The great German literary demigod Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once remarked: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” My reading of Bethany Blankley’s recent Huffington Post article has confirmed Goethe’s fear as being my own. In the doleful cacophony that sounds forth from the ranks of fundamentalist Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ms. Blankley is more than suitable at playing first-chair violin. She is an adept Konzertmeisterin who plays with a zealous gusto that is by no means forced into a decrescendo by facts or evidence.

The accusation that Latter-day Saints are not Christians is not new, and it is not it likely to go away anytime soon. So long as fundamentalist Evangelicals dominate the religious landscape of modern America, the benighted Mormons can anticipate this Hydra to rear its ugly heads incessantly. All of the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to quell this tired assertion will almost certainly be in vain, as misinformation, misrepresentation and outright calumny continue to capture the imagination of an ignorant public with scandalous tales of the moral and theological debauchery and baseness of the Mormons.

Ms. Blankley, thankfully, withholds from her readers lurid and fanciful tales of polygamy and blood atonement and instead refuses to call members of the Church of Jesus Christ “Christians” on theological grounds, viz.:

1. The Ministry of Jesus: “According to the first four gospels of the Bible, Jesus Christ lived and ministered in the region of modern-day Israel. He never appeared in the Americas.”
2. The Virgin Birth: “The Mormon Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus through sexual relations with God the father.”
3. The Spirit World: “Mormons believe that God, angels and humans are the same.”
4. Jesus and Satan: “The Mormon church explicitly teaches…that Jesus Christ and Satan are both sons of God and are not only spirit brothers to each other but are spirit brothers to humans and angels as well.”

• Answers need to include not only refutation of false ideas, but affirmations of true concepts.
• We need to not only respond with evidences against the arguments of our critics but arguments in favor of the hope that is in us.
• We need to help members interpret their religious world in the light of true principles including those that allow for mistakes.”

The text of Brother Lynch’s address can be found here.

John Lynch is a Silicon Valley sales and marketing executive specializing in high-tech startup ventures. He is a member of the Board of Directors of FAIR and serves as its Chairman. Having served in many missionary callings, including twice as a Stake Mission President, multiple times as a Ward Mission Leader, and having worked at the Provo Missionary Training Center as a teacher and trainer, John has seen the impact of both well-prepared and poorly prepared defenders of the faith. John is currently the Young Men’s President for the Los Gatos Ward, Saratoga California Stake.

There is not a single piece of archaeological evidence that confirms the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

Sectarian critics of Mormonism usually throw in the following addendum to the aforementioned claim:

There is not a single piece of archaeological evidence that confirms the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Bible, on the other hand, has been repeatedly proven by archaeological evidence. Because the Bible has been proven archaeologically, we can accept it as the word of God. Because the Book of Mormon has no archaeological evidence, we should reject it as scripture that can be relied on as a reliable source of God’s truth.

Joel Kramer of Living Hope Ministries has created a popular anti-Mormon DVD that makes this claim titled The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. In it, Kramer attempts to validate the authenticity of the Bible on archaeological grounds, whilst simultaneously attempting to disprove the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds. Because, according to Kramer, the Bible has been verified archaeologically we can turn to it as the infallible word of God, unlike the Book of Mormon. The same line of argumentation is also brought up by the producers of the 2007 video Jesus Christ vs. Joseph Smith. Many additional examples could be multiplied, but the above should be enough to convey the general argument of sectarian critics.

Besides the highly debatable claim that the Book of Mormon has no archaeological evidence to support its authenticity,[1] the sectarian reasoning that the Bible can be accepted as the word of God because of archaeological verification is highly suspect. In two reviews of Kramer’s DVD, David Bokovoy and Brant Gardner repeatedly demonstrate the fallacious reasoning behind this critical claim.[2] And it is not only the Latter-day Saints who are aware of this fallacy. Alfred Hoerth and John McRay, two non-Mormon biblical scholars, for example, have urged caution amongst believers of the Bible who try and use archaeology to prove biblical theology.[3] As William J. Hamblin effectively summarized:

Even if every historical event in the Bible were to be archaeologically verified, it still would not prove that God exists or that Jesus is the Christ any more than the discovery of archaeological sites mentioned by Homer in the Iliad has proven that Zeus is the King of Heaven.[4]

Unfortunately, this is compelling point of Hamblin’s is routinely overlooked or ignored by sectarian critics.

Furthermore, it has recently occurred to me that this argument used by sectarians is severely undermined by a wonderful book of Latter-day Saint scripture entitled the Doctrine and Covenants. Permit me, if you will, a few moments to explain how, following the logic of sectarian critics of Mormonism, archaeology proves beyond any doubt that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record and the word of God.

The D&C contains several references to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Take, for instance, this declaration of the Lord in D&C 17:6:

And he [Joseph Smith] has translated the book [the Book of Mormon], even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.

Consider also D&C 42:12, which reads:

And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

And finally, here is D&C 1:29:

And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

Here are only three examples of many throughout the D&C that affirm the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Latter-day Saints believe these declarations to be the will and word of the Lord. They accept on faith the theological claims made in the D&C regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

One may be wondering how this archaeologically proves that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture and the word of God. It is simple, really. The Doctrine and Covenants has been overwhelming verified by archaeological evidence as an authentic text of the 19th century. Consider the following:

• The D&C mentions American place-names such as Harmony, New York City, Albany, Boston, Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, Fayette, Manchester, Hiram, Salem, Far West, Ramus, and Salt Lake City. Every single one of these locations has been indisputably verified archaeologically. You can locate any of these places on a map of the United States.
• The D&C details the geography of states such as New York, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Other portions of the D&C were received in Nebraska and Utah. Each of these states is still in existence today, and there is no question from the archaeological evidence that they existed in the 19th century. Thus, altogether, the geography of the D&C is 100% archaeologically verified. Contrast this with the Bible, which still has ambiguous geography that is open for debate amongst scholars and archaeologists. Some of the geography of the Bible, i.e. the Garden of Eden, is doubted by many scholars to have even existed, and is increasingly being deemed mythological. Not so with any of the geography of the D&C.
• The D&C names individuals such as Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Brigham Young, David Patten, Joseph Smith, Sr., and countless others. Every single individual mentioned in the D&C has been proven archaeologically to have actually existed in the 19th century. We have their journals, their personal belongings, photographs, eyewitness descriptions, census records, birth-date and death-date records, living descendants that can be verified through DNA evidence, etc., all confirming without any question that these were real people. And unlike many of the biblical prophets, there is no debate amongst scholars whether Joseph Smith was a real person or merely an idealized personification of the archetypal prophet. Unlike the biblical figures Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, among others, scholars are not debating whether Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or John Taylor actually existed. There is no debate amongst scholars whether Brigham Young actually led thousands of Mormons across the American frontier. Wish that were so with Moses and the reported Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, as the historicity of the Exodus story is hotly contested by scholars.
• Unlike any of the biblical books, we have the original autographs for many of the revelations contained in the D&C. And, we have multiple extant copies of manuscripts of the D&C that date to years, or even months, after the original, unlike the extant copies of the biblical texts which date decades or even centuries after the autographs were written.
• Today, in Salt Lake City, artifacts belonging to the people mentioned in the D&C and manuscripts of the D&C can be found in the Church History Library and the Museum of Church History and Art. What’s more, we know these artifacts actually belonged to individuals named in the D&C. That includes books, clothing, utensils, tools, and other trinkets. Thanks to names inscribed on the artifact (how many examples of handwriting do we have from any biblical figure?) and other evidence we can be absolutely positive than certain artifacts once belonged to certain individuals mentioned in the D&C.

By now the point should be obvious. The Doctrine and Covenants has been overwhelming proven archaeologically. The events of the past that it reports, and the people, places, and things is describes have been proven archaeologically. If we follow the argument of sectarian critics, then the theological claims of the D&C have also been proven because its historicity has been proven. And because its theological claims have been proven, the Book of Mormon therefore has been proven to be ancient scripture since one of the theological claims of the D&C is that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

If the critics are going to be consistent, and not trap themselves in a double standard, then they must concede that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The D&C has been proven archaeologically. The D&C testifies that the Book of Mormon is authentic. Ergo, the Book of Mormon is authentic.

Now, of course, I am not seriously arguing that the question of the Book of Mormon’s historicity is settled because the D&C has been proven archaeologically. That debate is still very much open to differing opinions and arguments. Nor am I seriously arguing that the theological claims of the Doctrine and Covenants have been proven true because of archaeology. (Likewise, I will mention in anticipation to possible future objections by any Evangelical critics that I am not attempting to attack the Bible. It is not my goal in this post to try and disprove the Bible.) My point is to show the double standard used by sectarian critics. If we follow the logic of the critics, viz., archaeology proves the theology of the Bible, then it follows that archaeology also proves the theology of the Doctrine and Covenants, which in turn proves the Book of Mormon is scripture.

Therefore, the sectarian argument that archaeological verification = theological verification needs to be put to rest.

[Kerry Shirts, the lovable Backyard Professor, has produced a video putting forth an identical argument that I have put forth here. See his YouTube video "The Power of Archaeology for the D&C", online here.]

Notes:

[1]: For starters, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Many more samples could be provided; on such, see here.

[2]: David Bokovoy, “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon: Still Loosing the Battle,” FARMS Review 18/1 (2006), 3-19, online here; Brant Gardner, “Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion,” FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), 145-195, online here. See also the FAIR produced video “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon: A Close Examination”, online here.

[3]: Alfred Hoerth and John McRay, Bible Archaeology: An Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizations (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 11-12.

[4]: William J. Hamblin, “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (Spring 1993), 186. The entire article, which can be accessed online here, is worth reading with special attention.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Daniel C. Peterson is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at BYU, where he also serves as editor in chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and as director of advancement for the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He is the founder of MormonScholarsTestify.org. Daniel Peterson is the author of many books and articles, including Offenders for a Word, which is available, along with other talks by Brother Peterson, at the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

This week FAIR has released a new DVD exploring the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. “A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham” puts forth answers to various criticisms directed against the Book of Abraham, as well as provides evidence favorable to the Book of Abraham’s ancient authenticity.

Footage of this new video was viewed at the FAIR Conference in August 2011, and many of the viewers afterwords came up and spoke to myself and Tyler Livingston concerning some of the things mentioned in the video. What is this talk of a “Jewish Redactor”? How old are the Joseph Smith Papyri? What is the “Egyptian Endowment” mentioned in the video? What about the notion of a council of gods? For those interested in the subjects touched upon by the DVD, or who may have similar questions, the following supplementary reading may prove useful. The following bibliography is a collection of resources for those interested in further delving into the Book of Abraham controversy.

Also note that this DVD is not meant to be an exhaustive rebuttal to every anti-Mormon criticism against the Book of Abraham. Nor is it meant to be an exhaustive analysis of all the relevant evidence for the Book of Abraham. (For instance, due to time constraints and other factors, as badly as we wanted to we were unable to include a discussion of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar in the video.) Rather, it is a general overview of the Book of Abraham controversy from a faithful, apologetic perspective. The critics have had their day in court to present their case against the Book of Abraham (a case, incidentally, which has substantially remained the same for the last thirty some-odd years). This DVD is the case of the defense. As such, it is overtly apologetic. It is readily conceded that the controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham is still very active, and many questions remained unanswered. Thus, this DVD is not an attempt to end the discussion or declare conclusive victory. Rather, it is meant to give viewers a resource that brings together the faithful, scholarly LDS response to the critics’ allegations.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that over time aspects of this DVD will become outdated. The scholarly investigation surrounding the Book of Abraham continues unabated to this day. Both LDS and non-LDS scholars are producing fascinating research on the textual history of the Book of Abraham and the doctrines contained therein, the Book of Abraham’s historicity as a ancient text, the Joseph Smith Papyri, the so-called “Kirtland Egyptian Papers”, the facsimiles, and 19th century eyewitness accounts of those involved with the handling of the JSP and the production of the Book of Abraham. Thus, the information presented in this DVD, while current, must not be taken as the final word on the matter. New discoveries and insights await to be made as eager investigators of truth feast upon the Book of Abraham, which is truly a most remarkable book.*

Bibliography:

Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), online here.

Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005).

Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009).

Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes, One Eternal Round (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2010).

Michael D. Rhodes, “The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus…. Twenty Years Later”, online here.

Michael D. Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham: Dealing with the Critics”, online here.

Michael D. Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture”, FARMS Review 4/1 (1992), 120-126, online here.

Michael D. Rhodes, “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles”, Religious Educator 4/2 (2003), 115-123, online here.

Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002).

Michael D. Rhodes, Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2011).

John Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors”, FARMS Review 4/1 (1992), 93-119, online here.

John Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri”, FARMS Review 20/1 (2008), 113-137, online here.

John Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob”, FARMS Review 7/1 (1995), 19-84, online here.

John Gee, “A Method for Studying the Facsimiles”, FARMS Review 19/1 (2007), 347-53, online here.

John Gee, “New Light on the Joseph Smith Papyri”, FARMS Review 19/2 (2007), 245-260, online here.

John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), online here. (Note: Because this is a photo-rich text, the published version is recommended.)

John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, “Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 63–98, online here.

John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew W. Hedges, eds., The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 175-217, online here.

John Gee and Brian Hauglid, eds., Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), online here.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers,” Religious Educator 11/1 (2010), 91–108, online here.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Encircling Astronomy and the Egyptians: An Approach to Abraham 3,” in Religious Educator 10/1 (2009), 33-50, online here.

Kerry Muhlestein, “The Book of Breathings in its Place”, FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), 471-486, online here.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Approaching Understandings in the Book of Abraham”, FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), 229-246, online here.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Prelude to the Pearl: Sweeping Events Leading To The Discovery of the Book of Abraham,” in Prelude to the Restoration: From Apostasy to the Restored Church (Provo, UT and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2004), 130–141, online here.

Michael Ash and Kevin Barney, “The ABCs of the Book of Abraham”, online here.

Michael Ash, “Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Modern Egyptology”, in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening Oneʼs Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2008), 113-128.

Michael Ash, “Book of Abraham 201″, online here.

Larry E. Morris, “The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep on Looking”, FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), 355-380, online here.

Daniel C. Peterson, “News From Antiquity”, Ensign (January 1994), 16-21, online here.

Daniel C. Peterson, “Mormonism as a Restoration”, FARMS Review 18/1 (2006), 406-409, online here.

Matthew Porter Wilcox, “The Coming Forth of the Book of Abraham,” in BYU Religious Education 2009 Student Symposium (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 105–121, online here.

Brian M. Hauglid, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010).

Brian M. Hauglid, “Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers”, online here.

John A. Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001).

John A. Tvedtnes, “Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers”, online here.

Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 119–36, online here.

David E. Bokovoy, “Ye Really Are Gods”: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John”, FARMS Review 19/1 (2007), 267-313, online here.

David E. Bokovoy, “Joseph Smith and the Biblical Council of Gods”, online here.

William Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers”, online here, text here.

Other helpful resources include:

FAIR Wiki, “Book of Abraham”, online here.

Kerry Shirts “Backyard Professor” webpage on the Book of Abraham, online here, and his blog here.

Val Sederholm’s blog, online here.

Jeff Lindsay’s Book of Abraham webpage, online here.

The Book of Abraham Project, online here.

Edwin Goble, The Nail of Heaven: LDS Cosmology, Metaphysics, and Science (CreateSpace, 2011).

* For those who may have been wondering, the title of this DVD is indeed a deliberate play off the Institute for Religious Research’s 2002 video The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim.

