• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Blog

The Lady of the Temple: Academy for Temple Studies Conference

October 14, 2013 by SteveDensleyJr

banner2If you haven’t yet done so, I would highly recommend that you register for the Academy for Temple Studies Conference that will take place next Wednesday, October 23, at Utah State University. I attended last year and found it to be one of the most exciting academic conferences I’ve ever attended. You can find out more and register here.

The Academy for Temple Studies is pattered after the Temple Studies Group that has existed in the United Kingdom for the past several years. The first conference took place last year and featured Margaret Barker who is considered by many (myself included), to be one of the most exciting Biblical scholars alive today. I am very excited that she will appearing at the conference again this year. She has done ground-breaking work related to the early Jewish understanding of the the nature of God and temples. While her work on temples and the worship of the son of God by early Jews is interesting to Mormons, (it should be noted that she is Methodist minister) her recent publication regarding the Jewish worship of a female deity, called “The Mother of the Lord,” is especially intriguing. This book was recently reviewed in the Interpreter here. Her presentation this year is entitled, “The Woman Clothed With the Sun in Revelation 12.”  She will discuss the female figure that appears in the Book of Revelation and posit that the woman is actually the Mother of Yahweh.

Another exciting non-Mormon scholar who will be appearing at the conference is the archaeologist William Dever, author of “Did God Have a Wife,” reviewed in the FARMS Review of Books here. Dever will give an illustrated lecture that is based upon the findings reported in that book.

In my view, the conference would be worth attending if it only involved Barker and Dever. But is also includes a number of important and insightful Mormon scholars as well, not the least of which includes Valerie Hudson, someone who is well-known to those who have attended FairMormon Conferences during the past few years.

I hope that as many of you as can will join me in Logan next week for this exciting event.

Filed Under: News from FAIR

Science & Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth, & Man

October 13, 2013 by SteveDensleyJr

science-mormonism2Registration is closed for the first Interpreter Foundation symposium (co-sponsored by FairMormon and LDSAgents.com). However, the event will be streamed live on YouTube.

It will take place on November 9 and will begin at 8:30 MST.

Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms, with Church members sharing the deep conviction that, as expressed by former scientist and apostle Elder James E. Talmage, “within the gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known.” Subsequent Presidents and General Authorities of the Church have advanced similar views about the ultimate compatibility of religious and scientific truths and, with notably few exceptions, have maintained markedly positive attitudes toward both the methods and conclusions of mainstream science and the advance of modern technology.

This symposium will feature the personal perspectives of prominent LDS scientists addressing the theme of “Cosmos, Earth, and Man.” Through presentations, panels, and interactive discussions, attendees will hear concise and colorful summaries of the state-of-the-art in scientific research relating to these topics and will gain a deeper appreciation of the unique contributions of LDS doctrine to the ongoing conversation.

For more details, see: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2013-symposium-science-mormonism-cosmos-earth-man/

Filed Under: News from FAIR, Science

One True Church Vs. Everybody Else

October 10, 2013 by DavidF

This is a question that has occupied my mind for many years. I majored in Asian History at BYU and later at UC Berkeley, and have had much contact with non-Christian philosophical systems. I spent much of my adult life in Japan (although now in Oregon USA), married a Japanese woman (who is a convert to LDS) and raised three children in both Western and Eastern cultures. We participate in her family religious traditions, which is Nichiren Buddhism, and I have had occasion to read and translate some of the works of Nichiren, the 13th century founder of that Buddhist sect.

In so doing, I have become convinced that Nichiren was a prophet, or at the very least, a man of God. He lived in a time of great crisis in Japan, and went about preaching repentance and a return to the True Path. (Reminds me of Jeremiah and, like Jeremiah, this did not sit well with the authorities, in that he was constantly persecuted and in danger of his life.) Around 1260 he wrote a famous treatise in which he asserted that if Japan did not soon turn from its wrong path it would come under attack from a foreign army that would devastate the nation. Imagine the shock when, just 14 years later, the Mongols arrived with a vast fleet on the shores of Kyushu. (The Japanese barely beat them off that year, and again in 1281 before the Mongols gave up. Famously, the Kamikaze (Divine Wind, or in other words, a typhoon) blew away the Mongol fleet both times. And this was the only time in recorded history that Japan was invaded by foreign armies before the arrival of the Americans in 1945.) Nichiren lived long enough to see this, and to see a chastened Japanese elite turn their allegiance to him. His teachings underpinned the Japanese samurai ethic of later centuries.

When my wife and I are visiting in Japan, we always make a point of touring the great religious sites of Buddhism and also Shinto, the original nativist religion. These are holy places where we can be near to God.

In the same way, when I visit Europe, I make a point of visiting the great cathedrals of Christendom, and smaller churches as well. And I love the Christmas Eve midnight mass as a way of honoring the Savior’s birth.

In other words, I have no objection to other religious traditions that bring people closer to God. But then, you may ask, why do we bother telling people We Have The Truth?

What exactly do we have that is unique?

First, it seems to me that all people everywhere on Earth intuitively believe in eternal marriage. All look forward to eternities with their beloved spouses. Yet no one but LDS explicitly include it in their doctrine, and tell us how it is accomplished. In the General Conference last weekend, this theme of the Family was repeated constantly. No other subject (save the Atonement, about which I will get to in a minute) received so much attention. It is a promise that should attract people no matter what their cultural background.

Second, all people everywhere wonder how persons can return to God. Buddhism (and Hinduism, from which it is derived) thinks about this a lot, and has developed a rich philosophy based on the idea of self-enlightenment, right thinking, denial of material desires, and so on, all of which we as LDS would have no quibbles with. Once a person has done all these things, he has become perfect, and achieves Nirvana. But this is impossibly difficult, as even the most fervent Buddhists realize, and so they call on Buddhas (of various stripes) and Bodhisattvas (persons already enlightened) for assistance in reaching this goal. This is really not so far removed from the concept of the Atonement, where Jesus plays the role of arbiter between ourselves and God. In other words, the Atonement is a universal message, for all people, and persons of non-Christian cultures can recognize this, through the spirit.

Third (and this links to the First and Second points), we have Temples to tie people together with all their ancestors back into God’s family. No other religion can offer this gift. Your ancestors do not have to be consigned to the nether regions just because they were born in the wrong century and the wrong culture. All will come right in the end.

