New Book on the Book of Mormon

John W. Welch of BYU has released a new and exciting book on the Book of Mormon entitled The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. In this new volume, published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Welch explores the trials and legal cases in the Book of Mormon (such as the trial of Abinadi) and attempts to show an ancient context for the reasoning, verdict, and cases presented in each trial. Welch covers many legal cases in this volume, and offers unique insights into all of them in the context of the ancient Near East and biblical law.

Welch is no stranger to Book of Mormon studies. He has written many articles on the Book of Mormon and the ancient world, including, most importantly, the importance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.[1] The reader is highly recommened to read his materials on the FARMS website.

The book may be purchased here: http://www.jrcls.org/book.php or here: http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS?this_category=127&store=439&item_number=3258151&form=shared3%2fgm%2fdetail%2ehtml&design=439

[1] It was Welch who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon while he was on his mission in Germany. To see the whole story, click here.

"First to Cross the Ocean"

As I was traveling by plane last month from New York City to home on a business trip, the National Geographic program playing in the built-in screen on the head rest in front of me was called "Naked Earth: Prehistoric Americans". If you have access to an archive of this show via your National Geographic subscription, I highly recommend it. Evidence examined in the last 20 years blows out of the water that antiquated and increasingly laughable notion that it was purely by the Bering Strait land bridge that only Asians arrived here and were the sole progenitors of the inhabitants found in 1492 by Columbus.

Another show along the same theme is scheduled to air on Thursday, August 28th. It is called "Naked Science: First to Cross the Ocean". My pet peeve about "establishment science" is that it is, perhaps unintentionally, condescending to ancient humans. It says that they were smart enough to do, think, and create many surprisingly sophisticated things, but not to lash together some logs and float across the ocean on currents. In "Prehistoric Americans", at least three probable routes were proposed for migration between oceans: Bering Strait, kelp "highways" extending along the coasts of the Pacific Rim, and a fishing route following the ice-to-sea interface of an ancient glacier in the North Atlantic.

Mormon scholars are often accused of a priori thinking based on inherent prejudices when forming conclusions about ancient history. It's true. We admit that. It's an inevitable part of human nature. But so-called "mainstream scientists" are no different in that they often fall prey to their own cultural biases.

According to establishment science, ancient humans were either stupid or blind. They were simply too primitive to have an original, inventive thought about anything. They had never seen a log float down a river and thought, "Gee, I wonder if I could sit on that and get from point A to point B a lot faster than walking." or "If I tie my cloak to a stick and spread it out, maybe I can use the wind to go even faster." According to the mainstream textbooks, the wheel didn't exist in America until the Spaniards brought it with them. Apparently, no ancient human living on the American continent had ever seen a rock roll down a hill and thought, "Hmm, if I carved that a bit and put a stick through it, like I do with arrowheads and obsidian clubs, I could wheel this pile of dirt on a platform easier than I can carry it in a basket."

If "First to Cross the Ocean" is as good as "Prehistoric Americans" at summarizing the latest research, I guarantee it will knock your socks off.

Mormon Conspiracy Unvail'd!!

Pardon the indulgence into a bit of satire, but I heard the following caller on the Michael Medved radio show and couldn't help myself.

Michael Medved, who is Jewish, has been an outspoken defender of people of the LDS faith whenever callers to his show have tried to attack us. This video adaptation of a typical Michael Medved Show "Conspiracy Day" call from a few weeks ago is a classic that needs to be passed around as much as possible.

Why I (Rob) am a Book of Mormon Apologist

Steve posted his reasons for being a Book of Mormon apologist, and I now feel compelled to do so as well.

I had the privilege of serving an LDS mission in Guatemala. About 8 months into my mission, I purchased a children's copy of the Popol Vuh (if only to match my limited Spanish reading comprehension at the time). One of my district leaders, a fellow from Chiquimula, Guatemala, saw the book and asked me why I had purchased it instead of the full version. When I told him why, he asked me if I understood what it contained. I told him that it looked like any other Native American legend book to me and that I had read many like it in my rural Southwestern U.S. hometown.

