FAIR

LDS Scriptures

Book Review: Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World

by

Available from the FairMormon Bookstore at 15% off
Available from the FairMormon Bookstore at 15% off

This book is from the 2013 BYU Church History Symposium, held March 7–8, 2013. The Church History Symposium is a nearly annual (there apparently wasn’t one held in 2015) event that draws speakers from places such as Brigham Young University, other universities, the LDS Church History Department, and often LDS general authorities as well. The book contains many of the papers that were presented, but unfortunately there are a few missing, such as Steven C. Harper’s presentation on masonry. However, that and most of the other papers that were given (including all but one that is in the book) are available to view here, although the video presentations are generally abbreviated versions of what is in the book.

The conference spanned two days. The first day was held at BYU and the second was at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City. I was only able to attend the first day, which is one of the reasons I was interested in this book. The keynote address was given by Richard L. Bushman, and it was very crowded, which left many of us without seats until after he was done (apparently there were many students that had come just to hear Bushman).

The preface of the book states that the theme for the conference came out of a professional development training trip taken by new faculty from the BYU departments of Ancient Scripture and Church History and Doctrine to church history sites in Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo. As they visited these sites, they “were impressed as the extraordinary range of Joseph’s encounters with antiquity became increasingly apparent” (page xiii) and “deeper reflection upon these issues convinced us that there was an important, dynamic, and under-explored relationship between Joseph Smith’s personal interactions with ancient material and many of his unfolding revelations” (page xiv). [Read more…] about Book Review: Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World

4th Watch 22: The High Cost of Resentment

by

Podcast: Download (40.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch Small

4th Watch 22: The High Cost of Resentment

This podcast is a follow up to my previous one on the “false dichotomy of Truth.”  If you haven’t listened to it I suggest you do so because this will make more sense if you do.

Real truth or false truth…false truth?  How can a truth be false?  Well, that’s why you need to listen to my previous podcast.  It explains how “truth” can be manipulated to put forth an agenda that can distort and even completely misrepresent the original intent or understanding of just about anything.  Think, Dihydrogen Monoxide!

As always in my podcasts I tend to add many colorful alliterations that do not appear in the text of this blog.  Therefore one’s listening experience may differ from just reading the printed words.  J

What does this have to do with resentment?  Good question.  Resentments can arise from what we perceive to be the truth but then learn that we were deceived, cheated or betrayed in trusting whatever it is at the time. Now, when it comes to religion trust is paramount.  We’re talking about God here and not some misleading advertising for a new and improved product.

I saw a gas station sign that listed three types of gas.  Regular, Plus and “V” Power.  Plus?  What’s plus.  This is gasoline.  What are you going to put in it?  Dynamite?  V Power?  What the heck is V Power?  Is it better than H Power?  What about X Power?

Worse than gas grades that are less than clear I witnessed a car that had a really strange placard on its side that said “Blue Drive.”  Blue Drive?  What the #@ll is Blue Drive?  Is it better than Red Drive or Green Drive?  Wouldn’t White Drive be more clean and wholesome? What’s worse is what kind of gas do you put in a Blue Drive car? Plus or “V” Power?  The cloud of nebulous advertisements boggle the mind.

There are things in life more important than what kind of car you drive and what type of gas you fuel it with.  Resentments over such trivial illustrations are useless.  Someone’s always going to have the next deluxe XB-134 super thing.  So, let’s move on to something more important in life like religion and God.

Like I said before, trust is paramount and when we feel that trust has been violated, resentment can set in.  Bishop so and so did this or that.  Stake president “X” who my brother works for was caught doing…fill in the blank…I heard that Joseph Smith had lots of wives and some as young as fourteen.  Brigham Young said that…another fill in the blank from one of his un-prophet like utterances…the list is extensive for what we thought we knew but latter learn was not the “whole” truth.

At this point I would like to illustrate this concept with a personal experience.  A long time ago, in a Mormon colony far, far away I learned that Joseph Smith had in his possession several what we call today “Seer Stones.”  They were used by the prophet on various occasions to translate the word of God that would become the cannon of the Church or as we would say today.  The “Holy Scriptures.”  I saw these devices as some kind of mystical connection with God that allowed the one who was authorized to use the stones to come somehow into Gods presence and commune with the divine.  Some super engineered and crafted substance beyond our earthly experience and understood only by God himself.   Anybody else held this view of the “seer Stones?” Well, just recently the Church published an article in the Ensign magazine about the seer stone.  I’m providing this link if you would like to read it.  Yeah, so what?  Well, when I first looked at the picture I viewed it through the lens of my God created “super” stone.  As I continued looking at it I realized that it was just a rock.  It only took about fifteen to twenty seconds for my mind to adjust.  It took much longer for my heart and soul to adjust.  It’s a rock!

