FAIR

Blog

Ancient Temple Themes in the Book of Mormon

by

Over at The Nauvoo Times, my latest post, “The Temple in the Book of Mormon,” points to several recent discoveries or scholarly developments that help us better appreciate the influence of ancient temple concepts in the Book of Mormon. One of the topics there that I enjoyed learning about most was the possible role of ancient sacred relics in Nephite religion serving a role similar to the relics of the Ark of the Covenant in the Jewish temple. Here I combine a portion of my previous post with some additional information.

One of the first issues to consider regarding the temple and the Book of Mormon is how the Nephites could dare to make their own temple in the New World without the Ark of the Covenant and its authoritative relics that added to the sanctity of the holy of holies and made it a place fitting for the presence of the Lord? This is an interesting question addressed by Don Bradley in “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” FairMormon.com, 2012:

How was it even possible for the Nephites to observe the Mosaic rituals without the Levitical priesthood, the Aaronite high priest, and the Ark of the Covenant? And given that our temple worship today isn’t about animal sacrifice, what, if anything, does their temple worship have to do with ours?

Bradley then points out that the Nephite kings were, at least initially, the de facto high priests in the Book of Mormon, at the top of the priesthood hierarchy. In part of this discussion, he mentions some sacred relics in the possession of the kings:

In addition to the king’s position at the top of the Nephite priesthood structure, we find evidence of his status as high priest in his using the same or a similar instrument to the one used by the biblical high priest to inquire of God’s will for His people. For the ancient Israelites this instrument was the stones of Urim and Thummim, kept in the pocket of a breastplate. The equivalent Nephite instrument, which also attaches to a breastplate, is called in the Book of Mormon “the interpreters” and in revelation to Joseph Smith “the Urim and Thummim.” Importantly, this Nephite equivalent to the Jerusalem high priest’s most important relic was the possession of the Nephite kings. Mosiah the Second used it to interpret the twenty-four Jaredite plates, as his grandfather Mosiah the First evidently had to interpret the Jaredite stone record. This would place the interpreters in the hands of the Nephite kings even while the prophetic record “the small plates” was still being through Jacob’s line, suggesting that the Nephite high priestly relics and role belonged, not to the prophets, but to the kings.

After discussing Nephi’s role as king and legitimate high priest, he addresses the “glaring” issue of Nephite temple worship without the Ark of the Covenant. Incidentally, as discussed by Margaret Barker and Kevin Christensen, the Ark of the Covenant was removed during the Deuteronomist reforms as the concept of the presence of God in the holy of holies was replaced with an incorporeal voice that merely issued the law. But for pre-exilic Jews maintaining the early version of their religion, the relics of the Ark of the Covenant would have been vital for the sanctity of a true temple. Bradley continues:

We go from the “who” now to the “how” of Nephite temple worship. Nephi wrote that he had built a temple like that of Solomon. This statement has drawn guffaws from critics, who note the enormous scale and grandeur of Solomon’s temple. But it isn’t the scale and grandeur of Solomon’s temple that made it a model for Nephi’s. Nephi wanted his temple to be like Solomon’s, not in size, but in functionality. To perform the rituals prescribed by the Law of Moses his people would need a temple parallel to Solomon’s in rooms and relics.

The modeling of Nephite worship on early Israelite worship in Jerusalem has been explored by Kevin Christensen. Christensen describes key features of Jerusalem worship from the days of Lehi’s youth, before the heavy-handed Josian reform, and then observes that Nephite religion contained all of these, “with the understandable exception of the specific temple artifacts kept in the holy of holies, the ark of the covenant…and the cherubim.”

But while the Nephites’ omission of the Ark of the Covenant from their temple is, as he says, understandable, it is also glaring. The Jerusalem temple was, in one sense, a house for the Ark of the Covenant. The temple was structured in layers of sacredness, or degrees of glory, if you will, around the Ark, with the chamber that contained the Ark being the holiest place of all, the Holy of Holies. The Ark, bearing as it did the stone tablets God touched with His finger on Sinai during the Exodus, provided Israel an embodiment of His presence. The Ark also served as an altar, upon which the Aaronite high priest was required to sprinkle sacrificial blood during the all-important Day of Atonement.

