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

FAIR

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

evidence

The Book of Abraham and Continuing Scholarship: Ask the Right Questions and Keep Looking

August 21, 2012 by Stephen Smoot

The Book of Abraham continues to be a hotly debated book. Critics of and apologists for the Book of Abraham continue to sound forth their judgments on the fraudulence or authenticity of this controversial scriptural work. There does not seem to be any end in sight for this controversy. With the survival of some of Joseph Smith’s Egyptian papyri – ostensibly the source of the Book of Abraham – critics have, in the words of Hugh Nibley, been “endlessly dinning into the ears of the public that what was written on that small and battered strip of papyrus prove[s] beyond a doubt that Joseph Smith [is] a fraud because he thought it contained the Book of Abraham, whereas it contains nothing of the sort.”[1] The most recent salvo aimed at thrashing Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these documents comes in the form of a respected Egyptologist publishing his highly critical material with a press known for being, at times, extremely hostile towards Mormon orthodoxy. This Egyptologist’s conclusion? “Except for those willfully blind… the case is closed.”[2]

That seems to be it for the poor Mormons.

Well, maybe not.

[Read more…] about The Book of Abraham and Continuing Scholarship: Ask the Right Questions and Keep Looking

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book of Abraham, LDS Scriptures, Science Tagged With: Book of Abraham, criticisms, critics, evidence, Joseph Smith Papyri

The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Archaeology Question

November 2, 2011 by Stephen Smoot

The authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been repeatedly assailed by critics of the LDS Church on the grounds that is lacks any confirmatory archaeological evidence that supports its claimed historicity as an ancient record. Countless books, articles, DVDs and internet websites have ceaselessly repeated the following cacophonous refrain:
[Read more…] about The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Archaeology Question

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, Apologetics, Book of Mormon Tagged With: anti-Mormon, archaeology, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, evidence

The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians

Start Here

Question
Did early Christians practice temple ordinances like those in ancient Israel?

Short Answer
There is strong evidence that early Christians preserved temple-related ideas and practices, including themes of priesthood, kingship, washing, anointing, and sacred clothing. While scholars debate how literal or symbolic these practices were, early Christian texts and liturgies show clear continuity with ancient Israelite temple traditions. This suggests temple concepts remained meaningful after Christ’s Atonement rather than becoming obsolete.
Key Takeaways
  • The book of Revelation describes a heavenly temple still in operation after Christ’s Atonement
  • Early Christians are described as becoming “kings and priests unto God”
  • Ancient temple elements—washing, anointing, clothing, and new names—appear in early Christian rites
  • Early Christian liturgies include temple language like altar, veil, and Holy of Holies
  • Some evidence suggests these practices were ritual and experiential, not just symbolic
  • This challenges the claim that temple worship ended with Christ
Question
Did Joseph Smith copy LDS temple ceremonies from Freemasonry?

Short Answer
Joseph Smith was familiar with Freemasonry, but historical and textual evidence suggests LDS temple teachings are rooted in much older biblical and early Christian traditions. Similarities in symbols or structure do exist, but many core elements—such as priesthood roles, sacred clothing, washing, anointing, and ascent into God’s presence—appear in ancient Israelite temples and early Christian practices long before Freemasonry. Most scholars see the relationship as shared symbolism or adaptation, not simple copying.
Key Takeaways
  • Freemasonry itself draws on biblical temple imagery and symbolism
  • Ancient sources describe washing, anointing, sacred clothing, and new names
  • Early Christians practiced initiation rites with temple-like patterns
  • The book of Revelation presents believers as kings and priests in a temple setting
  • Similar forms do not necessarily mean the same origin or meaning
  • The deeper structure of temple worship predates both Freemasonry and Joseph Smith

Summary

Summary

This talk argues that temple theology did not disappear after the Atonement of Jesus Christ but continued in both belief and practice among early Christians. By drawing extensive parallels between the book of Revelation and the Israelite temple, the speaker shows that early Saints understood themselves as participating in a heavenly temple system involving priesthood, kingship, and sacred ordinances.

The presentation further supports this claim by examining early Christian initiation texts and liturgical practices, demonstrating striking similarities to ancient Israelite temple rites—such as washing, anointing, investiture, new names, and covenant-making. These patterns suggest that early Christians may have understood temple-related concepts not merely symbolically, but as part of lived religious experience, reinforcing continuity between ancient and later Christian worship.

TL;DR

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Early Christians didn’t abandon temple ideas after Christ’s Atonement—they preserved and practiced them.

The book of Revelation and early Christian rituals show strong parallels to Israelite temple ordinances like washing, anointing, and priesthood roles.

This challenges the claim that temple worship was obsolete in early Christianity.

The Tabernacle and Temple in Ancient Israel

The book of Exodus informs us that during the days of the prophet Moses, the Lord commanded the Israelites to build a portable temple called the Tabernacle. The Lord provided Moses with the design for this building. He also indicated what kind of clothing would be worn by those persons who officiated there and what type of ritual activities would take place within its precincts. This structure was notable for its connection with the initiation ceremonies of the Israelite priests.

When the Covenant People finally settled in their homeland, the Lord commanded that a larger, permanent temple be built after the same pattern as the Tabernacle. This building was constructed by king Solomon after extensive preparations had been made by king David. In this temple, the priests of Israel continued to be initiated into their office, but this was also a house wherein kings experienced ordinances that were connected with their enthronement.

The temple institution continued to have a central place among the descendants of the patriarch Jacob up through the earthly sojourn of the Messiah and for several decades thereafter—until the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.

Addressing Common Christian Objections

Christians who reject the idea that a temple has any relevance to the modern disciples of the Savior usually argue the following two points:

  1. The Atonement of Jesus Christ made Israelite temple worship obsolete, and
  2. Temple ceremonies were never part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In this paper, I would like to weigh these two claims in the balance against the historical and biblical records and see if they hold up under scrutiny.

In the process of doing so, I will present what I believe to be a new—and hopefully insightful—approach to this issue. Critics have charged that the Israelite temple institution became obsolete for the contemporary followers of Jesus Christ, but the texts of the New Testament do not seem to support this contention.

The Savior Himself did not reject the temple. Shortly before His death on Calvary, He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem—indicating that He viewed it not only as His Father’s house but also as a

place that needed to retain its state of sanctity (see Matt 21:12–13).

Jesus and His Disciples in the Temple

In the book of Mark, chapter 14, verse 49, the Redeemer stated that He taught in the temple on a daily basis. And His disciples followed suit. According to the book of Acts, “all that believed” (which suggests the entire community of Christians in the Jerusalem area—amounting to several thousand people) “continu[ed] daily with one accord in the temple” (2:41, 44, 46).

In addition, the book of Acts indicates that Christ’s apostles were commanded by an angel to teach in the temple, and they obeyed this directive daily (see 5:19–21, 42). It should be pointed out that the apostles of Jesus Christ did not leave the temple behind; they were forcibly removed from its premises.

Peter and John were there during the hour of prayer (see Acts 3:1) and were kicked out by “the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees” (Acts 4:1–3). The apostle Paul was shown the door by a group of Jews from Asia (see Acts 21:27–30).

Early Christians and Temple Worship

It should be noted that before Paul was taken away, he had submitted himself to rituals of purification (v. 26), thus demonstrating that even a leader of the Christian faith had no aversion to participating in some of the Israelite temple ordinances. It should also be noted that in Acts 22:17–18, Paul is described as offering prayer in the temple, and while doing so, he had a vision of the resurrected Lord and was given instructions by Him about building up His kingdom.

In all of this, it can be seen that the first-century disciples of Jesus Christ attended the temple often, experienced purification rites there, prayed there, taught there, and received revelation from the resurrected Lord there. Notice that all of these things happened AFTER the tearing of the temple veil, which occurred during the crucifixion.

It is obvious that the destruction of that particular curtain did not signal to the first-century Christians that the temple had become obsolete and should therefore be abandoned.

Priesthood Before the Law of Moses

Another argument made by critics is that since Moses built the Tabernacle, and the rituals of priestly initiation were practiced inside the Tabernacle, they must have been classified as part of the Law of Moses. Therefore, when the Atonement abolished the Law of Moses, the initiation rites of the priests became obsolete—or so the argument goes.

But as anyone who reads the Old Testament should know, the office of priest, as recognized by God, predated the Law of Moses—and so did the office of king. Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (see Gen. 14:18), and, as indicated in the Psalm 110 coronation text, the king of Israel was (by divine decree) a priest after the order—not of Aaron and the Law of Moses—but of Melchizedek (see v. 4).

Because the offices of king and priest existed prior to the Law of Moses, there was no reason for their abolishment after the Atonement had eliminated the old law.

The Temple in the Book of Revelation

There is another New Testament text showing that there was a definite link between the first-century Christians and the temple institution: this is the book of Revelation. In this scriptural record, the apostle John described the heavenly temple of God in considerable detail, but this fact might not be obvious unless one looks at the big literary picture.

The Heavenly Temple and Its Earthly Pattern

Consider the parallels—shown on this slide—between objects described in the book of Revelation and the description of the Tabernacle in the book of Exodus. When Moses was commanded to build the Tabernacle on the earth, he was reminded to construct it according to the pattern that he had been shown by the Lord (see Ex. 25:40).

It is evident from this directive, and also the parallels on this slide, that the heavenly temple of God served as the prototype for His earthly sanctuary. The first-century Christians were not very likely to consider temple ideology to be obsolete since—as the apostle John saw during his vision—God’s throne was still located inside of His heavenly temple after the Atonement had taken place (see Rev. 7:15).

But beyond that, the text of Revelation chapter 6, verses 9 through 11, needs to be taken into consideration. There it is indicated that some people who once dwelt upon the earth had ascended to the heavenly temple and were invested there with white clothing: the message being that Christians—even after the Atonement of Jesus Christ had been accomplished—could experience the rite of investiture in the temple of God.

The New Jerusalem as a Holy Sanctuary

Critics are quick to point out that in Revelation chapter 21, verse 22, John said that he did not see a temple inside of the city of the heavenly New Jerusalem (see Rev. 21:22), and they conclude from this statement that the temple had become outdated in the eternal scheme of things.

But what the critics have failed to recognize is the fact that while John declared that “there will be no temple in the New Jerusalem (21:22), the city itself is, as it were, a vast sanctuary”—this, according to George Beasley-Murray in his commentary on the book of Revelation. 1

And beyond this, it needs to be recognized that this city is fashioned after the cubic pattern of the Holy of Holies of the earthly temple (see Rev. 21:16; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:20). Anyone who enters into this city will thus be entering into the most holy place of God’s temple.

Kings and Priests in Early Christianity

While all the above information tends to support the idea that the first-century Christians held a positive outlook on temple ideology, the question naturally arises about whether or not those early Saints had a connection to the Israelite temple’s initiation system (which is not necessarily the same thing as the temple’s sacrificial system—though there was some overlap).

Again, the book of Revelation provides relevant information. In chapter 1 of that apocalypse, the apostle John directs his comments to numerous individuals who constitute “the seven churches which are in Asia” and mentions that Jesus Christ has “made us kings and priests unto God” (Rev. 1:5–6).

Then in chapter 5 of the same book, the twenty-four elders who surround God’s throne in the heavenly temple (as pictured on this slide) declare that the Lamb—meaning Jesus Christ—had “made” them “kings and priests” unto God (v. 10).

Sacred Vestments and Temple Symbolism

This same group of twenty-four elders (who likely represent the twenty-four courses of ancient Israel’s temple priests—see 1 Chron. 24:1–19) are said elsewhere in John’s book to be “clothed in white raiment” and having “crowns of gold” upon their heads (Rev. 4:4).

A glance through the books of the Old Testament confirms that the temple priests of ancient Israel and the Israelite kings wore white linen vestments and were adorned with golden crowns (see Ex. 39:30; Lev. 16:4; Ps. 21:3; 1 Chron. 15:27).

But the question still remains about the nature of Christian kingship and priesthood during this time period and how status in these offices was bestowed. Were they simply symbolic, spiritualized, and allegorical titles, or did the New Testament Saints physically experience initiation rites like the kings and priests did during the times of Moses and Solomon?

The Pattern of Twelve Promises

I would now like to draw your attention to a distinct pattern in the book of Revelation which suggests that the offices of ‘king and priest’ were not simply bestowed upon the first-century Christians by verbal decree. This pattern is found among twelve statements made by Deity regarding those mortals who overcome the world.

Let us briefly examine each of these twelve statements in the order of their appearance in John’s apocalypse and make comparisons between them and the initiation rites of ancient Israel’s kings and priests. Notice also, as we go through these slides, the number of connections between the promises enunciated by the Lord and the physical objects found inside of the Israelite temple complex.

Promise #1: The Tree of Life

#1. Eat of the tree of life in Paradise (Rev. 2:7)

New Testament scholar David Aune of Notre Dame University explains in his book of Revelation commentary that this is a promise that the godly and the righteous will *“inherit the garden of Eden.”*2

Notice in the book of Revelation that the tree of life and the water of life are located inside of the New Jerusalem/Holy of Holies cube (see Rev. 22:1–2). In addition, it is said in John’s record that there will be
No more curse there (see Rev. 22:3) and
No more death or sorrow there (see Rev. 21:4) and
The inhabitants of the New Jerusalem/Holy of Holies will act as servants (see Rev. 22:3).

Eden, Kingship, and the Temple

These are all motifs from the story of mankind’s primeval parents as recorded in the book of Genesis (see Gen. 2:9–10, 15, 17; 3:16–17). The message in all of this is that those people who are allowed access to the Holy of Holies city will become like Adam and Eve and experience the things that they did before the Fall.