Fourth, a claim of priesthood authority. All of the above three points are performed by men authorized by God, with a priesthood geneology that all can trace back to Joseph Smith, and then to Peter, James, and John, to Jesus, and finally to God. Where men like Nichiren could (and in my opinion, DID) receive guidance from God on the issues facing their people, they did not have priesthood authority to continue. (And like all religious movements, Nichiren’s splintered in later centuries into various schools, each of which claim descent from Nichiren, with a famous modern version being Soka Gakkai, founded about 60 years ago.)

So, in summary, our LDS church has a legitimate basis to laying claim to being a truly universal religion.

Indeed, I am reminded of a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley to “bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it”.

David Farnsworth

Tigard OR 97224

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Nominate Mormon Fair-Cast for Podcast Award

October 7, 2013 by SteveDensleyJr

pa_logoPlease help promote FairMormon by going now to www.podcastawards.com, and finding the “Religion Inspiration” category. Enter “Mormon Fair-Cast” under podcast name and www.fairblog.org as the url.

The People’s Choice Podcast Awards are an annual set of awards given to the best podcasts as voted on by listeners. In 2011, FairMormon’s podcast, called “The Mormon Fair-Cast,” won the award for Best Podcast in the Religion Inspiration category. In 2012, we were again nominated. Over 9 million votes were cast and over 5,000 shows were nominated. The 50 podcasts in each category that received the most votes were reviewed by a 44-member committee that took a variety of factors into account in order to narrow the finalists down to 10 in each category. The total number of votes a podcast received accounted for only 40% of the grading, with the quality of the website’s design (15%), quality of sound (15%), quality of deliverance and show format (10%), and relevance of content (20%) also being considered.

Although we were selected as one of the ten finalists, the top award went to an atheist podcast last year. We’d like to change that this year and retake the top spot!

You may nominate other shows in other categories and you may only vote once during the nomination process. Nominations close on October 15. The Podcast Awards Ceremony will be held at the New Media Expo in Las Vegas on Jan 5th, 2013.

Please spread the word by telling your friends. Even if we don’t win the voting, we hope this will raise awareness of the great resources we have. If we do win, it is even better. You can post a link with instructions on Facebook, Twitter, or Google Plus.

Filed Under: News from FAIR, Podcast

Mormon Fair-Cast 170: The Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon

October 6, 2013 by SteveDensleyJr

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Religion-Today-for-Sunday-October-0.mp3

Podcast: Download (8.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

10-1706-large

Shaken Faith Syndrome Available for a Limited Time at a Discount at Costco

Has a member of your family lost their faith? Buy “Shaken Faith Syndrome” now at Costco locations throughout Utah. Meet the author, Mike Ash, at the following Utah Costco locations:

  • The Ogden Costco on Wednesday, October 9, from 12 to 3.
  • The Sandy Costco on Wednesday, October 16, from 12 to 3.
  • The West Valley Costco on Wednesday, October 23 from 12 to 3.
  • The Murray Costco on Wednesday, October 30, from 12 to 3.

Costco will only schedule book signings when a book is selling well, and will only continue to carry a book so long as it is selling well. It also sells books at a significant discount. This would be the perfect time to buy multiple copies to share with friends and family members as Christmas presents.

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 6, 2013, Martin Tanner speaks with Dan Peterson of the Interpreter Foundation and Steve Densley, Jr. of FairMormon to discuss the activities of these respective organizations and the book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, which can also be purchased here at the FairMormon Bookstore.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, Apologetics, News from FAIR, Podcast

Testimony Damage and the Problem of Assumptions pt. 1

October 3, 2013 by Mike Ash

Ash (newer) Picture(This is the first half of an article based on a 2013 FairMormon Conference presentation)          

A Relief Society President searches the Internet for material on a lesson. A High Priest Group Leader follows various links on the Web preparing for a talk. A returned missionary watches some “Mormon” videos that were sent to him from a friend in his student ward. All three eventually leave the Church because of testimony-shaking material they “discovered” on the Internet. Most of us know someone who might fit such general scenarios.

Not only do they discover unsettling contra-LDS information on the Web, but they might not know where to turn for answers or help. They may feel that it wrong to question or doubt. They may be apprehensive about expressing their questions, concerns, or doubts to other Church members (or even to their spouses or other family members) because they fear that they would be looked down upon by others. With nowhere to turn, they often turn back to the Internet and sometimes right into the arms of those critics who are eager to feed the struggling member more unsettling information.

Most of us have heard the expression: “Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for Saints.” Every single one of us struggles with imperfection, sins, and testimony. Unfortunately too many members seem to think that a weakened testimony or emerging doubts is indicative of increase sin or a desire to sin. My friend Paul McNabb—a Stake Presidency Counselor who has advised bishops with struggling members— once noted:

“…doubt is a natural part of our mortal sojourn.  It is not sin, nor does it always (or even mostly) stem from sin.  Faith is not belief without doubt, but rather faith is obedience to imperfectly-understood-but-true principles in the presence of doubt.  In general, I would counsel leaders to not assume that doubt stems from transgression and to not assume that doubt is in some way the ‘fault’ of the individual experiencing it.  I think leaders can best serve those going through a crisis of faith by being understanding, sympathetic, and compassionate.”[i]

It’s important that we understand that questioning the things we do, believe, or accept is normal and part of the process that leads from youth to maturity, as well as from maturity to wisdom. There would be no growth without questioning. Questions lead to answers, resolutions, solidifying convictions, and even to discarding false assumptions. Many doctrines and teachings were revealed as the result of questions petitioned to God.

Questioning traditions, folklore, and scripture resulted in Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, an increased understanding of the Spirit World as recorded in D&C 138, and the expansion of the priesthood to all worthy males as recorded in the D&C Official Declaration—2. Personal application of prophetic and scriptural directives come as we question the meaning and relevance of the Word of God in our own lives, and academic questions have led to greater understanding of early LDS history, biblical history, as well as the world in which ancient prophets lived.

