Neal Rappleye

A Mormon Reads a REAL Atheist’s Blog Post

October 24, 2014 by Neal Rappleye

"An ostracon from the end of the eight century BCE. In the first line we have the ciphers 50 + 7 in Egyptian hieroglyphic forms used widely in Israel and Judah." (Shmuel Ahituv, Echoes from the Past, 36.) — “An ostracon from the end of the eight century BCE. In the first line we have the ciphers 50 + 7 in Egyptian hieroglyphic forms used widely in Israel and Judah.” (Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 36.)

[Cross posted from Studio et Quoque Fide.]

Many have probably already seen the post, “An Atheist’s Response to the First 31 Pages of The Book of Mormon.” I am going to guess that fewer people have seen “A REAL Atheist’s Response to the First 31 Pages of the Book of Mormon.” This “real atheist” appears to be an ex-Mormon named Benjamin V. (or else a Benjamin posted this on behalf the atheist). In any case, this “real atheist” (RA from here on out) is much less flattering than the first, providing a critique of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. (In keeping with RA’s own practice, I will not link to either of these blog posts.)

RA was respectful in his critique, no snarky remarks or sarcastic jabs, which I appreciate. I nonetheless found his critique to be somewhat naïve not only of LDS scholarship, but of biblical scholarship more generally. In RA’s defense, he (I am assuming gender here) does admit, “I’m not an expert on Christian theology or the Bible, and I certainly don’t believe in much of either, but I do have a passing familiarity with them.” In the spirit of promoting a more informed discussion, I would just like provide an informed Mormon’s opinions of RA’s objections.

Pre-Exilic Jews: RA thinks Nephi’s frequent reference to “Jews” is anachronistic. He writes, “the term ‘Jew’ wasn’t coined until after the Israelites returned from captivity under the reign of the Persians.” RA then tries to predict the apologetic response:

Knowing a bit about Mormon apologetics, I’m sure some would like to explain this away by appealing to Joseph Smith’s imperfect translation skills. Perhaps Nephi used a word like “Israelite,” and Joseph Smith translated it as “Jew.” But there are clues in the text that would argue against this explanation. For example, in 1 Nephi 15:17 (on page 31, as it happens), Nephi refers to “…the Jews, or… the House of Israel.” Clearly Nephi was familiar with both terms, when only one would have been invented at the time of his writing.

Actually, a more simple solution is that Nephi used yehudi (יהודי); plural yehudim (יהודים), which is translated as “Jew” (or in the plural, “Jews”) in the KJV, and even in some instances in modern translations like the NIV and the NASB. In fact, it appears at a rather high frequency in the writings of Jeremiah, Nephi’s contemporary (e.g., Jeremiah 32:12; 34:9; 38:19; 40:11, 12, 15: 41:3; 44:1; 52:28, 30). Though it more properly means “Judean” or “Judeans,” the distinction was not made in 1830. So, there is really no problem with Nephi’s use of the term. In fact, there are arguably a number of wordplays in the underlying text on the Hebrew meaning of the word.[1] An interesting point to consider, since Joseph Smith did not know Hebrew.

Egyptian Writing: RA’s next comments, “It’s hard to understand why someone who was born and raised in Jerusalem ‘in all his days’ would have known Egyptian at all.” This is not really a serious conundrum. Stefen Wimmer has documented several instances of what he calls “Palestinian hieratic,” an Egyptian script being used by Israelites in ancient times (cf. 1 Nephi 1:2).[2] According to Wimmer, this script was used in Palestine “probably over several centuries,” and its usage peaks in the late-7th century bc, coming to an abrupt end “after the Babylonian captivity.”^{^[3]} This is the very time period of Lehi, Nephi’s father (it probably would not have been his primary language, but nothing in the text requires it to be). Given that RA says he knows “a bit about Mormon apologetics,” I am little surprised he does not know about this, since it has frequently been commented on by LDS scholars.[4]

The idea that Lehi’s “children write their diaries in Egyptian,” is not really in the Book of Mormon. Nephi is not writing a “diary,” but an official record of his people, replete with an origin story meant to give them a sense of identity and meaning. Under such circumstances, Nephi was probably following the pattern of the Brass Plates, which were actually written in Egyptian (Mosiah 1:4). This resolves the contradiction RA creates by saying, “This document seems to have been written in Hebrew, but it is taken, in part, ‘that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers.’ So is the language (always singular) of their fathers Egyptian or Hebrew?”

Clarity About the Messiah: The next strange thing, according to RA is “their portrayal of the Messiah.” RA goes on to explain that there are few explicit prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament, and the prophecies of the Messiah that do exist provide a very different picture than the Christian version. He states that most Messianic prophecies are taken out of context.

if you read the Old Testament and 1 Nephi back-to-back, 1 Nephi’s Messianic prophecies are wildly out of place. The Old Testament contains a few scant clues that (even if read the way Christians traditionally understand them) are so vague that they could only be understood in hindsight. Meanwhile, Nephi is receiving incredibly specific prophecies that could only apply to Jesus. The Jewish conqueror-Messiah of the Old Testament is nowhere to be found in 1 Nephi. In his place is a Jesus precisely described, right down to the time and place of his birth, his name, his mother’s name, and a description of John the Baptist. It also specifically refers to this Messiah as God, which would never have occurred to any Old Testament prophet. If anything like this had appeared in the Old Testament, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would have questioned Jesus’ divine identity.(emphasis added)

Frankly, I think that RA answers his own question here. The prophecies are only “wildly out of place” if one rejects the idea of genuine prophecy. If we accept that God can, in fact, reveal the future, then there is no real barrier to believe that God could reveal even highly specific prophecies; nor can there be a reasonable objection to God revealing more specific prophecies to one group of people, and less specific prophecies to others. Within Mormon theology, agency is an all-important principle: people need to have the ability to choose. Thus, since highly specific prophecies like those in the Book of Mormon make it “hard to imagine that anyone would have questioned Jesus’ divine identity,” such specificity could not be revealed to those who would be there for his mortal ministry; otherwise it would be so obvious their agency would be compromised. Meanwhile, those who would not be there could have more specific details.

