FAIR

Blog

Joseph Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the Language of Translation

by

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.”

FAIR Has New Name/Shaken Faith Syndrome Updated.

by

Ash-newer-Picture2“There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.” (Neal A. Maxwell)

In 1997 a group of Latter-day Saints who frequented the Mormon message boards of America Online found that they were responding to the same LDS-critical arguments over and over. They decided to form a non-profit organization so they could share information and create a repository of responses. That organization was The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, or FAIR. In 1999 FAIR held their first conference in Ben Lomond California. A large percentage of the few who attended this first conference were the speakers themselves. Two weeks ago FAIR held their fifteenth annual conference in Provo, Utah, with about 400 attendees.

Through the years many people have questioned the meaning of the word “apologetics” in FAIR’s title. Why are Mormons apologizing? What are they apologizing for? The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek “apologia” and is used four times in the Greek New Testament. It means to “defend” one’s believe or faith. FAIR is not apologizing for anything, but rather defending LDS beliefs from critical attacks.

A lot of things have changed through the years in the FAIR organization. While the group was originally formed because of the combative nature of the message board atmosphere, FAIR eventually separated themselves from the contentious message board environment and focused on “educative apologetics.” As Gerald Bay once said, “You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief.”[i]

FAIR is focused on helping or educating members who struggle with challenging issues, or investigators who are searching for answers to anti-LDS accusations. While FAIR will always be an apologetics organization, the confusion over the word “apologetics” has prompted a more recent change in the FAIR title. It was announced at the 2013 FAIR Conference that FAIR will now be known as FairMormon with the tag line: Critical Questions, Faithful Answers.[ii] As Steven Densley (newly appointed Vice President of FairMormon) explains, “We have changed our name and are updating our websites in order to make them more easily accessible. The name has been simplified. Instead of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, it is now simply FairMormon. Hopefully this will be easier to remember and will allow us to spend more time doing apologetics rather than spending our time explaining what apologetics is. Our mission has not changed, but hopefully, with the name change and the changes with the websites, our organization will be more effective.”[iii]

We’re not going to argue someone back into the Church, but we can help inoculate members against LDS-critical arguments through better education, and—for those whose testimonies are faltering—we can set the record straight on false anti-LDS claims or offer logical alternative views which fit within a framework of belief. I’ve attempted to do both in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt.

It’s been 5 years since Shaken Faith Syndrome was first released. We ran out of copies at the end of last year—couldn’t even fill our Christmas order for Deseret Book. It was decided, since another printing was needed, that we would introduce a 2nd edition which would fix typos and mistakes as well as update and add material that had changed since 2008. The result is the 2nd edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome.

For those of you who already have Shaken Faith Syndrome 1, I want to quickly note some of the changes made in the 2nd edition (in addition to new front & back covers). First, I reshuffled several of the chapters and material from some of the chapters to create better flow and continuity. It has a vastly improved index making it tons easier to find what you are looking for. I added a fair amount of additional material. The page count for the first edition was 301 pages; the second edition is 358 pages and has a slightly smaller font to accommodate all the extra material without making the page count excessive. 15 of the 28 chapters (if we include the Foreword) has additional material—some chapters with more additional material than others.

Some of the additional material includes more info on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon geography, a section addressing geographical influences from Joseph Smith’s environment which are claimed to have impacted the Book of Mormon narrative. It also includes more information on Book of Mormon anachronisms, more discussion on cognitive dissonance and former Mormon exit narratives, brief reviews of the competing geographical models and the scriptures which seem to suggest that the United States fulfills some Nephite prophecies, and updated info on the DNA issue. I draw upon new information from Don Bradley’s 2011 FAIR presentation on my chapter regarding the Kinderhook Plates, and I’ve also added a new chapter on Race & the Church.

