FAIR

Blog

4th Watch 7: Symbolic or Literal – A Gospel Perspective

by

Podcast: Download (15.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4th Watch
4th Watch

From the days of Adam to the present our Father in Heaven has used symbolic representations and literal events to teach his children the principles of eternal life.  As we learn these principles and inculcate them into who we are, we attempt to make sense of the world in which we live.  There are those who struggle with this learning process and become discouraged or disillusioned when life is not clear–cut, when it’s not black or white but shaded with degrees of grey.  In this podcast we strive to shed light on this process, using the rainbow of colors that constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Difficulty of Translating Scripture

by

Ash (newer) PictureWith the exception of some sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, we do not have the original manuscripts for any of our scriptures. All original documents for the Old and New Testaments are gone. What we have are copies (and usually copies of copies) or interpretations of copies. Likewise, Moroni’s golden plates are no longer in our possession. Even the original Book of Mormon translation manuscript (only 28% of which has survived) is a “translation” of the ancient Nephite book and not the original document.

No document was present when Joseph Smith received the Book of Moses by revelation. Section 7 of the D&C was given as revelation wherein Joseph saw a translation from the “parchment” which was “written and hid up by” the Apostle John. Finally, when it comes to the Book Abraham, the text we have in our scriptures is a “translation” of information that was either contained on some portion of the Joseph Smith Papyri that has been lost or, like the Book of Moses and text from the Apostle John, was given by direct revelation without the presence of the original source document.

Without the original “autographs” we can never be positive that we have the precise and pristine words penned by the original prophets and scriptural authors. When we compare ancient copies of New Testament books, for example, we find a number of differences. Generally, such differences don’t affect the integrity of the text, but there are instances where omissions or additions do change the meaning of some verses.[i]

The translation of the scriptures into modern languages presents additional problems that can influence the meaning of the text. A translator attempts to convey the meaning of the original by selecting words and phrases that make the most sense to his audience. This becomes especially problematic with ancient languages wherein we can’t ask the meaning of phrases from those who lived in that culture. But even when we do know what they meant, it is often difficult to translate precise meanings from one culture (or an ancient culture) into another (or modern) culture.

For example, candles were invented in China in around 200 BC and were not known in biblical lands until about 400 AD[ii]—long after the books in the Bible were written. Despite the absence of candles in biblical antiquity, the Old and New Testaments refer to candles seventeen times. “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick,” we read in Matthew 5:15. In Zephaniah we find that the Hebrew word ner is translated as “candle” in the King James Version Bible. “And it shall come to pass at that time that I will search Jerusalem with candles…” (1:12). The New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV) translates ner as “lamps” and the New Living Translation Bible (NLT) as “lanterns.”

In a twenty-first century context, not one of these words is precisely correct. The ancient people of the Bible used oil lamps. For modern readers in the United States a “lamp” (NSRV) refers to what you might have on your night stand or in your living room. A “lantern” (NLT) would typically evoke an image of a camping lantern. Even in the early seventeenth century, when the King James Bible was translated, lamps and lanterns would have looked different than the oil lamps of biblical times.

In ancient days the oil lamp was little more than a shallow clay cup of oil with a wick. Even if the King James translators would have used “oil lamp” we wouldn’t get a fully accurate meaning of the original. As non-LDS Hebrew scholar Joel Hoffman explains:

“The word-level translation suggests that if ner means ‘oil lamp,’ then the only possible translation is ‘oil lamp.’ But here’s the problem. When the original text uses ner, the point is something readily at hand, a common object used by default to light up dark spaces (among other purposes). … on a concept level, all three translations [KJV, NSRV, & NLT] are better than oil lamp.’”[iii]

Biblical numbers frequently present problems for translators as well. Ancient societies often had many “round” numbers that were not literal but conveyed a concept. “I’ve told you a thousand times” doesn’t mean I’ve counted those thousand instances but rather that I’ve told you the same information on many repeated occasions. Modern Americans also utilize round numbers such as 5, 10, 100, or “a dozen.”[iv] If we want a dozen eggs or a dozen roses, we are talking about literal numbers. If we have “a dozen” reasons not to attend an opera we would be speaking figuratively compared to if we said we had “twelve” reasons not to attend.

Near Eastern ancient cultures didn’t know the concept of zero and were challenged when it came to multiplying large numbers. As a result, frequently used round numbers were the products of small numbers (such as two times three and three times four). Thus we find frequent round numbers such as 6, 10, 12, 40, and 70. These numbers do not always reflect accurate counts.

