FAIR

Blog

How Does Moses 5-8 Illustrate the Consequences of Keeping and Breaking Temple Covenants One By One? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 5B)

by

Jan van Eyck, ca. 1395-1441: Offering of Abel and Cain, 1425-1429

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 5: “If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted” (Moses 5-7) (JBOTL05B). See the link to video supplements to this lesson at the end of this article under “Further Reading.”

Question: Some people believe that the basic teachings and covenants available today in LDS temple ordinances were not revealed to Joseph Smith until he got to Nauvoo. Others say he knew a great deal about temple matters long before that time. What could the Prophet have learned about temple covenants as he translated Moses 5-8 in 1830-31?

Summary: Because the book of Moses tells the story of the Creation and the Fall of Adam and Eve, it is obvious to endowed members of the Church that the book of Moses is a temple text, containing a pattern that interleaves sacred history with covenant-making themes. What may be new to many Latter-day Saints, however, is that the temple themes in the book of Moses extend beyond the first part of this story that contains the fall of Adam and Eve — their “downward road.” There is a part two of the temple story given in the book of Moses that describes an “upward road” that is to be climbed by making and keeping an ordered sequence of temple covenants. Significantly, Moses 5-8 appears to have been structured so as to present the consequences of both keeping and breaking specific temple covenants one by one.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL05B — How Does Moses 5-8 Illustrate the Consequences of Keeping and Breaking Temple Covenants One By One?

As a video supplement to this lesson, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The LDS story of Enoch As a Temple Text” (http://www.templestudies.org/2013-enoch-and-the-temple-conference/conference-videos/). Several other excellent video presentations on Enoch and the temple are available at this same link.

For additional discussion of evidence that Joseph Smith knew much about temple matters early on in his ministry, see: “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” (http://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference-videos/).

Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Prohibited from Publishing His Bible Translation? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 5A)

by

Liz Lemon Swindle, 1953-: Go with Me to Cumorah, 1997

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 5: “If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted” (Moses 5-7) (JBOTL05A). See the link to video supplements for this lesson at the end of this article under “Further Reading.”

Question: For a while, the Lord prohibited Joseph Smith from sharing his Bible translation publicly. Also, Moses 1:42 explicitly says that the account of Moses’ vision should not be shown “unto any except them that believe.” Any guesses as to the reasons behind these restrictions?

Summary: I believe that these initial restrictions were due, at least in part, to the sacred content of many of the changes and additions in Joseph Smith’s Bible translation. This makes sense if we regard the knowledge that Joseph Smith received as he translated the Bible as part of a divine tutorial on priesthood and temple doctrines, authority, and ordinances. In fact, some parts of Genesis seem to contain echoes of what temple studies scholars would call a “temple text.” My study of the book of Moses and others of the initial revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith have convinced me that he knew early on much more about these matters than he taught publicly, contradicting the view of those who consider the fundamental doctrines, covenants, and teachings of the Nauvoo temple ordinances a late invention

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL05A — Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Prohibited from Publishing His Bible Translation?

For more discussion of evidence that Joseph Smith knew much about temple matters early on in his ministry, see the first video supplement to this lesson: “What Did Joseph Smith Know about Temple Ordinances by 1836?” (http://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference/2014-temple-on-mount-zion-conference-videos/).

For a playlist of one-minute video clips discussing various aspects of Mormonism and Masonry in Nauvoo, see the second video supplement to this lesson at the FairMormon YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zdSoYy_fg&list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIHW8n88zdpJuzK83caT7A2H).

Was Adam Meant to “Rule Over” or “Rule With” Eve? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 4B)

by

Eugène Delaplanche, 1836-1890: Eve, After Transgression, 1869. Photograph copyright by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. In this poignant sculpture, the vacant, tearless eyes and agonized posture of the solitary figure bespeak the depths of Eve’s utter hopelessness immediately after her transgression.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened” (Moses 4; 5:1–15; 6:48-62) (JBOTL04B). See the link to the video supplement to this lesson at the end of the article under “Further Reading.”