Unavoidably, questions have also led to loss of testimony and a rejection of a belief in modern prophets, scriptures, or even in God. The affect questions and doubts have upon our personal spiritual convictions varies greatly depending on the individual. For some, doubt may appear suddenly, emerge periodically, or it might plague believers all of their lives. While about 95% of Americans believe in God, for example, nearly half—including those who consider themselves to be religiously devout—seriously question their faith from time to time.[ii]

For some, doubts and questions may simply be part of one’s seeking nature. In our evolving world of ever-increasing information some may not feel content with any answer and may always be searching for the next best academic evaluation. For many, however, questions can surface because of what seems to be reliable information that contradicts long-held beliefs. The doubt and questions that arise from such discoveries often create emotional, spiritual, and intellectual heartburn and pain. Troubling discoveries can cause sleeplessness, depression, tears, and even physical maladies. Typically this pain is generated when assumptions and expectations are turned on their heads.

It’s human nature to make assumptions. Assumptions are those things which we take for granted—things we don’t critically examine. We’ve all been told not to judge a book by its cover, but that initial response is an unavoidable characteristic of human nature. We make evaluations and judgments on what we see or perceive even though those perceptions may not be accurate.

Our assumptions typically offer a base-line or starting point for many of the things we believe. We can’t know all the answers to everything so we make assumptions based on information we do have and fill in the blanks with inferences based on our assumptions. In other words, we infer, or come to conclusions about things around us, based on our assumptions.

We couldn’t function in any society without assumptions and inferences because we can’t possibly examine everything around us all of the time. This leads to the unavoidable fact that we will often make false assumptions and inferences—fed by our own personal world views or by misinformation, a lack of information, or the inability to comprehend or internalize additional information. All humans – Even prophets—can, have, and will make false assumptions.

Non-LDS psychologist Dr. Daniel Kahneman has argued that we think in two distinct (yet metaphorical) systems. System 1 is our intuitive thought process and the process to which we typically turn first. “…the intuitive System 1 is more influential than your experience tells you, and it is the secret author of many of the choices and judgments you make.” System 1 “continually constructs a coherent interpretation of what is going on in our world at any instant.”[iii]

System 2’s process is much more laborious and requires focus and concentration. “System 2 is mobilized when a question arises for which System 1 does not offer an answer….”[iv] “The defining feature of System 2,” writes Kahneman, “…is that its operations are effortful, and one of its main characteristics is laziness, a reluctance to invest more effort than is strictly necessary.”

As a consequence, the thoughts and actions that System 2 believes it has chosen are often guided by the figure at the center of the story, System 1. However, there are vital tasks that only System 2 can perform because they require effort and acts of self-control in which the intuitions and impulses of System 1 are overcome.[v]

System 1 is not a bad system. It is what guides us through our everyday lives. Our intuitions are typically formed from experience with similar situations and System 1 can quickly and accurately help us maneuver through obstacles and routines that are not too difficult. System 2 kicks in when System 1 is overwhelmed and needs extra muscle. And while System 1 is linked with our emotions, studies indicate that we need our emotions in our decision-making endeavors. Studies show that that “people who do not display the appropriate emotions before they decide, sometimes because of brain damage, also have an impaired ability to make good decisions.”[vi]

Latter-day Saints, like all people, create their own stumbling blocks by automatically and uncritically accepting the unexamined assumptions that frequently flow from System 1. All of us embrace concepts, beliefs, or positions that we unquestioningly accept primarily because we have never thought of questioning the belief, position, or concept—System 1 is the easier path. Unfortunately, we occasionally confuse beliefs on peripheral teachings—such as rumors, traditions, or personal opinions—with LDS doctrines.

Critics may unconsciously or consciously take advantage of the natural inclination that most people—most of the time—will rely on the quick and easy answers supplied by System 1. A critic, for example, might create a list of problems with the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or the character of Joseph Smith. At first glance, such a list can appear impressive and detrimental to LDS truth claims. Critics give the impression that the issues are simple (perhaps black and white) and therefore the conclusion they propose (that the Church is false) is obvious to any unbiased observer (which, of course, is a faulty assumption because there are no unbiased observers).

The problem is that, more often than not, the issues are not simple—they are frequently complex, especially when we have to compare or understand the issues in context of time, circumstance, or even culture. A lot more ink is required to respond to an accusation then to make an accusation. Generally, we tend to avoid turning to System 2 to analyze the complexities of the issues and the rebuttals. System 2, as Kahneman notes, is lazy. We may intuitively (and incorrectly) accept the conclusion of System 1 (the easy list of anti-Mormon arguments) and reject the more difficult System 2 (the rebuttals) simply because the accusations are preferred because of their ease of acceptance. Once the conclusion is accepted (that the anti-Mormon’s simple list is the correct one) the arguments supporting the conclusion are accepted as well. As Kahneman notes, “…when people believe a conclusion is true, they are also very likely to believe arguments that appear to support it, even when these arguments are unsound.”[vii]

Assumptions often feed expectations. Most of our assumptions in life lead to low expectations and we aren’t really bothered if we discover that some of our assumptions are false. We may assume, for instance, that the Great Wall of China is the only-made made object visible from the moon. If we find out, however, that the Great Wall becomes invisible to the naked eye long before reaching the moon, our world would not likely crash down around us.

False assumptions within important relationships, however, can be destructive because we have greater expectations. Such relationships would include those with your spouse, parents, children, government, employer, Church, or God. All of us have certain expectations when we are involved in a relationship. The more invested we are in the relationship the greater the expectations and therefore the greater pain when our assumptions collide with a new image that contradicts those assumptions.

It would not matter, for example, if we discovered that we were incorrect about Joseph Smith’s clothing styles, hair color, or pitch of voice. It would likely matter, however, if we discovered information implying that Joseph was a fraud or delusional or that the Book of Mormon was merely fiction.

We should tread lightly if we assume that our understanding of the Gospel will not change, that the history of the Restoration is always neat and tidy, that all prophets always behaved as we hope prophets would behave, that all those who recorded scripture remembered everything accurately, or that scripture accurately reflects scientific and historical truths.

As members of Christ’s Church, as members of our individual stakes, wards, quorums, or Relief Societies, we should not assume that we know the hearts, the spirituality, or righteousness of others or why they might struggle with a testimony.

