FAIR

Blog

Fair Issues 86: The Lamanite prophet Zelph

by

Podcast: Download (11.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this article brother Ash considers the account of the prophet Joseph Smith when he discovers the bones that belonged to a “white Lamanite” named Zelph who was a warrior under the prophet Onandagus.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FairMormon Bookstore. Tell your friends about the Mormon Fair-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon Fair-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon

 

Dating Christ’s Birth

by

Untitled1

I have always loved Christmas. As far as I can remember, it has always been my favorite time of the year. I love the sights, the smells, and the tastes. Most of all, however, I love that we are able to remember the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

This leads me directly into the perennial debate: when was Christ actually born? Has there been any modern-day revelation on the matter? What is the Church’s official position about this? These are all interesting questions to ponder, and I will attempt to address these to the best of my ability throughout this post.

We, as members of the LDS Church, celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, along with the rest of the Christian world. Many faithful Latter-day Saints (including many of our leaders), however, believe that April 6 was actually the birth date of our Savior, using D&C 20:1 as scriptural justification. Does that match what the scholars say? And if not, how can we explain the disparity?

Before we get into the meat of this question, it is important to first determine the Church’s official position. In this case it’s easy—there isn’t one. Knowing the exact day and year He was born simply does not pertain to our salvation, and as far as I was able to tell, there has been no official revelation on the matter. The Church, as an organization, simply has not spent that much time and energy worrying about it.

Why then should we worry ourselves about something that (in the eternal scheme of things) really doesn’t matter all that much? That’s a legitimate question. First, I believe very strongly in gaining as much knowledge as possible (D&C 130:18–19), especially knowledge related in any way to the Savior. Second, I believe that as defenders of the faith, we need to be able to have ready answers to questions that we might be asked, and this topic is certainly fair game. Furthermore, no one should have their testimonies rocked because a critic brings this up as evidence that the Church cannot be true.

First, let’s examine what the Prophets and apostles have said on this matter. The first LDS author to speak on this subject was Elder James E. Talmage in his book Jesus the Christ. He was of the opinion that Christ was born on April 6, 1 B.C. He apparently interpreted D&C 20:1 as meaning that April 6, 1830, was literally one thousand eight hundred and thirty days to the day that Christ was born, as opposed to just the day that was revealed for the Church to be organized.1

The next major work by an apostle touching on the matter was done by Elder Hyrum M Smith in his 1919 commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants. He stated his belief that April 6 was probably the birthdate of Christ, but at the same time also commented that “all that this Revelation means to say is that the Church was organized in the year that is commonly accepted as 1830, A.D” and is not meant to be a revelation about the day Christ was born.2

In 1954 President J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency, in his book Our Lord of the Gospels, said, “I am not proposing any date as the true date. But in order to be as helpful to students as I could, I have taken as the date of the Savior’s birth the date now accepted by many scholars,—late 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C.” This would clearly exclude April 6.3 It is also interesting that this book was later reprinted as the Melchizedek Priesthood manual in 1958.4

Finally, we had Elder Bruce R. McConkie addressing the issue in his Messiah series. Elder McConkie referenced all of the three aforementioned apostles, reiterated the fact that no one knows for certainty the true date of our Savior’s birth, but noted that for his purposes he would use the same timeline as President Clark.5 To date, he is the last apostle or prophet that I am aware of to try and address this issue in any comprehensive form.

I should also mention that there have been other apostles and prophets who have spoken (at least briefly) on this matter, including President Harold B. Lee, President Spencer W. Kimball, President Gordon B. Hinckley, and Elder David A. Bednar. When I read their various talks, I was unable to tell if they were saying that they had personally received revelation on the matter, if it was their own opinion, or if they were basing their remarks on what Elder Talmage and others have previously stated. None of them, however, declared it as official Church doctrine.

It also needs to be said that D&C 20:1 was not originally part of section 20 but was added at a later date.4 As far as we know, Joseph Smith never officially attempted to answer the question of the official date of Christ’s birth. And as discussed earlier in this post, no date has ever been presented to the Church as an official declaration or proclamation.

In addition to the leadership of the Church, multiple LDS scholars have attempted to answer this question. Some have been in favor of April 6, and others have fallen more in line with what other scholars hold to—that the date falls sometime between the end of 5 B.C. and the beginning of 4 B.C. (which interestingly means that December 25 could have actually been the day Christ was born). For those interested, you can read the arguments both ways here and here.

The purpose of this blog post isn’t to answer this question, and indeed it is impossible to do so. Rather, I wanted to present enough information so readers can research this issue on their own and make informed decisions as well as be able to give informed answers. I hope that I have been able to at least point readers in the right direction and have shown that this should be a non-issue when dealing with critics of our faith.