There is also a connection between these ideas and the enthronement rites of the Israelite king. In the book of Genesis, it is stated that God created Adam and “put” him into the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:7–8).

In Psalm 2—which is recognized by many biblical scholars as a coronation text—the Lord states that He has “set” the Israelite king upon the “holy hill of Zion” or the temple mount (Ps. 2:6). A book entitled Adam in Myth and History draws attention to this parallel and makes the connection between kingship and the Adam figure.3

This connection becomes more significant when it is remembered that the Israelite temple was decorated with symbols of the Garden of Eden.4

Promise #2: Protection from the Second Death

#2. Not hurt by the Second Death (Rev. 2:11)

The Rabbinic expression “second death” describes the type of death that will be suffered by the wicked in Sheol.5 Revelation chapter 20, verse 6, clarifies that kings and priests of God will not be affected by the second death.

Professor Gregory Beale of Wheaton College has written in the New International Greek Testament Commentary that it is the priestly and kingly status of persons that gives them power over the second death because such people will be able to *“serve in the presence of God.”*6

The idea of serving in God’s presence is significant to this discussion because Revelation chapter 22 reveals that God will be physically present inside of the New Jerusalem/Holy of Holies (see vv. 3–4), but it also says that those people who qualify for the second death cannot enter through the gates of the New Jerusalem/Holy of Holies (see vv. 14–15) or, in other words, they will not be able to pass by the angels who stand guard at the gates of that structure—as can be seen in Revelation chapter 21, verse 12.

Temple Gates, Guardians, and Sacred Entry

This circumstance was mirrored by the cherubim which were embroidered upon the temple veil that was stationed at the entrance to the Holy of Holies of the earthly temple (see Ex. 26:31–33) and also by the priestly porters who stood at the temple entrances (see 1 Chron. 9:17–27).

Some Old Testament scholars are of the opinion that in order for someone to get past the temple porters they had to participate in an entrance liturgy where questions and answers were exchanged and a password was given.7

This brings us to the picture of the bells on this slide. These devices were attached to the bottom of the robe that was given to the high priest of the temple when he received his initiation rites. It appears that the bells on the high priest’s robe served as a way whereby he could gain entrance into certain temple areas.

Ritual Preparation and Access to God’s Presence

You will notice in the scriptures listed below these bells that they were necessary for the high priest to have on his person so that he would not suffer death when he went “within the veil.” In Richard Watson’s Biblical and Theological Dictionary, he tells us that *“the palace of kings was not to be entered without due notice, [and this was done] by striking some sonorous [or sound-producing object] . . . [T]he High Priest did, by the sound of his bells at the bottom of his robe, ask leave to enter [the sanctuary of God].”*8

On this next slide, you can see that both the kings and the priests of Israel went through a washing rite as part of their induction into office. At the bottom of this slide is a passage from the book of Exodus wherein the Lord states that His temple priests were required to ritually wash certain parts of their bodies with water before serving inside of His holy house. Failure to do so could result in the offender suffering death.

Promise #3: The Hidden Manna

#3. Eat of the hidden manna (Rev. 2:17)

It is known from the texts of both the Old and New Testaments that a portion of the manna that fed the Israelites during Moses’ day was concealed inside of the Ark of the Covenant, which was itself placed inside of the Holy of Holies (see Ex. 16:15, 33–34; Heb. 9:4). Because of the inaccessibility of this manna—except to the high priest of the temple—it could be thought of as being ‘hidden’ away.

There was a Jewish tradition that during the Messianic era the manna (or “bread” as Moses called it—see Ex. 16:15) would once again descend and nourish God’s covenant people.9 During Jesus Christ’s Messianic ministry, He positively identified Himself as the “bread of life” (Jn. 6:51).

Manna, Kingship, and Divine Nourishment

George Widengren, in his study called The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, hypothesized from his knowledge of Mesopotamian cultic patterns that the pot of manna in the Israelite temple was part of the regalia handed over to the king of Israel during his coronation ceremony.10

While there is no reference to ‘manna’ in the coronation Psalms, there is a comparable reference to nourishment in Psalm 110:7 where it is said of the king that he will “drink of the brook.” This is likely the Gihon brook, which was considered mythologically to be the source of life.11

This act of drinking could thus be seen as partaking of the water of life—which is something those in the New Jerusalem/Holy of Holies will reportedly do (see Rev. 21:6; 22:1; cf. Ezek. 47:1).

Promise #4: Receiving a New Name

#4. Receive a new name (Rev. 2:17)

The new name is a subject that is directly connected with royal accession. “When [the Israelite king] is crowned and receives the scepter,” says the Anchor Bible Dictionary, *“he receives a new name.”*12

An article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature says, “The indications are that . . . the bestowal of a regnal name [or throne name], was a regular feature of the pattern of kingship in Judah from [the time of] David down to [the time of] Zedekiah.” This source also states that “the occasion of the bestowal of the royal name was doubtless the time of the anointing and enthronement; the utterance of the new name would naturally accompany the divine adoption” (—a subject that will be mentioned later on in this presentation).13

Jacob, Divine Encounter, and Identity

On this slide, you see an illustration of the story in Genesis where the patriarch Jacob ‘wrestles’ with a so-called ‘angel.’ Yet, in this sculpture, the two seem to be embracing rather than wrestling. Indeed, one medieval rabbi’s commentary on the Torah insists that Jacob’s experience with the heavenly being should be translated in Genesis as, *“and he embraced him.”*14

It was in this embrace that Jacob received a new name (see Gen. 32:24, 27–28).

Sacred Embrace and Divine Relationship

In Louis Ginzberg’s collection of The Legends of the Jews, it is reported that the two cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant were both male in gender, and they would miraculously embrace each other “whenever Israel [was] devoted to their Lord.” An embrace was thus associated with the Holy of Holies of the Israelite temple.15

As Dr. Raphael Patai has noted in one of his published volumes, the cherubim were at one time refashioned as a male and female couple and were shown in an intimate embrace. But the meaning of the imagery associated with them remained the same as before; they were a *“symbolic expression of the relationship between God and Israel.”*16

As an aside, it might be mentioned that early Christian initiation embraces were reported by Hippolytus, Cyril, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Narsai. This represents a time span of about 150 A.D. to 450 A.D. and covers a geographic area from North Africa to Jerusalem to Syria to Italy to Constantinople.

Promise #5: Power Over the Nations

#5. Power Over the nations (Rev. 2:26–27)

This is a passage that has direct connections to the royal coronation texts of the Old Testament. These verses in the book of Revelation are, in fact, *“a free rendering of Psalm 2:8–9.”*17

This becomes clear when the two blocks of words are placed side by side and key phrases are highlighted—as on this slide. Here, recognized kingship coronation motifs are being applied directly to the first-century followers of Jesus Christ.

Promise #6: The Morning Star

#6. Reception of the Morning Star (Rev. 2:28)

The morning star is actually not a star at all but rather the planet Venus. During Babylonian times, “Venus was the symbol of sovereignty. In Roman times it was more specifically the symbol of victory and sovereignty, for which reason . . . Caesar’s legions carried her sign on their standards.”

It therefore appears—in connection with what was discussed in the previous slide—that *“the morning star was the sign of conquest and rule over the nations.”*18 It should also be remembered that *“the star was a familiar symbol in Jewish writings for the expected Davidic king.”*19

The magi of the New Testament stated that they had seen the star of the king of the Jews in the east (see Mt. 2:2). All of this is likely tied together with Revelation 22:16, where Jesus Christ calls Himself the “morning star.”

Kingship, Birth, and the Morning Motif

The second scriptural reference on this slide shows that in the Septuagint version of Psalm 110:3—which is a royal coronation text—the “morning star” is mentioned. In the King James translation of Psalm 110:3, however, only the concept of “morning” is discernable.

In a coronation context, the morning would be the time of the king’s new birth as a member of God’s family—which will be discussed in a later section of this presentation.

Promise #7: Clothed in White Raiment

#7. Clothed in white raiment (Rev. 3:5)

According to Robert Thomas’ commentary on the New Testament apocalypse,

“the source of [this] image is . . . Zechariah 3:1–10 where the filthy garments of Joshua the high priest [of the temple] are replaced with clean ones.” He says that “overcomers are [thus] linked to the priesthood and priestly functions through this promise” in the book of Revelation. 20

It is well-known that the temple priests of ancient Israel were invested with white clothing when they were initiated into office (see Ex. 28:4), but it appears from 1 Chronicles 15:27 that the king of Israel also received clothing of this nature.

Sacred Vestments and Coronation

And it seems from a modern scholarly rendition of Psalm 110 that the king’s acquisition of this apparel took place on the day of his enthronement. William Brown of the Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, translates verse 3 of this recognized coronation text as saying, “In holy splendor,” and he notes that the feminine cognate of the word ‘splendor’ can refer to cultic vestments. 21

Indeed, one modern Bible translates these words as “in holy garments” (ESV), and another says “you will wear the sacred robes” (CEV).

Promise #8: The Book of Life

#8. Name not blotted from the Book of Life (Rev. 3:5)

One commentator on this passage says that the Book of Life is frequently referred to in ancient Israelite and Jewish literature “as a kind of heavenly citizen registry.”

In addition, he teaches that “in Judaism and early Christianity, the primary setting of the Book of Life motif was the judgment scene in which God is seated upon His throne surrounded by heavenly courtiers . . . . The origin of this metaphor,” he says, *“is certainly that of the ancient near eastern royal court, where records were made available to the king for dispensing justice.”* 22

Kingship, Priesthood, and Eternal Record

In Robert Thomas’ exegetical commentary on Revelation, he proposes that this promise “advances the thought of the priestly purity of the overcomer.” According to him, having one’s name recorded in the book is connected with admission into the New Jerusalem. 23

So, once again, we have a promise that can be connected with kingship and priesthood and the most holy room of the temple. Another tie-in of this promise with Israelite kingship can be discerned in Psalm 72—which is recognized by some scholars as a coronation text.

In verse 17, it is stated that the king’s name will endure forever—which is another way of saying that it will never be blotted out.

Promise #9: A Pillar in the Temple

#9. Made a pillar in the temple (Rev. 3:12)

This is a reference to “the heavenly temple,” says one scholar, and to the individual becoming *“a permanent part of the temple of God, and hence a continual participant in the divine worship that takes place there.”* 24

Robert Charles—an Archdeacon of Westminster and a Fellow of the British Academy—thought it possible that this figurative language served *“to set forth the dignity of the faithful as priests of God in the next world.”* 25

In this light, it is interesting to note that in the Psalm 110 coronation document, it is stated that the king is “a priest forever.”

Promise #10: The Name of God and the New Jerusalem

#10. Name of God and New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12)

This promise can be directly connected to the temple priests since Revelation chapter 22, verse 4, indicates that the name of God is written on the forehead of the individual, and Exodus 39:30 specifies that the name of God was written on the crown (or forehead) of the High Priest of the temple.

In this way all of those who overcome the world become high priests and would thus all have access to the Holy of Holies of the temple—a concept which is confirmed in Hebrews 9:3 and 10:19.

“The name of God and the name of His city should not be overlooked,” says Richard Wilkinson in the Journal of Biblical Literature.

*“The relationship between the oriental king and his city was of the greatest significance, as the city symbolized the institution of kingship not only by virtue of its position as the seat of the monarch but also because the very act of accession was invariably legitimized by the site of the enthronement.”* 26

Kingship, City, and Exaltation

If we turn to the Psalm 89 coronation text, we can see a possible parallel to this concept in verse 24. There the king of Israel is promised that he will be exalted in the Lord’s name.

Promise #11: Seated Upon Christ’s Throne

#11. Seated upon Christ’s throne (Rev. 3:21)

The Savior’s throne—as mentioned in this promise—is “the throne of David” or the throne of the Israelite king. 27 This promise pertains, therefore, to kingship within the house of Israel and also suggests the idea of deification for the Saint who is privileged to take this exalted chair.

“The promise that the victorious Christian will sit with Christ on His throne,” says one commentator, “is based on ancient Near East and Israelite kingship and enthronement imagery.” The phrase “just as I also conquered and sat with my Father on His throne,” says David Aune of Notre Dame University, *“is an allusion to Ps. 110:1.”* 28

And, of course, verse 1 of Psalm 110 mentions the footstool of the Israelite king’s throne. The Psalm 89 coronation text speaks of God establishing the king’s throne at the time of coronation (see Ps. 89:3–4, 29, 36), but a more direct parallel to the promise of Revelation 3:21 can be seen in the two books of Chronicles where it is stated that Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord as king—meaning that he was a vice-regent and representative of the heavenly Sovereign (see 1 Chr. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8).

Promise #12: Adoption and Inheritance

#12. Adoption and Inheritance (Rev. 21:7)

Robert Charles made note of the fact that this particular promise has a connection with kingship since it is made in the Old Testament to king David and also to king Solomon (see 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:26–27). 29

The connection of the Revelation 21:7 text with Israelite kingship becomes clear when it is compared alongside Psalm 2:7–8. The divine adoption formula is present in both passages, and this, in turn, is tied to the concept of all-encompassing inheritance.

Roland de Vaux affirms in his volume on Ancient Israel that the king was adopted by Deity on the *“day of [his] consecration.”* 30

The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states that *“the sonship of the king is considered to be a divine guarantee of his power and authority. It is divine power that gives the king his power.”* 31

Firstborn Blessings and Royal Sonship

The illustration on this slide is the patriarch Jacob adopting Ephraim and Manasseh and assigning Ephraim as the inheritor of the blessings of the firstborn (see Genesis 48). The Psalm 89:29 coronation text indicates that the king of Israel became the Lord’s “firstborn.”