I get that this answer can come across as a bit of a cop-out. But the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to provide evidence that revelation is real. As such, it seems inappropriate, to me, to judge its historicity on grounds which rule prophecy and revelation out a priori. For what it is worth, some non-LDS scholars would dispute RA’s points entirely. Margaret Barker, for instance, has argued that Christianity was based on deep roots of pre-Exilic (i.e., before the Babylonian captivity) Israelite religion. When she commented on the Book of Mormon, she wrote:

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah. Thus finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, though obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. This is, I suggest, one aspect of the restoration of “the plain and precious things, which have been taken away from them” (1 Nephi 13:40).^{^[5]}

Daniel Boyarin, a Jewish scholar, has made a similar argument.[6] I have not yet read Boyarin’s book, but Daniel C. Peterson quotes him as saying, “The theology of the Gospels, far from being a radical innovation within Israelite religious tradition, is a highly conservative return to the very most ancient moments within that tradition, moments that had been largely suppressed in the meantime — but not entirely.”[7]

Nephi’s prophecies still might seem much too specific for those who refuse to believe in revelation, but in light of work by the likes of Barker and Boyarin, they really are not quite so “wildly out of place” after all.

Law of Moses: RA states that, “upon a cursory analysis of the text, I could find very little evidence that these people even knew what the Law of Moses was, let alone that they lived it.” Many who have given the text more than a cursory reading, however, have found that the law of Moses permeates the text. John W. Welch, who is an attorney and a scholar of ancient Jewish and Israelite law, has provided numerous studies of the law and the Book of Mormon. Welch has shown that the text describing Nephi’s “particularly grizzly murder,” of Laban, as RA calls it, was in fact consciously written with an understanding of the Mosiac law as it existed and was interpreted in 600 bc.[8] Welch has also thoroughly examined 7 legal cases in the Book of Mormon, finding them consistent with the ancient law of Moses.[9]What about the “holidays or festivals that play such an important role in Jewish life,” which RA says, are never “mentioned in the Book of Mormon”? Several scholars have shown that major sermons like those of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10 and Benjamin in Mosiah 1–6 are examples of just such festivals.[10] Several other aspects of the law of Moses have also been found in the Book of Mormon.[11]

Then there is the fact that, “the moment Lehi and his (non-Levite) family leave Jerusalem, they immediately set up altars and sacrifice animals in the wilderness, which would have scandalized a family of Israelites raised in the Deuteronomistic Mosaic tradition.” This actually finds an interesting solution in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the Temple Scroll allows such sacrifices if you are beyond a three-day journey from the temple.[12] It also worth pointing out that some have argued that Lehi was not fully on board with the Deuteronomistic reforms going on in his day, and in fact spoke out against them; in which case, his not being in full compliance with the Deuteronomistic tradition is not a serious defect.[13]

Miscellaneous Topics: RA states that, “there are so many other oddities that it would be ponderous to give an exhaustive list.” In that same spirit, I note that there are so many other responses, both to the topics I have chosen to respond to, and the ones I have not, that it would be a rather tedious task to keep going. He notes that, “structures that seem to be natively English,” and “phrases copied from the New Testament” which are, in my opinion, not surprising for an English translation made ca. 1830. He also notes “a pattern of prophecy that is highly unusual, consisting of uncharacteristically specific predictions from the time of Nephi to the time of Joseph Smith … followed by absolute silence about anything that’s happened since the early 19th Century, which would have been most useful to the stated audience of the book.” This, like the prophecies of Christ, are really a matter of accepting prophecy or not, and agency could again be invoked for the lack of specificity on details after Joseph Smith’s time—highly specific prophecy of events after its publication would have simply made it’s truth to obvious, and thus interfered with the exercise of true agency (which requires that competing explanations have seemingly approximately equal merit). I could go on with the issues I have skipped over, but will refrain.

Closing Comments

I appreciate that RA was willing to read and comment on the Book of Mormon, and his professional tone. I hope I have successfully engaged him with just as much professionalism. I realize that little of what I have to say is going to convince RA or any other atheist that the Book of Mormon is true. And, it is certainly correct that none of the above proves the Book of Mormon true. I have merely sought to add to the conversation, as I said before, with some reflections from a Mormon who considers himself well-informed. I hope that, at the least, I have shown some that the Book of Mormon merits a more serious reading. Much of what initially seems odd and out of place turns out to fit more comfortably than one would expect, and certainly more comfortably than what was known in 1830.

[1] Matt Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name ‘Judah’ and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 111–125.

[2] Stefen Wimmer, Palästiniches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräishen Schrift (Wiesbaden: Harraossowitz, 2008).

[3] An English summary of Wimmer’s work, from which I have quoted, is William J. Hamblin, “Palestinian Hieratic,” at Interpreter (blog), September 1, 2012, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/palestinian-hieratic/ (accessed September 25, 2014).

[4] For example, Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, “Notes and Communications—Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 156–163; John S. Thompson, “Lehi and Egypt,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2004), 266–267; Aaron P. Schade, “The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 315–319; William J. Hamblin, “Reformed Egyptian,” FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 31–35.

[5] Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2006), 79.

[6] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: The New Press, 2012).

[7] Daniel C. Peterson, “Messianic Ideas in Judaism,” Deseret News, June 14, 2012, online at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765582991/Messianic-ideas-in-Judaism.html?pg=all (accessed October 23, 2014).

[8] John W. Welch, “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1 (1992): 119–141.

[9] John W. Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: BYU Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, 2008).

[10] John S. Thompson, “Isaiah 50–51, the Israelite Autumn Feastivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998), 123–150; John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., King Benjamin’s Speech: “That Ye May Learn Wisdom” (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998).

[11] For example, John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), chaps. 16, 18, 24, 38, 39, 44, 50, 54, 56, 70, 72, 73.

[12] David Rolph Seely, “Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/1 (2001): 62–69.

[13] Margaret Barker and Kevin Christensen, “Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition,” in Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 143–172; Kevin Christensen, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 449–522; Kevin Christensen, “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers 2 (2001).

Analysis of Textual Variants Now Available Online FREE

October 20, 2014 by Neal Rappleye

[Cross-posted from Studio et Quoque Fide.]