Our assumptions may not only contribute to the diminution of another member’s testimony—by making them feel unworthy for questioning—but our unexamined assumptions about the Church, history, science, or Gospel topics could potentially impair our own testimony when we discover that some of our assumptions are weak or erroneous. False assumptions could cause us to become testimony-struggling-members who are on the receiving end of the judgmental assumptions of other members.

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

________________________________

[i] Paul McNabb, personal communication 24 June 2013.

[ii] George Bishop, “The Americans’ Belief in God,” Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (1999): 421–434, cited in Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, “Does God Matter?: A Social Science Critique”Harvard Divinity Bulletin, n.1 and 2; available online (accessed 2 December 2012).

[iii] Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 13.

[iv] Ibid., 24.

[v] Ibid., 31.

[vi] Ibid., 25.

[vii] Ibid., 45.

Filed Under: Apologetics

Apostles and Apologetics: Doers of the Word

October 2, 2013 by Neal Rappleye

Devotional-Elder ChristoffersonBack in April, I did a blog post on some of the apologetically relevant statements from General Conference, including the instruction, from Elder Robert D. Hales, to “protect and defend the kingdom of God.” Well, as with most things our leaders teach us to do, they are also doers of the word who practice what they preach.

In a recent devotional address at Brigham Young University-Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed some criticisms of the Church and made other apologetically relevant comments. Elder Christofferson opens up by briefly relating the visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith, and noting how Moroni told Joseph Smith that both good and evil would be spoken of him throughout the world (see Joseph Smith—History 1:33). This is an appropriate way to start, not only because it allows for the discussion of the good and the evil said about Joseph Smith and the Restoration today, but because Elder Christofferson was giving his address just days after the 190th anniversary of Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith. What an appropriate occasion to discuss the fulfillment of that prophecy! As Elder Christofferson remarks,

to think that this boy growing up in a poor family, in the smallest of small towns, in a country of limited influence and prestige in the world should come to such prominence that his name would be had for good or ill among all nations, kindreds, and people—it was truly (to use an overused word) incredible. Nevertheless, it is a prophecy that has been fulfilled in significant measure and that is more fully realized year by year.

Elder Christofferson talks about the monumental Joseph Smith Papers Project, as research initiative by the Church Historical Department intent on publishing every document written or commissioned by Joseph Smith. He notes that this “expanding access we enjoy to the Prophet’s work and teachings fills previous voids in our knowledge, confirms some things we already knew or thought, and supplies answers to questions we might have had. The information also raises new questions and highlights new areas of inquiry to pursue.” He also stresses that, “we ought not to expect in this life to know all the answers (or for that matter, all the questions).” This wide access to information of Joseph Smith, however, facilitates both aspects of Moroni’s prophecy – both the good and the evil to be spoken of Joseph Smith. Elder Christofferson reminds his audience of this, and offers three important principles to be applied when encountering the “evil” that is spoken of the prophet, his work, and his teachings.

You know, of course, that as prophesied by Moroni, there are those whose research relating to Joseph Smith is not for the purpose of gaining added light and knowledge but to undermine his character, magnify his flaws, and if possible destroy his influence. Their work product can sometimes be jarring, and so can issues raised at times by honest historians and researchers with no “axe to grind.” But I would offer you this advice in your own study: Be patient, don’t be superficial, and don’t ignore the Spirit.

First, be patient. Under this heading, Elder Christofferson reminds us that “while some answers come quickly or with little effort, others are simply not available for the moment because information or evidence is lacking. Don’t suppose, however, that a lack of evidence about something today means that evidence doesn’t exist or that it will not be forthcoming in the future. The absence of evidence is not proof.” John E. Clark, a professional archaeologist, is in agreement, as he once wrote:

Given current means of verification, positive evidence is here to stay, but negative items may prove to be positive ones in hiding. “Missing” evidence focuses further research, but it lacks the compelling logical force in arguments because it represents the absence of information rather than secure evidence.

As an example of this, Elder Christofferson cites a FairMormon blogpost by Book of Mormon scholar Matt Roper, which deals with steel in ancient Israel and the Book of Mormon. While no evidence supported the idea of a sword of “most precious steel” existing in 600 BC Jerusalem at the time the Book of Mormon was published (a lack of evidence that persisted for more than a century), it is now an accepted fact that the steeling of iron was known to Israelites well before Nephi’s time, and steel swords contemporary to the Book of Mormon account have been unearthed in the area. This is but one of many examples that could be given.

John E. Clark has collected sixty examples of alleged anachronisms that have been used against the Book of Mormon since 1829 and found that about sixty percent of them have now been verified by archaeology, while suggestive evidence has emerged for another ten (of the sixty) criticisms, though this evidence remains inconclusive. All in all, this means that evidence is more favorable to some degreenow than it was in 1830 in seventy-five percent of the sixty cases. Researcher Kevin Christensen recently reevaluated a Book of Mormon critique from 1982 to make the same point: with time (and research), many claims made against the Book of Mormon begin to look out-dated as new evidence offers support.

In a footnote to his address, Elder Christofferson also addressed the claim some critics have raised that Joseph Smith was wrong when he said there were religious revivals in the area of Palmyra in 1820. Elder Christofferson cited this FairMormon article and explained that greater access to original sources has revealed not only that revivals were common, but “that revivals were common enough that often they garnered no coverage in the newspapers unless something out of the ordinary occurred such as a death.” As with the Book of Mormon, historian Steven C. Harper has shown that criticisms of the First Vision have faded with time.These and the many similar examples underscore Elder Christofferson’s message of patience: “Where answers are incomplete or lacking altogether, patient study and patient waiting for new information and discoveries to unfold will often be rewarded with understanding.”

This leads well into Elder Christofferson’s second point, to not be superficial. Accepting the claims of critics or, as Elder Christofferson calls them, “insincere seekers,” at face value can be ill advised. Drawing on the words poet Alexander Pope, Elder Christofferson advises us to “drink deep” from the fountain of knowledge. Serious inquiry requires the time and patience mentioned above, and it rarely, if ever, assumes the “obvious” from quick and superficial study.

