"Tis Enough; Mine Eyes Have Beheld": Responding to Criticisms of the Book of Mormon Witnesses

The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. From left to right: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris.

A popular website[1] designed to equip Evangelical apologists with information on Mormonism has a brief but highly flawed article on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. It asserts, in so many words, that the witnesses' testimony of seeing and handling the Book of Mormon plates are unreliable for various reasons.

Among the reasons given are 1) many of the witnesses were related to or friend with Joseph Smith 2) some of the witnesses claimed to see the plates only in vision with a subjective "eye of faith" 3) at least one of the witnesses claimed to have also been told by God to leave the Church, which presents a dilemma for Mormons because that same witness is said to have received that commandment from the same God who testified to him of the Book of Mormon and 4) the Witnesses were superstitious or gullible into believing things of a supernatural nature.

It is beyond the scope of this post to ascertain the validity of all the arguments for or against the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. A considerable corpus of literature has been created on this subject, and the intrepid reader is to read some of those offers to see the different arguments on the two sides of this debate.[2]

However, as a believing and active Latter-day Saint and after reading much of the aforementioned literature, it is my conviction that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon not only are reliable but that it is more parsimonious to believe in their testimony as it stands than in the theories of critics of the Book of Mormon.[3]

For this post, I will therefore only focus on the offerings given on the website in question and will not focus on other specific criticisms by the likes of Dan Vogel or Grant Palmer. 

1. The Book of Mormon Witnesses are unreliable or suspect because they are related to or in close association with Joseph Smith.

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. The premise of this argument is that the circumstances of an individual makes the individual "disposed to take a particular decision" and thus makes the individual and his/her claims unreliable. Therefore, this argument rests on "an attack on the bias of the source."[4] 

However, such is a logical fallacy for the reason that the circumstances or bias of an individual does not negate the validity of their arguments or their testimony. Or, as wikipedia helpfully explains, "the reason this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not does make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible."[5]

To use a modern analogy, imagine a man named Stan Smith. Mr. Smith is married with 4 kids, all of them adults. One evening Mr. Smith is gunned down in front of his family and some friends by an armed robber. When the robber is caught, the family and friends are called to testify as eyewitnesses to the crime on behalf of the prosecution. The defense, however, points out that the witnesses are immediate family and friends to Mr. Smith and thus they are unreliable witnesses because of their relationship with Mr. Smith. The defense argues that the close relationship of the witnesses, to use the words on the website, "raise the question about their level of discernment and their credibility as witnesses."

See the problem with this line of reasoning? The relationship of the witnesses to Mr. Smith does not invalidate the fact that they witnessed the gunning down of Mr. Smith. The same applies for the Book of Mormon witnesses. The fact that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were close associates or family with Joseph Smith does not invalidate their claim to having seen gold plates. If they really did see the plates, then their familial relationship with Joseph Smith becomes irrelevant.

However, Evangelical Christians, like the proprietor of the website, need to also be careful in using this argument since the same argument was employed by Celsus, and early anti-Christian Roman philosopher, to try and invalidate the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Celsus opined that the close association between the Apostles who witnessed the Savior's miracles and resurrection invalidated them as witnesses. In short, their association "raise the question about their level of discernment and their credibility as witnesses."

Celsus, in referring to the Apostles, inquired as to "what witnesses saw this wondrous event [i.e. the resurrection]... for I have only heard your voice, and have but your word for it."[6] Celsus likewise asks "Who really saw [the resurrection]? A hysterical woman [referring to Mary], as you admit and perhaps one other person - both deluded by [the Savior's] sorcery, or else so wrenched with grief at his failure that they hallucinated him rising from the dead by some sort of wishful thinking."[7]

Thus, the same tactics used by this Evangelical critic are identical to the tactics used by Celsus. Both Celsus and the critic operating the website attack the validity of their respective witnesses on the bases of both their close association with Jesus and Joseph, respectively, and the subjective nature of their claims. Which brings us to number two.

2. Some of the witnesses said they saw the plates with the "eye of faith" and in a subjective spiritual setting, thus casting doubt on their credibility.

This is a popular point of ridicule on some of the witnesses. Some of the witnesses, it is alleged, at one point described their seeing of the gold plates in seemingly subjective language. John Whitmer explained that he was shown the plates based on a "supernatural power" while Martin Harris said he saw the plates with an "eye of faith". Thus, according to the critics, this shows that the experience of both the Three and the Eight Witnesses was not based in reality but was subjective or purely visionary.

However, there are some problems with this approach. For one thing, it ignores all of those instances in which the witnesses described their experience in real, concrete and physical language. John Whitmer, for example, explained in 1836 that he "had most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, and I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr., has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God."[8] Other examples of this could be multiplied, as has been on the helpful FAIR wiki website on this matter.

Turning to Martin Harris' statement that he saw the plates with an "eye of faith", we receive some rather helpful information once again from the FAIR wiki. The article explains that Martin Harris could have been employing scriptural language in describing the visitation of Moroni with the plates. After multiple examples are shown, the following conclusion is offered:

When Martin Harris said that he had seen the angel and the plates with his "spiritual eyes" or with an "eye of faith" he may have simply been employing some scriptural language that he was familiar with. Such statements do not mean that the angel and the plates were imaginary, hallucinatory, or just an inner mental image. But rather they were seen by physical eyes that had been enhanced by the power of God to view more objects than a mortal could normally see. Critics who insist otherwise do not provide their readers with all of Martin's statements, distorting the historical record.[9]

The FAIR wiki also explains:

Critics impose their own interpretation on phrases that do not match what the witnesses reported in many separate interviews. When challenged on the very point which the critics wish to read into their statements—their literal reality—both Harris and the other witnesses were adamant that their experience was literal, real, and undeniable.[10]

From this and other sources we learn that the assertion on the website that the witnesses "all initially describe[d] their experience with the angel and the plates as subjective and visionary rather than objective and concrete" is not warranted from the historical sources.   