Much of the Bible is in symbolic language designed to poetically convey important moral concepts rather than to describe accurate history. The round numbers mentioned above, for example, often conveyed symbolic meanings. Four represented the created world: four winds, corners of the earth, seasons, directions, and types of living creatures. Seven and Twelve symbolized completeness. Forty and Seventy represented limited and comprehensive quantities of time and were also not to be taken literally in all circumstances.[v]

Understanding the problem faced by translators of ancient texts, we can more fully appreciate Article of Faith 8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly….” We may have a tendency to think this refers to how different Christian faiths interpret scriptural passages in different ways. Or we may believe the “translated correctly” refers to copy errors (both additions and deletions) that took place as the biblical texts were preserved through the years by different scribes. The problem of “translated correctly” also refers, however, to the fact that translating from one language (or culture) to another is bound to cause some ambiguities and misinterpretations. We have to be careful to understand ancient texts from within the context of the culture that produced the text.

But what about those scriptures revealed through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith? Surely God would give him accurate translations of those ancient texts? That will be the discussion of our next installment.

*This article also appears on Meridian Magazine.

[iii] Joel M. Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning (Macmillian, 2010, Kindle Edition), 84.

[iv] Ibid., 89.

[v] The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds., Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 1993), 563-564.

Greg Smith reviews John Pontius’ book ‘Visions of Glory’

by

Review of: John Pontius, Visions of Glory: One Man’s Astonishing Account of the Last Days (Springville UT: Cedar Fort, 2012). 268 pages. ISBN 978 1462111183.

Visions of Glory is written by John Pontius and recounts several visions and spiritual manifestations. Their recipient is an anonymous informant called “Spencer” in the book. It includes an account of visions of the spirit world, a series of vignettes of apocalyptic last-days scenarios, and describes Spencer’s foretold role in preparing the world for the second coming of Christ. It concludes with an appendix containing other visions which may provide parallels or points of comparison to Spencer’s claims.

The Saints should always be seeking for further light and knowledge. Experience has shown, however, that an anxious interest in such light and knowledge can lead to being deceived, misled, and manipulated if we are not sufficiently grounded in true principles relating to revelation and learning. Prior to teaching the endowment, Joseph Smith warned the Saints: “Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves.” Of this remark, Elder Dallin H. Oaks wrote:

By and large, Latter-day Saints observe this direction. They do not speak publicly of their most sacred experiences. They seldom mention miracles in bearing their testimonies, and they rarely preach from the pulpit about signs that the gospel is true. They usually affirm their testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel by asserting the conclusion, not by giving details on how it was obtained.

The purpose of this review is not to cast doubt on the sincerity of those who have believed these visionary accounts. It is important, however, to take note of several factors:

  1. Visions of Glory’s portrayal of Jesus Christ and His method of interacting with the Saints is not consistent with scripture.
  2. Visions of Glory teaches doctrines that contradict LDS scripture and prophets.
  3. Prophets and apostles have repeatedly taught that it is inappropriate for members to publicize such material without permission from the President of the Church.
  4. Spencer claims he will receive authority independent of the Church and its leaders.
  5. Anonymous accounts cannot be verified.

Readers of Visions of Glory may wish to compare LDS teachings and doctrines that differ from the book’s teachings.

Continue reading on the FAIR web site→

 

4th Watch 6: Presentism, Idiomsm, Homonyms and other Scams

by

Podcast: Download (23.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

hieroglyphics
Throughout the history of mankind we have endeavored to explain the world in which we live in through a variety of media.  Rather than pointing to something and saying ugh, ugh,  over time we invented language and the written word to communicate more effectively with each other.  In this podcast we will look at how the true meaning or original intent of a text can or has changed from generation to generation, and from an original source language to translations in other languages to express ideas, concepts, and principles. 
 

Balancing Secular and Faith-Based Scripture Study

by

Ash (newer) PictureAnyone who owns a pendulum powered clock—such as many grandfather or wall hanging clocks—knows that the regulation of the pendulum needs to be tweaked in order for the clock to keep accurate time. On the bottom of the pendulum is an adjusting nut that raises and lowers the “bob” (the disc-shaped weight that makes the pendulum swing from side to side).