I was born in Colorado Springs, Colorado in May of 1987. A year later, in Provo, Utah, Royal Skousen took over the FARMS-sponsored Book of Mormon Critical Text Project (CTP from this point on). For the last quarter-century and some change, Skousen has been dedicated to that project, while I have just been living a rather ordinary and unaccomplished life. Frankly, I cannot personally imagine what it would be like to spend what is essentially my entire lifetime (up to this point) with a dedicated focus to a single topic of study. Yet that is exactly what Skousen has done. And anyone who has even lightly pursued the fruits of his labors can only stand in appreciative awe at the breadth and depth of Skousen’s work.

Skousen himself has given the background history to the project. The fruits of the CTP finally began to published in 2001, starting with the ultra-violate photographs and transcriptions of the extent fragments of the original manuscript (plus relevant background commentary on the history of the OM, paper type and size, parts of the Book of Mormon extant, the scribes based on handwriting analysis, etc.), and a two-volume set of the same for the printer’s manuscript. These were already important and significant contributions to Book of Mormon scholarship. Never before had the two earliest extent versions of the Book of Mormon been both published in full and studied so thoroughly. But that was only the tip of the iceberg.

The next step was the monumental effort to study each and every variant in the text from these two manuscripts and 20 different print editions from 1830 to 1981. Between all these editions, Skousen documented over 100,000 changes, which he then analyzed carefully to determine which reading is most likely the original. (Unsurprisingly, earlier readings tend to be favored over later ones.) This analysis was published between 2004–2009, and spanned across 6 different volumes of 650–720 pages each, for a total of 4060 pages! Called Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (ATV), it was indeed a monumental effort.

To some, this might all seem pretty over-the-top—who needs such extensive study of every change in the Book of Mormon? I would argue, and I think Skousen would agree, that as the foundational text of our faith—the “keystone of our religion,” in the words of Joseph Smith—knowing the precise language of the text in its original form is of utmost importance. It is, after all, declared the word of God in Article of Faith 8. Still, I can imagine that most people do not need all the thorough analysis involved here. So can Skounsen, which is why he made the ultimate fruit of his analysis—simply the text of the Book of Mormon in what is most likely its earliest form—available in a single volume, without all the extra analysis, called The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, published by Yale University Press in 2009.

While Yale’s Earliest Text edition of the Book of Mormon will serve most needs, anyone who wishes to engage serious study of the Book of Mormon—academic or otherwise—will no doubt find that at times, having the extend analysis would be helpful. This is especially so if one is making academic arguments, or even merely personal meditations on the text, which hinge on specifics of vocabulary and grammar. Yet, the monumental size of the ATV has naturally made it costly—$300 for the whole set—and difficult to access to. Until now. As of October 7, 2014, the entire ATV was made freely available online via the Interpreter Foundation.

Dr. Skousen and Interpreter are to be commended for making this landmark in Book of Mormon scholarship widely accessible any and all Book of Mormon students, from the most erudite scholars of the text, to average members of the church who would simply like to get closer to the text of the Book of Mormon as God revealed it to Joseph Smith. In doing so, they have rendered for the Latter-day Saints and the community of scholars who study Mormonism a great service. I would encourage every Latter-day Saint to explore it and get familiar with the ATV and learn to use it, at least occasionally, in their study of the Book of Mormon.

Mark Wright vs. Earl Wunderli: How Perspective Changes Everything

September 17, 2014 by Neal Rappleye

Mesoamericansacrifice — A Depiction of Mesoamerican human sacrifice, from Mark Wright’s Article. Notice the jaguar and macaw, on each side waiting to be sacrificed next. Cf. Alma 34:10

[Cross posted from Studio et Quoque Fide with slight alterations.]

Last year, Earl Wunderli published study claiming to show that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith strictly by internal evidence. It has been critically reviewed by Brant Gardner, Robert Rees, and Matt Roper with Paul Fields and Larry Bassist (forthcoming from BYU Studies Quarterly). For Wunderli, one of the curiosities that seems to indicate a 19th century authorship for the Book of Mormon is that, “when Jesus appears, he invites the multitude to thrust their hands into the sword wound in his side and feel the nail holes in his hands and feet. How Nephites would know the significance of the wounds is a question.” (Earl M. Wunderli, An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us about Itself [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2013], 217.)

When I first read Wunderli’s comments, I must admit I was a little amused. Why? Last week’s paper from Interpreter is Mark Wright’s presentation “Axes Mundi: Ritual Complexes in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon,” from the Temple on Mount Zion Conference in September of 2012. I love Wright’s work because he finds such subtle ways in which the Mesoamerican setting changes the way we understand the Book of Mormon and sheds light on perplexing issues. I remember being at the conference and listening to Wright. In it, he talks about Christ’s visit to the Nephites and Mesoamerican sacrifice. Wright explains:

The typical method of human sacrifice was to stretch the victim across a stone altar and have his hands and feet held down by four men. A priest would then make a large incision directly below the ribcage using a knife made out of razor-sharp flint or obsidian, and while the victim was yet alive the priest would thrust his hand into the cut and reach up under the ribcage and into the chest and rip out the victim’s still-beating heart. (emphasis mine)

Indeed, this is a very different method of sacrifice than crucifixion, and many among the Nephites likely would not have understood the method by which Christ was killed. But, Wright notices something interesting about how Christ invites them to see his wounds.

When Christ appeared to the Nephites, he may have been communicating with them according to their cultural language when he invited them to come and feel for themselves the wounds in his flesh. He bade them first to thrust their hands into his side, and secondarily to feel the prints in his hands and feet (3 Nephi 11:14). This contrasts with his appearance to his apostles in Jerusalem after his resurrection. Among them, he invited them to touch solely his hands and feet (Luke 24:39–40). Why the difference? To a people steeped in Mesoamerican culture, the sign that a person had been ritually sacrificed would have been an incision on their side — suggesting they had had their hearts removed — whereas for the people of Jerusalem in the first century, the wounds that would indicate someone had been sacrificed would have been in the hands and the feet — the marks of crucifixion. (emphasis mine)

Obviously, Christ was not sacrificed in a Mesoamerican way, with his heart ripped-out. But the crucial point for all to understand is not how he was sacrificed, merely that he actually was sacrificed. A mark on the side, below the ribcage, would have communicated that message to Nephites in Mesoamerica quite effectively.

