FAIR

LDS Scriptures

Translating the Book of Mormon

by

Ash (newer) PictureHow did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon? Joseph didn’t share many details of the translation process other than the fact that he received the translation by the gift and power of God. In order to develop any theories on how it was done we must to turn to clues from those who witnessed the events. When we examine those details we quickly discover that the translation process may not have been like what many members have envisioned.

As I began to write this article (based on my promise in the last installment) a friend of mine coincidentally published a detailed discussion of this topic in the new Interpreter on-line journal so I’ll provide a link at the end of this article for those who want more depth on this fascinating subject.

The average member’s mental image of Joseph translating the plates is generally formed from artwork in Church magazines and comments from Sunday school teachers rather than from a critical examination of the historical evidence.

Unfortunately most artists are not historians and may produce beautiful drawings and paintings that are based on misassumptions. Some wonderful LDS artwork, for example, depicts Caucasian-looking Nephites with romance-novel cover-model physiques wielding broadswords and Viking-like helmets—none of which fits the actual images that could be created for how early American warriors would have looked or the weapons they would have utilized.

The average painting of the Savior typically falls victim to similar problems with features generally based on the cultural or theological perspectives of the artist rather than on historical accuracy.[i] Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” for example, depicts European-looking men sitting at a regular table instead of Middle Eastern men reclining at the low tables of Jesus’ day. An Italian Renaissance portrait of Mary and the baby Jesus has a Renaissance castle and town in the background, and the 1569 “Census of Bethlehem” by a Belgian artist depicts snow and ice-skaters in what appears to be a Renaissance Belgium village.[ii]

Some Church art of the Book of Mormon translation shows Joseph studiously looking at the plates with one finger on the engraved letters as if he could actually read what each character said. Some show Joseph reading the characters to his scribe Oliver Cowdery with the plates exposed in full view of them both. Other images show Joseph dictating to a scribe sitting on the opposite side of a curtain. A few images show Joseph looking at the plates through the Nephite Interpreters. All of these images are incorrect.

First, while a curtain may have been used between Joseph and Martin Harris (the first Book of Mormon scribe) the majority of the text was translated in the open while the plates were covered with a cloth. The plates were never in open view and were only exposed to others as instructed by the Lord when they were shown to witnesses. A curtain or blanket appears to have been draped across the entry to the living room at the Whitmer house (where much of the translation took place) in order to give Joseph and his scribe privacy from curious on-lookers while they worked.[iii] This curtain was apparently not present all of the time, however, because other Whitmer family members were witnesses to the translation process.

While some LDS artwork doesn’t depict any translating tools, most informed members are aware of the Nephite “Interpreters” that Moroni put in the stone box with the plates so Joseph would have a tool for translating. According to those who handled the Interpreters they were like large spectacles with stones or crystals in place of lenses.

Many of the details on the Book of Mormon translation method become lost or muddied over time. Part of this confusion was the result of the fact that some early Latter-day Saints began referring to the Interpreters as the “Urim and Thummim”—a reference to a device in the Old Testament that was associated with the High Priest’s breastplate and used for divination or for receiving answers from God (see Exodus 28:30).The early Saints didn’t think that the Nephite Interpreters were theUrim and Thummim mentioned in the Bible but were another Urim and Thummim given for translating the plates.

Unfortunately the Interpreters didn’t come with instructions and Joseph was apparently left on his own as to how to use them. This is when his cultural background came in handy.

It’s important first to return to D&C 1:24 which tells us that God speaks to His children (including the prophets) in “in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” Our “language” includes more than words, but also how we understand the world around us. My “language” is different than the language of Joseph Smith, or Moses, or Gandhi. In Abraham’s day it was believed that the disc-shaped earth was covered with an inverted heavenly bowl that contained a heavenly ocean. Windows would open periodically to let out the rains.

In Joseph Smith’s day many of the frontiersmen in his vicinity believed that divining rods and seer stones could be used to find water, lost objects, and treasures. The ability to divine was generally considered to be a God-given gift and was practiced by devoutly religious men and women.

Long prior to acquiring the plates the young Joseph Smith was a believer in divination. In fact, he and his friends and family believed that he had the God-given gift to find lost objects by way of a seer stone. Seer stones were thought to be special stones in which one could see the location of the object for which one was divining. The seer stones were related to crystal balls or the practice of looking into pools of water or mirrors to divine information (such as the Queen’s magic mirror in the Snow White tale).

