FAIR

Blog

A Plea to Seminary Teachers and Parents

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by

Podcast: Download (55.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

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

Articles referenced in this interview:

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

A Look at Some “Nonstandard” Book of Mormon Grammar

What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship

Questions addressed in this interview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by

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

[This post originally appeared at Ploni Almoni.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 and 2 Nephi as a Temple Text

by

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 12.21.44 PM

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

A common criticism I used to hear on my mission was that, as one counter-cult ministry put it in 2009, “there is NO evidence to suggest that the peoples in the Book of Mormon practiced ANY of the temple ceremonies that modern day Mormons practice.”[1] Personally, I always thought this criticism was pretty silly. The Book of Mormon mentions the presence of temples in virtually every major city, and of course they don’t describe the ceremonies—like us, they would have held them too scared to share in a text they knew would be public!

Nonetheless, this kind of criticism persists, at least in some corners of the anti-Mormon world. I thus find the intersection of Book of Mormon studies and temple studies that has emerged and gotten quite popular over the last few years rather fascinating. Turns out the temple really permeates the Book of Mormon record in ways few of us ever could have guessed. And, for those who have been to the LDS temple, the patterns found in the text are suspiciously familiar. This starts with the very first writer in the book—Nephi, son of Lehi.

Donald W. Parry has identified a chiasm right at the beginning of 1 Nephi,[2] as Nephi is introducing himself:

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 12.21.34 PM

There is a lot of interesting things that can be commented on in this chiasm, but for my present purposes I want to point out what he does with “knowledge” in lines A and A’. By arranging the passage chiasticly, Nephi connects his “knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God,” with the “knowledge” he is basing his record on. As Andrew Miller explains in a recent publication from FairMormon, the Greekμύστηριον (mystērion), or plural μύστηρια (mystēria) originally referred to esoteric rituals connected with temple worship.[3] That Nephi connects his making a record with his knowledge of the mysteries merges with a common ancient practice that,

At the end of the mysteries, you were required to record this before you could leave the cave, or the temple or whatever it was. You would leave a record of your experiences in the mysteries—whatever visions it was you had.[4]

So we see that it starts to become pretty interesting that Nephi connects his knowledge of the mysteries with his making a record. But we are really only getting to the tip of the ice-burg here (and, regrettably, we won’t be able to explore too much in  this little blog post). Joseph Spencer, in his volume An Other Testament (a must read, seriously—it will completely change the way you read the Book of Mormon, I promise!), notices a structural pattern that bridges across 1 and 2 Nephi:

These structural divisions order Nephi’s record as a four-part progression, from (1) the journey to the New World (1 Nephi 1–18) through (2) a series of theological sermons (1 Nephi 19–2 Nephi 5) to (3) the culminating, commanded heart of Nephi’s record (2 Nephi 6–30) and (4) a brief conclusion (2 Nephi 31–33).[5]

Having identified the four-part progression, Spencer then identifies the theological pattern embedded within this structure.

The basic theological pattern at work is relatively straightforward: (1) 1 Nephi 1–18 recounts the founding of the Lehite colony in the New World; (2) 1 Nephi 19–2 Nephi 5 relates the breaking up of this colony into two rival factions, one of which is cut off from the presence of the Lord; (3) 2 Nephi 6–30 consists of prophecies and sermons focused on the eventual return of that cut-off faction to the Lord’s favor; and (4) 2 Nephi 31–33 offers summary reflections on baptism as a crossing of a limit.[6]

From here, Spencer categorizes the four sections as Foundation (1 Nephi 1–18); Division (1 Nephi 19–2 Nephi 5); Redemption (2 Nephi 6–30); and Conclusion (2 Nephi 31–33).[7] Using only a little imagination, Spencer quickly recasts these categories into a pattern readily identifiable with the temple:

  • Creation (1 Nephi 1–18)
  • Fall (1 Nephi 19–2 Nephi 5)
  • Atonement (2 Nephi 6–30)
  • Veil (2 Nephi 31–33)[8]

This dovetails nicely with the theological pattern that Margaret Barker has sketched out for the pre-exilic temple: (1) creation; (2) covenant; (3) atonement; and (4) wisdom.[9] Though (2) and (4) might seem different at first, they are quite connected. Covenant and fall go hand-in-hand. The fall can only come through thebreaking of the covenant (no covenant, nothing to “fall” from), and it is the breaking of the covenant that necessitates the third stage, atonement. And in the mysteries, wisdom is what is imparted to the initiate at the veil.