Sometimes our perceptions create our reality and my reality had to change when faced with this new information.   It can be painful.  Much like the stages of grief.  First is denial and were not talking about the river in Egypt.  Second, anger and this is where a lot of people stay when it comes to having their existing world view injured.  Next, bargaining.  Let’s make a deal here! Then depression.  How can I go on knowing that my previous view of “whatever” was a lie?  Lastly, acceptance.  Many people never get to acceptance because the past can’t be wrong.  It was cast in stone.  If it was cast in sand then how can we trust anything?  Ahhhhh…It’s this the all or nothing, black and white world view that can destroy you.

Let’ get back to the rock seer stone.  I still don’t like the fact that the seer stone is just a rock.  I want it to be something like the stone mentioned in the Book of Revelation 2:17

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

A heavenly secret stone?  Cool…but what if this is just a representation of a principle and not a “real” stone?  Not so cool.  My perception of heavenly things might need an adjustment in this case.  The little kid inside of me wants the super power stone to be real but the adult inside says, “It’s time to grow up and move beyond magic rocks.”

It’s been the worst day sense yesterday.  Doesn’t have to be though.  We can choose to let go of our past pre-conceived notions of how the world works and move forward.  Now, how do we do that?

Let’s look at an example from the scriptures.  Jacob in the Old Testament had twelve sons and his favorite was Joseph.  See Genesis chapter 37 for all the details.  In this account we learn that family issues can lead to serious resentment.  Joseph’s brothers conspired to kill him. Sounds like serious resentment to me.  What caused it?  Could be that they knew that their father favored Joseph over them.  Perhaps Joseph had an attitude about that and kept throwing it in their faces on a regular basis.  Well, it got to the point of “we need to kill him” for whatever reason.  They couldn’t go through with so they sold him into slavery and smeared blood all over this “special coat of many colors” and told their father that some beast/s had killed him and I presume carried off his body so there were no remains to morn and bury.

Time passed.  Joseph was sold in Egypt and put into the house of Potiphar who was said to the captain of the palace guard.  If you’re going to be a slave this might have not been a bad job.  He could have been sold to some garment maker who treated him, well…like a slave.

He did so well in Potiphar’s house that he put Joseph in charge of everything except of course Potiphar’s wife.  She had other ideas though.  She wanted him but he was not going to indulge her.  Guess what the consequences were for sleeping with the master’s wife?  DEATH!   Just like most things for a slave who did not behave properly.

When Joseph refused her things got ugly.  Remember the phrase? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.  That was Potiphar’s wife.  She accused Joseph of trying to force himself on her.  Potiphar knew better.  He wasn’t a stupid man.  You think this was the first time something like this happened?  I don’t think so.  He also knew the character of Joseph.  You think he would jeopardize his standing by doing something so foolish?  I don’t think so.  So, Brother Ned what makes you say this?  There is nothing in the text about this.  Your right but he was sent to jail instead of being executed which means to me that Potiphar knew the real story.  I also think he had a conversation with the head jailer about what kind of man Joseph was and to treat him accordingly.

Did they have different levels of jail back in the day? I would think so because Joseph was sent to the incarceration facility where the kings prisoners like the cupbearer and the baker were residing at the time.  The cupbearer and the baker had dreams they couldn’t understand.  Joseph inquired of the Lord and received interpretations for both of them.    The butler or cupbearer got his job back.  The baker?  Didn’t work out so well for him.  Standard penalty.  Death.

Joseph ask the cupbearer to remember him when he got his job back but he forgot Joseph.  Day after day.  Month after month.  No word from the palace.  At this point in Joseph’s life I wonder what his resentment level was.  His brothers tried to kill him but sold him into slavery instead.  Sent to jail for unjust reasons.  Another day.  Another month.  Another “year.”

Bricks of bitterness could have been built into walls of resentment so thick that nothing could break them down.  Didn’t happen that way though.  The Lord was with him.  Day after day. Month after month.  Year after year.  Then one day Pharaoh had a dream that no one could interpret.  The cupbearer then remembered Joseph and his ability to interpret dreams and mentioned it to his master.  Pharaoh had him cleaned up and brought before the court of Pharaoh’s judgment.  Pharaoh explained his dream and ask for the interpretation thereof.  Penalty for wrong interpretation?  Death.  No stress here.  What if he had allowed his resentment to cloud or interfere with his relationship with the Lord?  Didn’t happen though.

Interpretation of said dream? Seven years of plenty for Egypt and then seven years of drought / famine.  Save during the good years for the bad years to come.  Pharaoh was so impressed with this interpretation that he made Joseph second in command in all of Egypt.  Second only to Pharaoh himself.  Gave him the big house and a wife.  Things were looking up for this former slave.