As a part of this, Elder Christofferson urges us to check our assumptions about the Church and it’s leaders. “When I say don’t be superficial, I mean don’t form conclusions based on unexamined assertions or incomplete research,” he says, and notes that, “We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be.” Elder Christofferson quotes some of the many times in which Joseph Smith himself acknowledged his imperfections. Elder Christofferson then helps provide some of the big picture that critics often fail to see as they wade in the minutia of Church history: “Joseph Smith was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming, divinely- appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and undeniably good.”

In his address, Elder Christofferson contrasts this patient, deep mode of seeking with the tactics of those whom he terms “insincere seekers,” and distinguishes them from the honest researchers who may also raise serious, even if troubling, questions. He says:

While some honestly pursue truth and real understanding, others are intent on finding or creating doubts. Their interpretations may come from projecting 21st Century concepts and culture backward onto 19th Century people. If there are differing interpretations possible, they will pick the most negative. They sometimes accuse the Church of hiding something because they only recently found or heard about it—an interesting accusation for a Church that’s publishing 24 volumes of all it can find of Joseph Smith’s papers. They may share their assumptions and speculations with some glee, but either can’t or won’t search further to find contradictory information.

Most importantly, however, Elder Christofferson advises that as we seek answers to historical puzzles, we do not neglect the Spirit:

Finally, don’t neglect the Spirit. As regards Joseph Smith, we seek learning both by study and by faith. Both are fruitful paths of inquiry. A complete understanding can never be attained by scholarly research alone, especially since much of what is needed is either lost or never existed. There is no benefit in imposing artificial limits on ourselves that cut off the light of Christ and the revelations of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit has an important role in the process discussed above of exercising patience and “drinking deeply.” It is by the assurance of the Spirit that we can proceed to act in faith as we patiently seek answers about this or that historical issue. Elder Christofferson uses the example of the Mark Hoffman forgeries, and then stresses:

In matters of faith, a spiritual witness is essential if one is to avoid being “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. [Eph. 4:14]”  With a Spirit-derived assurance in place, you can go forward in the Lord’s work and continue deepening your relationship with your Heavenly Father while pursuing or awaiting answers. If you determine to sit still, paralyzed until every question is answered and every whisper of doubt resolved, you will never move because in this life there will always be some issue pending or something yet unexplained.

Ultimately, some answers will never come in this life. Faith is a principle of action, and it is in the acting that we often gain our testimonies. We must not let unanswered questions keep us from exercising our faith.

After discussing how to approach historical issues, Elder Christofferson goes on to remind us of what it most important:

Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling is key to our religion. Without his commission from the Father and the Son, without his priesthood ordinations and the keys he received at the hands of duly appointed heavenly messengers, without the fullness of the gospel restored through his visions and revelations and his translations of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, what we would have is something much less than true Christianity. It is critical that we gain a witness of these things by study and above all, by the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

He also adds that, “Despite all this, however, I remind you that Joseph Smith is not our foundation—it is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. Joseph Smith, Jr. was called of God ‘to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and a prophet.’ [D&C 124:125]” While Elder Christofferson may seem, to some, to have departed from apologetics, I think here Elder Christofferson actually does something that is an important part of good apologetics: rather than just respond to objections, or talk about how to handle criticisms, Elder Christofferson also seeks to build faith. He does this by discussing the important things Joseph Smith accomplished as a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ, and bearing testimony of those things. In apologetics, we must do more than simply address the negative. We must also provide the positive. We must give people reasons to believe. This can be done in a number of ways; bearing testimony, sharing evidences, or telling personal experiences of how the gospel and the Church have blessed you are only some examples. The exact method (or combination of methods) should probably be adapted based on circumstances, but it is always important to try and give the person who is doubting something positive to build on.

As an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ speaking in a devotional setting, it is appropriate that Elder Christofferson used his own and Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Savior, the witness of Christ in the Book of Mormon, and the martyrdom of the prophet to serve as faith promoting points to build on. As the apostles often do, Elder Christofferson closes with his own testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I bear witness of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, and to his magnificent revelation of Jesus, I reverently add my own testimony of the Christ. I too know that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. He stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is the Redeemer, and His grace is sufficient. I pray that all may receive the testimony of Joseph Smith and come unto Christ, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, Apologetics, Joseph Smith, LDS History

The Atonement and the Prodigal Son

September 17, 2013 by John Lynch

In working with individuals who struggle in their faith because of sincere unanswered questions, criticisms they encounter, or because of incongruities between their lives and the standards they hold, I have found a need to constantly draw such people back to the foundational principles of the Gospel. Foremost among them is of course faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some, their lack of answers undermines their confidence in the overall gospel plan. For others, criticisms cause them to reconsider once deeply held beliefs. For others, their struggles to live standards they accept create a wedge between them and their Heavenly Father. In all of these cases, however, the result is a sense of distance from the Father that loves them, and who patiently invites them home.

The path out of such situations is often a long path requiring patience and persistence. Such individuals need to re-anchor themselves to foundational principles, and most importantly regain a spiritual connection with Heavenly Father. It is through such a connection that they can find strength to persist through their questions, doubts, or the process of repentance.

In going through such struggles, I often find that once unsettled, the most basic of principles get called into question. Once confidence is undermined, even the most basic of concepts we hold true become open for debate, and the uncertainty started by unrelated struggles can spread and undermine the most fundamental gospel principles.

Even the atonement of Jesus Christ is not immune from such questioning. Those going through periods of questions and doubts about the restoration might begin to ask themselves why a loving God cannot simply forgive and forget and accept us as we are. Why would it be necessary to send someone else to suffer in order to compensate for our suffering? Is God not able of his own accord to forgive? If so, why do we need another to rescue us?

The foremost principle I follow when trying to understand gospel principles like the atonement is this: Father does nothing because He needs it, but because we need it. We aren’t told to pray because without it God doesn’t know what we want, but because by praying we learn to adjust our will such that we want what He wants. We don’t gather to worship because God has low self-esteem and gets angry if we don’t give Him attention, but because in gathering we unite in our common cause of service to each other, and as King Benjamin would say, our service to our fellow being puts us in the service of our God. It is in that service that we learn the nature of God – His mind and heart! Even the ordinances of the Church are intended not for God to secure an assurance of our commitment, but for us to signal to ourselves that we accept the covenants He extends to us.