Question: After the Fall, God told Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” However, some say that the words “rule over” should be translated “rule with.” Which translation is correct?

Summary: A modern English translation makes the meaning of this difficult phrase clear: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Looking at the verse in context, it is evident that the Lord is not telling the couple how they should treat each other, but rather describing a tragic tendency in mortal marriages that they must avoid. As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.” In an honest effort to make sense of the troubling English translation of “rule over” in the King James Version, some have suggested that it should be read instead as “rule with.” Unfortunately, the “rule with” translation does not hold up under scholarly scrutiny. For example, in her BYU Masters Thesis, RoseAnn Benson argued conclusively that the “rule with” translation should be abandoned. In every occurrence of the underlying Hebrew she examined the phrase is best understood as “rule over,” as when a king rules over his subjects. This further confirms the idea that the verse is describing broken marriage relationships that would become a common tendency in the fallen world, with each spouse contending to “rule over” the other. It’s obvious that God did not intend Adam and Eve’s marriage to work that way. Instead, as the Proclamation on the Family explains, “fathers and mothers” — both then and now — “are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL04B — Was Adam Meant to “Rule Over” or “Rule With” Eve?

For a video supplement to this lesson, see “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary” on the FairMormon YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-B1FeOcTZ8

Did Satan Actually Deceive Eve? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 4A)

by

Jan Breughel, the Elder, ca. 1568-1625: The Garden of Eden, 1612. Brueghel masterfully fills the foreground of the scene with the abundance, happiness, and beauty of newly created life, and then skillfully draws our eyes toward the two tiny figures in the background ominously reaching for the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened” (Moses 4; 5:1–15; 6:48-62) (JBOTL04A), 15 January 2018

Question: The scriptures say that Eve was “beguiled” by Satan when she partook of the forbidden fruit. But Latter-day Saints believe she made the right choice. How can both statements be true?

Summary: Some people paint Eve in a negative light, blaming her for bringing sin into the world. This is not the view of the Latter-day Saints. We emphasize her wisdom and perceptiveness, and see her actions in the Garden of Eden as a positive step forward in the divine plan. We teach that she did not commit a sin in taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and honor her lifelong faithfulness. However, a few have taken this view to an unreasonable extreme, arguing that, for various reasons, she was not actually “beguiled” by Satan in her decision to eat the forbidden fruit. On the one hand, some believe that Satan was entirely truthful when he spoke to Eve. On the other hand, others teach or imply that regardless of what Satan did or said, Eve made the right choice with full understanding of the situation. These beliefs are based on honest intent, but are all mistaken. Scripture exposes how Satan used a series of clever tactics to mislead Eve, how God’s wisdom prevailed, and how Eve became a symbol of Wisdom itself.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL04A — Did Satan Actually Deceive Eve?

For a video supplement to this lesson, see “The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary” on the FairMormon YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-B1FeOcTZ8

Did Moses Write the Book of Genesis? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 3B)

by

Joseph Mallord William Turner, 1775-1851: Light and Color: The Morning After the Deluge (Goethe’s Theory) — Moses Writing the Book of Genesis, 1843

 An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 3B: The Creation (Moses 1:27-42; 2-3) (JBOTL03B), 11 January 2018

Question: LDS teachings and scripture clearly imply that Moses learned of the Creation and the Fall in vision and was told to write what he saw. However, most modern scholars find evidence that the book of Genesis as we have it today was produced at a much later date than Moses could have lived. Can these views be reconciled?

Summary: Scholars have assembled impressive evidence that the first five books of the Bible were compiled in their current form at a relatively late date from multiple, overlapping sources of varying perspectives — and almost certainly with differing degrees of inspiration. This idea should not trouble believing readers of the Book of Mormon, who know that inspired editors wove separate, overlapping records covering many hundreds of years into a single work of scripture. In addition, the idea that Moses may not have written all that is attributed to him firsthand is not incompatible with the belief that he, along with other major Old Testament figures, were actual historical persons. Many of the Bible’s sources may go back to authentic traditions (whether oral or written) that are associated with figures such as Moses as authorities, even if they were not the direct authors. As a further witness of the reality of these figures, we have accounts of the Prophet having seen many of them personally. Moreover, we have the same witness within the Joseph Smith’s Bible translation efforts, the Book of Mormon, the book of Abraham, and several revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. We are fortunate both to know that these lengthy additions to the record of the Old Testament are authentic reports of events originally experienced by ancient prophets and that they were also directly translated in our day by a modern prophet.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL03B — Did Moses Write the Book of Genesis?