3. One of the Witnesses, David Whitmer, said that God told him to leave the Church. He also said that if you believe his testimony of the Book of Mormon then you will believe his testimony out of the Church.

According to Book of Mormon Witness David Whitmer:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them."[11]

Critics of the Book of Mormon regularly point to this statement in an attempt to put the Latter-day Saints in an awkward position. After all, if one accepts David Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon then one is going to also have to accept that God commanded David to leave the Church. As Brent Lee Metcalfe wrote, the Latter-day Saints "must confront Whitmer's challenge: believe that God confirmed the Book of Mormon translation and later instructed him to repudiate Mormonism or reject his testimony in toto. For Whitmer there was no distinction between the two experiences."[12] 

Besides the fact that this is a standard fallacy known as a false dilemma, those critics who point to this statement fail to inform their readers that Whitmer had already been excommunicated from the Church a month earlier. As the FAIR wiki explains:

Thus, when he reports being told by God to "separate himself from among" the members of the Church, Whitmer was already out of the Church, but still living in Far West among members of the Church. Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was arguably a wise one. Tensions were high, and there were threats of violence against apostates (including Whitmer, who had been very prominent) from people like Sampson Avard... Whitmer was not instructed to leave the Church or "repudiate Mormonism," he was instructed to leave Far West after he was already excommunicated. This was arguably a very prudent course, both for Whitmer's safety and the integrity of the Restoration witnesses. Believing Latter-day Saints have no trouble seeing both of Whitmer's revelatory experiences as inspired of God. While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He might well take steps to ensure that the Three Witnesses remained alive. In fact, Whitmer's fidelity to his testimony despite great disagreements with Joseph and the Church strengthen its force. Critics are dishonest if they imply Whitmer did not leave the Church until God "told him to."[13]

Thus, the critics do not have the Latter-day Saints in the airtight bind that they think they do.

4. The Witnesses were gullible and credulous when it came to supernatural matters.

This is a strange criticism to be coming from Evangelical Christians, as the exact same argument could be and has been used by secularists against the witnesses of the miracles of the Bible. Notwithstanding, this form of character assassination is not only gratuitously disparaging but also runs contrary to the character of the Witnesses. As Michael Ash explained:

Could the Three Witnesses have been so caught up in the excitement that they imagined they saw an angel, or lied about seeing an angel to heighten the stimulation? An affirmative answer may suffice for testifying in the “heat of the moment,” but this explanation is not satisfactory when we look at the testimony that they continued to proclaim throughout their lives—through persecution, financial ruin, excommunication, embarrassment, and bitter-feelings. A testimony born in the excitement of the moment would die quickly under such adverse conditions.[14]

Or, as the FAIR wiki explains:

The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.[15]

Professor Richard L. Anderson perhaps knows more about the lives and the character of the Witnesses more than any other man on earth. He has written numerous articles and a book on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon and his research spans decades. When I spoke with Professor Anderson in person in December of 2008 at a conference sponsored by Olivewood Bookstore in Provo, I asked him if the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were gullible or overly credulous about superstitious matters. Professor Anderson promptly explained that the only contemporaries of these men who thought they were gullible or easily duped were anti-Mormons with a high prejudice against the Witnesses. Others, both Mormon and non-Mormons alike, who knew these men personally knew them to be good, honest, industrious men of intelligence, sound minds and understanding. 

Conclusion

It can never be proved, or disproved for that matter, that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris saw the plates. However, the historical evidence, in my view, supports the traditional LDS understanding of the Witnesses and the validity of their testimonies. The objections raised against the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon by this Evangelical website are, in my opinion, misplaced, misguided and wholly insufficient to explain away the Witnesses. They suffer from a general lack of scholarly and logical rigor and don't stand up to close scrutiny. For various reasons, as best explained by Professor Daniel C. Peterson[16], I find the testimony of these men to be strong evidence for the truthfulness of the claims of Joseph Smith. Whatever happened to those men, it was powerful enough to make Martin Harris exclaim "tis enough; mine eyes have beheld!"[17] 

Notes:

[1]: This website is not to be confused with www.mormonwiki.com, which is a pro-LDS website.

[2]: The most pertinent works include; from an LDS apologetic perspective Richard L. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book: 1981); Richard L. Anderson, "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/1 (2005), 18-31; from a critical perspective Dan Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies", in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha (Salt Lake City, Signiture Books: 2005), 79-121 and Grant H. Palmer, "Witnesses to the Gold Plates", chapter 6 of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, Signature Books: 2002).

[3]: Michael Ash has done an amiable job of summarizing the LDS arguments for the validity of the Witnesses' testimonies in his work Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith (Springville, Cedar Fort: 2008), 15-20. See also Michael Ash in Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2008), 193-200.

[4]: Wikipedia entry under "Ad Hominem". Available online here. Accessed 6 June, 2009.

[5]: Ibid.

[6]: Quoted in Aaron Christensen, "Celsus and Modern Anti-Mormonism". FAIR paper, 2002. p.g. 4

[7]: Ibid. Christensen helpfully observes that "by way of modern parallel, the testimony of the eleven witnesses to the reality of the gold plates are discarded" based on the same standard used by Celsus.

[8]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/Eight Witnesses/Shown to Me by a Spiritual Power" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[9]: See "'Eye of Faith'/'Spiritual Eye' Statements by Martin Harris" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[10]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/ Spiritual or Literal?" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[11]: David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887), 27-28. Ironically, anti-Mormons love to cite this work despite the fact that Whitmer emphatically and loquaciously affirmed his testimony in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon throughout its pages.

[12]: Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions About Book of Mormon Historicity," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26/3 (Fall 1993): 176-177

[13]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/David Whitmer Told to Leave" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[14]: Michael Ash, "Book of Mormon Witnesses, Part 1: Motives", FAIR Paper (FAIR, 2003), 2. Ash's series on the Witnesses, located on the FAIR website, offer another good overview of the LDS apologetic views on the issues surrounding the Witnesses.

