the Bible because a fictional book of scripture, the Qur’an, plagiarizes the characters and stories of the Bible is ludicrous, however, not without precedent. Mormonism does the same thing in our time. Mormonism draws from its fictional book of scripture, the Pearl of Great Price, claiming in creation that all human beings were born into a pre-existent world, having been sired by God the Father, who has a body of flesh and bones, and that Jesus was the first offspring of this Deity and that Lucifer was the second. This being foundational Mormon doctrine, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and these two procreated beings are our older brothers in this non-Biblical doctrine.

But that isn’t the worst of it. What does Hulse consider to be the premiere blasphemy of Daniel Peterson? The fact that he is equating the false Muslim God Allah with the Word of John 1:1. As Dr. Peterson maliciously slurs in the Mormon Times article:

“Allah” is simply the Arabic equivalent of English “God,” related to the Hebrew “Elohim.” Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. “In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth,” reads Arabic Genesis. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah),” says the Arabic version of John 1:1. “We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father,” says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, “and in his Son, Jesus Christ.”

Hulse is incensed at this heresy. Hulse screams: “Jesus was the Word that became flesh and then “dwelt  among us” (John 1:14), not Allah!” Unfortunately, though, the facts are not on his side. Perhaps Hulse is confused about how languages work, and how translations from one language to another works. Allow me a few moments to explain.

Here is the Greek text of John 1:1.

Ἐν  ἀρχῇ  ἦν  ὁ  λόγος,  καὶ  ὁ  λόγος  ἦν  πρὸς  τὸν  θεόν,  καὶ  θεὸς  ἦν  ὁ  λόγος.

The Greek word for “God” is  θεόν or θεὸς (theos).

What follows are three different translation of the Greek text in English, German, and French. Note the word used to translate the Greek θεὸς:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New Revised Standard Version).

Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und das Wort war Gott. (Die Bibel: Einheitsübersetzung)

Au commencement était celui qui est la Parole de Dieu. Il était avec Dieu, il était lui-même Dieu. (La Bible du Semeur)

In these instances the Greek word θεὸς is translated into the English “God”, the German “Gott”, and the French “Dieu”. These are not differing unique English, German, and French deities but rather just the generic word in the respective language to express the Greek word. So it is with the Arabic word الله‎ (Allāh). Recall that Arabic is a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew.[8] It therefore should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Hebrew word for God אֱלהִים (elohim), is closely related to the Arabic الله‎. That is not to even mention the Aramaic (the spoken language of Jesus) word for God  (ʼĔlāhā), which is even more closely related to the Arabic. It is no different than the fact that the English word “God” is closely related to the German “Gott”. They are just two different words in two different languages being used to express the same idea.

Thus, in spite of Hulse’s protestations to the contrary, Professor Peterson is strictly correct. It is entirely appropriate to use the word Allah when translating the Bible into Arabic since Allah is the word in Arabic to denote “God”. Who would have ever guessed that Arabic speaking Muslims, Jews and Christians use the same Arabic word (Allah) to name the God they are worshiping? To illustrate by way of personal experience, when my family and I traveled to Israel in 2006 we sat in on a Roman Catholic mass attended by Palestinian Christians. Does anyone want to guess what word in Arabic we repeatedly and distinctly heard throughout this beautiful Christian liturgy?

Moving on. Hulse takes a swing at Professor Peterson, this time on the grounds that Dr. Peterson has grossly misrepresented Paul in Acts 17. Says Hulse: “In another grand deception, Daniel Peterson attempts to make the claim that Paul is actually equating the God of Israel with the Greek god Zeus.” Here is the relevant quote from Professor Peterson:

When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel’s God: “For in him we live and move and have our being,” he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. “As some of your own poets have said,” he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher’s verse about Zeus, “‘we are his offspring.'”

Hulse bemoans this “truly deliberate deception” as “beyond the pale of deceit”. But, once again, Professor Peterson is correct. Paul is quoting two Greek poets, namely, Epimenides (or some would argue Posidonius) and Aratus.[9] Here is the section from Aratus’ Phaenomena that Paul was quoting:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.

For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

For we are indeed his offspring…

That Paul was approvingly quoting Aratus (while at the same reapplying the meaning) is seen in Paul’s conclusion in the next verse of Acts 17, where the Apostle declares: “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill” (New International Version). It makes little sense for Paul to quote a pagan Greek poet unless he was intending to reinforce his own theological point, viz., that we are God’s offspring (Greek, γένος, species, race, genus, etc.) and thus should not consider God as an idol made of man’s artifice.