During the good years under Joseph’s command stockpiles are created and then the famines hit.  The whole region is effected including Jacob’s family.  Jacob sends out some of his sons to go and buy some gain in Egypt.  What do you think Joseph’s first thoughts were when he saw his brothers?  I know what my first thoughts would have been.  Well, well, well, look who’s here.  If it isn’t my traitorous brothers groveling for food.  It’s payback time!  This could have been his first thoughts but if they were they didn’t last that long.  Long story short.  The whole family was brought to Egypt and they lived happily ever after.  Maybe.  The part I would like to focus on is not told in the scriptures.  Are you listening?  Say Amen…what was Jacob’s reaction when he learned the truth of how Joseph wound up in Egypt?  We don’t know that story.  How would you react?  I don’t think it’s possible to heal that level of pain without the Lord.  I would venture to say that the healing process did not happen overnight.  Like most things in life serious injuries to both body and spirit takes time to heal.

Some time ago I worked at a Christian radio station and was “forced” to listen to the programing.  Day after day.  Week after week and month after month.  It was a great hobby job were I learned much about the differences in protestant theological teachings.  I also had Christian music implanted into my system as part of this broadcasting experience.  Yeah, so what?  We’re not interested in Brother Ned’s history with apostate associates. Well, you just might be after listening to this song.  It was done in 1984 by a group known as “White Heart.”  The title of the song is seventy times seven.  Its message has never gone away.  It has lasted for over two thousand years.  Tell me if its fits.

What about today and our injuries? Proverbs 18:19, A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.  It is easy to become offended.  Personal experience.  Been there.  Done that.  Got lots of T-shirts to prove it.  In some circumstances frustration, anger and throwing a fit are standard and average responses but we don’t have to hold on to them.  Over time we can let go.  Do you really want to carry around bricks of bitterness?  Rhetorical question of course but how many bricks do you have in your backpack right now?  What would happen if you made the choice to lay them down? A lighter load in life perhaps.  Better health?

Forgiveness is the key.  We can choose to let go.  The more you practice it the easier it becomes just like most things in life.  When you first start to let go you will be surprised how fast those bricks jumps right back into your bag.  Just lay it down again and walk away.  This time it will run after you and start complaining because of abandonment.  Again, you have the right to choose what you will hold onto in life.  The more you let it go the longer it takes to wind its way back until it no longer catches up with you.

Now, most things in life are NOT deliberate attempts to get you like the story of Joseph in Egypt.  His brothers were out to get him and they almost succeeded. It appears that they repented of the evil they had done and Joseph forgave them.  Probably didn’t happen as an event but took place over time.  We can do the same “if” we want to.  This is something you really have to want to do because Satan wants you to hold on to every brick of resentment you can carry.   Put those bricks back!  They deserve your bitterness…whoever they or it is at the time.  How much do you want to suffer and for how long?  Less suffering and shorter time is good for me.  How about you?

In the Church this brick holding resentment can become real painful.  Again, personal experience.  I was deceived!  I was…fill in the blank.  I don’t doubt the experience or your pain.  What I want to do is help you let go of the pain.  This may even require the help of professional counselors but let me be extremely clear here.  It can be done, over time.

I keep going back to the story of how much time it took for Jacob to get over his resentment concerning his own sons.  What if his sons had not repented?  Oh, that would been a bad day or a lifetime for Jacob.  Still the choice would have still been there for him.  Hold on to the resentment or let it go.  I would think that if they had not repented his resentment would have turned into sadness and that sadness would have given rise to the possibility of his son’s future repentance.  That would have given him hope.  Isn’t that what we want?  Hope for the future.

The day will come when all things will be made right.  That day is not here yet but we are on the way to it “if” we choose.   Romans 8:28, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.  So what is His purpose?  The gospel message is clear on this one.  To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  Moses 1:39.  But how does resentment fit into this purpose?  It is our choice.  The moral choice to forgive.  I think sometimes what we want in life is mercy for ourselves and justice for just about everyone else.  That sound about right? But I just can’t let go! (forget me stick clip).  Perhaps you could use the “forget me stick” to break up the bricks of bitterness that build the walls of resentment. You could turn you back on them.  Walk away.  Whatever imagery works best for you. This moral choice to give up our resentment can and will free us from continued suffering in this life and the life to come.  Hold on to it and it will follow us into the next life where the suffering will continue until we choose to give it up and receive God’s grace.

I would like to close with the words of brother Dieter F. Uchtdorf.  Second counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“Each of us is under a divinely spoken obligation to reach out with pardon and mercy and to forgive one another. There is a great need for this Christ like attribute in our families, in our marriages, in our wards and stakes, in our communities, and in our nations.  We will receive the joy of forgiveness in our own lives when we are willing to extend that joy freely to others. Lip service is not enough. We need to purge our hearts and minds of feelings and thoughts of bitterness and let the light and the love of Christ enter in. As a result, the Spirit of the Lord will fill our souls with the joy accompanying divine peace of conscience.”  ― Dieter F. Uchtdorf

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are the sole responsibility of the speaker and may not represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.

 

Faith and Reason 66: More Book of Abraham Evidences

by

Podcast: Download (17.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

From the book: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith

By Michael R. Ash

Non-LDS Near Eastern scholar David Noel Freedman said that he had never encountered an Abraham account where the patriarch himself was threatened with sacrifice until he saw the claim in the Book of Abraham. Upon further reflection he acknowledged that a similar tradition existed in an ancient Abrahamic document, but an English translation was not available until the 1890’s.  What are the chances that Joseph Smith could have gotten so many things right by mere guesswork?

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the owner and operator of MormonFortress.com and is on the management team for FairMormon. He has been published in Sunstone, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and is the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt. He and his wife live in Ogden, Utah, and have three daughters.

Julianne Dehlin Hatton has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Television Host, News Anchor, and Airborne Traffic Reporter. She graduated with an MSSc from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 2008. Julianne and her husband Thomas are the parents of four children.

Music for Faith and Reason is provided by Arthur Hatton.

Lehi’s Lasting Legacy

by

Tree

Nephi tells us that his father, Lehi, kept a record (1 Nephi 1:17). That record is lost to history, but nonetheless his legacy lives on. His son recorded a number of his most profound prophecies and visions. These include his prophetic call vision, powerful poetic declarations to his two oldest sons while encamped in an Arabian wadi, his moving dream about the tree of life, and his prophecies about the Messiah.

Lehi’s legacy was solidified by the testament he left behind. While nearing his death, Lehi called together his posterity, warned them of temptations, taught them to live righteously, blessed them, and related prophecies (2 Nephi 1–4). Book of Mormon Central has dubbed this the “Testament of Lehi” because it has all the characteristics found in the Jewish testamentary literature. Book of Mormon Central also comments on the legacy this creates for Lehi:

It provides an example for fathers and patriarchs today. The tradition, initially but briefly present in Genesis 49, was not maintained and developed only by the Jews after their return to Jerusalem in the Second Temple period but was called upon extensively and effectively by Lehi in the sixth century BC. Building from there, later prophets in the Book of Mormon followed Lehi’s example, as Alma does in Alma 36–42 and Helaman does in Helaman 5:5–13. Latter-day Saint fathers today also follow these patriarchal examples as they bless, instruct, exhort, and testify to their children and grandchildren.

Some of Lehi’s most influential teachings were given as part of his testament. For instance, drawing on the imagery of the Psalms, Lehi taught about the importance of offering the Lord your broken heart and contrite spirit. Of this teaching, Book of Mormon Central pointed out, “This presents an important lesson for modern Book of Mormon readers. No matter what sacrifice we offer to the Lord—be it our time, our talents, etc.—if this is not done with the true sacrifice of our hearts and spirits, then it cannot be fully acceptable to the Lord.”

It is also as part of his testament that Lehi gave his epic discourse on the Fall. Drawing from the hints found in the Old Testament and Israelite temple traditions, Lehi provided the most complete teaching on the Fall presently on record. According to Book of Mormon Central,

Lehi’s teaching was the foundation for several other important sermons in the Book of Mormon by Alma, Amulek, and others, and continues to be the foundation upon which we build when we teach the Fall today.

Nephi’s love for Isaiah may have come from Lehi, since Lehi appears to be drawing on Isaiah 14:12 when he describes Satan. Isaiah 14 is drawing on a rich ancient Near Eastern mythos of a fallen deity, and like he does with the Fall, Lehi expands on Isaiah’s use to provide a fuller view of the Adversary. Indeed, Lehi seems well versed in the great literature of his day and time, as he poetically describes death in a way the resonates not only with the much later Shakespeare, but also with ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Israelite motifs.

Drawing on both the literary form and the language of the Psalms, Nephi lamented after his father passed away. Nephi, however, was not the only one of Lehi’s sons who was profoundly impacted by their father’s influence. In his first sermon recorded in the Book of Mormon, Jacob taught many of the same doctrines Lehi had taught to him. As Book of Mormon Central puts it,

Tracing Jacob’s understanding of the plan back one generation earlier, it appears that his inspired summation carried forth the influence of his father’s instructions to him in 2 Nephi 2. Although Lehi never called it a “plan,” he taught these same doctrines in his final blessing to Jacob.

Comparing the two also illuminates which doctrines both Lehi and Jacob most related to:

Though they taught the same doctrines, Lehi’s emphasis was focused more on the fall, opposition, and the agency afforded to all to choose between good and evil. Jacob, meanwhile, put more emphasis on the atonement, resurrection, and the eternal outcome from choosing either righteousness or filthiness.

Jacob also shows an awareness of Israelite and ancient Near Eastern conceptions of death. Given that Jacob was born in the wilderness and was still very young when the family arrived in the promised land, this knowledge surely came to him through his father’s teachings.