What Can the Architecture of Israelite Temples Teach Us About Creation and the Garden of Eden? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 3A)

by

Michelangelo, 1475-1564: Creation of the Sun and Moon, 1511

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 3: The Creation (Moses 1:27-42; 2-3) (JBOTL03A), 8 January 2018

Question: In reading the description of the seven days of Creation and the layout of the Garden of Eden, there seems to be more than meets the eye. What insights can be gained about these things from understanding the architecture of the Israelite temples?

Summary: The descriptions of the days of creation in Genesis and the book of Moses differ from those found in the book of Abraham and in modern temples. In contrast to the latter accounts, the narratives in Genesis and the book of Moses seem to have been deliberately shaped to highlight resemblances between the creation of the universe and the architecture of the Tabernacle and later Israelite temples. Understanding these parallels helps explain why, for example, in seeming contradiction to scientific understanding, the description of the creation of the sun and moon appears after, rather than before, the creation of light and of the earth. Careful study also reveals that not only the Creation, but also the Garden of Eden provided a model for the architecture of the temple.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL03A — What Can the Architecture of Israelite Temples Teach Us About Creation and the Garden of Eden?

What Was the Nature of Satan’s Premortal Proposal? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 2A)

by

William Blake, 1757-1827: Satan in His Original Glory, ca. 1805. To highlight Lucifer’s perversity, Blake has conspicuously reversed the hands in which the emblems of British monarchy are normally held. Satan’s stubborn nonconformity in this image symbolizes his intent to reverse the order of heaven.

KnoWhy for Personal Study of Gospel Doctrine Lesson 2: “Thou Wast Chosen Before Thou Wast Born” (Abraham 3; Moses 4:1-4) (JBOTL02A), 6 January 2018

Question: What was the nature of Satan’s proposal to “redeem all mankind”? How did he intend to “destroy the agency of man”? Was his proposal feasible?

Summary: It is often assumed that the gist of Satan’s premortal proposal was that he would “‘save’ all of the Father’s children by forcing each to obey the Father’s law in all things.” In light of what the Book of Mormon teaches and Joseph Smith’s statements on the subject, these assumptions should not be taken for granted. Closer study offers a more likely alternative: namely that Satan put forth a proposal to “save … people in their sins,” notably including the sons of perdition. Moreover, in the Book of Mormon, Satan’s proposal to “destroy the agency of man” is not described as an impossible attempt to force people to obey but rather as a scheme to prevent humankind from experiencing a mortal probation after the Fall.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL02A — What Was the Nature of Satan’s Premortal Proposal?

Why Did Moses Seem to Repeat the Same Experience Twice in His Vision? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 1A)

by

Joseph Brickey: Moses Seeing Jehovah, 1998

KnoWhy 01A for Personal Study of Gospel Doctrine Lesson 1: “This Is My Work and My Glory” (Moses 1) (JBOTL01A), 6 January 2018

Question: At the beginning of the vision that appears in Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw the “world … and all the children of men” (Moses 1:8). Then, near the end of the vision, he seems to have experienced the same thing again when he saw the “earth, and … the inhabitants thereof” (Moses 1:27-29). Why is this so?

Summary: Careful study of Moses 1 and similar documents from the ancient world reveals that Moses’ experience was a tutorial on the plan of salvation from a personal perspective, including his departure from God’s presence in the beginning and his glorious return to that presence in the end through his faithfulness. In verse 8, early on in the vision, it appears that Moses saw the premortal world and all the spirits that God had created (compare Abraham 3:22-23). Later, in verses 27-29, he seems to have experienced a view from heaven of the mortal earth and all its inhabitants.