If the bob is raised too high, the swing-angle of the pendulum will be too narrow and the clock will run too fast. If the bob is lowered too far, the swing-angle will be too wide and the clock will run too slowly. With a bit of experience, some tweaking, and another timepiece for comparison, the adjusting nut can correctly set the swing to ensure reasonably accurate time.

Our approach to the scriptures should also find a balance between how literally we accept what was recorded by past generations and how modern scholarship understands those past generation in light of history and science. Without balance, our spiritual growth may be stifled or our testimonies could even be put at potential risk.

 Rejecting the Secular

As noted in a previous installment, Latter-day Saints should not take an inerrantist view to the scriptures. We know that prophets are fallible men with divine callings and that scriptures contain mistakes. If we take a literalist view on everything that we read in the scriptures we set ourselves up for potential testimony damage if we come to realize that the best scholarship—both inside and outside of the Church—argues that a strictly literal reading is untenable.

Revealed religion has almost nothing to say about the physics of the world, and little about its history either. As Galileo said, quoting one of the pope’s cardinals, the scriptures “teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.”[i]

Science can tell us little or nothing about the meaning of life but speaks volumes about the physics and history of this planet and people. While we may assume that the scriptures speak on scientific issues this assumption is typically not warranted (with a few exceptions).

Most of our scriptures were written in pre-scientific times and incorporate not only the pre-critical assumptions of those who recorded the scriptures but sometimes include fanciful narratives to convey divine principals. Joseph Fielding Smith once wrote:

“Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. …

“The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his “yoke” upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. …”[ii]

“Despite divine inspiration,” notes LDS scholar Stephen Robinson, “the biblical text is not uninfluenced by human language and not immune to negative influences from its human environment, and there is no guarantee that the revelations given to ancient prophets have been perfectly preserved…. Thus, critical study of the Bible is warranted to help allow for, and suggest corrections of, human errors of formulation, transmission, translation, and interpretation of the ancient records.”[iii]

In my opinion, one of the most revealing scriptures for helping us understand how God communicates with His children is found in D&C 1:24:

“Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

I’ll discuss this point in greater depth later in this series, and will return to it repeatedly because of its importance. Whether Heavenly Father speaks to you or me, or to prophets, or to those who recorded or transmitted scripture, all humans are only able to understand those communications from within their own worldviews (our “language”) which would include vocabulary, culture, and even preconceived (perhaps even erroneous) ideas about science, the universe, physics, other people, and so on.

By applying the tools of scholarship and science to our scripture studies, we can better recognize how ancient peoples would have understood revelations in the context of their own particular worldviews.

Since the days of Joseph Smith, many leaders have suggested that our scripture study include not only prayer and personal reflection, but scholarly tools as well. Joseph, for instance, studied Hebrew and organized the School of the Prophets so he, and other Church leaders, could utilize the scholarship in his day to learn more about the ancient prophets.

LDS Apostle, Elder John A. Widtsoe likewise wrote:

“In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth… To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth….”[iv]

Rejecting the Literal

Relying solely on secular interpretations of scriptural events presents its own set of problems. A strictly secular approach would deny the Resurrection, miracles, and divine communication from on high. Science currently tells us that such things don’t happen. Claims of the miraculous—including healings, raising the dead, and the visitation from angels or long-deceased prophets, must be taken on faith.

Approaching the scriptures from a strictly secular perspective also takes a superficial approach to the purpose of scriptures.  While scholarship can more accurately tell us about the people who wrote the scriptures and how their stories would have been understood in ancient contexts, it cannot reveal the deeper meaning of those records—those verses that speak to our souls and impel us to change our hearts and desires to align with God.

“With minor exceptions,” notes Robinson, the Bible is “…not to be treated in an ultimately naturalistic manner. God’s participation is seen to be significant both in the events themselves and in the process of their being recorded. His activity is thus one of the effects to be reckoned with in interpreting the events and in understanding the texts that record them.”[v]

God had a purpose when He inspired biblical authors to record scripture and impelled dedicated followers to preserve the scriptures for future generations. Despite the fact that divinely revealed doctrine can be draped in a mantel of fallible human narrative and imperfect worldviews, the spiritual messages can nevertheless touch the souls of those who study the scriptures with the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

The scriptures not only act as a witness to God’s dealings with mankind, but they also testify to the divinity of the Savior and the reality of the Atonement. Elder David A. Bednar suggests three reasons why we should study the scriptures: Because of our covenants, because of our need for direction, and as a prerequisite for personal revelation.[vi]

Per the sacramental prayers, when we renew our covenants, we are asked to “always remember” Christ. We can facilitate this remembrance by studying the scriptures.