As for the atonement, many theories of the atonement are based on penal substitution or some form of deficit compensation required by God. Such theories presuppose a need on the part of God to have the “books balance”, implying that God is otherwise incapable of forgiving the individual. As such, there is an implied limit on the ability of God to forgive unless some external requirement is met, thereby implying that God himself is not omnipotent when it comes to forgiveness.

This notion similarly runs counter to the God that I know. The God who reveals himself to me through scripture and spiritual experiences is a fatherly God. He asks that we refer to him as our Heavenly Father, implying paternal affection towards us that we would recognize in our earthly relationships. As such, I feel that I can understand something of His nature by looking closely at what I would consider to be the ideal father on earth.

I find examples of such an ideal in the father of the prodigal son, as taught by the Savior when accused of eating with the publicans and sinners. Teaching a principle of humility that one could argue is more about the faithful son who was critical of the father’s willingness to so quickly forgive the prodigal, Christ reveals an ideal that I believe instructs us on the nature of our Heavenly Father.

In the parable we have a son who squandered the great gift his father gave him, and found himself in the lowest of circumstances – working the field where unclean beasts were fed. He had sunk to the lowest point, and could sink no further. Fully stripped of pride, with no pretense of deserving more, the prodigal sought out his father with the humble hope that he might simply be a servant in the a place he had once called home. So, he approached his father’s comfortable estate, unsure what reception he might receive.

His father, who was apparently watching for the return of the son he loved, saw him afar off. He ran to him, fell on his neck and without reservation or condition kissed him. His son, confessing his sins against heaven, implored acceptance as a servant. But the father rather killed the fatted calf, rejoiced in his return, and treated him again as a full son, replete with the symbols of honor including robes, shoes, and a family ring.

This example teaches me much about Heavenly Father if he is like the father of this prodigal. He has not only the willingness, but eagerness to accept home any wayward child who would again wish to live as a son.

If this is the case, then the need for an atonement does not come because Heavenly Father requires it, but because without it we would be unwilling ourselves to take the painful steps away from the earthly field of feeding swine towards our Heavenly home of acceptance and welcome. It is what enables us to let go of the guilt within us that condemns us, and allows us to receive the forgiveness openly offered.

In the scriptures, we learn that sin causes us to withdraw, and even wish that rocks would fall upon us and hide us from our Father, not so that we are protected from his wrath, but so that we would not have to face our own sins which would be unavoidable in the full light of His goodness and glory. In other words, we fail in our confidence before God because the scales of justice within our hearts reveal to us that we have fallen short. In essence, we withdraw not because Father would not receive us, but because we feel inadequate because of the willful, disobedient choices we have made.

Father and Christ know this about us. They realize that we need an anchor for our faith so that we can once again regain our self-confidence before God despite having done wrong. In response, Father provided, and Christ volunteered, for one beyond reproach to come and experience what we naturally experience when we sin. Christ, upon his knees in Gethsemane, contemplated our condition as being alone in our sins, much like Alma and Ammon and the sons of Mosiah felt contemplating the seared conscious of regret they themselves felt knowing the great wrongs they had done. He felt our sorrow and our shame. He felt our anguish and pain that causes us to withdraw from Father. In essence, his experience was a universal feeling of empathy for the entire human family, for every sin of every person committed and yet to be. He felt the collective shame of the world, causing Him, the very Son of the Father, to tremble because of pain and bleed from every pore.

Realizing this, we find an escape for our shame – a way to release the guilt that binds us and prevents us from openly returning to Father where the full acceptance of a beloved son once lost but now found can be felt. Realizing within ourselves that the consequence of shame formed by the imbalance of justice we cause has already been realized by one who himself has no reason to feel shame, we are able to let go of our own guilt, trusting that Christ has already suffered, and we need suffer no more. With such a realization, we can take those critical steps out of the worldly “field of swine” and approach again Father who anxiously awaits our return. Indeed, it is our faith and confidence that the suffering of guilt and shame has already been paid that allows us to let go and in fact forgive ourselves. In such a state we can accept the unconditional forgiveness Father anxiously waits to give us as soon as we take the steps towards home.

Of course, the steps home are necessary, just as the wayward son had to take the journey back. We must come to humility and realize our faults, just as the prodigal realized his fallen condition. With that realization, we must commit to leave the field of unclean things, and persist in a path homeward. In a gospel sense, it means that we must put behind us our old life, and start anew, as if we were reborn as a rightful son and heir. All this is symbolized for us, like all ordinances, through the outward act of baptism and partaking of the sacrament. Indeed, the sacrament itself could be considered a symbolic feast of the fatted calf for the wayward son now home!

The capstone of the atonement is what happened at Golgotha. His death and resurrection turned the key for the human family to escape the consequence of Adam and Eve’s choices in the garden. Without condition, the whole human family can escape death and again live with Father in immortal, glorified bodies.

So for me, the atonement is not necessary because God requires it, but because without it we would be unable to let go of our guilt, accept Father’s forgiveness, and remain with Him as a son and an heir. With it, we can confidently move forward away from our past, and use our mistakes to solidify our commitment to righteousness. We thereby gain the benefits of the fall of Adam (knowing good from evil), and lay hold on the invitation of Father to learn and yet come home as a son or daughter.

For me, the atonement compensates for the weakness within us, not some inability of God to forgive.

The story of the prodigal son gives us another lesson that we would be wise to consider. The older, faithful son who criticized his father was gently chastised when the father called him not to resent the welcomed prodigal, but to rejoice in his return. It is a tempting reaction we all can encounter to feel critical of those who question, struggle, or sin. In so doing, our resentment turns to judgment, and our own reaction may prove a barrier to those who would otherwise be homeward bound. We would be wise to not judge, so that we ourselves are not too harshly judged of the weaknesses we have but perhaps do not so outwardly display. We would do well to welcome any who come to the altar of humility seeking reconciliation with Father, and do all that we can to ease them from their wandered path and invite them home again as sons and daughters, and full heirs of salvation.

Indeed, we should eagerly look to the horizon of the lives around us, watching prayerfully for the prodigals to return. And when they do, not hesitate to invite them in, but rush to them while they are yet afar off, and embrace them with love reflective of the kindness of the Father. In so doing, we will make ourselves a little more like Him as we thus gain not only His mind, but also His heart.