[15]: See "Book of Mormon Witnesses/Character" on the FAIR wiki. Link here.

[16]: An mp3 version of Daniel C. Peterson's excellent "A Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced", is available for download from the FAIR website. 

[17]: Quoted in "History of Joseph Smith", Times and Seasons 3/21 (1 September, 1842): 898

And it Came to Pass that the Phrase "And it Came to Pass" was Discovered to be a Hebraism

Christopher Miller on his lurid website "Mormonism Disproved" argues that the high occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence that "Joseph Smith was the single author of the Book of Mormon, that it was not translated, but created from his very creative imagination." And what exactly is the evidence that Mr. Miller provides for this claim? Why, nothing less than the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" occurs at a much higher frequency in the Book of Mormon than in the current King James Bible. After all, according to our sleuth, "the extensive use of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon across all of the books" clearly points to single authorship.

The final nail in the coffin, according to Miller, is the fact that the word "exceedingly" also occurs more often in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. But it doesn't stop there. The thoroughly unbiblical phrase "in other words" is also evidence to Miller that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

I must admit that I was rather amused at not only the sheer desperation of these charges, but also at the fact that Mr. Miller betrays absolutely no knowledge of the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" is actually a good Hebraism. Rather than belabor the point, I will simply be lazy and quote Professor Donald W. Parry on this matter:

The expression and it came to pass is the translation of a Hebrew expression used frequently in scriptural histories and chronologies and far less frequently in poetry, prophe-cies, or direct speech. Although in its Hebrew form the expression is found in the Hebrew Bible some 1,200 times, it was translated in the King James Version as "and it came to pass" only about 727 times. The King James translators probably found the expression redundant and cumbersome, which would explain why they often translated it as "and it became," "and it was," or "and." On a number of occasions they simply ignored the expression altogether.

Given the Semitic background of the Book of Mormon and the fact that it contains histories and chronologies comparable to those of the Old Testament, it is not surprising that and it came to pass is a characteristic feature of the book. Novelist and humorist Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of and it came to pass from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet.

Similar to Old Testament usage, the phrase and it came to pass is rarely found in Book of Mormon psalms, lamentations, proverbs, blessings, curses, prayers, speeches, and dialogues where the first-person pronoun (Ior we) is used. The expression is obviously missing from the Psalm of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:16–35); the speeches of such personalities as King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles found in the Book of Mormon.[1]

But that is not all, Parry has noted elsewhere that "this expression is commonly mentioned in Hebrew grammars. See, for example, Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), 107."[2]

In the December 1992 issue of the Ensign, Professor Parry observed the following:

Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet. (Roughing It, Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co., 1901, p. 133.) There are, however, some very good reasons behind the usage of the phrase—reasons that further attest the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.

As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20–25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.

But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”

Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.

The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all—or at least not consistently—in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is—a translation from a language (reformed Egyptian) with ties to the Hebrew language. (See Morm. 9:32–33.)[3]

Thus, far from being evidence of single authorship of the Book of Mormon, as the quixotic Mr. Miller implies, the continual occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence of the book's ancient authenticity. It is likewise evidence for a Semitic primacy of the language of the Book of Mormon. 

But what about Miller's accusations about the use of "exceedingly" and "in other words" in the Book of Mormon? To me, this is much ado about nothing. I ask; so what if Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon into modern English, used these words and phrases? Surely one cannot fault him for using modern lingual expressions in translating an ancient language into a modern one. Such is nothing but sheer desperation to get anything on Joseph Smith to make him look bad. 

However, the fun does not stop there. Miller mocks the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon and the repetitive nature of the text. However, had Miller bothered to consult any Hebrew grammar, he would understand that lengthiness and repetitiveness is a common feature in biblical Hebrew. As Brian D. Stubbs explains:

Book of Mormon language frequently contains lengthy structures of rather awkward English. Some may consider these to be instances of poor grammar, weakness in writing (Ether 12:23—26), or the literary ineptness of a fraudulent author; however, I see them as potentially significant support for a translation from a Near Eastern language in an ancient American setting. Many of these lengths of awkward English parallel Semitic (and Egyptian) patterns, particularly the circumstantial or hal-clause.[4]

Jeff Lindsay, in summarizing Stubbs' arguments, notes:

He [Brian Stubbs] responds to Edward Ashment's attack on the Book of Mormon which claims the long, awkward sentences found in so many Book of Mormon verses are much different than the short, concise sentences found in the Old Testament, supposedly showing that the Book of Mormon was not derived from Hebrew. Stubbs shows that the short sentences alleged to be characteristic of Biblical Hebrew may be characteristic of the King James translation of the Old Testament, but are not characteristic of the actual Hebrew. In fact, numerous sentence structures in the Book of Mormon show much more in common with genuine Hebraic sentences than with the English of the King James Bible or with the English of Joseph Smith's day.[5]

Elsewhere, Lindsay observes to "complain about the Book of Mormon being too Hebraic, if you will, but the wordiness of the text is most reasonably interpreted as indirect evidence of authenticity rather than evidence of fraud."[6]

One final note. Miller, in mocking Nephi's comments in 1 Nephi 10:4, asks rhetorically if "any Hebrew speaking person in that time did not know what a Messiah was" and "if any biblical author would find it necessary to explain that to his audience." Contra Miller, who boasts that "common sense" demands that the answer is no, the answer, in light of biblical evidence, is in fact a resounding YES.

Consider, if you will, the fact that the Hebrew word for Messiah, "mashiach" or literally "anointed one", is never explicitly used for a title of Jehovah in the Old Testament, but instead has been applied to Israelite royalty (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11; 2 Sam. 19:21; 22:51; Ps. 18:50; 132:17), Aaronic High Priests (Lev. 4:5) and even the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) and you begin to understand why Nephi had to clarify with his readers who exactly he was speaking of when he mentioned the "Messiah, or, in other words, A Savior of the World" (1 Ne. 10:4). He wanted his readers to be sure that he was speaking of the Savior Jesus Christ, not others who have been held the label "Messiah".[7] Miller, it seems, can have his "common sense" all he wants, but he should not for one moment presume that such is evidence for his claim.

Thus, if our intrepid Don Quixote insists that the presence of "and it came to pass" and the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon is evidence of fraud, he will first have to explain this contrary evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Notes:

[1]: Donald W. Parry, "Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon", in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 163-64.

[2]: Ibid, note 11.

[3]: Donald W. Parry, "I Have A Question: Why is the phrase "and it came to pass" so prevalent in the Book of Mormon?", Ensign, December 1992, 29.

[4]: Brian D. Stubbs, "A Lengthier Treatment on Length", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 82

[5]: Jeff Lindsay, "Numerous Hebraic Language Structures", available online here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#hebraic

[6]: Jeff Lindsay, "Too Wordy to be True?", available online at: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wordy.shtml

[7]: See the entry under "Messiah" in Dennis L. Largey, ed., The Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 536

Christian Courage at Temple Square

Note to the reader: This is an essay I wrote in reply to the July 2009 Ensign's call for articles. The theme was around Elder Robert D. Hales' conference talk entitled "Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship". Constructive criticisms, critiques and other comments are appreciated before I submit this essay to the Ensign.

Christian Courage at Temple Square 

by Stephen O. Smoot 

As a volunteer with the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)1, I was particularly impressed by Elder Robert D. Halesʼ October 2008 General Conference talk2. In his talk, Elder Hales admonished the Saints to respond to criticisms and challenges from critics and other foes of the Church by exhibiting what he called “Christian courage”; namely, we should “not retaliate” against our critics, but instead “show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return.”3 Elder Hales went on to clarify that “especially important [are] our interactions with members of other Christian denominations. Surely our Heavenly Father is saddened—and the devil laughs—when we contentiously debate doctrinal differences with our Christian neighbors.”4 Thus, Elder Hales cautioned, “our primary concern must be othersʼ welfare, not personal vindication. Questions and criticisms give us an opportunity to reach out to others and demonstrate that they matter to our Heavenly Father and to us. Our aim should be to help them understand the truth, not defend our egos or score points in a theological debate.”5 

In my experience as a volunteer with FAIR, I have had several opportunities both in person and on various online message boards and chat rooms to engage with critics of the Church and its teachings. These experiences have been interesting, exciting, uplifting, faith-promoting, frustrating, irritating, and disheartening simultaneously. While I have learned much from engaging with critics of the Church and my testimony in the Restored gospel has grown stronger with my experience with FAIR, I have at times come away from these interactions in a bad temper or exceedingly vexed. Usually it is after I have been vigorously Bible-bashing or contending with a heated ego and temper against someone who is as equally sure of their convictions as I am of mine. Thus, these words from Elder Hales have been very important to me as I have interacted with critics and skeptics. They remind me of how I must react to critics and skeptics the same way the Savior would - with love and understanding that even those critics who I debate with are children of our Heavenly Father who have their right to their free will and agency. 

However, one particular moment has always stood out above others to me as an example of how I was able to exhibit Christian courage in the face of adversity and skepticism. Every six months at General Conference, I travel down to Temple Square with a couple of my fellow volunteers from FAIR to speak with and engage the anti-Mormon street preachers who try pester and provoke the Saints with unsavory epithets, distasteful slurs and repugnant accusations against the leadership and doctrines of the Church. During the April 2009 General Conference, I met a man at Temple Square, an Evangelical Christian with a large poster who was there to, according to his own account, “witness” to the Saints, with whom I began to speak with. 

This man informed me that he was a former member of the Church who discontinued believing in the Restored Gospel. When I asked him why, he stated that he came to believe that the doctrines of the Church were not compatible with the Bible. After listing some examples, such as the unique understanding of the Godhead that the Saints hold to compared to conventional Christianity, this man then began to ask me various questions designed to challenge my faith in the Restored Gospel: How can you believe in the Book of Mormon when there is no evidence for its authenticity? Are you aware that the LDS view of the nature of God is not at harmony with the Bible? How can you believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet even after he uttered false prophecies? The Bible makes itself clear that it is the sole source of authority. How, then, can you accept additional scriptures?  

It would have been easy for me to become defensive and combative with this gentleman as he asked these questions. It would have been easy for me to become dismissive and flippant in the face of these accusations. However, I remembered the council of Elder Hales as well as the words of the Savior to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 11:29 and restrained myself from become contentious. In response, I calmly pointed out to this gentleman that these accusations have been answered by groups such as FAIR or the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS): While there is evidence for the Book of Mormonʼs authenticity, it is primarily and most importantly a witness from the Spirit that we come to know of the Book of Mormonʼs truthfulness.6 The Latter-day Saint view of God does have backing from and is in harmony with the Bible.7 The allegations that the Prophet Joseph Smith uttered false prophecies rests on both a misunderstanding of the nature of prophecy and prophets alike.8 The Bible affirms the principle of an open canon and nowhere claims to be the sole source of authority from God.9 

I could tell that my non-confrontational approach to these accusations had made an impact on this gentleman, as he seemed to open up and began asking questions that were not so much aggressive but genuinely sincere and thoughtful. He asked me what I thought about Jesus Christ. I responded that my faith is in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world. He asked how I knew this. I responded that my testimony came from reading the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the prophets therein. 

  I could tell that because our encounter did not turn into a vindictive and egotistical debate but instead became a sincere and friendly discussion, I was more easily able to share my testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with this man. Because of the fact that the spirit of contention was unable to penetrate the atmosphere, the Spirit of our Heavenly Father was able fill both our hearts and plant within them peace. We ended our conversation with good feelings towards each other and the spirit radiating within us. 