Elder Bednar notes that in Alma 37 we are taught that “personal prayer and scripture study provide direction in our lives just as the Liahona provided guidance to Lehi and his family in the wilderness.”

Lastly, and most importantly, scripture has the power to transform our hearts and minds so we can receive personal revelation. If we invite the Holy Ghost into our lives as we pray and study the scriptures, immersing ourselves in the scriptures helps open that conduit for personal communication with our Heavenly Father.

My personal approach to the scriptures is to find a balance between the secular approach and the faith-approach. A secular approach attempts to harmonize what scriptural records claim and what we know about history, physics, and the ancient world. It can not only shed light on our scripture study, but it can make sense of some scriptural references that do not accord with science, archaeology, or the historical record.

A faith-based approach to scriptures that accepts some literal interpretations of specific events (such as the Resurrection) brings meaning to my life, helps guide me, helps open the door to personal revelation and teaches me that some things must be taken on faith in spite of current scientific knowledge.

This balancing point will undoubtedly vary with each individual and may shift from time to time based on moments of secular or spiritual insight. Some readers may find my balancing point to be too liberal; perhaps for others, too conservative. In subsequent articles I will try to show how I arrive at my current position and how I find balance and enlightenment by harmonizing the two.

* This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Quoted in www.oratoriosanfilippo.org/galileo-baronio-english.pdf

[ii] Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 (SLC: Bookcraft, 1956): 188-190.

[iii] Stephen E. Robinson, “Bible Scholarship,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[iv] John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1930), 81-82,.

[v] Robinson, “Bible Scholarship.”

[vi] David A. Bednar, “Understanding the Importance of Scripture Study,”.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 147: Using Objects to Receive Revelation

by

Podcast: Download (9.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

What did it mean in the Book of Commandments to say that Oliver Cowdery had the gift of working with the “rod of nature.” What is the “gift of Aaron?” Are there other examples of physical objects being used to receive revelation? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on January 13, 2013, Martin Tanner responds to this question and discusses many of the anti-Mormon attacks. Further discussion of this topic can be found at the FAIR Wiki.

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.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 146: Science and Religion

by

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 14, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses our pursuit of truth and the way in which science and religion both help us in this pursuit.

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.

Science vs. Religion?

by

Ash Picture“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may,” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)

In order to approach the scriptures from a realistic perspective we need to take a side trip into the secular world of science and scholarship. Wise and informed Latter-day Saints recognize that truth is truth regardless the source. The very fact that Joseph Smith admonished his followers to receive truth from all sources acknowledges that not all truth comes through spiritual mediations. In reality, the majority of truth comes through secular sources (perhaps sparked—even if unconsciously—from divine inspiration).

Although religion can open our hearts to receive the most important truths, the percentage of truths we learn from religion is miniscule compared to the truths that are discovered by secular means. Without secular truths we wouldn’t have cars, medications, clothes, computers, or sports. We are privileged to live in a world where science has made tremendous leaps in our understanding of nature, history, medicine, and technology.

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

“Each of us,” said Elder Boyd K. Packer, “must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it, but requires it.”[i] The Lord has instructed us to “seek learning even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), and we are counseled to not only learn gospel principles, but secular theories in astronomy, history, geology, archaeology, and politics (v. 79).

Science, however, does not know everything and sometimes gets things wrong. In a way, I hate to make such claims and I’ll explain why below. It is a fact, however, that despite great advances in scientific acumen, we are a long way from knowing everything about the human body, the heavens, the earth, or our earthly co-inhabitants. I have the utmost respect for science and scholarship and have faith (no pun intended) that science will eventually arrive at all possible temporal truths. For the foreseeable future, however, there are many areas of science that reside in a state of flux, are hindered by un-resolvable variant interpretations, are un-knowable with current scientific tools.

Unfortunately, too many Latter-day Saints (as well as members of other religions) retreat into anti-science and anti-intellectual positions when they think that their doctrines (which are typically assumptions rather than doctrines) are challenged by science or secular scholarship. The claim that “science doesn’t know everything,” is the frequent leitmotif of those who are anti-science.