How could the Nephites keep the Law of Moses without access to the Ark of the Covenant? And with what, if not the miraculous relics of the Exodus, including their literal touchstones with Deity, would sufficiently sanctify their Holy of Holies to make it an appropriate dwelling place for God? As in the case of replacing the Aaronite high priest, they would have to introduce their own fittingsubstitute. Whether the Nephite temple was like Solomon’s on its exterior was irrelevant. Whether it was like Solomon’s here, at its heart, the Holy of Holies, was vital. Something, presumably something remarkable, would have to sit in the Ark’s place.

But what did the Nephites have that could stand in for the sacred relics of the Exodus kept in Solomon’s temple? They had their own sacred relics, including those of their exodus to the new promised land, relics handed down through the line of kings and then that of prophets and ultimately recovered by Joseph Smith on the Hill Cumorah. In the stone box—which Martin Harris reportedly called an “ark”—Joseph found a set of Nephite sacred treasures that paralleled the relics associated with the Ark and its custodian, the High Priest.

The relevant relics associated with the Ark and the High Priest were as follows: in the Ark were the stone tablets God had touched during the Exodus, and according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, also Aaron’s rod that budded and a pot of manna. And we’ve already discussed the High Priest’s Urim and Thummim and breastplate, which attached to a garment referred to as the ephod.

Cumorah’s “ark” contained the plates, the breastplate and interpreters, the Liahona, and the sword of Laban. The most obvious identification, which we’ve already made is that of breastplate with breastplate, and interpreters with Urim and Thummim. Only slightly less obvious is the parallel of scriptural stone tablets with scriptural golden plates—or, golden tablets.

Bradley goes on to equate the rod of Aaron, a symbol of authority, with the sword of Laban, which was akin to the sword of Goliath. Both were used by young men to slay powerful foes and become a symbol of kingship. Both were kept as sacred relics reminding others of God’s power and of the authority of a kingly line (Goliath’s sword was kept with the breastplate in the tabernacle, until David needed it again and took it. See 1 Samuel 21:9.)

But what of the pot of manna? This is what I found most interesting. Recall the description of the discovery of manna in Exodus 16:13-15: “In the morning the dew lay round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing…. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna, for they wist not what it was.” The manna, a symbol of the Lord’s mercy in which he provided sustenance for the Jews in their exodus from captivity to the promised land, was found in the morning as they traveled in the wilderness, and is described as a small round thingthat lay on the ground. Any guesses as to what sacred relic among the Nephites might be a fitting substitute for the pot of manna? Significantly, it was in the morning in the wilderness when Lehi, while leading his family on their own exodus to a new promised land, discovers a strange round thing lying on the ground that gives them guidance regarding where to go, and where to find food. And like the Jews finding manna who didn’t know what it was, Lehi was also astonished and puzzled: “As my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship” (1 Nephi 16:10). Lehi’s Liahona serves as a remarkably fitting parallel to the pot of manna, a symbol of the Lord’s mercy and deliverance. And like manna, it wasn’t a gift to be taken for granted, but could quit functioning as a result of rebellion.

Amazingly, all of the sacred relics in the Ark of the Covenant have a fitting parallel among the sacred relics preserved among the Nephites and kept in the charge of their high priests/kings. Bradly then states:

The cache of Nephite sacred treasures was more than sufficient, and at least equal in spiritual power to those in the Ark of the Covenant. Including as it did the interpreters, which had been touched by God and served as a medium of communication with Him, it made an ideal point of contact between God and man to rest at the center of the Nephite Holy of Holies.

This is one of many subtle and fascinating aspects of the temple in the Book of Mormon. I especially like the connection between the manna and the Liahona, and the abundance of pre-exilic temple and wisdom themes in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, as usual, is far “smarter” than Joseph Smith, meaning that its ancient influences and themes are far more sophisticated and rich than Joseph or anyone in his day could have contrived.

I am intrigued by the relationship between the small, round manna found on the ground in the morning and the food-finding round Liahona, found on the ground in the morning and listed as a “small thing” in Alma 37 when sacred relics are being turned over to Helaman by his prophet father Alma. Whether it was deliberately recognized and described to parallel manna or not, it certainly could serve as an important sacred relic for the Nephites, and possibly as part of a Nephite equivalent to the Ark of the Covenant.