While this seems strange in modern times, in Joseph’s day many intelligent, educated, and religious people believed that such real powers existed in the forces of nature.  Well into the nineteenth-century, for instance, a number of people believed in alchemy—the belief that baser metals could be turned into gold. Some of New England’s practicing alchemists were graduates from Yale and Harvard and one alchemist was the Chief Justice of Massachusetts.[iv]

In order to see inside of the stone, it was sometimes placed between one’s eye and the flicker of a candle, or into something dark—such as an upside down hat—to shield out all light.  It was believed that in such an environment a seer (someone who “sees”) could stare into the stone for the information one was seeking.

When Joseph first acquired the Nephite Interpreters he also tried placing them into a hat to shield the light.  Although he apparently managed to translate the 116 lost pages by this method he complained that he had a hard time fitting the spectacles into the hat and that the two lenses were set too far apart—and were apparently made for someone with a broader face. It gave him eyestrain when he stared into the lenses.

After Joseph lost the first 116 pages, the Interpreters and his gift to translate were temporarily taken away. Eventually, after repenting, Joseph’s gift was returned but instead of using the Nephite Interpreters Joseph was allowed to use his seer stone to finish the translating process. In Joseph’s “language” the seer stone had the same properties as the Interpreters and was therefore also a Urim and Thummin. So when many early records speak of Joseph translating by way of the Urim and Thummim they are generally referring to the seer stone and not the Interpreters. Unfortunately, through time, members had forgotten about the seer stone (as divination become less accepted by society) and eventually most members assumed that the only Urim and Thummim Joseph used was the Interpreters.

The seer stone made the translating process much easier and we read that Joseph would sit for hours, his face in the hat—to obscure the light—while he saw the English translation of the Book of Mormon text that he dictated to his scribes.

While such an image may shock modern members, we have to remember that the Lord works through the culture of His children as speaks to them in language (words, symbols, and methods) through which they can understand. If one can accept that Nephite Interpreters could be used to translate an ancient document, is it really a wonder that God might have prepared Joseph with the cultural belief in seer stones so that he would be receptive to the workings of the Interpreters or that he believed that his seer stone was a Urim and Thummin like the Interpreters.

In reality the major difference between the average-member-view of the Book of Mormon translation (Joseph looked into the crystals in the Interpreters) vs the historical view (Joseph looked into a seer stone in a hat) is the “hat”—one is a stone or crystal out of the hat; the other is in a hat.

Joseph, of course, was not alone in believing in unscientific things in a world that didn’t have today’s advantages of scientific knowledge. The Bible records several instances or forms of divining as practiced by the righteous followers of God. We read that Aaron had a magical rod (Exodus 7:9–12). Jacob also used magical rods to cause Laban’s cattle to produce spotted and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37–39). In Numbers 5 we read about a magical test for adultery in which the priest would give the suspect a potion to drink. If the woman was guilty, her thigh would swell (v. 11–13, 21). The Old Testament records that the Joseph had a silver cup by which “he divineth” (Genesis 44:2, 5). This convention, known as hydromancy, was also practiced by the surrounding pagans. The casting of lots (sortilege) to choose a new Apostle (see Acts 1:26) was known and practiced by the pagans of Jesus’ day. Even some of Christ’s miracles were similar to the magic of surrounding pagans. Jesus’ healing of the deaf man by putting his fingers in his ears (Mark 7:33–35) and Jesus’ healing of the blind man by touching his eyes with spittle and clay were also common pagan practices.

Although the historical picture of the Book of Mormon translation process is not as commonly known to some members as it perhaps should be, despite the cries of critics the Church hasn’t been hiding this information. It has been mentioned for instance in the Ensign,[v] (one instance in which the talk was originally given to Mission Presidents[vi]), the Friend,[vii] as well as other LDS-targeted publications.

As we continue our discussion of scriptures and translation in subsequent installments it’s important to note that from the historical record we also learn that Joseph translated in plain sight of other witnesses and that, because his face was buried in a hat to exclude light, it would have been impossible for him to be reading the text of another document while he dictated the translation.

For those who would like to read a much more detailed paper on this topic I recommend Roger Nicholson’s new Interpreter article, “The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation” as well as Brant Gardner’s award winning book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon.