This demonstration has shown me that Elder Halesʼ principles taught in his General Conference speech are true, and that by abiding by these precepts when we encounter criticism and skepticism we can hopefully escape the spirit of the contention and do our best to stand firm in our faith and our testimonies as we bear witness of the truth. We will all ultimately face criticism. We will all be asked questions about our faith from both sincere and insincere people. It is therefore imperative that we as Latter-day Saints remember to exhibit Christian courage in the face of adversity and affliction and to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9).

Notes:

1 FAIR operates a website, www.fairlds.org, that is an online cache of apologetic information. Apologetics, 

from the Greek apologia (απολογία), is a systematic defense of a particular doctrine or idea. See, for 

example, the remarks of the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15, wherein the Saints are admonished "to make a 

defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (Revise Standard Version, 

emphasis added). 

2 Elder Robert D. Hales, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship,” Ensign, Nov. 2008, 72-75 

3 Ibid, 73. 

4 Ibid.

5  Ibid.

6 While a large corpus of literature has been written on this subject, see generally Donald W. Parry, Daniel 

C. Peterson and John W. Welch, eds., Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: 

Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 2001), Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon 

Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research 

and Mormon Studies. 1997) and Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on 

Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 1982). See also the 

plethora of articles published in the FARMS Review and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, both 

produced by FARMS. 

7  See generally David L. Paulsen, “Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God,” in 

Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed., Noel B. 

Reynolds (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 2005), 239-295. See also 

the FAIR wiki website under the category “God” at http://en.fairmormon.org/ 

FAIRwiki:Table_of_contents#God (Accessed June 29th, 2009). 

8  See generally John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets”. Available online at http://www.fairlds.org/ 

Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html (Accessed June 29th, 2009).

9 See generally Michael R. Ash, “Is the Bible Complete?”, available at http://www.fairlds.org/ 

FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf (Accessed June 29th, 2009). See also the FAIR wiki article 

“Open Canon vs. Closed Canon” at http://en.fairmormon.org/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon (Accessed 

June 29th, 2009).

Lehi and the Throne Theophany in 1 Nephi

Blake Ostler has authored an important work on Lehi's throne theophany in the beginning chapters of 1 Nephi.[1] In his work, Ostler identifies 8 characteristics of the throne theophany found in ancient Near Eastern literature (including both biblical and pseudepigraphal texts) and compares them to Lehi's throne theophany.[2] These elements or characteristics are:

1. Historical Introduction

2. Divine Confrontation

3. Reaction

4. Throne Theophany

5. Commission

6. Protest

7. Reassurance

8. Conclusion

Ostler then disects each of these elements within in the Book of Mormon and explains their historical/contextual meaning.

1. Historical Introduction

Ostler points out the obvious introduction of the current events going on in Jerusalem by Nephi in 1 Nephi 1:4, 6. In these verses, Nephi gives a quick chronology and then informs his reader of the political and religious upheaval going on in Jerusalem at the time, and of the fact that multiple prophets have been declaring different messages to the people.[3] 

2. Divine Confrontation

Ostler next points out how it is later recorded by Nephi that his father encountered a "pillar of fire" and that he later was "overcome with the spirit"(1 Nephi 1:6-7). Of course, Lehi then experiences a divine vision in which he is shown God "sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels" (1 Nephi 1:8), but not before Lehi's reaction to the vision.

3. Reaction 

The reader is informed that upon receiving this vision, Lehi "did quake and tremble exceedingly" and was "overcome with the Spirit" (1 Nephi 1:6-7). This reaction, interestingly enough, is similar to both Moses' as well as the Prophet Joseph Smith's own experiences with deity.[4] Thus it seems that Lehi's reaction to his vision was not unique.

4. Throne Theophany

Then we come to the climax of the vision. Lehi sees God on his throne surrounded by the hosts of heaven. This part of the vision clearly fits with other apocalyptical literature of the ancient Near East that discuss the Council of the Gods or the Divine Council.[5]

Interestingly enough, Ostler notes that there is another element in the Book of Mormon account, namely, the Descensus, which is also right at home in other ancient Near Eastern texts. In 1 Nephi 1:9-10, we read of how Lehi beheld the Savior, who is likened to the sun, and 12 other figures, who are clearly the Apostles of Christ, who are likened to the firmament of the stars. Ostler, quoting Frank Moore Cross notes that "kokebe boker 'the morning stars' in Job 38:7 may be considered in parallel with bene elohim 'sons of God' (compare Isa. 14:12; Ps. 148:2-3), and the terms saba' or sebot apply equally to the heavenly bodies and the angelic host."[6] Ostler, continuing with this idea and after providing some examples of this motif in the biblical texts, explains that it "is a logical extension of the throne-theophany and evidence of the Hebrew influence on Lehi's account."[7]

5. Commission 

1 Nephi 1:18-19, notes Ostler, is the "commission element of Lehi's call" and "the motif is evident from Lehi's actions following the vision, such as preaching to his people of the contents of the vision and the book[8], and from the subsequent revelation given to him."[9]

6. Protest

Ostler notes that this element seems to be missing from the Book of Mormon account, but that such is to be expected since "this element is usually absent when the reaction element in present, as in the call of Ezekiel."[10]

7. Reassurance

Ostler notes that this element of the throne theophany is usually accompanied with rejection of the Prophet by the people, as in the obvious case with Lehi. Notwithstanding, notes Ostler, God reassures his Prophet that said Prophet has indeed received his call from Deity and must press on in the work.

8. Conclusion

Ostler notes that in this element of the throne theophany, "the commission form usually concludes in a formal way, most often with a statement that the Prophet has begun to carry out his commission."[11] This we see in the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 1:20, 2:1.

After expanding upon these elements, Ostler then discusses 19th century visions and those in the Book of Mormon. Ostler correctly notes that in the wake of the "revival fever" of the 2nd Great Awakening visions were common claims by religious individuals in the early 19th century. And while Joseph Smith himself patterned his accounts of his visionary experiences following established 19th century norms, which we can only expect considering this was the Prophet's immediate cultural and environmental understanding, Ostler notes that the Book of Mormon does not. 