There is much more one can say on this topic, such as the themes we find when Christ ministers to the Nephites and Lamanites at the temple in Bountiful. SeeThe Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: A Latter-Day Saint Approach, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, 1990). Of particular interest is the chapter from John Welch, “Toward an Understanding of the Sermon as a Temple Text,” which provides a lengthy list of correspondences between the LDS temple concept and the pivotal events in 3 Nephi involving Christ and His teachings at the temple. Welch helps us see that the Book of Mormon has much more temple-based influence in it that we might have previously recognized. Much of the Sermon at the Temple is drawn from the Sermon on the Mount, of course, but dismissing it as mere lazy plagiarism overlooks the significant and subtle differences between the two, and the many interesting and authentic ancients twists found in the Book of Mormon presentation.

The covenant-related aspects of the 3 Nephi text should be considered in light of the ancient covenant formulary that I believe is found not only in ancient treaties and covenants from the Middle East, but also in the restored LDS temple concept, something I discuss on my LDSFAQ page about the LDS temple. The six general elements of the ancient covenant formulary, first noted by modern scholars in the 1930s, appears to be present in the Book of Mormon in King Benjamin’s speech. See “Kingship. Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1–6” by Stephen Ricks in one of my favorite books available for free online reading, King Benjamin’s Speech at the Maxwell Institute. (Since several of the links for this post are for the Maxwell Institute, I will warn readers that the books and articles on that website often no longer display the author’s names or other relevant information about the source. But this article is from Stephen Ricks, though you cannot tell by looking at the article itself. A related problem in some important articles is that longer titles are truncated, sometimes leaving out the most important information, like this one about the views of Hugh Nibley where Dr. Nibley’s name has been deleted from the displayed title. Sigh.) Also see “King Benjamin’s Speech: Forget Solomon Spaulding, Ethan Smith, and Shakespeare” at Mormanity.

Clever applications of ancient Jewish temple themes, including subtle Hebrew word plays, seem to be present in First Nephi as well, including the rich symbolism of Lehi’s vision in First Nephi 1 and his tree of life vision in First Nephi 8. Some interesting and long-overlooked temple aspects of his tree of life vision are brought out in a recent book by D. John Butler, which I discuss in “A Temple Gone Dark: An Important New Slant on the Themes of Nephi’s Vision and Lehi’s Dream.” Butler builds upon some of the new insights into ancient Jewish religion obtained by examining early records and reconstructing what was lost after the Exile and through some of the reforms that began with King Josiah. Also see  David E. Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11” in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1 (2012): 1-23, and Kevin Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. by John Welch, David R. Seely, and Jo Ann N. Seely (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2004). Growing scholarship about the ancient temple increasingly sheds light on key elements of the LDS temple and the world of the Book of Mormon, where we can see many aspects of ancient temple-related traditions and paradigms in the Book of Mormon.

Here are some further resources related to the discussion above:

  • Kevin Christensen, “Jacob’s Connections to First Temple Traditions,” Insights, 23/4 (2003), at MaxwellInstitute.com.
  • Kevin Christensen, “Nephi, Wisdom, and the Deuteronomist Reform,” Insights 23/2 (2003): 2-3, at MaxwellInstitute.com.
  • Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?,” in  Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. By John Welch, David R. Seely, and Jo Ann N. Seely.
  • Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987).
  • See my study “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers, no. 2 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001), 28-30. See also
  • Daniel C. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998), 209-17.
  • Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992).
  • David E. Bokovoy, “The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1 (2012): 1-23.

* This entry was also posted at Mormonanity.

Mormon Fair-Cast 187: Polygamy Roundtable

by

Podcast: Download (39.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

hales

The Church recently released a new Gospel Topics article addressing plural marriage and families in early Utah. As a supplement to this material, FairMormon is reposting this Special Roundtable Discussion on Polygamy that was hosted by the Interpreter Foundation and posted August 15, 2013. The discussion is moderated by Andrew C. Smith and involves three experts on the history and practice of plural marriage within Church History.  Craig L. Foster, Brian C. Hales, and Gregory L. Smith have all published and presented widely on this topic.  The topics include:

  • A historical overview of how and why Joseph and others began its implementation
  • The historical context for marriage in the 19th century (issues of age and timing, as well as economic and historic influences)
  • The development of the institution theologically
  • A discussion of polyandry and sexuality in general within plural marriage relationships and potential offspring
  • A discussion of Mormon historians treatment of such; and
  • The accusations and rhetoric used against Joseph Smith and other leaders for their practice of polygamy.