Summary of the Evidence So Far

To summarize thus far: The texts of the New Testament suggest that the orthodox Christians who lived in the area of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ did not abandon the Israelite temple after the Atonement had been wrought. They were forced to leave it instead.

The book of Revelation indicates that these Christians held to a belief in the existence of, and relevance of, the heavenly temple of God, and they also believed in the ideologies of kingship and priesthood as connected with that temple. In addition, they claimed that as mortals they had—like their heavenly counterparts—been MADE kings and priests unto God.

Jesus Christ gave a series of promises to His faithful disciples in the book of Revelation which all have connections to Israelite temple concepts, and most of them have connections to the actual initiation rituals of the Israelite kings and priests.

The Question of Early Christian Liturgy

The question that needs to be asked at this point is this: Did the early Christians view this connection with ancient temple initiation rites as merely allegorical, or is there any evidence that the connection took actual liturgical form?

The most logical thing to do to resolve this question is to take a look at early Christian liturgical practices and see if there is a connection with the initiation ceremonies of the Israelite kings and priests.

Before we take a journey down that road, I would like to point out that the long-standing view of many scholars has been that early Christian liturgy was a development of activities that took place inside of the Jewish synagogue. That view has not gone unchallenged, however.

Temple Roots of Christian Worship

In Margaret Barker’s book called The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, she puts forward her belief that *“it is more likely that [early Christian] worship was modeled on that of the angel priests in the [heavenly] temple, than derived from the synagogue.”* 32

Likewise, in her book called Temple Themes in Christian Worship, she says,

*Any investigation of the origin of Christian worship must take into account the fact that Jesus was proclaimed as the Great High Priest (e.g. Heb. 4:14), and the high priest did not function in a synagogue; [It must also be considered] that the central message of Christianity was the atonement, a ritual at the heart of temple worship; that the hope for the Messiah was grounded in the royal high priesthood of the original temple; and that the Christians thought of themselves as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9). The great high priest and His royal priests would have been out of place in a synagogue.* 33

Early Christian Initiation and Temple Language

With that view enunciated, we can now turn to a large collection of early Christian initiation texts that was updated in 2003 by Dr. Maxwell Johnson of Notre Dame University. This collection is called Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy.

Throughout these texts are references to temple terms such as laver, altar, sacrifice, incense, priest, Levite, and high priest. There are even statements in these documents that initiates are going to enter into the temple of God to receive certain ordinances and also enter into the Holy of Holies. (The Liturgy of Jerusalem—from about 350 A.D.—uses both of these terms—temple and Holy of Holies—to describe the building where the liturgy takes place.)

It should also be pointed out that like the promise from the book of Revelation, some of the early Christians were told that they would enter Paradise by passing the cherubim who guard its entrance. They were also, in some instances, directly compared with Adam in Paradise.

Themes of Kingship, Priesthood, and Adoption

Their names were said to be written in the Book of Life, and they participated in a form of adoption. Significantly, the themes of priesthood and kingship were taught to the initiates on a regular basis in these initiation documents.

One text reads: *“As if old priests and kings were anointed in Israel, so do you likewise.”* 34

Let us take a closer look at the anointing ceremony of the Christian initiates and the temple connections that it had.

The Anointing Ceremony

On this slide, you see a depiction of a kingly anointing in ancient Israel, and on the right are characteristics of the early Christian anointing ceremony. The numbers after each notation on this slide are pages from the book edited by Maxwell Johnson.

Notice, as we read through them, that all of these concepts are matched by biblical texts that have to do with the anointing of Israelite kings and priests.

  • The initiate is “brought to [God’s] Holy Temple to receive the anointing” (100)
  • The anointing is done with “olive oil” (43; 53; 122)
  • The oil is “fine [and] scented” (24; 95)
  • The oil is “consecrated” (24; 66)
  • A container in the shape of a horn holds the oil (9; 64; 66–67; 70–72; 95)

“The priest pours out a sufficient quantity of the anointing oil into the palm of his hand and anoints the [initiate’s] body completely, head downwards” (94)

Detailed Anointing Rite (Armenian Text)

Here is an ancient Armenian text that describes the Christian anointing ceremony as it was practiced in that part of the world in the ninth century. 35

This is a direct quote.

“[the priest] anoints [the initiate] with holy oil:
First [on] the forehead, saying: A fragrant oil poured out in the name of Christ, the seal of heavenly gifts.
Next the eyes, saying: This seal which is in the name of Christ, may it enlighten thine eyes, that thou mayest not ever sleep in death.
The ears: May the anointing of holiness be for thee unto hearing of the divine commandments.
The nostrils: May this seal of Christ be to thee for a sweet smell from life to life.
The mouth, saying: May this seal be to thee a watch set before thy mouth and a door to keep thy lips.
The palms of the hands, saying: May this seal of Christ be for thee a means of doing good, of virtuous actions and living.
The heart: May this seal of divine holiness establish in thee a holy heart, and renew an upright spirit within thy interior.
The backbone: May this seal which is in the name of Christ be for thee a shield and buckler, whereby thou mayest be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.
And the feet: May this divine seal guide thy steps aright unto life immortal.”

Investiture and Sacred Clothing

Another obvious parallel between the initiation rites of the Israelites and the Christians was that of investiture. On this slide, you can see that in the background someone is holding the white garment that the initiate is about to receive.

The color, of course, is a match to the white vestments worn by Israel’s kings and priests. In one early Christian text in Maxwell Johnson’s book, this piece of baptismal clothing is specifically called “the glorious robe which Adam lost.”

In another document, the initiates not only receive “white vestments” but also a royal head covering which is called a “crown” and is bound on them by a priest. These initiates are said to be wearing “the garment of glory”—which sounds very much like the “garments . . . for glory” to be worn by the Israelite temple priests (Ex. 28:2, 40).

Aprons and Ritual Dress

But the parallels between the clothing of these two groups do not end here. The ephod worn by both Israelite kings and priests has been identified in a book published by E. J. Brill as a ceremonial loincloth girded about the waist.

The ephod worn by the high priest of the temple was “a sort of apron hung on the front of the priest’s body and fastened around the waist by means of an attached belt; it was made of fine linen cloth (ö?s) which was embroidered” with colored threads. 36

The Aprons

The evidence for aprons among the ecclesiastical dress of the early Christians is both literary and archeological. The Greek clerics made note of the ritual aprons of the monks of Egypt which were only worn by them on liturgical occasions.37

All of the buried monks at the monastery of St. Mark in Thebes had *“a leathern apron . . . deposited upon the last layer of clothing.”* 38

Likewise, when the 7th century monks of the Epiphanios monastery were buried, “their leather belts and leather aprons were tied about their waists” on the outside of a layer of linen cloth.

I have spoken with a person who is involved in the excavation of a vast pre-Coptic Christian cemetery in Egypt, and I have been informed by this individual that many of the Christians buried there are wearing aprons. This is the same cemetery that has been written about in an article published in BYU Studies. 39

Which leads us to the next slide.

Early Christian Garments and Symbolic Markings

Here are pictures of two other items of clothing worn by some of the early Christians in the cemetery just mentioned. On the left is a robe that has linen strips gathered together in a knot on one of the shoulders, which may indicate that it is a priestly piece of clothing.

Some of the robes worn by these Christians have the knot located on the left shoulder, while others have it on the right shoulder. The photograph on the right shows a garment worn next to the body of the Christian who was buried in it.

What is curious about this piece of clothing is that it was decorated with rosettes over each breast and over the right knee but not over the left knee. Then, there is the hemmed cut located over the abdomen. This feature is significant because a straight-line design is sometimes depicted in artistic representations of early Christian white garments.

Gammadia and Sacred Symbols

Here are some examples. These marks are referred to overall as gammadia. The name comes from the Greek letter gamma, which is shaped like a right angle. You can see right-angle marks in both of these examples on the screen.

The gamma or right-angle mark is by far the most common of the gammadia to be found in early representations of the white Christian garment. The meaning of these marks is not clearly understood by scholars, but Edmondo Lupieri—an Italian professor of the history of Christianity—has recently postulated in a commentary on the book of Revelation that they may be connected with the kingship of Jesus Christ. 40

If you examine early Christian depictions of the Savior enthroned, you will notice that sometimes He has the gamma mark on His robe, and so do the angels who stand next to His throne.

Veils, Temples, and Cosmic Imagery

It should be noted that right-angle gamma marks have been discovered on the tunics of some Coptic Christians—as shown here at the bottom of this slide. You can see that the same exact design on the tunic (a gamma mark with an interior square) is depicted on the veil above it.

The veil in this mosaic represents the barrier of eastern Christian churches which separated the main audience chamber from what they called the Holy of Holies. These markings on the veil are interesting because it is known that there were cosmological markings on the exterior veil of the Jerusalem Temple during the time of Jesus Christ. 41

We will talk about another cosmological symbol associated with the Savior in just a few minutes.

Byzantine Veils and Temple Motifs

On this slide, you see a modern-day replica of a Byzantine Holy of Holies veil with gamma marks on it. Besides what you can see here, there are also doors, veils, and gamma marks on either side of this entryway.

The Byzantine church building where this barrier is located is in Greece, and it is interesting to note that on its outer wall are symbols associated with the temple of king Solomon.

Even though scholars do not currently understand the meaning behind the gamma marks, the same shape was depicted in a medieval Moralized Bible where the context is clear.

Symbols of Righteousness

Here on this slide, you can see Zacharias the temple priest and his wife Elizabeth. She is holding a carpenter’s square to her chest (and it is pointing off to her right), while he holds an architect’s compass to his chest.

A similar picture in another Moralized Bible shows the same couple both holding carpenter’s squares, and the accompanying text explains that the right-angled tool is a symbol of their righteousness.

The Compass, Creation, and Kingship

The architect’s compass is significant because it was displayed in many early Christian depictions of the Lord as the Creator. And, interestingly, this image seems to have a connection with the kingship initiation rites of ancient Israel.

Here on this slide, we see the Lord enthroned as King, and He holds a large compass over the elements of creation. Notice the waves of the sea on the outside edge of the world which He is holding.

In Israelite cosmology, God was viewed not only as a King, but it was considered that His royal status was connected with His defeat of the Chaos Monster at the time of creation.

The Chaos Monster was an “insolent” serpent who dwelt in the sea and, as Herman Gunkell put it in his study on Creation and Chaos, he was God’s antagonistic enemy whose “dominion on earth [was] a reign of terror” which *“perpetrated upon the earth eternal devastation.”* 42

Creation, Chaos, and Royal Authority

On this slide, you see a reference to Proverbs chapter 8, where it is indicated that God conquered the Chaos Monster by inscribing a circle around the sea and thereby setting a boundary for the waves—which were a visible symbol of chaos.

By turning to the Psalm 89 coronation text, we find creation motifs and also hear the Lord say of the king of Israel: “I will set his hand also [on] the sea.”

According to Professor Nicolas Wyatt of the University of Edinburgh, Psalm chapter 89, verse 25, seems to speak of the Israelite king sharing with the heavenly King in the primeval victory over chaos. “We may even conjecture,” he said, *“that in an appropriate ritual, the king [of Israel] was handed the weapons of . . . [God] at this juncture in the liturgy.”* 43

Ritual Victory Over the Serpent

But since the implication of Proverbs 8:27 is that the Lord overcame chaos by inscribing a circular boundary upon the sea, it is just as logical to conclude that during the Israelite king’s enthronement he was handed not a weapon, but rather the implied instrument used by the Lord to conquer chaos—an architect’s compass.

If we scan through Maxwell Johnson’s book on the Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, we find that when some of the early Christians received their initiation rites, they were not only taught the story of creation but they had a confrontation with a serpent named Satan.

The initiates were told during this ritual to consider the adversary to be in their immediate presence and to tell him to “depart.” Thus, a victory was gained against the initiate’s enemy.

Covenant, Renunciation, and the Handclasp

Another way that the early Christians ritualistically separated themselves from Satan was to renounce him by way of covenant. One initiation text is particularly interesting because in it the initiates made their renunciation and covenant by clasping the left hand of the officiating priest.

Then another covenant was made—this time to commit oneself to Jesus Christ—by a clasping of the right hand with the officiator. The right-handed clasp is a motif found in early Christian artworks in a context that has already been mentioned in this presentation.

Here on this slide you can see, on the left, that a monk is being admitted through the gate of Paradise by the apostle Peter. In the middle is a resurrected Christian in a white robe being admitted through the gate of the New Jerusalem. And on the right, we see the Israelite king standing at the veiled door of the Jerusalem Temple and being admitted by the Lord into an assembly of people (see Psalm 27).

Ascension and the Royal Handclasp

Notice in the first and third pictures that a stairway is present, which marks both scenes as ascensions. It is curious that in the King James translation of the Psalm 89 coronation text, it is said that the Lord’s right hand will be established with the king (vv. 13, 21).

Psalms scholar John Eaton renders this passage with these words (with the Lord speaking): *“My hand shall hold him fast.”* 44 This suggests a handclasp between the Heavenly King and His earthly vice-regent.

Indeed, two scholars who have written commentaries on the Psalms (Hans Kraus and Arnold Anderson) state outright that a right-handed clasp between God and the king belonged to the Israelite enthronement ritual. 45

Modern Eastern Christian Temple Symbolism

In this last section of my presentation, I would like to bring you into the modern age and read some material from the eastern orthodox Christians. Now that you have seen the patterns set forth in this talk, you can decide whether or not temple architectural and liturgical motifs have been continued among the modern disciples of Jesus Christ.

I will now read you a summary of information that is found in a book called The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity.