For those struggling in the midst of questions, doubt, or unresolved issues in the standards you live by, I encourage you to re-anchor yourself in the foundational principle of the atonement. Recognize that Father loves you unconditionally, and will gladly welcome you home once you are ready to make the journey. The Savior loves you such that he felt your pain. It was his love for you that compelled him to feel what you now feel. I encourage you to trust in that love. Recognize that your discomfort, anxiety, and possibly even shame can all be overcome simply by trusting that you need not remain in such a state. Anchor yourselves in the atonement so that you can eventually make the path home and be welcomed by a Father ready to great you with a warm embrace and genuine rejoicing. In so doing, you will find the strength to persist until your questions are answered, your doubts are resolved, and your life is made right again.

Filed Under: Apologetics

Shaken Faith Syndrome at Costco for a Limited Time!

September 10, 2013 by S. Hales Swift

10-1706-largeThe second edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome, is now available at a discounted price in four Costco locations in the Salt Lake City area.

The locations are:

* 1818 S 300 W, Salt Lake City

* 5201 Intermountain Dr, Salt Lake City

* 573 W 100 N, W Bountiful

* 11100 Auto Mall Dr, Sandy

Costco will only carry them as long as they are selling in large numbers week after week. Help promote FairMormon and stock up early on Christmas gifts by visiting one of these Costco locations to purchase copies for yourself and for your friends and family members. If sales are strong enough in these locations, Costco will begin carrying the book in more locations and will invite the author, Mike Ash to various locations for book signings.

Shaken Faith Syndrome has been a valuable tool for those navigating the challenges of faith and doubt, and also for those who are experiencing a family member undergoing a crisis of faith. Now is a great time to pick up the new edition of his book, which has helped many people understand the emotional experience of a faith crisis, as well as how one can strengthen their faith in the midst of such a trial. Geared toward saints who aspire to be both critical thinkers and believers, Ash helps readers reevaluate false assumptions and misplaced expectations that may make them vulnerable to a faith crisis, and helps replace them with healthier approaches. He specifically addresses issues of doctrine versus popular tradition, unrealistic expectations of both leaders and scholars, and leaders’ personal opinion versus doctrine. He also counters the more common claims made against pro-church scholars, such as those who participated in FARMS, now the Maxwell Institute. Ash further provides an overview of common anti-LDS claims and the scholarship that has been put forth to answer them. Shaken Faith Syndrome is both an interesting book in and of itself, and also a handy reference for those first encountering anti-Mormon claims. If you haven’t yet read it or if you know someone to whom you would like to give it as a gift, pick yours up at your Salt Lake City area Costco today. If you do not live in the area, we also carry it in the FairMormon Bookstore.

Filed Under: News from FAIR

Joseph Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the Language of Translation

August 28, 2013 by Stephen Smoot

The atheist controversialist Richard Dawkins has, on a few occasions, centered Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in his polemical crosshairs. When he does speak about Mormonism, Mr. Dawkins typically brings up the Jacobean English of the Book of Mormon as evidence against its authenticity. In his aggressively anti-religious bookThe God Delusion, for example, Mr. Dawkins dismisses Joseph Smith as the “enterprisingly mendacious inventor” of the Book of Mormon, which Mr. Dawkins sneeringly writes off as “a whole new bogus American history, written in bogus seventeenth-century English.”1

This line of argumentation has been repeated by Mr. Dawkins on a number of occasions. When he ambushed the Latter-day Saint rock star Brandon Flowers on Swedish television, Mr. Dawkins once again repeated his favorite criticism against the Book of Mormon. “I have to say that when I read the book of Mormon recently, what impressed me was that this was an obvious fake,” he informed an unsuspecting Flowers. But what made it as such an obvious fake to Mr. Dawkins? “This was a 19th century book written in 16th century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of charlatanry.”2

Finally, as he addressed a group of unknown size, Mr. Dawkins, who could hardly contain his bewildered disdain, exhaustedly complained that people in this day and age still believe the “mountebank” Joseph Smith, “who wrote a bogus book–––the Book of Mormon–––[and] although he was writing in the 19th century chose to write it in 17th century English.” “Why don’t people see through that?” Mr. Dawkins asked in perplexity.3

Thus, for Mr. Dawkins, the King James idiom in the Book of Mormon somehow disproves it’s a translation of an ancient document.4 Although Mr. Dawkins has not afforded us a thorough explanation backed with evidence and logic as to why he subscribes to this belief, and has offered nothing more than dogmatic assertions, he’s made his opinions very clear.5

I’ve always found this criticism amusing, if for no other reason than it betrays the fact that Mr. Dawkins doesn’t seem to have much experience translating languages (if he has, I’d be happy to be corrected). There is a very simple explanation for why Joseph Smith would have rendered his translation of the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, which has been discussed elsewhere.6 But all amusement aside, and instead of focusing on the question of why the Book of Mormon was translated into early modern English, which has been more than adequately explained by others, I want instead to draw attention to biblical scholar E. A. Speiser’s translation of the celebrated Akkadian creation myth Enuma Elish, and ask Mr. Dawkins a few questions.

Speiser, who has also provided us a valuable translation of the book of Genesis,7published his translation of the Enuma Elish in 1958 with Princeton University Press.8 What follows are a few pertinent excerpts.9

Speiser’s translation contained in Pritchard’s abridgement begins at the call of the god Marduk to be the champion of the divine council against the evil chaos monster Tiamat.

Thou art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy command is Anu.

Thou, Marduk, art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy word is Anu.

…

O Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger.

We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire.

When in the Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme.

When the gods praise Marduk, they speak as follows.

Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.

Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.

Open thy mouth: the cloth will vanish.

Later we read of the terrible battle between Marduk and Tiamat, wherein the angry chaos goddess lets forth a cry.

Too important art thou for the lord of the gods

to rise up against thee!

Is it in their place that they have gathered, or in thy place?

An impatient Marduk returns Tiamat’s insult with his own.

Why art thou risen, art haughtily exalted,

Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict,

. . .  sons reject their own fathers,

Whilst thou, who has born them,

hast foresworn love!

…

Stand thou up, that I and thou meet in single combat!

Marduk eventually defeats Tiamat and from her spoiled carcass fashions the cosmos. Addressing the moon, Marduk gives his orders to the heavens.

Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days,

. . .

When the sun overtakes thee at the base of heaven,

Diminish thy crown and retrogress to light.

At the time of disappearance approach thou the course of the sun,

And on the twenty-ninth thou shalt again stand in opposition to the sun.

The myth concludes with Marduk being exalted and praised in the divine council for his majesty and power in defeating Tiamat and establishing the cosmos.

With the preceding in mind, my questions for Mr. Dawkins are as follows:

1. If we’re to reject the Book of Mormon as a fabrication because it’s a purported translation that reads in Jacobean English, what are we to do with Speiser’s translation of the Enuma Elish?

2. Does Speiser’s Jacobean English translation of the Enuma Elish bring into doubt the antiquity of the text, as Joseph Smith’s Jacobean English translation of the Book of Mormon supposedly does? Indeed, is Speiser’s translation “a work of charlatanry” because he produced it in the 20th century and yet wrote it in 17th century English, which is “not the way people talk” these days?10 (Incidentally, as it turns out people actually did “talk like that” in the 19th century, both in religious and non-religious discourse.)11

3. Why would Princeton University publish a translation of an ancient text rendered in Jacobean English if such was an illegitimate maneuver?

4. Do you allow Speiser to utilize Jacobean English in his translation because he’s translating an indisputably ancient text, whereas you do not grant Joseph Smith the same courtesy because he claimed to translate a text of disputed authenticity? If so, why? On what rational grounds do you create this exception?

There are more questions that come to mind, but these four should be sufficient for now. I hope the point of this brief article is clear. If we’re to allow Speiser to render his translation of an ancient text into King James idiom in the 1950s (!), then surely we must also allow Joseph Smith to do such in the 19th century. Not to do so is to employ a tremendous double standard.

There are legitimate questions one can raise about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, including questions about Joseph Smith’s method of translation, but Mr. Dawkins’ naïve and uninformed criticism on this point is not one of them.12 Those looking for a rigorous analysis of the translation and language of the Book of Mormon would do well to look elsewhere.13

*This entry also appears at Interpreter.

  1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2nd. ed. (Great Britain: Mariner Books, 2008), 234. [↩]
  2. Katherine Weber, “Brandon Flowers of ‘The Killers’ Defends Mormon Faith Against Richard Dawkins,” online at http://www.christianpost.com/news/rock-star-brandon-flowers-defends-mormon-faith-to-richard-dawkins-81826/.
  3. See “Richard Dawkins talking about Mormonism and Joseph Smith,” online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d95M8jk3mv0.
  4. Actually, I genuinely wonder if Mr. Dawkins is aware of the fact that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation. His routinely slip-shod comments on the book have only shown he’s aware that it was published in the 19th century, but not much more.
  5. That Mr. Dawkins would hold to such dogmatism is odd, considering how much he esteems himself to be a man of science and reason.
  6. See generally Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), passim, but especially 302 (available here); Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 212–218 (available here); Daniel L. Belnap, “The Kind James Bible and the Book of Mormon,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 162–81. On the English of the Book of Mormon, see also Royal Skousen, “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 25, no. 5 (2005): 2–6. If Mr. Dawkins wants to be taken seriously, I’d advise he quickly brush up on this literature.
  7. E. A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964).
  8. James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: Volume 1, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1958), 31-39. As the copyright page indicates, Speiser’s translation in this volume is an abridgement found in another Princeton publication, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, published in 1950.
  9. I have, for the sake of readability, silently omitted Speiser’s critical notations of the text.
  10. Incidentally, Speiser is not the only modern translator to render his translation of an ancient text into Jacobean English. See Matthew Roper, “A Black Hole That’s Not So Black,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 165–67; John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith’s Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality?” FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 334–37; Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 217–218. John A. Tvedtnes, “Answering Mormon Scholars,”Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 235–37, also shows how the language of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was influenced by Jacobean (KJV) English. We might ask Mr. Dawkins if he considers Abraham Lincoln a faker because “people didn’t talk like that” in the 19th century.
  11. Eran Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’: Pseudo-Biblicism and the Early American Republic, 1770–1830,” Church History 79/4 (2010): 800–826. Shalev devotes a few words on the Book of Mormon. “The tradition of writing in biblical style [in the early 19th century] paved the way for the Book of Mormon by conditioning Americans to reading American texts, and texts about America, in biblical language. Yet the Book of Mormon, an American narrative told in the English of the King James Bible, has thrived long after Americans abandoned the practice of recounting their affairs in biblical language. It has thus been able to survive and flourish for almost two centuries, not because, but in spite of the literary ecology of the mid-nineteenth century and after. The Book of Mormon became a testament to a widespread cultural practice of writing in biblical English that could not accommodate to the monumental transformations America endured in the first half of nineteenth century.” Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’,” 826, footnotes silently removed.
  12. The careful reader will note that Mr. Dawkins is not claiming the Book of Mormon is false because of apparent textual dependency on the KJV for the Book of Mormon’s biblical citations. (I’d be surprised if his understanding of the Book of Mormon was informed enough to even recognize such.) Rather, he’s arguing that it’s false by the mere fact that it’s imitating KJV language. There is a world of difference between these two criticisms. One is legitimate and worthy of careful analysis. The other is bogus, and is perpetuated only by those who are ignorant of how translations work.
  13. I suggest that the reader begin (but not end) with the work of Royal Skousen, which can be conveniently accessed online here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=57. Other useful material by Skousen can be accessed here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/25-years-of-research-what-we-have-learned-about-the-book-of-mormon-text/. Since he has made himself a commentator on the language of the Book of Mormon, I am particularly interested if Mr. Dawkins could address the information uncovered in Skousen’s research concerning non-English Hebraisms. See Royal Skousen, “The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994): 38. “What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith’s upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. . . . [T]he potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.”

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, Apologetics, Atheism, Book of Mormon

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 149
  • Go to page 150
  • Go to page 151
  • Go to page 152
  • Go to page 153
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 201
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Family: A Proclamation to the World – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • The Eternal Gift of Testimony
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • The Lord Is Hastening His Work

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • lyrics to song on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Nalo on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Diana on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 132 – Mike Parker
  • JC on The Lord Is Hastening His Work
  • LHL on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 132 – Mike Parker

Archives

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer