FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Anti-Mormon critics

The Exaggerated Death of Apologetics

by

In 1897, Mark Twain’s cousin became seriously ill. Some people confused the two men, leading Mark Twain to remark a few weeks later, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.” Similarly, it may be that as long as people have been calling themselves “anti-Mormons,” critics of the Church have been predicting the demise of the Church and have been pronouncing efforts to defend it as futile. All such declarations of impending doom have proven, at the very least, to be exaggerated.

One such example is in the occasional rumblings from some quarters that “the Brethren” or the institutional Church is at odds with lay members who engage in a reasoned defense of the faith, or “apologetics.” Over the past year, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) has adopted a more secular approach to the academic discipline of Mormon Studies, and has moved away from an overt defense of the Church. Some have wondered if this indicates that the “institutional Church” is distancing itself from a reasoned defense of the faith. Indeed, there are some who argue that “the brethren” want nothing to do with apologetics and surmise that President Uchtdorf’s talk in this year’s October General Conference must have come as a severe blow to Mormon apologists.

While it is true that what was once known as the FARMS Review has morphed into an annual journal with a secular focus, rather than a faith-building focus, the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture has taken its place and is accessible, technologically advanced, and prolific. It seems that the changes at the Maxwell Institute have simultaneously created a new base for the emerging secular discipline of “Mormon Studies” while at the same time serving as the impetus for revitalized interest in publishing works in a peer-reviewed, academic journal that provide a reasoned defense of the faith.

With regard to whether or not “the Brethren” are distancing themselves from efforts to directly defend the Church against charges of its critics, Elder D. Todd Christofferson spoke in September at BYU-Idaho and not only bore his testimony of Joseph Smith, but also offered many reason-based responses to attacks against the Church. In doing so, he cited publications by FairMormon twice.

When President Uchtdorf spoke in General Conference the next month, all of the defenders of the faith that I know were thrilled to hear his words and saw them as consistent and supportive of efforts we have been making for years. Nevertheless, some people have wondered aloud whether apologists have been left disheartened and confused by President Uchtdorf’s remarks. It is hard to imagine why defenders of the faith would be at all disturbed by President Uchtdorf’s words. These people seem to assume that defenders of the Church must have been surprised to hear President Uchtdorf say that ex-Mormons aren’t simply lazy or sinful. They further seem to assume that those who defend the Church all believe that the only reason people leave the Church is because they are lazy or sinful. However, I don’t know of anyone at FairMormon who has ever said that. Unfortunately, some rank-and-file members do say such things, and, rather than support that view, I argued against it on the FairMormon Blog some time ago.

The other problem is that some people are misinterpreting what President Uchtdorf actually said. He did not say that ex-Mormons are never lazy or sinful. (Every conceivable group, including Mormons, ex-Mormons and non-Mormons includes people who are lazy or sinful.) He simply said that being lazy or sinful are not the only reasons people leave the Church. Here is the exact quote: “Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.” Far from an indictment of those who defend the Church, the fact that a member of the First Presidency has publicly declared that people sometimes leave the Church for reasons other than mere laziness or sin signals a greater need for a rational defense of the faith. To the extent that some of those other reasons involve Church history or doctrine, defenders of the faith are well-equipped to address those concerns.

Finally, in addition to the efforts the Church has made through the Joseph Smith Papers Project to illuminate its history, the most clear example that the institutional Church has not abandoned or disavowed a reasoned defense of the faith is the simple fact that the Church has been providing reasoned responses to critical arguments for the past year on its main webpage, LDS.org.

While the Sunday School curriculum has focused this year on Church history, the Church has been posting articles that directly address issues that have sometimes been confusing to members and a target for critics. Two examples are this article about Oliver Cowdery’s apparent use of a divining rod, and this article putting the apostasy of Thomas B. Marsh into context.

More recently, the Church has published articles addressing the question of whether Mormons are Christians, exploring the differences in the various accounts of the First Vision, and setting forth the history of blacks and the priesthood, in which it is explicitly stated “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

Rather than being shocked and dismayed by recent actions of the institutional Church, now more than ever, faithful believers and scholars have concluded that it is an even more exciting and important time to stand up in defense of the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4th Watch 11: What does it mean to be saved?

by

Podcast: Download (22.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch Small

The term “salvation” or “being saved” has long been discussed and debated by scholars of many faith traditions.  In this podcast Bobby Gilpin of the anti-Mormon blog Mormonism Investigated UK is interviewed by Ned Scarisbrick in relationship to the gospel doctrine of salvation.

Mr. Gilpen comes from the evangelical Calvinist tradition of Christianity and the term ‘anti’ may come across as disrespectful to those who are actually kind to members of the LDS Church.  The term anti in this discussion is used to represent those who are against or openly opposed to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much as the term “pro” could be used for those who agree with or openly promote the teachings of the LDS Church.

The dialogue between Mr. Scarisbrick and Mr. Gilpin teaches us that it is possible to have a religious discussion about serious gospel topics in a kind and respectful manner.  They illustrate how to earnestly contend for the faith without being contentious. As always, the views and opinions expressed in this podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of Fair Mormon.

 

Mormon Fair-Cast 170: The Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon

by

Podcast: Download (8.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

 

10-1706-large

Shaken Faith Syndrome Available for a Limited Time at a Discount at Costco

Has a member of your family lost their faith? Buy “Shaken Faith Syndrome” now at Costco locations throughout Utah. Meet the author, Mike Ash, at the following Utah Costco locations:

  • The Ogden Costco on Wednesday, October 9, from 12 to 3.
  • The Sandy Costco on Wednesday, October 16, from 12 to 3.
  • The West Valley Costco on Wednesday, October 23 from 12 to 3.
  • The Murray Costco on Wednesday, October 30, from 12 to 3.

Costco will only schedule book signings when a book is selling well, and will only continue to carry a book so long as it is selling well. It also sells books at a significant discount. This would be the perfect time to buy multiple copies to share with friends and family members as Christmas presents.

In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 6, 2013, Martin Tanner speaks with Dan Peterson of the Interpreter Foundation and Steve Densley, Jr. of FairMormon to discuss the activities of these respective organizations and the book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, which can also be purchased here at the FairMormon Bookstore.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Apostles and Apologetics: Doers of the Word

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Smith, Richard Dawkins, and the Language of Translation

by

The atheist controversialist Richard Dawkins has, on a few occasions, centered Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in his polemical crosshairs. When he does speak about Mormonism, Mr. Dawkins typically brings up the Jacobean English of the Book of Mormon as evidence against its authenticity. In his aggressively anti-religious bookThe God Delusion, for example, Mr. Dawkins dismisses Joseph Smith as the “enterprisingly mendacious inventor” of the Book of Mormon, which Mr. Dawkins sneeringly writes off as “a whole new bogus American history, written in bogus seventeenth-century English.”1

This line of argumentation has been repeated by Mr. Dawkins on a number of occasions. When he ambushed the Latter-day Saint rock star Brandon Flowers on Swedish television, Mr. Dawkins once again repeated his favorite criticism against the Book of Mormon. “I have to say that when I read the book of Mormon recently, what impressed me was that this was an obvious fake,” he informed an unsuspecting Flowers. But what made it as such an obvious fake to Mr. Dawkins? “This was a 19th century book written in 16th century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of charlatanry.”2

Finally, as he addressed a group of unknown size, Mr. Dawkins, who could hardly contain his bewildered disdain, exhaustedly complained that people in this day and age still believe the “mountebank” Joseph Smith, “who wrote a bogus book–––the Book of Mormon–––[and] although he was writing in the 19th century chose to write it in 17th century English.” “Why don’t people see through that?” Mr. Dawkins asked in perplexity.3

Thus, for Mr. Dawkins, the King James idiom in the Book of Mormon somehow disproves it’s a translation of an ancient document.4 Although Mr. Dawkins has not afforded us a thorough explanation backed with evidence and logic as to why he subscribes to this belief, and has offered nothing more than dogmatic assertions, he’s made his opinions very clear.5

I’ve always found this criticism amusing, if for no other reason than it betrays the fact that Mr. Dawkins doesn’t seem to have much experience translating languages (if he has, I’d be happy to be corrected). There is a very simple explanation for why Joseph Smith would have rendered his translation of the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, which has been discussed elsewhere.6 But all amusement aside, and instead of focusing on the question of why the Book of Mormon was translated into early modern English, which has been more than adequately explained by others, I want instead to draw attention to biblical scholar E. A. Speiser’s translation of the celebrated Akkadian creation myth Enuma Elish, and ask Mr. Dawkins a few questions.

Speiser, who has also provided us a valuable translation of the book of Genesis,7published his translation of the Enuma Elish in 1958 with Princeton University Press.8 What follows are a few pertinent excerpts.9

Speiser’s translation contained in Pritchard’s abridgement begins at the call of the god Marduk to be the champion of the divine council against the evil chaos monster Tiamat.

Thou art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy command is Anu.