[iii] “David Whitmer Interview with Chicago Tribune, 15 December 1885,” in Early Mormon Documents, ed., Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:153.

[iv] Cited in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, 2nd ed. (Redding CA: FAIR, 2013), 282.

[v] Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign (September 1977), 80; Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,”Ensign (January 2013), 46 (while Dirkmaat doesn’t mention the hat, he does explain that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone [also referred to as a Urim and Thummim] to receive revelation.)

[vi] Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign (July 1993). (Like Anderson [above] Nelson does mention both the seer stone and hat).

[vii] “A Peaceful Heart,” Friend (September 1974). (This article doesn’t mention the hat but does mention the “egg-shaped, brown rock… called a seer stone.”)

* This article was cross-posted from Meridian Magazine.

The Difficulty of Translating Scripture

by

Ash (newer) PictureWith the exception of some sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, we do not have the original manuscripts for any of our scriptures. All original documents for the Old and New Testaments are gone. What we have are copies (and usually copies of copies) or interpretations of copies. Likewise, Moroni’s golden plates are no longer in our possession. Even the original Book of Mormon translation manuscript (only 28% of which has survived) is a “translation” of the ancient Nephite book and not the original document.

No document was present when Joseph Smith received the Book of Moses by revelation. Section 7 of the D&C was given as revelation wherein Joseph saw a translation from the “parchment” which was “written and hid up by” the Apostle John. Finally, when it comes to the Book Abraham, the text we have in our scriptures is a “translation” of information that was either contained on some portion of the Joseph Smith Papyri that has been lost or, like the Book of Moses and text from the Apostle John, was given by direct revelation without the presence of the original source document.

Without the original “autographs” we can never be positive that we have the precise and pristine words penned by the original prophets and scriptural authors. When we compare ancient copies of New Testament books, for example, we find a number of differences. Generally, such differences don’t affect the integrity of the text, but there are instances where omissions or additions do change the meaning of some verses.[i]

The translation of the scriptures into modern languages presents additional problems that can influence the meaning of the text. A translator attempts to convey the meaning of the original by selecting words and phrases that make the most sense to his audience. This becomes especially problematic with ancient languages wherein we can’t ask the meaning of phrases from those who lived in that culture. But even when we do know what they meant, it is often difficult to translate precise meanings from one culture (or an ancient culture) into another (or modern) culture.

For example, candles were invented in China in around 200 BC and were not known in biblical lands until about 400 AD[ii]—long after the books in the Bible were written. Despite the absence of candles in biblical antiquity, the Old and New Testaments refer to candles seventeen times. “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick,” we read in Matthew 5:15. In Zephaniah we find that the Hebrew word ner is translated as “candle” in the King James Version Bible. “And it shall come to pass at that time that I will search Jerusalem with candles…” (1:12). The New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV) translates ner as “lamps” and the New Living Translation Bible (NLT) as “lanterns.”

In a twenty-first century context, not one of these words is precisely correct. The ancient people of the Bible used oil lamps. For modern readers in the United States a “lamp” (NSRV) refers to what you might have on your night stand or in your living room. A “lantern” (NLT) would typically evoke an image of a camping lantern. Even in the early seventeenth century, when the King James Bible was translated, lamps and lanterns would have looked different than the oil lamps of biblical times.

In ancient days the oil lamp was little more than a shallow clay cup of oil with a wick. Even if the King James translators would have used “oil lamp” we wouldn’t get a fully accurate meaning of the original. As non-LDS Hebrew scholar Joel Hoffman explains:

“The word-level translation suggests that if ner means ‘oil lamp,’ then the only possible translation is ‘oil lamp.’ But here’s the problem. When the original text uses ner, the point is something readily at hand, a common object used by default to light up dark spaces (among other purposes). … on a concept level, all three translations [KJV, NSRV, & NLT] are better than oil lamp.’”[iii]

Biblical numbers frequently present problems for translators as well. Ancient societies often had many “round” numbers that were not literal but conveyed a concept. “I’ve told you a thousand times” doesn’t mean I’ve counted those thousand instances but rather that I’ve told you the same information on many repeated occasions. Modern Americans also utilize round numbers such as 5, 10, 100, or “a dozen.”[iv] If we want a dozen eggs or a dozen roses, we are talking about literal numbers. If we have “a dozen” reasons not to attend an opera we would be speaking figuratively compared to if we said we had “twelve” reasons not to attend.