Sacred Architecture: Space and Time

The architecture of Eastern church buildings is symbolic in nature, reflecting the axis of space and also the axis of time. The axis of space forges a connection between earth and paradise. Meanwhile the axis of time begins with the creation and moves through the events of the Savior’s life, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Participants in the Syrian liturgy are considered to be personal participants in the events of sacred time. Nestorian church buildings are oriented so that the rising sun in the east strikes the holiest part of the building, thus corresponding to the location of the glory of God as seen in the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the Israelite temple (see Ezek. 43:1–4).

Temple Layout and Sacred Progression

Beyond the entrance to the church, there is an open-air “forecourt” where the shoes of worshippers are removed and also a smaller open-air enclosure where prayers are offered. The interior of the church proper includes a main congregation hall called the “nave.”

This area of the church represents the earth, and the eastern-most portion of it, or “vestibule,” represents the Garden of Eden. Paradise is considered to be a bridge between heaven and earth, and when scriptures are being read from this location during the liturgy, the readers are considered to be angelic messengers who bring God’s teachings from heaven to earth.

The Path to the Holy of Holies

There used to be a slightly elevated pathway built into the floor of Eastern churches which led up to the Garden of Eden called “the straight way” which signified “the narrow path” leading to the heavenly realm.

In earlier times, there were separate entrances into the nave for men and women. Each group would gather in their respective places—males on the right and females on the left. (Syrian Orthodox worshippers are placed in opposite stations, with women on the right and men on the left.)

The Holy of Holies in Christian Worship

The most important part of the church is located in the east and is called the “choir” or Holy of Holies. This place represents heaven and is where the “liturgy of the mysteries” occurs.

An altar is placed inside of this area of the church. And above it is a baldachin which is symbolic of the Ark of the Covenant. “The holy of holies is raised on three levels” and thereby designates it as a space which is holier than the others in the building.

Veils, Separation, and Divine Presence

Between the Holy of Holies and the nave in some Eastern churches is a barrier called the “iconostasis.” This screen (which is constructed of wood or stone) is equipped with a doorway. A “curtain” is stretched across it in order to conceal the content and activities of the most holy place.

In Syrian Orthodox churches, only a curtain is utilized to mark this division. When the curtain is closed, it is representative of the breaking of the connection between heaven and earth caused by the actions of Adam and Eve. (In earlier times Adam’s presence in the building was signified by his symbolic tomb in the nave.)

Opening the Way to Heaven

The curtain is drawn aside during the liturgy to signify the opening of heaven and the presence of Jesus Christ. Only certain ranks of clergy are allowed to pass by the curtain divider and into the Holy of Holies.

The priest leads the prayers of the congregation from the altar inside the most holy place. Incense is employed during the liturgy to symbolically represent rising prayers. 46

Notice in all of this that there are three ascending levels of existence represented in this building’s architecture.

Transition to Final Section

Finally, let me read you a short summary of the initiation rites of Greek Orthodox monks from a book published by Yale University Press. See if you detect any connection between what is said here and the information that has already been presented.

Greek Orthodox Initiation Rites

Stage 1: New Identity and Investiture

The initiate is brought into the church building and given “a new name”. He is invested with a tunic and a headdress.</p>

Stage 2: Covenant, Washing, and Entrance

The service is symbolic of three things:

  • A second baptism or washing
  • The return of the prodigal son
  • Marriage

The initiate goes to the Royal Doors and altar (i.e., the iconostasis/veil). There the abbot—who represents the father from the prodigal son parable—meets him.

<p>There is an exchange of questions and answers between them. It begins with the abbot inquiring why the initiate has come there. The initiate responds by announcing his intent. The questions and answers that follow incorporate the taking of “formal vows” of obedience, chastity, and living a monastic lifestyle.

The abbot reminds the initiate that “invisible angels are present recording [his] vow.” The initiate is then invested with ecclesiastical clothing, a girdle, and a headdress. At the end of the ceremony, the initiate and the initiator embrace one another.

Stage 3: Full Investiture and Lifelong Commitment

The initiate is invested with the Great Schema, or full religious dress, which includes “an elaborately embroidered apron.” This apron includes a symbol of Adam and also the acronym for Paradise.

The clothing given to the initiate in this stage of his progression is never to be taken off. Day or night, “even in death.”</em> Monks at this stage of initiation vow to *“renounce the world and the things of the world.”* 47</p></p></em>

Conclusion: Do Temples Still Matter After Christ?

This talk began by stating the claims of some individuals that:

  • The Atonement of Jesus Christ made Israelite temple worship obsolete
  • Temple ceremonies were never part of the gospel of the Redeemer

The evidence presented calls these claims into question. Even after the Atonement took place, those who personally knew the Savior still held onto a distinct temple ideology.

More than that, they were promised by the Lord Himself—after the Atonement—that the faithful could receive the same temple-related blessings that were experienced by the kings and priests of Israel.

Liturgical practices of the Israelite temple found expression in some of the rites of the early Christians. And some of those practices are echoed among the orthodox followers of the Master even today.

Thank you for your attention.

Search topics

temple in early Christianity; book of Revelation temple symbolism; kings and priests unto God; early Christian initiation rites; washing and anointing ancient Israel; investiture in the Bible; new name in scripture; tree of life Revelation meaning; hidden manna meaning; second death Revelation; Book of Life biblical meaning; heavenly temple theology; Holy of Holies symbolism; temple veil cherubim meaning; priesthood in early Christianity; Christian liturgy temple roots; Margaret Barker temple theology; baptismal liturgy early Christianity; ancient Israel temple rituals; Adam and Eve temple symbolism

LDS Temple Ordinances; Are Mormons Christian; Mormon temple worship origins; CES Letter temple claims; Mormon Church abuse; Mormon LGBTQ; LDS finances; polygamy; Mormon racism; Mormon women; Book of Mormon evidence; early Christianity vs modern LDS beliefs; criticism of LDS temple practices; temple ceremony origins debate

Apologetic Response

1. The Claim: Temple Ceremonies Were Copied from Freemasonry This argument assumes that because Joseph Smith encountered Masonic rituals, he must have borrowed and repurposed them directly.

2. The Overlooked Context: Freemasonry Is Not the Original Source Freemasonry itself incorporates: Biblical temple themes (especially Solomon’s Temple) Symbolic tools, clothing, and ritual progression Moral and spiritual instruction through ceremony This means similarities may reflect shared roots, not dependence.

3. The Evidence: Temple Patterns Long Precede Freemasonry Ancient Israelite Temple Priests and kings received washing, anointing, and sacred clothing Access to God’s presence was structured and symbolic New names and divine roles were part of covenant identity New Testament (Especially Revelation) Christians are called “kings and priests” The faithful receive white garments, new names, and access to God’s throne A heavenly temple remains central after Christ’s Atonement Early Christian Practice Initiates experienced: Washing and anointing Investiture in white garments Covenant-making and renunciation of evil Liturgies used temple language like: Holy of Holies Veil Priesthood roles

4. A More Accurate Conclusion Rather than copying Freemasonry, Joseph Smith may have: Encountered a system that preserved fragments of older temple symbolism Used familiar forms to teach restored doctrines Reintroduced concepts that align with biblical and early Christian patterns

Quick Summary
  • Freemasonry uses biblical temple symbolism, not the other way around.
  • Washing, anointing, and sacred clothing appear in ancient scripture and early Christianity.
  • Revelation describes Christians as temple participants after Christ’s Atonement.
  • Early Christian rites included temple-like ceremonies.
  • Similar rituals do not prove direct copying—only shared tradition or structure.

DNA and the Book of Mormon – Ryan Parr (2005)

Summary

Summary

Ryan Parr examines claims that DNA evidence contradicts the Book of Mormon, introducing mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome inheritance, and population genetics. He explains why drawing conclusions about ancient populations from modern genetic data can be far more complicated than it first appears.

TL;DR

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Modern Native American DNA largely reflects Asian ancestry, but Ryan Parr argues that this alone cannot determine whether small ancient Near Eastern populations contributed to the ancestry of people in the Americas. Genetic lineages can disappear over generations, and mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome evidence represent only narrow portions of a population’s ancestry.

Start Here

Question

Did DNA disprove the Book of Mormon?

Short Answer

DNA studies show that most identifiable Native American maternal and paternal lineages are closely related to Asian populations. Ryan Parr argues, however, that this does not by itself rule out the presence of a small ancient Near Eastern population because genetic lineages can disappear over many generations and modern population data cannot necessarily reconstruct every ancestral contribution.

Key Takeaways
  • Modern DNA evidence strongly supports substantial Asian ancestry among Native American populations.
  • Mitochondrial DNA traces only maternal lines, while Y-chromosome DNA traces paternal lines.
  • Individual genetic lineages can disappear from a population over many generations.
  • The genetic descendants of an ancient person need not retain that person’s detectable mitochondrial or Y-chromosome lineage.
  • Conclusions about Book of Mormon populations therefore depend partly on assumptions about population size, ancestry, migration, and intermarriage.

[Editor’s Note: This was a graphics-rich presentation. This transcript does not include slides from the presentation.]

I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for being invited to talk about two really great subjects and that is the Book of Mormon and DNA which, when you look at its structure and its design, is no less of a divine inspired molecule!

We live in a very exciting age. Now, by the time you finish watching CNN you may not think that, but there is a lot of good that is going on in the world today and actually we call- so this is sort of a public service announcement on DNA—you’ll often hear the word “genome” and genome refers to the entire complement of genes that each one of us has and for humans that’s between 30-80,000 genes and this is really going to be the basis of an economic revolution in countries that will take note. In fact Bill Gates has said that if he had the opportunity to do it over again he would be in biotechnology because with the early days of this type of research, it was pre-1995 (they call the ancient days), and now since we’ve actually looked at and deciphered the entire human genome there are many things that we think we can now do. We can use DNA as a biosensor to detect what we’re thinking; all types of diseases; cancers that now we treat after their clinical manifestations; long before there are clinical manifestations; so we really stand on a cusp and a threshold of a revolution much like the antibiotic revolution of the last century.

So, they are exciting times. In fact if you work in biotechnology and DNA everybody’s really excited to get work, to see the progress that’s going to move forward and all this is really because of this molecule—DNA.

DNA is really quite amazing because it just has four simple letters to convey its message: G, A, T, and C. With these four letters everything about the human body is written in what we call the blueprints of life. Now that’s pretty amazing because, of course, we have to use 26 letters to speak but all of the information content held within a human body, and really responsible for the variation we see in this room when we look around us, is written in that simple genetic alphabet.

Now as we have deciphered the human genome there’s been quite a few surprises along the way. If you notice there’s all types of genes that we’ve found, there’s the reality-based TV fixation; delusions of stock market savvy; and one I’m actually convinced is that fixation in my family—and fixation means that everybody has the gene you can’t escape—and this is just late-breaking news but I think right here there’s a Wal-Mart gene. (Laughter) And this was affirmed by Business Week about a year ago who said that, ‘Eighty percent of Americans made at least one visit to Wal-Mart in that particular year.’ And it also comes in handy because, remember we used to- what was it? In the 70s we used to blame our environment and then we used to blame our parents for things that we didn’t do that we should do and now you can blame your genome so this really comes in handy. It’s no longer, ‘My parents made me do it’ but ‘My genes made me do it.’ Kind of like it’s not your fault that mom married your dad.

But along with this comes other challenges as well and that is that there are DNA claims against the Book of Mormon and most of these are based on modern population data. Number one, the genetic evidence of Native American characterizations does not support an Ancient Near Eastern descent for Native Americans. Population genetics are consistent with Asian origins for aboriginal groups and I don’t know if we should really be too concerned about this. It all lies in your expectation. And this is mostly based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome because in each one of us there is actually a paternal name that’s written in your Y chromosome that you get exclusively from your dad and in the mitochondrial genome that you get exclusively from your mother. So these actually turn out to be fairly great genealogical tools, that is if you’re just thinking in terms of a couple of generations. The more generations are received the more difficult it gets and I’ll show you why.

Let’s look at the claims behind this and to do that we have to look at just a few basics to begin with and that is there are two great archives of DNA in the human body, or in the cell, there’s this master library that is held in the nucleus and this has billions of letters of information. If you take the information that you got from mom and you got from dad there is 6.6 billion pieces of information and the more we learn about this I think the more astounded we are. We used to think that there were just genes and then long islands of nothing. But recently, within the last year, one of the big—you probably heard the word microarrays—a group that makes microarrays has done a lot of research and found out that these islands of nothing may not be nothing but they are important for coding, they are important for turning genes on and off.

And then we have out here what I like to term branch libraries, out away from the central nucleus are these mitochondria and mitochondria are very important. I think when most of us went to school, if you paid attention in biology class, they just said, ‘Oh it’s just the battery. It powers the cell and don’t worry about it.’ However that’s changing quickly.

Now for the mitochondrial aspect, it’s interesting because it has its own complement of DNA but it’s extremely modest in comparison to its nuclear cellmate. It only has 17,000 pieces of information but these branch libraries are numerous—there’s thousands, maybe 10,000 in a particular cell.

So important is this molecule that the nucleus actually pays the tithing of 10 percent of its total complement to speak to the mitochondria. So these two speak back and forth and they’re in communication, actually in just microseconds- nanoseconds and that will become apparent as to why that’s so important.

Just for a rough comparison here, nuclear DNA of course sits in a nucleus; and it’s the equivalent of amount of 50 sets of encyclopedias so a lot of information. MtDNA resides out away but it’s still in communication, there are still phone lines, still e-mail, going back and forth in a chemical sense. There’s about ten pages of information but these ten pages of information are the same in every mitochondria that’s in the cell and so there’s a certain number of volumes here that’s important to make sure that mitochondria work.