What the two books have in common are what they attempt to achieve and the fact that they are both divided into two major sections. Section 1 addresses the basic problems which create and foster doubt as well as the assumptions which can turn into stumbling blocks when faced with challenging issues. This first section (which constitutes approximately 1/3 of the new edition) tries to deal with the root of the problems that can cause Shaken Faith Syndrome. If members can grasp the principals expressed in Section 1 they should be apply those principals to any LDS-critical argument they might encounter. Section 2—relying on the material in Section 1—engages most of the more common LDS-critical accusations such as DNA, the Book of Abraham, Plural Marriage, the First Vision, Joseph Smith and treasure digging, Masonry & the Temple, and lots more.

There is a growing problem with members encountering information on the Internet that conflicts with what they thought they knew about Church history and Shaken Faith Syndrome attempts to put this information in a context of belief which demonstrates that, as the Lord told Joseph Smith in D&C 71:9, “there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.” Once we can put challenging issues in context, they no longer become stumbling blocks.

*This article also appeared in Meridian Magazine.

[i] Gerald Bray, “Man’s Righteousness and God’s Salvation,” Evangel, the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.

[iii] Personal communication, 9 August 2013.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 163: Anti-Mormon Methodology

by

Podcast: Download (8.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on June 2, 2013, Martin Tanner analyzes the methodology used by those who write anti-Mormon literature, and directs listeners to sources for answering attacks against the Church.

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.

4th Watch 10: Mormonism Investigated UK

by

Podcast: Download (31.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4th Watch
4th Watch

In the summer of 2013, the United Kingdom is playing host to the first official pageant of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outside of North America. In the USA, pageants are a big part of Latter-day Saint culture in the summer months, with annual events in Manti UT, Palmyra NY, and Nauvoo IL. These events commemorate important events from Church history and the scriptures, and attract audiences of thousands each year.

The British Pageant follows the same format, but with a focus on the history of the Church in the British Isles, and is written and performed by members from around the United Kingdom. Throughout their history, the British people have demonstrated their desire to do God’s will, requiring personal sacrifice and tremendous courage. This pageant will tell the story of Latter-day Saints who sacrificed much to build their faith and strengthen their communities. Through their abiding faith and deep love for one another, and for the Saviour, the Saints discovered their lives were full of the joy of the gospel. This they taught their children, who carried on a legacy of devotion to the principles of the restored Gospel. Today, families and youth in the British Isles know this joy and continue to take it to all the world. The pageant explores events surrounding the beginnings of the Church, and the impact of these events in the British Isles through the years.

This is a compilation response  to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, “Mormonism Investigated UK”, regarding the basic teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Bobby and Vickie Gilpin represent themselves as faithful Christians engaged in publishing a blog featuring what they claim to be the true teachings of the Mormons, as opposed to what is being taught by the LDS Church. They have been present at the pageant on a daily basis to promote their views, in much the same way as those who show up at temple dedications or at the semi-annual general conferences of the LDS Church held in Salt Lake City UT.

The doctrine of salvation is a common thread in the articles at this web site.  Brother Scarisbrick explains this core Christian doctrine in a way that clarifies what may appear on the surface to be a marked difference between non-LDS Christian teachings and the more nuanced teachings of salvation or degrees of glory within general salvation.   What we receive within the judgment of rewards (general salvation) is dependent, at least in part, on our works in this life.  This principle, along with the “Teachings of Presidents of the Church – Lorenzo Snow”, which also received attention at this web site, is discussed in this podcast.

The views expressed by the host of this podcast are his own and does not necessarily reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter – Day Saints or that of the FairMormon group.

The introductory piano music is provided by Paul Cardall and  is available for purchase  here .

 

 

Ancient Near Eastern Scimitars (Howlers # 19)

by

A Cimeter (more commonly spelled scimitar) is a sword  “having a curved blade with the edge on the convex side” or “something resembling a scimitar (as in sharpness or shape); esp: a long-handled billhook” (Webster’s Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 1993). Critics have long claimed that the scimitar was unknown before the rise of Islam and that references to this weapon in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic.

