FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice.
Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Scriptures Concerns & Questions
Response to "Letter to a CES Director: Scriptures Concerns & Questions"
|Science Concerns & Questions||
A FairMormon Analysis of: Letter to a CES Director, a work by author: Jeremy Runnells
|Other Concerns & Questions|
Response to section "Scriptures Concerns & Questions"Summary: The author states that "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on."
Jump to Subtopic:
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed..." (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide...pillage, plunder...2. Numbers 31...3. 1 Nephi 4...7. Numbers 21: 5-9" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...rape...selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy...sexism...8. Judges 19:22-29" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...slavery" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...racism" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...human sacrifice" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...child abuse" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "that Laban would send his servants after Nephi and his brothers is ridiculous considering that the same God who had no problem lighting stones and taming swarms of bees" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors?" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...stoning disobedient children...killing people who worked on the Sabbath, death penalty for those that mixed cotton with polyester...Got a rebellious kid who doesn’t listen? Take him to the elders and to the end of the gates and stone him to death!" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "1. D&C 132" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
- Response to claim: "I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed..."
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...
[…]The problem with this is that the crazy god of the Old Testament was Jehovah. Who’s Jehovah? The premortal Jesus Christ. So, Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament. The Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament are light years different.
As a believing Mormon, I tried to rationalize some of the craziness by saying, “Oh, this is in the crazy Old Testament when the Law of Moses was in force. Christ came and fulfilled the Law of Moses.”
The author has many concerns about the scriptures. None of the things listed are "endorsed" by God. There are several things that can be misunderstood about the scriptures that can cause concern without a proper framework to view them through. Without it, it is easy to be bogged down by how critics misrepresent and misunderstand the scriptures. At the beginning of this section from the author, we give a suggested hermeneutic for viewing these things from the scriptures. It can show a unified purpose to some of that "craziness" in the Bible.
Jump to Detail:
- Question: How can one approach reconciling confusing, seemingly disturbing, or otherwise troubling texts from the scriptures?
- Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?
Question: How can one approach reconciling confusing, seemingly disturbing, or otherwise troubling texts from the scriptures?
Read it in context
The scriptures contain a lot that we cannot understand at first without a lot of context. Biblical scholars have, for many decades, been trying to understand the original context of each of the Bible’s pericopes in order to understand God’s will with each verse. We advise readers to see this article in order to understand context. Once read in context, many passages that seem confusing now can be clarified with additional insights that highlight symbology, progress compared to contemporary civilizations, etc.
Read it holistically
When one can read the scriptures holistically, that is, noting everything that they have to say on a certain topic, the theology can make greater sense and one can know all that God has currently revealed on any given topic.
The “Is-Ought” fallacy
It should be noted and remembered that just because something is described that such behavior may not always be prescribed. Readers should be careful to read the scriptures with this in mind. Just because the scriptures record something that is strange, offensive, or repulsive, does not mean that the scriptures are stating that someone ought to act similarly. It has been pointed out that some things are just negative examples to not follow (1 Cor 10:1-12).
Adopt a solid hermeneutic
The bible has been read many ways by scholars over a long period of time. Hermeneutics are the general frameworks that people read the scriptures with in order to process information from it. Some readers process the bible very literally, historically accurate, always morally sound, etc. Others read the scriptures as interesting literature only and don’t have very set beliefs on anything regarding revelation and how it works. For our purposes, we will suggest one hermeneutic to read the scriptures (and the bible in particular). This we will do by looking at modern revelation and combining the views of two scholars of the bible: Paul Copan and Kenton Sparks. The two men actually hold views that are close to each other, yet Sparks stands a part from Copan in that—where Copan affirms that God was behind the inspiration of these less-than-ideal laws, Sparks sees no way to provide a “full-orbed, detailed explanation” to trace things back to God However both men affirm that the Old Testament contains less than ideal circumstances and that scripture does have a redemptive move to it. The author would agree with both men in that the Old Testament does move beyond its morally inferior context in sometimes startling ways, but that because they are less than ideal, they can stand in need of redemption—of Christ’s redeeming power. First, modern revelation. We suggest readers see our discussion of the nature of revelation here.
Paul Copan on incremental steps for hardened hearts
The Law of Moses: Inferior and Provisional
On Palm Sunday in 1865, the brilliant Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered to the tenacious, gritty Northern general Ulysses S. Grant—sometimes called “Unconditional Surrender” Grant. This day at the Appomattox Court House was the decisive end to a costly war. Well over six hundred thousand men were killed in the Civil War—2 percent of the United States’ population—and three million fought in it.
