The new edition of the Mormon Studies Review features a roundtable discussion between various scholars on the question of the state of Mormon studies. The roundtable kicks off with a thoughtful piece by Brian D. Birch, whose argument has two components. “On the one hand, I seek to argue that Mormon studies absent theological and apologetic voices is artificially exclusionary and unproductive. One the other hand, I argue that the appeal to religious authority in deflecting critical arguments can be equally inappropriate and detrimental.”[1] It is an aspect of Birch’s first point that I shall pay attention to in this blog post. His second point will have to wait for another day. [Read more…] about Apologetics and Falsifiability
Blog
Fair Issues 34: Four evidences for tight control
Podcast: Download (7.4MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In this article Michael Ash provides four evidences of a “tight control” Book of Mormon translation using repetition, construct state, rent garment and conditional sentence examples. As explained in last week’s article some of the evidences for a “tight control” translation comes from the fact the ungrammatical first printing makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew.
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 Exaggerated Death of Apologetics
In 1897, Mark Twain’s cousin became seriously ill. Some people confused the two men, leading Mark Twain to remark a few weeks later, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.” Similarly, it may be that as long as people have been calling themselves “anti-Mormons,” critics of the Church have been predicting the demise of the Church and have been pronouncing efforts to defend it as futile. All such declarations of impending doom have proven, at the very least, to be exaggerated.
One such example is in the occasional rumblings from some quarters that “the Brethren” or the institutional Church is at odds with lay members who engage in a reasoned defense of the faith, or “apologetics.” Over the past year, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) has adopted a more secular approach to the academic discipline of Mormon Studies, and has moved away from an overt defense of the Church. Some have wondered if this indicates that the “institutional Church” is distancing itself from a reasoned defense of the faith. Indeed, there are some who argue that “the brethren” want nothing to do with apologetics and surmise that President Uchtdorf’s talk in this year’s October General Conference must have come as a severe blow to Mormon apologists.
While it is true that what was once known as the FARMS Review has morphed into an annual journal with a secular focus, rather than a faith-building focus, the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture has taken its place and is accessible, technologically advanced, and prolific. It seems that the changes at the Maxwell Institute have simultaneously created a new base for the emerging secular discipline of “Mormon Studies” while at the same time serving as the impetus for revitalized interest in publishing works in a peer-reviewed, academic journal that provide a reasoned defense of the faith.
With regard to whether or not “the Brethren” are distancing themselves from efforts to directly defend the Church against charges of its critics, Elder D. Todd Christofferson spoke in September at BYU-Idaho and not only bore his testimony of Joseph Smith, but also offered many reason-based responses to attacks against the Church. In doing so, he cited publications by FairMormon twice.
When President Uchtdorf spoke in General Conference the next month, all of the defenders of the faith that I know were thrilled to hear his words and saw them as consistent and supportive of efforts we have been making for years. Nevertheless, some people have wondered aloud whether apologists have been left disheartened and confused by President Uchtdorf’s remarks. It is hard to imagine why defenders of the faith would be at all disturbed by President Uchtdorf’s words. These people seem to assume that defenders of the Church must have been surprised to hear President Uchtdorf say that ex-Mormons aren’t simply lazy or sinful. They further seem to assume that those who defend the Church all believe that the only reason people leave the Church is because they are lazy or sinful. However, I don’t know of anyone at FairMormon who has ever said that. Unfortunately, some rank-and-file members do say such things, and, rather than support that view, I argued against it on the FairMormon Blog some time ago.
The other problem is that some people are misinterpreting what President Uchtdorf actually said. He did not say that ex-Mormons are never lazy or sinful. (Every conceivable group, including Mormons, ex-Mormons and non-Mormons includes people who are lazy or sinful.) He simply said that being lazy or sinful are not the only reasons people leave the Church. Here is the exact quote: “Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.” Far from an indictment of those who defend the Church, the fact that a member of the First Presidency has publicly declared that people sometimes leave the Church for reasons other than mere laziness or sin signals a greater need for a rational defense of the faith. To the extent that some of those other reasons involve Church history or doctrine, defenders of the faith are well-equipped to address those concerns.
Finally, in addition to the efforts the Church has made through the Joseph Smith Papers Project to illuminate its history, the most clear example that the institutional Church has not abandoned or disavowed a reasoned defense of the faith is the simple fact that the Church has been providing reasoned responses to critical arguments for the past year on its main webpage, LDS.org.
While the Sunday School curriculum has focused this year on Church history, the Church has been posting articles that directly address issues that have sometimes been confusing to members and a target for critics. Two examples are this article about Oliver Cowdery’s apparent use of a divining rod, and this article putting the apostasy of Thomas B. Marsh into context.