I might urge the utterance of ideas and the use of words which these ancient writers, if genuine, could not have known, as an argument against the authenticity of the book. Such as . . . . Cimeters.” John Hyde Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (1857), 234-35.

The book contains evidence of its modern origin . . . . The cimeter, a Turkish weapon, not known until after the time of Mohommed. Samuel Hawthornthwaite, Adventures Among the Mormons (1857), 69.

The use of the word `scimitar’ does not occur in other literature before the rise of Mohammedan power and apparently that peculiar weapon was not developed until long after the Christian era. It does not, therefore, appear likely that the Nephites or the Lamanites possessed either the weapon or the term. W. E. Riter to James E. Talmage, August 22, 1921.

Cimeters were curved swords used by the Persians, Arabs, and Turks, half a world away from America and appearing a thousand years too late in history to enter the picture. Gordon Fraser, Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates (1964), 58.

Scimitars are unknown until the rise of the Muslim faith (after 600 A. D.) James Spencer, The Disappointment of B.H. Roberts (1991), 4.

There are other anachronisms such as . . . cimeter, the latter presumably an Arabian scimitar that “did not originate before the rise of Islam” more than a millennium  after Lehi. Earl Wunderli, An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself (2013), 36.

We now know that scimitars of various forms were known in the Ancient Near East as early as 2000 B.C. (Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963, 1: 10-11, 78-79, 172, 204-207; William J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC.London and New York: Rutledge, 2006, 66-71, 279-80). They are subsequently portrayed in martial art from Mesopotamia and Egypt. Rare archaeological specimens of this weapon have also been found. The cutting edge was usually on the convex side, however some were double-edged such as the “curved sword sharpened on two sides” discovered at Shechem which dates to 1800 B.C. (“Arms and Weapons,” in Charles F. Pfeiffer, ed., The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. New York: Bonanza Books, 1966, 93). “Ancient representations show mostly the employment of the inner blade; that of the outer one is however also perhaps to be found. Preserved oriental scimitars have the blade outside” (G. Molin, “What is aKidon?” Journal of Semitic Studies 1/4 October 1956: 336).

In the biblical account of David’s confrontation with Goliath the Philistine champion is said to be well armored. In addition to his spear he had both ahereb sword with a sheath (1 Samuel 17:51) and a kidon which he carries between his shoulders (1 Samuel 17:6). The term kidon was once a mystery, but texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that it was some kind of sword and is now widely acknowledged to have been a scimitar (Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Scimitars, Cimeters! We have scimilars! Do we need another cimeter?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, 352-59. G. Molin, “What is a Kidon?” 334-37; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel. New York and Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1965, 1:242). When challenged in 1 Samuel 17:45 David responds to his opponent, “You come against me with a sword [hereb] and spear [hanit] and scimitar [kidon], but I come against you with the name of Yahweh Sabaoth, god of the ranks of Israel” (See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel. New York: Doubleday, 1980, 285). Interestingly, as Hoskisson observes, the biblical description in the Hebrew text parallels that in Alma 44:8 in which the Zoramite chieftain carries both a sword and a scimitar (Hoskisson, “Scimitars, Cimeters!” 355).

Ross Hassig has identified a curved weapon portrayed in Postclassic Mesoamerican art which he calls a “short sword”  (Ross Hassig,War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992, 112-13;  “Weaponry,” in Susan Toby Evans and David L. Webster, eds., Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 2001, 810-11; Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006, 23-24; “La Guerra en la Antigua Mesoamerica,” Arqueologia Mexicana 14/84 Marzo-Abril 2007: 36. See also Esperanza Elizabeth Jimenez Garcia, “Iconografia guerrera en la escultura de Tula, Hidalgo,” Arqueologia Mexicana 14/84 Marzo-Abril 2007: 54-59).