Given the reverence both Nephi and Jacob had for Lehi, it may seem odd that Nephi summoned Isaiah to act as a third witness of the Redeemer alongside Nephi and Jacob. Lehi had already born witness of Christ, multiple times (1 Nephi 1:19; 1 Nephi 10; 2 Nephi 2). Yet, this may actually be one of the most powerful reflections of Nephi’s love for his father.

Lehi was believed to be a false prophet by both the Jews at Jerusalem and also his two oldest sons, Laman and Lemuel. The penalty for false prophecy was death, and Laman and Lemuel try to kill him multiple times. Biblical law required two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15) to testify in a trail. As such, coming on the heels of Lehi’s passing, and the division of Nephi from his brothers, 2 Nephi 6–30, recording the testimonies of Nephi’s three witnesses—Jacob, Isaiah, and Nephi—could be read as the Apology of Lehi.

That is, it is Nephi’s defense of Lehi as a true prophet, marshalling the biblically required three witnesses to verify Lehi’s own prophecies about the Messiah. This would explain why Lehi himself was not considered one of the witnesses—he was the defendant. If this is correct, then it would speak powerfully to the legacy of Lehi, as nearly all of 2 Nephi would be dedicated to him in some capacity.

In either case, there is no denying the abundant legacy of Lehi left behind by his sons.

Neal Rappleye is a Research Project Manager for Book of Mormon Central. He blogs on Latter-day Saint topics at http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/

Book Review: “The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”

by

The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder
Available from the FairMormon Bookstore at 15% off
This book contains the papers from the 44th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, held in October, 2015. The Sperry Symposium is held annually, and draws most of its speakers from the Church Educational System. Each year’s theme is usually based on the book of scripture that will be studied by LDS adults in the coming year, and this volume fits right in with this year’s Gospel Doctrine study of the Book of Mormon.

The first paper in the book is by Elder Merrill J. Bateman. He gave the keynote speech on “The Coming Forth of Plain and Precious Truths.” He describes many aspects of the gospel that may be only vaguely mentioned in the Bible, but for which we learn much more from the Book of Mormon. Some examples are the plan of salvation, the premortal life, the fall of Adam, the atonement and resurrection, and specific doctrines taught by Christ.

[Read more…] about Book Review: “The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”

A Plea to Seminary Teachers and Parents

by

seminary-class-1112861-galleryOver the last several years, the LDS Church history department has become increasingly open about the Church’s history. This can be seen in the work made available by the Joseph Smith Paper’s Project and in the recent release of several milestone Gospel Topics essays, especially those on the practice of polygamy by members of the LDS Church during the nineteenth century.

In an unanticipated and exciting step in the right direction, the LDS Church has now decided to teach this information in seminary classes. Parents can view the lessons on D&C 132 and the discussion of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy on the lds.org website under seminary lessons here and temple-marriage-766624-galleryhere.

I urge parents to not only read the lessons but also discuss them together as a family. These lessons are carefully written to emphasize those aspects of the section dedicated to eternal marriage and can serve as a basic introduction to the early practice of polygamy in Nauvoo.

From these lessons, students will be taught about eternal marriage, the zenith doctrine of the Restoration. Then they will be taught that God commanded Joseph Smith to establish polygamy as part of the restitution of all things, he married many women, and it was a trial for both Joseph and Emma Smith. It was also a trial for other early polygamists who were reluctant to participate. Fortunately, this was a temporary commandment that was removed in 1890. These are not easy topics to discuss or understand, but avoiding them will not make them go away.

An Op Ed piece written by Kristy Money, a member of the Ordain Woman board, was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, March 29, encouraging the boycott of these lessons by seminary teachers and parents. This seems like a step backwards if we want to be open about our past. In urging nonparticipation, she listed several concerns. Interestingly, what I read in the lessons was quite different from the references in Ms. Money’s essay.

Students will not be taught God commanded Joseph to marry teenagers, which is good because there is no evidence that he was ever commanded to marry teenaged brides, even though he did.

Students will not be taught that Joseph married women without Emma’s knowledge. Parents may, emma-hale-smith-155871-thumbnailhowever, want to discuss this with their children, as the LDS Gospel Topics essay on Nauvoo polygamy covers this concern.

The lesson does not teach that “if a man simply ‘desires a virgin,’ he has a God-given right to take her as a plural wife,” despite the opinion of his first wife. This is a simplified contortion of complicated doctrine, and it is best that students learn it as worded in the revelation instead of how it is interpreted from critics or spun on the Internet.

The lesson does not teach the only reason polygamy was practiced was to raise righteous seed. It is listed as one of the reasons “as part of the restitution of all things.” The Gospel Topics essays also mention it being a customized trial for the Saints of that time. Parents may want to discuss these other reasons with their children.