Despite the North’s victory, the Emancipation Proclamation that preceded it (January 1, 1863), and the attempt at Reconstruction in the South, many whites did not change their mind-set in regard to blacks. As a nation, we’ve found that proclamations and civil rights legislations may be law, but such legalities don’t eradicate racial prejudice from human minds. A good deal of time was required to make significant headway in the pursuit of racial justice.
Let’s switch gears. Imagine a Western nation or representatives from the West who think it best to export democracy to, say, Saudi Arabia. Think of the obstacles to overcome! A radical change of mind-set would be required, and simply changing laws wouldn’t alter the thinking in Saudi Arabia. In fact, you could probably imagine large-scale cultural opposition to such changes. When we journey back over the millennia into the ancient Near East, we enter a world that is foreign to us in many ways. Life in the ancient Near East wouldn’t just be alien to us—with all of its strange ways and assumptions. We would also see a culture whose social structures were badly damaged by the fall. Within this context, God raised up a covenant nation and gave the people laws to live by; he helped to create a culture for them. In doing so, he adapted his ideals to a people whose attitudes and actions were influenced by deeply flawed structures. As we’ll see with regard to servitude, punishments, and other structures, a range of regulations and statutes in Israel reveals a God who accommodates. Yet contrary to the common Neo-atheists’ caricatures, these laws weren’t the permanent, divine ideal for all persons everywhere. God informed his people that a new, enduring covenant would be necessary (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). By the Old Testament’s own admission, the Mosaic law was inferior and future looking. Does that mean that God’s ideals turn up only in the New Testament? No, the ideals are established at the very beginning (Gen. 1–2). The Old Testament makes clear that all humans are God’s image-bearers; they have dignity, worth, and moral responsibility. And God’s ideal for marriage is a one-flesh monogamous union between husband and wife. Also, certain prohibitions in the law of Moses against theft, adultery, murder, and idolatry have enduring relevance. Yet when we look at God’s dealings with fallen humans in the ancient Near East, these ideals were ignored and even deeply distorted. So God was at work in seeking to restore or move toward this ideal.
We know that many products on the market have a built-in, planned obsolescence. They’re designed for the short-term; they’re not intended to be long-lasting and permanent. The same goes for the law of Moses: it was never intended to be enduring. It looked forward to a new covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). It’s not that the Mosaic law was bad and therefore needed to be replaced. The law was good (Rom. 7:12), but it was a temporary measure that was less than was less than ideal; it was in need of replacement and fulfillment.
Though a necessary part of God’s unfolding plan, the Sinai legislation wasn’t God’s final word. As the biblical scholar N. T. Wright affirms, “The Torah [law of Moses at Sinai] is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished.” This is the message of the New Testament book of Hebrews: the old Mosaic law and other Old Testament institutions and figures like Moses and Joshua were prefiguring “shadows” that would give way to “substance” and completion. Or as Paul put it in Galatians 3:24, the law was a “tutor” for Israel to prepare the way for Christ.
Incremental Steps toward the Ideal
How then did God address the patriarchal structures, primogeniture (rights of the firstborn), polygamy, warfare, servitude/slavery, and a number of other fallen social arrangements that were permitted because of the hardness of human hearts? He met Israel partway. As Jesus stated it in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” We could apply this passage to many problematic structures within the ancient Near Eastern context: “Because of your hardness of “heart Moses permitted servitude and patriarchy and warfare and the like, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” They were not ideal and universal.
After God invited all Israelites—male and female, young and old—to be a nation of priests to God, he gave them a simple covenant code (Exod. 20:22– 23:19). Following on the heels of this legislation, Israel rebelled against God in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32). High priests would also have their own rebellion by participating in deviant, idolatrous worship (Lev. 10). As a result of Israel’s turning from God, he gave them more stringent laws (Jer. 7; cf. Gal. 3:19). In the New Testament, Paul assumes that God had been putting up with inferior, less-than-ideal societal structures and human disobedience:
• Acts 17:30: Previously, God “overlooked the times of ignorance” and is “now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.”