I definitely can’t end this blog post without one last comment. Remember that the important part of all of this was that the Savior was actually born. He wasn’t a fictional character invented for a book to teach us good moral principles. He was a real person, and really was the Son of God who came to this world to save us all from sin and death. Though it has been absolutely fascinating (and faith building) to research the day of His birth, it is secondary at best to His mission and His ministry. May all of us grow closer to our Savior the more we learn of His birth, His life, and His matchless grace.

References:

  1. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ,” Brigham Young University Studies 49 no. 4 (2010), 28–29, fn. 12.
  2. Ibid
  3. Ibid
  4. Jesus Christ/Date of birth. (2014 June 7). Retrieved at http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth
  5. Ibid

Faith and Reason 43: Temple Outside of Jerusalem

by

Podcast: Download (3.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

The Elephantine Papyri

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

by Michael R. Ash

One of the first things which Nephi was commanded to do when he arrived in the New World was to build a temple “after the manner of Solomon”. Just as the critics ridiculed Nephi’s tale of travel through the Arabian Desert, so likewise they ridiculed the idea that the Nephites would build a temple in the New World.

At the turn of the century some papyri was found at Aswain, Egypt and has become known as the Elephantine Papyri. The translation of the documents tells of a group of Jewish soldiers who left Jerusalem to protect the Persian interests in South Egypt.  As the records unfold, we find that the Jewish soldiers are interested in building a temple soon after they arrived at their destination, just as their contemporaries Nephi and his family were.

 

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  is a broadcast journalist living in Louisville, Kentucky. She has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Radio and Television Host, 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.

 

Fair Issues 85: Cumorah claims can’t sustain Great Lakes model

by

Podcast: Download (10.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this article brother Ash addresses the claim that the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill in New York from which Joseph Smith retrieved the plates.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FairMormon Bookstore. Tell your friends about the Mormon Fair-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon Fair-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon

 

Front Page News Review podcast #8

by

Podcast: Download (35.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

This is FairMormon’s Front Page News Review podcast, where we provide context and analysis of the past week’s media coverage of Mormons and the LDS church. The show is hosted by Nick Galieti and manager of the FairMormon Front Page news service, Cassandra Hedelius.

We hope this will be an edifying and entertaining experience. What we present is not to be understood as being the official position of FairMormon or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We speak for ourselves, and sometimes not even then.

Links to the stories in this week’s episode:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417903/americans-have-right-insult-islam-rich-lowry

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21650153-some-lessons-practical-conservatism-desert-west-young-tolerant-and-surprising

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mormon-church-issues-statement-health-president-30762026

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using

Get your Early-Bird Conference Tickets now!

On August 6 & 7 we will be having our FairMormon conference at the Utah Valley Convention center.

Lodging is provided at the Provo Marriott across the street.

Right now you can get early-bird pricing for your tickets so register now before the price goes up.

To register click here http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/conf15a and scroll down the the conference registration.

Speakers this year include Margaret Barker, Ed Pinegar, Stephen Webb , Brant Gardner, Ron Dennis, Brittany Chapman, David Larsen, Jim Gordon, Laura Hales, Cassandra Hedelius, Paul Reeve, and, Dan Peterson.

Topics include:

History and Historicity in the Book of Mormon

Faith and Scholarship

How to help young Latter-day Saints

Why Mormon materialism matters

Joseph Smith Polygamy

Challenges to church legitimacy

And more.

We have both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars this year speaking about Mormon topics, so this conference is one that you don’t want to miss.

Sign up at this link: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/conf15a

Facebook page hit 3,300 likes.

Plug FairMormon Front Page, signup at fairmormon.org

Faith and Reason 42: Land of Jerusalem

by

Podcast: Download (5.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

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

by Michael R. Ash

 

The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in Bethlehem, and the gospel of Matthew records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon states ‘…the son of God… shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers’.

The Tell El Anarma Tablets say the “land of Jerusalem” was an area larger than the city itself. The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is not in the Bible and was not current in Joseph Smith’s day. It is, however, an accurate description for Jerusalem and the surrounding cities and is precisely the language that would have been used by an ancient Israelite in 600 BC.

 

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  is a broadcast journalist living in Louisville, Kentucky. She has worked as a News Director at an NPR affiliate, Radio and Television Host, 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.

RiseUp Podcast – Interview with Rod Olson

by

Podcast: Download (93.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In this episode of RiseUp, Nick Galieti interviews Rod Olson in a very candid discussion of the challenges of living an active LDS lifestyle while identifying as being homosexual (or what some describe Same Sex Attraction.)

IMG_1092

Born and raised in Northern California, Rod was introduced to the Church as a young child through his mother, who became a member following his parents’ divorce.  Rod served a full-time mission in Houston, Texas, studied musical theater at BYU (where he was a member of the Young Ambassadors as well as an instructor at the Missionary Training Center), and performed professionally on the stage in New York City.  After a 13-year hiatus, during which time he worked in New York and Los Angeles in the brand development and shipping logistics industries, Rod retured to his entertainment roots and is now a producer in Los Angeles.