In contrasting Wright’s insightful approach with that of Wunderli’s, there is an important lesson to be learned: perspective and context can change everything. There really is no such thing as a wholly “internal” reading of the text. We all bring perspectives, assumptions, and understandings to the text that are external to it, and drive our interpretations of it. Wunderli does not read the text through a Mesoamerican lens (and would not be capable of so doing, in any case), and so he finds Christ’s showing of his wounds to be a curious feature, bringing in the assumption that the wounds would make no sense to anyone outside of the Roman empire. Meanwhile, Wright shows a careful reading comparing Christ’s showing of wounds in both the Old World and the New, notices the subtle differences, and seeks to understand how a setting within the New World serves to explain those differences. I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which reading is more productive.

A Scientist Looks at Book of Mormon Anachronisms

May 23, 2014 by Neal Rappleye

Review of Wade E. Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More (Laguna Niguel, California: KCT & Associates, 2010). 106 pages + viii, including two appendices and references cited, no index.

Abstract: Anachronisms, or out of place items, have long been a subject of controversy with the Book of Mormon. Several Latter-day Saints over the years have attempted to examine them. Dr. Wade E. Miller, as a paleontologist and geologist, offers a some new insights on this old question, especially regarding animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, including a report on some preliminary research which might completely change the pre-Columbian picture for horses in America. Overall, this is an indispensable resource on Book of Mormon anachronisms.

To continue reading, please visit the website of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. To purchase Science and the Book of Mormon please visit the FairMormon bookstore.

“Until the Heart Betrays”: Life, Letters, and the Stories We Tell

January 16, 2014 by Neal Rappleye

Review of Adam S. Miller. Letters to a Young Mormon. Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2014. 78 pp. $9.95.

An exclusive excerpt from Letters to a Young Mormon is posted here on the FairMormon Blog.

On their 1993 album Edge of Thorns, hard rock group Savatage included a piano ballad about a person and a letter:

Someone got themselves a letter, in the mail the other day

It’s already worn and tattered, and I guess it gives away

All the things we keep inside, all the things that really matter

The face puts on its best disguise, and all is well… until the heart betrays[1]

Adam S. Miller’s new book is composed of a series of “letters” which, like the one in the song, contain both “the things we [tend to] keep inside,” and “the things that really matter.” Like the song, Miller talks about the disguises we wear—though he calls them our “stories,” which is his way of labeling self-justifications or self-deceptions for our deeds and hence way of living. And he talks about how our hearts should “betray” our rationalizing stories and turn to God, who sees us and loves us for what we can be or who we potentially really are all along.

“Like everyone,” he writes to his young “friend,” “you have a story you want your life to tell” (p. 17). This “story” becomes a self-imposed standard that one feels one must live up to, and as such, it haunts us. “This narration follows you around like a shadow. It mimes you, measures you, sometimes mocks you, and pretends, in its flat, black simplicity, to be the truth about you” (p. 18). We tend to think, or at least we try to convince ourselves, that this is the same story everyone else sees us living. As such, we often live in fear of what happens when we fail to live up to this “story” we have fashioned. Miller talks about how we may even give God “a starring role” as the one who can make our story come true, “with some cajoling and obedience” on our part (p. 19).

Of course, life isn’t a story, and so we naturally fail to measure up. When this happens, an unhealthy guilt and shame try to force us into making life fit the story anyway; we rationalize, justify and engage in self-deception. Miller tells us that with God it is different: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, God’s work in your life is bigger than the story you’d like that life to tell” (p. 17). Miller lectures his young and troubled Mormon in the following way:

Jesus is not asking you to tell a better story or live your story more successfully, he’s asking you to lose that story. “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39 NRSV). Hell is when your story succeeds, not when it fails. Your suffocating story is the problem, not the solution. Surrender it and find your life. Your story is heavy and hard to bear. “Come to me,” Jesus says, “all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30 NRSV). Put down the millstone of your story and take up the yoke of life instead…. Let his life manifest itself in yours rather than trying to impose your story on the life he gives. (p. 21.)

But how do we abandon our deceptive, rationalizing stories, including our visions of grandeur or our narratives of self-deprecation, and let God into our lives? This is a question that Miller never explicitly asks, but it seems to me it is one that is constantly being probed throughout the book, which consists of chapters on faith (pp. 25–29), scripture (pp. 31–35), prayer (pp. 37–41), history (pp. 43–49), science (p. 51–56) and so on, all of which explore, in some way or any other, how to stay true to the life and work God has for us, rather than fabricate and then capitulate to the stories that we try to impose upon ourselves.

One “story” that can be told—we can tell it to ourselves, or others may try to convince us of it—pits science and religion against each other. But Miller urges young Latter-day Saints to embrace what is found in the sciences as “revelations.” He suggests that they “are among the most commanding God has ever given” (pp. 55–56).[2]

Miller holds that another false “story” we tell ourselves might be that the Mormon past is filled with heroes of epic proportion, veritable giants among men, “quasi-angels” (p. 46) who did no wrong and always accomplished great things with an eye single to the glory of God. As with the story we might tell about our own lives, this is a story that eventually fails, and when it does it can generate a crisis. But, also like the stories we tell about our lives, God’s work is bigger than our stories. Miller argues that

It’s a false dilemma to claim that either God works through practically flawless people or God doesn’t work at all. The gospel isn’t a celebration of God’s power to work with flawless people. The gospel is a celebration of God’s willingness to work today, in our world, in our lives, with people who clearly aren’t [flawless?]. To demand that church leaders, past and present, show us only a mask of angelic pseudo-perfection is to deny the gospel’s most basic claim: that God’s grace works through our weakness. We need prophets, not idols. (p. 47, brackets mine.)

Miller argues that, if we are going to reject the stories we and others tell about ourselves and about the world, then we are going to need to know something of the stories God has told us about ourselves and his relationship to us. This is where Miller believes that our scriptures come in. How can this happen? Careful study of our scriptures makes it possible for us to “put down our stories and take up theirs” (p. 32). Miller urges his young correspondent to “Get close to the scriptures. … God is in there” (p. 31). Our scriptures tell us about such things as the restoration, and the revelation of new scripture. As Miller explains it, Joseph Smith “always expected more revelations, and ‘translation’ was one vital name for the hard work of receiving them” (p. 32). But “translation” is for Miller not merely the task of the prophet or scholar, nor is it merely the transferring of the text from one language to another. Translation is for Miller “a way, day by day, of holding life open for God’s word” (p. 32), which is his way of adopting and modifying the metaphor used by Joseph Smith to identify the process of reading, and then interpreting what we have read in ways most applicable to our lives, and as such it is pictured as a crucial task for everyone. Miller can be read as saying that we must make our own stories match the stories found in our scriptures. He argues that

Joseph produced, as God required, the first public translations of the scriptures we now share. But that work, open-ended all along, is unfinished. Now the task is ours. When you read the scriptures, don’t just lay your eyes like stones on the pages. Roll up your sleeves and translate them again…. Word by word, line by line, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, God wants the whole thing translated once more, and this time he wants it translated into your native tongue, inflected by your native concerns, and written in your native flesh. (pp. 32–33.)

Miller’s “translation” is something like Nephi’s “likening” (see 1 Nephi 19:23; 2 Nephi 6:5; 11:8). In this sense it involves, among other things, prayer, study, meditation, and also consultation of the “best books.” These are all part of what is necessary to successfully re-translate the scriptures by making them the ground for our own stories. It is something that will require faith, “You’ll have to trust that the books can withstand your scrutiny and you’ll have to trust that God, despite their antiquity, can be contemporary in them” (p. 34). What Miller means by “faith” is to “practice faithfully attending to the difficult, disturbing, and resistant truths God sets knocking at your door” (p. 27) and to trust “that the life God offers you doesn’t need your stories to dress it up,” (p. 25), hence “trust[ing] God enough to let your stories die.”

Miller explains that, like all translation, this will not be an easy task. It will take work, and, drawing on D&C 88:118, he stresses the importance of using the “best books” to help us in our efforts to believe and understand, and thereby be able to “translate” the scriptures anew so that we have the life offered by God. He tells his young Mormon that

Your ability to translate with power will depend on your faith and it will be amplified by your familiarity with the world’s best books. … The more familiar you are with Israelite histories, Near Eastern [and also, I believe, Mesoamerican] archaeologies, and secular biblical scholarship, the richer your translations will be rendered. Don’t be afraid for scripture and don’t be afraid of these other books. … Doubtless, the world’s best books have their flaws, but this just means that they too must be translated. You’ll need to translate them so that they can contribute to your own translations. (p. 34, brackets mine)

But in this process, there are inherent dangers: how can we be sure that when we “translate” the scriptures, we don’t read our false, rationalizing story into them? How can we be sure we are not fooling ourselves, or soothing our conscience by making the scriptures say what we want them to say? Miller answers:

You’ll know you’ve done it right if, as a result of the work, you repent. “Say nothing but repentance unto this generation,” the Lord told Oliver Cowdery when he came to help Joseph translate the Book of Mormon (D&C 6:9). This is your charge too: translate nothing but repentance. When you’re reading them right, the scriptures will bring you up short. They’ll call you into question. They’ll challenge your stories and deflate your pretensions. They’ll show you how you’ve been wrong and they’ll show you how to make things right. (pp. 33–34)

The proper scripture study will not reinforce the old self-deceptive stories you have been telling. Instead, it will assist you to “lay down your stories and, minute by minute, day by day, give your life back to him [i.e., God]” (pp. 17–18).

Miller’s book is not perfect. The chapter on “hunger,” for example (pp. 57–60), is confusing. He works with clever metaphors, but sometimes they are unclear. He carries his “hunger” metaphor over into the chapter on sex (pp. 61–66), creating some ambiguity where most parents of “young Mormons” would insist that blunt clarity is preferable. For parents who have open and frank discussions with their adolescent children, such ambiguity is easily remedied, but books like Miller’s cannot do the talking for them. Nonetheless, concerned parents may want to find a different book to help them deal with this particular issue.

Another point where the ambiguity is a concern is the chapter on eternal life (pp. 73–78). While I liked the idea that eternal life is “a certain way of being alive” (p.75), it is never clear in the chapter whether Miller genuinely believes in a life after death. While this might not be a concern for most readers, for any “young Mormon” struggling to believe, the lack of explicit reaffirmation in a hereafter could be disconcerting.

A recent press release from the Maxwell Institute indicates that a new Living Faith series, of which this is the initial book, “will commend and defend the faith more explicitly than our other [current Maxwell Institute] publications, while still maintaining the highest academic standards.”[3] Defending the faith is an admirable aim, part of our temple covenants, and something our leaders have admonished us to do. We sometimes call doing this “apologetics,” and Miller’s little book can be read as his effort to do such.

At the beginning of the first “letter,” he makes a straightforward declaration: “I don’t know” (p. 9). Presumably, young S., as Miller refers to his hypothetical correspondent, has asked him some tough questions. Miller then makes an important point: “But it’s also true that even if I knew what to say and how to say it, you’d still have to work out the answers yourself” (p. 9). In defending the faith, we often provide answers to questions that are frankly quite peripheral and tangential to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to suggest that scholars should cease seeking to provide answers to all the tough questions people are bound to ask—such endeavors are both necessary and important. In so doing, however, we are generally treating symptoms, and not the problem itself. But what more can we really do? A Latter-day Saint must come to his or her own faith. Miller points out that the working out of answers is ultimately a personal journey, and only the individual (along with God) can do it. The well-worked-out answers of others can be a valuable aid in that process, which justifies Miller’s effort to provide a little guidance to the “working out” process. Others, such as Mike Ash,[4] have provided some guidance for this often difficult process of sorting out issues that arise, and Miller’s book makes for an excellent addition to such tools and resources.

Overall, Miller’s book is quite good; it is an easy, subtle and an enjoyable read, which is ideal for a book targeting youth. Miller is also very articulate; some passages are quite “quotable.” For those interested, it could provide good fodder for sacrament meeting talks, devotional addresses, Family Home Evening lessons, and so on.

The “letters” in this book do not, of course, contain “all the things that really matter,” but those who want a little extra guidance (which can be all of us, at times) may find their copy “already worn and tattered” as they frequently read and reflect on Miller’s words while they endeavor to figure out, with God’s help, “what it means to live in a way that refuses to abandon either life or Mormonism” (unnumbered page in front matter, would be p. 7).