It was a curved weapon designed for slashing and consisted of a flat hard wooden base approximately 50 cm. (20 inches) long into which were set obsidian blades along both edges. “It was an excellent slasher and yet the forward curve of the sword retained some aspects of a crusher when used curved end forward” (Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica, 113). The lightness of the short sword enabled the soldier to carry more than one weapon. “Soldiers could now provide their own covering fire with atlatls while advancing and still engage in hand-to-hand combat with short swords once their closed with the enemy” (Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest, 23-24).

This weapon or something very similar may have been used until shortly before the arrival of the Spanish in some sectors of Mesoamerica. Huastec engravings on shell show “a sort of curved club, apparently of wood and with a cutting edge” which may have been a similar weapon (Guy Stresser-Pean, “Ancient Sources on the Huasteca,” in Handbook of Middle American Indians 11 1971, 595). Hassig reported that short swords are portrayed in the hands of warriors on a Aztec monument from the ceremonial center at Tenochtitlan and took this as evidence that the weapon was either “still in use or at least remembered as a functional weapon” at that time (Hassig, War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica, 248, note 8).  Reportedly among the weapons used by the ancestors of Guatemalan peoples were “certain scimitars they say were made of flint” (“Descripcion de la provincia de Zapotitlan y Suchitepequez,” Sociedad de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala, Anales 28 1955: 74).  Another tradition relates that the Pre-Columbian ancestral heroes of certain west Mexican tribes taught their people to make fire and “gave them also machetes or cutlasses of iron” (Robert H. Barlow, “Straw Hats,”Tlalocan 2/1 1945: 94). Interestingly, if credited, this may suggest that pieces of iron may have sometimes been used as scimitar or machete-like blades rather than obsidian. In any case, this weapon seems to be a reasonable candidate for the Book of Mormon scimitar (William J. Hamblin and A Brent Merrill first suggested this correlation in “Notes on the Cimeter (Scimitar) in the Book of Mormon,”Warfare in the Book of Mormon, 361. For a more detailed discussion see Matthew Roper, “Swords and `Cimeters’ in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 1999: 39-40, 41-43; Roper, “Mesoamerican `Cimeters’ in Book of Mormon times,”Insights: An Ancient Window 28/1 2008: 2-3).

* This is cross-posted from a two-part entry at Ether’s Cave here and here.

New Research on the Book of Abraham

by

Fascinating new research regarding the Book of Abraham has been published in the most recent edition of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. The two articles are by Egyptologists Kerry Muhlestein (PhD, UCLA) and John Gee (PhD, Yale).  [Read more…] about New Research on the Book of Abraham

FAIR Examination 9: Joseph Smith’s Polygamy-Responding to the Tough Questions

by

Podcast: Download (35.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

hales

When people first learn that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, many jump to the conclusion that this is another example of someone who used religion for power and sex. In this podcast interview with Dr. Brian Hales, author of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Dr. Greg Smith asks Dr. Hales some of the most difficult questions that are ever posed regarding polygamy. Smith asks, what do we know about why plural marriage was instituted? What did Emma know, and when did she know it? What was her reaction to plural marriage? How can we begin to understand polyandry, or instances in which Joseph married women who were married to other men? Is it possible that polyandrous marriages were not consummated? Even though there’s no good evidence for consummation of polyandrous relationships, what do we know about sexuality in the other marriages to single women? How can we begin to understand why Joseph married several women who were under the age of eighteen, including two brides that were likely 14 years old? Did Joseph send men on missions to “steal their wives” or marry them? Did Joseph threaten or manipulate women into being married to him? Could and did women refuse him? What were the consequences of doing so?

In addition to his three-volume work entitled Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Dr. Brian C. Hales is the author of Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism and also Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto, which received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. In addition he co-authored the 1992 publication The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy: An LDS Perspective, and is webmaster of mormonfundamentalism.com. Brian works as an anesthesiologist at the Davis Hospital and Medical Center in Layton, Utah, where he serves as Secretary of the Medical Staff. He also served as President of the Davis County Medical Society in 2009.