• Romans 3:25: God has now “demonstrate[d] His righteousness” in Christ, though “in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”
Like two sides of the same coin, we have human hard-heartedness and divine forbearance. God put up with many aspects of human fallenness and adjusted accordingly. So Christopher Hitchens’s reaction to Mosaic laws (“we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals”) actually points us in the right direction in two ways. First, the Mosaic law was temporary and, as a whole, isn’t universal and binding upon all humans or all cultures. Second, Mosaic times were indeed “crude” and “uncultured” in many ways. So Sinai legislation makes a number of moral improvements without completely overhauling ancient Near Eastern social structures and assumptions. God “works with” Israel as he finds her. He meets his people where they are while seeking to show them a higher ideal in the context of ancient Near Eastern life. As one writer puts it, “If human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand.” Given certain fixed assumptions in the ancient Near East, God didn’t impose legislation that Israel wasn’t ready for. He moved incrementally. As stated repeatedly in the Old Testament and reinforced in the New Testament, the law of Moses was far from ideal. Being the practical God he is, Yahweh (the Old Testament title for the covenant-making God) met his people where they were, but he didn’t want to leave them there. God didn’t banish all fallen, flawed, ingrained social structures when Israel wasn’t ready to handle the ideals. Taking into account the actual, God encoded more feasible laws, though he directed his people toward moral improvement. He condescended by giving Israel a jumping-off place, pointing them to a better path.
As we move through the Scriptures, we witness a moral advance—or, in many ways, a movement toward restoring the Genesis ideals. In fact, Israel’s laws reveal dramatic moral improvements over the practices of the other ancient Near Eastern peoples. God’s act of incrementally “humanizing” ancient Near Eastern structures for Israel meant diminished harshness and an elevated status of debt-servants, even if certain negative customs weren’t fully eliminated.
So when we read in Joshua 10:22–27 that Joshua killed five Canaanite kings and hung their corpses on trees all day, we don’t have to explain away or justify such a practice. Such actions reflect a less morally refined condition. Yet these sorts of texts remind us that, in the unfolding of his purposes, God can use heroes such as Joshua within their context and work out his redemptive purposes despite them. And, as we’ll see later on, warfare accounts in Joshua are actually quite tame in comparison to the barbarity of other ancient Near Eastern accounts.
So rather than looking at Scripture from a post-Enlightenment critique (which, as we’ll see later, is itself rooted in the Christian influence on Western culture), we can observe that Scripture itself acknowledges the inferiority of certain Old Testament standards. The Old Testament offers national Israel various resources to guide them regarding what is morally ideal. God’s legislation is given to a less morally mature culture that has imbibed the morally inferior attitudes and sinful practices of the ancient Near East.
Note too that common ancient Near Eastern worship patterns and rituals—sacrifices, priesthood, holy mountains/places, festivals, purification rites, circumcision—are found in the law of Moses. For example, we find in Hittite law a sheep being substituted for a man. In his providence, God appropriated certain symbols and rituals familiar to Israel and infused them with new meaning and significance in light of his saving, historical acts and his covenant relationship with Israel.  This “redemption” of ancient rituals and patterns and their incorporation into Israel’s own story reflect common human longings to connect with “the sacred” or “the transcendent” or to find grace and forgiveness. In God’s historical redemption of Israel and later with the coming of Christ, the Lamb of God, these kinds of rituals and symbols were fulfilled in history and were put in proper perspective. Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old Testament, we should freely acknowledge them. We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1–2 and affirm with our critics that we don’t have to advocate such practices for all societies. We can also show that any of the objectionable practices we find in the Old Testament have a contrary witness in the Old Testament as well.
The Redemptive Movement of Scripture
The Old Testament’s laws exhibit a redemptive movement within Scripture. It’s easy to get stuck on this or that isolated verse—all the while failing to see the underlying redemptive spirit and movement of Scripture that unfold and progress. For example, William Webb’s book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals unpacks this “redemptive-movement” perspective found in Scripture. The contrast is the static interpretation that rigidly “parks” at certain texts without considering the larger movement of Scripture. Some people might ask, “Is this some sort of relativistic idea—that certain laws were right for Old Testament Israel but now there’s another standard that’s right for us?” Not at all! Keep in mind the following thoughts we’ve already touched on:
• God’s ultimate ideals regarding human equality and dignity as well as the creational standard of marriage made their appearance at the very beginning (Gen. 1–2).
• The ancient Near East displays a deviation from these ideals in fallen social structures and human hard-heartedness.