[1] Savatage, “All That I Bleed,” Edge of Thorns (New York: Atlantic Records, 1993), track 10; ellipses included to represent the dramatic pause in the song, not the omission of material.

[2] Certainly Latter-day Saints struggle with the current findings of several sciences. The Interpreter Foundation’s recent symposium on Science, Earth, and Man, held on November 9, 2013 in Provo, Utah, provided answers to those who feel a need to see a harmony between faith and scientific endeavors. The proceedings of this conference are being prepared for publication. The videos are available online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/events/2013-symposium-science-mormonism-cosmos-earth-man/conference-videos/ (accessed January 3, 2014).

[3] “Announcing the ‘Living Faith’ book series,” Maxwell Institute Blog, January 3, 2014, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/living-faith-books/ (accessed January 3, 2014), brackets mine.

[4] Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, 2nd edition (Redding: FairMormon, 2013). Part 1 offers useful guidance for navigating a faith crisis, while Part 2 then provides some answers to difficult issues.

Apostles and Apologetics: Doers of the Word

October 2, 2013 by Neal Rappleye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Meaning: Zoram as a Case Study

June 18, 2013 by Neal Rappleye

Book of Mormon Onomasticon Project Launched Online

The Book of Mormon Onomasticon project, which has long been in the works, has finally been launched online. Although it is still under development, there is plenty of great information and research available already on every single name in the Book of Mormon. Many of the entries provide convenient summaries of the research that has gone into a Book of Mormon name. Some brief time browsing the entries will quickly make it apparent which names have received the most attention from scholars and which names need more work. In any event, it is a great new tool for Book of Mormon study.

Understanding the meaning of a name can shed light on the meaning of scripture, especially since scriptural names can be metonymic. That is, names more relevant to the actions or role of a person in a narrative may be substituted for that actual person’s name. Even in cases where a metonymic name is not in play, authors aware of the meaning of the name may have used it in some way to enhance the narrative. Such word plays on proper nouns are common in ancient Near Eastern literature.

Zoram: From “Servant of Laban” to “Rock of Nephi”

Consider the name Zoram. I chose this name because it has received very little attention from scholars. It was one of the first I looked up in the Book of Mormon Onomasticon (BMO) because, as the only name in the 1 Nephi narrative that has not been attested in ancient sources, I was interested in seeing what they had come up with. Hugh Nibley had suggested it meant something like “refreshing rain,” and William J. Hamblin has followed suit (from the Hebrew zerem). The BMO, however, suggests either Ṣûrām, “their rock,” or the hypothetical construct *Ṣûrʿām, “rock of the people.” I like this suggestion much better than the “rain” idea from Nibley and Hamblin because when I think about that meaning in light of the role Zoram plays in the narrative, it becomes more interesting.

Zoram is first introduced into the narrative simply as the “servant of Laban” (1 Nephi 4:20, 31, 33). It is not until he taking an oath wherein he is promised his freedom that his called by his name (1 Nephi 4:35). This might be significant. I suggest that this is a deliberate literary move made by Nephi, meant to convey his transition from bondage to freedom. At first he is known only as someone else’s, “the servant of Laban,” but after taking an oath which grants him his status as a free man, he becomes known by his own name, “Zoram.” In the narrative, it is almost as if hebecomes Zoram upon taking the oath, like receiving a new name. If the name, as the BMO suggests, has the element “rock” in it, then the imagery of a now strong and mighty person, no longer a slave or servant could be conveyed by the choice to call him no longer the “servant” but by his name, Zoram. Since rock imagery can convey the idea of steadfastness, faithfulness, or reliability, it may be meant to convey his faithful commitment to the oath he was making. The meaning “their rock” might even be expressive of his relationship to his oath-givers. While he was granted status as a “free man” it was on the condition that he join their group, that he “go down into the wilderness with us” (1 Nephi 4:33). Thus in that sense, he was to become “their rock,” or their faithful and loyal companion. As Lehi is about to pass away, he speaks to Zoram and we find out that indeed, Zoram had become a “true friend” to Nephi, and Lehi is confident that he will be so “forever” (2 Nephi 1:30). Again, the imagery here is that of a rock – someone who is firm, faithful, and true forever. Zoram is the “rock of Nephi”, his ever loyal comrade.

Final Thoughts

These are, of course, only my fairly amateur ruminations and may not be connected to reality at all. But whether or not Ṣûrām/*Ṣûrʿām is really the underlying Hebrew of Zoram, thinking about the possible meaning of this name has given me a whole new way of reading his story in the Book of Mormon in light “rock” imagery that provides insights on freedom, strength, friendship, and loyalty. Right or wrong, it was worthwhile. And that is from just one name. Imagine what else can be gleaned as we seek out possible meanings of other names in the Book of Mormon. So go check out the Book of Mormon Onomsticon and see what treasures of hidden knowledge (see D&C 89:19) await you!

*This article was cross-posted from Studio et Quoque Fide.

Apologetic Notes from General Conference – April 2013

April 12, 2013 by Neal Rappleye

Now, I know that there are much more useful ways to read/listen to conference then with apologetic issues in mind. And I certainly wouldn’t advise that anyone seek out an apologetic message from conference at the expense of other, far more important messages that the General Authorities and the Spirit are trying to communicate. I’ll also grant that things which one, such as myself, might read/hear an apologetic message in are probably, more often than not, not indented apologetically. But, I do think that conference often has some things in it that are useful in our efforts to defend the faith, and so with that in mind I give you these apologetic notes. Some of things are not strictly apologetic, but have some bearing on the matter.

Saturday Morning

President Boyd K. Packer seemed to clearly have the issue of sex-same marriage in mind when he said the following:

Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity.

While these words certainly could – and probably should – be applied to heterosexual cohabitation, given the current political climate it seems clear that President Packer had same-sex marriage in mind. He has pointed his remarks in that direction before, and caught the ire of many in so doing, but I think his remarks here are sound. We certainly should try and be tolerant and understanding of those who have same-sex attraction, even when they chose a lifestyle that goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ. But we must be sure not be so bending in the name of “tolerance” as to yield any and all gospel standards. There are still commandments – a point frequently made this last conference – and they still apply, regardless of what the laws say.