Thou, Marduk, art the most honored of the great gods,

Thy decree is unrivaled, thy word is Anu.

…

O Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger.

We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire.

When in the Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme.

When the gods praise Marduk, they speak as follows.

Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.

Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.

Open thy mouth: the cloth will vanish.

Later we read of the terrible battle between Marduk and Tiamat, wherein the angry chaos goddess lets forth a cry.

Too important art thou for the lord of the gods

to rise up against thee!

Is it in their place that they have gathered, or in thy place?

An impatient Marduk returns Tiamat’s insult with his own.

Why art thou risen, art haughtily exalted,

Thou hast charged thine own heart to stir up conflict,

. . .  sons reject their own fathers,

Whilst thou, who has born them,

hast foresworn love!

…

Stand thou up, that I and thou meet in single combat!

Marduk eventually defeats Tiamat and from her spoiled carcass fashions the cosmos. Addressing the moon, Marduk gives his orders to the heavens.

Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days,

. . .

When the sun overtakes thee at the base of heaven,

Diminish thy crown and retrogress to light.

At the time of disappearance approach thou the course of the sun,

And on the twenty-ninth thou shalt again stand in opposition to the sun.

The myth concludes with Marduk being exalted and praised in the divine council for his majesty and power in defeating Tiamat and establishing the cosmos.

With the preceding in mind, my questions for Mr. Dawkins are as follows:

1. If we’re to reject the Book of Mormon as a fabrication because it’s a purported translation that reads in Jacobean English, what are we to do with Speiser’s translation of the Enuma Elish?

2. Does Speiser’s Jacobean English translation of the Enuma Elish bring into doubt the antiquity of the text, as Joseph Smith’s Jacobean English translation of the Book of Mormon supposedly does? Indeed, is Speiser’s translation “a work of charlatanry” because he produced it in the 20th century and yet wrote it in 17th century English, which is “not the way people talk” these days?10 (Incidentally, as it turns out people actually did “talk like that” in the 19th century, both in religious and non-religious discourse.)11

3. Why would Princeton University publish a translation of an ancient text rendered in Jacobean English if such was an illegitimate maneuver?

4. Do you allow Speiser to utilize Jacobean English in his translation because he’s translating an indisputably ancient text, whereas you do not grant Joseph Smith the same courtesy because he claimed to translate a text of disputed authenticity? If so, why? On what rational grounds do you create this exception?

There are more questions that come to mind, but these four should be sufficient for now. I hope the point of this brief article is clear. If we’re to allow Speiser to render his translation of an ancient text into King James idiom in the 1950s (!), then surely we must also allow Joseph Smith to do such in the 19th century. Not to do so is to employ a tremendous double standard.

There are legitimate questions one can raise about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, including questions about Joseph Smith’s method of translation, but Mr. Dawkins’ naïve and uninformed criticism on this point is not one of them.12 Those looking for a rigorous analysis of the translation and language of the Book of Mormon would do well to look elsewhere.13

*This entry also appears at Interpreter.