Thus, we see that Nephi really does craft his record in accordance with his knowledge of the mysteries, even embedding them into the very structure of his narrative. Really, though, since Nephi states that he had his people build a temple around the same time he started crafting his text (see 2 Nephi 5:16, 28–32), it should come as no surprise that temple theology permeates the text.[10] It is perhaps even possible that Nephi made this record as a temple text—that is, as the liturgy to used during the performance of the mysteries at his newly built temple. Regardless of whether that is the case, though (and I am not sure it is, though it is interesting to contemplate), it certainly puts to rest the assertion that there is “no evidence” for anything like the temple ceremonies in the text. The book is literally littered with allusions to the temple drama, it just requires astute reading, and awareness of what you are looking for, to notice.

[1] “The Bible and LDS Temple Ceremonies,” online article from concernedchristians.com, no longer available; screenshot in my possession.

[2] See Donald W. Parry, ed., Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2007), 1.

[3] Andrew I. Miller, “‘Able to Know Heavenly Things’: The Anti-Nicene Mysteries and their New Tesament Sources,” FairMormon Papers and Reviews 2 (2015), online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/03/23/able-to-know-heavenly-things-the-ante-nicene-mysteries-and-their-new-testament-sources/ (accessed March 23, 2015).

[4] Hugh W. Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988–1990, 4 vols. (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications and FARMS, 2004), 1:13.

[5] Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament (Salem, Oregon: Salt Press, 2012),  36.

[6] Spencer, An Other Testament, 41–42.

[7] Spencer, An Other Testament, 42.

[8] Spencer, An Other Testament, 42.

[9] See Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction (London, Eng.: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004).

[10] See John W. Welch, “When Did Nephi Write the Small Plates?” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), 75–77.

RiseUp Podcast – Freetown Movie – Interview with Garrett Batty and Melissa Larson

by

Podcast: Download (58.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Click here to find showings of Freetown at a theater near you.


Films have an impact on how we view the world. But in some cases, films have an impact on the way the world views us. Freetown is the latest film from Garrett Batty, the director of The Sarratov Approach, With this film, the film makers wanted to help the world to see the power of faith with the story of young missionaries in Africa who had to trust in God, and teach the gospel, while their lives were being threatened in the midst of a bloody civil war.

In this episode of RiseUp, we interview Writer and Director Garrett Batty about his work with the film, why he included topics like race and the priesthood, as well as the impact films like this can have on the way individuals throughout the world and their perception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We also interview Melissa Larson, the screenwriter of the film about what it meant to take a real life story of faith and hardship and translate that to the big screen.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

“Able to Know Heavenly Things”: The Ante-Nicene Mysteries and their New Testament Sources

by

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria

The following issue of the FairMormon Papers and Reviews was written by Andrew I. Miller.

The Greek word musterion (most commonly plural: musteria) had a specific meaning in the ancient world during the early Christian era. It is, of course, the etymological source of our English word “mystery” which denotes something that is secret or hidden. But musterion had another meaning in the ancient world. Being derived from the verb muo, “to shut the mouth,” musterion was used to refer to an esoteric ritual wherein silence was imposed upon the initiates.

These esoteric rituals or musteria were used to impart knowledge and hidden wisdom in the Greek mystery cults, and, as we shall see, the musteria were also well and alive in the early Christian Church.

“Able to Know Heavenly Things”: The Ante-Nicene Mysteries and their New Testament Sources

Articles of Faith Podcast: In The Gospel, Faith Must Come First – Interview with Taylor Halverson

by

Podcast: Download (41.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

taylor-halverson-60Bio: Dr. Taylor Halverson received a B.A. from Brigham Young University in Ancient Near Eastern Studies in 1997, an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Yale University in 2001 and an M.S. in Instructional Technology from Indiana University in 2004. He completed Ph.D.s in Instructional Technology and Judaism & Christianity in Antiquity—both from Indiana University in 2006.

Dr. Halverson currently works at BYU full-time at the Center for Teaching and Learning. He is also the founder and co-chair of the Creativity, Innovation, and Design group, acting associate director of the Rollins Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, and has taught a variety of courses at BYU including: “Old Testament,” “Book of Mormon,” “History of Creativity,” “Innovation Lab: The Design Thinking Experience,” and “Illuminating the Scriptures: Designing Innovative Scripture Study Tools.” Dr. Halverson is a contributor to the popular LDS Bible Videos project and the LDS Scripture Citation Index site and a columnist for the Deseret News. He and his wife Lisa lead travel tours to Israel, the Mediterranean, and Mesoamerica.