• Incremental steps are given to Old Testament Israel that tolerate certain moral deficiencies but encourage Israel to strive higher.
So the Old Testament isn’t affirming relativism—that was true in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament. God’s ideals were already in place at creation, but God accommodated himself to human hard-heartedness and fallen social structures. Half a loaf is better than none—something we take for granted in the give-and-take of the political process in the West. In other words, the idea that you can make progress toward the ideal, even if you can’t get there all at once, is a far cry from relativism. Rather, your eye is still set on the ideal, and you’re incrementally moving toward it, but the practicalities of life “on the ground” make it difficult to implement the ideal all at once. Likewise, the Sinai laws were moving in the right direction even if certain setbacks remained.
Israel’s History: Differing Stages, Different Demands
Israel’s story involves a number of stages or contexts.
Stage #1: Ancestral wandering clan (mishpachah): Genesis 10:31–32
Stage #2: Theocratic people/nation (‘am, goy): Genesis 12:2; Exodus 1:9; 3:7; Judges 2:20
Stage #3: Monarchy, institutional state, or kingdom (mamlakah, malkut): 1 Samuel 24:20; 1 Chronicles 28:5
Stage #4: Afflicted remnant (she’erit): Jeremiah 42:4; Ezekiel 5:10
Stage #5: Postexilic community/assembly of promise (qahal): Ezra 2:64; Nehemiah 13:1
With these differing contexts come differing ethical demands. Each new situation calls for differing ethical responses or obligations corresponding to them. Don’t get the wrong idea, however. It’s not as though this view advocates “situation ethics”—that in some situations, say, adultery is wrong, but in other situations it might be the "loving thing to do". Rather, the Old Testament supplies us with plenty of permanent moral insights from each of these stages. So during the wandering clan stage, we gain enduring insights about commitments of mutual love and concern as well as the importance of reconciliation in overcoming conflict. The patriarchs trusted in a covenant-making God; this God called for full trust as he guided them through difficult, unforeseeable circumstances. And during Israel’s theocratic stage, an enduring insight is the need to acknowledge that all blessings and prosperity come from God’s hand—that they aren’t a right but a gift of grace. The proper response is gratitude and living holy lives in keeping with Israel’s calling.
Again, what we’re emphasizing is far from moral relativism; it’s just that along with these historical changes came differing ethical challenges. During the wandering clan stage, for instance, Abraham and the other patriarchs had only accidental or exceptional political involvements. And even when Abraham had to rescue Lot after a raid (Gen. 14), he refused to profit from political benefactors. Through a covenant-bond, Yahweh was the vulnerable patriarchs’ protector and supplier. After this, Israel had to wait 430 years and undergo bondage in Egypt until the bag of Amorite sins was filled to the point of bursting (Gen. 15:16). God certainly didn’t act hastily against the Canaanites! God delivered Israel out of slavery, providing a place for her to live and making her a political entity, a history-making nation. A theocracy was then formed with its own religious, social, and political environment.
To acquire land to live as a theocracy and eventually to pave the way for a coming Redeemer-Messiah, warfare (as a form of judgment on fully ripened sin) was involved. God used Israel to neutralize Canaanite military strongholds and drive out a people who were morally and spiritually corrupt—beyond redemption. The Canaanites had sunk below the hope of moral return, although God wouldn’t turn away those who recognized God’s justice and his power in delivering Israel from Egypt (such as Rahab and her family). This settling of the land was a situation quite different from the wandering clan stage, and it required a different response.Later, when many of God’s people were exiled in Babylon, they were required to handle this situation differently than in the previous theocratic stage. They were to build gardens, settle down, have children, and pray for the welfare of Babylon—the very enemy that had displaced them by carrying them into exile (Jer. 29:4–7). Israel’s obligations and relationship to Gentile nations hardly remained fixed or static.
Kenton Sparks on recognizing that scripture is in need of redemption and not immune from criticism
What we face, I think, is the ethical difficulty I mentioned earlier in passing: the problem of scripture is the problem of evil. Just as God's good and beautiful creation stands in need of redemption, so
Scripture -as God's word written within and in relation to that creation, by finite and fallen humans -stands in need of redemption. Scripture does more than witness explicitly to the fallenness of the created order and humanity. Scripture is implicitly, in itself, a product of and evidence for the fallen world that it describes.