He then proceded to school me in what the Popol Vuh means, or should mean, to Latter-day Saints who want to know more about Book of Mormon history. He said that contrary to what his Catholic and secular school teachers had taught when he read it in school, it wasn't just a book of random legends, writings, and mythologies. When read in the context of the Restoration of the Gospel, it was quite literally a fragment of the Gospel knowledge that remained of a post Nephite and declining Lamanite society. Its seemingly esoteric (rather, exoteric) ramblings actually corresponded to real and basic Gospel principles, but in a corrupted and apostate form.

With that in mind, I re-read the Popol Vuh book, with notes my district leader wrote in it to help with the translation into English and possible Gospel concepts, and was astonished at what I had missed. I have plans to make that the subject of another post (or two, or five) because it really is that interesting. But for now, let's just say that this was the catalyst that compelled me to study the Book of Mormon in more depth than ever before.

Toward the end of my mission, an Elder with whom I had come into the mission showed me a book called "The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan" that a local member had given him. I opened it, and with my considerably improved Spanish reading comprehension, was excited to find that it was another local Maya tribe's version of many of the same events and symbols found in the Popol Vuh. The "Title"'s author, during the Spanish conquest of the 1550s, made direct (but today often disputed) claims to a direct descendancy of his people from Israel.

The common linkages I began to see between these two books and Biblical and Book of Mormon concepts and doctrines began to galvanize my desire to fully study the additional physical evidences that must surely exist.

Since then, even though I make no claims to be any kind of professional or experienced anthropologist/archaeologist/ethnographist/etc., I have kept an eye out for anything and everything that might point to evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims. I marvel at the knowledge that has come to light and that experienced scholars such as Daniel Peterson and John Tvedtnes are able to build a solid foundation upon which these evidences can rest.

I want to categorically and undeniably state, at the same time, that I have a firm knowledge, completely independent and antecedent to the above experiences, that the Book of Mormon is true and exactly what it claims to be. Even if the Conquistadores had burned and destroyed every last vestige of Mesoamerican literature and monuments, the hard and simple truths of the book stand on their own, brilliantly testify of the Bible's authenticity, and teach and prophesy correctly of Christ. It is, as Joseph Smith taught, "the most correct of any book on earth". I testify that I have grown closer to God because of it.

Joseph Smith: A True Superman

Check out this awesome video from Seth Adam Smith on Youtube. Really inspirational stuff!

Shaken Faith Syndrome

Have you ever had a shaken testimony? What about friends or family? If so, then Mike Ash (owner and proprietor of www.mormonfortress.com) has just the book for you. In this new volume entitled Shaken Faith Syndrome, Mike details some of the ways to strengthen one's testimony in the face of criticisms and doubt and offers introductions to some of the apologetic responses to hard questions about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, Church history and doctrine and dealing with cognitive dissonance (or thought disharmony).

The book is basically divided into two sections. The first section is an introduction to dealing with doubt and criticisms of the Church and includes the following chapters:

1. Dealing with Doubt

2. Ex-Mormons, Critics, and Fundamentalist Assumptions

3. Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets

4. Confusing Tradition with Doctrine (This section can be read online here.)

5. Paradigms, Evidence, and Imposing Our Views on Others

6. Scholarly, Historical and Scientific Limitations & Unrealistic Expectations

7. Betrayal and Church "Cover-up"

8. Adding Cognitions (Beliefs)

9. Anti-Mormon Disdain for LDS Scholarship and Apologetics

10. Summary to Part 1: "The Answers Are Out There"

While Mike has something to offer in all of these areas, chapter 6 was my favorite. In this chapter, Mike points out several things which includes:

1. That anti-Mormons rarely deal with real LDS scholarship and instead rely on straw men most of the time.

2. That, contrary to anti-Mormon allegations, LDS scholars are real scholars with real degrees from prestigious universities.

3. That LDS scholars are widely accepted in mainstream academia and their works are often cited favorably by non-LDS scholarly venues.