The Book of Mormon is unique in detailing Lehi's vision, and is alien to 19th century conventions. However, as was demonstrated, Lehi's vision in 1 Nephi is right at home in the literature of the ancient Near East. Ostler therefore concludes that "the possibility that the Book of Mormon derives from and ancient source... must be considered in light of some features better explained in terms of ancient Israel than nineteenth-century America."[12]

David Bokovoy, that indefatigable sleuth, has continued Ostler's studies in a series of Podcasts posted on Youtube.

Part 1

Part 2

Notes:

[1]: Blake Ostler, "The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi: A Form-Critical Analysis", BYU Studies (26/4): 67-95

[2]: Ostler (p. 70) identifies Ezekiel 1, Isaiah 6, the Merkaba texts, 1-2 Enoch, the Testament of Levi, 4 Ezra, 3 Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Abraham as texts that powerfully display the throne theophany motif.

[3]: Hugh Nibley has shed further light on the political, social and religious situation in Lehi's day. See Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Deseret/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 1988), 3-19.

[4]: See Moses 1:9-10 and Joseph Smith-History 1:20.

[5]: For an LDS perspective on the Council of the Gods or the Divine Council, see Daniel C. Peterson in "Ye Are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind". Available online here. Also see the numerous but enlightening videos produced by Kerry Shirts on his Youtube webpage. For a thoroughly scholarly and enjoyable back and forth on the topic of the Council of the Gods between a Latter-day Saint and an Evangelical, see David Bokovoy and Michael Heiser in the FARMS Review 19/1. Available online here.

[6]: Ostler, 79.

[7]: Ibid.

[8]: Ostler (p. 79-80) notes the importance of the receiving of a heavenly book by the Prophet in his commission, a phenomenon seen clearly with Lehi in 1 Nephi 1: 11-13. John Tvedtnes has written extensively on this subject. See John Tvedtnes in The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: Out of Darkness, Unto Light, (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 2000). Likewise, consult Michael Ash in Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Springville, Utah: CFI Books. 2008), 75.

[9]: Ostler, 79.

[10]: Ostler, 70.

[11]: Ibid.

[12]: Ostler, 87.

Three Types of Book of Mormon Evidence: Circumstantial

I've been posting about Hugh Nibley's "The Prophetic Book of Mormon". In this analysis, we find three types of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon: internal, external, and circumstantial. The previous posts were about internal and external evidences. This one is about circumstantial evidences.

Circumstantial Evidence. Entirely apart from the contents of the Book of Mormon and the external evidences that might support it, there are certain circumstances attending its production which cannot be explained on grounds other than those given by Joseph Smith.

These may be listed briefly:

1. There is the testimony of the witnesses.

2. The youth and inexperience of Joseph Smith at the time when he took full responsibility for the publication of the book—proof (a) that he could not have produced it himself and (b) that he was not acting for someone else, for his behavior at all times displayed astounding independence.

3. The absence of notes and sources.

4. The short time of production.

5. The fact that there was only one version of the book ever published (with minor changes in each printing). This is most significant. It is now known that the Koran, the only book claiming an equal amount of divine inspiration and accuracy, was completely re-edited at least three times during the lifetime of Mohammed. This brings up:

6. The unhesitating and unchanging position of Joseph Smith regarding his revelations, a position that amazed Eduard Meyer more than anything else. From the day the Book of Mormon came from the press, Joseph Smith never ceased to spread it abroad, and he never changed his attitude toward it. What creative writer would not blush for the production of such youth and inexperience twenty years after? What impostor would not lie awake nights worrying about the slips and errors of this massive and pretentious product of his youthful indiscretion and roguery? Yet, since the Prophet was having revelations all along, nothing would have been easier, had he the slightest shadow of a misgiving, than to issue a new, revised, and improved edition, or to recall the book altogether, limit its circulation, claim it consisted of mysteries to be grasped by the uninitiated alone, say it was to be interpreted only in a "religious" sense, or supersede it by something else. The Saints who believed the Prophet were the only ones who took the book seriously anyway.

7. There has never been any air of mystery about the Book of Mormon; there is no secrecy connected with it at the time of its publication or today; there is a complete lack of sophistry or policy in discussions of the Book of Mormon; it plays absolutely no role in the history of the Church as a pawn; there is never dispute about its nature or contents among the leaders of the Church; there is never any manipulating, explaining, or compromise. The book has enjoyed unlimited sale at all times.

8. Finally, though the success of the book is not proof of its divinity, the type of people it has appealed to—sincere, simple, direct, highly unhysterical, and nonmystical—is circumstantial evidence for its honesty. It has very solid supporters.

The reader using Franklin S. Harris, Jr.'s 34 excellent new collection of materials might add to these lists at his leisure. When one considers that any one of the above arguments makes it very hard to explain the Book of Mormon as a fraud, one wonders if a corresponding list of arguments against the book might not be produced. For such a list one waits with interest but in vain. At present the higher critics are scolding the Book of Mormon for not talking like the dean of a divinity school. We might as well admit it, the Victorian platitudes are simply not there.

Three Types of Book of Mormon Evidence: External

In Hugh Nibley's "The Prophetic Book of Mormon", we find three types of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon: internal, external, and circumstantial. The previous post was about internal evidences. This one is about external evidences.

Again, quoting from "The Prophetic Book of Mormon" by Hugh Nibley:

External Evidence. Our islander has been rescued by a British tramp steamer. Burning with curiosity, he jumps ship in London, rushes to Great Russell Street, and bounds up the steps of the British Museum three at a time. He is now after external proofs for the Book of Mormon. He may spend the next forty years in the great library, but whatever external evidence he finds must fulfill three conditions:

1. The Book of Mormon must make clear and specific statements about certain concrete, objective things.

2. Other sources, ancient and modern, must make equally clear and objective statements about the same things, agreeing substantially with what the Book of Mormon says about them.

