MAKE A BUNNY

I have been of the opinion that Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) is nothing more than a cesspool of hateful, bigoted, logic-impaired ignoramuses for quite some time. I refuse to debate there anymore due to the majority of the posters' inability to answer questions, use sources, address the actual issues, and refrain from changing the subject ("I don't have to engage in the evidence because, as I stated before, there are many scholars that disagree with your interpretation of Psalm 82 and I believe their translation over those of liberals and unbelievers such as yourself." - NHisMage, who never provided the names of these supposed scholars). Beyond these irritations, scholarly Mormon sources "don't count." It doesn't matter if the scholar is well-respected in his field with over 20 years of PhD+ experience. He is Mormon and therefore tainted ("When it comes to biblical interpretation, I don't trust a thing that comes out of BYU." - NHisMage). When one agnostic poster recently came to the defense of a Mormon, he was blown off and told that his opinion didn't matter because he was agnostic ("Well, since you're a supposed Agnostic, your opinion is of no value, really. And, by the way, did you also go to BYU - I bet you did." - Athanasius). Any and everyone that even comes within the vicinity of agreeing with a Mormon might as well be the anti-Christ in the eyes of CARMites. Apparently, CARM should lose the C, seeing that the attitude and views of those participants are so far removed from Christ. Then again, they should remove the R as well since their posts demonstrate that they don't do a lick of research.

Despite all this, many of my fellow Mormons still post and debate in CARM's forums (mainly for fun). I recently decided to take a look again, seeing that a regular at CARM came asking about some "controversial" translations Daniel McClellan had provided. After reviewing the debates involving him, my opinion has not changed one iota: CARM is nothing, but a waste land; a mean-spirited group of people riding the intellectual short bus (I highly recommend this link for a good overview of CARM. On top of that, it is just a really good blog altogether).

It was mind-numbing reading the various threads that Daniel participated in. I can barely comprehend the willing ignorance and sheer stupidity of some of his opponents. But one thread title caught my eye: "If you're the same species as God, prove it. Make a bunny." It was started by an individual named Russ. I have ran into Russ before in my own debating past. He is definitely more of an annoyance than a threat; a man lacking knowledge in history, linguistics, and logic. Quite simply, he is a man that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Allow me to provide just a few lovely examples of the intellectual capacities of some of these people:

Russ: A fair challenge for LDS. If you are the same species as deity, where's the beef?

Maklelan (aka McClellan): Being the same species doesn't mean all the traits or capabilities are the same. That's just asinine to assert. I'll give you a few examples. A grown woman and a pubescent boy are the same species, but the woman cannot produce semen just like the boy cannot become pregnant. A black man who grew up in the Caribbean can get sickle cell anemia, but a white guy who grew up in Washington can't. A blacksmith can make a horseshoe, but a Brownie can't. I can translate Hebrew and Greek, but you can't. One man can make a television and another cannot, although he may be able to speak Chinese while the other can't. One man knows how to develop film, while the other does not. Another man can wiggle his ears while another cannot. One man can jump 3 feet in the air while another cannot. One woman can have children while another cannot. Shall I go on? This is juvenile rhetoric even for you, Russ.

Russ: If you are the same "species" as God, then you should have the abilities of deity, Zeus.

Maklelan: Why? If humanity is the same species as deity then humanity will have the abilities of humanity. The relationship to deity doesn't change that they're still humanity, just like the relationship to females doesn't change the fact that males are still males. you lost this argument before it started. You would do well to just leave it alone.

Russ: P.S. You wrote in part, "A black man who grew up in the Caribbean can get sickle cell anemia, but a white guy who grew up in Washington can't."As an aside, it's important to note that a black man couldn't be considered "worthy" in the LDS church until 1978. Racism makes me wanna hurl.

Maklelan: What an asinine attempt to deflect your incapacity to put together a cogent argument with an infantile little jab. Oh, I'm so hurt.

Russ: If you are deity, the same species as God, then it naturally follows that you would have the attributes of deity, e.g. omniscience, omnipotence and the ability to make a bunny.

Maklelan: I am the same species as my wife, but I do not have the same attributes as her. You're confusing humanity as a subset of deity with humanity as a different stage. I've already explained all this, and all you've done so far is reassert your fallacious thesis again and again. If you have something new to add then I'll respond, but until then, I'll save myself the time.

Russ: You, as a Mormon, are confusing creation (you) with deity (God). If you're deity, make a bunny. If you're but a God In Training, say so

Maklelan: Nothing here addresses my concerns. It just repeats statements i have already addressed.

Russ: Ditto. Your responses have yet to address the opening post and I'm following your lead to type few words. Let me know when you're ready to move forward, on topic.

That last response just baffles me. It reminds of the scripture verse that mentions a "dumb ass speaking with man’s voice." (2 Pet. 2:16) The debate continued in this fashion, with various comments from others that were and are equally inane as the ones by Russ. However, no one would take Russ up on his challenge to make a bunny. Well, I couldn't stand by and let that happen. I couldn't let Russ have the satisfaction of a bunny-less LDS community. So, I stepped up to the plate, produced, and posted a bunny just for Russ:









Immature? Sure. But really funny.