4. That a number of non-LDS researchers are coming to recognize aspects of LDS scholarship.

Part two of Mike's book then tackles some of the issues raised by anti-Mormons or critics and includes chapters on the following:

11. Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Modern Egyptology (This is a section on the Book of Abraham that I highly recommend be read)

12. Anachronisms: The Wrong Things at the Wrong Times

13. Book of Mormon Geography

14. Book of Mormon Textual Changes

15. DNA and the Book of Mormon

16. Fulness of the Gospel

17. Joseph's Environment and the Book of Mormon

18. Others in the Book of Mormon

19. Reformed Egyptian and Book of Mormon Languages

20. Who are the "Lamanites"?

21. The Book of Mormon Witnesses

22. Journal of Discourses

23. Kinderhook Plates

24. Plural Marriage

25. The Temple (This is also a good chapter that I highly recommend)

26. The First Vision

27. "Magic", Treasure Digging, and the Young Joseph Smith

28. Part II Summary: Conclusions

There is much that could be said about this wonderful book, but I will let the reader see for him or herself. All in all, it is a fine volume that offers a good introduction to Mormon apologetics and is an excellent resource in helping strengthen one's (as well as one's family and friends) testimony in the face of criticisms and doubt.

Article(s) of the Week: Matt Roper on Pre-Columbian Populations and the Book of Mormon

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered into such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today." - Simon Southerton, leading critic of the Book of Mormon based on DNA research.

Matt Roper, a scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, has written extensively on Book of Mormon issues. One of my favorites that I just read recently comes from the FARMS Review and covers two topics; 1) treatments on Book of Mormon geography from past LDS researchers and leaders and 2) whether or not the Book of Mormon talks about there being "others" than the Nehpites, Lamanites, Jaredites and Mulekites. 

One of the key criticisms against the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence is as follows:

1. The Book of Mormon claims that the Western Hemisphere was empty of native populations when Lehi and his family arrived.

2. This means that the peoples described in the Book of Mormon must therefore be the ancestors of modern Native Americans.

3. DNA has disproven that Native Americans come from a Middle Eastern background (as the Book of Mormon claims)

4. This means that the Book of Mormon is false, etc.

Furthermore, the critics contend, LDS scholars have been backed into the corner of a Limited Geography for the Book of Mormon because of DNA and any attempt to correlate the Book of Mormon in a small, localized area in Mesoamerica is not only ad hoc but also at odds with previous LDS leaders opinions on Book of Mormon geography.

As Matt Roper shows in this article, however, such reasoning is unfounded. First, Roper demonstrates that the idea of a Limited Geography for the Book of Mormon - which would entail the peoples described in the Book of Mormon intermarrying and intermingling with native populations - is nothing new. From the days or Orson Pratt in the late 1800's, LDS researchers have been postulating a Limited Geography. And while it is true that a popular interpretation of Book of Mormon geography amongst Latter-day Saints (including high ranking LDS leaders) has been to assume that the Book of Mormon events took place all over North and South America with Lehi as the ancestor of every single Native American, Roper shows how this interpretation has been seriously challenged by LDS researchers for decades.

Roper further goes on to write how the Book of Mormon gives clues and hints throughout its pages that Lehi and his family quickly began interacting with native populations and how the Nephite and Lamanite cultures quickly became assimilated into already existing Mesoamerican cultures and populations. As a matter of fact, Roper shows, the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" do not necessarily carry hereditary meanings but can also convey socio-political identifications and meanings.

In short, Roper concludes, there are just too many factors to deal with before we can safely test the Book of Mormon on DNA grounds. So, for a fascinating read and some very exciting insights, I recommend Matt Roper's essay as this article of the week.

Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations by Matt Roper.

Kerry Shirts on the Book of Mormon Witnesses

My favorite online apologist, Kerry Shirts (aka the Backyard Professor), has produced some new videos on the Book of Mormon 3 & 8 Witnesses and a refutation of critical charges of fraud or delusion on the part of the witnesses. Furthermore, the works of Richard L. Anderson, specifically his book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses and his many articles on the Neal A. Maxwell Institute website are strongly recommended as further reading on this subject.

Video 1



Video 2

Video 3

The Second Book of Nephi (2 Nephi 1)

The Second Book of Nephi carries us fully into the new and promised land we now know to be the Americas. This book, like 1st Nephi, holds many prophecies about the Western hemisphere. In chapter 1, we also learn more about Israel being scattered and a last effort by Lehi to invite Laman and Lemuel to repent.

Lehi was the patriarch or oldest living male of the group. The word "patriarch" is of Greek derivation and means father-ruler; the Hebrew word it translates is simply father. Lehi held the priesthood "after the holy order of the Son of God", or, for short, the Melchizedek priesthood. It was the same priesthood authority held by Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Moses. As such, it held the keys (or permission) to give father's blessings such as what Issac gave to Jacob and Esau and what Jacob (Israel) gave to his twelve sons.

In 2 Nephi chapters 1 through 4, Lehi gives a father's blessing to the following (in order of mention by chapter):

1. Laman - chapter 1
   
2. Lemuel - chapter 1
   
3. Sam - chapter 1
   
4. Sons of Ishmael - chapter 1
   
5. Zoram - chapter 1
   
6. Jacob - chapter 2
   
7. Joseph - chapter 3
   
8. Children of Laman - chapter 4
9. Children of Lemuel - chapter 4
10. Children of Sons of Ishmael - chapter 4
    
11. Children of Sam - chapter 4
    

It is notable that:

• The order of blessings follows that of Hebrew tradition--that is from oldest to youngest--with the exception of the Children of the Sons of Ishmael and the Children of Sam switching places in the age hierarchy. That Joseph Smith, if he had made it all up out of his head, didn't simply go the easier route and just list these descendants in the same order as their fathers is striking. One wonders if perhaps Ishmael's sons' descendants were somehow, on average, older than the children of Sam.
  
• Zoram and the sons of Ishmael were not Lehi's blood descendants. They receive the father's blessing from Lehi because Ishmael had passed away at Nahom, back on the Arabian peninsula, and Zoram had joined the group as part of an oath to Nephi without his own father accompanying him.
• Lehi doesn't specifically address Nephi. He really only makes reference to Nephi when comparing to and contrasting with Nephi's blessings the blessings that others will receive. There isn't much in the text to suggest why this is the case. One might suppose that Nephi was simply too modest to include his own blessing in these chapters, or that he felt it was sufficiently covered in his own written prophecies.

As expected at this point, Laman and Lemuel's patriarchal blessings were full of dire warnings that terrible things would happen to their posterity if they didn't repent and obey the commandments from the Lord through Nephi. They had "pushed their luck" far too much and were being told in no uncertain terms that they were at a tipping point. Either they would be obedient and be blessed, or they would rebel and the family would split up, Nephi's descendants would be blessed materially and spiritually, and Laman and Lemuel's would be cursed materially and spiritually.

In chapter 1, Lehi also rejoices in his own blessings:

• "the mercies of God in sparing their lives, that they were not swallowed up in the sea"
• "how ^amerciful the Lord had been in ^bwarning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem"
• "had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have ^eperished"
• "we have obtained a ^aland of promise, a land which is ^bchoice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath ^ccovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed"

Additionally, Lehi sets forth the conditions under which the Lord allows any people to inhabit the Americas:

• "they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given"
• "if iniquity shall abound ^ccursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever"
• "this land should be ^akept as yet from the knowledge of other ^bnations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance"
• ^"binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves"
• "when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in ^aunbelief...if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them"

Lehi is speaking out of the dust to all Americans--from the northernmost reaches of Canada down to Tierra del Fuego. 2 Nephi 1:10 is therefore one of the most important verses any of us here in the Western hemisphere can read if we value "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The Grace of Apologetics or Why I am an Apologist

In light of the recent 2008 FAIR Conference, I have been reflecting on what it means for me to be an apologist and why I believe apologetics are necessary in today's modern Church just as it has always been necessary in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The Apostle Peter, in 1 Peter 3:15 gives us the admonition to "always be ready to give an answer[1] to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear[2]". Furthermore, Jude in Jude 1:3 tells us that we should be "earnestly contend[ing] for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints". And finally, the Lord in D&C 71 instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to "confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private..." and indicated that "...inasmuch as ye are faithful, their shame shall be manifest. Wherefore," the Lord continued. "let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord"(vs.7-8).

Thus we see that as falsehoods and lies about the Truth of God continue to spread and multiply amongst the children of men, we, as Saints of the Lord in these latter days, have been given a charge to correct these errors, put down these criticisms and engage in these battles between truth and falsehood. For these reasons, I am proud to call myself a Mormon apologist and am not afraid to identify myself as a defender of the Prophet Joseph Smith, his revelations, life, legacy and ministry as well as the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church today. 

