FAIR

Blog

Apostles and Apologetics: Doers of the Word

by

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.

The Atonement and the Prodigal Son

by

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.

Shaken Faith Syndrome at Costco for a Limited Time!

by

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.

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.