Ms. Money contends that “sexual predators have been using these rationalizations to seduce girls long before the church recently published them.” If this is the case, then, as parents, we need to do all we can to make sure our teenagers are properly informed of what the historical record showsportrait-family-941042-gallery regarding Joseph’s institution of polygamy and its limited practice, so they will not fall prey to such reprehensible acts out of ignorance. D&C 132 explicitly condemns sexual relations outside of the bounds of marriage.

The LDS Church is to be commended for their continual efforts to increase dialogue regarding challenging topics. As members, let’s own our genuine past and study our canonized scripture. Protecting our children includes teaching them truth, so when they encounter misinformation they can recognize it as error. As parents and their children discuss these deep doctrines and difficult aspects of history, they can move toward a better understanding of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy.

Laura Harris Hales is the mother of a seminary student and the co-author of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Kofford Books, 2015).

Articles of Faith Podcast: Syntax and Book of Mormon Authorship – Interview with Stanford Carmack

by

Podcast: Download (55.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

stanford-carmackStanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University, as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax. In the past he has had articles published on Georgian verb morphology and object–participle agreement in Old Spanish and Old Catalan. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax as it relates to Early Modern English and contributes, by means of textual analysis, to volume 3 of Royal Skousen’s Book of Mormon critical text project.

Articles referenced in this interview:

The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon

A Look at Some “Nonstandard” Book of Mormon Grammar

What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship

Questions addressed in this interview:

The work that you do feels like forensic work, like something a coroner is doing to look back on the evidence that is before them and come to certain conclusions about what took place. Like a coroner would be able to tell the difference in the type of cut on a body and come to some conclusion about the type of blade that was used, or the skill with which the individual that made the cut demonstrated in the wound, etc. You seem to have the ability to look at an ancient text and see more than simply a group of letters that form a word, but the skill and education of the person that used it, the origins of the word, and from that you can come to certain conclusions. Is that an appropriate comparison?

You have written three articles in The Interpreter, to date, I am sure there will be more to come, but they all have to do with this rich analysis of the grammar and syntax of the Book of Mormon text. There are some criticisms of the Book of Mormon text that have been used by critics for years, what are some of those criticisms?

Did your effort in this regard come from wanting to give answers to the critics, or did you want to find answers for yourself to the critics questions and figured you would share your findings with others?

In your most recent article you make the statement that “Syntax resists manipulation” Meaning what with respect to its use in Book of Mormon authorship?

Let’s start with the first one that you did entitled A Look at Some “Nonstandard” Book of Mormon Grammar.” What were your findings with respect to what specific criticisms?

The next article was “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship.” This paper focuses on the use of one verb, COMMAND. It might seem a bit pf an overstatment to some, but how can the use of one word contribute to so as to either condemn or vindicate the claims to divine authorship of the Book of Mormon?

Your latest article is a bit of a heavy read, but it is quite impressive in that regard. The article is entitled, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon.” Here again is an analysis of the text with respect to assumptions that the Book of Mormon simply copies or borrows from Biblical Texts.

Admission and Omission: What Is the Church’s Position on the Book of Abraham?

by

“Printing Plates of Facsimiles of Papyrus Drawings, Nauvoo, IL, early 1842” (http://josephsmithpapers.org)

[This post originally appeared at Ploni Almoni.]

In his March 2015 letter to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appealing his excommunication, John Dehlin claims there has been a “recent admission” on the part of the Church “that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the Egyptian papyrus, as Joseph Smith claimed that it was.” Dehlin quotes the Church’s 2014 Gospel Topics essay “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” to wit:

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Dehlin raises this point again later in his letter. One of the many “disturbing facts” he “stumbled upon” in his studies is that “by the LDS Church’s own admission, the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the Egyptian papyrus.” This, among other things, Dehlin says, was “deeply disturbing and destabilizing for [him].”

Dehlin’s allies Nadine R. Hansen and Kate Kelly also raise this point in the same letter. “The Church’s own essays openly and truthfully acknowledge this difficulty,” they write, “by stating, ‘None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.'” Consequently, “While the Church may continue to maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired, canonical writing, but it must do so while acknowledging that Joseph Smith’s early statement that it is Abraham’s writings, ‘by his own hand upon the papyrus,’ is not factbased.” (On this last point, see my article here.)

These authors are not alone in claiming the Church has made this “recent admission” about the Book of Abraham. Jeremy Runnells, in his anti-Mormon screed known conventionally as the CES Letter, remarks, “The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham.”

With these statements from Dehlin and Runnells in mind, let’s take a closer look at what the Gospel Topics essay actually says about the Book of Abraham.