And the reason why that is is because mitochondria are vital. I can tell everyone in this room your mitochondria is working otherwise you wouldn’t be here because it’s responsible for generating 80 percent of the cellular fuel at a molecular level. In fact we’re now moving into a new phase where they’re beginning to recognize that there are mitochondrial diseases and many a-typical diseases that we see now are going to end up being mitochondrial diseases. Estimates go as high as- incredibly high, that as many out one out of every five people may have a mitochondrial disorder and that’s because mitochondria, they code for actually 37 genes. Now 13 of those genes- they’re important because they make sure, or (let’s see- it’s hard to do math when you’re in front of a group!) but anyway there’s 13 genes there that are very important for energy production. They work in concert with signals that are sent down from the nucleus and the other genes just simply make sure that these get made.

So I think what I’m trying to say here that maybe I should have said at the beginning, is that just simply looking at the population genetics and making a judgment as to what it means to a group of people from 2600 years ago is very precarious because this just isn’t simply a genetic marker. It’s vital for energy metabolism. So this is just a gee-whiz figure and you’re not supposed to be able to figure it out because it’s supposed to overwhelm you. (Laughter)

With all of the metabolic pathways that’s actually driven by mtDNA so actually we found that when a cell develops pathology, for example cancer develops, in some cases it shows up early in the mtDNA in the form of alterations in this simple genetic alphabet.

So now the claims are made against the Y chromosome and mtDNA. So let’s first of all take a look at the Y chromosome.

So these have unique patterns of inheritance and that is that they stay steady through a line. In fact it’s not surprising that some Jewish groups have a specific Y chromosome marker at a high frequency of about 50 percent. If you read the heavy, heavy paternal lineages, for example in Chronicles, or if you’ve seen “The Home Teachers” and where they put that tape in and they go on Jehosophat, Jehu… and whoever, that’s literally true. Long histories of paternal chromosomes and those can actually get fixed but what happens is that dad has to have a son, the son has to have another son that has to be passed on. Now if this dad here had a daughter, he doesn’t pass on his paternal Y chromosome. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a brother out here that doesn’t pass it on.

But this comes into a very important point called “coalescence” where, over time, most of these genetic signals can and do disappear—it’s been proven from a statistical viewpoint.

We also have mtDNA which we get from our moms. So actually in mtDNA there is in the same paternal, or Y chromosome, there’s a maternal name written in these four simple letters: the G, A, T, and C and this occurs in a subset of the entire genome. So where the maternal name is written is usually very small, we call that the hypervariable region and same game, so if mom has daughters then this is passed on. If mom had a son right here, this isn’t passed on.

So I want you to keep this in mind because this is very important when you start to talk about really small groups like Lehi’s family and you consider the eight years that they were in the wilderness. Statistically you start to get problems with the frequencies that have been suggested.

So how did these look? How do we actually read these? It’s actually quite dull! (Laughter) So this is (and I just said that this was exciting didn’t I?)- So, each one of these lines actually represents, you could say, a maternal name. This is actually, sequencing data what we call, you can see there’s the Gs, the As, the Ts and the Cs and then down here the software—and I should say that without the advent of computers this would be impossible and now many large companies like IBM are trying to get interested into these types of biosciences because there’s so much information that needs to be decoded and because of the coming revolution in health care they see these as tremendous revenue generators.

So one thing I forgot to mention, sort of the blue sky of all this, is that in the not too distant future you’ll go in to your physician and you’ll swipe a card and it will say: ‘Okay, well Scott Gordon back there he doesn’t respond very well to ibuprofen because he has this particular gene but we know aspirin works for him.’ ‘Ampicillin may not work for you but we’ll give you tetracycline.’ So all these things will become a very highly practiced type of science and things will be treated long before they show up clinically because they’ll be anticipated at the DNA level.

So all this information is interestingly once again written in this code but for our purposes here, so what happens, if you look at this little dot right here, the software gives us this heads up and says, ‘Well there’s somebody here that doesn’t match.’ So if you run up all these Ts we say ‘Aha, there’s a C right here!’ So this person actually has a different name simply because this differs by one letter of the genetic alphabet and the same here. So you can imagine the problem with trying to handle all of this data when you’re looking at populations of people that have billions of pieces of information.

But what’s important, I think, here is that most of the lineages can actually be the same and most of them probably swamp this particular individual here and this is a sampling of a large population of people from Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. And this information, this maternal information also the Y chromosome, has been used to come up with various ideas and this is really quite ingenious and very exciting.

There’s been multiple migrations out of Africa, you’ve probably all heard of the seven daughters of Eve and you can send in your DNA and they’ll tell you which Eve you came from and Adam and all that type of thing which are interesting commercial ideas. But so, from this, and the caveat is these are once again modern populations. So we can see that Native Americans really- scientists aren’t very inventive because they have four(sic) maternal names: A, B, C, D and X—that’s not very exciting is it? But it looks like, really from areas here in Siberia that many of the modern-day signatures actually- but they do match these people coming out of Siberia and to a lesser extent there are some haplotypes in Asia that match as well but it’s these major four(sic?) and I think that here’s where the claims come that, ‘Well sheesh, Native Americans have these haplotypes and where are the Ancient Near Eastern haplotypes when we look at modern DNA?’

But another important thing to notice is that there are different distributions of these haplotypes and that’s another thing that comes into play. So there are limitations to this approach, and this is never really brought out, but the huge limitation is this is based on contemporary data and we’ll look at some population histories later on here and you’ll actually see that there are many population histories that are written in Native Americans and simply because all these names don’t appear at this particular period in, for example the Cherokee, doesn’t mean that they weren’t there sometime in the past; it doesn’t mean that there aren’t names that have gone to extinction because there are a lot of variants. We’re just seeing, this is much like reading a Sherlock Holmes book, well, not reading a Sherlock Holmes book but reading the last chapter and then from what is written there trying to reconstruct all the nuances of the plot of a Sherlock Holmes book. That would be difficult. And mitochondria are much more than population markers, they’re actually very, very dynamic. Sometimes we get the idea that genes don’t move, that it’s just what we get (inaudible) but they can be dynamic, as we’ve seen with pathology, that you can get mutations—but that probably doesn’t apply here.

So let’s go back to the beginning, the guy that’s really responsible for all this and that is father Abraham. Just to illustrate some points of groups that move. So father Abraham here started out from Ur, he came across the Fertile Crescent and he ended up somewhere in Palestine. Now what’s interesting about this, and I think this comes into play with the Promised Land, is that when father Abraham went to Canaan he didn’t go to Promised Land ‘Retirement Villa’, there were people there, there was opposition. So when you go to a Promised Land it’s just not like, you know, go there and play golf until the Second Coming—that’s not how it works.

But from a population perspective let’s go back to the city of Ur. So this maybe what the city of Ur looked like when Abraham was there, people are at the market, they’re shopping for leeks and maybe they’re going to go hear a reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh that evening! (Laughter)

But what I’ve done with Abraham is I’ve taken some of these people, I pulled them out, so if you think of the gene pool of all these people I’ve taken a very restricted number, a kin-associated group, they’ve gone somewhere else. Now just because you’re Abraham and you’ve left your population doesn’t mean that God hits you over the head with a wand and says, ‘Oh I’m going to change your genetics so you’re unique.’ No we’re all pretty much, like for example in this room, we all look very much European. We would probably all be X- mitochondrial type X.

This is what happens to Abraham, so he lives the area. And this is what we call a genetic bottleneck—there’s just no getting around it. So if you think of a genetic bottleneck, think of—and I think I better thank FARMS for this because this is one of their articles and I just chopped it up—so you have an old fashioned pop bottle and you have a variation in here that represents all the people and then Abraham is going to leave so you just pour a couple of these guys out. So you don’t have what’s represented any more, you have a sub-set of this. So we have a genetic bottleneck already.

But now let’s step ahead 1200 years to Jerusalem and to the outskirts where we have a small kin-associated group, such as Lehi and his family who’ve left. Who’ve left for a Promised Land and, once again, this is a kin-associated group. So we’ve had Abraham in the Land of Canaan, I mean there’s been population histories for that 1200 years. We just don’t know, so even probably the signal from Abraham is lost once again in the intermarriages that may happen. Maybe they all looked very consistently the same. This the problem you run into if I was to run over to the Ancient Near East today and say, ‘Let me look at these Israeli and Palestinian populations. This is what they looked 2600 years ago.’ It just doesn’t work that way, and the literature actually is very cautious about that and says, you know, we have to be very careful how we reconstruct these ancient lineages.

So we have this kin-associated group, Lehi and friends, and they leave. So we have another bottleneck and they’re out here wandering around in the wilderness and of interest there is that they’re out there for eight years. Now there are things called infant mortality rates and that type of thing because you don’t have modern medicine, and you don’t have physicians, you just can’t drive into an emergency ward and if you’re going to die you generally die. So there’s probably again a genetic reduction that occurs naturally in the small kin-associated group—not everybody lives, not everybody has sons and daughters and it’s more acute in a small group like that. So they can tend to go to what again we call ‘fixation’ rapidly but probably it shouldn’t have happened here because it was only eight years.

So when we travel to new lands, the things that we always take with us are our genes. We take our nuclear DNA, we take our mtDNA, and it’s all a certain amount of variation that comes along in a little cup. In fact if you looked really close Sariah is holding this cup. (Laughter) But anyways- you are alive out there!

I just want to say a couple of things about the Promised Land. We believe that they sailed over to Mesoamerica and landed somewhere in this area and this wonderful graphic is courtesy of Blake and Joseph Allen. Let’s talk just a minute about the Book of Mormon and what it has as the Promised Land.

I know that we all believe that they went to a land where there never was before man. At least that’s our traditional understanding of what that means but if you look really close at 2 Nephi, I mean I think it seems like sometimes we tend to get carried away. It’s sort of written in covenant of Abraham language that says those brought out of the land of Jerusalem. It’s a very specific group of people, they’ll prosper, they’ll be kept from all other nations, they’ll possess this land unto themselves, but the conditions always are that the laws and statutes are respected and lived. So the Promised Land idea is really associated with the covenant of Abraham and does not cover some of God’s other children that are living in this New World. In fact you can almost think of Lehi’s group as a boat of missionaries. Why not? Bringing the covenant of Abraham to a new land.

And also if you want to think in terms of, like, the Saints that came into the Valley in 1847, they certainly didn’t come to a Promised Land ‘Retirement Area’. In fact it was just the opposite. There were things that they had to do that built character that let them become all that they were to become. In fact Elder Maxwell always makes the point that these trials and tribulations that we are given are very specific for each one of us so that we can tutor, we can learn, we can become all that’s intended for us in the divine sense.

So we also look at Joshua and the children of Israel. They had a literal war on their hands but nevertheless God told Joshua to be not afraid, neither be dismayed but be of a strong courage and I’ll be with you in these ventures.

So it seems like in the terms of Promised Land there is opposition in all things. So they come into Mesoamerica, and according to Michael Crawford, at the beginning of the 15th century, and see now again here we’re having to rely on modern data because that’s all we have, he says that there were 25 million inhabitants in Central America—those are a lot of people.

Let’s just sort of look at what John Sorensen calls Lehi’s neighbors. I call this (I was going to call this shadows of the empire but it had already been used) shadows of existing people and when we read in the Book of Mormon—it was never intended as a population history—but if you read it as that, there are really interesting clues and nuances.

First of all, we find out—it’s repeated over and over—this is only a hundredth part of the record so those things that we think are important today, the genetics and so on and so forth, weren’t even an issue and if you’ve read the Book of Mormon you can understand why. I mean Mendel is still in the future; he’s sort of the father of genetics. James Watson and Francis Crick, the discoverers of the double helix in 1953, aren’t even a thought. In fact, the bacterial theory of disease isn’t even a thought.

These people have other issues and the issues seem to be social and political. What’s really fascinating I think is some of the language that’s used. So the sibling rivalry becomes very dangerous, Lehi is told by revelation to leave. Well, he says, I’m going to take my relatives and then he says, and those who would go with me. Well who were these people? I mean there are so many people who came over on the boat and he should know everybody. Temple construction takes a lot of manpower so it’s going to cause these people to be industrious. So the shadows continued.

What I tried to do is look early on in the Book of Mormon for these clues and these nuances. This is what Jacob says, and you can’t- it just turns out that Lamanites and Nephites isn’t even a genetic term and it’s not anyway because they all share the same genetic background. Jacob says this, he says, “But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi.” (Jacob 1:14)

Interestingly polygamy is no longer an accepted practice so you’re not going to have these huge Y chromosome incursions and even if it was there are not enough women from the Ancient Near East to drive that genetic agenda.

And this one is I think is very interesting, it was pointed out by John Sorensen, he talks about Sherem. So Sherem comes to see Jacob and he says, “Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ. And ye have led away much of this people.” (Jacob 7:6-7) Well c’mon when I go to my- I know where my relatives live, don’t you?

So it seems like there were these collisions and these interjections with the populations fairly early.

And if we continue, some of these shadows, interestingly Jarom, who is the son of Enos, who is the son of Jacob, says, “And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites.” (Jarom 1:6)

And then there’s always this missionary effort, “And it came to pass that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth.” ( Jacob 7:24) The Lamanites, or, those who do not believe. Alma the Younger and the four sons of Mosiah, for example, set off on a long missionary effort.

And finally when you go to 4 Nephi 1:17 “Neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites.”

So these divisions that we see in the Book of Mormon really have nothing to do with genetics but they seem to be one large group.