At the end of his Mormon Times article, Professor Peterson concludes with the following offering:

In the final volume of C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew “truth”) has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me,” explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. “No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.”

In a concluding rebuttal (I use that word loosely here), Hulse ends his screed thusly:

This teaching by BYU Professor Peterson is absolute blasphemy. Trying to use the “Chronicles of Narnia” as scripture to rationalize that any worship given to any god will be accounted by the God of the Bible as valid, is the epitome of reaching for straws; it’s pathetic really. God will not be mocked. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! There is none other and any devotion offered to false gods will not be accepted by the God of the Bible as worship to him. The Old Testament is clear that God is a jealous God and will not tolerate worship given to false gods; however, since Mormonism has incorporated polytheism (many gods) into their doctrine, the god of this world has blinded their eyes (II Cor 4:4).

Where exactly does Professor Peterson equate C. S. Lewis with scripture? I took it as an appropriate concluding reference to a respected Christian philosopher and theologian. Likewise, contrary to what Hulse maintains, I did not read this so much as Daniel Peterson granting license to worship any god willy-nilly, but rather that even those who serve “false” gods can still do good in the world and receive blessings from the Savior.

It is my hope that Rocky Hulse will take some time to calm down and read Professor Peterson’s more fully documented and expanded paper presented at the FAIR Conference. Likewise, I wish that anyone reading this blog post will take time to read Dr. Peterson’s remarks. Those who do will learn of the importance of religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue, which, unfortunately, is bereft in any of Rocky Hulse’s comments.

We live in a divisive world. Religious differences are sometimes used as further justification for this divisiveness. Usually those who further drive the wedge between people of differing religious backgrounds do so out of ignorance and fear. I am afraid that Rocky Hulse has done such with his knee-jerk reaction to Dr. Peterson’s article.

Notes:

[1]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org//FAIR_Conferences/2011_Mormonism_Islam_and_the_Question_of_Other_Religions.html

[2]: See his bio entry on Mormon Scholars Testify: http://mormonscholarstestify.org/151/daniel-c-peterson-2

[3]: Available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705387043/Gods-sheep-recognize-his-voice.html

[4]: “Zeus, Allah, and Jesus in Mormonism, They’re One and the Same!”. Online at: http://www.mormonoutreach.org/topics/Zeus%20Allah%20and%20Jesus%20in%20Mormonism%20Theyre%20One%20and%20the%20Same.html. All subsequent quotations of Hulse are taken from this article.

[5]: The statement quoted by Hulse is from Brigham Young. “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Journal of Discourses, 6:176.

[6]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSattack.pdf

[7]: Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 158-172.

[8]: Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), xxii.

[9]: Michael D. Coogan, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 219 [Acts 17:28f].

FAIR Issues 19: Imperfect Scriptures

by

Podcast: Download (5.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

“Once we realize that all prophets who produce scripture do so according to their own world views, we can appreciate that some things we read into the scriptures are different from what the author intended to convey.” The world view of a prophet includes the prophet’s knowledge of science, myths and legends, and general knowledge about the way the world works. Mike Ask expands upon this idea in this episode by focusing on Noah and the flood.

Mormon Times is in a state of transition at this time. Therefore, the full text of this article is not currently available online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

FAIR Issues 18: Can imperfect scriptures lead to God?

by

Podcast: Download (5.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Mormons believe the Bible to be the work of God, so far as it is translated correctly. We therefore readily accept the possibility of error within the Bible on the basis that there may have been mistranslations. But what about the Book of Mormon? As it was translated by a prophet of God, should we consider it to be inerrant? What effect can language have on the transmission of prophesy or in the translation of scriptures? If it is possible for even the Book of Mormon to contain errors, how are we supposed to know what is true in the scriptures? These issues are discussed in this episode.

Mormon Times is in a state of transition at this time. Therefore, the full text of this article is not currently available online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

Mitt Romney, Fox News, and the Mormon Question: A Few Questions for Discussion

by

Christian, adjective: of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings : the Christian Church.

informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.

noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.[1]

A few weeks ago CNN published an interview with Tricia Erickson, a dedicated Evangelical critic of Mormonism, wherein it was repeatedly affirmed that neither Mitt Romney nor the Church he belongs to is authentically Christian. On Sunday, July 17, 2011 the Deseret News printed an article that reported how “‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Mitt Romney was not a Christian during her program this morning.” The pertinent statement by Ms. Earhardt, as reported by the Deseret News, is as follows:

“Can (Gov. Rick Perry) get in and raise money with Mitt Romney? That I don’t know,” said host Dave Briggs.