More recently, the Church has published articles addressing the question of whether Mormons are Christians, exploring the differences in the various accounts of the First Vision, and setting forth the history of blacks and the priesthood, in which it is explicitly stated “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”
Rather than being shocked and dismayed by recent actions of the institutional Church, now more than ever, faithful believers and scholars have concluded that it is an even more exciting and important time to stand up in defense of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835
Editor’s note: This blog post is the introductory section of Roger Nicholson’s December 2013 article in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835). The full article may be read on the Interpreter website.
Joseph Smith made his first known attempt to write a history of the Church in 1832. Some of the account was written in Joseph’s own hand and the rest by Frederick G. Williams. Joseph’s history describes his first vision, Moroni’s visit, the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, and the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Joseph never completed it beyond that point, and it was never published during his lifetime.
A few years later, in 1835, Joseph produced an account of his First Vision in his journal. He told about how he described the vision to a visitor, a non-Mormon stranger, who had stopped by his home. This is the second known account of the vision written in the first person. Neither the 1832 account nor the 1835 account appear to have received any public circulation. The formal account of the vision would not be written until 1838. This is the account contained in the Pearl of Great Price.
Between 1832 and 1835, Oliver Cowdery, as editor of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (hereafter Messenger and Advocate), determined that he would write an account of the history of the Church and publish it in installments. This account is both curious and confusing because the first and second installments describe clearly recognizable events leading up to Joseph’s First Vision and Moroni’s visit, but they do not mention the actual visit of the Father and Son. Taken together, the first two installments seem to imply that Joseph’s “first” vision was that of Moroni. For example, the Wikipedia article, “First Vision,” summarizes the Cowdery account as follows:
Therefore, according to Cowdery, the religious confusion led Smith to pray in his bedroom, late on the night of September 23, 1823, after the others had gone to sleep, to know which of the competing denominations was correct and whether “a Supreme being did exist.” In response, an angel appeared and granted him forgiveness of his sins. The remainder of the story roughly parallels Smith’s later description of a visit by an angel in 1823 who told him about the Golden Plates. Thus, Cowdery’s account, containing a single vision, differs from Smith’s 1832 account, which contains two separate visions, one in 1821 prompted by religious confusion (the First Vision) and a separate one regarding the plates on September 22, 1822. [1]
This summary, of course, is not consistent with the story of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit as two distinct events that Joseph described only two years earlier, nor does it match the account that he told in late 1835, less than a year after Oliver’s account was published. What, then, are we to make of Oliver’s convoluted account? Does it really describe a “single vision” as the Wikipedia article claims?
Oliver’s account does indeed raise some questions. Was Oliver unaware of Joseph’s First Vision? Was Oliver in possession of Joseph’s 1832 history? If so, why did Oliver not include the vision in his own history? The answers to these questions may be deduced by examining and comparing Joseph’s 1832 history with Oliver’s 1834/1835 history and with Joseph’s subsequent 1835 journal entry.
To read the rest, please visit
on the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture website.
[1] Wikipedia, s.v. “First Vision,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision as of 27 October 2013. Wikipedia articles are often modified, and this text is subject to change. The date “1821″ referred to with respect to Joseph’s 1832 account is based upon the insertion by Frederick G. Williams of the phrase “in the 16th year of my age,” thus indicating that Joseph was 15 years of age rather than 14. Joseph, however, later corrects his age to 14 in his 1835 journal entry.
Fair Issues 33:The tight control theory
Podcast: Download (6.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In this article, Michael Ash explains how Joseph Smith may have used the tight control method in the translation process of the Book of Mormon. Proper names are spelled out for the first time to correct any misunderstanding that may have occurred when sounding out new names. Proper grammar is also addressed as an issue to explain how a strong case can be made that the Book of Mormon often betrays “a too literal adherence to an apparent Hebrew original.”
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.
4th Watch 11: What does it mean to be saved?
Podcast: Download (22.4MB)
Subscribe: RSS
The term “salvation” or “being saved” has long been discussed and debated by scholars of many faith traditions. In this podcast Bobby Gilpin of the anti-Mormon blog Mormonism Investigated UK is interviewed by Ned Scarisbrick in relationship to the gospel doctrine of salvation.
Mr. Gilpen comes from the evangelical Calvinist tradition of Christianity and the term ‘anti’ may come across as disrespectful to those who are actually kind to members of the LDS Church. The term anti in this discussion is used to represent those who are against or openly opposed to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much as the term “pro” could be used for those who agree with or openly promote the teachings of the LDS Church.
The dialogue between Mr. Scarisbrick and Mr. Gilpin teaches us that it is possible to have a religious discussion about serious gospel topics in a kind and respectful manner. They illustrate how to earnestly contend for the faith without being contentious. As always, the views and opinions expressed in this podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of Fair Mormon.
Why the historicity of the Book of Mormon is important
There have been people who have argued that the Book of Mormon is “inspired fiction”, and that Joseph Smith was a “pious fraud”. To me, this strikes me as something that seeks to make the Book of Mormon less than what it is. The Book of Mormon authors set the book as a historical record, not necessarily meant to tell the story of the entire history of the people who lived somewhere in the American super-continent, but to help bring people to Christ. This book was written by men who lived nearly 2000 years ago, and translated by Joseph Smith through the gift and power of God. This is one of the principle claims of the Book of Mormon, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This post isn’t to convince people of this claim, but to explain why this is important.