Some fuss is being made about Sister Elaine S. Dalton’s talk and her “deliberate emphasis”, as some are calling it, to say that young women are daughters of Heavenly Father, rather than “Heavenly Parents,” or even just “Heavenly Mother,” despite the fact that others have used such language in General Conference. I, for one, think people are reading way more into that “word choice” than exists – she was using the Young Women’s theme (or motto or whatever it is called) as the basis of her remarks, and that theme uses “Heavenly Father.” I honestly doubt there is anything more to it than that.

More significant to matters of women in the Church, I thought, were her remarks based on the old adage: “What-e’er thou art, act well thy part.” After relating her personal experience in coming upon that phrase, she had this to add:

As daughters of God we are each unique and different in our circumstances and experiences. And yet our part matters – because wematter. Our daily contributions of nurturing, teaching, and caring for others may seem mundane, diminished, difficult, and demeaning at times, and yet as we remember that first line in the Young Women theme – “We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us” – it will make all the difference in our relationships and our responses.

In light of the recent commotion with women in the Church – particularly with a small group calling for women to get ordained to the priesthood – Sister Dalton’s message to young women of the Church seemed loud and clear: Stop worrying about what you don’t have, but know your part and perform it well. Though it may seem unglamorous, your role in God’s plan is important, and when you remember that he loves you as a daughter, it can lighten the burden when fulfilling that role seems difficult or undesirable. This is really a message that can be applied to anyone in the Church, regardless of age or gender, but that it was pointed to the young women seems directly related to criticisms and press the Church is getting over the role of women.

Elder M. Russell Ballard followed up later in that same session with more comments that seemed directly pointed at those who are currently seeking that women receive the ordination of the priesthood:

In our Heavenly Father’s great priesthood-endowed plan, men have the unique responsibility to administer the priesthood, but they are not the priesthood. Men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. In other words, in the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife. And as husband and wife, a man and a woman should strive to follow our Heavenly Father. The Christian virtues of love, humility, and patience should be their focus as they seek the blessings of the priesthood in their lives and for their family.

It is crucial for us to understand that Heavenly Father has provided a way for all of His sons and His daughters to have access to the blessings of and be strengthened by the power of the priesthood.

Elder Ballard then goes on to mention the story of Mary Fielding Smith, a women who accessed the blessings of the priesthood for her family:

She was the widow of Hyrum, the Prophet Joseph’s older brother. As a single parent, through her strong faith in the priesthood, she called upon and relied on that power to raise and bless her children in love and the light of the gospel. Today her posterity of thousands of faithful leaders and members of the Church thank her for her faith, courage, and example.

Again, it seems clear to me that Elder Ballard is speaking to the issue of women in the priesthood, stressing that – despite common rhetoric used in the Church – men arenot the priesthood, and that ultimately the full powers and blessings of the priesthood can only be shared by husband and wife, and not individually possessed. According to Elder Ballard, the men only uniquely hold the authority, everything else is shared.

Saturday Afternoon

Elder Quentin L. Cook offered these thoughts that touch on atheism and the problem of evil:

For those who reject God, there is no peace. We all participated in the councils of heaven that provided for moral agency, knowing that there would be mortal pain and even unspeakable tragedy because of the abuse of agency. We understood that this could leave us angry, bewildered, defenseless, and vulnerable. But we also knew that the Savior’s Atonement would overcome and compensate for all of the unfairness of mortal life and bring us peace.

He later makes these remarks about the popular trend today toward the kind of feel-good spirituality over religiosity:

The Church is a refuge where followers of Christ attain peace. Some young people in the world say they are spiritual but not religious. Feeling spiritual is a good first step. However, it is in the Church that we are fellowshipped, taught, and nourished by the good word of God. More importantly, it is priesthood authority in the Church that provides for sacred ordinances and covenants that bind families together and qualify each of us to return to God the Father and Jesus Christ in the celestial kingdom. These ordinances bring peace because they are covenants with the Lord.

While such matters are not necessarily apologetic, these are things that the apologist may face from time to time, and thus having the thoughts of one of the Lord’s apostles on the matter can’t hurt.

Elder David A. Bedner’s talk returns us to the topic of Chastity and same-sex marriage. Elder Bednar lays out the doctrine that undergirds the Church’s position on same-sex relationships:

After the earth was created, Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden. Importantly, however, God said “it was not good that the man should be alone” (Moses 3:18; see also Genesis 2:18), and Eve became Adam’s wife and helpmeet. The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females was needed to enact the plan of happiness. “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). The man and the woman are intended to learn from, strengthen, bless, and complete each other.

The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed. “The first commandment … God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife” (Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129). The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force today. Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is the authorized channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality. Complete sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage protect the sanctity of this sacred channel.

The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. Specific guidelines for the proper use of the ability to create life are vital elements in the Father’s plan. How we feel about and use that supernal power will determine in large measure our happiness in mortality and our destiny in eternity.

As a part of “the standard of sexual morality,” Elder Bednar stresses first and foremost that “intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan.” Understanding these theological underpinnings are essential to understanding the issue of same-sex relationships and the Church. Unfortunately, it is these teachings that are so often absent in the way that dynamic is understood. Apologist, I think, can play a major role in shaping the conversation on these issues by stressing the theological side as they engage others on this topic.

Elder Bednar closes by making a similar point as that of President Packer: “The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls.”

While some are wont to push to the Church in one direction or another based on such fads, the Church will stay the course God provides, and if and when a course change is needed – in regard to women and the Church, or same-sex relations, or any other topic – it will come as revelation through the proper channels. That does not mean we cannot have an open dialogue about these issues, and how to help those who struggle with the Church’s position on them, or what the possibilities and implications might be for the future. But it does mean that we, as members of the Church, should leave it the Lord’s chosen servants to ultimately decide what to do about these issues and how to handle them.

In closing out this session, Elder Russell M. Nelson gave this admonition to those responsible for preparing the rising generation of missionaries: “Be ready to give an answer to those who ask why you live as you do. Be ready to give a reason for the hope and joy that they see in you.” Elder Nelson’s words echo 1 Peter 3:15, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of thehope that is in you,” in which “answer” is the Greek term ἀπολογίαν (apologian), meaning “apology” or “defense,” and is quite obviously the root source of words apologetics andapologist.