Given what we have said so far, I would join other scholars in suggesting that a robust doctrine of Scripture should not presume that the text is immune from criticism." [...]
Both humanity and Scripture are God's good works and serve a role in his redemptive work. And though this is true, both are marred by the effects of the Fall. The presence in Scripture of this distortion no more compromises its status as God's word than the distortion in humanity compromises its status as God's creation. The Fall's effect on humanity and Scripture remind us that both stand in need of redemption. In each case, we must render thoughtful judgments about where they are rightly ordered and where they reflect the Fall's disordering effects. When we make these judgments about Scripture, true, we follow the admonition of Augustine, who long ago taught that:Anything in the divine writings that cannot be referred either to good, honest morals, or to the truth of the faith, you must know is said allegorically.... Those things ... which appear to the inexperienced to be sinful, and which are ascribed to God, or to men whose holiness is put before us as an example, are wholly allegorical, and the hidden kernel of meaning they contain is to be picked out as food for the nourishment of charity.While I do not fully agree with Augustine's allegorical solution, I very much agree with his sense of the problem. Scripture's natural meaning sometimes runs contrary to the Gospel and, where it does, begs for a hermeneutical explanation. Unlike Augustine, I would attribute these theological tensions to the fact that the Bible is both sacred and broken, which reflects God's choice to sanctify the broken, human voices of Scripture as his divine word.
It should be mentioned that "broken" in Sparks' view is labeling what he sees as the identification of things in scripture that absolutely cannot be traced back to God in any sense. The author does agree with Sparks that it is not immune from criticism. "Broken" to the author of this article is seen better as recognizing the following that makes up the suggested hermeneutic:
- A fallen world, morally inferior context in which certain laws are given.
- Laws that rise above the fallen and morally inferior context (and with it a need to read the scriptures contextually and holistically).
- A redemptive move from inferior to better moral law with differing historical contexts that called for differing needs.
- Because of less-than-ideal laws, a need for redemption and fulfillment in Christ. Also, since less then ideal, the laws don't remain entirely immune from criticism. Though they do deserve our careful attention including a contextual reading that helps us how they fulfill #2.
- Christ’s atonement that covered the sins of all of fallen mankind.
It’s the author’s belief that this hermeneutic shouldn’t be troubling to Latter-day Saints who have traditionally understood the law of Moses to be a “lesser” law. This understanding may deepen with continued study of the scriptures and the moral questions associated with some confusing (and sometimes very troubling if not properly understood) passages.
Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?
First, we should understand the nature of revelation
The scriptures won't be understood if we don't understand the nature of revelation. This is addressed here.
To best understand the scriptures, you must read them in context
When trying to understand the scriptures and interpret them correctly, one must read them from the perspective of the people who wrote them. Many LDS prophets and apostles have spoken about reading passages in context. Statements may be found here. Additionally, the scriptures themselves indicate the danger of wresting their meaning including 2 Peter 3:16 Alma 13:20, Alma 41:1 , and D&C 10:63
Brigham Young stated:
Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households. You may understand what the Prophets understood and thought—what they designed and planned to bring forth to their brethren for their good.” Journal of Discourses 7: 333
There are four types of context that should be established while reading any given scripture
The Bible in particular contains different “genres” of scripture as it is understood by scholars. This includes historical narratives such as Exodus, Joshua, Kings, Samuel, and so forth, poetry as in the Book of Psalms or Proverbs, Prophetic books such as Isaiah, Obadiah, Jeremiah, etc.
We know that there is no revelation that exists without a historical context given to it. The historical context includes a time that something is written and by the same token the authorship. The scriptures are mostly written in the third person which may suggest that an author is either reminiscing about an event from the past, that he/she may be using different sources like a historian to reconstruct elements from the past, or perhaps that he/she is constructing an etiology to describe different phenomena present in the world.
Sometimes, the authors and prophets of the scriptures will use phrases that they know are familiar to their immediate audience but which fly over our heads when reading scripture. The confusion is brought out because we don’t know what they are referring to.