By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on the CARMites by labeling them as "bigots," see the following definitions:

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

TAKING ON THE NAME: THE CREATION OF CREATORS

While there is much that can be said of the temple, my recognition of it as a truly divine place has increased drastically with continual study. The reason I say truly divine is not to indicate that I didn't see it as divine before. I indeed saw it as God's house. I revered it as such. I worshipped in it as such. I truly felt that God's presence was there. However, my appreciation for the affective, personally transforming nature of the temple was sorely lacking (and not even knowingly). This newly realized purpose of the temple is reflected in the words of the Kirtland Temple dedication: "That they may grow up in thee, and receive a fulness of the Holy Ghost." (D&C 109:15; emphasis mine) Fullness is always related to divinity. And fullness is always talked about in the context of the temple. Not only is the fullness of God there to be experienced, but to actually be received on an individual level. The higher ordinances of the temple are those in which we are made "kings and priests unto God and his Father." (Revelation 1:6) These higher teachings are in order to move past the milk and "go on to perfection;" (Heb. 6:1) to partake of the "strong meat" of the gospel. (see Heb. 5:12-14) M. Catherine Thomas (Ph.D., Early Christian History; Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU) explains that the epistle to the Hebrews deals "with the upper reaches of spiritual experience and Melchizedek Priesthood temple ordinances." She notes that the epistle is "attempting to persuade the Hebrew members of the superiority of the Melchizedek law over the Aaronic" and that the author (supposedly Paul) "implies that an order of holy beings prevails in the eternal worlds that the Saints are called to enter. Christ belongs to this order as did Melchizedek."1 The references to Christ and the Melchizedek priesthood are coupled with Psalms 110:3: "in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." This psalm was "a key text for Christians," which "describes the process by which the Davidic king became the Son, the process by which a human became Yahweh."2

Analyzing this particular psalm reveals important concepts. To the early Christians, "becoming divine was described as birth."3 This idea sits well with King Benjamin's address, in which he preached that we are "spiritually begotten" through Christ, being "born of him." (Mosiah 5:7) In Ps. 110, "the Hebrew yldtyk is ambiguous, and is usually rendered in English as ‘your youth’. The Greek translator, and thus too the early Christians, read the letters differently and understood it to mean ‘I have begotten you’, exegénnēsá se. The place of this birth is also unclear in the Hebrew: was it ‘in glorious array’, or was it ‘on the holy mountains'...The Greek and Latin, which reflect the Christian understanding of the verse, understood that the birth took place in the glory of the holy ones, that is, amidst the angel host in the holy of holies."4 The NET Commentary recognizes that the Hebrew behind the birth's location should be rendered "the splendor of holiness," noting that "it may indicate degree or perhaps refer by metonymy to garments."5 The inclusion of garments in this spiritual rebirth would go along with the experience of Enoch: "Go and take Enoch from out of his earthly garments, and anoint him with his sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of my glory…and I [Enoch] looked at myself, and I was like one of his glorious ones."6 However, the NET also asserts that "mountains of holiness" is the better reading, seeing that this reading is "found in many medieval Hebrew mss and in some other ancient witnesses."7 Methodist scholar Margaret Barker finds that the Greek text of Ps. 110 "is a little clearer than the Hebrew: ‘In the glory of the holy ones… I have begotten you.’"8 She says, "To this translator, and so to the early Christians who used the Greek text, becoming the Melchizedek priest meant being born as the Son among the angels. In temple terms, this implies a ritual in the holy of holies, the place of the angels, in which the human became divine. The holy of holies represented the state of being that was both beyond and before the material creation, and this was where the Melchizedek priest was ‘born’...this verse described the making of the ancient Melchizedek priests who were described as Sons of God."9 This is why the Lord revealed that "you shall receive of [the Father's] fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father...And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same." (D&C 93:20, 22) It is in Psalm 110 that we witness "Yahweh and the human king becoming One."10

Doctrine & Covenants, Section 76 describes the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom as follows: "They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God-Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s...These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all. These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn...These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical." (D&C 76:56-59, 66-67, 69-70; emphasis mine) The temple, it seems, is the place where creators are indeed created and begetters are indeed begotten.11 By means of the temple, we are invited to become "heavenly beings" and members of "the council of the holy ones." (Ps. 89:6-7, NRSV)12 The Lord describes the Davidic king as the one whom "with my holy oil have I anointed...With whom my hand shall be established." (Psalms 89:20-21; the Hebrew could also be translated "with whom my hand will be firm") The Lord also says, "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." (Ps. 89:26-29; emphasis mine) We see here that the Davidic king was perceived as God's 'son': an idiom which "reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift."13 This "Spirit of adoption" allows us to "cry, Abba, Father" just as Christ did. We become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:15, 17) Paul also stated that we "are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27; emphasis mine. Interestingly enough, "put on" is the Gk enduo, meaning "to clothe." Joseph Smith's personal writings interchange the spellings "endowment" and "endument.") Moroni recorded that the sacramental prayer (the ritual itself being a renewal of our baptismal covenants) should include the promise to the Father that we "are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them." (Moroni 4:3) Truman G. Madsen recognized that "you are required as disciples of Christ to come once in seven days and covenant anew to take upon you the name of Jesus Christ. In the house of the Lord you come to take upon you his name in the fullest sense...We are promised that in the temple the Lord's name will be put upon us. It means at root that we become his...You are the son or daughter of a king. The Father himself. Through the ordinances you are begotten spiritually through his Son. You become heir to his throne...To receive [Christ] fully is to receive the fullness of his atonement."14 Joseph Smith taught that "being born again, comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances."15 We become sons of God by taking on the name of the Son of God in a very real fashion. Dr. Madsen (whose love for the temple can be felt in his writings and lectures) explained, "In the temple ritual setting, names are not seen as mere labels. They mark degrees or attributes or roles in one's transformation process. They are symbolic of new births or beginnings. Thus, an individual, while retaining his identity, may take on several names as he moves through stages toward the divine."16