Priesthood Session

Elder Robert D. Hales counseled the brethren in the priesthood session “to stand strong with a shield of faith against the fiery darts of the adversary.” He then states that Latter-day Saints are “role models to the world, protecting God-given inalienable rights and freedoms. We stand in defense of our homes and our families.” He speaks of a childhood experience where his dad drew “a warrior capable of defending castles and kingdoms,” and then said his father proceeded to teach him “how to be a faithful priesthood holder – to protect and defend the kingdom of God.”

To me, these kinds of statements make apologetics – the defense of the kingdom – a priesthood responsibility.

1 Peter 3:15 comes into play again in President Thomas S. Monson’s priesthood council:

Obey the counsel of the Apostle Peter, who urged, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” Lift up your voices and testify to the true nature of the Godhead. Declare your witness concerning the Book of Mormon. Convey the glorious and beautiful truths contained in the plan of salvation.

President Monson urges members to speak up and declare their witness of the Book of Mormon. A witness in this sense is a “public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction,” but a related meaning is “something serving as evidence or proof.” Hence to declare your witness of the Book of Mormon is not just to make a public affirmation, though it certainly is that, but to give your evidence for belief in the Book of Mormon.

Sunday Morning

For a third time, the words of 1 Peter 3:15 were invoked, this time by Elder Neil L. Anderson, “We also pray for our own opportunities to share the gospel. The Apostle Peter said, ‘Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh … a reason [for] the hope that is in you’.”

Later in this session, Elder L. Tom Perry noted, after speaking of his experience in World War II, that:

Today we find ourselves in another war. This is not a war of armaments. It is a war of thoughts, words, and deeds… Secularism is becoming the norm, and many of its beliefs and practices are in direct conflict with those that were instituted by the Lord Himself for the benefit of His children.

As with any war, this war requires that we have a defense against the opposing side, which Elder Perry identifies with secularism. We must, therefore, have a defense ofthoughts, words, and deeds against secularism. Part of apologetics seeks to make such a defense in thoughts and words, while living the gospel daily would seem to be our deeds of defense.

Sunday Afternoon

The most apologetically relevant talk came in the closing session, when Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave a stirring address to those who are struggling with doubt. While apologetics is the defense of the faith, the purpose of that defense is help those whose faith is wavering, who are doubting as a result of the various attacks upon their faith. Elder Holland stresses, “In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited.” He goes on:

When problems come and questions arise, do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! Let me be clear on this point: I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account: Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.

He encourages patience when confronting controversial issues:

Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.

And also asks that we understand that God’s servants have always been imperfect:

So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.

Elder Holland encourages those who are struggling to ask for help, and promises that if they do so sincerely, they will get it from both sides of the veil. He then relates the story of a 14 year old boy who said he could only believe, not know. Elder Holland than has this to say: “I told this boy that belief was always the first step toward conviction and that the definitive articles of our collective faith forcefully reiterate the phrase “We believe.” And I told him how very proud I was of him for the honesty of his quest.” The message: It is okay if you can only say “I believe,” rather than “I know.” As taught by Alma of old, let that belief and desire work in you, and overtime your faith will grow and at some point you will be able to say that you know some things.

Elder Holland offers his own life as an example of this process, and invites those with doubts to lean on the strength of his testimony for now:

What was once a tiny seed of belief for me has grown into the tree of life, so if your faith is a little tested in this or any season, I invite you to lean on mine. I know this work is God’s very truth, and I know that only at our peril would we allow doubt or devils to sway us from its path. Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.

Closing Remarks

It seems appropriate to end with those words from Elder Holland. There may be other apologetically relevant counsel from this last General Conference, but this is a nice sample. Given that we were admonished three times to be ready always with an answer to give to those who question us about our faith, identifying apologetically useful words from the prophets, apostles, and other leaders can help us be prepared to give an answer.

This article was cross-posted from Reason and Revelation.

Trusting Imperfect Prophets

December 20, 2012 by Neal Rappleye

An important part of the mission of FAIR, as part of defending the faith, is to promote and defend the credibility of the Brethren in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, authorized to lead and guide the Church in the Latter-days. For some, the notion that the prophets or apostles might at times be wrong is just too earth shattering. “They speak with God,” so the thinking goes, “and therefore cannot be wrong.” This leads them to the conclusion that since they are sometimes mistaken, they must not be prophets. Others may perhaps come away with a distorted view of prophets, with an inordinate focus on their imperfections that erodes their faith and confidence in them as men of God. Our hearts go out to those who have had, or do have, similar concerns and struggles.

With that in mind, I would like to offer a few suggestions that have helped me maintain faith in the prophets and apostles and other leaders despite my awareness of their imperfect and fallible status.

New Verse-by-Verse Resource on the Book of Mormon

October 29, 2012 by Neal Rappleye

One of our objectives at FAIR is to provide access to quality research on Latter-day Saint topics that is useful for the average Saint in their everyday study of the scriptures. To that end, as a new part of our FAIR Study Aids project, we have developed a verse-by-verse research index on the Book of Mormon. This can be accessed online, here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIR_Study_Aids/Book_of_Mormon_Resources_by_chapter_and_verse

Here, what we have done is we have gone through hundreds of articles, essays, and research papers and cataloged them under the chapter and verse for which its contents are most relevant (in many cases, articles can be found under more than one scripture reference). See the page on Jacob, for example. There is also a page for research related to the introduction, history of its coming forth, and general themes that run throughout the book. In some cases, books and chapters also have “overview” materials available.

Our aim is make it easy for someone going through the scriptures to find research on what they are reading now. For example, if you are currently reading in Helaman 3, you can come to that section of the index and find several articles that are relevant to things going on in that chapter. In breaking things down by verse, we hope that someone who has a question while reading, say, Mosiah 17:13 will be able to find resources which help answer their questions quickly and easily.

It is far from complete or comprehensive at this point. It is a work in progress, but you can help! If you know any articles that are not there, please send them our way along what passage(s) you think it would best be cataloged under and we will add it to the index. Or, if you read an article that is on there and felt it applied to a different verse that it is not listed under, let us know and we will make the change.

We hope that this will prove a valuable resource in both your regular gospel study and in finding answers to concerns and criticisms raised against the Book of Mormon. With time, we may expand this to the other Standard Works.