The discussion ends with some practical suggestions for us in the Church today: why should we know the details of the early Church history of polygamy more than a century after the fact and how can we talk about this polygamous history better in the Church.

Additional resources and links on polygamy and plural marriage can be found below:

Noham, That’s Not History (Nor Geography, Cartography, or Logic): More on the Recent Attacks on NHM

by

As mentioned in my previous post about the significance of Nahom, in a recent presentation at an ex-Mormon conference, a man who says he is “addicted to truth” made the claim that his searching had revealed that among 3-letter consonant groupings for place names, NHM was one of the most common.  So common that you could find it almost anywhere you looked, making the occurrence of Nahom/Nehem/NHM in the Book of Mormon to be “lacking in significance.” As a reminder, here is the transcript of his comments on this topic:

We have NHM in Germany, Austria, Iran, Zimbabwe, Angola, Israel, Canada, and basically everywhere you look you can find those 3 letters. I’m sure there’s a dozen companies named NHM that all around the world as well. Basically, if it was QXP, that would be more significant because those are more rare across the languages of the world. But NHM happened to be some of the most common letters. So the significance of NHM is lacking.

This was said while displaying a slide entitled “Significance of NHM” with the following list of direct hits:

  • Noham, Germany
  • Noham, Austria
  • Nohom, Iran
  • Nhime, Angola
  • Nahum, Israel
  • Anhim, Canada
  • Nhaem, Vietnam
  • Enham, United Kingdom
  • Nahme, Bulgaria
  • Nahoma, Namibia
  • Nhamuai, Mozambique
  • Nhime, Guinea-Bissau
  • Nahma, Michigan
  • Nahimha, Tanzania
  • Naham, Israel

Apart from completing missing, or completely obfuscating, the real point about Nahom being confirmed as an ancient burial place in exactly the location required for Book of Mormon plausibility, Johnson’s misdirection about whether Nahom/NHM is a novel name in its own right raises further interesting questions upon closer examination. We have already pointed out (citing Warren Aston) that Nahom/NHM is an exceedingly rare name in the Arabian Peninsula, which isrelevant to the debate. What is not relevant to the debate is whether related NHM placenames also occur on other lands. But Johnson’s intriguing tactics on this point may be relevant to understanding his approach to data when he makes other supposedly objective, data-based claims on Book of Mormon authorship.

Something about that list of NHM names bothered me as soon as I saw it. I’ve traveled to a few parts of the world and have looked at many maps and many names, and just didn’t recollect ever noticing any of these places before. Would these have been obvious clues rendering NHM-based place names fairly obvious for a 19th-century plagiarizer and conman (per Chris Johnson’s views of Joseph)? Granted, the whole premise of his argument is blatantly misguided—the key issue is that Nahom, common name or not, is rare in Arabia and is placed at exactly the right spot, reachable from Jerusalem by heading south-southeast, and within a few miles of the only place along the ancient incense trails where one can turn due east, as Nephi’s group does, and survive to reach the coast. Add to that the massive significance that Nahom, the place where Ishmael was buried, turns out to be an ancient burial place in the Arabian Peninsula and a bonus for having the NHM name attested to have been in that place in the 7th century B.C. (Lehi’s day) by ancient altars from the tribe of Nihm that were recently discovered. Add to that the amazing fact that going nearly due east from Nahom doesn’t just get one to the coast, but to a remarkable candidate or two for the place Bountiful as described in the First Nephi 16 and 17. These are stunning finds of massive significance, regardless of how often NHM names are used in other parts of the world. Whether Africa, Germany, and North America are sprinkled with NHM names or not doesn’t detract from the value of the Arabian Peninsula evidences for Book of Mormon plausibility.