3. There must be clear proof that there has been no collusion between the two reports, i.e., that Joseph Smith could not possibly have knowledge of the source by which his account is being "controlled" or of any other source that could give him the information contained in the Book of Mormon.

The purpose of our studies on Lehi and the Jaredites was to supply information that fulfilled these three conditions, and the purpose of the present articles is to supply yet more evidence of the same type. In criticizing such information one might classify the various items as (a) positive, (b) possible, and (c) doubtful evidence of authenticity. As positive proof, we might accept the evidence of such authentically Egyptian names as Paanchi, Manti, and Hem, or such freakish Jaredite customs as keeping kings in comfortable imprisonment all their days, for these things are clearly described in the Book of Mormon, well established in the secular world, yet known to no one at the time the Book of Mormon came forth. As possible but not positive proof we have a good deal of evidence from the New World; the hesitation to accept this proof as final comes from the inability or reluctance of our secular experts to come to an agreement regarding just what they have found. Until they reach a consensus, our condition number two above remains unsatisfied and the issue unsettled. Finally there are doubtful bits of evidence put forth as proof, but which were better left alone. Thus while the Book of Mormon says that mountains rose and fell during the great earthquakes, the presence of the Rocky Mountains does not prove a thing, since the Book of Mormon does not pretend for a moment that mountains were never formed at any other time or in any other way. Such "evidence" only does harm.

Next Up: Circumstantial Evidences

Three Types of Book of Mormon Evidence: Internal

In Hugh Nibley's "The Prophetic Book of Mormon", we find three types of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon: internal, external, and circumstantial. This and the next few posts will quote from Nibley's book and enumerate some of many evidences of these types.

Internal Evidence. Imagine that a Book of Mormon has been dropped from a helicopter to a man stranded on a desert island, with instructions to decide on its reliability. On the first page the man would find a clear statement of what the book claims to be, on the following pages a story of how it came into existence, and finally the testimonies of certain witnesses. Here are three astonishing claims—all supernatural. Has the man on the island enough evidence in the contents of the book alone—no other books or materials being available to him—to reach a satisfactory decision? By all means. Internal evidence is almost the only type ever used in testing questioned documents; it is rarely necessary to go any further than the document itself to find enough clues to condemn it, and if the text is a long one, and an historical document in the bargain, the absolute certainty of inner contradictions is enough to assure adequate testing. This makes the Book of Mormon preeminently testable, and we may list the following points on which certainty is obtainable.

1. The mere existence of the book, to follow Blass, is a powerful argument in favor of its authenticity. Without knowing a thing about LDS Church history, our stranded islander can immediately see that someone has gone to an enormous amount of trouble to make this book. Why? If the author wishes to deceive, he has chosen a strange and difficult way to do it. He has made the first move; he has magnanimously put into our hands a large and laborious text; in the introductory pages of that text, he gives us a clear and circumstantial account of what it is supposed to be and invites us to put it to any possible test. This is not the method of a man out to deceive. We must credit him with being honest until he is proved otherwise.

2. Before he has read a word, our islander notes that the book in his hand is a big one. This is another strong argument in its favor. A forger knows that he runs a risk with every word he writes; for him brevity is the soul of success and, as we have seen, the author of such a long book could not have failed to discover what he was up against before he proceeded very far. In giving us a long book, the author forces us to concede that he is not playing tricks.

3. Almost immediately the castaway discovers that the Book of Mormon is both a religious book and a history. This is another point in its favor, for the author could have produced a religious book claiming divine revelation without the slightest risk had he produced a Summa Theologica or a Key to the Scriptures. If one searches through the entire religious literature of the Christian ages from the time of the Apostles to the time of Joseph Smith, not one of these productions can be found to profess divine revelation aside from that derived through the reading of the scriptures. This is equally true whether one inspects the writings of the apostolic fathers, of the doctors of the Middle Ages—even the greatest of whom claim only to be making commentaries on the scriptures—or more modern religious leaders who, though they claimed enlightenment, spoke only as the Scribes and Pharisees of old, who, though they could quote and comment on scripture on every occasion, never dared to speak as one having authority. This writer never falls back on the accepted immunities of double meaning and religious interpretations in the manner of the Swedenborgians or the schoolmen. This refusal to claim any special privileges is an evidence of good faith.

4. Examining the book more closely, the islander is next struck by its great complexity. Doesn't the author know how risky this sort of thing is? If anyone should know, he certainly does, for he handles the intricate stuff with great understanding. Shysters may be diligent enough, in their way, but the object of their trickery is to avoid hard work, and this is not the sort of laborious task they give themselves.

5. In its complexity and length lies the key to the problem of the book, for our islander, having once read Blass, remembers that no man on earth can falsify a history of any length without contradicting himself continually. Upon close examination all the many apparent contradictions in the Book of Mormon disappear. It passes the sure test of authenticity with flying colors.

6. Since the author must in view of all this be something of a genius, the lonely critic begins to study his work as creative writing. Here it breaks down dismally. The style is not that of anyone trying to write well. There is skill of a sort, but even the unscholarly would know that the frequent use of "it came to pass" does not delight the reader, and it is not biblical. Never was writing less "creative" as judged by present standards: there is no central episode, no artistic development of a plot; one event follows another with equal emphasis in the even flow of a chronicle; the author does not "milk" dramatic situations, as every creative writer must; he takes no advantage of any of his artistic opportunities; he has no favorite characters; there is no gain in confidence or skill as the work progresses, nor on the other hand does he show any sign of getting tired or of becoming bored, as every creative writer does in a long composition: the first and last books of the Book of Mormon are among the best, and the author is going just as strong at the end as at the beginning. The claim of the "translator" is that this book is no literary creation, and the internal evidence bears out the claim. Our critic looks at the date of the book again—1830. Where are the rich sentimentality, the incurable romanticism, and the lush but mealy rhetoric of "fine writing" in the early 1800s? Where are the fantastic imagery, the romantic descriptions, and the unfailing exaggerations that everyone expected in the literature of the time? Here is a book with all the elements of an intensely romantic adventure tale of far away and long ago, and the author turns down innumerable chances to please his public!