LDS Scholar Ben Spackman elaborates:
Things go without being said. And this is because, again, the authors and preachers in the Old Testament were talking to contemporaries. If I get up in sacrament meeting and I say ‘You know I went to Paris last summer by plane—by the way a plane is a kind of conveyance that travels at great speed through the air and Paris is the capital city of a country in Europe which is far east of here…’ I don’t bother explaining what I assume you already know. The Old Testament authors assumed that their contemporaries understood these things. So when you get into Isaiah and it is just full, I mean, he is name dropping and place dropping and talking about stuff, he assumes everyone understands that because he’s talking to contemporaries. And we’re not contemporaries so we don’t. One example, there’s the phrase ‘From Dan to Beersheba’ that shows up sometimes in the Old Testament. Beersheba was the southernmost border of Israel and Dan the northernmost. So saying ‘Dan to Beersheba’ is kind of like saying ‘coast to coast’ ‘from New York to L.A.’. But unless you can place those on a map, you don’t understand the significance that lies behind that phrase. So there is a knowledge gap between us and the Old Testament that we need to fill.”
The utterances in the scriptures are full of thought units that are many times logically connected with many verses. Any verse should be read within the context of the verses preceding and succeeding it. This will help us to better understand what an author or prophet is saying.
Since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek, we need to understand the meaning of the words used to write scripture in order to properly catch their meaning. Additionally, when reading the KJV, there are many words that have changed meaning over time. Words are diachronic. That is, they can change meaning with time. An example of this is the word “virtue” in the Bible
In Ruth 3:11 we read “And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requires: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.”
And in Proverbs 31:10 we read:
“Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies. “
With these verses we might easily conclude that the King James translators were referring to virtue as we understand it today which would be to be of a clean mind and heart as it came to chastity. However, a confusing case arises in the New Testament
Luke 6:19 reads “And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.”
So, virtue left Jesus’ body after a woman touched him? Or is our definition of virtue perhaps different than that of the King James translators? The definition was closer to power than chaste thinking as we would understand it today.
As we understand both the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek term and the English term translated into our King James Version, the better we will be able to understand the scriptures as the ancients understood them, per Brigham Young’s and many others' council.
To understand all of these contextual matters, many Latter-day Saints have found use in using scriptural commentaries and study bibles such as the Harper Collins Study Bible, the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, and the Jewish Study Bible. These study bibles contain essays at the beginning of each book to help explain authorship, historical place in canon, historical context in which the book was written, and literary value before allowing the reader to move forward with their study. The bibles also contain explanatory footnotes which allow the reader to see how an author is alluding to other passages of scripture and how one can best understand such phenomena. For Latter-day Saint scripture, members have enjoyed reading similar analytical commentaries such as Brant Gardner's Second Witness for the Book of Mormon or the Church's new volume on the Doctrine and Covenants "Revelations in Context" available on lds.org
Scripture must be read holistically. Both to understand what we need to defend and to understand all that the Lord wants us to understand about any given topic.
If we are to understand scripture, then it must be taken in stride with other revelation on the topic. For example, to understand creation we should both read the creation accounts contained in scripture and understand that the Lord has not revealed all things pertaining to creation but will reveal them at his coming (D&C 101:32-34). This will help us to not get caught in too much doctrinal unraveling in the future. Even scholarship on certain scriptures must be taken in stride with other revelation such as the Deutero-Isaiah theory. This caution is demonstrated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Latter-day Saints recognize Bible scholarship and intellectual study of the biblical text. Joseph Smith and his associates studied Greek and Hebrew and taught that religious knowledge is to be obtained by study as well as by faith (D&C 88:118). However, Latter-day Saints prefer to use Bible scholarship rather than be driven or controlled by it."
Reading scripture holistically also helps us to understand everything that the Lord wants us to understand on a given topic. Such is why we have tools such as the Topical Guide, Index, and Guide to the Scriptures to help us do that.
Scripture, if making a scientific claim, should be weighed with science
Our theology is not threatened by science. It welcomes it. If we have properly contextualized and interpreted scripture and if the scripture is making a scientific claim, we should weigh that with science to be more perfectly instructed in that doctrine, principle, or theory. D&C 88:77-79 reads “77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. 78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; 79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are. Things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms”
Science can, should, and does support revelation on many particulars. We should welcome its voice to our spiritual reasoning when determining what God is trying to reveal to us or what he may reveal to us. This isn’t to say that current science will always agree with revelation nor that revelation will eventually change to fit the demands of the scientific community, but that revelation and science should not fight against each other nor be compartmentalized in our understanding of truth. Science will generally reveal the physical laws of God, while revelation will generally reveal God’s spiritual laws.
==Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide...pillage, plunder...2. Numbers 31...3. 1 Nephi 4...7. Numbers 21: 5-9" ==
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide...pillage, plunder...2. Numbers 31...3. 1 Nephi 4...4. Exodus 12:12...7. Numbers 21: 5-9...
These are hard scriptures to understand. We'll address them in articles or articles linked to those articles below.
Jump to Detail:
- Question: How can one properly view scriptural texts that appear to endorse genocide, pillage, and plunder in the Bible?
- Question: Do the scriptures endorse murder?
Question: How can one reconcile scriptures in the Bible that appear to endorse genocide, pillage, and/or plunder?
There are many lenses that we should view the text through in order to see this picture accurately
This is the hardest moral question to answer about the Bible. Biblical scholars have dealt with the “Canaanite question” for many, many years. It goes back to the early Christian fathers such as Gregory of Nazianus that dealt with reconciling the image of the conquest with the God of the New Testament. This article will attempt to succinctly detail the main points of reconciliation for this criticism. It will be written from the preferred perspective of the author but it will also provide an additional way of viewing the conquest that is consistent with the biblical and archaeological data. It should be considered among all perspectives on supposed “genocide” in the Old Testament. Before reading this article, we recommend readers see our article that addresses reading these passages and particularly the hermeneutic suggested to approaching them. This article will deal with the question in five parts
- Cultural – How did the Israelites view these texts when they wrote them? What sort of language would they employ to depict this scene?
- Archaeological – What do we see from archaeology as it regards the Canaanites? Were the cities torn down and is there evidence that such large amounts of death occurred?
- Moral – Were the Canaanites really that wicked? Does God actually poor out wrath such as this on people? What did the Israelites intend to do? Was what they intended to do correct?
- Additional Considerations – Wrapping up with particulars about the Canaanites
- Helpful tidbits – little bits of information that usually go unnoticed by critics.
We’ll turn to a wider array of scholars to address this question. Virtually all scholars are agreed on the general considerations of questions 1 and 2. Question 3 is where the real divergency takes place.
What’s the story?
The story that the criticism stems from takes up a major part of the Old Testament. The “Conquest Narrative” has parts that go from Numbers to Judges. The main narrative is summarized in its entirety in Joshua and is explained in this excellent video from the Bible Project. They introduce the general narrative and the concern over “genocide”.
We’ll dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.
War was a cultural reality for Israel and members of the ancient near east. It was a fight or die situation for many of them. Most of Israel's battles were fought on the defensive. It has been pointed out that Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling (Exodus 17:8) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites (Numbers 21:1); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry (Numbers 25,31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them (Deuteronomy 2, Numbers 21), and so on. By this moment in Israel’s history, they had become a theocratic people-nation that wanted to continue to show their counterparts their faith in Yahweh and his sovereignty as the only true God. The Canaanite command came at this unique part of history where war was their reality. God was giving a specific command for a specific purpose. The picture that we get from the whole of the biblical text tells a story of gradual infiltration, strategizing, victory here and there, and so on.
As initial groundwork for understanding this picture, we need to understand what the Israelites thought of these texts as they wrote them. Did they intend the text to be literal? How would they have understood them? How did God “speak unto them according to their language that they might come to understanding?” (2 Nephi 31:3). Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan give an answer to this, which summarizes the view of “most scholars generally”—that the Canaanite account contains “hagiographic hyperbole”:
The basic idea is that the accounts of Israel’s early battles in Canaan are narrated in a particular style, which is not intended to be literal in all of its details and contains a lot of hyperbole, formulaic language and literary expressions for rhetorical effect. We argue in our book that the evidence both from within the Bible and from other ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts supports this conclusion.
Paul Copan elaborated more in a different book:
Most Christians read Joshua’s conquest stories with the backdrop of Sunday school lessons via flannel graph or children’s illustrated Bible stories. The impression that’s left is a black-and-white rendition of a literal crush, kill, and destroy mission. A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuance—and a lot less bloodshed. In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.
Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric. This language sounds like bragging and exaggeration to our ears. Notice first the sweeping language in Joshua 10:40: “Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.” Joshua used the rhetorical bravado language of his day, asserting that all the land was captured, all the kings defeated, and all the Canaanites destroyed (cf. 10:40–42; 11:16–23: “Joshua took the whole land . . . and gave . . . it for an inheritance to Israel”). Yet, as we will see, Joshua himself acknowledged that this wasn’t literally so.