Let’s look at our genes coming from Jerusalem. So you have these four- you have these kin-associated groups; you have, let’s be generous and say there were four mitochondrial lineages and there were three Y chromosome lineages. So you dump these guys into the gumball machine, we’ll make A, B, C, D, and X all the same and then you dump these guys in and one of the things that we find right off is that if you brought some of these genes from Jerusalem you’re not going to fare very well in this new environment. It’s like wanting to be a basketball star but not being able to dribble or shoot or run. And that is that the way mitochondrial DNA is distributed in populations has to do with what we call ‘selection’ so if you can’t run, jump or shoot the Jazz are not going to ask you to come and try out. And the same thing again- natural selection shaped regional mitochondrial DNA variation in humans and it’s very, I think, instructive that in these migrations that we see we only see a select number of mitochondrial DNA names: A, B, C, D and X.

In ancient history I think we have to suspect that there were many of these that just went out of existence and there’s this other issue that’s called ‘coalescence’ or ‘lineage sorting’. So let’s look at this.

So these- note at the top, these are 18 women and we’re looking at the first generation. It doesn’t matter if these are actually women or men but what happens is you look at the lineage scenario through the generations and this is 20 generations—or 500 years. This person- this women had no daughters and we’re supposed to assume that all these are unique mitochondrial lineages and so it’s even worse if this is strung out across the room where many people have the same lineage and then there’s just a couple that have these lineages that are probably at a selective disadvantage. What happens is that through time things coalesce; there’s this lineage sorting process so that when you get down to the bottom there’s only two of the 18 that made it—eleven percent.

Now, these are just population facts, whether or not you’re God’s people or whether or not you’re Nephite, Lamanite or whatever -ite you may be, there is a sorting process and that’s based on the idea that these molecules here are the same. Well you have some, you’re outnumbered, you’re at a disadvantage because you can’t run, jump and shoot like everybody else. And so there is actually this funnel, this sieve sort of, process that takes place.

And if we look at the current people that live in Mesoamerica you can see this very well. So you have your A, B, C and D and various populations here but you can see for example, like, this group has A, it has B, it has C but where’s D? It doesn’t mean that 300 years ago they didn’t have D here. So what I’m trying to say is that, and it’s the same for all these, you see a population history written in everyone of these people and we’re seeing the buds on the tips of the trees, we’re not seeing the branches, we’re not seeing the trunks.

So everyone, I mean for example, this one- this group of people, they’re missing three of these. This one probably is not fair(?), this is Caribbean so they’re probably islanders, which means there’s more of a reduction yet. I think this also speaks of selection once again, so why wouldn’t all these be at the same frequency?

Now if we want to look at the way we do genealogy, say I’m right here and I want to look back a couple of generations, we can see that every generation—and now I should say I’m talking about nuclear DNA I’m not talking about mitochondrial or Y chromosome—but at every generation receding, your number of ancestors doubles. Now when you get back so many generations a lot of people, I mean I have people tell me, you know in my ward at home, ‘Well I’m related to so-and-so- the King of France back in 1400.’ Well you may be related to the King of France because there’s one of these lines that comes your way but you’re also related to everybody else. You may be related to Siegfried here that was thrown in jail, you may be related to so-and-so here that was a bank robber. And so, there’s a lot of people that you become related to and the chances that their DNA is in you is very, very small—it’s like winning the lottery. And once again that’s just the population genetics so this is really called the ‘law of increasingly remote and genetically irrelevant ancestors.’ (Laughter) I don’t make this stuff up.

Then another interesting note that I think has been forgotten, and this comes from the Dakhleh Oasis, there is a Romano-Coptic Christian site in the Dakhleh Oasis and it looks like the people were proselyted (Coptic Christian just means Egypt and there was a time when the early Christian movement moved throughout Egypt and proselyted people in their native tongue) and these oases exist as big footprints out in the sand on the west side of the Nile which is kind of interesting in and of itself if you’re Egyptian why would you live out in the West Desert because that’s the Land of the Dead—who wants to live out in the Land of the Dead? Anyway, they did and here’s a view of the ancient town of Kellis and if you can look off to- I believe this is the east, there’s the desert escarpment that moves up- these are sand dunes and then here’s the town of ancient Kellis.

Well in Kellis there’s a cemetery called Kellis 2. Kellis 2 is very interesting because they buried everything. They buried stillborn, they buried children that had died, they buried fetuses. And so we really get a look at ancient population demographics and what’s interesting when you want to think about the Book of Mormon and trying to push these genetics in the Ancient Near East up through this population is that the pre-reproductive mortality rate is 63 percent—so over half of your children don’t make it to have more children and a lot of these, they were Christian, they believed in God as well. So God isn’t selective among His people, we’re sent here, we have to put up with the physical facts. So there you go there is another genetic (inaudible).

So I think from all of this I would like to conclude that these small kin-associated groups that we see in the Book of Mormon are at genetic disadvantages. There were large indigenous populations in Mesoamerica 600 BC and the Book of Mormon populations assimilated into the ancient genetic topography of Mesoamerica with these mitochondrial haplotypes A, B, C, D and X.

So do Book of Mormon people have the same mitochondrial haplotypes as Native Americans? Yes. They were assimilated in but they were a small part that were participating in a specific geographical area and once again I think the really important, and sort of our- you know, science always thinks that it has all of the answers right now but we always live in an age of ignorance and that is, assuming that these current population data are adequate for this test, they’re just simply not I think if you were to be intellectually honest with yourself it just isn’t possible to really reconstruct these. What you’d have to do is you would have to find a cemetery where Nephi and everybody was buried and then do ancient DNA analysis on those individuals. But it looks like fairly quickly this population was eclipsed and this story wouldn’t be different for any of us that would move into a large foreign population. I mean, pretty soon our kids start talking like so-and-so, start acting like so-and-so. There’s only a certain number of people you can pick to be married to and if they did stay together then you have a lot of problems with recessive alleles starting to pair up and there is a lot of genetic problems with that.

And finally I like this particular quote from Elder Maxwell, he says, “Because the editing of the Book of Mormon, with its witnessing gospel of hope, occurred under divine direction, it has a focus which is essentially spiritual. Yet some still criticize the book for not being what it was never intended to be, as if one could justifiably criticize a phone directory for lack of a plot.”2 And, for all intents and purposes, that’s what we’ve been doing. (Laughter)

I guess from a personal note am I saying that we won’t ever find Ancient Near Eastern genetics? No. I think there are some tantalizing papers now that suggest that there may be European input, I would say at this time, into these ancient populations; but I’m not that familiar with that information so that’s a subject for future study. And overall, the genetic differences in the human family is pretty slight and so when we all say and speak of God’s children we are all very, very closely related at a genetic level and here we’re talking about very, very small nuances and differences when we talk about A, B, C, D and X.

I think that- well I mean we need to see in sacred scriptures its full intent and its possibilities and not really look for its limitations.

Mercifully the blessings of God and the Atonement, they don’t have genetic constrictions and how could they with an all-loving God? We’re all His children operating under the principle of free agency and the whole idea is whether or not we accept or deny that fact.

One final item is that I think that we as Latter-day Saints are too willing to accept what science or what critics have to say. We really need to be thoroughly skeptical of skeptics and critical of critics. Sometimes we are very gullible in our faith. If the boy Joseph saw Jesus Christ and God the Father in the grove what do these criticisms really matter? That is the major fact and so I would like to leave that with you and thank you once again.

(Applause)

Q: Can you comment on the DNA research done by Simon Southerton?

PARR: Simon Southerton has written a book called “Losing a Lost Tribe: DNA, the LDS Church” and so on and so forth.

For the reasons that I outlined here that book is very problematic because once again it looks at population frequencies. In fact the one graphic that I did show showing current population frequencies, if you noticed the note at the bottom was actually from his book but that’s a compilation of all the data that’s out there in the literature it suffers from this same- I hate to use the word ‘myopic’ but you just can’t look at modern populations and say, ‘This is how it was 2600 years ago.’

Population histories are really complex and many of the experts in this field say we can only hope to understand the very outlines of what happened and what went forth.

Q: In other words could I be a descendant of Lehi and yet have none of his DNA?

PARR: That’s a very good question. I think we all have this same sort of problem when we do our genealogy and again on a DNA basis we’re all very closely related; and I think we’re making Mt Everests out of speed bumps—and I mean I didn’t mean that in a rude way.

“… and yet have none of his DNA?” I don’t think God cares about DNA. If, once again, you consider the covenant of Abraham, he says that all of the nations of the world will be blessed. How could that be genetic? If we’re all created in His image and, if you look at DNA, it’s this divine sculpted molecule that’s incredible. We are His children. If you want to have to claim that you’re from Lehi or so on and so forth, to me, from my perspective, that’s not- I don’t know. I mean, my ancestors could’ve fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; I would be very thrilled if they did. Well sheesh they would’ve had to have made it didn’t they? They couldn’t have got killed! (Laughter) But, I still probably have none of their DNA in me.

SCOTT GORDON (President of FAIR): So it’s possible to have none of his DNA?

PARR: It’s possible to have none of his DNA but you could have one of these lines coming down showing that you are a direct descendant. But remember you’re related to all the other people in line as well.

Q: The African tribe, the Lemba, have been easily shown to be descendants of Hebrew migration. They also heavily intermarried with the locals. What is different with Lehi’s migration?

PARR: That’s a very good question and first of all, once again, we don’t know the nuances behind that genetic migration and that’s based on Y chromosomes and there were heavy, heavy Y chromosome populations.

Once again if you read in 2 Chronicles these men had multiple wives and all they list are the sons and so, what’s interesting about the Lemba is they have those chromosomes but they also have African chromosomes so the time schedule there may be different. Say they had 50 percent had Y chromosomes that were Jewish and 50 percent didn’t that says to me that these groups are going to fixation in another direction and if you look at them, they look African. So, I mean you can’t say that there isn’t this integration taking place and once again we don’t know. I mean if there were multiple migrations into this area, and I’m not an expert on this, then you get this genetic reinforcement. Sort of like, you know, at the beginning of the last century we always hear the story of the Titanic and the White Star Lines, those ships were actually built to carry immigrants to the New World and that’s what I’m saying. Here, we have this reinforcement from Europe and we simply don’t know what happened to the Lemba. Was there a trail where people continued to go there? So yes, they do have this Hebrew look but physically they don’t look that way and half of them genetically aren’t.

So are you going to say that those half that don’t have those markers are not Abraham’s children? So this is where we really run into problems.

And the difference with Lehi’s migration is that Lehi’s is a small kin-associated group and they left, they’re there. They’re in collision with the large population. And so those are the sorts of things you have to consider.

Notes

1 See also “Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church: Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat” by Ryan Parr in The FARMS Review, vol. 17, 2005. pp 83-106. < http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvolume.php?volume=17&number=1 > (accessed on 6 March 2006).

2 Not My Will, But Thine by Neal A. Maxwell, p. 29.

Search topics

DNA and the Book of Mormon; Ryan Parr DNA research; Book of Mormon DNA evidence; Native American DNA ancestry; mitochondrial DNA and the Book of Mormon; Y chromosome inheritance; population genetics and ancient populations; genetic lineage loss; DNA coalescence; Lamanite DNA; Native American Asian ancestry

Did DNA disprove the Book of Mormon?; are Native Americans descended from Israelites?; Book of Mormon historical evidence; Book of Mormon criticism; CES Letter DNA claims; Latter-day Saint responses to DNA criticism

Changes in the Book of Mormon

I want to do several things today. I’m first going to describe the critical text project, some of its major findings. Then I would like to turn to the issue of changes in the text to the Book of Mormon.

Critical texts have previously been prepared for important historical and literary works but until fairly recently not for the Book of Mormon. The first critical text of the Book of Mormon was published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, in 1984-86. That first version, although preliminary helped to establish criteria for the current project, especially the need for direct access to the original and printer’s manuscripts as well as the clearest photographs of those manuscripts. A critical text shows all the substantive changes that a written work has undergone from its original version to its present editions.

The word critical is derived from the Greek word krites meaning judge. When referring to a critical text, the term means that notes accompany the text so that the reader can see how the work has changed over time and thus judge between alternative readings.

There are two main goals for a critical text to the Book of Mormon. The first is to determine to the extent possible the original English language text of the book, that is, the text that Joseph Smith received by means of the interpreters and the seer stone. The second purpose is to establish the history of the text, including both accidental errors and editorial changes that the book has undergone as it has been transmitted down through time in its many editions.

The current critical text project of the Book of Mormon began in 1988 with major support from FARMS. Initial work concentrated on studying the two manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, namely the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript. The original manuscript, as we have it, was produced in the spring and early summer of 1829 by scribes who wrote down Joseph Smith’s dictation of the text. In 1841 the original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house. When removed in 1882 most of the manuscript had been destroyed by mold and water seepage. Today only 28% of the original manuscript is extant. Most of the surviving leaves and fragments–25% of the 28%–are held by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The remaining 3% are fragments owned by the Wilford Wood Foundation, the University of Utah and various individuals.

The printer’s manuscript is the copy of the original manuscript that scribes produced from August 1829 to the early part of 1830. For the most part, the 1830 printer set the type from the printer’s manuscript. Although for 1/6 of the text–from Helaman 13 through the end of Mormon–the type was set from the original manuscript.

The printer’s manuscript is virtually 100% extant and is held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now renamed the Community of Christ.

As a part of the critical text project, a typographical facsimile has been prepared for each of the two manuscripts. This kind of transcription represents an exact reproduction of the text in typescript. The text is transcribed line for line and without any corrections or expansions. Original spellings and miswritings are retained, all scribal changes in the manuscripts whether cross outs, erasures, overwriting or insertions are reproduced.