But for the moment, let’s accept Johnson’s premise that the significance of finding Nahom is somehow related to how common NHM names are anywhere in the world as, perhaps, inspiration for Joseph’s plagiarism, and then explore the significance, if any, of his list. It turns out that there are some possible serious gaps in his argument about NHM being so common. I may be missing something, so let me know if I have erred in my searching, which is entirely possible. Here’s what my searching reveals about these places:

Noham (Germany and Austria): There is nothing for Noham in Wikipedia. Google finds nothing for Noham, Austria. There are hints of something for Noham, Germany.  But not much can be found until searching is done for Nöham.

Then we find this on the German Wikipedia athttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nöham_(Dietersburg):

Nöham ist ein Pfarrdorf in der Gemeinde Dietersburg und war bis zur Zusammenlegung mit Dietersburg am 1. April 1971 eine eigenständige Gemeinde. Nöham liegt an der Staatsstraße 2112 zwischen Pfarrkirchen undArnstorf und hat etwa 500 Einwohner.

This states that Nöham is a parish village with about 500 inhabitants. If it’s almost invisible to the modern world today, I don’t think it could have served as some kind of inspiration to Joseph Smith.

Nohom, Iran: Finding something on this place is much easier than it was for Noham. Something relevant shows up right away in Google:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nohom, where we read this:

Nohom (Persian: نهم‎) is a village in Sarfaryab Rural District, Sarfaryab District, Charam County, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 186, in 39 families.

Not even big enough to be a parish village, I fear, little Nohom has a  population in 2006 of just 186 people. Any chance it was there in 1830? Known to Joseph?

Nhema, Zimbabwe: A Google search for Nhema, Zimbabwe reveals Nhema is a last name, but I see no easy-to-find evidence of a noteworthy place name. When I search for “Nhema city Zimbabwe” I find a link a questionable  claiming it is a place name: http://itouchmap.com/?c=zi&UF=10648647&UN=11361339&DG=PPL

This link has a map which points to an empty spot with no name east of Harare. Sorry, I’m not yet convinced that this is a notable place name in Zimbabwe. And even if it were, how could Joseph have known?

Nhime, Angola: No such place shows up in Wikipedia. But a Google search shows that at least some weather services recognize the name, and a site called Wikimapia has an entry that tags it with “beach, village.” Seehttp://wikimapia.org/13602991/Nhime-Angola-Provincia-de-Benguela. Google maps also shows a beach called Nhime in Angola. So this one exists. That’s progress. But significant? Knowable or useful to Joseph Smith? Unlikely. (Also seehttp://www.gazetteering.com/africa/angola/provincia-do-kwanza-sul/3346935-nhime.html.)

Nahum, Israel: The most interesting entry on Johnson’s list, in my opinion. This is promising because one could argue that Joseph might have recognized Nahom was a valid place name based on the occurrence of Nahum as a place in Israel. But as I mentioned in my initial post on the significance of Nahom, this argument also has a touch of weakness. Again, blame it on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia’s article on Sde Nahum, Israel explains that it is a modern kibbutz founded in 1937. Population around 550. Not likely an influence for the Book of Mormon. What about Nehama, Israel? Wikipedia doesn’t seem aware of it, so it must not exist, I suppose. But there is an Israeli “Comfort Girls” band called Habanot Nechama. Is that the link? Or what aboutNahma, Michigan? Another 500-person township. Founded 1881. Probably not an inspiration for Nahom.

Anhim, Canada: This is particularly puzzling. Where did Johnson come up with this one? Wikipedia hasn’t heard of it. Google Maps doesn’t seem to have it, and asks if maybe I meant Anaheim. Maybe I did. More on that later. Turning to Google search for Anhim, Canada, the only indication I can see of a possible place of that name — apart from my own previous blog post at Mormanity mentioning Johnson’s list – is a Google books result for River Palace that appears to mention Anhim, Canada. But when I go to that book, the apparent mention of Anhim, Canada is in fact, a rotated caption that says “Library and Archives, Canada”. Apparently the 90-degree rotation of small text was misread by Google. So strange. So again, we have another place on Johnson’s list that doesn’t appear to exist.