“There are a lot of Republicans who think he can’t,” replied co-host Clayton Morris.

“Well the Christian coalition — I think (Perry) can get a lot of money from that base because (of) Romney obviously not being a Christian,” said co-host Earhardt. “Rick Perry, he’s always on talk shows — on Christian talk shows — he has days of prayer in Texas.”

I am puzzled by this statement. What is it that is so “obvious” that proves Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Presumably Ms. Earhardt has in mind the fact that Romney is a Latter-day Saint and because Latter-day Saints are not Christians ergo Mitt Romney is not a Christian.

This of course brings up the question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians. As Professor Stephen E. Robinson has written[2], there are typically six categories that the arguments of excluding Mormons from being Christian fall under, viz.,

1. The Exclusion by Definition (Mormons are excluded from being Christian because of ad hoc idiosyncratic definitions of “Christian” and “Christianity” offered by sectarians who deviate from the standard English lexical definition.)

2. The Exclusion by Misrepresentation (“Latter-day Saints… [are] judged to be non-Christian for things they do not believe, whether these things are fabrications, distortions, or anomalies.”[3])

3. The Exclusion by Name-Calling (Hurling unsavory epithets such as “cult” at the Church in an attempt to alienate or estrange outsiders and shock members. As with the “Exclusion by Definition”, in most cases the epithets are idiosyncratic definitions that go beyond the accepted standard English definition.)

4. The Historical or Traditional Exclusion (Mormons do not accept certain “historical” or “traditional” Christian beliefs or practices, and thus are not Christian.)

5. The Canonical or Biblical Exclusion (Mormons have an open canon of scripture, and accept additional books as canonical which are not accepted by other Christian denominations. Thus, Mormons are not Christian.)

6. The Doctrinal Exclusion (Mormons do not accept “orthodox” Christian doctrines, and hold to “heretical” views of the nature of God and scripture, to name only two. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian.)

The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is a horse that has been beaten mercilessly in recent years, and so I do not wish to launch into a full exploration at this point. Suffice it to say that the Latter-day Saints are positively appalled at this accusation, and have responded vigorously to critical arguments[4]. However, I do wish to ask a few questions for discussion that I feel are pertinent to this debate.

1. First and foremost, what is “Christianity” and who therefore can rightly be called “Christian”?  On what basis/criteria does one define these terms?

1. Who is allowed to define who is Christian and who isn’t? By what authority or on what grounds does this individual/group/Church, etc., claim the right to be the final arbiters in deciding who and who isn’t Christian?

2. Mormons are accused of not being Christian because they do not accept “orthodox” beliefs. What is “orthodoxy” and who is allowed to define “orthodoxy”? On what basis was this definition of “orthodoxy” established?

3. Mormon doctrine is often alleged to be contrary to “biblical teaching”. Who has the right to establish what “biblical doctrine” is? By what authority is such established? What methodological and/or exegetical tools were employed to establish this standard?

4. Is doctrinal difference enough to exclude Mormons from being Christians? What about Jesus’ teaching that his true disciples [i.e. Christians] are those who keep his commandments and love their neighbors (John 13:34-35)? In other words, is any weight to be given to Jesus’ criteria for true and false prophets (or, in this case, disciples) as found in Matthew 7:15-20 when it comes to evaluating who is a Christian and who isn’t?

5. If Mormons are to be excluded from being Christian because they do not conform to “traditional” or “historic” Christianity, then what of those disciples of Christ who antedate the arrival of these “traditional” doctrines (eg. Nicene Trinitarianism, creatio ex nihilo, etc.)? Are they likewise not Christian? [Hint: This is a question about maintaining consistent standards in evaluating who is and who isn’t a Christian]

These are some questions that I put forth for discussion. Those who wish to exclude the Latter-day Saints as being Christian must, I contend, first adequately answer these questions.

Notes:

[1]: Oxford American Dictionary, s.v. Christian.

[2] Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991).

[3]: Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, 21, emphasis in original.

[4]: See especially Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Words Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992). This wonderful text is available online at the website of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. See here.

FAIR Issues 17: Challenging Issues and Keeping the Faith Pt 17

by

Podcast: Download (5.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Does God reveal everything to His prophets? What types of things are revealed? How does the way in which prophets receive revelation compare to the way in which the rest of us receive it? Michael Ash discusses these and other questions in this episode.

The full text of this article cannot be found at Mormon Times at this time due to changes to the database.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.