In May 2001, the transcripts of the two manuscripts were officially published by FARMS, now a part of Brigham Young University. They are the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon typographical facsimile of the extant text. Out there, there are copies of it, they’re in shrink wrap, I brought some open ones if some of you wish later to look at a copy. This is the original manuscript, 28% of it is extant.

The second one is the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon typographical facsimile of the entire text in two parts, so there are two volumes for that. These are fairly heavy, you don’t want to lug them to Church. (Laughter)

Both volumes contain introductions that present a brief history of the manuscripts, the symbols used in the transcription system and a physical description of the manuscripts. These two volumes present the earliest textual sources for the Book of Mormon; all known fragments of the original manuscript have been identified, interpreted and pieced together to the extent possible. A continuously running text for the extant portions has been provided with conjectured text placed sub linearly, or below the line.

The transcript of the original manuscript includes numerous fragments from the Wilford Wood Collection; these fragments from 58 pages of the original manuscript were discovered in 1991 and were conserved and photographed for the critical text project. In addition, minor fragments now held by others were also discovered as a part of this project. A number of forgeries were also identified and thus avoided in the transcript of the original manuscript.

With the publication of these two volumes all the legitimate manuscript sources for the Book of Mormon text are now accessible. Using the first three editions of the Book of Mormon along with these transcripts, scholars now have all the available information for studying the text of the Book of Mormon. This publication is intended for scholars of all faiths and persuasions, LDS, RLDS and all others interested in the text. Both LDS and RLDS versifications have been provided in the identification of manuscript pages and photographs.

The critical text project is a scholarly one; it has not involved any ecclesiastical approval or endorsement. The transcripts and the textual interpretations represent the editor’s own scholarly work but have involved peer review from other scholars.

The design and typesetting is the work of typographer Jonathan Saltzman, presents the text in an appealing form, one appropriate to the importance of the Book of Mormon.

Ultimately there will be four printed volumes and one electronic collation in the complete critical text. In addition to the two now published volumes there will be 3) The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon; 4) Analysis of Textual Variance of the Book of Mormon; 5) a complete electronic collation of the Book of Mormon.

The third volume will discuss the transmission of the text, from the manuscripts through the major editions. The fourth volume will discuss cases of textual variance and will attempt to determine the original English language reading of the text. The electronic collation will be a lined-up comparison of the important textual sources and will specify every textual variant in the Book of Mormon including punctuation, capitalization and spelling. The collation will include the readings of the two manuscripts and twenty editions of the Book of Mormon. The editor’s plan is to have volumes three and four and the electronic collation available within the next three years.

Now let us consider some of the more important findings of the project.

1. In copying from the original manuscript to the printer’s manuscript, Oliver Cowdery and other scribes made an average of two to three textual changes per manuscript page. The term textual change means an alteration in the wording, however minor, or a consistent change in the spelling of a name. In general these transmission errors have not been caught by later editors of the text except by reference to the manuscripts themselves.

2. As a part of this project the editor has completed a preliminary analysis of variation in the text of the Book of Mormon. This analysis provides evidence for about 1,500 potential changes to the current text. The large majority of these textual changes involve minor variation in phraseology. For instance (in the next overhead) in more than a few cases the indefinite article ‘a’ has accidentally been omitted, especially when the article is repeated in a coordinate construction.

In the following list we have eight examples involving a pair of coordinated adjectives followed by a noun. For each case, the addition in which the repeated ‘a’ was first dropped is listed in parentheses. So for example in the first one, Omni 1:28, the original text reads “…a strong and a mighty man,” the ‘a’ is repeated. This is not normal for English, it’s much more natural just to delete the second ‘a’ and this happens; it’s rather persistently occurring but randomly and occasionally. So in 1852 this was set by the typesetter as “…a strong and mighty man.”

In the next one we have one where ‘a’ dropped out in the 1840 edition, the next one 1837. And so currently in the text there are eight of these, in the LDS text there are a few more different ones in the RLDS where this repeated ‘a’ has accidentally dropped out. And this is… this represents eight of the 1,500. Most of the changes are like this.

In contrast to cases of minor variation, about 100 newly discovered changes are semantically significant. These proposed changes lead to differences in meaning, ones that would show up when translating the text.

3. Scribal corrections in the original manuscript supports statements made by witnesses of the translation that Joseph Smith sometimes spelled out the unfamiliar Book of Mormon names, at least on their first occurrence.

4. The original text is more consistent in phraseology and word usage. Many errors have led to various wrinkles in the text. One example is the phrase “…the word of the justice of the eternal God,” and if we could have the next one (overhead). This is found in 1 Nephi 12:18 which in the original manuscript read “…the sword of the justice of the eternal God,” and here (overhead) we have the two manuscripts in the writing as the scribes wrote them and the original has “And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God”. When Oliver copied this, he accidentally misread the ‘s,’ it was difficult to actually read and he ended up replacing it by ‘word.’ Elsewhere the Book of Mormon refers only to the ‘sword’ of God’s justice never to the ‘word’ of God’s justice; and here we have eight examples… no seven, and the last one is particularly interesting. In Ether 8:23 it has the exact same phraseology as the original one in 1 Nephi 12:18: “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God.”

5. The original text that is the English language text that Joseph Smith saw is not fully recoverable by human effort. Textual errors are generally not found except by discovering the correct reading in the manuscripts. Unfortunately most of the original manuscript is not extant. Conjecture based on internal analysis of the Book of Mormon text has largely been unsuccessful in recovering the correct reading. Still some conjectures are probably correct as in the next (overhead)… maybe I don’t have that example, let me see… (pause) Okay.

6. Even if we had the entire original manuscript there could still be errors in the text namely because the original manuscript itself has some errors. For instance… in the next one (overhead), in 1 Nephi 7:5 the original manuscript reads “…Ishmael, and also his hole hole” an impossible reading. The correct reading must be something else, when copying into the printer’s manuscript Oliver Cowdery amended this phrase to “…Ishmael, and also his household,” and here (overhead) you have the two manuscripts as they were written. The original manuscript is not Oliver Cowdery, an unknown scribe; printer’s manuscript is Oliver Cowdery copying it.

Usage elsewhere in the text suggests the word household always occurs with a universal quantifier, either ‘all’ or ‘whole’ or ‘none at all’ in negative sentences and here (overhead) I give some examples. Note the last one Ether 13:22 is a universal quantifier which means that the whole family goes along: “…Coriantumr repented not, neither his household.” If you had written there neither ‘all’ of his household then it might imply that some of them maybe did but by the negative sentences you can’t have a quantifier to get the universal meaning.

The really interesting one here is the use of “…his whole household” in Alma 22:23, the fourth one down (overhead). This suggests that the original text for 1 Nephi 7:5 probably read “Ishmael, and also his whole household” where the first ‘hole’ in the original manuscript is a homophone for ‘whole’ and the second ‘hole’ stands for the ‘hold’ of ‘household’ with the loss of the final ‘d’ in pronunciation.

7. The systematic nature of the original text and the spelling out of Book of Mormon names support the theory that the text was revealed to Joseph Smith word for word and even letter for letter. On the other hand all subsequent transmissions of the text appeared to be subject to human error. At each stage the accuracy of the transmission is dependent upon the carefulness of the transmitter, whether Joseph Smith, his scribes or later editors and typesetters. This caveat of course equally applies to the critical text itself, although all have tried to do their best, every transmission of the text appears to have led to some mistakes, yet none of these errors significantly interfere with either the message of the book or its doctrine.

These textual errors have never prevented readers of the book from receiving their own personal witness of its truth.

Let me give one other point that… I might point out this just appeared… published this week by FARMS, it’s a history and the major findings of the critical text project and I’ve brought a few here and they’re available out here. FAIR is selling… I only brought a few copies but if they run out you can get them from FARMS next week.

But in this I want to read one other statement and this deals with the changes in the text. The editing of the text, including Joseph Smith’s for the 1837 edition, should in nearly all instances be viewed as translating the text into a more standard variety of English. Moreover, in his editing of the text Joseph acted as human editor, his 1837 and 1840 revisions do not represent any kind of final authorial intent since Joseph Smith is first of all not the author of the Book of Mormon. Nor is there any evidence that his editorial revisions represent inspired corrections to the text, especially since he left unchanged dozens of substantive errors that the scribes originally made when they copied from the original manuscript to the printer’s manuscript.

The main point that I’m making is there is only one revealed stage in the transmission of the text and that’s what Joseph Smith received from the Lord. All other transmissions show human transmission and apparently, as far as we can tell, no intervention from the Lord. My conclusion here, there has been a spiritual dimension also to my work although my own testimony of the Book of Mormon is not based on this work on the Critical Text Project but rather on my own personal witness of over twenty years ago that this book records events which really happened. Nonetheless, it has been a delight to have discovered evidence in the original manuscript to support what witnesses said about how Joseph Smith translated.

The Book of Mormon is truly a marvelous work and a wonder and there’s considerable textual evidence that it was a word for word revelation to Joseph Smith from the Lord. With that I would like to turn to, I think, one of the most astounding findings of the Critical Text Project. When I first worked on reading the manuscripts, there’s always this thrill when you find the occasional error. (Laughter) You know, textual critics have to prove their value and the way they do it is by finding errors, but as I studied these errors I discovered something much more important and ultimately I realized that by human means I wasn’t going to find all the errors, 28% of the text is extant, what about the rest of it? And there are even errors in the original manuscript. One of the really surprising things is that in many cases, over 100 I’ve discovered, the original text was without exception in its phraseology; that over time we’d had occasional errors, one or two in a given phrase, so that the current text has what I call wrinkles in it. They don’t prevent you from understanding and reading but if you look at these phrases you discover the original was astoundingly systematic. And I wanted to give a few examples of these.

In a sense this is… we have to be grateful for the mistakes people have been making because these mistakes then allow us to discover how systematic the text originally was. The next twelve or so (overheads) will just be examples that I’ll go over briefly.

In referring to the present time the Book of Mormon always says ‘this time,’ it’s in the singular, it is never in the plural, even though we say in these times: original text is 61 to 0, however the current text is 60 to 1. The one mistake in 1 Nephi 10:19 “as well in this time as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come” notice the past and the future are in the plural and because of those occurrences of the plural nearby the 1830 printer accidentally set the present in the plural but the Book of Mormon never does this.

The next one, the word ‘whatever’ never occurs in the original text, it’s only ‘whatsoever’: original text 74 to 0, current text 72 to 2. We have them both; the 1830 printer put in ‘whatever,’ once in Jacob and elsewhere in Helaman. These are just accidental errors; notice he didn’t replace all 74, he just accidentally replaced two.

The next one, people in the Book of Mormon do ‘iniquity’ they never do ‘iniquities’ in the plural: the original text 22 to 0, now it’s 21 to 1. Jacob 2:35 “ye have done greater iniquity than the Lamanites” accidentally changed to the plural by the 1830 printer.

The next one, to have hope, the Book of Mormon in the original text has the main verb ‘have’ followed by the direct object ‘hope’–18 to 0, there is one occasion where this is actually due to editing by Joseph Smith, he changed it to ‘to have hoped’ he made the ‘have’ into what we call an auxiliary verb, the perfect, and he basically made the noun into a verb. He did this in Jacob 5:46 he left all the other examples. This is an example of his own editing showing that he is not the author of the text. He himself did not realize how systematic the original text was.

The next one, ‘if it so be that’: 38 to 0. Changed in two cases to ‘if it be so that’ mixing up the order, occurs in the 1852 and the 1849 editions.

The Nephites and the Lamanites, the ‘the’ is always repeated: 15 to 0. But, in the 1830 edition, in one place the additional ‘the’ was dropped so the current text reads “and I saw wars between the Nephites and Lamanites”. This is the kind of expression which we might expect.

The Book of Mormon only has, originally, ‘to observe to keep the commandments’ never ‘to observe the commandments’: 11 to 0. But, in the 1837 edition the words ‘to keep’ were accidentally dropped out in one case.

‘To set a mark upon’ someone, never ‘to set a mark on’ someone, that’s what we really expect in modern day English: 9 to 0 in the original, it’s now 8 to 1, an 1837 change.

‘Thus ended a period of time’, they are all in the past tense. We have four places now where it’s in the present ‘Thus endeth a period of time’ and these are in the accounts in Alma–one in the 1830, 1837 for another one, two of them in 1849. It gives a sort of immediate presence in the accounting but the actual text never does this.

In the Book of Mormon you only ‘meet’ people, you never ‘meet with,’ meeting with people sounds like a modern-day bureaucratic system. In any event this one accidentally occurred–1830 edition–Alma is traveling and he… the sons of Mosiah are coming back from their missionary labors with this difficult problem that the… their converts are being murdered. In any event he ‘met’ the sons of Mosiah on the road he didn’t ‘meet with’ them.

‘Conditions’ never ‘condition’, there is no singular condition in the original text, it’s always plural: 14 to 0. We have two in the current text: “and we will guard them from their enemies by our armies on conditions that they will give us a portion of their substance” this was changed in the 1920 edition, it was a conscious change, it is marked in the Committee copy. The other one in the 1830 is an accident. We in English expect the singular; it’s actually a tribute to the typesetters that they have kept 12 of them because it’s so unusual in English to have this plural use for us at least today.

And finally, ‘into’ one’s hands never ‘unto’ one’s hands: the original text was 56 to 0, the current one is 55 to 1. This is one that the 1920 Committee copy isn’t marked, it is a typo by the typesetters in Chicago. “Therefore they yielded up the city into our hands” is the original and it was misread as ‘unto’ so “therefore they yielded up the city unto our hands”. When you think about it, it is a little strange it’s just a misreading.