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia which means to "speak in defense" of a certain position or view. Anyone who defends a certain argument is an apologist. Even those critical of something, while simultaneously critics, are also apologists for their (critical) views. The most famous apologist, of course, was the philosopher Socrates, who famously defended his life against his accusers in his famous Apology of Socrates. In ancient Greece, the defendant in a court case was called an apologist for himself or his case, since he was arguing in defense of something. Therefore, the term "apologetics" or "apologist" does not have the same connotation as it does today in that apologists generally are not sorry about anything. 

It must be understood that the truth of the LDS faith and the claims of Joseph Smith, like any other religion, lies within the realm of spirituality and thus only a personal spiritual testimony can truly "prove" that the Church is true. Indeed, it is only by revelation, the Scriptures assure us, and not reason that can testify to us that Jesus is the Christ and that God lives. Just like Peter, who was told that it was not "flesh and blood" that revealed to him that Jesus is the Christ but instead "my Father which is in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17), so we as well are to gain a personal testimony by revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No amount of rational argumentation or evidence can prove that the Church is true, so anyone wishing to get involved in apologetics should understand that apologetics is not about "proving" anything.

What, then, is the intention of Mormon apologetics? I believe that it is three fold.

1. Correct falsehoods. There are some pernicious lies as well as sincere misunderstandings regarding the history and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apologetics helps in correcting these falsehoods and misunderstandings.

2. Silence criticisms. There are some loud (and sometimes obnoxious) critics of the Church who may tout some "problem(s)" with the Church's history, teachings or scriptures and dine to the ears of the public that these reasons alone constitute enough purpose to not join or even leave the Church. Critics often like to bring up topics such as Book of Mormon "anachronisms", Joseph Smith's character, the Book of Abraham, polygamy, Mountain Meadows Massacre or something similar and hail this "overwhelming evidence" as the final death nail for the LDS Church. Many of these criticisms, however, are unfounded and have been dealt with again and again by LDS researchers and scholars. Apologetics, therefore, helps in silencing these criticisms and giving answers to the objections raised by the critics.

3. Gain appreciation for the nature and splendor of LDS scripture. Hugh Nibley wrote in 1968 that "long experience has shown that the Latter-day Saints only become aware of the nature and genius of their modern scriptures when relentless and obstreperous criticisms from the outside forces them to take a closer look at what they have, with the usual result of putting those scriptures in a much stronger position than they were before."[3] With Apologetics, therefore, deeper appreciation for the Church or the Scriptures is sought in order to create an atmosphere that can enhance or encourage faith and progression. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "only by proving contraries can truth be made manifest."[4]

Furthermore, as the Church expands and continues to interact with the public at large, so too will the anti-Mormon[5] industry. Therefore, a call has been issued by Elder M. Russell Ballard for members of the Church to "shar[e] the Gospel using the internet" and that "we cannot sit on the sidelines while we allow others - including our critics - attempt to define what the Church teaches." Elder Ballard further explains that while "we cannot answer every question, satisfy every inquiry and respond to every inaccuracy that exists..." we should nevertheless "continually share the gospel with others."[6]

That is why I am an apologist and that is why I think that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should continue to "contend for the faith" that has been delivered to them in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times by the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord's anointed Prophet, Seer and Revelator. After all, as Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, we should never allow the critics of make "uncontested slam dunks" against the Church.[7]

Notes:

[1]: A more correct translation of the Greek would be apologia which, as was explained earlier, is the root for the word apologetics.

[2]: Or reverence, awe.

[3]: Improvement Era, Jan. 1968 pg. 18

[4]: Quoted by Kerry Shirts on his website Mormonism Researched. 

[5]: By "anti-Mormon" I mean those who actively and restlessly attack the Church with books, articles, tracts, websites and ministries (i.e. Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner and Bill McKeever). I do not mean, however, those who may simply have disagreements with the Church or still have questions as to the authenticity of the claims of Joseph Smith.

[6]: "Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet" by Elder M. Russell Ballard. Ensign, July 2008

[7]: As quoted by Hal G. Ferguson in "I have a Question". Ensign, January 1995.