Near Eastern ancient cultures didn’t know the concept of zero and were challenged when it came to multiplying large numbers. As a result, frequently used round numbers were the products of small numbers (such as two times three and three times four). Thus we find frequent round numbers such as 6, 10, 12, 40, and 70. These numbers do not always reflect accurate counts.

Much of the Bible is in symbolic language designed to poetically convey important moral concepts rather than to describe accurate history. The round numbers mentioned above, for example, often conveyed symbolic meanings. Four represented the created world: four winds, corners of the earth, seasons, directions, and types of living creatures. Seven and Twelve symbolized completeness. Forty and Seventy represented limited and comprehensive quantities of time and were also not to be taken literally in all circumstances.[v]

Understanding the problem faced by translators of ancient texts, we can more fully appreciate Article of Faith 8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly….” We may have a tendency to think this refers to how different Christian faiths interpret scriptural passages in different ways. Or we may believe the “translated correctly” refers to copy errors (both additions and deletions) that took place as the biblical texts were preserved through the years by different scribes. The problem of “translated correctly” also refers, however, to the fact that translating from one language (or culture) to another is bound to cause some ambiguities and misinterpretations. We have to be careful to understand ancient texts from within the context of the culture that produced the text.

But what about those scriptures revealed through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith? Surely God would give him accurate translations of those ancient texts? That will be the discussion of our next installment.

*This article also appears on Meridian Magazine.

[iii] Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (Macmillian, 2010, Kindle Edition), 84.

[iv] Ibid., 89.

[v] The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds., Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 1993), 563-564.

Balancing Secular and Faith-Based Scripture Study

by

Ash (newer) PictureAnyone who owns a pendulum powered clock—such as many grandfather or wall hanging clocks—knows that the regulation of the pendulum needs to be tweaked in order for the clock to keep accurate time. On the bottom of the pendulum is an adjusting nut that raises and lowers the “bob” (the disc-shaped weight that makes the pendulum swing from side to side).

If the bob is raised too high, the swing-angle of the pendulum will be too narrow and the clock will run too fast. If the bob is lowered too far, the swing-angle will be too wide and the clock will run too slowly. With a bit of experience, some tweaking, and another timepiece for comparison, the adjusting nut can correctly set the swing to ensure reasonably accurate time.

Our approach to the scriptures should also find a balance between how literally we accept what was recorded by past generations and how modern scholarship understands those past generation in light of history and science. Without balance, our spiritual growth may be stifled or our testimonies could even be put at potential risk.

 Rejecting the Secular

As noted in a previous installment, Latter-day Saints should not take an inerrantist view to the scriptures. We know that prophets are fallible men with divine callings and that scriptures contain mistakes. If we take a literalist view on everything that we read in the scriptures we set ourselves up for potential testimony damage if we come to realize that the best scholarship—both inside and outside of the Church—argues that a strictly literal reading is untenable.

Revealed religion has almost nothing to say about the physics of the world, and little about its history either. As Galileo said, quoting one of the pope’s cardinals, the scriptures “teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.”[i]

Science can tell us little or nothing about the meaning of life but speaks volumes about the physics and history of this planet and people. While we may assume that the scriptures speak on scientific issues this assumption is typically not warranted (with a few exceptions).

Most of our scriptures were written in pre-scientific times and incorporate not only the pre-critical assumptions of those who recorded the scriptures but sometimes include fanciful narratives to convey divine principals. Joseph Fielding Smith once wrote:

“Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. …

“The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his “yoke” upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. …”[ii]

“Despite divine inspiration,” notes LDS scholar Stephen Robinson, “the biblical text is not uninfluenced by human language and not immune to negative influences from its human environment, and there is no guarantee that the revelations given to ancient prophets have been perfectly preserved…. Thus, critical study of the Bible is warranted to help allow for, and suggest corrections of, human errors of formulation, transmission, translation, and interpretation of the ancient records.”[iii]

In my opinion, one of the most revealing scriptures for helping us understand how God communicates with His children is found in D&C 1:24:

“Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

I’ll discuss this point in greater depth later in this series, and will return to it repeatedly because of its importance. Whether Heavenly Father speaks to you or me, or to prophets, or to those who recorded or transmitted scripture, all humans are only able to understand those communications from within their own worldviews (our “language”) which would include vocabulary, culture, and even preconceived (perhaps even erroneous) ideas about science, the universe, physics, other people, and so on.