Well, these are twelve examples. There are over 90 more, probably over a hundred. I haven’t really counted them but it’s amazing to me how systematic the text was. And even Joseph Smith couldn’t understand how systematic it was.

Now we come to the big topic that so many people are exercised over: how many changes are there in the Book of Mormon text? I don’t know and I’ll tell you why it’s hard to count them. In my computerized collation of the two manuscripts and 20 significant editions of the Book of Mormon, I can count the number of places of variation. These are places where in some place in the text there’s a variant, whether it’s spelling, punctuation, words missing, added, grammatical change. There are 105,000 places of variation.

For your information there are 270,000 words or so in the Book of Mormon, but even this number of 105,000 is misleading. If you take an example… let’s see what we have (overhead)…

Suppose you have an example where the manuscripts have no punctuation and the 1830 put in a semi-colon and a later edition made it a colon and then it’s been made a period but later it was changed back to a semi-colon, this is all one variant, it’s a place of variation but maybe within it there could be 4-5 changes.

So the real issue, borrowing from Proverbs, is “with all thy counting get understanding.” (Laughter) Let us begin with the kinds of variants there are. The first one is with bookkeeping or referencing: chapters and verses. The chapters are actually… the word chapter and the numbers are not original to the text of the Book of Mormon. As Joseph Smith was dictating he apparently could see the end of a section and he would tell the scribe, ‘write the word chapter,’ which the scribe did. The ink level is the same. The numbers added are added later in heavier ink, sometimes the wrong number and in many places the word chapter is in the wrong place. It belongs where something ended but it may be the beginning of a new book and yet the word chapter is written at the beginning of a new book, right before the name of the book and these had to be corrected. So there are variations of course in chapters, the numbers assigned to them and there are five versification chapter systems in the text. The RLDS have three of them in their first, second and third editions. They kept… they had long ones and they broke up their verses more and broke them more even more.

In 1852, Franklin Richards and his brother Samuel numbered the paragraphs, they were long, it’s a kind of versification.

In 1879, Orson Pratt changed the chapter system and broke up the chapters, they were much longer originally and we have more than twice as many chapters than the original text had and then he put verses… verse numbers in. All of these are variants. Well, we won’t count those, okay?

Then there are accidentals. The term accidental is one that comes from Aristotle; it refers to distinctions which do not change the essence of something. In other words, they change the form but not the substance. Well what are some of these?

Paragraphing: Paragraphing was added in the 1830 edition. Paragraphs you can think of have been replaced by versification but even verses are little paragraphs, every one of them is a little paragraph and breaks up the ability to read the text in a flowing manner.

Punctuation: For the most part punctuation is an accidental. You can basically read the Book of Mormon text without punctuation. In the original manuscript we only find evidence for a few dashes in the book summaries, otherwise there is no punctuation. The original text itself probably had no punctuation at all. Most of it was added by the 1830 printer, it has been changed to… in some places it was probably wrong… in only a few places is there really any debate over whether the punctuation makes a difference in meaning. Those would not count as accidentals. If the punctuation makes a real difference in meaning then we put it under a different category, but the vast majority, and I would like to say those who wish to count punctuation changes as changes need to realize that every punctuation mark is a change because the original manuscript didn’t have any except for a few dashes and those have all been changed so every punctuation mark is a change. We are way beyond 4,000 and yet we haven’t got to one of any substance yet.

Spelling of common words: We have variant spellings in the editions and the manuscripts, labor versus labour. The ampersand, you use the ampersand that’s a change if you write it out. Etc. was always written as ‘ampersand s.’ Misspellings, these (overhead) are a couple of Oliver’s: ‘intrigue’ and ‘kept’. Slips of the pen: Nephi and pass, where the vowel just acts… these are generally found, and then of course there are lots of typos.

Capitalization: Most capitalizations, many of the names were not even capitalized in the manuscripts, depending on the scribe. So here we have ‘river sidon’ versus ‘river Sidon’ this was in the 1830 edition. Deseret, editors have debated whether this should be capitalized or not. And ‘i’ even ‘i’, one scribe just doesn’t like capitalizing his ‘i’s. Should something be in all caps or in regular capitalization? Jehovah is sometimes put in all capitalization in some editions.

These all clearly show that the transmission of the text is occurring through humans. It has all the signs of human transmission but the original revelation to Joseph Smith I would submit, because he could see the spellings… he could produce specific phraseology over and over, suggests that that is indeed what he received.

Well, in contrast to accidental changes we have substantive changes and here are a few. Changes in the words, forms of the words, phrases and sentences, spellings that make a difference in meaning, this includes names, here are four of them that the manuscripts are very clear should be: Gaddianton with two d’s, someone will have to change their talk, Morionton with all o’s, Zenock is ‘ch’ like Enoch it is not ‘ck’ this is Oliver Cowdery’s scribal error that he just has the darndest time trying to avoid and ultimately the editions have ended up with ‘ck’, however the list by the way at the back has ‘ch’. Don’t know what this means but the pronunciation list has the correct one for some reason and Kishkumen has a ‘c.’ Remember the city of ‘Cumeni’ or however it’s pronounced; it’s got a ‘c,’ sort of interesting.

Then there’s also spellings that deal with homophones, you have to figure out what word was intended. Is the word right ‘rite’, the ‘rites’ of their religion, the current text has it ‘rites’ is that correct? ‘Straight’ is one that’s caused considerable debate is it the one with the ‘gh’ or the one without? Does it mean narrow or not crooked? And ‘travel’ versus ‘travail,’ Oliver Cowdery apparently pronounced them ‘travel’ both, this is the common pronunciation for both words and we have to figure out which ones are ‘travel’ – the ‘travels’ of the Jews? Or the ‘travails’ of the Jews? And you can’t tell by the spellings of the scribes.

Okay, grammatical usage. The Book of Mormon has been edited basically from dialectal English into standard English, from Geneva-Rhodes English into BYU English. (Laughter) Yeah! Some of this editing is accidental, it occurred accidentally in… going between the manuscripts and into the 1830 edition, it wasn’t intended, but beginning with the 1837 edition this was consciously done, attempting to remove dialectal things that would be considered non-standard such as ‘they was’ to ‘they were,’ ‘them days’ to ‘those days.’

The most significant kind of grammatical change though, in the Book of Mormon text, has been to remove King James Version language. The most prominent is changing ‘which’ to ‘who’, “Our Father which art in heaven” was the original reading for the Lord’s prayer in 3 Nephi edited to “Our Father who art in heaven” which is what we would expect at least with respect to that relative pronoun. ‘Because that’ changed to ‘because’ “because that he came” this is not Standard English but it’s in the King James Bible and ‘he sayeth.’ In lots of narratives in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, it’s in the present, this gives an immediacy to it and these have been edited basically to ‘said’ and so when Amulek and Zeezrom are going at each other the original text says “and he sayeth, he sayeth, he sayeth” and these have been edited to “he said.”

There are examples of phraseology and these are more accidental and I gave some examples of the repeated ‘a.’ Note that the examples that we’ve… these examples, virtually all of these that I’ve been talking… well some of them, the grammatical at least, thus far would not show up in a translation for the most part. Most of these grammatical things, whether you use ‘which’ or ‘who’ if you’re translating another language that language will tell you which relative pronoun to use, so these things really aren’t that significant from a meaning point of view. But there are meaning ones and we saw some examples like ‘the sword of the justice of God’ being accidentally changed to ‘the word‘ and these clearly would show up in translating and these are about the highest level we’re going to get though in terms of meaning changes.

Finally, we have a group of items that we could call clarifications. Joseph Smith, in his editing, for the first 100 pages, every time he did it, 1837, 1840, we also know he was doing it a third time in about 1842. He works very assiduously and pretty carefully for about the first 100 pages and then the demands on his time make it so that he apparently cannot continue doing the editing at that level of detail and so he doesn’t continue. He does a more rapid and getting only the essential changes that he wanted, the grammatical ones that would be clearly non standard.

For example, in these two (overhead), these are 1837 changes made by Joseph Smith in his own hand and notice they’re really clarifications, perhaps, I mean we can… ‘he pitched his tent in a valley beside a river of water’, and he changed it to ‘by the side of a river of water’ even though ‘beside’ does mean ‘by the side of’ historically. Or in the account of the dream ‘methought I saw a dark and dreary wilderness’ and Joseph added ‘in my dream’. It’s really not necessary but it’s a clarification just in case you didn’t remember that he was describing the dream.

Finally we come to the five chestnuts, the ones that everyone seems to be exercised over. The point is there… first of all, aren’t too many and when you compare with other texts and people debating over what the text should read. The first one is one that was discussed yesterday… the example… the first one ‘the mother of God’ changed in the 1830 edition to ‘the mother of the Son of God.’ I view these myself as in the clarification mode. These kinds of changes are found only in the first part of the text. There are later ones that Joseph Smith could have changed, ‘God’ to ‘Son of God’ but he did not. I also added in the extra one here of ‘Jesus Christ’ being changed to the ‘Messiah.’ These are, I think, clarifications.

We can’t be really absolutely sure what was in Joseph Smith’s mind. A lot of people are speculating as to the theological reasons, or the attempts to make the text more consistent or something. Joseph Smith made the changes; he didn’t leave any notes or explanation. Maybe for example, he didn’t like the Catholic sounding ‘mother of God?’ In any event, these in my mind are clarifications.

The next one is one that’s probably a scribal error, the ‘Son of the Only Begotten of the Father.’ I suppose one could say if they really believed this that somehow this must mean Jesus had offspring. Well it is probably a scribal error, it occurs in the… we don’t have the original manuscript; it is in the hand of scribe two of the printer’s manuscript. Apparently, the scribe, hearing a lot of ‘ofs’ put in too many, put in an extra one ‘the Son of the Only Begotten of the Father’ ‘after the order of the Son of the Only Begotten of the Father’, we have these extra ‘ofs’ Joseph Smith removed them in the second edition and quite correctly. These probably are just simple scribal errors.

The third one is this ‘white and delightsome’ changed to ‘pure and delightsome.’ There has been more ink on this one than any one and it’s all about modes and it’s really, I think, an embarrassment. First of all the textual evidence, this change appears in the 1840 edition, we presume that it was made by Joseph Smith but we can’t be sure, it just appears. It is probably not a typo, a misreading, because ‘white’ and ‘pure’ look so different, it probably was consciously done.

In preparing the 1981 edition, the Committee at the Church considered this reading in the 1840 edition and they made the change based on the 1840 edition. It is in my mind quite clear that there was no political motivation; they were not trying to remove racism from the Book of Mormon text. The reason this is very clear is there are eight other passages they did not touch which quite clearly could be identified as making the same preference for white skin and those are not removed. The brethren, I presume, and they’ve never said why, but… looked at the actual text of the 1840, decided that it was Joseph Smith’s change–I think it probably was–and decided to follow that. It was a very conservative change and could not have really been motivated by political considerations. As far… we don’t have the original manuscript here, the internal evidence suggests that ‘white’ is the original reading and it is because the word ‘white’ co-occurs with ‘fair and delightsome’ and refers with reference to skin color six times in the text. ‘White’ co-occurs with ‘pure,’ but only when referring to a state of heavenly perfection like in the resurrection; that’s four times. So we don’t know why the change was made by Joseph Smith. The 1981 was probably made out of deference to that change that they assumed that Joseph had made.

We had some discussion yesterday about Benjamin in Mosiah… I will not repeat that I think John Tvedtnes really gave much of the evidence for what the slight problem might be in the chronology.

The last one, is was the brother of Jared a polygamist? This is one that is still in our current text, the original text reads basically that the brother of Jared had a family, Jared his brother had a family and they had… brother of Jared had his friends, more than one and each of them have a family, and Jared has friends and each of them have a family. The 1830 printer in reading one of the families apparently let his eye glance down to the next line and he caught one of the plurals and accidentally set it as ‘families’ this is just a typo by the 1830 editor. The really sort of sad thing about this is that when the Church changes this back to the singular there will be this outrage, this claim quite… absolutely falsely that the brethren are doing it to hide polygamy in the text. This is perhaps one advantage for having an independent scholarly approach, the evidence is very clear that it is in the singular.

Errors have crept into the text but no errors… I’m concluding… errors have crept into the text but no errors significantly interfere with either the message of the book or its doctrine. These textual errors have never prevented readers of the book from receiving their own personal witness of its truth–every sincere reader. In fact, as I pointed out, errors have been helpful in studying the Book of Mormon text. We have discovered the systematic nature of the text because of the occasional errors. How many other cases of systematic phraseology have not yet been discovered because the transmission has been error free? The errors in transmission help us find them… these systematic readings.

All of this worry over the number of changes is specious. There are many more variants per word in the New Testament text and many more highly debated variants. Does this variation mean that the New Testament is false? That it is not God’s word because humans have made errors in its transmission? The word of God still comes through both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon despite the occasional errors in transmission. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

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

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Isaiah 1–12 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Isaiah 1-12 – Jennifer Roach Lees
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Isaiah 1–12 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • Because of Jesus Christ
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Proverbs 1–4; 15–16; 22; 31; Ecclesiastes 1–3; 11–12 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Willie Louise Truitt on The Joy of a Covenant Relationship with God
  • Katrina on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry
  • Nancy Farmer on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 49–51; 61–66; 69–72; 77–78; 85–86 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • Nicko De Leon on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry
  • Becky Matson on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry

Archives

Follow Us

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

Footer

FairMormon Logo

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

Donate to FAIR

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

Donate Now

Site Footer

The use of the temple in past and current logos and the name "Mormon" are licensed for use by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.