7. For the professional religionist, what John Chrysostom called "the wise economy of a useful deception," i.e., religious double-talk, has been ever since his day a condition of survival and success. But there is little of this in the Book of Mormon. There are few plays on words, few rhetorical subtleties, no reveling in abstract terms, no excess of esoteric language or doctrine to require the trained interpreter. This is not a "mystic" text, though mysticism is the surest refuge for any religious quack who thinks he might be running a risk. The lone investigator feels the direct impact of the concrete terms; he is never in doubt as to what they mean. This is not the language of one trying to fool others or who has ever had any experiences in fooling others.

8. Our examiner is struck by the limited vocabulary of the Book of Mormon. Taken in connection with the size and nature of the book, this is very significant. Whoever wrote the book must have been a very intelligent and experienced person; yet such people in 1830 did not produce books with rudimentary vocabularies. This cannot be the work of any simple clown, but neither can it be that of an able and educated contemporary.

9. The extremely limited vocabulary suggests another piece of internal evidence to the reader. The Book of Mormon never makes any attempt to be clever. This, says Blass, is a test no forger can pass. The Achilles' heel of the smart impostor is vanity. The man who practices fraud to gain an ascendancy and assert his superiority over others cannot forego the pleasure of enjoying that superiority. The islander does not know it, but recent attempts to account for Joseph Smith claim to discover the key to his character in an overpowering ambition to outsmart people. Why then doesn't he ever try to show how clever he is? Where are the big words and the deep mysteries? There is no cleverness in the Book of Mormon. It was not written by a deceiver.

10. Since it claims to be translated by divine power, the Book of Mormon also claims all the authority—and responsibility—of the original text. The author leaves himself no philological loopholes, though the book, stemming from a number of nations and languages, offers opportunity for many of them. It is a humble document of intensely moral tone, but it does not flinch at reporting unsavory incidents not calculated to please people who think that any mention of horror or bloodshed should be deleted from religious writing.

Next up: External Evidences

Blogging the Bible

In 2006 I began following the blog of David Plotz, a writer for Slate.com, as he explored the Bible from his point of view as "an ignoramus" (his words) .  It now appears that Plotz has written a book based on that experience.

I heard about the book through a personal email he sent out to everyone who had responded in the comments section of his blog on Slate.com.  Given that the email had such a personal tone to it, I decided to respond to a few questions that Plotz had not been able to resolve in his first read-through of the Bible.  I'm posting the questions and answers here in case they're helpful to anyone else.

David,

Congratulations on your new book. I followed your posts and am glad to see that you were able to learn so much from your first reading of the Bible.  I would urge you to read it a second time to obtain even more revealing insights.  This time, instead of a straight-through, face-value reading, try to tie together the various stories with their thematic interrelationships.  

Do this after reading the below answers to some questions you posed.

Q: Why would anyone want to be ruled by a God who's so unmerciful, unjust, unforgiving, and unloving?
A: What leads you to believe that God is the one who was unmerciful, unjust, unforgiving, and unloving?  Is it God's job to force us to be merciful, just, forgiving, and loving?  Or is it our job to conform to His will through the gift of agency He gave us?  It is as disingenuous to say "God made me do it" as it is to say "the devil made me do it".  God gave the Israelites a simple choice on Mt. Sinai: 1) Keep two simple commandments to become a merciful, just, forgiving, and loving people and I will make you a nation of priests like the City of Enoch that was caught up into heaven because of its righteousness.  Everyone who observes you will never attack you for the fear they have of your righteousness in God.  The remainder will simply want to join you in peace. or 2) Break two simple commandments and, as long as you refuse to repent, you'll be left to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of your own choices.  Forgetting God will cause you to forget that you are a brother to all other men, women, and children.  Withholding love from one another will lead to murdering one another.  You will needlessly struggle to get out from under a waterfall of blood, greed, and hatred all because you stubbornly disobey two simple commandments.

Q: Why would He kill the innocent Egyptian children? And why would He delight in it? 

A: Simple answer: God did not kill innocent Egyptian children, nor did He delight in it.  God sent the plague of the Passover to further demonstrate that He was God to a willful and stubborn Pharaoh (as if Pharaoh needed further convincing after all the previous plagues) and that Pharaoh's brutal enslavement of his earthly brethren was abominable.  Pharaoh had plenty of opportunities to conform to God's commandments, but he chose to shake his fist at God in defiance.  When a man becomes that hardened and stiff-necked against God, there is only one way to humble him...take away that which he most values (his son) and/or which gives him earthly power (his heir).  Pharaoh was responsible for the death of  his own son through his pride and disobedience.  He had every opportunity to reverse that outcome by simply letting the Israelites go in peace, but he chose not to.  God never delights in the death of children and I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion.  Please elaborate.

Q: What wrong did we do Him that He should send the flood?

A: It wasn't so much what they did to God directly...it was what they were doing to Him through the scope and breadth of their injustices to each other.  The flood was a drastic response to a world gone completely mad and into self-destruction mode.  It was a situation that could only be corrected by a baptism of the whole earth (to wash away the sin it mankind had spread over its face).  If anything, God was doing each person a favor by sending them back to the spirit world before they heaped even more sins and murders on their own heads.  Read what Peter says about this and the wonderful blessings that were able to come to the ante-diluvian people when Christ taught the prisoners in the spirit world after His resurrection.  Also, read this vision of the prophet Enoch (who lived before the flood), as revealed to and recorded by Moses, to understand God's true character and feelings towards His children.

Q: Which of His Ten Commandments do we actually need?

A: Two.  Jesus answered this question when the Pharisees asked it in an effort to trick Him into saying something contrary to the Law of Moses.  The last verse can even be seen as a clever play on words on Jesus' part.  "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  (Their fathers hung/killed the prophets in direct opposition to this teaching...just as Christ would hang from a cross because of it.)