A few months before his presentation at the FAIR Conference, Professor Peterson published an article with the Mormon Times entitled “God’s sheep recognize his voice”.[3] It is something of a reader’s digest version of his FAIR presentation. In both the article and his FAIR Conference Presentation, Professor Peterson essentially argued that regardless of religious or cultural background, “God’s sheep recognize his voice, even when it’s in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.” Thus, we as Latter-day Saints should follow the noble heritage of our predecessors (including Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde, and B. H. Roberts, to name only three) and extend tolerance and understanding towards those of other religious backgrounds in both word and deed. Our world is much too divisive, and religious strife only adds fuel to the fire. Although we should not compromise our uniquely cherished Latter-day Saints beliefs, we should not fall prey to religious dogmatism that can create contention amongst people of differing religious persuasions. Dr. Peterson’s ideas are noble and edifying, and I felt myself  strengthened after listening to his presentation at the FAIR Conference.

However, not everybody is as taken with Professor Peterson’s ideas as I am. One particularly vocal anti-Mormon named Rocky Hulse has made it clear that  Daniel C. Peterson is preaching nothing but rank blasphemy.[4]

Right off the bat Hulse makes it clear that “the first four paragraphs of this article set the stage of falsehood”. What are the shocking paragraphs which Mr. Hulse has in mind?

Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.

They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.

When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn’t mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is “corrupt” means that it has been damaged. We speak of “corrupted texts” or “corrupted files,” intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.

In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.

Hulse continues to blast away at this heresy by asserting that “this attempt at revising the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith is grossly deceptive”. According to Hulse, Joseph Smith’s details of his First Vision disqualify Mormonism from any pretension to inter-faith ecumenicalism.

Here in the “First Vision,” Joseph Smith says the “Personage” who addressed him (later identified as Jesus) told him all churches were wrong and all of their creeds were an “abomination.” The Christian Creeds are Christian doctrine. The word “abomination” is defined as follows: “1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred: LOATHING.” It is quite clear from the text that, according to Joseph Smith, Jesus has “extreme disgust, hatred and loathing” of the Christian creeds and specifically defines all churches as wrong and teaching the doctrines of men. Yet, in the first four paragraphs of this article, Daniel Peterson very deceptively tries to gloss over Mormonism’s absolute attack against all churches, all Christian doctrine and all who profess Christianity.

Hulse then quote-mines the Journal of Discourses for a statement as equally un-ecumenical as Joseph Smith’s brazen assault on Christianity.[5] Notwithstanding, Husle’s arguments in this regard have been thoroughly refuted by Michael Ash, in his article “Does Mormonism Attack Christianity?”.[6] Furthermore, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks have addressed this charge in their book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints.[7]

I mention this only in passing, since I wish to address the more egregiously erroneous claims made by Hulse. He is totally beside himself because of the fact that “this BYU professor and Mormon Apologist goes on in this article teaching that the Allah of Islam is the God of the Bible”. Here is the quote from Dr. Peterson provided by Hulse:

But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?
Jews certainly don’t. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).
But what of Islam? Isn’t “Allah” a false god? No. According to the Qur’an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?

To this incredible blasphemy Hulse replies with certitude:

 To draw the conclusion that “Allah” is the God of the Bible because a fictional book of scripture, the Qur’an, plagiarizes the characters and stories of the Bible is ludicrous, however, not without precedent. Mormonism does the same thing in our time. Mormonism draws from its fictional book of scripture, the Pearl of Great Price, claiming in creation that all human beings were born into a pre-existent world, having been sired by God the Father, who has a body of flesh and bones, and that Jesus was the first offspring of this Deity and that Lucifer was the second. This being foundational Mormon doctrine, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and these two procreated beings are our older brothers in this non-Biblical doctrine.

But that isn’t the worst of it. What does Hulse consider to be the premiere blasphemy of Daniel Peterson? The fact that he is equating the false Muslim God Allah with the Word of John 1:1. As Dr. Peterson maliciously slurs in the Mormon Times article:

“Allah” is simply the Arabic equivalent of English “God,” related to the Hebrew “Elohim.” Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. “In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth,” reads Arabic Genesis. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah),” says the Arabic version of John 1:1. “We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father,” says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, “and in his Son, Jesus Christ.”

Hulse is incensed at this heresy. Hulse screams: “Jesus was the Word that became flesh and then “dwelt  among us” (John 1:14), not Allah!” Unfortunately, though, the facts are not on his side. Perhaps Hulse is confused about how languages work, and how translations from one language to another works. Allow me a few moments to explain.

Here is the Greek text of John 1:1.

Ἐν  ἀρχῇ  ἦν  ὁ  λόγος,  καὶ  ὁ  λόγος  ἦν  πρὸς  τὸν  θεόν,  καὶ  θεὸς  ἦν  ὁ  λόγος.

The Greek word for “God” is  θεόν or θεὸς (theos).

What follows are three different translation of the Greek text in English, German, and French. Note the word used to translate the Greek θεὸς:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New Revised Standard Version).

Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und das Wort war Gott. (Die Bibel: Einheitsübersetzung)

Au commencement était celui qui est la Parole de Dieu. Il était avec Dieu, il était lui-même Dieu. (La Bible du Semeur)

In these instances the Greek word θεὸς is translated into the English “God”, the German “Gott”, and the French “Dieu”. These are not differing unique English, German, and French deities but rather just the generic word in the respective language to express the Greek word. So it is with the Arabic word الله‎ (Allāh). Recall that Arabic is a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew.[8] It therefore should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Hebrew word for God אֱלהִים (elohim), is closely related to the Arabic الله‎. That is not to even mention the Aramaic (the spoken language of Jesus) word for God  (ʼĔlāhā), which is even more closely related to the Arabic. It is no different than the fact that the English word “God” is closely related to the German “Gott”. They are just two different words in two different languages being used to express the same idea.

Thus, in spite of Hulse’s protestations to the contrary, Professor Peterson is strictly correct. It is entirely appropriate to use the word Allah when translating the Bible into Arabic since Allah is the word in Arabic to denote “God”. Who would have ever guessed that Arabic speaking Muslims, Jews and Christians use the same Arabic word (Allah) to name the God they are worshiping? To illustrate by way of personal experience, when my family and I traveled to Israel in 2006 we sat in on a Roman Catholic mass attended by Palestinian Christians. Does anyone want to guess what word in Arabic we repeatedly and distinctly heard throughout this beautiful Christian liturgy?

Moving on. Hulse takes a swing at Professor Peterson, this time on the grounds that Dr. Peterson has grossly misrepresented Paul in Acts 17. Says Hulse: “In another grand deception, Daniel Peterson attempts to make the claim that Paul is actually equating the God of Israel with the Greek god Zeus.” Here is the relevant quote from Professor Peterson:

When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel’s God: “For in him we live and move and have our being,” he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. “As some of your own poets have said,” he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher’s verse about Zeus, “‘we are his offspring.’”

Hulse bemoans this “truly deliberate deception” as ”beyond the pale of deceit”. But, once again, Professor Peterson is correct. Paul is quoting two Greek poets, namely, Epimenides (or some would argue Posidonius) and Aratus.[9] Here is the section from Aratus’ Phaenomena that Paul was quoting:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.

For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

For we are indeed his offspring…

That Paul was approvingly quoting Aratus (while at the same reapplying the meaning) is seen in Paul’s conclusion in the next verse of Acts 17, where the Apostle declares: “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill” (New International Version). It makes little sense for Paul to quote a pagan Greek poet unless he was intending to reinforce his own theological point, viz., that we are God’s offspring (Greek, γένος, species, race, genus, etc.) and thus should not consider God as an idol made of man’s artifice.

At the end of his Mormon Times article, Professor Peterson concludes with the following offering:

In the final volume of C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew “truth”) has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me,” explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. “No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.”

In a concluding rebuttal (I use that word loosely here), Hulse ends his screed thusly:

This teaching by BYU Professor Peterson is absolute blasphemy. Trying to use the “Chronicles of Narnia” as scripture to rationalize that any worship given to any god will be accounted by the God of the Bible as valid, is the epitome of reaching for straws; it’s pathetic really. God will not be mocked. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! There is none other and any devotion offered to false gods will not be accepted by the God of the Bible as worship to him. The Old Testament is clear that God is a jealous God and will not tolerate worship given to false gods; however, since Mormonism has incorporated polytheism (many gods) into their doctrine, the god of this world has blinded their eyes (II Cor 4:4).

Where exactly does Professor Peterson equate C. S. Lewis with scripture? I took it as an appropriate concluding reference to a respected Christian philosopher and theologian. Likewise, contrary to what Hulse maintains, I did not read this so much as Daniel Peterson granting license to worship any god willy-nilly, but rather that even those who serve “false” gods can still do good in the world and receive blessings from the Savior.

It is my hope that Rocky Hulse will take some time to calm down and read Professor Peterson’s more fully documented and expanded paper presented at the FAIR Conference. Likewise, I wish that anyone reading this blog post will take time to read Dr. Peterson’s remarks. Those who do will learn of the importance of religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue, which, unfortunately, is bereft in any of Rocky Hulse’s comments.

We live in a divisive world. Religious differences are sometimes used as further justification for this divisiveness. Usually those who further drive the wedge between people of differing religious backgrounds do so out of ignorance and fear. I am afraid that Rocky Hulse has done such with his knee-jerk reaction to Dr. Peterson’s article.

Notes:

[1]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org//FAIR_Conferences/2011_Mormonism_Islam_and_the_Question_of_Other_Religions.html

[2]: See his bio entry on Mormon Scholars Testify: http://mormonscholarstestify.org/151/daniel-c-peterson-2

[3]: Available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705387043/Gods-sheep-recognize-his-voice.html

[4]: “Zeus, Allah, and Jesus in Mormonism, They’re One and the Same!”. Online at: http://www.mormonoutreach.org/topics/Zeus%20Allah%20and%20Jesus%20in%20Mormonism%20Theyre%20One%20and%20the%20Same.html. All subsequent quotations of Hulse are taken from this article.

[5]: The statement quoted by Hulse is from Brigham Young. “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Journal of Discourses, 6:176.

[6]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSattack.pdf

[7]: Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 158-172.

[8]: Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), xxii.

[9]: Michael D. Coogan, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 219 [Acts 17:28f].

Unfortunately, Ms. Erickson has been given yet more air time on CNN to prattle away on the nefarious machinations of the “Mormon Church” and Mitt Romney, the prominent Mormon candidate for the presidency. Fortunately, a voice of reason, in the embodiment of CNN Belief-Blog co-editor Eric Marrapodi, was allowed to participate in the discussion between Erickson and Tim Foreman, who challenged Erickson to show a single example of a Mormon making a negative political policy choice on the basis of his commitment to Mormonism. (Not surprisingly, Erickson failed to provide any such example.)

One of the arguments Ms. Erickson used in her assault on the faith of the Saints and Governor Romney was the claim that Mormons are on a campaign to dominate the world (why else are there any Mormons who hold political offices?) and that according to Mormon doctrine the second coming of Jesus will include the establishing of a Mormon totalitarian regime based out of Jackson County, Missouri. And if that isn’t enough to disqualify Romney or any other Mormon from being president, also remember that Mormons, including Romney, believe they will become gods and have their own planet! I was especially offended at this misrepresentation of my faith. Only one planet? Egoistical/self-aggrandizeing Mormon that I am, I am not shooting low for only one planet but a universe of endless worlds to populate through endless Celestial sex with my many goddess wives. Or at least that is what Ed Decker has repeated told me through his sensationalistic video The God Makers. Considering that Ed Decker is one of Ms. Erickson’s primary sources on Mormonism, I am surprised that she conservatively restricted Mormon aspirations of godly dominion to only one planet in the hereafter. Get your facts straight, Ms. Erickson!

This is the second time that CNN, a respected news agency, has provided precious air time for a crank to spout off nonsense against the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Ms. Erickson has finally exhausted her time with CNN. We need less sensationalism and more serious journalism on the relationship between religion and modern politics. And we need it now especially with this upcoming election, wherein we have not one, but two potential Mormon candidates for the presidency. If ever there was a time when we as a people should look at the interplay between religious values and political policy that time is now. Ms. Erickson has now demonstrated twice that she cannot provide that nuanced and informed investigation. As such, we are compelled to look to others to answer this pertinent question.

I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.

–

I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.

For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.

First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.

Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.

Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.

Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.

Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973

Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the FAIR-Cast by rating it in iTunes.

At the risk of assuming too much, I think that in including that one line Elder Cook was aiming at two related criticisms: First, that the Church’s gender-based organization harms women, and second, that it blunders by not fully acknowledging women’s distress over that issue.

First, one might criticize the study’s methods, but the American Grace data are still formidable evidence, conducted by highly respected scholars who have no conceivable bias in favor of Mormon female contentment. Therefore, the argument that LDS women are ipso facto harmed by the gender-based organization has to clear the high hurdle of establishing a mass case of something like Stockholm Syndrome. (I say ipso facto because of course there are plenty of anecdotes showing specific instances of abuse or harm. But those can be explained, and hopefully corrected, on a case-by-case basis; systemic harm is the real debate to have.) I am, predictably, not impressed with any suggestion that my contentment with the Church’s status quo can be chalked up to my false consciousness or whatnot. And accusations that Utah (hence, LDS) women are addled with depression and Prozac don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Second, critics in a traditional church necessarily band together for discussion as best they can, now made marvelously easier by the Internet. When a website receives thousands of hits from hundreds of cities and dozens of anecdotes telling of similar problems, it’s easy to conclude that a large movement is in the offing. And large movements feel deserving of respect, acknowledgment, and validation. With due respect to the sincerity of those concerned, it is invalid to conclude that theirs is a movement the Church cannot credibly fail to fully engage.

For one thing, despite the perception of those in it, the movement is proportionally small. Size isn’t dispositive of truth, but because no one really expects an announcement that revelation now directs that priesthood be conferred on women, all that’s up for grabs is the upper hand in the debate over the supposed harm to women. In the latter, numbers matter very much, and can easily be distorted by a vocal minority claiming the moral authority of personal victimhood. For the Church to extend recognition to the few as a gesture meant to validate their feelings of distress could correspondingly invalidate the contentment of the many—and the many’s feelings are no less respectable.

Moreover, as discussed above, the evidence of harm is thin, but the Church expressing acknowledgment and sympathy for the critics’ position would, rightly or wrongly, be widely interpreted as concession of ipso facto harm, or even a malicious basis for the current organization.

Our culture lauds full and open discussion of distress, but general conference isn’t a cozy chat, and validation of personal feelings is not the highest good. Elder Cook’s one-liner served an admirable purpose that critics doubtless dislike but can hopefully respect.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the FAIR-Cast by rating it in iTunes.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the FAIR-Cast by rating it in iTunes.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the FAIR-Cast by rating it in iTunes.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Dead_Men_Tell_No_Tales.html

It’s a long one (109 footnotes), but well worth the read, in my opinion. I think much of the material will be new for even those who are well-read in things Mormon. Much more so (in spades) for those who happily parade the standard “blood atonement” proof-texts from Journal of Discourses as devastating to Mormon claims that their prophets and apostles were divinely called and sanctioned.

This material is a very small part of some books I’m working on focusing on topics in Journal of Discourses. I have made my own detailed index on over a hundred topics (apologetic, Church-related, background, humor, etc.), which is much more detailed than the standard one published by BYU in 1959 (which listed only seven references for “blood atonement”).

Feedback is more than welcome . . .

There are numerous statements from Church leaders, unknown to many, that expound on this seeming paradox. Comments on my recent paper for FAIR are welcome!

In further explaining what happened to him, Richard goes on to explain how he decided that since he no longer believed the Church to be true that it didn’t matter whether he followed the Word of Wisdom and it didn’t matter whether he continued to wear his temple garments. He would choose to go to parties, without his wife, and enjoy the lifestyle enjoyed by other university students. This led to troubles between Richard and his wife.