By applying the tools of scholarship and science to our scripture studies, we can better recognize how ancient peoples would have understood revelations in the context of their own particular worldviews.

Since the days of Joseph Smith, many leaders have suggested that our scripture study include not only prayer and personal reflection, but scholarly tools as well. Joseph, for instance, studied Hebrew and organized the School of the Prophets so he, and other Church leaders, could utilize the scholarship in his day to learn more about the ancient prophets.

LDS Apostle, Elder John A. Widtsoe likewise wrote:

“In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth… To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth….”[iv]

Rejecting the Literal

Relying solely on secular interpretations of scriptural events presents its own set of problems. A strictly secular approach would deny the Resurrection, miracles, and divine communication from on high. Science currently tells us that such things don’t happen. Claims of the miraculous—including healings, raising the dead, and the visitation from angels or long-deceased prophets, must be taken on faith.

Approaching the scriptures from a strictly secular perspective also takes a superficial approach to the purpose of scriptures.  While scholarship can more accurately tell us about the people who wrote the scriptures and how their stories would have been understood in ancient contexts, it cannot reveal the deeper meaning of those records—those verses that speak to our souls and impel us to change our hearts and desires to align with God.

“With minor exceptions,” notes Robinson, the Bible is “…not to be treated in an ultimately naturalistic manner. God’s participation is seen to be significant both in the events themselves and in the process of their being recorded. His activity is thus one of the effects to be reckoned with in interpreting the events and in understanding the texts that record them.”[v]

God had a purpose when He inspired biblical authors to record scripture and impelled dedicated followers to preserve the scriptures for future generations. Despite the fact that divinely revealed doctrine can be draped in a mantel of fallible human narrative and imperfect worldviews, the spiritual messages can nevertheless touch the souls of those who study the scriptures with the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

The scriptures not only act as a witness to God’s dealings with mankind, but they also testify to the divinity of the Savior and the reality of the Atonement. Elder David A. Bednar suggests three reasons why we should study the scriptures: Because of our covenants, because of our need for direction, and as a prerequisite for personal revelation.[vi]

Per the sacramental prayers, when we renew our covenants, we are asked to “always remember” Christ. We can facilitate this remembrance by studying the scriptures.

Elder Bednar notes that in Alma 37 we are taught that “personal prayer and scripture study provide direction in our lives just as the Liahona provided guidance to Lehi and his family in the wilderness.”

Lastly, and most importantly, scripture has the power to transform our hearts and minds so we can receive personal revelation. If we invite the Holy Ghost into our lives as we pray and study the scriptures, immersing ourselves in the scriptures helps open that conduit for personal communication with our Heavenly Father.

My personal approach to the scriptures is to find a balance between the secular approach and the faith-approach. A secular approach attempts to harmonize what scriptural records claim and what we know about history, physics, and the ancient world. It can not only shed light on our scripture study, but it can make sense of some scriptural references that do not accord with science, archaeology, or the historical record.

A faith-based approach to scriptures that accepts some literal interpretations of specific events (such as the Resurrection) brings meaning to my life, helps guide me, helps open the door to personal revelation and teaches me that some things must be taken on faith in spite of current scientific knowledge.

This balancing point will undoubtedly vary with each individual and may shift from time to time based on moments of secular or spiritual insight. Some readers may find my balancing point to be too liberal; perhaps for others, too conservative. In subsequent articles I will try to show how I arrive at my current position and how I find balance and enlightenment by harmonizing the two.

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Quoted in www.oratoriosanfilippo.org/galileo-baronio-english.pdf

[ii] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 (SLC: Bookcraft, 1956): 188-190.

[iii] Stephen E. Robinson, “Bible Scholarship,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[iv] John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1930), 81-82,.

[v] Robinson, “Bible Scholarship.”

[vi] David A. Bednar, “Understanding the Importance of Scripture Study,”.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 139: The Book of Abraham and the Prophetic Power of Joseph Smith

by

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Now that we have some of the papyrus that was in the possession of Joseph Smith when he translated the Book of Abraham, can it be demonstrated that Joseph Smith is a fraud? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on January 27, 2013, Martin Tanner responds to this question and discusses some of the ways in which the Book of Abraham actually provides evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

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.