I. The nature of the surviving papyri fragments. On this matter, the Gospel Topics essay matter-of-factly states that the surviving papyri fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham. “Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.” However, this is by no means a “recent” admission or concession by the Church. In fact, what these authors fail to inform their readers is that the Church immediately identified the Joseph Smith Papyri fragments as copies of funerary texts when it received them from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1967. In the January 1968 issue of the Improvement Era, the Church identified the recovered fragments as “conventional . . . Egyptian funerary texts, which were commonly buried with Egyptian mummies.” The Church has reaffirmed this simple fact in subsequent publications.

  • “Mormon Media” (1975): “Brother Nibley marshals a considerable array of talents in fulfilling the second and major purpose of the book, which is to discuss the meaning of the Joseph Smith papyri. Identifying Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI with the Egyptian Book of Breathings becomes a point of departure for Brother Nibley, rather than, as with other scholars, a final pronouncement.”
  • “I Have a Question” (1976): “Q: Are the three facsimiles related to each other? A: Definitely, by all being attached to one and the same document, namely, the Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI, which contain a text of the Egyptian Book of Breathings. Facsimile No. 1 is followed immediately on its left-hand margin by Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which begins the Book of Breathings. Someone cut them apart, but the fibre edges of their two margins still match neatly. Facsimile No. 1 thus serves as a sort of frontispiece.”
  • “I Have a Question” (1988): “[Facsimile 1] can be connected with several of the other papyri fragments that relate to the text of an ancient Egyptian religious document known as the “Book of Sensen” or “Book of Breathings.”. . .  [F]rom paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60—much too late for Abraham to have written it. Of course, it could be a copy—or a copy of a copy—of the original written by Abraham. However, a second problem arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same.”
  • “Book of Abraham: Facsimiles From the Book of Abraham” (1992): “Only for Facsimile 1 is the original document known to be extant. Comparisons of the papyrus fragments as well as the hieroglyphic text accompanying this drawing demonstrate that it formed a part of an Egyptian religious text known as the Book of Breathings. Based on paleographic and historical evidence, this text can be reliably dated to about the first century A.D. Since reference is made to this illustration in the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), many have concluded that the Book of Breathings must be the text that the Prophet Joseph Smith used in his translation. Because the Book of Breathings is clearly not the book of Abraham, critics claim this is conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith was unable to translate the ancient documents.”
  • “News From Antiquity” (1994): “[Critics of the Church] point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud.”
  • Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual (2003): “In 1967 eleven fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri were rediscovered by Doctor Aziz S. Atiya, in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Studies of them have confirmed that they are mainly ancient Egyptian funerary texts of the sort commonly buried with royalty and nobility and designed to guide them through their eternal journeyings. This has renewed the question about the connection between the records and the book of Abraham.”

One might quibble here or there with the wording of these passages. For example, the Pearl of Great Price Student Manual mentions the late date of the papyri, but doesn’t explicitly mention that the papyri are fragments from the Book of Breathings and the Book of the Dead. Nevertheless, when these sources are combined, the basic point cannot be negated: the Church has straightforwardly taught that the surviving papyri fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham, but instead contain late copies of Egyptian funerary texts. Dehlin and Runnells are misleading their readers by claiming this “admission” is recent, or has just now been recognized by the Church in the 2014 Gospel Topics essay. In fact, the Church has acknowledged this fact since at least 1968.

II. On why the Book of Abraham is not contained in the surviving papyri. Dehlin and Runnells both conspicuously fail to alert their readers to the part of the Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham that explicitly addresses reasons why the Book of Abraham text was not recovered in the surviving papyri fragments. The essay clearly identifies at least two potential reasons. “It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession,” the essay notes. “Eyewitnesses spoke of ‘a long roll’ or multiple ‘rolls’ of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.” In other words, the essay clearly recognizes the so-called “missing papyrus theory” as a possible explanation for why the surviving fragments don’t match the Book of Abraham.

The essay also mentions the so-called “catalyst theory” for the Book of Abraham as another possible explanation.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

From this we see that Dehlin and Runnels have misled their readers by selectively presenting what the Gospel Topics essay claims about the relationship between the papyri and the Book of Abraham.

III. What about Elder Holland’s BBC Interview? Although not explicitly mentioned by Dehlin in his letter to the First Presidency (although it is mentioned and, not surprisingly, distorted by Runnells), it is worth quickly looking at Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s remarks on the Book of Abraham made in a 2012 interview with BBC reporter John Sweeney. When Sweeney pressed Elder Holland on the matter of the translation of the Book of Abraham, Elder Holland responded, “[W]hat got translated got translated into the word of God; the vehicle for that I do not understand.” What does this statement reveal? First, notice carefully that Elder Holland calls the Book of Abraham a “translation.” He also calls it the “word of God.” So Elder Holland, it appears, both accepts the Book of Abraham as an authentic “translation” and as inspired scripture. Second, notice that Elder Holland simply remarks that he doesn’t know the mechanism (“vehicle”) of the translation of the Book of Abraham. In other words, he doesn’t know precisely how the translation was performed. This is different from how Runnells and others have characterized Elder Holland’s remarks. Due to some obviously heavy editing of the original footage into what became the broadcasted program, it is impossible to know precisely what, if anything, Elder Holland said in addition by way of clarification. Notwithstanding, at the risk of speaking on behalf of Elder Holland, I believe it is safe to assume that he merely meant he didn’t know the precise nature of the translation (e.g. “missing papyrus,” “catalyst,” or something else), and wasn’t obfuscating in some way about the Church’s position.