One day he came home and found his wife and children gone. He discovered the next day that they had taken the train back to Idaho, and it wasn’t long after that a divorce was sought and granted.

Richard explained how he has come to feel that this crumbling of the marriage was the fault of the Church. It may be indirectly, but it is nonetheless the Church’s fault because of its teachings. After all, there was no abuse, he tried to be a good father, and the only thing that changed were his beliefs about the Church. John agreed that this is terrible, and (paraphrasing) that the Church should change so that it isn’t responsible for such occurrences.

Personally, I think that Richard is justifying the bad things that happened during the dissolution of the marriage in a way that that doesn’t implicate his decisions. John, trying to be empathetic to the things that others go through, actively supported Richard in his characterizations of the past.

Richard doesn’t stop with blaming the Church for the breakup of his marriage, however. In wrapping up the discussion about the dissolution of his marriage and the Church’s complicity in the events, he states that “it isn’t just an intellectual decision that the Church isn’t what it claims to be…there is evil there. Evil things are happening” because of the Church’s teachings about family and marriage.

Hogwash.

What did Richard expect? He “discovers” that the Church isn’t true, surprises his wife with the announcement as a fact, changes his values and his behavior, and then (in late life) blames his first marriage’s dissolution on the teachings of the Church. Neither Richard nor John provided much empathy for the wife (although Richard invited John to interview her). The implication in support of the assertion that the Church breaks up families is that, just perhaps, the wife shouldn’t feel betrayed by the path that Richard decided to take in his life. Perhaps she should be able to overlook his decision and continue to love him.

One of the prime reasons for the breakup of marriages—in or out of the Church—is infidelity. According to Wikipedia:

Infidelity is a violation of the mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries of an intimate relationship, which constitutes a significant to extreme breach, or outright default, on the implicit good faith contract of a relationship, or a betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity and nature of the relationship is defined.

Were there any “mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries” in Richard’s first marriage? Undoubtedly; there are in any marriage. Did his first wife feel that Richard had violated those boundaries and that an “extreme breach” or “outright default” of their relationship had occurred? Perhaps. Did she feel a “betrayal of core shared values with which the integrity and nature of the relationship is defined.” Probably.

Yet it is the Church’s fault.

Sure it is.

Nobody should take my comments as “dumping” on Richard. I actually think that Richard is a nice enough guy. John indicates in his write-up that it was his intent to explore his three points about the Church “via Richard’s own personal story.” If John (and Richard) feel it appropriate to use Richard’s story in support of the points, it is equally appropriate to examine Richard’s story in countering the points.

The fact is, John and Richard, in their story telling, are plain wrong. It is inappropriate to blame the Church for the natural outcome of individual choices. Even Richard stated in the interview that if he had remained in the Church, no doubt he would still be married to his first wife. It was his choice to leave, and I can hardly blame the wife for feeling betrayed at Richard’s intellectual infidelity to the “mutually agreed-upon rules or boundaries” that were part and parcel of their relationship.

It wasn’t the Church; it was Richard, and John doesn’t even see it.

Terryl L. Givens

Dr. Terryl L. Givens sat down with host Blair Hodges during the Mormon Scholars Foundation Summer Seminar at Brigham Young University. Blair uses selections from Givens’s books as jumping off points for further discussion on a wide array of subjects, including: nineteenth-century anti-Mormon literature, the Book of Mormon, prisca theologia, the paradox of searching and certainty, recent developments in Mormon studies, Parley P. Pratt, the preexistence, globalization, thoughtful faith, and dealing with difficult historical and theological puzzles.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be added to the comments section here, or emailed to podcast@fairlds.org.

Dr. Terrl L. Givens is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. He has authored several books, including The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (Oxford 1997); By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford 2003); People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (Oxford 2007); The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2009); and When Souls had Wings: Pre-Mortal Life in Western Thought (2010). His current projects include a biography of Parley P. Pratt (with Matt Grow, to be published by Oxford in 2011), a sourcebook of Mormonism in America (with Reid Neilson, to be published by Columbia in 2011), a history of Mormon theology (with Steven Harper), and a study of the idea of human perfectibility in the Western tradition. He lives in Montpelier, Virginia.

(Image and info from http://terrylgivens.com/)

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Runtime:

55:26

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

MormonThink does a good job at posing questions to their readers to get them to reconsider the plausibility of LDS truth claims. The authors, a coalition of Mormon and ex-Mormon skeptics [1] (some operating under a cloak of anonymity while accusing the Church of less than complete transparency), find previous faithful attempts by unofficial apologists to answer similar questions “unsatisfactory.” A FAIR review demonstrated that MormonThink’s own predominately negative answers were ill-informed, highly slanted (not objective as advertised), and fail to more than superficially engage faithful answers. MormonThink’s response to FAIR’s rebuttal is a mixed. On one hand, the response shows a commitment to accuracy and correcting some of its more egregious errors. On the other hand, the response justifies its failure to take FAIR more seriously by making an appeal to authority. MormonThink seeks the attention of General Authorities and they believe FAIR is usurping the Brethren’s role. This suggests to me that they are less concerned about answers and more concerned about getting attention for dissent.

While in the future the MormonThink site might correct misinformation and engage Mormon scholarship more adequately, it will likely remain slanted towards convincing their readers to come to negative conclusions about Mormon truth claims.  Nevertheless, the response to FAIR’s review is not all that encouraging that the writers will make rapid progress in first two areas. Let us look at a deficient response to one of the questions FAIR reviewed that MormonThink initially posed. The question is in italics, FAIR’s response in bullet points,  MormonThink’s rejoinder is blockquoted, and my discussion follows. I invite commenters on this blog to address anything that I fail to in MormonThink’s rejoinder.

If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.

• If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
• The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
• Joseph did not regard the stone as “common”—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.

Staring into a dark hat pulled over one’s face, looking into a rock, could be characterized as “a spiritual growing experience” or it can also raise questions because it looks like a lot of hocus pocus to many intelligent, reasonable and objective investigators.  Most of the fair minded and good people in the world would likely agree that it looks like a scam in progress.  So it’s a reasonable question and the rock-in-the-hat-process will be subject to ridicule and critical questioning until it can be demonstrated that it is a viable method of translating ancient documents.  We are unaware of any credible scholars or linguists who use this method.  Church employees who provide translation services indicate that they do not use the rock-in-the-hat-method either.

It is also important to point out that early scribes of J Smith describe his activities as a reader, not a translator.  He saw English text on the rock in the bottom of his hat, the plates were never in view, and he dictated English sentences as they appeared.  Those who reported this reading method were Emma Hale Smith (wife), Isaac Hale (father-in-law), Michael Morse (brother-in-law), Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr.  (For Primary sources and an excellent discussion of this issue, Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, pages 2-5, and footnotes).

The responsibility to prove that J Smith was actually translating something is left with the church leaders.  At this point, the accumulated evidence after 180 years indicates that there were no golden plates, that Smith translated nothing, and God did not put sentences in English on the rock in his hat.  The first edition Book of Mormon provides ample evidence of that, due to the thousands of grammatical errors and contradictions.  An admission by Smith that this is true is evidenced by his campaign to clean up the book’s grammar and publish a revised and heavily-edited version in 1837.

Smith’s edited book, from 1830 to the present, has corrected approximately 4,000 errors in: (1) punctuation, (2) uneducated grammar (they was a runnin), (3) editing out obvious mistakes, and (4) changing 2 Nephi 11 to coincide with Smith’s evolving belief system about God.  The Book itself is why critics and skeptics wonder why Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book of any on earth.”  Thousands of revisions, is not evidence in favor of J Smith’s claims.  And investigators should not be belittled if they choose to keep asking “Did J Smith translate golden plates?”  It’s a reasonable question.

If God gave J Smith revelations about the ancient Americas, why does the Book of Mormon reflect 19th century American myths about American Indians?  Why don’t the large Nephite cities in the Americas turn up Nephite artifacts to support the book’s claims?  Why was Smith wrong about America’s language, culture, mode of transportation (horses and chariots), flora and fauna?  Why do the errors in the King James Version of the Bible that J Smith used (1796 version), show up in the Book of Mormon?  Why do unofficial apologists put BOM geography on coasters to be rolled all over the Americas to try and find a place for them that makes sense?  The official authorities say the Bom events occurred exactly where Smith said they did – North and South America.

Apostle Marion G. Romney reminded zealous apologists like FAIR to remember this.  “I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78.)  How do you reconcile the counsel from an esteemed apostle with all the errors in the foundational sacred text of Mormonism?

FAIR has no valid reason to complain that members ask legitimate and reasonable questions regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, especially when unofficial answers contradict the answers of the general authorities and past presidents of the church.  Most of the humans on the planet who have considered the church’s claims as presented by the missionaries, also find them without merit.

I agree that FAIR shouldn’t complain when legitimate questions are asked. As a volunteer who spends many hours each week answering Ask the Apologist questions, I am concerned with  providing faithful and factual answers. I am always looking for ways to improve my ability to help those who have encountered criticism that may shake faith. However when questions assume invalid premises, they are not necessarily legitimate.

In the FAIR review, a corrective was suggested for one such faulty assumption. FAIR pointed out that Joseph did not consider his seer stone “common.” MormonThink defends the question’s premise by arguing  that Joseph’s seer stones share more in common with ordinary rocks than with the Nephite interpreters. They point out (using prejudicial, anachronistic language) that the Urim and Thummim [2] was found in a box and another stone used in translation was found in a well). Later they point out accounts that the box was found by Joseph receiving a vision with the aid of a seer stone. These two data points (its miraculous finding — though MormonThink would have their readers believe it is hocus pocus– and its intentional burial as a relic) suggest that the Nephite interpreters are to be considered uncommon.

However MormonThink has not been thorough in their analysis of the circumstances of which Joseph’s seer stones were found. There are accounts that he miraculously found both his white and brown seer stones through seer stone aided visions [3]. For the brown stone (the stone most attested to in the latter stages of the translation process), there are indications that it was buried as a relic. So while the Nephite interpreters have a more storied history and finding, this criteria MormonThink suggests does not sharply distinguish one set of seer stones as being common in contrast to the other set. Both discovery sequences tend to set both sets above commonly found stones, however.

In arguing against a data point of Martin swapping stones on Joseph caused him to not be able to translate, the MormonThink writers reverse their premise that the stone was common. The stone was apparently distinguishable enough for Joseph to detect the switch at the bottom of a “dark hat” that he reportedly used in a manner to eliminate all outside light. MormonThink also suggests that Joseph may have used the seer stone as a focusing device without addressing why the same would not be true of his use of the Nephite interpreters (if so, by this criteria both devices would be equally common or uncommon.)

I get the impression that the use of the hat is also used to support the notion that a seer stone might be common, in contrast to the interpreters. Accounts are mixed, but the majority that comment on the use of the spectacles in detail also indicate that Joseph put them in a hat to translate as well [4].

Another distinction that MormonThink appears to make is that the Nephite interpreters were in Moroni’s possession (giving the use of that object a sense of divine approval) while God (or any rational, objective being) would not approve of the use of a seer stone. Later in the response they cite agreement with FAIR to put stock in the accounts that Joseph saw the location of the plates in vision. However they fail to bring up accounts that Moroni instructed Joseph as to the plates’ location [5].

When they do bring the issue up elsewhere on their site they try to force their readers into forming a false dichotomy between the two data points, whereas FAIR synthesizes the two ideas. The result is that Moroni condoned the Prophet Joseph’s use of a seer stone. Once again, while MormonThink is entitled to their own opinions, they have failed to responsibly engage data and arguments that challenge their position. A more important data point that is ignored is found in accounts that Moroni took possession of Joseph’s seer stones after the loss of the 116 pages (there is one account Joseph got in trouble on another occasion as well). So both the Nephite interpreters and seer stones were in Moroni’s possession and it could thus be argued that both sets of devices were used under Moroni’s supervision and hence both were used with divine approval. Joseph Knight also indicated that  Joseph Smith looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry following Moroni’s command. [6]

Later the MormonThink response asks why Joseph didn’t use his seer stones to locate the lost manuscript, oblivious to the likelihood that his seer stones had all been taken away. This further illustrates that MormonThink asks questions for the rhetorical purpose of convincing their readers of an absurdity, when the real problem is that the question assumes facts not in evidence. When these types of non-legitimate questions accumulate, it seems clear to me that they are expressly designed to raise doubts and asked not for sake of intellectual exploration. We see very little attempt to answer such questions beyond the citation of a few pages of Grant Palmer’s critical book.

The response acknowledges, but fails to engage the brief response that FAIR offers for Joseph using different objects during the translation process. FAIR response deserves more consideration as does Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood. Brant Gardner’s FAIR conference address is also a valuable contribution. MormonThink makes no attempt to try to understand why rational, objective people in Joseph Smith’s time would not automatically consider Joseph to be a scam artist. They appeal to presentist values to condemn Joseph Smith. Making comparisons with translations done by modern Church employees in a non sequitar. Modern church employees work with modern languages that they can learn from living people.

The nature of Book of Mormon’s translation as Joseph’s role as a translator is an interesting question to explore, but this is tangential to the originally posed questions. Yes investigators should feel free to ask such a question, but I have seen no indication that MormonThink is equipped to provide answers.

There is a nice body of literature that studies the subject that MormonThink writers show no sign of mastering. In consulting these, they would realize the data point they obtain from Palmer from multiple witnesses is among the least important ones to take into consideration about the translation process. The witnesses can neither report, first hand, what Joseph saw; nor is it likely that he told them given his reservation about describing the process beyond it being done by the gift and power of God. Therefore the accounts of Joseph seeing English text that tightly corresponded to characters on the plates is a matter of conjecture in those accounts.

Much more important is analysis of the received text itself. If Joseph was dictating text, why would the person or mechanism responsible for producing the English text care about punctuation if neither Joseph or his scribe were? Not even Oliver Cowdery, though a school teacher, was concerned much about grammar at the time according to one account [7]. More can be said of Joseph’s use of the word of translation, which had a wider connotation in 1830 or more could be said about speculative models that have been proposed about the translation process. I do not find MormonThink to be a helpful resource for someone investigating these issues.

[1] While the author of MormonThink’s rejoinder prefers to be considered a skeptic to being considered a critic, it is clear that the result of this professed skepticism is to consistently take a position against the Church of Jesus Christ’s truth claims. The skeptic in me believes that the few exceptions to that trend is primarily a strategy to gain credibility for their overall critical agenda. If MormonThink was truly more of a skeptical than critical site, they would spend a comparable amount of text introspectively scrutinizing their own positions and assumptions.

[2] MormonThink uses the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters. They have an article that makes this mistake in analyzing a quote from Lucy Smith and accuse FAIR of contradicting a 2008 manual containing that quote. However, it is clear the early saints sometimes used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to Joseph’s seer stones. One example comes from David Whitmer:  “Finally, when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.” “The Book of Mormon;’ Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3 cited in John Welch as the 93rd of 203 translation accounts in his compilation found in Opening the Heavens. Note this account challenges another premise found in the original question, that of Moroni returning the plates.

[3] One such account is quoted in Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet,” (Master’s Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000) p. 202 “Preside[n]t Young also said that the seer stone
which Joseph Smith first obtained He got in an Iron kettle 15 feet under ground. He saw it while looking in another seers stone which a person had. He went right to the spot & dug & found it” Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 5:382-3. Ashurst-McGee introduces and analyzes many other accounts of Joseph finding his seer stones. A summary statement is found on page 198. ” These are the methods Joseph Smith used in his acquisition of seer stones. He looked into a neighbor’s seer stone to find his first seer stone-a brown rock. Then Smith used this stone to find a white stone. This second stone is the well known seer stone that was unearthed on the property of Willard Chase under the pretense of digging a well. Next, at the angel Moroni’s direction, he used his white stone to find the Nephite “interpreters”-a large pair of clear, white, seer stone spectacles. Joseph Smith’s gradual development as a seer can be traced in part through his succession of seer stones and seer stone discoveries.”

[4] As can be seen by surveying the 203 accounts that Welch has compiled. A few accounts where Joseph is reported to have put the Nephite interpreters in the hat can be found in the FAIR wiki: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method

[5] The historical synthesis in FAIR wiki is far superior than anything that can be found on MormonThink’s site. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

[6] Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” Brigham Young University Studies 17:1 (August 1976)
[7] For example the cousin of Pomeroy Tucker the printing shop foreman when the Book of Mormon was published declared “Oliver Cowdery, the scribe of the prophet, was a young man of about twenty-four or twenty-five, about age of Smith. I had never known him previous to my return to Palmyra. He had been a school-teacher in country schools, and I am certain had little or no acquaintance with English grammar at that time.” Stephen S. Harding in Thomas Gregg’s 1890 publication The Prophet of Palmyra

Clark Braden’s account is hopelessly garbled, but that doesn’t deter many critics from Fawn Brodie to Grant Palmer from using him as a source to tar Joseph Smith’s character. Braden’s family lived in the right area at the time of the incident, but Clark himself was just an infant. As will be seen, it is likely that his informant was not Eli Johnson. Furthermore, as Dale Broadhurst, one who sympathizes with Braden’s promotion of the Spalding theory, observed from his numerous published errors that “Clark Braden was prone to exaggeration and ‘loose’ quotations of others assertions, comments, etc. The allegations and proofs offered in his speeches should be read with that fact in mind.”

The moderator at the Braden-Kelley debate was Arthur Deming, the son of a Jack Mormon sheriff. Minor Deming had made many enemies for the protection he gave the Saints after Joseph Smith’s martyrdom and died shortly after. Young Arthur became bitter against the Mormons, essentially blaming them for having to serve an apprenticeship (as orphaned or fatherless teens were often made to do) to learn a trade that turned out to be useless for him.  Arthur Deming also prefaces his collection of anti-Mormon affidavits as being a consequence of the debate. “Mr. Braden, the opponent of Mormonism, was unable to satisfactorily prove some points he claimed, and he engaged a party to collect evidence to sustain his position. The party did not accomplish much and I undertook the business.”

So a year later Deming followed up on the tar and feathering account with Newell K. Whitney’s hostile brother who had never embraced Mormonism and who had remained in the Kirtland area. Deming received a very different story from the Rev. Whitney, one that presents a more plausible motivation.

He stated that one of the party who tarred and feathered Sydney Rigdon and Jo Smith at John Johnson’s, in Hiram, O., informed him that Rigdon said to their assailants he presumed they were gentlemen, but Jo Smith fought until overpowered. A doctor present offered to castrate Jo and said he would warrant him to live. It was not done. Several of Johnson’s sons were of the party. They were angry because their father was urged by Jo and Rigdon to let them have his property. He finally did give them some of it, and moved to Kirtland and kept tavern, and his son Luke became one of the first Mormon Twelve Apostles.

By any historical methodology for weighing sources, Deming’s account trumps Braden’s. While both are extremely late. the latter is of unknown provenance and hence even less reliable. The former is third hand ( Johnson brother -> unidentified mobber ->S. F. Whitney -> Deming) unless the unnamed mob snitch was John Johnson Jr. The falsifiable errors Deming makes are less severe. Contra Braden, Marinda had no brother named Eli. Working against Deming, is that at most only one of Johnson’s son’s (not several as claimed) could have been in the mob. However it will take some argumentation to establish that fact. Let’s look at each of the relevant members of the immediate Johnson family to see where their sympathies were at.

Marinda Nancy Johnson

While she (much) later became a plural wife of Joseph Smith, she wrote unsolicited in her diary that Joseph never behaved improperly towards her. “Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”

John Johnson Sr.

John Sr. came to Joseph’s rescue when he heard the commotion, but got clocked when mistaken as a mobber by a fellow rescuer. David Whitmer miraculously healed his broken bone.  Later John Sr. faithfully served on the high council, which is inconsistent if he suspected Joseph behaved in an untoward manner with his daughter.

Elsa Johnson

Earlier Joseph had healed her arm, an act that ironically helped convert one of the mob’s leaders Ezra Booth for the time being. She helped clean the tar off of Joseph Smith and hence can not have been sympathetic to the mob’s aims.

Lyman Johnson

Whitney failed to note that Lyman was also called to be an apostle, in addition to Luke. This is in itself makes it highly unlikely that either Lyman or Luke harbored any ill feelings towards Joseph Smith. Lyman also has an alibi, he was on an eastern mission for much of 1832. According to the Saints without Halos website’s chronology, he was with Orson Pratt continuously from Feb. 3 to Nov. 8. More importantly a source that trumps either Braden or Deming by being earlier and only second hand and having no (as yet) falsified information likely stems from this mission, but I have yet to see any Braden apologist adequately deal with it. From Orson Pratt we have:

At a meeting held in Piano, Illinois,  Sept. 12,1878, Apostle Orson Pratt explained the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the revelation on plural marriage. He refuted the statement and belief of those present that Brigham Young was the author of that revelation [Section 132 in the Utah Doctrine and Covenants]; showed that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had not only commenced the practice of that principle himself, and further taught it to others, before President Young and the Twelve had returned from their missions in Europe, in 1841, but that Joseph actually received revelation upon that principle as early as 1831. He said, “Lyman Johnson, who was very familiar with Joseph at this early date, Joseph living at his father’s house [near Hiram, Ohio, beginning in September 1831], and [Lyman] who was also very intimate with me [Orson], we having traveled on several missions together, told me himself that Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831, that plural marriage was a correct principle. Joseph declared to Lyman that God had revealed it to him, but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church, but that the time would come.” To this statement Elder Pratt bore his testimony.  (Historical Record 6:230 cited disapprovingly in Price)

If Orson Pratt’s recollection is correct, than it isn’t possible to claim that Joseph was accused of being a womanizer (specifically in the cases of Fanny Alger and Marinda Johnson. Eliza Winters is another story, but it also falls flat.) before he received a revelation on plural marriage. Like Braden and Deming, Pratt can be dismissed as being late and agenda driven. But why should we reject Pratt, but accept the weaker Braden source? I hope that the historians who take the minority, contrarian view, championed by Signature will one day coherently address that question.

Luke Johnson

Luke was called on a mission at the same time as his brother in section 75. His first companion, William McClellin, fizzled out after a short while so he returned and was reassigned with Seymour Brunson. Luke was also gone during the tarring according to Saints without Halos’ chronology. Luke ‘s 1858 account is thus second hand, but over 25 years earlier than Deming and Braden. It is clear that his loyalties lie with Joseph Smith and his parents and not the mob in his account. He makes an error in dating it to Fall of 1831, but offers information not found in Joseph Smith’s history. Noticeably telling is the absence of any mention of his brothers being involved or a motive behind the attack. However, I don’t want to make too much of an argument from silence.

Olmsted Johnson

Olmstead also does not seem to be a mob participant. In Joseph Smith’s history he was just visiting the Johnson farm. Olmstead failed to convert to Mormonism and soon went traveling. “He went to the southern states and Mexico, and on his return, he took sick, and died in Virginia.”  Although, the history is vague about the timing of the visit, Olmsted is out of the narrative before the tarring incident is covered.

John Johnson Jr.

There is really only two reasons I am aware of that may point to John Jr. being a member of the mob. The first  is that he is included in a list of apostates that has other known members of the mob. That list is sandwiched in between Olmsted’s visit and the tarring incident. The second is that Deming’s theory of motive regarding  property becomes tenuous if at least one son wasn’t worried about his inheritance. Other apostates would not feel as threatened that a plot was afoot to deprive them of their property. As I allude to earlier, the property motive is much more plausible for the mob’s extra-legal maneuvers than accusations of sexual misconduct. Attempts to harmonize the two extremely post-hoc justifications run the risk of Occam’s wrath. However, I believe an even more plausible explanation, if one had to just pick one, is religious bigotry. To do this, I will now look at some Johnsons who were uncles rather than brothers of Marinda.

Uncle Edward Johnson

An Edward Johnson also appears on list of apostates, but beyond that, there may be no reason to connect him to the mob’s activities.  Looking at John Johnson Sr.’s genealogy, he had a brother named Edward who moved to  Portage Co., Ohio around 1831 and he may be the apostatizing Edward. John Sr. had moved there (in Hiram) around 1820, but the rest his brothers and sisters appear to have maintained residency in New Hampshire.

Uncle Eli Johnson

It is clear that there was an Eli Johnson at the tarring who was in charge of the tar bucket. It may be that a second uncle, Eli, tagged along with Edward on his move to Ohio for awhile.  He was also known for his religious persecution of those differing from his Calvinist/Presbyterianism worldview. He hated Universalists with their idea of no Hell, so it is real possibility that Joseph and Sidney’s vision of the Degrees of Glory set him off. So he does fit a mobber profile, if this is our man.

Eli was partially blind, fond of drink, disgruntled, the village tale-bearer, and lived in outhouses (apparently not a big property owner). He is known to have lived his last 50 years in Battleboro, NH (1809-1859), posing further difficulty for him being in Ohio for long and being Clark Braden’s source. He would have been around 50 when Joseph was tarred and feathered and not easily mistaken for Marinda’s brother.

Let us just say if this Eli Johnson is your star witness, your Joseph Smith history has major credibility problems. If this isn’t your Eli, than Eli is not a relative and it is even less likely that he would be aware of a sexual impropriety that apparently didn’t bother the Johnson family and was denied by Marinda herself.

Having great familiarity and being personally involved with the subjects mentioned in Southerton’s remarks, I deemed it necessary to provide an alternative and more accurate version of the facts. This is simply a rebuttal to Southerton’s specific posting and it is not meant to be another treatise on the Book of Mormon vs. DNA issue, since there is already a great abundance of LDS scholarship addressing the topic.

Southerton’s posting, each section of which appears below, was retrieved from exmormon.org. Below is each section of his posting, along with my comments.

When I resigned in 1998 after discovering DNA evidence that American Indians were essentially all descended from Asian ancestors, I was counseled by the Area Presidency to get in touch with Professor Scott Woodward, a “world-renowned DNA expert” at BYU. In a handful of email exchanges that I had with Woodward, in amongst his lengthy molecular apologetics, he admitted that he had found it difficult to talk to other people about the DNA work and that after a few years of struggling he had reconciled most of the issues it raised.

The use of the word “discovering” is interesting in the opening sentence of Southerton’s remarks. It appears that Southerton deliberately wants to give the impression to those who are unfamiliar with studies in population genetics that he is the one to first discover a genetic link between Native Americans and Asian populations. Dr. Antonio Torroni and Dr. Theodore Schurr were the first two researchers to make public such discoveries in the early nineties (references available upon request) when population genetic studies based on mitochondrial DNA variation were still in their infancy. When Dr. Woodward began his correspondence with Southerton in 1998, he wrote that he was aware of the papers mentioned and was surprised that Southerton thought it was a new problem. In his book Losing a Lost Tribe (Signature Books, 2004), Southerton provides proper citations to these earlier scientific works, but I noticed that in his informal communications he tends to be a bit vague about who did the actual DNA work on Native American populations.

During the communication exchange between Southerton and Woodward in 1998, Woodward expressed how difficult it was for him to explain DNA related concepts to people (Southerton included) who did not want to understand or put serious effort into understanding the concepts involved. Woodward’s “difficulty” was not in reconciling Book of Mormon issues, but in dealing with people that refused to listen.

Woodward’s emails from 1998 were eventually edited by Southerton and forwarded to LDS Church leaders in Utah, with the objective of hurting Woodward’s teaching position at BYU. This event greatly upset Woodward. When in 2004 Southerton visited Woodward at SMGF, he admitted his earlier intentions and apologized for what he did in 1998. I was present at that meeting.

I met Woodward when I visited the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) in Salt Lake City a few years ago. At the time he angrily defended the Book of Mormon and hinted that SMGF scientists were finding exciting new evidence that supported the Book of Mormon (must be still finding it).

There were four people present at that more than three hour long meeting in 2004: Woodward, Southerton, Luke Hutchison (currently at MIT completing his doctorate studies), and myself. I did not speak much, but I remember vividly the meeting and listened carefully to the conversation that took place.

During that occasion, Woodward did not “angrily defend” the Book of Mormon, but there was definitely some tension in the room due to what Southerton attempted to do to him in 1998. As I already stated, Southerton admitted to sending communications to LDS leaders in an attempt to purposely hurt Woodward’s academic position at BYU, and said he was sorry for what he did. However, we had a hard time believing that he was sincere in his apologies since his recent book Losing a Lost Tribe contained several innuendos about the nature of Woodward’s work with SMGF, insisting on possible connections with the search for Lamanite DNA evidence.

Woodward and Hutchison explained to Southerton the complexity surrounding the issue of identifying unknown Israelite DNA among modern Native American populations, the limited data available at the time, the limitations in building or interpreting phylogenetic trees, and other basic population genetic principles as they pertain to the arrival of a small family group in an already largely populated continent. It was emphasized over and over that DNA may or may not yield in the future any evidence about a non-Asian contribution to the modern Native American gene-pool, but the bottom line is that any attempt of using genetic data to support or attack the Book of Mormon is highly complicated and fails to put this matter to rest. Eventually Southerton admitted that he did not know much about population genetics (he is a plant geneticist) and that he did not understand phylogenies but, nonetheless, he was still “very proud of his book.” That pretty much ended that long debate…

No one at that meeting (except, apparently, Southerton) recalls any mention of “finding exciting new evidence that supported the Book of Mormon,” particularly with regards to the work done at SMGF, as DNA and family history data collected in the first few years of the project were mainly of Anglo-Saxon extraction. However, references were made about the work of researchers from other universities publishing data that did not fit with the classic “Asian” markers as found among the majority of pre-Columbian groups. In some cases, the hypotheses surrounding their possible presence in the Western Hemisphere are still a matter of dispute (these arguments have already been discussed elsewhere and basically they have been promptly dismissed by those criticizing the historicity of the Book of Mormon).

This month in the scientific journal Current Biology, Woodward co-authors a research paper that clearly demonstrates that the ancestors the American Indians arrived in North America over 15,000 years ago via two routes from Asia (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)01618-7). The founders brought 5 major maternal DNA lineages with them, named A, B, C, D and X. One group of founders brought the X lineage to the region adjacent to the Great Lakes as they migrated between ice sheets across what is now central Canada. The other group followed the Pacific coast, probably bringing the other four DNA lineages (A, B, C and D).

An international team of 16 scientists worked on this research for the past 18 months. Dr. Achilli and I were the leading authors on this project, which was conducted under the mentorship of the corresponding author, Dr. Antonio Torroni. All the other authors contributed to some degree to the developing of the project, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. I find it interesting how Woodward was singled out by Southerton for his contribution to this research paper. (By the way, the link provided in Southerton’s post does not work. A summary is available at this address. For a copy of the full article, please contact me directly at ugo@smgf.org).

Geneticists in the past emphasized a single arrival for the first Paleo-Indians and this was in clear opposition with scientists from other fields (linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.), as they were convinced that there is enough evidence to support a multi-origin of all the modern Native Americans. Our paper shifts the position of population geneticists to be more in line with researchers from other fields.

There are currently eleven recognized mitochondrial DNA lineages among modern Native American populations: A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1, C4c, D2, D3, D4h3, and X2a. Approximately 95% of modern Native American maternal lineages belong to one of the first six in this list. The others are considered rare lineages. The paper discusses two of these less common mtDNA haplogroups (D4h3 and X2a). D4h3 was identified as a new Native American lineage for the first time in 2007, when DNA extracted from the remains of a 10,300 year old skeleton found in Alaska yielded a genetic sequence that did not match any of the known Native American mtDNA haplogroups. A careful survey of DNA databases identified a significant number of previously unclassified DNA sequences in modern Native American populations belonging to this new haplogroup, which was eventually called D4h3. Although D4h3 is also of probable Asian origin, this important discovery underlines the problematic issue with genetic sequences that were initially ignored simply because they did not fit with the classic “Asian” haplogroups. It is possible that in the years to come, additional rare lineages will be identified both in modern and ancient samples.

The migratory routes followed by the ancestors of these two rare lineages were drawn based on the available data, as it was inferred by the distribution of mtDNAs collected and analyzed in the modern population. These conclusions may be adjusted at future times based on new data both from DNA and/or from other fields. In fact, the paper starts with this clear statement: “When and from where did the first Americans arrive, and what migratory routes did they follow? Scientists from several disciplines continue to search for answers to these questions, but, despite new important evidence, the debate concerning the peopling of the Americas is far from resolved.” Southerton, on the other hand, thinks that this matter is clearly already resolved.

In this paper Woodward helps bury a pile of apologetic trash from both the Mesoamerican (church approved) and Heartland (church still watching) Geographists who have variously claimed in the past that the X lineage came from Israel. The X lineage is conclusively shown to have arrived in the New World thousands of years before the Book of Mormon period.

None of these studies on Native Americans, including the current one published in January 2009 in Current Biology were designed to address the Lamanite/Book of Mormon issue. Data for this study were collected and analyzed with the objective of shedding new light about the origins of Paleo-Indians; not to identify additional migratory events in the following millennia and the role they may have played in re-shaping the genetic pool already existing in America’s double continent. Therefore, I don’t see how “Woodward” is helping in burying anything here, particularly with regards to Southerton’s personal interpretation of what is considered “church approved.”

Some LDS scholars suggest that haplogroup X2a—found exclusively in northern North America—could be a proof of Lehi’s genetic legacy, but at this time there is not enough data to support these conclusions. Reidla and colleagues in 2003 began exploring the origin and distribution of haplogroup X among the world populations and they concluded that “phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2.” Regarding the presence of a few sequences belonging to haplogroup X found in the Altai population of central Asia, the authors commented that “under the assumption that these sequences are a random sample of the Altaian haplogroup X [they provide a] a time depth of <6700 years, and it would suggest that Altaians have acquired haplogroup X2 only relatively recently.” In other words, haplogroup X2 in modern Asian populations is NOT ancestral to haplogroup X2 found in Native Americans. Reidla and colleagues concluded that “the few Altaian and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.”

Much can still be said about haplogroup X2 in the Americas. In our paper, two sub-branches of the Native American haplogroup X2a have been classified as X2a1 with an estimated age of 9200-9400 years and as X2a2 with an estimated age of 2300-3800 years. A possible third X2a sub-branch (X2a3?) was identified among the indigenous groups of British Columbia in Canada, but there is not sufficient data at this time to confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore, we reported in this paper the discovery of a previously unidentified X2 lineage in an Ojibwa sample – which we named X2g – that has never been previously observed in Native American populations or elsewhere.

Lastly, a paper published on PLoS One in 2008 (Shlush et al.) provides important clues about the possible origin of haplogroup X: “No population or geographic region has been identified to date, in which haplogroup X and its major subhaplogroups are found at both high frequency and high diversity, which could provide a potential clue as to their geographic origin. Here we suggest that the Druze population of northern Israel may represent just such a population.”

Our paper in Current Biology does not discuss (and does not dismiss) a potential ancient origin for haplogroup X in the ancient Near East, as proposed by Shlush and Reidla (and their co-authors, including important names in population genetics such as Michael Hammer, Doron Behar, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems, Antonio Torroni, Alessandro Achilli, etc.), but we emphasize how this haplogroup marked a separate migratory event that characterized the history of Native American populations. Apart from anyone who believes haplogroup X to be the ultimate proof marking the arrival of Lehi’s group to the Americas (something that neither Woodward, nor myself advocate), the bottom line is that there is still much to research about the origin and dispersal of this and the other pre-Columbian lineages.

But Woodward is not always so open with his research. Back in 1998 Woodward told me that his group had DNA tested 6500 American Indians from Peru. I could hardly believe it. All other research groups combined at the time had only DNA tested about 2000 American Indians across the entire New World! There can be little doubt that Woodward had been hunting for Lamanite DNA but apologists of course would deny this. Woodward clearly found none because those Peruvian DNA lineages remain unpublished over a decade later.

So, if Woodward participates in a research project using his data, he is criticized for doing so, and if he doesn’t, he is criticized anyway. This seems to be the common theme linking the last two sections presented by Southerton. First he praises Woodward for “burying piles of apologetic trash,” then he criticizes him for hunting Lamanite DNA and not publishing the data he has available! Could there be room for a third explanation? Could it be that Woodward and his colleagues at SMGF are not searching for a genetic fingerprint of Lehi’s descendants in the Americas? Could it be that LDS scholars can actually participate in genuine scientific research without being biased by their personal beliefs? Apparently to some people this last option is mere fantasy!

So, what about the samples described by Woodward in 1998 to Southerton? These are 6500 samples from Peru collected by the late Joel Myres over a period of eight years (Joel passed away in 2001). Most of the samples were typed for a small segment of the mtDNA control region in Woodward’s lab at BYU (which was standard procedure given the cost and technology of 1998) and meticulously recorded in several files. These data were partially published in two research papers and in a scientific poster (references available upon request). Joel was working on four additional manuscripts at the time of his premature death. The files and the 6500 biological specimen are currently in my office and have been shown and shared with a number of researchers that have demonstrated interest in them. This was indeed a remarkable collection of Native American data from a very fascinating geographic area, particularly for 1998, and for sure a greater number of interesting population, medical, and anthropological papers would have been published if Joel was still living. Southerton’s obsession with Lamanite DNA, stands in clear opposition with the anthropological passion Joel had for Peru.

Woodward is now leading an organization (SMGF) that has much more DNA data on American Indians than any other group in the world. His group has undoubtedly DNA tested thousands of individuals from Central America including Mesoamerica. Woodward knows that Mayans, Mesoamericans, Central Americans etc don’t have Israelite ancestors. How long he will hold on to this truth is anyone’s guess.

Woodward has been leading the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) since 2001. That is where Southerton met him in 2004. To date, SMGF has collected DNA samples and genealogical data from approximately 105,000 volunteer participants representing more than 170 countries. These samples have been sequenced and linked to corresponding family history records and regularly uploaded in a public database on the project website at www.smgf.org. Additionally, these data have been used to produce a number of scientific publications with researchers from both the US and internationally (see a partial list online). Our dataset includes thousands of samples from Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. Southerton insists that all these data, the years of work, the resources employed, the collaborations with scientists from other institutions and universities, the publications, etc. have as an ultimate purpose the discovery of Israelite DNA in the Americas and we are failing at it. Further, in Southerton’s viewpoint not only are we failing at what he erroneously insists is our goal, but we are suffering the failure without admitting it.

The ‘truth’ that Israelite DNA (whatever that might be) has not been found in Mesoamerica is public knowledge, a concept that finds Woodward and me with peace of mind. But Southerton is obsessed with the hopeless idea that Woodward and others at SMGF are still searching restlessly for this genetic link so that we can finally reconcile our LDS beliefs and be done with our work!

Perhaps the time has come for Southerton to recognize the considerable contribution that Woodward and the SMGF team have brought both to the scientific and the genealogical community, continuing to pursue the initial mission of building a genetic database to be used as a valuable research and humanitarian tool. This database was voted as one of the best genealogical resources available on the internet (for the years 2007 and 2008) out of more than 300,000 genealogical websites by the popular Family Tree Magazine.

Thankfully there is a public effort in progress that will be looking at large numbers of American Indians from all across the Americas. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/about.html
We can expect that data to be published in a timely manner over the next couple of years.

Southerton concludes his remarks with a reference to the National Geographic’s Genographic Project that has been also collecting thousands of DNA samples worldwide with the objective of reconstructing the history of mankind as it developed thousands of years ago. The Genographic Project is definitely praiseworthy and Woodward and colleagues have met in the past with some of its key researchers. As with other groups, we have been exploring opportunities to collaborate and share our data to further scientific knowledge in the field of anthropology, genealogy, and history. The Genographic Project, just like SMGF, has already published a number of important scientific papers on different populations. Contrary to SMGF, they have not yet published a single paper on Native American populations, but we are exploring the possibility to share our data with them as they had some difficulties collecting the necessary samples among indigenous groups from the Western Hemisphere (see for example an article published in the New York Times).

Despite Southerton’s continued efforts to discredit the professional integrity of institutions and/or individuals affiliated with the LDS faith, the debate about the origin of Native American populations is still wide open as demonstrated by the great amount of scholarship that scientists from different fields are still producing today. Rather than pick and choose from the scientific literature what fits best with his personal interpretation of the history of the Western Hemisphere, Southerton should attempt his own population genetic study to test the hypothesis for “Lamanite DNA.” He will soon “discover” the limitations with designing such a research project, the difficulties in obtaining and processing the necessary ancient and modern DNA samples (including those for comparison), find “reconciliation” between his conclusions with those from other disciplines (such as linguistic, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, etc.), find a suitable journal with a high impact factor that will publish his work, and be ready to reply to criticisms from other scientists, including geneticists. Through this experiment he might finally realize the complexity of such proposition and understand that others are not actively pursuing a similar objective.

The Book of Mormon withstood 180 years of criticism and it should be evident by now that man-made philosophies alone can neither destroy nor support its truthfulness. The book itself provides a pattern to know if it is from God or from man. As a scientist and as a member of the LDS faith, I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. The scientific method and the test of faith are two strongly connected dimensions of my existence, working synergistically in providing greater understanding, knowledge, and from time to time even a glimpse into God’s eternal mysteries.

I have always been fascinated with ancient civilizations and I look forward to my involvement in future genetic studies that would contribute to a greater understanding of human history, including that of Native American populations.

-Ugo Perego

During the election, there was even an anti-Mormon commercial that shows Mormon Missionaries invading a home and pawing through women’s underwear to find a marriage certificate to tear up.

Some have commented that the ex-Mormon community has used the cover of the election to strike some blows against the Church.

On the positive side, Church Leaders in other faiths have come out in our defense.

I thought one of the more interesting ant-Mormon rants came from actress-comedian Rosanne Barr.

I thought I would post a portion of it here as some of you might have thoughts on this, as well as thoughts on where this all might lead.

They have crossed the line between church and state and it will be the issue of gay marriage which they so fiercely oppose (as they oppose women’s rights and the rights of child sex abuse victims with their fake pro-family bullcrap legislations) that will reclassify this “church” as the political action committee that it is, and therefore make it ineligible for tax exempt status! they intend the complete overthrow of the us government. they intend to destroy civil liberties and institute taliban like polygamy and child marriage. They hate our country, and want to destroy it’s constitution. This they do while paying not one cent for the firemen the police the teachers the roads the parks, the hospitals. they build their own infrastructure with your tax money.
The old women are encouraged to be self righteous haters of young women, and to demand forced pregnancies as a tactic of control for young girls who are traded like cattle and increasingly these days, not even given birth certificates! Listen up liars thieves whores and satan worshipping anti-christ- you are going to burn in hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your evil sins and choose ye this day to harken unto TRUTH!!! the truth is the truth and there is no higher truth than truth! this is the truth…

On one hand, I had to laugh about what was written. On the other hand, I had to wonder if the ignorance was real or contrived. Anytime that such bigoted language is used, it gives me pause and makes me wonder where we are going in our society.

The Church issued the following statement today:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

According to developmental psychologist James Fowler, individuals develop in their religious faith from a basic understanding centered on safety of one’s environment (Stage 0) to a universal enlightenment (Stage 6). Conformity to an organized religion is rooted in Stages 2 and 3, where myth, cosmic justice, and conformity lay (along with notions of an anthropomorphic god). According to Fowler, those on their way to enlightenment will leave these simplistic beliefs behind on the way to “universalizing” faith.

This model has been embraced by some cultural Mormons, including Tom Kimball and John Hatch.

Dave nails the problem on the head:

The problem with the stages of faith model (or at least how it is used) is that it takes one generic personal narrative — “I used to be part of an organized religion, but after I achieved personal enlightenment I became disenchanted with the compromises and juvenile teachings so prevalent in organized religious institutions” — and elevates it to a prescriptive model, which it then applies judgmentally to all persons.

However, there are a variety of other generic personal narratives that are as valid as the Fowler narrative. Some start with self-centered spirituality, then move toward active membership in a religious community. Some start with self-centered hedonism, then move toward a more community-oriented perspective, whether religious or secular. Some start with self-centered hedonism, then move toward self-centered spirituality. Some people just piss their whole life away as self-centered hedonists. There’s nothing in the Fowler approach that justifies using the Fowler narrative (rather than any other) as the basis for prescriptive classifictions and judgments, or that defends the method of constructing a One True Narrative in the face of the obvious fact that individuals display a variety of diverse human personalities that approach spiritual and religious questions quite differently.

Sadly, Fowler’s Stages of Faith is yet another avenue for those who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ to rationalize that decision. By claiming to have moved on to a higher, truer, purer form of spirituality, they subtly insult the large numbers of intelligent, thinking, and yet still-believing Saints who have chosen to remain active and faithful.

One thing I’ve noticed is that many critics express amazement and astonishment at the things that FAIR is willing to discuss and consider. I often see reactions among those who have left the Church similar to the following:

• FAIR believes that the prophets are fallible? That’s blasphemous!
• Those FAIR people are proposing a limited flood? That goes against Mormon doctrine! (Notice the small “d.” Not talking about the book here.)
• FAIR says it’s OK to believe in an old earth? No way! The Church only believes in an earth about 6,000 years old!
• FAIR says the Church allows belief in evolution? Everyone knows that the Church is anti-evolution!
• The Garden of Eden may not have been in Missouri? That’s not Mormon doctrine!
• Joseph Smith translated using a rock in a hat? I was never taught that!

The list could go on and on and on. (Actually, it has gone on and on and on for the years I’ve been an observer.) The Church is nowhere near as dogmatic as some critics believe it to be. Individual members, including leaders, are given quite a bit of latitude in their beliefs. Where there is not revelation, speculation is often rife.

One of my favorites is the inevitable conclusion among some critics that “once the Church finds out what FAIR is really doing, they will shut them down.” I guess ten years of existence, multiple mentions in the Church News, and links on the LDS.org website doesn’t count for evidence as to whether the Church knows about FAIR. Of course, FAIR has always publicly stated that if the Church asks us to shut our doors, we will do it in an instant—we are supportive of the Church and don’t want to do anything of which the Church would disapprove.

Even prominent critics see “good” in the work we are doing, as they see FAIR helping people leave the Church. Consider this quote from Simon Southerton, made just within the past couple of days on a website popular among critics:

FAIR seems to help many who are struggling to make up their minds to leave. If I had my wish, FAIR and FARMS apologists would be given the opportunity to educate the masses in the church about how mistaken people have been about the Book of Mormon narrative.

Simon’s not alone; I’ve seen similar statements from critics over the years, with some saying that FAIR is doing more to help get people out of the Church than any other source. (Perhaps Simon and other critics would like to put their money where their mouth is and actually donate to FAIR. After all, that will help speed up the good they see in FAIR’s efforts.)

In my experience, people who say that FAIR (or FARMS) helped them out of the Church were one of two types of people: those who were already heading out and just perfunctorily checked FAIR on their way or those who are so black-and-white in their beliefs that they couldn’t handle the uncertainty and sometimes ambiguity of the non-doctrinal areas of the Church. (This conclusion is based on nothing more than observation; there are no formal studies in this area, although one would be interesting.)

The fact of the matter is, FAIR addresses difficult questions and criticisms. That we are able to do so drives some critics crazy. That we are able to do so and still maintain faith in a Church they officially left is simply beyond their comprehension.

-Allen

We get well over 100 questions each month. We had 150 sent to us just in the month of August alone. Typically the questions we get are from people who had an idea of what the Church was supposed to be like, and then didn’t know how to handle it when their image didn’t match something else they were told. The real question for us becomes how to respond.

In our recent, very successful FAIR conference one of the recurring themes was to treat people with kindness and to understand their pain.
For example, we recently received this email from a member who is leaving the Church along with her family:

“I have studied Journal of Discourses, church history and am sad
to say that the church is hiding so much information. They lie by
omission. Deliberately lie. If people knew the truth they would
not join. The church teachings aren’t even the same as they were
when I was growing up.”

This was, of course, followed by the member claiming to have found the Church-hidden facts from studying books published by the Church. My first reaction was a strong temptation to respond that the Church was very clever to hide all of those disturbing facts in Church books where no one would read them. But then I started to ask myself what would really help this woman and her family. What would comfort her?

Should we compare the accessibility of information in our Church with other churches? Ours is amazingly accessible. There isn’t much hidden for those who have the time and want to know. I have tried to get information from other church history libraries and find that while their historians are very nice, Mormons really are some of the best record keepers and they publish an incredible amount of historical information about the Church and its leaders.

Should we point out that other churches have as much or more dirty laundry than ours? Just think of American history: the massacres, the injustices, the denial of rights, the lack of moral values, the racism, even the witch trials, all put forward in a mostly Protestant America.

But I really don’t think any of these arguments will work. While these arguments might make us feel better, I doubt they would convince this member to stay in the Church and there is little to be gained by arguing that some things we have done may have been bad but some things others have done have been worse.

So, how should it be handled? What should we do? My answer is that I don’t know. That’s right, I am the president of the largest LDS apologetics organization, and I don’t really know how to help her.

So, I have to go back to what I do know. I have been taught that the best way to work through any problem is to first focus on what you do know.

• I know that God loves us. He loves all of us, including those leaving the Church, those who have left the Church, and those who are attacking the Church.
• I know that God wants the best for us.
• I know that God put the Church here to help us, and to help us help others.
• I know that the Church is filled with imperfect people who have extraordinary callings. These imperfect people rise to extraordinary heights and do amazing things. But, they also sometimes stumble and fall, even when acting within their calling.

So thinking of those things, the right answer is to try to listen.

Before we start listing possible apologetics, we should try to discern what the person really wants and needs. Will this stop the woman from leaving the Church? Probably not. But, it may help her maintain a relationship with members of the Church. And it may help her maintain a relationship with God.

I received an email from an active member married to a man who has left the Church. She has remained married to him and tries to keep her family together. Unfortunately, some of her worst experiences come from members who grill her on affiliating with individuals whose teachings are contrary to the Church. Some of the grilling has been directly of her husband in front of her children. I have to ask myself how that less-active or non-member husband is now supposed to feel about the gospel. Would he feel it is a gospel of love?

I have read those allegedly “hidden” things that shock people out of the Church. Thinking of the miracle of the Church, those things don’t shock me. Given the various personalities in the Church, I think it is a miracle that we get right the things that we do. But I know those things shock others. And I have to remember that they are not me. They are upset. They are hurt, and the hurting is real. I have to remember that in all of my conversations.

I hope that we can help people strengthen their testimonies and feel the love through us that God has for all of his Children.

The article, under the title of Cirque Du Apologetique – starring Sasquatch and UFOs, has received kudos from Dr. Southerton’s intended audience. (Don’t be surprised if you try the link and the post is gone; posts don’t remain long on RfM.)

While it is encouraging to see that Dr. Southerton is trying his hardest to recover from his past Mormonism, it is disheartening to see a researcher and scientist with credentials such as his resort to distorting information in the apparent hope of poisoning the well against others who disagree with his conclusions.

In this particular post, Dr. Southerton provides short bios of some whom he claims are “stars in the current apologetic circus.” He provides information about the circus’ ringmaster (Dan Peterson) and a host of “clowns.” As one of the clowns listed by Dr. Southerton (and thus the title of this blog post), I thought it might be interesting to examine the evidence presented by Dr. Southerton in his posting. I’ll quote each of the bios written by Dr. Southerton, in their entirety, and then provide my thoughts.

DANIEL PETERSON: Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU. Regarded by many apologists to be assuming Nibleyesque (lay prophet) status. Unheard of by leading scholars in his professional sphere as Tal Bachman discovered when he contacted academics in his field in five US universities. The head of the department at UCLA where he obtained his PhD hadn’t heard of him! Yikes! http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon458.htm

It is interesting that the message cited as evidence by Dr. Southerton (the message by Mr. Bachman) never specifically indicates who was contacted about Dr. Peterson’s credentials. It is a safe bet that if Mr. Bachman contacted people in the wrong fields, he would get the answers he got. For instance, Mr. Bachman indicates that he contacted “the current head of the very graduate program” where Dr. Peterson received his Ph.D. He doesn’t bother to tell us the name of this person, or which department the person chairs. I wrote to Dr. Elizabeth Carter, head of UCLA’s Near Eastern Languages & Cultures department, asking about Dr. Peterson. She responded back that “I remember him, I think he went on to teach a BYU. His dissertation should be in the UCLA library.” It makes me wonder who Mr. Bachman wrote to, if anyone.

What Dr. Southerton fails to inform his readership of is that Dr. Peterson is president of The Society of Mormon Philosophy, editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, and author of an Eerdmans-published book on Muhammad that was reviewed by Parviz Morewedge (Professor at Rutgers and UCLA Ph.D. recipient) as “The best scholarly text on the prophet Muhammad written by a Christian.” According to non-LDS Dr. Hossein Ziai (Director of Iranian Studies, UCLA), Dr. Peterson’s work with METI is “superb” and that he is a “fine scholar.”

It is somewhat telling that Dr. Southerton, in dismissing the credentials of someone with whom he religiously disagrees, would rely upon the undocumented research of an uncredentialed individual in preference to the comments of Dr. Peterson’s credentialed peers.

D. JEFFERY MELDRUM: Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, Idaho State University. Meldrum appears in the deeply flawed FAIR DVD (The Book of Mormon and New World DNA, 2008). Meldrum is the foremost authority on BIGFOOT. He is considered a “joke” among his peers and dozens of scientists at ISU have called for his dismissal. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15548356/

It is unclear why Dr. Southerton considers Dr. Meldrum one of the apologetic “clowns.” Dr. Meldrum does not consider himself an apologist, but he does disagree with several things—mostly religious in nature—espoused by Dr. Southerton. Does such disagreement mean that Dr. Meldrum is, indeed, an apologist? If so, then why doesn’t Dr. Southerton characterize himself as an apologist for the same reason?

Apparently Dr. Southerton feels that Dr. Meldrum can be relieved of any credibility on two counts: because he researches Bigfoot and because he appears in a DVD that Dr. Southerton pronounces as “deeply flawed.” If Dr. Meldrum’s work is to be tossed aside due to these criteria, perhaps Dr. Southerton should lobby his publisher, Signature Books, to recall all copies of the book it has published by Dr. Meldrum. (Why would Dr. Southerton choose to be published by a publisher who would print a book by a Sasquatch researcher?)

JOHN TVEDTNES: Career apologist with FARMS and retired scholar from BYU. Masters degree in linguistics, but self-appointed expert on DNA studies. Tvedtnes has written at length on the DNA issue. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html. He was recently forced to retract two of the boldest claims he made in the above mentioned FAIR DVD they were so blatantly incorrect.

Actually Mr. Tvedtnes was not a “career apologist,” despite Dr. Southerton’s attempt to dismiss his credentials with such phrasing. He is a Hebrew scholar whose research has been published in numerous scholarly publications including the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. He has taught at both BYU and the University of Utah. He has lectured in the history and sociology departments of Haifa University and presented papers at numerous symposia, including a paper on “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon” at the non-LDS thirteenth annual World Congress of Jewish Studies.

As to Mr. Tvedtnes being “recently forced to retract” claims, I can assure you that there was no force involved. An error was drawn to Mr. Tvedtnes’ attention and FAIR is making a change in the video—which is more than can be said for errors brought to Dr. Southerton’s attention in his publications.

WARREN ASTON: Travel agent and UFO expert. No formal training. Aston runs a travel agency (Bountiful Tours) that conducts tours to Arabia after discovering what Terryl Givens and Daniel Peterson consider to be the strongest archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. In his book “By The Hand of Mormon,” Terryl Givens touts Aston’s work as “the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.”

Aston is also an internationally recognized “expert” on UFOs. Aston speaking at a UFO Symposium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikV6YDW4Lk Aston claiming UFO cover-up at Pine Gap (US military base in Australia) http://www.ufoinfo.com/ufoicq/auforn4.shtml Aston’s tour company http://www.bountifultours.com/tour.html

Here is another individual that Dr. Southerton indicates is an apologist “clown” who, undoubtedly, would not label himself as an apologist. Perhaps this is Dr. Southerton’s way of dismissing the geographic verification of Nahom in 1994 by Mr. Aston.

I’ve read past comments by Dr. Southerton where he objects to being labeled a “plant geneticist” when discussing DNA issues because he feels that the phrase is used as a way to dismiss his contribution to the topic. (As in ‘plant geneticists don’t have the credentials to discuss ancient human DNA.’) And, yet, here we have Dr. Southerton utilizing the same tactic which he deplores by labeling Mr. Aston a “UFO expert” as a way to discredit anything he may have to contribute on the matter of Book of Mormon archaeology.

RODNEY MELDRUM: (no relation to Jeffery Meldrum but you must wonder) Studied marketing for one year at Utah State University. Self-appointed “senior scientist” promoting Great Lakes Geography theory. He is also firmly in the creation science camp, which believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. Currently involved in a stoush with FAIR apologists who are firmly in the Mesoamerican geography camp. http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/index.php

Nice spin by Dr. Southerton, but he does violence to the facts. FAIR does not promote any particular geography theory. In fact, if Dr. Southerton did his homework, he would find that FAIR includes resources for several geographic theories. The “stoush” (whatever that is) has to do with the way in which Mr. Meldrum presents his theories and with his research and scholarship.

Surely Dr. Southerton can understand disagreements over research, scholarship, and presentation?

STEVEN JONES: Professor of Physics at BYU. He was “let go” from BYU because even they were embarrassed by his behavior. Widely known in the US as one of the scientists who believes that the US government was behind the demolition of the World Trade Centers. Jones was a scientific adviser for a group of Great Lakes apologists and has dabbled in Book of Mormon archeology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Another odd choice by Dr. Southerton as an apologist “clown.” While Dr. Jones’ feelings relative to the 9/11 tragedies are controversial, how do those feelings make him an apologist for anything other than his 9/11 theories?

Even if Dr. Jones is a “scientific adviser for a group of Great Lakes apologists,” does that make him an apologist himself? Dr. Southerton has served as a scientific advisor to groups that stake out religious positions; does that make him an apologist (let alone a “clown”)?

ALLAN WYATT: FAIR watchdog and webmaster with no publicized academic background. According to FAIR Wyatt’s words “should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.”

Other than the misspelling of my name (it is “Allen”), I can find no real quarrel with this very short bio. I could be considered a watchdog; I am FAIR’s webmaster; I have no publicized academic background; and my words should not be considered official.

If Dr. Southerton wants to continue his studies about me, he is sure to find out that I am a technical writer who has quite a lengthy publication history—but all in the realm of boring computer books. In this regard I have just as much academic background as the critic Brent Metcalfe, who is also a technical writer in the computer industry. Such credentials seem good enough to allow Mr. Metcalfe to publish and edit for Dr. Southerton’s publisher, Signature Books.

MICHAEL ASH: FAIR apologist with no publicized academic background. Author of newly published FAIR book “Shaken Faith Syndrome” http://www.shakenfaithsyndrome.com/#about. According to FAIR Ash’s words “should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.”

It would appear that Dr. Southerton believes that because Mr. Ash’s words “should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice” that they can be ignored. It is convenient how he dismisses those words without engaging the arguments those words make. I certainly hope that Dr. Southerton has not exercised such an illogical approach in his studies and career. (In fact, Dr. Southerton decries the ad hominem approach of apologists while sharpening his own dismissive rhetorical skills.)

I would have hoped for better from Dr. Southerton and his circus assemblage—if he can’t even get the simple things right, how can we hope for better in his more serious presentations? But, perhaps, his post is merely a manifestation of a stage of post-Mormonism that he feels he must traverse in his spiritual journey to the promised (non-Mormon) land. My best certainly goes out to him in his Quixotic quest.

-Allen

Check it out:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/05/hilarious-anti-mormon-attack-from.html

MarkW said: Actually, his wife did speak publicly about this at the exmo conference. So there is corroboration from her. I don’t remember how specific or on-point it was, so we’d have to go back and review that. And while her witness would not be direct corroboration of Tal’s meeting with the SP it’d be corroboration that the SP did say the type of things in question to someone else.

Craig Paxton, in a later comment, also indicated that Tracy had corroborated Tal’s story. I appreciated the tip; I had never taken the time to listen to Tracy’s comments at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference. (She was a member of a panel presentation on Sunday morning, October 15, 2006.) I found her comments very interesting and very moving. Tracy is obviously a person who loves her husband, her children, and at one time loved her life in the Church. During her 30 minutes or so of describing her exodus out of Mormonism, she indicated that Tal had gone and talked to the stake president, and then she said this:

I then went to visit the stake president myself because I thought surely something went awry in Tal’s meeting, and surely the stake president really did not say that; he couldn’t have–although I did believe Tal; I totally had believed him, but I had to see for myself. (That’s my way; I have to find out the hard way.)

As tears rolled down my cheeks, I asked him about all the distortions and problems, hoping he could give me some explanation as to how Joseph Smith could be a true prophet given everything he and I both knew. He unemotionally said “I don’t really know how he could have done these things, maybe it was just magic.”

As I walked out of the office with a broken heart, I realized that all of my most sacred beliefs were just lies.

That’s it; that’s the sum total of her description of talking with the stake president. Since it is nowhere near as detailed as what Tal has been saying for years, I’m not sure that this is the “independent corroboration” that some might view it as being–but more on that in a minute.

Tracy and Tal had read a lot of books before going to talk to their stake president. (Tracy said in her comments that she had read No Man Knows My History, Mormon Enigma, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, and Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith. It was this last one that convinced Tracy, in her words, that Joseph Smith was insane.)

By both of their admissions, Tal and Tracy reached their “it ain’t true” decisions before going to their stake president in separate interviews. In other words, their minds were already made up before they went to talk to him. It is hard for anyone–let alone a stake president–to make a difference against a mind that is already made up.

But, back to the idea of whether Tracy’s comments at the Exmormon Foundation conference corroborate Tal’s story. I don’t think they do because there simply is not enough information provided by Tracy to say that what she thought she heard was really corroboration.

Many purported histories (including, I believe, Brodie and Palmer) use words like “magic,” “folk magic,” or “magik” to describe the environment in which Joseph lived. Does the fact that people in his era believed in magic or practiced magic or felt closer to the divine than we do today make Joseph any less of a prophet? No, I don’t think so. Does the recognition that “magic” may have been involved and that the stake president may have told that to Tracy mean that he believed Joseph Smith was not a prophet? No, I don’t think so.

But I surely understand how Tal and Tracy could have been shocked by what they read in those books. I was knocked on my butt when I first read Mormon Polygamy: A History by Van Wagoner. I felt adrift for some time because the picture of Joseph painted by the author was markedly different from the picture that I had in my head. Right after reading it, in August 1990, I looked up the author’s address and went to his house, then in Lehi. He graciously let me in and, after exchanging pleasantries, I asked him point blank how anyone could learn these things and maintain their testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

His answer? “I don’t know; everyone has to figure that out for themselves.” (He also signed my copy of his book: “Allen, best wishes in your search for the ultimate truth–that is the most rewarding pathway although not always the safest.”)

I was able to regain my footing through more study (not apologetics–just reading histories), lots of prayer, and lots of faith. It was through that study that I later learned (by going to original sources) that Van Wagoner presented a history that suffered from selection bias. This bias tended to put Joseph in a bad light, even when alternative views of the facts where possible.

So what does this have to do with Tal and Tracy and their ex-stake president? Quite a bit, actually. In Tal’s subsequent move away from the Church he has often stated that he doesn’t understand how people could learn the “facts” about the Church and Joseph Smith and still not conclude it is all a lie and a fraud. They and other critics invent “reasons” why people would stay in–it is safer, it is more comfortable, great social aspects, etc. Every reason they dream up avoids the one reason that they cannot face up to–that reasonable, intelligent people can examine the same set of facts and still conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church he founded is neither a fraud or a lie.

This, I believe, is where President Keyes was coming from. He could say that, yes, Joseph did some of these things. He could say that, yes, he understands how they may look bad. He could say that, yes, the information is disturbing. He could say that, yes, there may have been “magic” involved. But even with all that, it doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet, divinely called of God to do an amazing work.

Would Tal and Tracy, who had already made up their minds that the Church was a fraud, have understood what the stake president was saying? Doubtful. Instead, they heard what they wanted to hear–validation for all the “bad” stuff they had read and, unfortunately, unintended vindication for the conclusions they had reached before meeting with the stake president.

The continuing thing that Tal and other critics fail to grasp is that it is a long way from “yes, Joseph did some of those things” to “he was a fraud.” There is plenty of room in between for belief and faith, but not for those who already have their minds made up.

-Allen

Part of Tal’s exit story revolves around his interaction with his stake president at the time, Randy Keyes. Tal often tells, with incredulity, how he heard from his stake president that he didn’t believe in different aspects of the gospel either.

It appears that President Keyes has finally read some of Tal’s comments, notably a message left by Tal on the Mormon Discussions message board run by the infamous critic “Dr. Shades.” The comments by Tal are not new; he has been making the same comments for some time. (For example, in an abbreviated exit story on the Post-Mormon site.) I first read similar comments by Tal on the Recovery from Mormonism message boards about four years ago.

I am pleased to report that we no longer have to rely solely on Tal Bachman’s version of reality. I’m pleased to share with you an open letter from President Randy Keyes and a separate open letter from his wife, Julie. These letters are posted here with their permission.

Enjoy.

-Allen

Open Letter to Tal Bachman

April 27, 2008

Tal Bachman:

It’s me, President Randy Keyes. Someone brought to my attention that you have been purporting to quote me on the web. I read your comments about the talk we had five years ago on a message board post you made on April 17, 2008. I was surprised at how you reported things I never said, as if I had said them. I now want to speak for myself on what you chose to write.

First, you stated that my term as stake president is over. I’m not sure how you would have gotten such incorrect information, but I am still stake president of the Victoria British Columbia Stake. You also reported that I said that Joseph Smith “hadn’t told the truth” and that he “invented stories” and that he “deliberately took advantage of girls.” I never said these things, nor do I believe these statements. These are your statements, not mine. You have invented things I did not say.

When we spoke, I tried to listen to and acknowledge your thinking, but you obviously did not listen to me. Here is my reality: For as long as I can remember, I have had a knowledge that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. In my childhood I visited Palmyra often. At age 14 I felt a spiritual witness of the reality of the First Vision while in the Sacred Grove. At age 16 I experienced a spiritual confirmation of Joseph Smith as a prophet while I stood in Carthage Jail. At age 18 I had a life-changing spiritual witness of Christ as my Lord and King. At age 19, while reading the Book of Mormon, I found myself in the presence of prophets (I did not, as you said, communicate with them). There have been many other spiritual events, including at the present time as I serve in the Victoria Stake.

I know God the Father and Jesus Christ personally visited Joseph Smith. I know that Moroni visited Joseph Smith and I felt a strong confirmation of this when I recently stood in the upstairs bedroom of the rebuilt Smith log cabin where Moroni stood. I know he led Joseph to the gold plates, that they were translated by the gift and power of God into the Book of Mormon.

I believe that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restored Priesthood authority to the earth because I have seen the Priesthood in action. I regularly feel its power as it moves the Stake along and as it influences the individuals I get to work with and talk to. As I said to you and your wife, I do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

How is it that our memories of our interview are so different? In our talk I felt your questions and struggles were genuine.; I wanted to help. In my profession as a therapist (as in our discussion) I try to follow the principle of “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” In that initial visit it was your turn to talk. I accepted that you could not find peace on your interpretation of historical items you read concerning Joseph Smith. I listened and reflected what I heard, and when I would nod and say, “sure,” it was an indication that I was listening and that what you were saying was comprehendible.

Because I was listening for understanding, I carefully, mildly challenged some of your views by stating my beliefs and witnesses, and as to “scrutiny,” I am convinced that the Church will continue to stand up well. Over time, truth will prevail and the Church and Brother Joseph will be further exonerated and praised. Misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstandings will be diminished.

In your message board post you reported that I said my mission president made up motivational stories to get missionaries to follow him. You also indicated that I said Joseph Smith did the same thing. Let me be clear: I never said my mission president made up stories or that Joseph Smith did. My mission comments regarding motivation centered on the president observing that some people are motivated by external supports (like newsletters that announce top baptismal numbers) while others have quiet, inner motivation. I did not talk about “making up stories.”

Understanding each other—especially in spiritual things—is not a single event but an ongoing process. It was my hope that we would have ongoing discussions so you would get to eventually understand my views and testimony. In the first interview, I provided what I viewed as acknowledgement that I understood what you were saying, not an acknowledgment that what you were saying was true. In future discussions, had they occurred, we would have talked more about those matters, continuing with hope and faith until more information settled your questions. I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.

I decided to choose to listen to you. My hope was that I would be heard on some other day. Regarding your comments about my thoughts of being personally comfortable as a member of the Church, but it not necessarily being for everyone, I meant that not all people are ready for it. Not all people are ready for the commitment, rules and obligations that accompany Church membership. However, as they continue to investigate the gospel and the Church, this engagement will hopefully expand with time, involvement, and repeated episodes of being touched by the Holy Ghost. An LDS lifestyle offers such opportunities on many occasions. I would have loved to have you stay involved and I believe that with more time you would have received answers to many of your questions.

The personal improvement I get from living the gospel is only one aspect of my testimony. There are many layers and dimensions to what I know and am a witness to and I continue to learn spiritual truths with time. The knowledge that matters is the first-hand knowledge we receive from God. The constant invitation in the Church is to ask God and get your own witness. There is no compartmentalization in my gospel understanding. There are things I know and things I believe, things I hope for, and some things I don’t have answers for yet; it is a connected continuum. We worship with both knowledge and faith.

I hope in the past that I expressed understanding and compassion for your struggles. I perhaps did not do the back half of “…then [seek] to be understood” very well. I trust that these comments settle any guessing that you or others have about why I am an active member of the Church. I do know the gospel is what it claims to be. I cannot comprehend the idea that anyone would believe that a stake president would keep serving if he did not believe the gospel to be true. There is no reason anyone would give this service if he didn’t believe this is, literally, the Church of Jesus Christ. This gospel gives me a fuller life, my involvement in it feeds my soul, and it provides the way for me to worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

This, Tal, is my position and reality. I trust that you will now afford me the courtesy that I afforded you—to be understood.

Your brother,

Randy Keyes

Open Letter to Tal Bachman from Julie Keyes

April 27, 2008

Tal,

I feel very frustrated that you have misquoted my husband so grossly. I know that you have misquoted him because I know my husband intimately and I know he would not make the statements you attribute to him. In your message board post you insinuated that Randy may not have been truthful with me about his feelings about Joseph Smith. You couldn’t be farther from the truth. The most important thing we have learned in our 28 years together is to be honest with each other. His only thoughts and feelings about Joseph Smith have been admiration and respect and a belief that Joseph Smith was honest and forthright with great integrity and courage.

Repeatedly, over the years, I have turned to Randy for clarification of doctrine and understanding of the scriptures and the deeper things of the gospel. He has always given me amazingly clear, insightful feedback. His understanding of the restored gospel is incredibly sound. He has shared with me several very sacred witnesses that he has received. I believe him because I know he is an honest man. We have been through too much together not to know this. We have cried together, laughed together, struggled and triumphed together. Through it all he has repeatedly, unceasingly, unflinchingly expressed his awe, respect, and reverence for the gospel of Jesus Christ, for Joseph Smith, and for the restoration. He has expressed these things in quiet ways; he does not grandstand.

As a convert to the Church at age 21 (I joined the Church a year before I met Randy) I am an independent thinker and have had some very powerful witnesses myself. I have the perspective of living my first 20 years without the gospel. The difference is quite profound. When I compare the difference between my life before joining the Church and after, it is like night and day. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ fosters deeper thinking; a broader perspective; a richer, more satisfying life; and ongoing, multiple spiritual events and experiences.

Unfortunately, in our attempts to be understood, semantics will never be enough; human language is too limited. Knowing Randy, he was just trying to empathize with your feelings. I am disappointed in you for misrepresenting my husband. You misunderstood him. I believe you have assumed too much and taken liberties with what my husband said.

Your sister,

Julie Keyes

Many of you know that my hobby is working with an LDS all volunteer group on the Internet. We maintain several Websites including www.FAIRlds.org, www.FAIRMormon.org, and www.Blacklds.org. This has been fulfilling for me as I have been able to interact with LDS scholars from BYU and other institutions as well as other students of history and the scriptures.

At www.FAIRLDS.org we work with individuals who have questions about church history or doctrine. I often hear heartbreaking stories from people have suffered much pain and anguish and who have eventually left the church because of a perceived problem with Church History, the prophet Joseph Smith, or some element of doctrine. Here in our own stake I know of several examples, so this hits close to home. In discussing the reasons for leaving, I am often reminded of what popular nineteenth-century American humorist who went by the stage name of Artemus Ward once said.

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.”

Some of us have a set of preconceived notions of how things are, how they should be, or how a church leader should act. Sometimes we have learned things from a trusted member of the church that we later find out to be not true. We mistakenly expect Sunday School to be a history class which deals with all of the problems and issues of the day, when it is really a time which uses the stories from our history to teach gospel principals. Much like in the Book of Mormon, it isn’t the history that is important, it is the gospel principals that we learn from it.

Additionally, I find that people frequently engage in something called “presentism.” That is the idea that ideas, beliefs and social structure today must be exactly like it was 150 years ago. Many members try to apply today’s values to a time when they simply don’t apply. In 1830, it was unfortunately debated in the US whether or not African American’s were really people who were capable of learning or if they even had souls. Families were sometimes started by people in their young teens. Most family cooking was done over an open fire, and the number one cause of death for women was skirts catching on fire. Number two was childbirth. Men generally farmed for a living and were lucky if they owned many books, if any or lived to a ripe old age. It is in this environment that the Church was organized. It wasn’t like the society of today.

President Gordon B. Hinckley said,

We seem to have a host of critics. Some appear intent on trying to destroy us. They mock that which is sacred. They discredit that which we call divine. Some critics have said that we have been caught with errors in our history, others have worked with great diligence seeking flaws in our early Church leaders. Those who criticize us have lost sight of the glory and wonder of this work. They are so busy finding fault with us that they do not see the greatness of the Lord’s work. They have lost sight of the spiritual spark that was developed in Palmyra, New York, which is now lighting fires of faith across the earth in many lands and in many languages.

President Hinckley went on to say,

From a vast amount of information our critics appear to select and write about those items which demean and belittle some men and women of the past who worked so hard in laying the foundation of this great cause. Readers of such writings seem to delight in picking up these unfavorable items. In so doing they are savoring some small morsel, rather than eating a beautiful and satisfying meal of many courses.

President Hinckley continues,

My plea is that as we continue our search for truth, particularly we of the Church, that we look for strength and goodness rather than weakness and failings in those who did so great a work in their time. We recognize that our forefathers were human. They doubtless made mistakes. Some of them acknowledged making mistakes. But the mistakes were minor when compared with the marvelous work which they accomplished.

There was only one perfect man who ever walked the earth. The Lord has used imperfect people in the process of building his perfect society. If some of them occasionally stumbled, or if their characters may have been slightly flawed in one way or another, the wonder is the greater that they accomplished so much.

The church has gotten a lot of new exposure in the press and on the Internet. Many members and non-members have been shocked by some of the information that they stumble across. Elders Cook and Ballard said in a recent interview discussing Suzanne Sateline’s article in the Wall Street Journal that the Church doesn’t avoid probing questions or scrutiny. The Church welcomes honest inquiry, he said. Opposing viewpoints should be discussed in a spirit of honesty and without rancor. They said the Church would not leave others to define its beliefs and its people. In some instances, anti-Mormon comments had been allowed to pass without much challenge. Elder Cook then said, “I don’t think we have to accept it when some people deliberately mischaracterize the Church.” For those who claim our history is a problem for the church, I have to ask what they are reading for history.

Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?

Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?

Does it include Martin Harris saying, “Well as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates”?

Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon translation from his deathbed and saying, “I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind–it was real”?

Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith’s sister hiding the plates in her bed?

Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, “I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides”?

Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw angels? Or the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August 8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who suddenly turned to his mother and said, “The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the stand”?

As for the Book of Mormon, D&C, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses, we have critics who find alleged problems and anachronisms which makes people question their authenticity. But, those individuals and Websites critical of the scriptures do not include the studies by Mesoamerican researchers, Hebraists and Egyptologists who publish about the things contained within the pages of these scripture that a farmer from 1830 could not have known.

I hope and pray that we aren’t trapped by the negative arguments of some or the negative experiences in our own life. Sometimes we have personal issues, a crisis, a wayward child or a personal weakness that leads us to seek out reasons for the church not to be true. I have talked with my daughters about a concept I call “The Church is true unless you meet a cute boy principle.” But, knowing that the early members of the church had weaknesses and made mistakes makes it easier for me to come to church in spite of my weaknesses. We all struggle to live up to what we perceive God’s expectations might be. Then when we don’t measure up and don’t feel worthy, it could make us want to stay home and not attend. But church is there for all of us, even with our personal weaknesses.

As one man said, church is there to make bad men good and good men better.

The Lord said to Peter:“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31–32.)It common to go through times in our life when we might have doubts or concern even if we have had spiritual manifestations in our life. God asked the brother of Jared, who had already heard His voice and seen His finger, “Believest thou the words which I shall speak?” (Ether 3:11) Even the Brother of Jared was allowed room to doubt.

In John 6:68, after the Lord preached some “hard things” the people turned away from him. He asked the twelve, “will ye also go away?” Peter answered “to whom, Lord, shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”And one of my favorite passages is in Mark 9:24 when the father of the lunatic child says “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.”

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that we have prophets today. I am thankful for the atonement of Jesus Christ. I hope and pray that we can all accept our own weaknesses and the weaknesses of others and I hope we can always maintain our faith.I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The video (embedded at the end of this post) pulls together a few quotes about how some Mormons would rather their children give up their lives than give up their virtue (their chastity). It tries to imply that such teachings are Church doctrine, but no smoking gun is produced.

But how, then, is one to deal with the quotes provided in the video? Because they are stated by a few Mormon leaders, doesn’t that make them Mormon doctrine? Quite frankly, no it doesn’t. Mormons, as a group, fall into two general schools of thought when it comes to the idea of “better dead than unchaste.”

Some people—both in and out of the Church—feel that there are things more precious than life itself. It is up to the individual to determine what those things are. Some people would gladly die protecting their country. Some would gladly die protecting their families. Some would gladly die protecting their property. Some would gladly die protecting the rights of another. Some would gladly die to protect their own sense of honor. For example, a common phrase among some groups in the military is “death before dishonor.” (It is interesting that I can find no video by the critical producer asserting that the military is a cult because they promote the idea of “death before dishonor.”)

Each individual must make the decision of what—if anything—is more valuable than life. Some people may answer that there is nothing that is worth a human life. Both answers are fine; both are understandable.

Some LDS have come to the conclusion that personal purity—their own chastity—is more important than life. Other LDS do not agree, and think that such a determination is OK for the individual, but it should not be taught to others—particularly young people—because it leaves them feeling that their life is, indeed, worthless if they happen to lose their chastity. Both positions are understandable.

In the Church these days, both feelings can be found, both are accepted, and the determination of which is correct is left up to the individual. Despite what is shown in the critic’s YouTube video and what is presented in the quest for a good story in Richard Dutcher’s movie States of Grace, the “chastity is more important than life” school of thought has not been as noticeable in the past 25 or 30 years; indeed, it was at its height of viability in the first half of the twentieth century. These days it is seldom mentioned, unless it is taught within individual families.

That doesn’t stop the video’s producer from presenting dated quotes and asking “Would you rather that your sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, grandkids were dead in a pine box or casket, instead of immoral? Are these the teachings that you want to teach your children?”

Mormons in good standing can answer these questions in the positive or negative because this isn’t a Mormon doctrine. But the video doesn’t tell you that. Instead, it makes the following culminating statement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as “The Mormons”, is a cult that teaches DEATH is better than any form of immorality.

This is, of course, false. The teachings presented in the video are not the teachings of the Church, but of some in the Church. Have some taught it? Yes, they have. Is it doctrine? No, it is not.

-Allen

The other day I picked up the latest copy of the Skeptical Inquirer and found that the first article I read tied neatly into LDS apologetic efforts.  The article is entitled “Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted in the Way the Mind Works,” by Shankar Vedantam. Here are some quotes, paraphrases, and summaries of the article.

“The conventional reponse to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information.  But the new pyscological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.”

One such study, for instance, focused on a flier printed by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that combated several myths about the flu vaccine. A University of Michigan psychologist did a study by having people read the flier and then asked them questions about it later. He found that within 30 minutes of having read the flier, older people “misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.” While younger people did better (and he doesn’t define younger and older), three days later the younger people made as many errors as the older people did after 30 minutes. “Most troubling was that people of all ages now  felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”

Another study from the WWII era has shown that “the more often  people heard false wartime rumors, the more likely they were to believe them.”

Attempting to understand this phenomenon, some psychologists suggest that “the brain uses subconcious ‘rules of thumb’ that can bias it into thinking that false information is true….. Long-term memories… are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false
information is true.”

Denials and rebutalls of false information are obviously still usefull, otherwise everyone would believe false information, but “the mind’s bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.”

Research also shows that “once an idea has been implanted in people’s minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.”  Repetition, it seems, may be a key culprit  to the problem. The more the information is repeated, the more accessible it becomes in the brain as one of the “rules of thumb” that is easily recalled as being “true” because the brain remembers that many of the things we recall quickly and easily are true.

“…someone trying to manipulate public opinion can take advantage of this aspect of brain functioning.  In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.”

Furthermore, another study suggests that hearing the same thing over and over from the same source can have the same effect as hearing the thing from different sources. “…the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.” The mind “is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something. People are not good at keeping track of which information came from credible sources and which came from less trustworthy ones, or even remembering that some information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again.”

According to some studies: “…for a substantial number of people, the ‘negation tag’ of denial falls off with time. ‘If someone says, “I did not harass her,” I associate the idea of harassment with this person,’” which is why “people who are accused of something but later proved  innocent find their reputations remain tarnished. ‘Even if he is innocent, this is what is activated when I hear this person’s name again.’”

How do we work around this problem? One researcher suggests that “rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say[ing]…. ‘Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States [on 9-11]; Osama bin Laden did, [a common myth]‘ …it would be better to say something like, ’Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the September 11 attacks.’” While this statement isn’t entirely accurate either, it avoids repeating the incorrect information.

What about not saying anything? Is it better not to respond with a denial or rebuttal? This doesn’t help either. At least one study printed in a peer-reviewed psychology journal “found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true.”

Vedantam closes with this: “Mythbusters, in other words, have the odds against them.”

Hopefully my mind is not so warped that I’m not the only who sees LDS apologetic endeavors– and the challenges we face– in the foregoing article.

Mike Ash

Brant Gardner explains something about this in his introductory chapter to volume one of “Second Witness” He references Bible scholars who point out that our modern culture is what is called a “low context environment” culture. This means that we expect the writer to explain every detail of the environment in which the story takes place. An example is the need for an extensive introduction to a doctoral dissertation with massive amounts of references and extensive explanations of what has already been done in the field. The Bible and other ancient writings, however, are written in what is classified as a “High context” environment. In this environment the reader is expected to have a broad and concrete knowledge of the common cultural context of the culture that the writer is talking about.

If, indeed, the Book of Mormon is an ancient document then one should not expect it to explain every detail of the culture and environment related to the recorded history. In fact, the lack of detail is a hallmark of an ancient document and gives further support to the historicity of the book.

Since Mike Parker’s blog post on plural marriage has garnered more comments than all our other threads combined, my keen market research skills have told me that polygamy posts are traffic gold.

One of my research interests at FAIR is plural marriage, and I’ve been reading as much of the primary and secondary literature as I can get my hands on.

I thought our readers might be interested in a periodic look at a few of the things that I’ve found interesting, weird, or different from the common portrayals of plural marriage. In particular, primary sources that may have been misread or misrepresented, are also worth looking at. I hope that readers will spot things that I haven’t, or correct some of my own blind spots.

I’ll try to post at least once or twice a week, until people get bored, I run out of material, or FAIR tells me to stop so this doesn’t become the All Plural Marriage, All the Time blog.

The RLDS/CoC and Jacob 2:30

A key difference (arguably the key difference) between the LDS and RLDS churches is the issue of plural marriage. The “Brighamites” insisted that Joseph had both taught and practiced plural marriage, and that God endorsed the practice. The “Reorganites” tended (following Joseph Smith III) to insist that Joseph had never taught the practice. A few (such as Austin Cowles, formerly of the Nauvoo Stake leadership) argued that Joseph had taught or practiced plural marriage, but that Joseph was wrong to do so–he was a fallen prophet who either repented or didn’t.

Both groups did, at least, claim the Book of Mormon as scripture. Anti-Mormon (and even some ostensibly “objective” accounts, such as Richard Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A history) always point to the general prohibition of plural marriage in Jacob 2. Usually unmentioned is verse 30, which LDS readers have seen as indicating that God may (under some circumstances) endorse plural marriage.

I recently encountered an alternate RLDS reading. It is by Richard Price, who “is a Reorganization conservative who interprets redirection in the church’s policy and doctrine as evidence of apostacy from the truths of the Restoration. He has become the chief spokesman for Reorganization fundamentalists, and a rival church organization is now developing around him.” [1]

Despite a tacit or overt admission by many RLDS members, leaders, and scholars that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, Price and wife Pamela continue to insist that (in the words of their book and series of articles) Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.

[Given that the Prices sometimes engage in anti-LDS polemic, accusing LDS leaders of fraud and the possible destruction or alteration of documents, I've not linked to their site as per FAIR policy. Anyone who is interested can certainly find it, though. I found some stuff I hadn't seen before in their research.]

As probably goes without saying, I consider this stance historically untenable. The Prices have done some good research, however. Their analysis of difficulties which the physical layout of Joseph’s home presents for the folklore about Emma Smith reportedly pushing a pregnant Eliza R. Snow down the stairs adds to Beecher, Newell, and Avery’s analysis of the dubious textual and chronological evidence for this story. [2]

At other times, I think the Prices’ ideological commitment to absolving Joseph of plural marriage and blaming it all on the Brighamites trips them up. This brings me to the example I want to discuss today.

Jacob 2:30

Jacob 2:30 can be defanged, from the Prices’ point of view, if it excludes plural marriage. They attempt to do it thusly:

The Mormon Church leaders and missionaries still use the above passage to claim that God commanded them to practice polygamy to “raise up a righteous seed”—with the theory that children born of polygamy are more righteous than children born of monogamy, and that when God decides to establish an especially righteous people, He will command that they must practice polygamy.

They interpret this passage:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed [or people] unto me, I will command my people [to practice polygamy]: otherwise [if the Lord does not give the commandment to practice polygamy], they shall hearken unto these things [Jacob’s instruction to not practice it].

This interpretation makes this passage completely out of harmony with all the rest of Jacob’s revelation against polygamy, and all of Joseph Smith’s writings which were printed before his death.

The true interpretation of the passage shows that it is definitely monogamous, and that it is in harmony with all the rest of the revelation which the Lord gave through Jacob. The true interpretation is:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up [righteous] seed unto me, I will command my people [the Lord will be their commander—He will give them commandments to obey]: otherwise [if the Lord is not their commander; or they do not obey His commandments], they shall hearken unto these things [they shall practice the sins of polygamy].

This is the true meaning of this passage—and therefore it condemns polygamy, rather than justifying it as the Mormon Church leaders claim.

This is certainly a creative reading. I see a few problems, however:

1. The reading requires the “shall hearken” to be read as predictive (what will happen), not imperative (what should happen). Yet, in Joseph’s day, shall is typically an imperative when applied in the second and third person, not a future tense. [See Webster’s 1828 dictionary, “shall,” definition #2.]
2. It seems strange for the Lord to say simply that He will be “their comamnder,”–the verse is clearly talking about commanding SOMETHING. And, it involves the Lord “will”[ing] something that He might not will in other situations.
3. It ignores the fact that Jacob is almost certainly commenting on Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomy-like) writing about plural marriage in Judaic kings, some of whom clearly had wives given them by God. (e.g., 2 Sam 11:8) See here for analysis on these lines by FAIR.

I also wonder if the Prices’ reading of shall is idiosyncratic or typical for how the Book of Mormon uses it. Or the KJV?

So: is this a possible or probable reading of Jacob 2:30? Or has zeal lead the Prices’ astray? If so, what can LDS apologists do to avoid similar errors in their own efforts to read their own texts and articulate their own beliefs?

Discuss.

Important Note: I do not believe that anyone is currently authorized to practice plural marriage. Any comments arguing that plural marriage should be taught or practiced by the LDS Church (or anyone else) will be deleted without further warning. Get your own blog.

Notes

[1] Roger D. Launius,” An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23/2 (Summer 1990): 61n1.] (For more on Price, see William D. Russell, “Richard Price: Leading Publicist of the Reorganized Church’s Schismatics,” in Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (University of Illinois Press, 1994), 319–340.)

[2] See Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Linda King Newell, and Valeen Tippetts Avery, “Emma and Eliza and the Stairs,” Brigham Young University Studies 22/1 (Fall 1982): 86–96.

http://votingforsatan.com/

Last May Keller made headlines claiming, “If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!” The web site is his follow-up to that statement. (It even lists a “Judas Gallery” of Christians who have sold out to endorse Romney.)

Rarely is anti-Mormonism this much fun, outside of the likes of Ed Decker and Loftes Tryk.

So do Mormons lie about their beliefs?

All practicing Mormons must answer the question, “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?” in the affirmative in order to be able to attend an LDS temple, so they are often puzzled by these statements and questions. But Mormon answers aren’t really the problem. The honesty problem has more to do with what Evangelical Christians are taught about Mormons than with Mormon belief itself.

In a survey done by FAIR, over 65% of responding pastors said that they had sponsored classes at their Church on Mormonism. Most people love their church and their pastors. They have seen their pastor spend countless hours in helping people and doing their best to teach their congregations. But in teaching about Mormonism, only 2% of those pastors actually invited Mormons to explain their beliefs. The rest relied on anti-Mormon ministries and publications for their information.

The goal of these professional anti-Mormon ministries is to keep people away from Mormonism. They want to protect the flock from any Mormon “sheep-stealing” missionaries. To accomplish their goal they sensationalize, distort, misunderstand, misread, and misrepresent LDS doctrine and scripture. It is from this group that we learn that Mormonism is a cult. It is this group that provides most of the information on Mormonism on the Internet. So when Evangelicals start conversations with their Mormon acquaintances, they already “know” Mormons belong to a cult, even if they can’t remember why.

On the other side of this equation, we have the Mormons. Mormons have a completely different way of looking at doctrine. They tend to classify doctrine into that which is important and that which is speculation. The important things are mostly reflected in the temple recommend questions and focus on core doctrines such as Jesus is our Savior, God is our Father, keep the commandments, God speaks to us today, and the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. Other important beliefs are that we lived with God before this life and after this life we will all be resurrected and enter one of the kingdoms of glory. These are all beliefs that define Mormonism.

Mormon speculation deals with doctrinal areas where there are hints in scripture, but no explanations. These areas are less sure, less defined, and frequently completely unknown. Questions in this area would include: what was it like in the pre-existence? Where did God come from? What exactly will it be like in the afterlife? Because these areas are unknown, a good practicing Mormon is free to believe and say anything he or she wants about them. We have a long history of commenting on these areas, yet most everyone understands that these are areas of personal opinion and speculation.

The honesty problem comes up when the Evangelical world and the Mormon world collide. The questions posed to Mormons come from a basis in anti-Mormonism meant to expose how the Mormons are weird and belong to a cult. Is Jesus Satan’s brother? Is there a God before God? Where does God live? Will you be creating your own planet? While you can find something written by a Mormon somewhere on all these items, these questions fall into the speculative area and are not core doctrines of Mormonism. This means if you ask several different Mormons, you will likely get several different answers. And Mormons have no problem with that.

When the religious issue came up for Mitt Romney, Mormon honesty became a factor. The real truth is that most of the discussions on Mormonism haven’t been about Mormonism at all, but a discussion of speculation, anti-Mormon issues, and bigotry. That is where we need a little more honesty.

Before closing, I would like to turn for a short time to another topic–the passing of President Hinckley. We all knew it was coming; we all knew this day would arrive. That doesn’t change the shock and surprise that comes with hearing the news of his passing, however.

President Hinckley was, to put it mildly, an inspiration for many people, LDS and not. His boundless energy and eternal optimism gave voice to the best to which we, as humans, aspire. He attempted to live his life in concert with the will of his Father, and he showed us how to be like Christ in our everyday lives.

President Hinckley will be dearly missed.

(Warning: Some of links above may contain offensive content. Which is sort of the point.)