Reverend Spalding Strikes Again: A Response to Internet Criticism of Kerry Muhlestein’s Book of Abraham Videos

by

Administrator’s note: The following is the result of a combined effort by many FAIR volunteers, all of whom made substantive contributions, and so is posted here under the group authorship “FAIR Staff.” Also, some of the individuals discussed below are either anonymous or pseudonymous; because we do not even know their genders in some cases, all references to these individuals will use masculine pronouns (“he,” “his,” “him) for the sake of brevity.

Critics on a particularly hostile Internet message board have been celebrating over e-mail responses to some YouTube videos of LDS Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein. In the videos Dr. Muhlestein commented on some matters related to the Book of Abraham. The e-mails are from Egyptologists at UCLA (where Muhlestein earned his PhD). These scholars were solicited for their views by being sent the following e-mail from a critic on the message board:

Dr. Muhlenstein [sic] has recently been in a series of videos where he discusses his recent research on these papyrus fragments. His conclusions about the veracity of [Joseph] Smith’s translation of these papyri, their related facsimiles, and the explicit connection between the ancient biblical figure Abraham, and the ancient Egyptian book of the Dead, are contrary to what I thought the scholarly consensus was.[1]

Unfortunately, the e-mailer set up a straw man from the beginning: The videos are said to be “on these papyrus fragments,” meaning the Joseph Smith Papyri. He then goes on to speak about “[Muhlestein’s] conclusions about the veracity of Smith’s translations of these papyri.” Actually, Muhlestein says the papyri are not the source of the Book of Abraham (see note 13). Much of what Muhlestein talks about in the videos—such as various traditions about Abraham, the so-called Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and so forth—are not really related to the Joseph Smith Papyri at all, or even Egyptology proper. Two videos do focus on the facsimiles, of which only Facsimile 1 could be said to be related to the papyri that we have in our possession.

The e-mailer then asks if the Egyptologists“could help [him] understand how non-LDS Egyptologists view the Joseph Smith papyri, his translation of the accompanying facsimiles, and how valid the claims that Muhlenstein [sic] has been making in his recent videos are.”

The three responses from the solicited Egyptologists are reproduced below. [Read more…] about Reverend Spalding Strikes Again: A Response to Internet Criticism of Kerry Muhlestein’s Book of Abraham Videos

Subtle . . . and Significant! Our New 2013 Edition of the Scriptures Address Controversies

by

On Friday, March 1st, the Church announced the immediate availability in digital format of a new edition of scriptures in English that incorporates changes, updates, and improvements over the 1981 edition that has served Church members for 32 years. On its website, the Church stated that the reason for the updates was to take advantage of the need to replace the printing master plates in use since 1979 and 1981 by making corrections and updates.

Such changes to scriptures are not new.  The most significant changes in recent history were made to the 1981 print edition, which included updated chapter headings, an enhanced Bible Dictionary, a more comprehensive index, cross-referenced footnotes, pronunciation guides, improved and updated maps, as well as a few changes of substance that added clarity to scripture readings. [Read more…] about Subtle . . . and Significant! Our New 2013 Edition of the Scriptures Address Controversies

New Verse-by-Verse Resource on the Book of Mormon

by

One of our objectives at FAIR is to provide access to quality research on Latter-day Saint topics that is useful for the average Saint in their everyday study of the scriptures. To that end, as a new part of our FAIR Study Aids project, we have developed a verse-by-verse research index on the Book of Mormon. This can be accessed online, here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIR_Study_Aids/Book_of_Mormon_Resources_by_chapter_and_verse

Here, what we have done is we have gone through hundreds of articles, essays, and research papers and cataloged them under the chapter and verse for which its contents are most relevant (in many cases, articles can be found under more than one scripture reference). See the page on Jacob, for example. There is also a page for research related to the introduction, history of its coming forth, and general themes that run throughout the book. In some cases, books and chapters also have “overview” materials available.

Our aim is make it easy for someone going through the scriptures to find research on what they are reading now. For example, if you are currently reading in Helaman 3, you can come to that section of the index and find several articles that are relevant to things going on in that chapter. In breaking things down by verse, we hope that someone who has a question while reading, say, Mosiah 17:13 will be able to find resources which help answer their questions quickly and easily.