Nehama, Israel: Another potentially interesting item. I’m not sure it exists as a place name, though. Google’s top return for this term is the previously mentioned “Comfort Girls” band of Israel, Habanot Nechama. Not quite a hit for NHM. And not quite a place, but maybe a destination for modern music fans. I fear they came along too late to attract any farm boy groupies from upstate New York. A nice try, but alas, this one brings no comfort to Johnson’s argument.

Nhaem, Vietnam: Another place that puzzles me. Apart from the obvious question about whether transliterated Vietnamese place names were available for Joseph Smith to pluck as needed for his feverish and grueling work of plagiarizing a few words here, a few there, over and over to gradually string verses together, one also has to ask just where this place is and whether it is “significant”? There’s no Wikipedia page for any place named Nhaem (though a Wikipedia page for the obscure commune of Lvae in Cambodia shows that the commune includes 12 villages, one of which is named Doun Nhaem). But wait, there may be a place of this name with Vietnamese connections: Google’s top hit in my search is a Yelp entry for the Nha Em Restaurant and Bar in Vietnam – wait, my mistake, it’s a Vietnamese restaurant in San Jose, California. Ok, something physical exists for this one—an actual two-word place name—but this bar was probably not around in Joseph Smith’s day. The Cambodia listing, missed by Johnson, doesn’t exactly impress either and may not have been there in Joseph’s day. This one looks like a pretty wide miss at the moment.

Enham, United Kingdom: Now we’re talking. Folks, I’m happy to report that there is an actual place with a population and a history for this location. There’s not much information about it, but enough to show that Enham, England, known as Knight’s Enham until recently, actually exists, though the name today is not Enham but Enham Alamein. It was there in Joseph’s day. It is fair to list this one to show how common NHM is among the inhabitants of the earth, 804 of whom live in this sprouting metropolis. Yes, Enham Alamein is a small parish with a population of 804 according to a German website, CityPopulation.de. The population may have been smaller in Joseph’s day, but at least I think there were people there. The English 1841 Census shows 102 results for a search of people living in anything containing “Enham” in the place name. Rather small, in my opinion. Somehow I’m not sure that this would be the kind of thing that would rise to the attention of New York farmers. Perhaps we can add a colorful new link to the Solomon Spaulding theory to bring information about the obscure village Knight’s Enham to Joseph. But pending further creative work, it’s hard to see how this demonstrates NHM names are wildly common. Shouldn’t we be able to find some significant places likely to be known to Joseph given that we have such a common grouping of letters to work with?

Nahme, Bulgaria: Google doesn’t seem to find anything for this place.

Nahoma, Namibia: Ditto. Google recommends I search for Nujoma, Namibia instead. I’m not falling for that one.

Nhamuai, Mozambique: Google results don’t look promising, except thatITouchMap.com says there is a place of that name. But the map result that comes up looks like a blank spot in the hills without roads or obvious population. Strange.

Nhama, Angola: Wikipedia hasn’t heard of it. There are some weather sites listing it, and one place puts it on the map, but it looks like a rather uninhabited spot of jungle.

Nhime, Guinea-Bissau: Some weather sites show up in Google, but the closest thing to an indication of a real place name that I see is a page at GoMapper.comsaying “Nhime is a place with a very small population in the state/region of Oio, Guinea-Bissau which is located in the continent/region of Africa.” Yawn.

Nahma, Michigan: Finally! A real place. One significant enough that Wikipedia actually recognizes its existence. Whew, just in time. What does Wikipedia have to say about this important place, close enough to Joseph Smith that perhaps word of its prominent and common name could have come to him for inspiration in writing the Book of Mormon? Let’s see:

Nahma Township is a civil township of Delta County in the U.S. state of Michigan. The population was 499 at the 2000 census. Nahma was established in 1881 by the Bay De Noquet Lumber Company as the base for its upper Michigan lumbering operations.

Hmm. Tiny, obscure (no offense, dear Nahmians), and non-existent prior to 1881.  Do I sense a pattern here?

Nahimha, Tanzania: Wikipedia hasn’t heard of it. But something must be there because some Islamic sites list prayer times. I finally found this at Chinci.com:

 

Nahimha is a tidal creek(s) in the country of Tanzania with an average elevation of 3 feet above sea level. The location is sparsely populated with 36 people per mile2 . The nearest town larger than 50,000 inhabitants takes about 2:12 hour by local transportation.An estimated 4.14% of the children below 5 years old are underweight.