Questions addressed in the interview:

In preparation for this interview I went to TaylorHalverson.com, and in reading over the many things you are involved in, various chair positions at BYU, a tour guide for LDS themed travel, writer of multiple text books, articles for various publications and media outlets, this may seem like a judgmental question, and it is not meant to be, but where do you find to study the scriptures, and give time to your own personal faith development?

You are multi-lingual, Spanish, Biblical Hebrew, Greek, and a slew of others considered secondary languages. How has learning and knowing multiple languages changed your approach to learning the scriptures?

The article you wrote for the Deseret News, addresses a challenge or at least a shift in approach that we have seen with the world at large, and that is an evidence first approach. Disbelieve until proven logically true. At first, it seems like this is a prudent approach, but you call it difficult if not outright outlandish. Could you expound on that conclusion?

This relates to an exchange you had while attending Yale as follows:

Yale student: Where is the original Book of Mormon today? Where are the gold plates?

Taylor: They are gone.

Yale student: What do you mean that the original plates are gone?

Taylor: When Joseph Smith completed the translation of the gold plates into the Book of Mormon, he returned the plates to the angel Moroni. So we no longer have access to them. All that remains is Joseph Smith’s translation of the plates.

Yale student: I mean no disrespect, but this sounds both incredible and convenient for the story of the Book of Mormon. (Remember that the word “incredible” means unbelievable.) We have no way of source checking Joseph Smith’s story because the plates he claims to have worked with are no longer available. How can anyone even believe Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon?

Taylor: Great questions. I have several questions for you.

Yale student: Sure.

Taylor: Are you a Christian?

Yale student: Yes.

Taylor: Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Yale student: Of course. That is the fundamental foundation of Christianity! Without the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ there is nothing for Christianity.

Taylor: OK, then show me Jesus’ body.

Yale student: (Pausing to think with dawning comprehension) Oh, I see.

Taylor: What is more implausible: That someone claims to have translated a book and now the original book is missing, or that a physically dead body is now alive again? Just as Christians throughout the centuries have exercised faith in the claim that Jesus Christ died and rose again, so too members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exercise faith in that original claim as well as in the claim that God has brought forth additional scriptural witnesses, such as the Book of Mormon, for the life and mission of Jesus Christ

Sometimes people find themselves in a faith crisis, not simply a position of unknowing something, but that they feel they know something that has caused some cognitive dissonance. How does faith apply to someone in this intellectually conflicted position?

The article title asserts that faith must come first, that it is a matter of approaching spiritual matters with faith first. What tends to be the end result if faith comes second, or third or somewhere down the line?

This idea that we wait to act till we have knowledge is the opposite of what you inject at the end of your article, “As we act in faith, our knowledge increases and our views enlarge.” What sorts of things can we ONLY learn through faith as opposed to traditional empirical learning models?

Taylor Halverson is the author of the article In the Gospel, Faith Must Come First published by the Deseret News.

Front Page News Review Podcast #6

by

Podcast: Download (36.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

FairMormon’s Front Page News Review is a show that provides context and analysis of the past week’s media coverage of Mormons and the LDS church. Hosted by Nick Galieti 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.

Past weeks Top Stories:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/13/a-great-utah-compromise-on-lgbt-equality-there-s-no-such-thing.html

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/utah-legislature-passes-mormon-backed-lgbt-nondiscrimination-law

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/11/us-usa-mormons-excommunication-idUSKBN0M705920150311

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2229999-155/new-mormon-mission-how-to-teach

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/07/258998/water-grab-pits-las-vegas-against.html

Facebook page hit 3,000 likes.

Plug FairMormon Front Page, signup at fairmormon.org

Faith and Reason 40: Thieves and Robbers

by

Podcast: Download (4.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

From  the book:

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

by Michael R. Ash

In the Book of Mormon, we find the terms thieves and robbers. To modern Americans, the words are interchangeable  (which is what we find in the King James Bible). Under ancient Near Eastern law, however, there is a significant difference between the two types of criminals and how the law should punish them. Without exception, the Book of Mormon uses the terms thieves and robbers correctly, according the specific type of criminal as well as what we now know about ancient Near Eastern law.

Michael R. Ash is the author of: Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting The Prophet Joseph Smith. He 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.

4th Watch 19: Why are Mormons prejudiced?

by

Podcast: Download (36.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch SmallLike all human begins we have our own personal preferences about everything in life.  There are things, people, ideas and places that we may like and prefer that others dislike that have nothing to do with being prejudiced.  When it comes to real prejudice we need to define what we are talking about.

In this podcast Brother Scarisbrick relates how our understanding of different times and cultural norms can change as we gain further light and knowledge.

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