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: http://interpreterfoundation.org/why-did-moses-seem-to-repeat-the-same-experience-twice-in-his-vision/

 

FairMormon Conference Podcast #2 – Ben Spackman, “Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis”

by

Podcast: Download (83.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

This podcast series features a FairMormon Conference presentation each month. Please join us for the 2018 FairMormon Conference coming up August 1-3. You can attend in person or purchase the video streaming. You can watch older conference presentation videos on our YouTube channel and FairMormon TV for Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV.

Ben Spackman, Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis

Transcript available here.

Ben Spackman received a BA from BYU in Near Eastern Studies and a MA in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago, where he did several years of further work towards a PhD. He then studied general science at City College of New York. Currently a PhD student in History of Christianity at Claremont Graduate University, Ben’s general focus is the intertwined history of science, religion, and interpretation of scripture. In particular, he studies how shifting worldviews drove changing interpretations and understandings of Genesis, from its ancient Israelite/Babylonian origins through the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, eventually generating today’s conflict between Young Earth Creationism and well-established evolutionary science. Ben taught volunteer Institute and Seminary for a dozen years in the Midwest, New York, and California, has also taught Biblical Hebrew, Book of Mormon, and New Testament at BYU, and recently TA’d a course on God, Darwin, and Design. Ben has published with BYU Studies, Religious Educator, the Maxwell Institute, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, and Religion&Politics, and blogs occasionally at Times and Seasons and Benjamin the Scribe. He has presented lectures, firesides, and papers at various conferences, this year including the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (March), the Mormon History Association (June), the Maxwell Institute Seminar on Mormon Culture (August), and the Sperry Symposium at BYU (October). He is currently writing a book on Genesis 1 for an LDS audience and intends to write his dissertation on some aspect of the scripture/evolution conflict in Mormonism. You can help Ben pay his tuition here.

Audio and Video Copyright © 2017 The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. Any reproduction or transcription of this material without prior express written permission is prohibited.

East Coast Ignorance, or Using an Emotional Event for Another Anti-Mormon Hit Piece?

by

 

President Thomas Spencer Monson (August 21, 1927 – January 2, 2018).

 

On January 3, the New York Times published the obituary for Thomas S. Monson, You can find that obituary piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/obituaries/thomas-monson-dies.html. The piece was written by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Robert D. McFadden. I am sure that Mr. McFadden is an excellent journalist. This is what the New York Times says about him:

Robert D. McFadden is a senior writer on the Obituaries desk of The New York Times and the winner of the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for spot news reporting. He has covered many of New York’s major news stories in his more than 30 years as a reporter and rewrite man for the paper, and has earned a reputation as one of the finest rewrite men in the business.[1]

But, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been pretty upset about the tone of the obituary. Comments have been made that Fidel Castro and Hugh Hefner were painted in a better light than President Thomas Monson who dedicated his life to serving others. There have been numerous blog posts, Facebook posts, and articles discussing this. One example can be found in The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mormon-prophet/549773/.

The outrage over the obituary is strong enough that on January 8, the obituary editor put out an explanation defending the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/reader-center/thomas-monson-obituary.html. One can argue if the explanation helped or hurt their cause. The editor talks about covering the public Monson and not the private one. The public Thomas Monson was a man of service, not one of great controversy. Perhaps they are just not informed? That’s not a good position to take for a newspaper.

The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers and selling advertising. While we all hope they treat a good man fairly, they have the right to take whatever tone they wish. Being a newspaper man before he became a Church official, I’m sure President Monson appreciates that. So, I will leave matters of tone for others to debate.

What I will address is the accuracy of the writing. I know the New York Times is concerned about accurate news reporting, and there are some serious factual errors in this story that should be corrected.

Here they are in the order they appear, not necessarily in order of importance.

  1. “Many Mormons faced sanctions for joining online forums questioning church positions on women’s roles.”