An active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dr. Hales has fulfilled many Church callings and is a former full-time missionary. He has presented at the Mormon History Association meetings, Sunstone Symposiums, and the John Whitmer Historical Association meetings on polygamy-related topics. His articles have also been published in Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and the Journal of Mormon History. In addition to his historical works, Brian has authored three books on doctrinal themes entitled The Veil  (Cedar Fort, 2000), Trials (Cedar Fort, 2002), and Light (Cedar Fort, 2004).

Dr. Hales has a website on Joseph’s plural marriages here. His material on Mormon “Fundamentalism” is available here.

gsmith

Dr. Greg Smith studied physiology and English at the University of Alberta. After medical school, he did his medical residency in Montréal, Québec, learning all the medical vocabulary and all the French Canadian slang that he didn’t learn during his LDS mission to Paris, France. He is now an old-style country doctor in rural Alberta with interests in internal medicine and psychiatry. A clinical preceptor for residents and medical students, he has been repeatedly honored for excellence in clinical teaching.

A member of FAIR since 2005, Greg helps manage the FAIR wiki. Due to his research interest in plural marriage, he has spoken to the Miller-Eccles study group and been published in the FARMS Review on this and other topics. With twelve years of classical piano training, he is a life-long audiophile and owns far too many MP3 files. He lives happily with his one indulgent wife, three children, and four cats.

The talk about Dr. Smith’s own experience is available at: Gregory L. Smith, “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Plural Marriage (*But Were Afraid to Ask),” FAIR Conference presentation (7 August 2009). The audio version of this presentation can be heard here. You can also hear an interview with Dr. Smith at FAIR Podcast, Episode 1: Gregory L. Smith.

Additional materials from the FairMormon wiki and elsewhere are provided below, as well as cross-references to Hales’ books for readers who wish to study his evidence in more detail.

  • Regarding the types of evidence that exist for studying Joseph’s plural marriages: See Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:6–21.
  • On fiction written about the Mormons rather than history or even journalism: See Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:23, 27–29
  • Regarding Joseph’s behavior and character:
  • On the Introduction of eternal marriage
  •  On Fanny Alger and Willaim McLellin
  • Regarding the reports of Joseph telling people about an angel commanding him to implement plural marriage.
  • On Polyandry
    • A YouTube presentation by Dr. Hales at a recent FAIR conference can be found here, with a transcript here.
    • FairMormon wiki articles can be found here and here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 1, 303–474.
  • On the case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon.
  • Regarding other marriages to single women?
    • See Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 1, 277–302.
    • A more dated analysis is also available in Smith, “George D. Smith’s Nauvoo Polygamy,” 108–112.
  • Regarding children
    • See the FairMormon Wiki article here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 1, 277–302.
  • With respect to marriages to young women
    • See the FairMormon Wiki article here and here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:286–300, and Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith, “The Age Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context,” in Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster eds., The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Independence, John Whitmer Books Press 2010), 152–183. Keller also explores some of the data discussed in this article on-line here and here.
  • A summary of the Temple Lot case, with citations from Hales’ volume is available here. See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:404–407.
  • With respect to whether Joseph sent men on missions to marry their wives
    • See the FairMormon Wiki articles here and here.
    • Marriage to Orson Hyde’s wife is discussed here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 313–315, 515–594.
  • Did Joseph threaten or manipulate women into being married to him? Could and did women refuse him? What were the consequences of doing so?
    • See the FairMormon Wiki articles here and here.
    • On Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt, see here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:274–275; 2:31, 115, 120–121.
  • With respect to Emma’s reaction to plural marriage
    • See the FairMormon Wiki article here.
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 2, 33–138.
  • Regarding the unique dilemma in which Emma was placed by plural marriage
    • See the FairMormon Wiki entry here
    • See also Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy Vol. 2, 113–138.
  • For views on why was plural marriage instituted

The opinions expressed in this podcast and in the referenced books, presentations, podcasts and articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FairMormon.