A related problem is the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy. Some claim that if science cannot explain a thing then the gap is filled by the workings of God (or is even proof of God). Isaac Newton, for example, recognized that there had to be some degree of gravitational interaction between Earth and Mars as they passed each other in their individual orbits. Newton believed that this interaction could be devastating to the solar system if not for God’s intervention. He was also unable to see any reason why most of the planets circled the Sun on a similar plane and in the same direction other than by divine decree. Since there appeared to be no scientific explanation for what he observed (a “gap” in the available knowledge) Newton attributed the actions to God.

The problem with such an approach is that these gaps are often closed with increased scientific knowledge. There is a difference between recognizing that science doesn’t have all the answers and claiming that where science is silent, we see proof of God.

There’s an interesting parallel to the God-of-the-Gaps problem in science, however. Since the general scientific paradigm is one that deals exclusively with what can be known empirically (there by excluding by default anything supernatural—and therefore God), all gaps in scientific knowledge are confidently seen as questions that can one day be answered by science (and not by religion).

While science is not infallible we need to be careful not to simply brush all conflicting information under the rug of “science-could-be-wrong.” Generally speaking the more established the scientific theories the more likely they are to be confirmed by various disciples of science—in a convergence of evidence—that not only depend on, but support the original theory.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. Some erroneous ideas or false assumptions take longer to fall than others, but with continued rigor the scientific community in general has demonstrated that mistakes, over-sights, and all other errors will eventually be replaced with superior, more adequate, and more accurate information.

It’s also important, however, to realize that “science” is not a single discipline that can be measured equally and with the same methods to check for accuracy and verisimilitude. There are “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences. Hard sciences are thenatural sciences and typically include fields like math, chemistry, and physics, whereas soft sciences are the social sciences such as psychology, history, archaeology, and anthropology.

As explained on Wikipedia: “The hard sciences are characterized as relying on quantifiable empirical data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.” The soft sciences are more prone to conclusions based on interpretation.

A related aspect of the hard versus soft distinction has to do with the ease of drawing strong conclusions. In soft sciences, there are often numerous variables that might have an influence on some variable of interest, and many of those variables either may be non-quantifiable or may be quantifiable but difficult to obtain data on; but further, even with plentiful data, it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of such a large number of variables. In contrast, typically in the hard sciences there are only a few, readily identified, causative variables, making it easier to infer specific causative effects.[ii]

With the exception of “miracles” and currently un-measureable issues such as the existence of God, nearly all Mormon-related issues with which skeptics have problems, have to do with the subjectively-interpretive soft sciences rather than hard sciences.

If truth is really truth, in the end all truths in our world must harmonize. LDS scientist Henry Eyring once wrote: “Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.”[iii]  When it comes to a conflict between what we have learned from religion and science we must step back and take a look at what the conflict is actually about. If the conflict is over core doctrines, science and scholarship can offer opinions, suggestions, and even evidence, but it cannot unseat true doctrines.

More often, however, science conflicts with our weak and often naive assumptions of history, scripture, or things which are peripheral to actual doctrines. When this happens, it is wise for us to reexamine our assumptions in light of scientific knowledge. If we do, we will generally find that we can embrace the secular scientific and scholarly teachings without abandoning the saving doctrines that have been confirmed by the Spirit.

*This article also appears in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Boyd K. Packer, “I Say Unto You, Be One” (BYU Devotional, 12 February 1991)(accessed 25 April 2013).

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science (accessed 18 December 2012).

[iii] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 145: Kinderhook Plates and Zelph

by

Podcast: Download (8.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

What were the Kinderhook Plates? Were they real or a forgery? Was Joseph Smith fooled by them? Who was Zelph? Do Joseph Smith’s comments regarding Zelph prove that the Book of Mormon events occurred in North America? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on December 9, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses these questions.

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. (Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.)

Mormon FAIR-Cast 144: Mormon Book Review–Shaken Faith Syndrome

by

Podcast: Download (25.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

10-1706-largeIn this episode of the Mormon Book Review, host Kirk Caudle talks to Mike Ash about the second edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome. They  talk about what it means to doubt, the declining lack of literacy, how to stay a member of the church, and what it might mean for one to leave faithfully.

This episode was originally posted at the Mormon Book Review on April 20, 2013 and is re-posted here by permission.

Shaken Faith Syndrome can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore. Tickets to the 2013 FAIR Conference can be purchased here.