I am not aware of ANY Mormons who have faced sanctions for joining an online forum or for questioning the Church positions on women’s roles. They will need to give examples. We have thousands, and probably millions of members who belong to many forums. We have members who are advocates of women rights and roles who are faithful members. I know some who work in the Church Office Building. I know members who hold differing views on women’s roles, homosexuality, and many political and social issues. Kate Kelly is cited in the article—perhaps the author thinks she is an example of this, but Kate Kelly was not excommunicated for joining a forum or even questioning the Church’s positions. There is a difference between questioning and actively campaigning against the Church and its teachings. Kate Kelly did the latter.

  1. “As the 16th president of the Latter-day Saints, succeeding Gordon B. Hinckley, Mr. Monson faced another test when church members, increasingly scouring online sources, found apparent contradictions between historical records and church teachings, which the church regards as God-given and literally true.”

Perhaps I am nit-picking on this one, but I take some umbrage with the idea that since Gordon B. Hinckley apparent contradictions have been found. The Church has an exceptional history department and there are numerous conferences on Church history – including the FairMormon conference. We have been discussing these topics for years. Additionally, we aren’t fundamentalist evangelicals in that every doctrine and practice is directly from God. This would be especially true with items related to history and science which are full of discovery. Yes, we have divinely inspired teachings, but they typically don’t have anything to do with history.

  1. “Some critics, including the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith, said the Latter-day Saints church had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and said the new teaching had used Scripture to “address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.””

There are two issues here: First, one has to question why the New York Times reporter sought out a Website that states, “Mormonism fits a classic definition of a cult” and “So, is Mormonism a cult? According to our definition, yes.” Most LDS would rightfully classify OnceDelivered.net to be an anti-Mormon Website. There are many Websites out there that attack Mormonism with little understanding of what we actually teach and believe. It seems odd that the New York Times would be quoting from one for an obituary.

Secondly, the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the term Latter-day Saints church would be incorrect and is offensive to most Mormons which underscores the lack of source reliability) previously contended that Joseph Smith was married to only one woman is incorrect. Yes, there are critics who have falsely made that claim, but the idea of plural marriage is taught by Joseph Smith and is part of our scripture in Doctrine and Covenants section 132 which can be found online at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132. That section was written in July 1843. Another activity you can try is to go to the Official Church Website LDS.org and type “Plural Marriage” into the search box. Many of those articles listed were written prior to Thomas S. Monson becoming prophet. There are many books that talk about this. One of our FairMormon volunteers stated he has 40 – 50 books on his shelf that discuss this topic. It was one of the main topics of the Reed Smoot Hearings in congress from 1904 – 1907. There is no new teaching on this. Ask most New Yorkers if early Mormons practiced polygamy and they would say yes. Many probably believe we still do. To say that we taught otherwise would be unbelievable.

  1. “In recent years, the church allowed historians access to church documents and records to a remarkable degree. Some published their findings online and in printed volumes, although they were usually vetted by church leaders.”

Having worked extensively with Church historians and independent historians, I have NEVER heard of Church leaders vetting anything except what is posted on the official Church Website to represent their position. Just the opposite is true. The Joseph Smith Papers are being published in their entirety on the Church Website. I have had complete freedom to publish anything without any vetting or oversight. There are LDS History conferences that are attended by Church Historians and many controversial and difficult topics are addressed. FairMormon has a conference every year where we talk about Church history. No one has ever vetted our talks.

The New York Times Obituary on President Thomas S. Monson needs a retraction and a rewrite. I’m sure the Times is interested in accuracy. Not correcting the record looks mean spirited, or ignorant. Neither of those positions is something that most newspapers aspire to be.

 

Scott Gordon serves as President of FairMormon, a non-profit corporation staffed by volunteers dedicated to helping members deal with issues raised by critics of the LDS faith. He has an MBA from Brigham Young University, and a BA in Organizational Communications from Brigham Young University. He is currently an instructor of business and technology at Shasta College in Redding, California. Scott has held many positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints including serving as a bishop for six years. He currently serves as Ward Mission Leader. He is married and has five children.