  1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2nd. ed. (Great Britain: Mariner Books, 2008), 234. [↩]
  2. Katherine Weber, “Brandon Flowers of ‘The Killers’ Defends Mormon Faith Against Richard Dawkins,” online at http://www.christianpost.com/news/rock-star-brandon-flowers-defends-mormon-faith-to-richard-dawkins-81826/.
  3. See “Richard Dawkins talking about Mormonism and Joseph Smith,” online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d95M8jk3mv0.
  4. Actually, I genuinely wonder if Mr. Dawkins is aware of the fact that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation. His routinely slip-shod comments on the book have only shown he’s aware that it was published in the 19th century, but not much more.
  5. That Mr. Dawkins would hold to such dogmatism is odd, considering how much he esteems himself to be a man of science and reason.
  6. See generally Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), passim, but especially 302 (available here); Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 212–218 (available here); Daniel L. Belnap, “The Kind James Bible and the Book of Mormon,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 162–81. On the English of the Book of Mormon, see also Royal Skousen, “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 25, no. 5 (2005): 2–6. If Mr. Dawkins wants to be taken seriously, I’d advise he quickly brush up on this literature.
  7. E. A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964).
  8. James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: Volume 1, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1958), 31-39. As the copyright page indicates, Speiser’s translation in this volume is an abridgement found in another Princeton publication, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, published in 1950.
  9. I have, for the sake of readability, silently omitted Speiser’s critical notations of the text.
  10. Incidentally, Speiser is not the only modern translator to render his translation of an ancient text into Jacobean English. See Matthew Roper, “A Black Hole That’s Not So Black,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 165–67; John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith’s Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality?” FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 334–37; Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 217–218. John A. Tvedtnes, “Answering Mormon Scholars,”Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 235–37, also shows how the language of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was influenced by Jacobean (KJV) English. We might ask Mr. Dawkins if he considers Abraham Lincoln a faker because “people didn’t talk like that” in the 19th century.
  11. Eran Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’: Pseudo-Biblicism and the Early American Republic, 1770–1830,” Church History 79/4 (2010): 800–826. Shalev devotes a few words on the Book of Mormon. “The tradition of writing in biblical style [in the early 19th century] paved the way for the Book of Mormon by conditioning Americans to reading American texts, and texts about America, in biblical language. Yet the Book of Mormon, an American narrative told in the English of the King James Bible, has thrived long after Americans abandoned the practice of recounting their affairs in biblical language. It has thus been able to survive and flourish for almost two centuries, not because, but in spite of the literary ecology of the mid-nineteenth century and after. The Book of Mormon became a testament to a widespread cultural practice of writing in biblical English that could not accommodate to the monumental transformations America endured in the first half of nineteenth century.” Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’,” 826, footnotes silently removed.
  12. The careful reader will note that Mr. Dawkins is not claiming the Book of Mormon is false because of apparent textual dependency on the KJV for the Book of Mormon’s biblical citations. (I’d be surprised if his understanding of the Book of Mormon was informed enough to even recognize such.) Rather, he’s arguing that it’s false by the mere fact that it’s imitating KJV language. There is a world of difference between these two criticisms. One is legitimate and worthy of careful analysis. The other is bogus, and is perpetuated only by those who are ignorant of how translations work.
  13. I suggest that the reader begin (but not end) with the work of Royal Skousen, which can be conveniently accessed online here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=57. Other useful material by Skousen can be accessed here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/25-years-of-research-what-we-have-learned-about-the-book-of-mormon-text/. Since he has made himself a commentator on the language of the Book of Mormon, I am particularly interested if Mr. Dawkins could address the information uncovered in Skousen’s research concerning non-English Hebraisms. See Royal Skousen, “The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994): 38. “What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith’s upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. . . . [T]he potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.”

Mormon FAIR-Cast 163: Anti-Mormon Methodology

by

Podcast: Download (8.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

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

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.

4th Watch 10: Mormonism Investigated UK

by

Podcast: Download (31.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4th Watch
4th Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Ancient Near Eastern Scimitars (Howlers # 19)

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon FAIR-Cast 160b: Don Bradley and Dan Peterson Taking Questions

by

Podcast: Download (28.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.

This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is the second of a two-part interview.

Mormon FAIR-Cast 160a: Don Bradley and Dan Peterson Taking Questions

by

Podcast: Download (30.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

BradleyDonWhy do people leave the Church? What was in the missing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon? How do we explain the appearance of horses in the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith make up the story of the first vision long after it was supposed to have occurred? Is there any evidence that supports the authenticity for the Book of Abraham? Does the mention of grains in the Book of Mormon provide evidence of its truthfulness?

Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.

Don Bradley is a writer, editor, and researcher specializing in early Mormon history. Don recently performed an internship with the Joseph Smith Papers Project and is completing his thesis, on the earliest Mormon conceptions of the New Jerusalem, toward an M.A. in History at Utah State University. He has published on the translation of the Book of Mormon, plural marriage before Nauvoo, and Joseph Smith’s “grand fundamental principles of Mormonism” and plans to publish an extensive analysis, co-authored with Mark Ashurst-McGee, on the Kinderhook plates. Don’s first book, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Missing Contents of the Book of Mormon, is slated to be published by Greg Kofford Books.

 

DanPeterson

A native of southern California, Daniel C. Peterson received a bachelor’s degree in Greek and philosophy from Brigham Young University (BYU) and, after several years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo, earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Dr. Peterson is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU, where he has taught Arabic language and literature at all levels, Islamic philosophy, Islamic culture and civilization, Islamic religion, the Qur’an, the introductory and senior “capstone” courses for Middle Eastern Studies majors, and various other occasional specialized classes. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on Islamic and Latter-day Saint topics–including a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007)—and has lectured across the United States, in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and at various Islamic universities in the Near East and Asia. He served in the Switzerland Zürich Mission (1972-1974), and, for approximately eight years, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also presided for a time as the bishop of a singles ward adjacent to Utah Valley University. Dr. Peterson is married to the former Deborah Stephens, of Lakewood, Colorado, and they are the parents of three sons.

This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is the first of a two-part interview.