There are three reasons I can think of as to why this is important:
1) The Book of Mormon testifies of the reality of the Atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The highlight of the Book of Mormon, and frankly, one of my favorite parts reading the Book of Mormon, is when the resurrected Jesus Christ came down to the people of Nephi, showed the nail prints in his hands and feet, and blessed the people of Nephi. If the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record, then this really did happen, that Jesus Christ, after his resurrection, came and visited the Nephites on the other side of the world. It must needs be, then logically speaking, that Jesus Christ must have been crucified, and that he must have been resurrected for this to happen. Which brings me to the second point.
2) The Book of Mormon supports the Bible. As noted earlier, the Book of Mormon shows the resurrected Savior coming to visit the Nephites on the American continent, and this supports the accounts in the Bible of Jesus Christ suffering for our sins, being crucified, and rising from the dead a few days later. But the Book of Mormon also helps a better understanding of certain key doctrines, such as faith, repentance, baptism, and most importantly, the Atonement, and why it was necessary. A common charge from other Christian faiths is that the Book of Mormon replaces the Bible, but the truth of the matter is that the Book of Mormon supports the Bible.
3) The Book of Mormon supports the claim of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith has claimed that he has seen angels, talked with Moroni, and translated the Book of Mormon through the gift of power of God, and is evidence of his prophetic calling. If the Book of Mormon is indeed a translation of an ancient record, then it follows that the other things that Joseph Smith claims (visitation by angels, reception of golden plates, etc.) is also true.
The most troubling aspect that I have about the idea of the Book of Mormon being “inspired fiction” created by a “pious fraud” is that it flies in the face of the statement of the Book of Mormon, as well as statements by various eyewitnesses. From the word of Joseph Smith to the words of the three witnesses (all of whom left the Church at some point, but never spoke out against the Book of Mormon) to the testimonies of the eight witnesses to the testimonies of various other witnesses who saw the actions of Joseph Smith all corroborate with the fact that Joseph Smith did have golden plates, and he translated from them. Those who claim that the Book of Mormon is indeed inspired fiction need to explain the witness testimonies, both of those who are officially witnesses, as well as the accounts from other people who were not official witnesses per say, but did see and know what was going on at the time.
Book of Mormon Word Usage: Fill the Seat of His Father
The expression to fill the seat of his father occurs twice in the Book of Mormon (Alma 50:40; 3 Nephi 6:19). The expression is not biblical and never occurs in the Bible. It seems to be a Mesoamerican expression. As John Sorenson points out:
Epigraphers who have studied lowland Maya inscriptions have identified a glyph that reads as “CHUM-wan (locative)” and means “seated.” Kaplan believes that this manner of representation first occurred at Kaminaljuyu about 150 BC and was transferred to the Maya lowlands not long afterward. So it is of interest to learn that both Pahoran (Alma 50:40) and Lachoneus (3 Nephi 6:19), each a Nephite chief judge (ruler) in his day, “did fill the seat of his father.” Noah, a Zeniffite (i.e., Nephite) king, sat on a throne at an earlier date (Mosiah 11:9), as did later Nephite judges (Alma 60:7, 11, 21).
(John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013], 371.)
“By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus”: Another Look
When the Book of Abraham was first published in March 1842, the title of the work, as it appeared in the Times and Seasons, read thusly: “A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”[1] A look at the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham shows that this explanatory “title,” as it were, for the Book of Abraham dates to the earliest stages of the book’s production. Our earliest (surviving) manuscript for the Book of Abraham, which Brian Hauglid designates Ab1, and which the scholars at the Joseph Smith Papers Project date to “Summer–Fall 1835,” reads: “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the CataCombs of Egypt.”[2] [Read more…] about “By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus”: Another Look
Egyptology and the Book of Abraham: An Interview with Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein
Mormon fascination with the ancient world stems largely from an exotic corpus of writings found in the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One book in the Church’s canon, the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith claimed to be an inspired translation of some ancient Egyptian papyri, has captured Mormon imagination with a vibrant narrative involving the eponymous biblical patriarch, human sacrifice, far-off lands, divine encounters and a grand cosmology.
One BYU professor, Kerry Muhlestein, has devoted a good portion of his academic career (over a decade) investigating the saga of the Book of Abraham. Muhlestein, who holds a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA, is an associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU. According to his faculty bio on the BYU Religious Education website, Muhlestein “is the director of the BYU Egypt Excavation Project,” which has led successful archaeological digs in Egypt, and has academic expertise in fields including “Ancient Egypt, Hebrew Bible, [and the] Pearl of Great Price.” [Read more…] about Egyptology and the Book of Abraham: An Interview with Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein