by Steven Danderson on December 11th, 2009
Conservative author Dinesh D’Sousa has written a new book to follow up on his best-seller, What’s so great about Christianity?–called, Life After Death: The Evidence [http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2009/12/09/qa_dinesh_dsouza_on_life_after_death?page=1]. I have a copy of the former, as well as others of D’Sousa’s books, including The End of Racism. For those who don’t know about him, D’Sousa immigrated from India as a teen during the 1970’s, and became a senior domestic policy analyst for the Reagan Administration. His analysis is typical of people who immigrated from Asia and attended American schools; the quality is better than anything about 90% of native-born Americans can produce.
There is, however, one issue in his last two books, where D’Sousa’s analysis fails–utterly. One claim made by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Hatrris, etc., is that Heaven is a wish fulfillment concept, and thus, so is religion. That is, earth life is so bad, we dream up a place that is wonderful beyond imagination to console us.
D’Sousa’s answer is that he can certainly understand why somebody whose life isn’t that nice might imagine a place waiting for us that is. He has problems, however, understanding hell as a wish-fulfillment. Hell, of course is WORSE than any place that exists temporally, and worse than what humans can imagine–even a Nazi concentration camp is paradise compared to hell.
While hell-as-wish-fulfillment is certainly incongruous with those for whom hell’s existence serves as incentive toward holiness, like, say, Mother Teresa, for most of us, hell’s existence serves as a wish fulfillment as a tool of cosmic justice, which doesn’t exist here on earth. That is, in our worst moments, we might wish hell upon our enemies–those we don’t like. Thus, liberal Democrats wish hell upon former President Bush–and his supporters, “birthers” wish hell upon that “African Muslim Socialist,” President Obama (He isn’t–at least the former two; I’ll explain in a later post.)–and his supporters, and anti-Mormons like Bill Keller (http://www.votingforsatan.com/) wish it for the Latter-day Saints–and those like the late Governor Lilburn Boggs [D-MO] actually attempt to send us there.
Thus, for most of us, hell is indeed a wish-fulfillment concept, and for the rest of us, it is evidence that we are nuts.
Personally, I think a better response–though less dramatic than D’Sousa’s–is Daniel Peterson’s rule of comparative religions: If a person who is undoubtedly sane and intelligent in other subjects adheres to a religion that an observer thinks crazy or stupid, the problem is more likely with the observer’s view than with the religionist’s beliefs [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040315respecting.html].
What do you all think?
Posted in Book reviews, Doctrine, Early Christianity, General, News stories, Politics | 4 Comments »
by bhodges on November 2nd, 2009
The latest BYU Studies is a phenomenal a “special feature” issue with a series of articles discussing the latest Joseph Smith Papers volume. In September, the first volume of the “Revelations and Translations” series of the Joseph Smith Papers was published. This landmark volume contains the Book of Commandments and Revelations (BCR) which includes the earliest surviving manuscript versions of many of Joseph Smith’s revelations and the only prepublication manuscript copies of some of them. Seven of these revelations were never canonized.
John W. Welch, the issue’s editor, can hardly contain his enthusiasm:
Imagine!…having the BCR is something akin to uncovering a discarded draft of the Declaration of Independence or some of the missing records used by Luke in preparing his gospel (p. 5).
This issue of BYU Studies includes four enjoyable papers on BCR that were presented in a plenary session of the 2009 Mormon History Association meeting in May 2009. These articles, written by members of the Joseph Smith Papers editorial team, provide details not included in the Revelations and Translations volume itself.
Robert J. Woodford, “Introducing A Book of Commandments and Revelations, A Major New Documentary ‘Discovery,’” (pp. 7-17).
Woodford gives a brief overview BCR and its provenance, and identifies those (including himself) who worked on its publication preparation. He describes how researchers identified the way BCR was referenced for publishing the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. He concludes with some suggestions for future research based on BCR. For example, analyzing alterations in the revelations raises historical and theological implications. The so-called Book of Mormon copyright revelation and a piece on the “pure language” are of interest. The dates revelations were received and the historical setting can be reevaluated. “Each researcher will find his own area of particular interest” now that the BCR has been published and made available (p. 16).
Robin Scott Jensen, “From Manuscript to Printed Page: An Analysis of the History of the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 19-52).
In this highly technical article Jensen more fully traces the provenance, context, and content of the BCR. He meticulously describes the physical makeup of the book as well as its significance to scholars. “When scholars approach newly discovered documents, several important questions arise. When and why was it created? Who created it? What was it used for?” (p. 21). For Jensen, reading the words on the page alone only yields half an answer to these questions. Only by studying the internal and external evidence, the manuscript words as well as the history of Mormonism and the nature of archival record keeping, can we fully appreciate the document in question. Jensen explains how “forensic paleography” helps researchers find out when a document was created, how it was used, and what it might have meant to the people involved in its creation. In other words, Jensen is asking questions about what the BCR can teach us about the very process of revelation itself.
Steven C. Harper, “Historical Headnotes and the Index of Contents in the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 53- 66).
John Whitmer, the principle scribe for the BCR, included interesting date and header information for many of the revelations, allowing researchers to reassess the date and context of many early revelations. Clues will help reassess timing of aspects of the Book of Mormon translation, the location of the organization of the Church, the date when section 20 was revealed (calling into question speculation about Christ’s birthday being the 6th of April), the timing of the “parchment of John” revelation, the identity of James Covill, the circumstances surrounding a meeting where men were asked to testify to the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s revelations, and how early members understood the imperfect revelations from a 24-year-old ploughboy prophet. Harper notes his essay does not finish much historical reassessment, but is meant to encourage it by describing how the BCR’s index of contents and historical headnotes can be examined by scholars.
Grant Underwood, “Revelation, Text, and Revision: Insight From the Book of Commandments and Revelations,” (pp. 67-84).
Underwood explores how textual revisions shed “important light on the process by which Joseph Smith received, recorded, and published his revelations” (p. 67). What is revelation? A direct word-for-word message from God, or the human articulation of the message? Something in between? Tracking some changes between the BCR and later published versions of the revelations allows us to see how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries understood the process. For the most part Underwood says pre-July 1833 revisions were mostly grammatical and stylistic, or clarified meaning. After that point in preparation for publishing the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants changes were made to update, amplify, and incorporate newly revealed polity or doctrine (p. 68). He tracks who made most of the corrections, surprisingly few in the hand of Joseph Smith himself, who was the one called to make such changes. Underwood explains a “latitudinarian” view of the revelations, where Joseph trusted associates to make changes so long as the general sense was not adjusted. Thus, divine communication has a human component which needs to be taken into account, or as Jeffrey R. Holland stated: “The scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God” (p. 81). Underwood deftly utilizes scholarship on revelation from several different faith traditions and non-LDS scholars to help readers better understand revelation and the written word.
Ronald E. Romig provides a brief response to these papers and a short historical overview from the perspective of the Community of Christ (pp. 85-91). In the Book Review section Thomas Coens, an associate editor of the Papers of Andrew Jackson series gives a non-Mormon scholar’s perspective on the landmark inaugural installment of the Joseph Smith Papers. He tips his cap to the rigorous scholarship involved in the Journals volume and provides a few personal thoughts on the volume. James B. Allen also reviews the Journals volume.
In addition to these special articles, the issue includes a piece on Eliza R. Snow’s poetry, LDS athletic tournaments from 1950-1971, and book reviews of the Twighlight series, Bushman’s Very Short Introduction to Mormonism and a few other selections. A paperback copy of this issue is available for $9.95, or a digital copy can be downloaded for $7.00. See byustudies.byu.edu for more. This is a highly recommended issue.
Posted in Book reviews, LDS History, News stories | 6 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on October 25th, 2009
Remember Bill Keller, who told his parishoners that “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan“? While I’m not sure he REALLY thinks that Governor Mitt Romney is Satan, he is quite clear that he thinks we are hellish creatures who, along with those who refuse to join his jihad, should be straightway sent to hell, where we belong. And, if his web site is any indication, given even the flimsiest of chances, he would personally dispatch us there.
While Keller is obviously malicious, like other venomous anti-Mormons, I find the candor and consistency in his hatred to be most refreshing. Too often, after hearing a laundry list of untrue evils that we Latter-day Saints are supposedly guilty, I hear the accuser complain with words to the effect of, “But I’m NOT an anti-Mormon! I LOVE Mormons!”
Sorry, Ace, but spreading untruths about people is NOT a sign of love toward them!
Keller, on the other hand eschews that ingenuousness. He is adamant that we Latter-day Saints are demons from hell, and non-anti-Mormons are Judases–neither of which merit any love or consideration whatsoever. I don’t like his malevolent stance, but at least he does us the courtesy of leaving no doubt at all where we stand. I really do respect that.
Moreover, Keller’s attitude is in refreshing contrast to anti-Mormons who call us demons, but do not advocate the only just punishment for such threats. CS Lewis (2002) leaves no doubt that those in league with the devil are threats to be exterminated:
If … we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. [Mere Christianity. Scanned from 1952 edition. Retrieved 26 October 2009 from http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Mere%20Christianity%20-%20Lewis.pdf, 16]
It irritates me whenever somebody accuses others of serious offences, but advocate unserious remedies. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for example, accuses doubters of global warming of treason, but doesn’t advocate the death penalty. Either Kennedy is unaware of the gravity of treason, or he misuses the word.
Bill Keller has no such problem. Neither does Ed Decker, from whom Keller apparently gets his information. Dr. Dean Helland (1990) (PhD, Oral Roberts University) tells of his break with Ed Decker after anti-Mormon violence incited by Decker spilled over to members of Helland’s denomination [Meeting the Book of Mormon Challenge in Chile. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. 116-130, 198-214]
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, News stories, Politics | 12 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on October 24th, 2009
Jewish groups are upset at the thought of the Church baptising Holocaust victims. It seems that they are being egged on by one Helen Radkey. The Church had agreed that members are to do the work only for those in their line–or with the permission of their next-of-kin. Despite assertions that the Church has reneged on that agreement, the Church’s NewFamilySearch web site has software that would make such breaches extremely difficult. To add to this woe, the Vatican has expressed concern about the practise of baptism for the dead, and has issued instructions to end LDS access to their records.
Leaving the present difficulty for members of the Church to violate this agreement aside, I would like to comment on both the reasons for Jewish objections and what is actually being done by baptisms for the dead, and to perhaps reassure them of both our intent and the absence of negative effects of those baptisms.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, Doctrine, General, LDS History, News stories, Temples | 40 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on September 26th, 2009
A recent article of Time magazine, “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?” has brought to the surface a tension between liberal and conservative Latter-day Saints. The reason: Brother Beck is not only militantly conservative, he is also blatantly LDS.
Liberal Latter-day Saints are up in arms about the fact that Beck opposes President Obama’s signature policies: the stimulus, the federal takeover of General Motors, and “Universal Health Care.” What’s more, Beck takes issue with Obama’s supporters calling the opposition liars and racists. Beck has turned the tables on them, though, labelling their gratuitous use of the word, “racist” as racist, too. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in General, News stories, Politics | 151 Comments »
by Allen Wyatt on July 24th, 2009
In celebration of Pioneer Day, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a new study that focuses on Mormons. This study is fascinating, and has many tidbits that could be highlighted.
For instance, did you know that the LDS Church, in America, has more racial diversity than several other religious traditions who routinely criticize us for our “racism.” Mormons are 86% white, compared with other predominantly white faiths, such as “Jews (95% white), members of mainline Protestant churches (91% white) and Orthodox Christians (87% white).” The diversity among Mormons is growing, as well, as only 72% of converts are white—a statistic that would have been unthinkable only a generation ago.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in News stories | 6 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on May 8th, 2009
UPDATE: I know this paper isn’t Friedman’s. Hat tip to Keri Brooks. This is acknowledged in my comment, below, but Peter R of LDSLaw pointed out that I hadn’t actually made a correction. Since my comment appears to not be sufficient, and I DON’T want to appear to not acknowledge my mistakes, I write this update.
Recently, I wrote a posted about a gross misrepresentation of LDS belief–including getting our disciplinary councils wrong, here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2009/04/11/fun-house-mirrors/
Moreover, on 15 March 2009, the HBO TV series, “Big Love,” screwed things up so badly that the Temple scenes were the LEAST inaccurate and the LEAST objectionable part of the programme. It is recounted by others here:
http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2009/03/17/big-love-the-mormon-temple-endowment-ceremony-isnt-what-they-got-wrong/
We Latter-day Saints are often subjected to such gross misrepresentations. While it is annoying, like unwanted step-children, we ARE getting used to the abuse.
What is unusual is a portrayal by somebody unsympathetic to our faith who actually tries to get things right. It is on the site of Dr. David D. Friedman (son of Nobel laureate, Milton), or Santa Clara University. Though his field is Law and Economics, he may well be the next Jan Shipps:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_06/papers_05/LDS.htm
Posted in Doctrine, General, LDS History, News stories, Polygamy, Temples | 17 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on May 2nd, 2009
I suppose that the rescue of the US-flag ship Maersk Alabama is old news by now. As we all know, President Obama ordered US Navy Seals to take out the pirates who attacked that undefended ship. Like Jonah Goldberg, I praise the President for allowing the US Navy to take quick, effective action on those who would harm the defenceless. While I didn’t vote for President Obama [I DID, however, vote for Alan Keyes in the 2000 GOP Primary in my home State!], and I think that his economic policies will merely bring about what he tries to avert, it is only right to acknowledge his proper actions as they occur.
Moreover, I think that those who fault President Obama in this are merely applying a mirror image of the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Like the extreme Left, who could see no good thing from former President Bush, the extreme Right can see no good in President Obama.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, News stories, Politics | 84 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on March 31st, 2009
Recently, an old friend had given me a copy of Rod Meldrum’s DVD, DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography. This newer edition is, in some ways, radically different from the one perused by FAIR members when the original came out, roughly one year ago. While I haven’t seen the new version in its entirety, I thought the changes were significant enough to put in front of the people.
First, though, I want to make some things clear:
While most FAIR members accept a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, there is NO official FAIR position on Book of Mormon geography. Greg Smith’s blog entry should make that abundantly clear. Moreover, I know of no FAIR member who is closed-minded to a Anglo-North American setting of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, FAIR member Larry Poulsen, who is an advocate of the Mesoamerican theory, posts Theodore Brandley’s thesis on his web site (and he has eloquently–if unconvincingly–advocated his position in comments on my earlier blog entry!), and I have speculated about a Florida setting for the Land Southward in those same comments.
Here are some of the parts of the revised DVD that I thought noteworthy:
1. There is an explicit statement by Emeritus General Authority Elder Hartman Rector at the beginning of the DVD, that there is no official Church position on Book of Mormon Geography.
2. Meldrum inserts a similar statement into his presentation–early on.
I hope that those who have read the reviews by FAIR personnel–including Robert White’s blog entry–would realise that the greatest issue that FAIR took with Meldrum’s presentation was the implied Church endorsement of his position–with the accompanying implication of the apostasy of those who didn’t agree. I don’t know if Elder Rector wisely advised him to make the insertions, whether the Brethren put pressure to insert those disclaimers, or if Meldrum himself “saw the light” and made the insertions on his own initiative, the fact is, those changes were made–quietly, and without fanfare. [A more cynical person might argue that the quiet with which Meldrum made those changes was an attempt to give a false impression that FAIR lied about his presentation.]
Whatever the motivation, those changes are quite welcome, and I, for one am quite happy that those who are unpersuaded of Meldrum’s position (not just FAIR and FARMS members–whom Meldrum refers to as “the scholars”!) are now free from any taint of being charged with apostasy. For that, Brother Meldrum deserves credit.
Still, there are problems with Meldrum’s presentation:
Firstly, he claims that a thorough search of what “the scholars” had on the DNA issue revealed nothing. I really don’t know how Rod Meldrum could possibly have missed this list of FAIR articles, including those by David Stewart, D. Jeffrey Meldrum, and Scott Woodward–all of them trained in genetics, and all of them written before his DVD. Moreover, how could he have missed this list of DVDs–one of which, The Book of Mormon and New World DNA, was copyrighted in 2007 (I own a copy!)?
Another problem is with the “scientific method” that Meldrum employs. I am trained as what the business world calls a “quant jock.” Thus, even though I CLEPed out on the sciences as an undergrad–and got some training on counteracting nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, it would be presumptuous to claim that I am a scientist–and my looking for better counteragents would NOT be “scientific research.” It would be equally presumptuous for Meldrum, who, as I understand, was a technical writer, to claim that HE engaged in “scientific research.”
Though I am incompetent to comment on genetics, others, such as Ugo Perego, are quite competent in the field–and they take issue not only with Simon Southerton, but with Rod Meldrum and their (at best) naive assumtions and faulty conclusions.
However, I AM competent to comment on geographic issues on his claim, because of my undergraduate and graduate training in the social sciences. To be fair to Meldrum and others who accept a Great Lakes setting for the Book of Mormon, I was wrong when I said that I failed to find a “Land Southward” that was “nearly surrounded by water” [See Alma 22:29-30] in the Great Lakes. Honesty compels me to admit that Southwestern Ontario certainly qualifies as a peninsular “Land Southward,” and the land stretching from the southern tip of the Georgian Bay to the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario is undoubtedly narrow enough to be traversed in a day and a half [See Alma 22:32]. However, even considering that the Nephite first month is the same time of year as the crucifixion [III Nephi 8:5], Ontario–even that part, is much too cold for Lamanites to get away with wearing only skins about their loins [Alma 43:4, 19] about that time. As I write, a perusal of the weather forecast for Toronto at this time of year shows that there will be SNOW on the seventh of April[http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/CAXX0504?from=36hr_fcst10DayLink_business].
While Brother Meldrum may have graduated from the FAIR hot-seat, he will have to produce far better evidence for him to get some POSITIVE attention.
Posted in Book of Mormon, General, News from FAIR, News stories | 70 Comments »
by Steven Danderson on December 14th, 2008
I recently perfunctorily read a new study written by three Stanford University professors, titled “Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification,” and published in the latest issue of the journal, Literary and Linguistic Computing. While I admit to being disturbed by the article, it is not for the reason they would like it to be. I teach statistics at America’s largest privately-owned university, and, frankly, I see so many problems, I’m not sure where to begin.
To start, they were not exhaustive in alleged authors. In this regard, the “study” is not unlike choosing five National Football League (NFL) teams at random (and two Canadian Football League (CFL) teams as a “control”), and stating that the one with the best won-lost percentage won the Super Bowl. Choosing the best of an woefully incomplete list tells the reader nothing about “Who really wrote the Book of Mormon”–the Stanford authors’ clucking agreement with the authors of the book by that name notwithstanding–just as not checking out ALL NFL teams says nothing about the winner of the Super Bowl.
For one thing, Joseph Smith’s writings were missing from this study. I can imagine that even many anti-Mormons would be upset at crowning Solomon Spaulding’s Manuscript Story as the true Book of Mormon, if it were demonstrated that Joseph Smith’s letters or journal was a better match!
Moreover, the authors alleged by Latter-day Saints are VERY conspicuous by their absence. While I admit that there are no other samples of Mormon’s or Alma’s or Nephi’s writing than what is found in the Book of Mormon, the Book does extensively quote Jesus Christ–and not just the rerun of the Sermon on the Mount!
Why is the New Testament missing from this study? Surely, if Solomon Spaulding were the author of III Nephi 9-12; 15-21; 23; 26-30, rather than the Saviour, wouldn’t testing His words in the New Testament put the final nail in the coffin burying Mormonism? However,whether or not Jesus’ New Testament statements are a match with His alleged words in the Book of Mormon, these authors have made sure that the reader would never know it. What are they afraid of–that the Gospels would be a match?
It gets worse. As I read the results, not one of the works studied had more similarities with the Book of Mormon than dissimilarities. Their choice of Spaulding’s manuscript as the true source of the Book of Mormon, then, is like taking the last place team in each division of the NFL and congratulating the best of them for winning the Super Bowl. Just as every last place team is disqualified from the playoffs, let alone winning the Super Bowl, a manuscript with more dissimilarities than likenesses to the the Book of Mormon should also be disqualified from consideration.
In short, this game is rigged, and such a misuse of scholarship offends me as a teacher of statistics, as a Latter-day Saint, as a Christian, and as a fair-minded person. The fact that this pseudo-scholarship is in reality a poorly-reasoned anti-Mormon bromide makes it worse.
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, Book of Mormon, LDS History, LDS Scriptures, News stories, Uncategorized | 51 Comments »