Rod realized early in life that he was gay, and at 10 years of age, unbeknownst to his mother, made an appointment to talk about it with his Bishop.  As he matured, Rod knew that his homosexuality was not going away. He eventually came out to his parents and spent a decade pursuing short- and long-term relationships with men. Toward the end of this period of self-discovery, Rod fell into addiction. It stripped him of everything—love, relationships, career, friends, money, health, and even hope.  With nowhere to turn, Rod entered a 12-step program for gay addicts that, along with the gospel, he credits with saving his life.

Rod has been sober for nine years and active in the Church for eight.  Since returning to full activity, Rod has served as executive secretary to three bishops, in an Elders’ Quorum presidency, as stake Public Affairs Director and as a Gospel Doctrine instructor.  He currently serves as Ward Mission Leader, a Priesthood teacher at the Los Angeles Federal Prison, as well as a veil worker at the Los Angeles Temple.

Click here to watch Rod Olson’s presentation at a special NorthStar LDS Fireside.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

Fair Issues 84: Two arguments for Great Lakes model not conclusive

by

Podcast: Download (10.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

MAIn this installment brother Ash refers to word “lake” as having various meanings and the Native Americans being called “Lamanites.”

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FairMormon Bookstore. Tell your friends about the Mormon Fair-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon Fair-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon

 

Does the Historicity of the Book of Mormon Matter?

by

Mormon Abridging the Plates
Mormon Abridging the Plates

[This post originally appeared at Studio et Quoque Fide and is reposted here with permission.]

The “historicity wars” of the bloggernacle have died down, and I am reticent to start them back up again. Since I am generally ignored by the bloggernacle, however, that is unlikely to happen. I have long pondered over the relevance of historicity for the Book of Mormon—if it matters, and if so, why it matters. As I have been reading about the experiences of Joseph Smith and others with the plates and other artifacts in the newly released From Darkness unto Light: The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, I have once again begun to ponder the question of historicity.

For me, I think it helps to realize that what we are talking about when we discuss history and historicity is the experiences of other people, and whether they existed or not. When I share personal experiences with other people, it matters to me that the things I experienced really happened. It matters that these are not just stories I am making up, but that they reflect real things that I have personally been through and witnessed. I glean things from real experiences that I don’t gain from “fishing stories.”

Likewise, it matters to me if you believe my experiences are real when I share them with you. I’m assuming I am not the only one who would feel hurt if someone told me, after I shared a deeply personal experience, “That is a nice story. And I think there is a lot we all can learn from it. But I just don’t believe that really happened to you.” Express skepticism that things are not exactly as I perceive them? OK (maybe the all the people driving 3 under the speed limit when I am in a hurry aren’t actually out to get me after all). Believe that there might be other perspectives to consider? Sure. But think I am just making my own life experiences up? Ouch. That hurts just to imagine someone discounting the very things that have made me who I am.

The reverse is, I think, also true. It matters to me if the experiences you claim as your own are real. It matters if the things you tell me happened to you actually happened. I would feel betrayed if, in fact, I found out you were lying to me about them. Granted I might be a little more sympathetic if I knew you were a habitual liar, or had some kind of mental instability, or for some other reason really believe your stories to be your real experiences, but my sympathy would not necessarily mitigate the feeling that I can’t really trust you when you claim to be talking about your own personal experiences. The sense of betrayal would be magnified if the stories you told as if they were your own personal experiences had galvanized me to provide you with monetary support, or in some other way make sacrifices on your behalf. And, again, I am guessing I am not alone in any of this. Most others would feel the same way. It is human nature.

So getting back to the question about whether historicity of the Book of Mormon matters, I would like to ask, matters to whom? Perhaps we should think about that.

Do you think it matters to say, Emma, Joseph’s wife, if the object wrapped in the linen cloth that sat on the table as she transcribed Joseph’s dictation, was really a set of metal plates containing a record of ancient prophets, whose words Joseph was dictating in translated form? Emma suffered estrangement from her parents and family over Joseph’s refusal to show this object to any of them. She saw her house torn apart by a crazed Lucy Harris, wife of Martin, who was determined to find and see that object. And she generally endured all kinds of hardships due to the events that unfolded from the translation of that record. Yet through it all, she dutifully chose not to look under the linen cloth. Tell me, do you think it matters toher, if her husband’s claims about angels and plates and ancient peoples are true? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Emma.