King Benjamin taught his people, "There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ." (Mosiah 5:8-9) This name is the embodiment of salvation, glory, and exaltation. And it is this name that we are invited to share. Rabbi Akiba ben Yossef of the 2nd century AD was considered one of the fathers of rabbinical Judaism. It is interesting to find in his writings this link between deification and sacred names: "The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever...And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come."17 Referring back to the Psalms, we find the Lord saying of the Davidic king, "I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers." (Ps. 89:25) This seems to allude to the king's earlier praise of the Lord: "Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces." (Ps. 89:9-10, NRSV) Job drew on this imagery when he said, "By his power [the Lord] stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab." (Job 26:12, NRSV) To fully understand this, we must know that Rahab is identified with Leviathan elsewhere and also within Canaanite mythology. "In [West Semitic mythology] Leviathan is a sea creature that symbolizes the destructive water of the sea and, in turn, the forces of chaos that threaten the established order. In the OT, the battle with the sea motif is applied to Yahweh’s victories over the forces of chaos at creation and in history."18 LDS author and historian Matthew B. Brown recently presented information surrounding this connection between God and the Davidic king. He finds that "in Israelite cosmology God was viewed not only as a King but it was considered that His royal status was connected with His defeat of the Chaos Monster at the time of creation. The Chaos Monster was an "insolent" serpent who dwelt in the sea and...was God's antagonistic enemy...According to Professor Nicolas Wyatt of the University of Edinburgh Psalm chapter 89 verse 25 seems to speak of the Israelite king sharing with the heavenly King in the primeval victory over chaos. 'We may even conjecture," he said, "that in an appropriate ritual, the king [of Israel] was handed the weapons of . . . [God] at this juncture in the liturgy.'"19 Here we see that the power and tools of creation are passed to those who become kings, priests, and sons of God.

The temple is where we enter into the realms of deity. It is where the divine nature within us all is given the light, knowledge, and holiness needed to grow. It is where the children of God are nurtured to maturity, seeing that exaltation is "fundamentally about a process of human growth and progress...All persons who come into this world possess already the capacity to grow up and become just like their Heavenly Parents—with all the same powers and abilities. But, as with the children we see every day, this growth and progress can only take place in radical dependence on the love and grace of God the Father, by freely accepting his "great plan of happiness," a plan whose heart and center is the person of Jesus Christ, whose atonement then enables us to attain the full measure of our existence—to become a god."20 To partake of Christ's atonement is to partake of Christ; to become at-one with Christ and the Father: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." (John 17:21, 23) The ordinances of the temple have the ability to channel the power of the atonement. They make it possible for Christ to "seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life." (Mosiah 5:15) Worship in the temple requires that we "putteth off the natural man" in both literal and symbolic ways (i.e. the removal of street clothes) and "becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord." (Mosiah 3:19; keep in mind that "saint" comes from the Latin sanctus, meaning "holy, consecrate, set apart." This is applied to both Greek and Hebrew words for "holy ones" in the biblical texts) This sanctifying and exalting atonement confirms "that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent" (Mosiah 3:17) According to the 3rd century Gnostic text The Gospel of Philip, the one who receives the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost "is no longer a Christian but a Christ;"21 literally a christos or "anointed one." We take on His name that we might become what He is.

As late as the 4th century AD, Athanasius of Alexandria (one of the leading theologians behind the Nicene Creed, ironically) taught, "For [the Son of God] has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself...that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote."22 The temple literally bears the Lord's name with the inscription THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. Then, to emphasize the state of such a place, it reads HOLINESS TO THE LORD. May we understand the implication of this statement. The Lord's name rests upon this sacred place. Those that enter into it are to "be holy, even as [He] is holy." (Lev. 11:45) Those that covenant within it are called "[His] people" because they are "willing to bear [His] name; for in [His] name shall they be called; and they are [His]." (Mosiah 26:17-18) Then, in our "celestial condition...the glorious privilege of priesthood, parenthood, and godhood" will "come together as one." Exaltation (including the doctrine of eternal families) as a child of God is "the crowning ordinance of the house of God" and is therefore "the crowning truth of the gospel."23

1. M. Catherine Thomas, "Hebrews: To Ascend the Holy Mount," Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, 1994
2. Margaret Barker, "Who Was Melchizedek and Who Was His God?" Temple Studies Group Symposium, St. Stephen's House, Oxford, 8 Nov. 2008
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Commentary on Ps. 110:3, tc3, New English Translation, 2005
6. 2 Enoch 22:8-9
7. Commentary on Ps. 110:3, NET, 2005
8. Barker, "Who Was Melchizedek and Who Was His God?" 2008
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant...[they] shall come forth in the first resurrection...and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever...Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (D&C 132:19-20; emphasis mine) Daniel O. McClellan (BA, Ancient Near Eastern Studies; currently pursuing master of studies in Jewish Studies at Oxford) has also written on the procreating powers of gods: "As in early Syria-Palestine, theogony plays a central role in Mesopotamian literature. Several titles address the creation of heaven and earth as well as of other gods. In some epithets, and even some prose, the procreative aspect of this creation is explicit. Anu is described in one text as inseminating the heavens, which then gives birth to the earth...It is clear that creation and procreation were often conceived of as synonyms." See "The Assyro-Babylonian Context for qoneh as 'Begetter'" at Maklelan: Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Other Stuff blog. On a more spiritual, philosophical note, Truman G. Madsen stated, "The Savior said that he came that men might have life, and have it more abundantly. Life, abundant life, is pluralized in the teachings of Joseph Smith as "eternal lives"...It is the creative life. It is lodged in the cry of ancient Israelite fathers and mothers: "Give me children, or I die." This is the life of creation and procreation." See source #14. Fertility is a major temple theme.
12. "Heavenly beings" is rendered from the Hebrew bene 'elim, literally "sons of God." In an article dedicated to the textual criticism of Deuteronomy 32, Evangelical scholar Michael S. Heiser explains, "The texts...are all the more convincing once the Ugaritic terminology for the divine council is compared with the vocabulary of biblical Hebrew. Such a comparison yields both semantic congruences and exact philological equivalents...The members of the assembly at Ugarit are unambiguously classified as ‘ilm ("gods"), bn ‘il ("sons of El"), and bn’ ilm ("sons of the gods"). Specifically in the Keret Epic the Canaanite chief deity El sits at the head of the assembly and four times he addresses its members as either) 'ilm ("gods") or bny ("my sons")." See Heiser, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," Bibliotecha Sacra 158 (January-March 2001)
13. Commentary on Ps. 89:26, 1sn, NET, 2005
14. Madsen, "The Temple & the Atonement," Abridged from a lecture delivered in Saratoga, California, October 16, 1994
15. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., 1938
16. Madsen, "Putting on the Names: A Jewish-Christian Legacy," By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 1990
17. Midrash Alpha beta diRabbi Akiba BhM 3:32 (emphasis mine)
18. Commentary on Ps. 74:14, 1sn, NET, 2005
19. Brown, "The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians," FAIR Conference 2008. Brown further explains in connection to the temple, "But since the implication of Proverbs 8:27 is that the Lord overcame chaos by inscribing a circular boundary upon the sea it is just as logical to conclude that during the Israelite king's enthronement he was handed not a weapon, but rather the implied instrument used by the Lord to conquer chaos—an architect's compass."
20. Jordan Vadja, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," Master's Thesis, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, 1998. It should be noted that Vadja wrote this while serving as a Dominican Catholic priest. He has since joined the Church.
21. "The Gospel of Philip," The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson, ed., 1990
22. Athanasius, Letter 60, to Adelphius. In relation to the development of the Trinity, Christopher Stead in Divine Substance (1977) recognizes that the Greek homoousios ("same substance") can simply mean "made of the same...kind of stuff."
23. Madsen, "The Temple & the Atonement"

FOR SEAN: MORONI'S PROMISE

In its introduction, the Book of Mormon is described as "a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon...After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates...In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved." While a spiritual witness of God's existence and the LDS Church is the most important reason we can have for believing, a catalyst is often needed to bring this about. Having evidence of a more tangible nature is also vital to a conviction. The Book of Mormon can act in both of these roles. Joseph Smith described it (as recorded in its introduction) as "the keystone of our religion." President Ezra Taft Benson expounded on this description: "A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles...[the Book of Mormon] is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony...Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon...if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."1 President Benson's observation captures the vital importance of the Book of Mormon and places it in its proper context. Elder Boyd K. Packer, speaking "to those who have never read the Book of Mormon," clarified the purpose of the book: "Except for the Bible, the Book of Mormon is different from any book you have read. It is not a novel. It is not fiction. For the most part, it is not difficult to read. However, like all books of profound value, it is not casual reading. But if you persist, I assure you that it will be the most rewarding book you have ever set your mind to read. The Book of Mormon is not biographical, for not one character is fully drawn. Nor, in a strict sense, is it a history...It is the saga of a message, a testament."2 While not biographical, we certainly learn much about the character of both Mormon and Moroni due to their writings; character that was shaped by their testimony of Christ.



About a year into my missionary service in Las Vegas, my companion and I were teaching a friend and (I believe) co-worker of an older LDS couple. Their friend was well-mannered, sociable, and intelligent. He described his life at the moment as a "spiritual high." He was thirsty for knowledge and spiritual fulfillment and had been diving into the Bible seeking it. He had a great respect for his LDS friends, yet he disagreed greatly with our doctrine. As we went over various doctrines he found questionable, the majority of the focus remained on the Book of Mormon. The claim was made that it did not "sound like scripture." I'm not sure exactly what scripture sounds like (I won't speculate his true intent with the phrase), but the discussion ultimately led to the last chapter of Moroni and the promise found there:

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:3-5)

The church members rightly pointed out that this significant passage alters everything. It not only changes the situation from an argument to an invitation, but it specifies the revelation. It is this important promise that bridges the gap between spiritual experiences and the Restoration. It concentrates the spiritual faculties on to one thing: the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Elder L. Aldin Porter of the Seventy noted that for an author to include such a promise would be "foolish,"3 seeing that, if false, it could be proved so very quickly. A constant criticism from the skeptic, religious or otherwise, is that spiritual experiences occur in almost all religions. How can we be sure that our spiritual experience confirms the truthfulness of the LDS Church? How can we possibly choose a religion without researching all of them thoroughly? Is it true that "life is too short to bother with the distinction between one figment of the imagination and many,"4 as Richard Dawkins seems to think? How can members of other faiths be as firmly planted in their beliefs due to spiritual experiences as we are in ours? Is this not a contradiction? While there are other elements that could have an effect on the answers to these questions, I want to be the "one who is striking at the root" in opposition to the "thousand hacking at the branches."5

One question that is asked regularly is whether or not I put the same effort into learning about other religions as I do my own. The Evangelical critic often asks questions like, "Have you read and prayed about the Qu'ran?" The idea behind these questions is to show the supposed ridiculous nature of declaring a religious truth by means of prayer and spiritual confirmation. As Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) authoritatively declared on his website, "You don't pray about truth, you go to the Bible and you look there to find it."6 Ignoring the obvious presumptuous nature of this statement (Slick actually got slammed for his presuppositions in a radio debate with the Rational Response Squad), it misses the point entirely. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland made it very clear that "one of the great purposes of continuing revelation through living prophets is to declare to the world through additional witnesses that the Bible is true. 'This is written,' an ancient prophet said, speaking of the Book of Mormon, 'for the intent that ye may believe that,' speaking of the Bible."7 Our questioners should ask themselves, "Do other religions provide a way for me to know it is true? In what way can I test their veracity? Does the Qu'ran invite me to pray about it?" The LDS religion does provide a way. It does provide a test. And that test is found at the end of the Book of Mormon. I recently asked in an Elder's Quorum meeting at church what the "it" was in the phrase "he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Answers like "the gospel" were given. While acknowledging that the gospel would be encompassed in the revelation of truth, I respectfully disagreed. The "it" is no more, no less than the Book of Mormon itself. The discovery of such a truth is critical in one's conversion. The specific nature of the spiritual witness is what brands the average LDS conversion as unique when compared with other more general spiritual experiences.

Gene R. Cook, an emeritus general authority of the LDS Church, analyzed Moroni's invitation, pointing out that "the verb for what we are to do with the teachings of the Book of Mormon changes from 'read these things' to 'receive these things.'...Why the word change from read to receive? Because Moroni is talking about two different states of mind. It is one thing simply to have something to read; it is quite another thing to be willing to let that which we read enter our minds and hearts in order to give it full consideration."8 Being willing to consider the truthfulness of the book's claims is very important. The late David H. Ludlow, former dean of religious education at BYU, said that one has to "put himself in a frame of mind where he would be willing to 'receive' or 'accept' all these things."9 This is not a call to automatically accept the claims. It is simply a call to consider the possibility of them. This stance allows one's mind and heart to be open to revelation. Having one's mind made up before even beginning the test is in complete opposition to objectivity. In light of Matt Slick's comment about searching the Bible, it is interesting that Ludlow also recognizes that "Moroni indicates that the person should 'remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things.'...However, the account of the Creation and subsequent happenings are not contained in the Book of Mormon...Thus, if a sincere person hasn’t gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon after reading it, he should—as Moroni seems to suggest here—read the Bible as well, pondering in his heart both scriptural accounts of God’s dealings with his children."10 It should be remembered by all that the LDS Church declares that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (8th Article of Faith) The Book of Mormon is quite specific on the approach one is to take: read, reflect, receive, ponder, faith, pray, real intent, & sincerity. When these steps are followed, the promise (or, in scientific terms, the hypothesis) is that "he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." How this "manifestation" will occur is not explained. All it declares is that the truth will be made known unto the one pursuing it. It is an experience of spiritual, mental, emotional, and sometimes physical impact. Joseph Smith described "the principle of revelation" as "pure intelligence flowing into you."11 It is the literal reception of knowledge from a divine source.

Some critics have made the claim that these revelations are "conditioned" by either the Church or missionaries. Unfortunately for them, this claim falls flat in the face of testimonies received without prior knowledge of the Church or its teachings and only by methodically approaching Moroni's instruction. One such example is that of Vincenzo di Francesca, an Italian Protestant minister who came across "a book lying on a barrel full of ashes" while walking down Broadway in New York City in February 1910. He noted that the "form of the pages and the binding gave me the idea that it was a religious book...But unknown was the name of the church...because the cover and frontispiece had been stripped off." Being driven by curiosity, Francesca returned home, cleaned the book with denatured alcohol, and "for several hours I read the remainder of the pages...I read and reread, twice and twice again, and I found it fit to say that the book was a fifth gospel of the Redeemer. At the end of the day, I locked the door of my room, knelt with the book in my hands, and read chapter ten of the book of Moroni. I prayed to God, the Eternal Father, in the name of his son, Jesus Christ, to tell me if the book were of God, if it were good and true, and if I should mix its words with the words of the four gospels in my preaching...my heart began to palpitate, and a feeling of gladness, as of finding something precious and extraordinary, bore consolation to my soul and left me with a joy that human language cannot find words to describe. I had received the assurance that God had answered my prayer and that the book was of greatest benefit to me and to all who would listen to its words." His conversion to this unknown book led to 40-years of struggle. His dedication to the teachings of the book eventually led to his pastor title being stripped (for refusing to burn to book after incorporating its teachings into his sermons), a 10-day sentence of bread and water in the Italian army (for sharing a story out of the book with other soldiers), and a second excommunication after being reinstated (after sharing the discovery of the book on a church mission). It wasn't until 1930 that Francesca learned about the LDS Church after coming across the word Mormon in a French dictionary. Contact was made with the Church, yet baptism was delayed due to the war conditions during revolution breakouts and World War II. It was not until 1951 that Francesca was able to receive baptism at the hands of an authorized priesthood holder (this was actually the first LDS baptism to be performed in Sicily).12 Francesca's conversion did not come from indoctrination, coaxing by peers, or any other possibly manipulative influence. It came simply by reading and the application of what was read. Francesca makes specific mention of Moroni's promise, seeing that it was this that drove him to his knees. This is a keen example of testing the words of Moroni and the result that can come from it.

American revolutionary Thomas Paine was a freethinker, a Founding Father, and a staunch critic of religious institutions, especially Christianity. With his famous The Age of Reason, Paine initiated a revival of Deism, short-lived as it was. Within its pages, Paine expresses that "revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."13 I couldn't agree more. Revelation is a personal experience by which one comes to know God. This is why gaining a personal testimony is stressed so much in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Riding on the supposed testimony of others is a shaky foundation. However, despite the fact that he denied revelation, Paine still fervently stated, "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."14 Perhaps he held similar views to that of fellow deist Voltaire: "It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."15 I'm sure the prophet Alma could find himself agreeing (to an extent) with this line of thinking: "I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true...all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:41,44)

President Benson, as noted earlier, said that acceptance of the Book of Mormon brings about an acceptance of the Restoration. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith's claims as to its origin are also true. If Joseph Smith's claims are true, obviously there is a God and this is His church. For me, the Book of Mormon validates the claims of theology and theism. And most important of all: it confirms the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just as the cover states, it is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Only a couple verses beyond Moroni's promise about the Book of Mormon, he writes, "And ye may know that [Christ] is, by the power of the Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:7) I strongly believe that this statement is directly connected to his promise concerning the Book of Mormon. But why should we need another book about Jesus? What difference does it make? Truman G. Madsen (Ph.D., Philosophy of Religion & History, Harvard) summed it up beautifully: "The portrait of Jesus Christ in the 'Fifth Gospel,' Third Nephi...is more than a sufficient answer to the query, 'Why another book?' For here, surely is the heart of the Book of Mormon. In this segment of the life of Christ, otherwise unknown, He is resurrected, composite self. He has received 'the glory of the Father' and dares to apply the word 'perfect' to Himself. His is not an abstract, or metaphysical, or 'utterly other' perfection. He is, in all the highest senses of flesh and spirit, a personality. He can be seen, felt, embraced-loved. He is the revelation of the Father, not because 'two natures' are combined but because He is now exactly like the Father in nature. He is the revelation of man, not because He has condescended to act like one but because He has now become what man may become." (emphasis mine)16 It is through Christ's atonement and resurrection that we can, as He told the Three Nephites, "sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10; emphasis mine)

In regards to my own testimony, I echo the words of Alma once more: "Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety? Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me." (Alma 5:45-46) It is not merely because I've had spiritual experiences that I am Mormon. It is because I have had spiritual experiences specifically about the Book of Mormon. It is because of these revelations that I associate myself with the church that embraces it as scripture. However, I also believe, as Elder Cook does, that "if we will follow on a regular basis the process that Moroni outlines, we will receive much more revelation from the Lord. Spiritual impressions will be imprinted more indelibly upon our minds and our hearts. We will see things that we have never seen before. We will understand things we have never understood before."17

1. Ezra Taft Benson, “The Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, Jan 1992
2. Packer, "The Things of My Soul," Ensign, May 1986
3. CES Fireside, BYU TV, Episode 22
4. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006
5. Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
6. "Mormon Objections Answered," CARM Website
7. Holland, "My Words...Never Cease," Liahona, May 2008; includes Mormon 7:9
8. Cook, “Moroni’s Promise,” Ensign, Apr 1994
9. Ludlow, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Mar. 1986
10. Ibid.
11. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1938
12. For all quotes & details pertaining to Francesca's story, see Vincenzo di Francesca, "I Will Not Burn the Book," Ensign, January 1988
13. Paine, The Age of Reason, Part 1, Section 1, 1794
14. Ibid.
15. Voltaire, A Philosophical Dictionary, Version 2, 1843
16. Madsen, "Joseph Smith and the Sources of Love," Four Essays on Love, 1971
17. Cook, “Moroni’s Promise,” Ensign, Apr 1994

For descriptions of the LDS "Standard Works" IE Scripture Canon, see the following:

The Book of Mormon

Doctrine & Covenants

The Pearl of Great Price

The Holy Bible (needs no introduction)

For a complete textual version (no videos) see this.

HEART OF THE MATTER

Shawn McCraney is a former member of the Church that now runs a ministry and hosts an anti-Mormon TV show entitled "Heart of the Matter." I've watched the show a few times and it mainly focuses on the historical "blemishes" of the Church, never really delving into doctrine. I recently had an online exchange with a very uninformed critic who declared (and I'm paraphrasing) that I might be able to handle him, but I would in no way be able to take on Shawn McCraney. Well, I took the bait. I called "Heart of the Matter" last week. Unfortunately, I was left on hold while another caller took up the last few minutes arguing with Shawn. I was encouraged to call back the following week. So, I did. I remained on hold for a good 15 minutes. But finally, good ol' Shawn was speaking in my ear. The actual show can be found here (starts at 44:22). This is my own transcription (I kept it as accurate and clear as I could):

SHAWN: Walker in Denton, TX, he's LDS.

ME: Hey, Shawn, how are ya?

SHAWN: I'm doing well. How are you doing, Walker?

ME: I'm good, thanks. I'll try to keep my question as brief as possible. You talked about how you were wanting to get on to more biblical doctrines and so forth in the next year, so mine is more of a biblical question. As you're well aware, the LDS have this belief in a divine council of eternal gods before the world was...

SHAWN: Yeah

ME: ...You're well aware of that. My question really is to kind of get your opinion and feedback on...what do you think about the increasing scholarship (biblical scholarship) that is detecting a divine council presence in the Old Testament texts. And the consensus has basically concluded that ancient Israel was a monolatrous religion who believed in multiple deities, not necessarily worshipped them, but acknowledged their existence. And this is aside from idolatry, this is aside from apostasy. This was their original belief system. I'm curious on what you think about that.

SHAWN: Well, I think a couple things off the top of my head...

ME: Ok

SHAWN: ...First, having read the scripture in depth, Old and New, I believe what we have is right. And I believe that is the version the ancient Israel belief system. So, I would believe any findings today that they were polytheistic or accepted many deities is a complete lie. Central: Deuteronomy 5:4. Central: The great Shema is "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one." And that is central, central to Judaism and Islam and Christianity. So, I would very seriously look at the scholarship, the sources, and everything else that is coming up with these findings.

ME: And I would absolutely agree with you on that, though I would disagree with your interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4 because, simply, the Hebrew is solely 'Yahweh our God Yahweh one.' It doesn't say, 'Yahweh is the only one in existence.' If anything, the translation is "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone" or "the Lord is unique."

SHAWN: ...Obviously, there are...the Christian view when it says, "Let us make man in our image," that it's Trinitarian. I mean...but still though, the Christian view and the Hebrew...the Judaic view is that it is monotheistic. So, without question I stand by the belief that the word confirms its monotheistic. But when we do see a plurality like "Let us make man in our own image" that it is referring to a trinitarian concept.

ME: Ok. And obviously I would disagree with you on that as well. Your idea of "let us" and imposing that on the Genesis text. Let me share just something from the New English Translation commentary that actually talks about that...

SHAWN: ...The problem is...I know you have some arguments and things, but the New English commentary is a version that we would have...you'd have to also give me who worked on that, what their theology is...we have very liberal scholars in the "church today" who denouncing the deity of Jesus. And they are renowned scholars who are saying Jesus wasn't even divine. So, it is really sketchy to get on the show and start giving evidences and quoting from places that we don't have the library here in front of me to be able to say, "Well, ok."

ME: Do you know who Daniel B. Wallace is from the Dallas Seminary?

SHAWN: Uh, yeah.

ME: Ok. He was one of them that worked on it.

SHAWN: Ok, that's one. I have to say, though, Walker and you have to understand me here: I am a researcher and a reporter. I am not a scholar. You can tell that by looking at me. But I will research if you email me the text and you can call when we are talking about the Old Testament view of God and the ontology of God. And we'll talk about it openly when you give me your research. But to call in on the show and try to do it...Our thing is not really about an equal exchange. Our thing is about presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ according to Christian ideals to people.

ME: And I would agree...I don't want to take up too much time. I know you've got other callers. And I would agree though...I guess my view is if this is in fact true-and it seems that scholarship on a great consensus has caught up with what Joseph Smith taught in the 19th century about a council of gods....

SHAWN: That is so terrifying to me, Walker...

ME: I'm sorry?

SHAWN: Email me and give me the proof texts and I will come back on the air and you can call again and I'll say, "This is what Walker said: 'it seems like the preponderance of scholarship supports what Joseph Smith knew before they came in.'" Give me the evidence. And we'll look at it, then we'll report again.

ME: Sure. I will gladly email you some. But I just wanted to get your opinion on it. See what you knew about it and so forth. I appreciate you talking with me.

SHAWN: Alright. Thanks so much.

ME: Thank you.

SHAWN: God bless. Bye bye.

The exchange remained respectful in nature, which I had hoped. I found it ironic that I was referred to as "sketchy" for countering his points and attempting to bring up sources, mainly because I in turn thought it was "sketchy" that he didn't really want to answer. I also thought it was funny that he didn't want to have an "equal exchange." My wife watched the show (without me there) and stated that she could tell McCraney was getting nervous. True or not (I'll flatter myself by saying it is), I hope it demonstrated that there are LDS members out there who do study, who are updated with information, and who won't take anti-Mormon attacks lying down. I might email him (probably the "Divine Council" excerpt from my pastor letter). I might call back. I have a gut feeling I won't be allowed back on the show. But it might be worth a try, especially since he got rid of the hair. Maybe he can focus on the evidences now instead of that.

"AND I TAUGHT YOU...SELF-RELIANCE"

In Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade, Sean Connery (portraying Professor Henry Jones, Sr.) reminds his son that his method of parenting taught Indy one important thing: self-reliance. This principle is a moral principle; one which is embraced by the gospel. This was the subject of my most recent Institute class and it reminded me how much our religious beliefs and ideals are tied in with every other aspect of our lives (or at least should be). I thought about the current economic woes and the "solutions" put forth to overcome them. Often, these handicaps are so well-dressed in good intentions (sometimes), flowery rhetoric, and utopian-like promises that we fail to, as Thomas Sowell (Ph.D., Economics; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford) puts it, "think beyond stage one."1 President Marion G. Romney wrote years ago (but recently reprinted) on the subject of self-reliance, deeming it celestial in nature: "Man cannot be an agent unto himself if he is not self-reliant. Herein we see that independence and self-reliance are critical keys to our spiritual growth. Whenever we get into a situation which threatens our self-reliance, we will find our freedom threatened as well. If we increase our dependence, we will find an immediate decrease in our freedom to act. Thus far, we should have learned that self-reliance is a prerequisite to the complete freedom to act."2 This is expected of all individuals. Now, granted, "we are all self-reliant in some areas and dependent in others. Therefore, each of us should strive to help others in areas where we have strengths."3 This moral principle is taught in the Parable of the Talents. Individuals are blessed with various talents, both spiritual and temporal. It is those who give back, who contribute, who put forth effort that are considered "good and faithful servants." (see Matthew 25:14-30) Those that do not are seen as "wicked and slothful." Such an attitude of laziness, lack of gratitude, and sense of entitlement is indeed wicked. President Romney noted also that "the practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens."4 In a day of big business bailouts, President Romney's words ring as true as ever.

I find it strange that so many Evangelical Christians support capitalism, yet reject the necessity of works in salvation in favor of a warped, apostate version of grace. David DeSilva (Professor of New Testament and Greek, Ashland University) has written extensively on the concept of grace within the Greco-Roman culture of the New Testament: "Grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude. An image that captured [the idea of grace] for the ancients was the picture of three goddesses, the three "Graces," dancing hand in hand in a circle...from [many] ancient witnesses, we learn that there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace. An act of favor and its manifestation (the gift) initiate a circle dance in which the recipients of favor and gifts must "return the favor," that is, give again to the giver...Only a gift requited is a gift well and nobly received. To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act."5 This is the doctrine taught in Section 93 of the Doctrine & Covenants: "For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace." (D&C 93:20; emphasis mine) Though we are "eternally indebted" (Mosiah 2:34) to God, He provides a way for us to grow spiritually through personal accountability. Despite the doctrinal misunderstandings of Evangelicals, I find it stranger still and more disturbing that members of the Church will use the Law of Consecration to support socialistic ideals. Daniel C. Peterson (yes, I know I quote him a lot) provided a brief, yet thoughtful insight to this very subject: "I prefer to speak not so much of "capitalism" as of "free markets" and "voluntary exchange" -- and, in my view, when things are put in those terms, the fundamental compatibility of "capitalism," if you will, with the Gospel seems manifest and scarcely disputable...the incompatibility of socialist/fascist economics (based on state compulsion and a greater or lesser restriction of free exchange) with the teachings of Mormonism and with its remarkable emphasis on agency also seems pretty plain."6

Benjamin Franklin, being the genius he was, made astute observations in his day regarding the poor. I will conclude with the thoughts of a Founding Father on the subject of poverty and welfare in its various forms: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it...the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer...Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent."7



She missed the point, as I think many do.


1. Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, 2004
2. Marion G. Romney, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance,” Liahona, Mar 2009
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000
6. "SquareTwo" thread at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board
7. Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor," The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766

REED VS. RED

The story of Moses is one of the most fascinating, powerful, and well-known stories in the history of the world (in my opinion, the film The Ten Commandments is one of the greatest motion picture epics of all time). It captures the imagination and is moving to the soul. However, it is also one of the most controversial and problematic pieces of history. William G. Dever, Professor Emeritus of the University of Arizona and one of the leading American archeologists, has said, "We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean [the Exodus] didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."1 When giving a brief rundown of what most likely happened, Dever explains, "There probably was a small group of people - maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, not a few million (as the biblical stories would have it) - who escaped from Egypt and found their way eventually into Canaan in a way they thought was miraculous of course. But most of the earliest Israelites were Canaanites who had never been in Egypt…So it isn't a question of whether it's all true or all false, but of what really happened."2

I believe in Moses. I believe in the Exodus. However, this is largely connected with my belief in the Restoration through Joseph Smith (which I find more evidence for than the Moses story. The latter is verified because of the former). But I find Dever's comments about finding out "what really happened" to be intriguing and refreshing. One of the most well-known events in the Exodus is the parting of the Red Sea. Controversy has been around for years due to the Hebrew yam suf and its translation as Red Sea. Critics argue that it should actually be Sea of Reeds. This in the mind of many drastically changes the location of the crossing and alters the impact of the story. I for one had never given it much thought. When I did, I would dismiss the Reed Sea translation due to the Red Sea being mentioned in the Book of Mormon as well as Doctrine & Covenants. However, after giving it a little thought, I wondered what others who had better training in translations had to say about it. David Bokovoy (who is currently finishing up his Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible) was kind enough to respond:

"Since the Hebrew name for the body of water Moses parted is Yam Suf meaning Reed Sea, Nephi's reference to Moses parting the Red Sea, creates an interesting Hebraism: "Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground. But ye know that the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, who were the armies of Pharaoh..."And now it came to pass that when I had spoken these words they were angry with me, and were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea; and as they came forth to lay their hands upon me I spake unto them, saying: In the name of the Almighty God, I command you that ye atouch me not, for I am filled with the power of God, even unto the consuming of my flesh; and whoso shall lay his hands upon me shall wither even as a dried reed; and he shall be as naught before the power of God, for God shall smite him" (1 Nephi 17: 26,27,48). Nephi's allusion to the withering of a dried reed works well with the biblical view that associates Moses' parting of the Reed Sea with divine theomachy.

Exodus may still refer to the Red Sea via the name Yam Suf, or to simply another body of water. I really don't know which one was intended. Either way, the expression means Reed Sea. From a literary perspective, Nephi's apparent Hebraic pun is not at all dissimilar to the author's emphasis on reeds in Exodus 2 as a literary allusion to Moses' future task:"And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags (reeds, Hebrew suf) by the river’s brink" (Exodus 2:3)"And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags (reeds, Hebrew suf), she sent her maid to fetch it." (Exodus 2:5)"3

While not conclusive, it does broaden the often narrow view of the Exodus. It also demonstrates the interesting complexities of the Book of Mormon. So, as cool as this is...



...it probably wasn't exactly like that.

But just as I say about other speculative aspects of the gospel, I'm fine with however God chose to do it.

1. July 2007 Interview by Gary Glassman, The Bible's Buried Secrets, NOVA Online
2. Micah Sachs, "Where Did We Come From?" San Diego Jewish Journal, January 2004
3. All Bokovoy quotes from the online thread "Controversy: Red Sea vs. Reed Sea" at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.

YOU CHOSE...POORLY

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's talk this past Sunday has apparently "offended" some of our critics (Does "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard" ring a bell?). While I plan to explain his point more thoroughly in a later post, I couldn't help but notice that so many of Holland's critics completely missed the point of his historical observation. Nonetheless, the ever-brilliant Dr. Dan Peterson has struck back with his sarcastic brand of online dialogue:

"A long lost document, in Joseph Smith's hand, has just been discovered, and I'm privileged to reveal it here first:

'It seems that we're about to die. Well, so what? Big deal. I've had a good run. The tarring and feathering, the mobbings, the endless hiding, the knocked-out tooth, the imprisonments, near-execution, being driven from state to state, the virulent public hatred, the sufferings of my family and my friends, and now my impending violent death at a young age -- it's been much more than worth these trivialities. I lived well, making scores of dollars a year. I had a great social life (heh heh heh). So now I die at thirty-eight and go to oblivion, or else to Hell. Sounds like a fair trade. Of course, my idiot brother Hyrum actually believes this nonsense. What a fool. Just now, he's reading a bit of Solomon Spalding's purloined novel aloud to me, thinking it's going to make me feel better! He still believes it's for real! I have to admit that seeing how I've still got him completely bamboozled, along with my ridiculous mother and my wife and my disgusting children (wish I'd managed to sire a few easy marks with some of my gullible girlfriends to go along with Emma's spawn, dang it), is quite enough to make me feel just fine. It's empty-headed fanatics like this that, if my plans work out, are going to die across the plains and in the Rocky Mountains, where I've been encouraging them to go. Oh man. Hyrum's still droning on with that religious drivel. Must keep a straight face. Trying to look solemn. (It's hard! Even for a practiced deceiver like me!) 'Oh yeah, Hy my bro, that's real heavy stuff. Like, dude, I feel so holy now.' ROTL! What . . . a . . . moron! Well, anyway, toodle oo, fair world! Suckers!'"

The criticisms of Holland's talk and counter-arguments to his point have been "frankly pathetic." As Dr. Peterson pointed out in a different post, "To take comfort from a religious-historical text that you know to be a forgery because you yourself forged it? That's . . . um, rather improbable." (Noting the final sentence, I chimed in with "I sense a little restraint here.")1

As the title suggests, all I have to say to those who choose flimsy arguments over the solid ones is, "You chose...poorly."



1. All quotes from the online thread "Jeffrey R. Holland's Talk" at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.