It is far from complete or comprehensive at this point. It is a work in progress,  but you can help! If you know any articles that are not there, please send them our way along what passage(s) you think it would best be cataloged under and we will add it to the index. Or, if you read an article that is on there and felt it applied to a different verse that it is not listed under, let us know and we will make the change.

We hope that this will prove a valuable resource in both your regular gospel study and in finding answers to concerns and criticisms raised against the Book of Mormon. With time, we may expand this to the other Standard Works.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 108: Jeffrey Bradshaw on Temple Themes in the Scriptures

by

Podcast: Download (20.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw discusses his book, Temple Themes in the Book of Moses as well as some examples of temple worship among early Christians, and the Jews. He also touches on the Book of Enoch, the Council in Heaven and ancient temple architecture.

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Ph.D., Cognitive Science, University of Washington) is a Senior Research Scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in Pensacola, Florida. Formerly, he led research groups at The Boeing Company and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. He has authored hundreds of research articles and edited several volumes on topics relating to human and machine intelligence and interaction. Jeff was a missionary in the Belgium-Brussels mission, and has since served in a variety of teaching and leadership capacities including early-morning seminary teacher, bishop, high councilor, counselor in a stake presidency, stake executive secretary and temple ordinance worker. He and his wife Kathleen are the parents of four children.

Dr. Bradshaw has published a number of books addressing temples themes in the scriptures including “In God’s Image and Likeness,” “Temple Themes in the Book of Moses,” and “Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.” Each is available for purchase at the FAIR Bookstore, here.

Dr. Bradshaw also gave a presentation at the Temple on Mount Zion conference in Provo, Utah on September 23, 2012 regarding temple symbolism in the story of Noah’s ark, and is available for viewing on YouTube.

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

The Book of Abraham and Continuing Scholarship: Ask the Right Questions and Keep Looking

by

The Book of Abraham continues to be a hotly debated book. Critics of and apologists for the Book of Abraham continue to sound forth their judgments on the fraudulence or authenticity of this controversial scriptural work. There does not seem to be any end in sight for this controversy. With the survival of some of Joseph Smith’s Egyptian papyri – ostensibly the source of the Book of Abraham – critics have, in the words of Hugh Nibley, been “endlessly dinning into the ears of the public that what was written on that small and battered strip of papyrus prove[s] beyond a doubt that Joseph Smith [is] a fraud because he thought it contained the Book of Abraham, whereas it contains nothing of the sort.”[1] The most recent salvo aimed at thrashing Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these documents comes in the form of a respected Egyptologist publishing his highly critical material with a press known for being, at times, extremely hostile towards Mormon orthodoxy. This Egyptologist’s conclusion? “Except for those willfully blind… the case is closed.”[2]

That seems to be it for the poor Mormons.

Well, maybe not.

[Read more…] about The Book of Abraham and Continuing Scholarship: Ask the Right Questions and Keep Looking

Mormon FAIR-Cast 101: Dan Peterson takes questions

by

Podcast: Download (38.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Dan Peterson takes questions from callers who both support and oppose the Church on this live interview with Mills Crenshaw that appeared on K-Talk radio on July 31, 2012, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Brother Peterson answers questions about the Book of Abraham and a variety of questions about the Book of Mormon, including ones pertaining to DNA studies, Mesoamerican and Near-Eastern archaeology, and Joseph Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon.

A native of southern California, Daniel C. Peterson received a bachelor’s degree in Greek and philosophy from Brigham Young University (BYU) and, after several years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo, earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Dr. Peterson is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU and founder and the editor-in-chief of the University’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (METI). He is a past chairman of the board of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and, until very recently, served as Director of Advancement for its successor organization, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. From 1988, when he founded it, through mid-June of 2012, he edited the FARMS Review, which was renamed the Mormon Studies Review in late 2011. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on Islamic and Latter-day Saint topics, including a biography of the Prophet Muhammad (Eerdmans, 2007). A former bishop, Dr. Peterson served in the Switzerland Zürich Mission, and, for approximately eight years, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He currently serves as a Gospel Doctrine teacher in his home ward. He is married to the former Deborah Stephens, of Lakewood, Colorado, and they are the parents of three sons.

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