A Book of Abraham Bullseye

by

Middle Bronze Age autobiographies from Syria are, in the words of A. L. Oppenheim, “without parallel in texts of this type from Mesopotamia and Egypt.” They are very distinct in form and features. They also differ considerably from the same kinds of texts from the same area from a later date. As it turns out, however, those distinct features appear in the Book of Abraham which depicts Abraham as coming from Middle Bronze Age Syria.

I explore the connections in an article, which just appeared on Friday. The article is:

John Gee, “Abraham and Idrimi,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/1 (2013): 34-39.

I do not know that it has appeared in electronic form, but it has appeared in print. (Interested parties can find the reference for the Oppenheim quote in the article.)

So here is the problem. The Book of Abraham was published by Joseph Smith in 1842. The first Middle Bronze Age Syrian autobiography was published in 1949. If Joseph Smith had made up the Book of Abraham, he would have had to compose an autobiography set in a certain time and place and use the correct literary features and publish it a hundred years before anyone else would publish one from an archaeological dig. The process by which he may or may not have done it is simply irrelevant. None of the proposed processes can account for the literary parallels.

*This was cross-posted from Forn Spoll Fira.

Recap of the 2013 FAIR Conference

by

The 2013 FAIR Conference came to a close on Friday, August 2nd.

We were very pleased to hear fourteen presentations on a variety of topics, including Book of Mormon geography, the role of women in the Church, and the stories of those who have been challenged by doubt and those who left the Church and have returned.

Blair Hodges of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU attended most of the sessions and wrote recaps of the presentations. (He types quickly!) Although his comments do not always reflect exactly what was said at the conference, we’re grateful for his attendance and coverage, and we encourage all to review the written remarks when made available:

Blair’s notes from Thursday, August 1st

Blair’s notes from Friday, August 2nd

We set a new record for attendance this year (425 tickets issued, up from 402 last year), and we received very positive feedback from the conference attendees on our move to the Utah Valley Convention Center.

Several announcements were made at the conference, including:

FAIR is going through an extensive rebranding process. Beginning soon, we will be known as FairMormon, and our two current web sites (fairlds.org and fairmormon.org) will be rolled into a single site with a consistent look and feel.

FairMormon logo

Daniel C. Peterson announced the upcoming roll-out of The World Table, a new social platform that will allow individuals of different faiths to interact with mutual respect. The site is not active yet, but you can sign up to be notified when it’s open by visiting theworldtable.org.

The World Table logo

Hales Swift and Neal Rappleye were given the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award for their excellent work on the Scripture Study Aids. Outgoing vice president Allen Wyatt was recognized for his many years of service to FAIR, and Steve Densley, Jr. was named as the new vice president.

We’re grateful for all who attended this year, and especially for those who supported FAIR though generous donations and purchases at the conference bookstore. We’d also like to thank our sponsors who helped make this conference possible:

Bonneville Communications

Deseret Book

BYU Studies

The Interpreter Foundation

Mormon History Association

LDSAgents.com

Roger Nicholson

Brant & Valerie Gardner

Farr’s Jewelry & Electronics

The next FAIR Conference will be held on August 7 & 8, 2014. Mark your calendars—we look forward to seeing you next year!

Please join us for the FAIR Conference tomorrow!

by

Although you can no longer buy tickets online, they may be purchased at the door for $64.95 for the full conference (both days) or $39.95 for a single day. (Lunch will not be included.)

If you can’t make it in person, we have video streaming available for $25. Watch it on your Roku box, your PC or Mac, or your tablet. At least a 1.5 Mbps connection will be needed for smooth streaming. And if you can’t actually watch during the conference, a video archive will be available for later viewing as part of your streaming purchase.

Either way, we hope you’ll join us!

Filed Under: Uncategorized