IV. The Facsimiles. Dehlin and Runnells also omit the Gospel Topics essay’s comments on the interpretation of the facsimiles. The essay explains,

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.

The essay therefore provides an explanation for why images illustrating the Book of Abraham could’ve ended up attached to an Egyptian funerary text, and why there is otherwise disjunction between Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles and Egyptologists’ interpretations. In fact, the essay goes on to further explain, “Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.” Thus, in order to fully appreciate the Church’s explanation of the facsimiles, one needs to keep this commentary in mind. To omit it is to ultimately distort a critical aspect of the Church’s apologia for the Book of Abraham.

V. The 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Before concluding, it is worth highlighting the changes made to the 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. The pre-2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price identified the text as “[a] translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.” By comparison, the 2013 edition characterizes the Book of Abraham as “an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.” Some have argued that this is another admission by the Church that the Book of Abraham isn’t really a translation. This seems unlikely, however, since the 2013 edition still retains the (slightly modified) header that has accompanied the Book of Abraham since its 1842 publication: “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” If the Church really was ceding ground on the Book of Abraham as a translation, one has to wonder why they left in this rather explicate superscript to the text.

Another overlooked change in the 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price comes at the beginning of the introductory page. The pre-2013 edition explains that “[t]hese items [i.e. the contents of the Pearl of Great Price] were produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and were published in the Church periodicals of his day.” The 2013 edition, however, reads, “These items were translated and produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and most were published in the Church periodicals of his day.” Notice here the word “translated” was deliberately added in reference to the materials found in the Pearl of Great Price, which would presumably include the Book of Abraham. Thus, far from backing away from the Book of Abraham as being a translation of some sort, the Church, it could be argued, has in recent years actually reinforced an understanding of the Book of Abraham as a “translation.” The new edition of the Pearl of Great Price simply affirms that the Book of Abraham is an “inspired translation of the writings of Abraham,” while omitting details of the exact process, which remains up for debate.

In conclusion, one would do well to eschew the mishandled and misleading presentations of the Church’s position on the Book of Abraham offered by Dehlin and Runnells. The 2014 Gospel Topics essay hasn’t “conceded” or “admitted” anything about the Book of Abraham. The contents of the essay have, by and large, been circulating in both Church materials and other Mormon publications for decades. On the other hand, Dehlin and Runnells have omitted important material that helps us better understand this remarkable scriptural work.

Interpreting the Abraham Facsimiles

by

Abraham

By Kerry Muhlestein

Many people often ask about how Joseph Smith’s explanations of the Facsimiles compares to those of Egyptologists. This is a question worth asking. As with all things regarding history, symbolism, and interpretations, those who want a simple answer will find themselves unsatisfied with an accurate answer. Sadly, many times people opt for simple answers in order to avoid the messy, complicated situations of which history is made. Here we will not delve into all the complexities, but we will at least consider enough factors to answer the question accurately.

First, we must be clear that we do not know for sure that Joseph Smith authored the explanations of the facsimiles that were printed in the Times and Seasons, (on the acquisition of the papyri and publication of the Book of Abraham, see column 2,) which eventually became part of the Pearl of Great Price. While we do not know if Joseph Smith is the original author of these interpretations, we know he participated in preparing the published interpretations and gave editorial approval to them.

To continue reading this article, please visit the Meridian Magazine website.

How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Abraham

by

photo1

By Kerry Muhlestein

For most people, the idea of translating is fairly straightforward. Conventionally, when someone translates, he reads a document in one language he understands and renders it into another language he understands. The difficulty in assessing the Book of Abraham is that while Joseph Smith says he translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus, he never uses that word in the conventional way. It will be helpful to first look at the other ways Joseph Smith used the word “translate.”

Joseph Smith’s first translation project was the Book of Mormon. It was written in a language he clearly did not know. He never claimed to understand the language it was written in. Instead, he said he was given the ability to translate by the gift and power of God. We don’t know a lot about the Book of Mormon translation process. We know that the Prophet used the seer stones we call the Urim and Thummim, as well as another seer stone he often used. While we cannot nail down the exact details, it seems he often was not looking at the gold plates at all during much of this process. What we can be sure of is that Joseph Smith provided us with a translation of a language he did not know, frequently without referring to the physical text he had. His translation came from God.

To read this article in its entirety, please visit the Meridian Magazine website.