Speaking of Martin Harris, let’s talk about him for a minute. Do you think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to him? This is the man who took copies of ‘caractors’, ostensibly from the plates, to scholars back east in New York City (and, probably, Philadelphia), at great personal expense, to see if the writings could be verified. The man who experience severe strain on, and the eventual failure of, his marriage due to his efforts to assist in the work of getting the record translated and published, who mortgaged the bulk of his farm to that end. The man who carefully investigated the members of the Smith family upon first hearing the stories of the angel and plates, who cautiously hefted the box containing the plates, until he was satisfied that the object within was either lead or gold, and who practically begged to be one of the witnesses when word got out that a select few would get to see the plates. Do you think it matters to that man—Martin Harris—if Joseph’s stories about angels and plates and ancient peoples are true? Do you think it matters to him if his own experience seeing an angel holding the plates, and hearing a voice declaring that the translation of those plates is correct really happened? That is wasn’t something just in his head, or some kind of deception on Joseph Smith’s part (or, worse, of God’s part)? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Martin.

How about Mary Whitmer? The women who carried the brunt of the burden of having long term house guests stay with her family as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery finished the translation there. The women who at one point was so exhausted by the extra labor and sacrifice required of her at this time that she was granted—or believed she was—a view of the plates, shown to her by some stranger who then miraculously disappeared; an experience that gave her the strength endure the hardship until the translation was complete. Do you think it matters to her if she really saw a man with the plates that day? That is matters that those really were the same plates that contained a record that Joseph was translating from? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Mary Whitmer.

What about the many others close to Joseph Smith? His father, mother, and siblings, whose lives were put at risk assisting Joseph in hiding and protecting this object that he told them was an ancient record engraved on gold plates. Whose very lives were disrupted and uprooted time and time again for the sake of the movement that started after the text was published. Do you think it matters to them if Joseph was just spinning old money diggers yarns or telling fanciful stories? Or if he himself was somehow convinced of these stories, but they nonetheless were not really happening? No real angel, no real plates, no real Nephites or Lamanites? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to them.

Let’s even consider Joseph Smith himself. Everything the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon set in motion ultimately cost him his life. Do you think it matters to him if the plates were objectively real? And if those plates really contained an ancient text? And if the words he was dictating to his scribes really were a translation of that record? He endured mobs trying to take the object he kept in that box. Lucy Harris ransacking his home. The enmity of his in-laws. And widespread mockery for the text he published and stories he told about its origins. In his 1838 history he poignantly told about the ridicule he endured for visions he claimed to have. Do you think it matters to him if the revelations he had were more than merely the product of his own mind? If the history he believed he was revealing actually is history? I think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to Joseph Smith.

I think it is clear that to all of these people, the historicity of the Book of Mormon most certainly matters. And I think it matters to all of them—but especially Joseph—if we believe their stories. Just like it would to you and me if we shared our personal experiences with someone else. We can see how much it mattered to them in the many tellings and retellings of their experiences that we have on record. The historicity of the Book of Mormon mattered to them, and it mattered to them if others believed in it too. I think it matters to them if we believe it now. Likewise, just as it would matter to us if someone today told us bogus stories as personal experiences, it should matter to us if these stories are historically true. We are, after all, giving our lives to those stories.

Those are the people who are indisputably real, and others (like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, etc.) could be added to that list. But what if we take this a little further? Do think the historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to say, Mormon? To the man who so very carefully sifted through a thousand years of history and meticulously engraved his well crafted narrative history onto metallic sheets. Do you think the veracity of that history matters to him? Do you think he cares if we believe that he is a real person who actually went through that painstaking effort? Or what about Moroni, who promised to see us before the bar of God on judgment day? The man who diligently finished what his father started. And then spent 35 lonely years protecting that record as he wondered. And who came back from the dead to see to it that we would have the record today. Do you really think it wouldn’t matter to him if you believe he is real? That he just shrugs his shoulders and thinks, “Well, at least you still think its inspired.” What about Nephi, the man who started the record (who also promises to see us at the judgment bar)? The man who endured 8 years of hardship in the Arabian desert, who not only spent years laboring to build a sea worthy vessel, but also had to navigate it across thousands of miles of oceans, who had to lead and organize a new colony. A man who spilt blood for the sake of providing records to his own people. Do you think it matters to him if we believe the stories he told about his family’s journey and hardships?

How about the multitude who saw and felt the risen Lord, Jesus Christ? Who deemed the event of utmost importance to bear witness of it collectively? Do you think it matters to them if you or I believe their witness? If we really believe that event happened, as they testified? While we are on the topic, how about the Savior himself? Do you really think he does not care what we believe about the things he said and did in front of that multitude? That as he carefully and lovingly ministered to the sick and infirm among them, and blessed their children, he simply didn’t care if others would believe those things happened? I think historicity of the Book of Mormon matters to the Savior. I am sure there are things that matter more to him than that, but I nonetheless suspect this is not something he feels is completely irrelevant.

So, does the historicity of the Book of Mormon matter? It certainly mattered to the people—both ancient and modern—who contributed to our having it today, as is evident in the sacrifices they endured to make that possible. It should matter us, too.