A tidal creek, eh? I can see Joseph going for that, if only he had some way of knowing. This may be a real place, but it is tiny, obscure, and probably of no value to Johnson’s argument—which was a bit unfair in the first place since the consonants here are NHMH, not NHM. When it comes to arguments drawing upon Nahimha, it’s not just the children that are underweight.

Naham, Israel: Wikipedia reveals this was founded in 1950 and today has a population a little over 450. Not a hit.

It’s not just that a few of these names can be questioned due to minor oversights in scholarship and fact checking. Every one can be regarded as “lacking significance” and most appear to be bogus. The proffered list of NHM names is utterly worthless as evidence that NHM names are “among the most common” or that Joseph Smith could easily come up with the NHM root for a place name based on Johnson’s cornucopia of NHM hits. It looks like a rare and somewhat obscure root, even beyond the borders of Arabia, and even when one is willing to stretch it our with triple value endings and vowel prefixes.

A possibly glaring oversight in Johnson’s list is the omission of Anaheim, California, which would represent the most notable city for his PPT slide and the only one with a population bigger than an obscure farm village. Perhaps Johnson realized that many listeners might see through the Mickey Mouse nature of that argument, knowing that Anaheim wasn’t founded until after Joseph Smith’s day. One peek at Wikipedia’s entry for Anaheim would expose the weakness in that argument: “The city of Anaheim was founded in 1857 by 50 German-Americans. . . .” Schade! Too late to make Nahom trivial. But wait, surely the German-sounding name must be some ancient place name from Germany, right? Wikipedia brings further trouble here:

Anaheim’s name is a blend of “Ana”, after the nearby Santa Ana River, and “heim”, a common German language place name compound originally meaning “home”.

Ach du liebe! This must be why Johnson had to say auf widersehen to that argument. But Anaheim as an illustration of the insignificance of NHM is arguably no less viable than any of the other examples Johnson offers.

Does Johnson’s list of NHM names expose the insignificance of an interesting piece of Book of Mormon evidence, and help us better understand how easily Joseph Smith could have come up with an NHM-based placed name in the Arabian Peninsula? As Hugh Nibley might have said, “Noham, that’s not history.” It’s also not geography or cartography. Frankly, I find the arguments against Nahom to be lacking in significance.

Update, Dec. 23, 2013: Kudos to Mark Butler for identifying another interesting hit that was missed by Johnson: Niihima, Japan, which, according to Wikipedia, has over 100,000 people. Finally, a notable spot! Unfortunately, Wikipedia also gives this troublesome fact: “Niihama was founded on November 3, 1937.” Too late for Joseph Smith, but not too late for anti-Mormon fun. The NHM list would really have been much better and even more entertaining if Niihima had been included, along with Anaheim.

Say, do any of you know of other NHM place names that should have been on the list?

*This entry was cross-posted from Mormonanity.

Fair Issues 35: Loose-control translation

by

Podcast: Download (7.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureWhile there are interesting evidences for a “tight control” over the Book of Mormon translation, there are also evidences and logical reasons to assume a “loose control.”  In this article, Michael Ash provides several examples illustrating this method from Elder John A. Widtsoe and Orson Pratt.

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.

 

Mormon Fair-Cast 185: Race and the Priesthood

by

Podcast: Download (31.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

RussellStevensonIn this episode of the Mormon History Guy podcast, Kate Kelly Harline interviews Russell Stevenson (author of Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables and author of the forthcoming, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Documentary History of Blacks and Mormonism,  1830-2013). They discuss the meaning and ramifications of the LDS Church’s new statement on “Race and the Priesthood.”  Russell traces the origins, course, and trajectory of the Saints’ relationship with the black community and racial exclusion.

This podcast is posted here by permission of Russell Stevenson. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of FairMormon or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Apologetics and Falsifiability

by

Birch
Brian D. Birch, director of the Religious Studies Program at Utah Valley University.

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

Fair Issues 34: Four evidences for tight control

by

Podcast: Download (7.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureIn 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

by

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

by

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

The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835

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.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Fair Issues 33:The tight control theory

by

Podcast: Download (6.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureIn 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.