Scholars readily agree that Judges is literarily linked to Joshua. Yet the early chapters of Judges (which, incidentally, repeat the death of Joshua) show that the task of taking over the land was far from complete. In Judges 2:3, God says, “I will not drive them out before you.” Earlier, Judges 1:21“21, 27–28 asserted that “[they] did not drive out the Jebusites”; “[they] did not take possession”; “they did not drive them out completely.” These nations remained “to this day” (Judg. 1:21). The peoples who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the story. Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck around. Some might accuse Joshua of being misleading or of getting it wrong. Not at all. He was speaking the language that everyone in his day would have understood. Rather than trying to deceive, Joshua was just saying he had fairly well trounced the enemy. On the one hand, Joshua says, “There were no Anakim left in the land” (Josh. 11:22); indeed, they were “utterly destroyed [haram]” in the hill country (11:21). Literally? Not according to the very same Joshua! In fact, Caleb later asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (14:12–15; cf. 15:13–19). Again, Joshua wasn’t being deceptive. Given the use of ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, he could say without contradiction that nations “remain among you”; he went on to warn Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods (Josh. 23:7, 12–13; cf. 15:63; 16:10; 17:13; Judg. 2:10–13). Again, though the land “had rest from war” (Josh. 11:23), chapters 13 and beyond tell us that much territory remained unpossessed (13:1). Tribe upon tribe failed to drive out the Canaanites (13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13, 18), and Joshua tells seven of the tribes, “How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?” (18:3). Furthermore, God told the Israelites that the process of driving out the Canaanites would be a gradual one, as Deuteronomy 7:22 anticipated and as Judges 2:20–23 reaffirmed. Whatever the reason behind Israel’s failure to drive them out—whether disobedience and/or God’s slow-but-sure approach—we’re still told by Joshua in sweeping terms that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites. Just as we might say that a sports team “blew their opponents away” or “slaughtered” or “annihilated” them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day.
Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true. This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation—which didn’t (from all other indications) actually take place—proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way. Let’s now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It’s true that Joshua 9–12 utilizes the typical ancient Near Eastern literary devices for warfare. But at the book’s end, Joshua matter-of-factly assumes the continued existence of Canaanite peoples that could pose a threat to Israel. He warns Israel against idolatry and getting entangled in their ways: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you” (Josh. 23:12–13). You get the idea.
Earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2–5, we find a similar tension. On the one hand, God tells Israel that they should “defeat” and “utterly destroy [haram]” the Canaanites (v. 2)—a holy consecration to destruction. On the other hand, he immediately goes on to say in the very next verses:Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away “from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus, you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim [figures of Asherah, who was the Canaanite goddess of sexuality/sensuality], and burn their graven images with fire. (vv. 3–5)
If the Canaanites were to be completely obliterated, why this discussion about intermarriage or treaties? The final verse emphasizes that the ultimate issue was religious: Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. In other words, destroying Canaanite religion was more important than destroying Canaanite people. This point was made earlier in Exodus 34:12–13: “Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim.” In Deuteronomy 12:2–3, we read the same emphasis on destroying Canaanite religion: “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place. As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (herem) was “to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible.” The goal was to “remove what is subject to [herem] laws (the idols).” The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t “the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life.” Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land (Ps. 106:34–35). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around “until this day,” and many of them became forced laborers in Israel (Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; Judg. 1:19, 21, 27–35).
So the first points that we can make are that
- The language is not literally tied to all men, women, and children as can be seen by simply reading the entire narrative holistically.
- The language is aimed at getting Canaanite religion and driving the people out. Evidence of this is the command to not intermarry or make treaties with the Canaanites after the battles. This is reinforced by the “sending of the wasp before you to drive them out”. Indeed, by the time that the Israelites arrived, most people would have fled before the judgement of God.
- Large populations are left alive as is made clear by the end of the Book of Joshua and the beginning of the Book of Judges.
- The language is typical of other ancient near eastern cultures
This general pattern of “incapacitation” and “driving out” is reinforced by the narrative of Judah later on in the Bible. An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term “haram” usually translated as “utterly destroy” is better translated as “remove completely. This reinforces the theme of “driving them out”, including their religion, and not “extermination”. That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).
We started with Culture and Language because it informs the archaeology on the issue. Indeed, there is a paucity of archaeological evidence to support the widespread, instantaneous, crush, kill, destroy, massacre that some critics and other uninformed people make. This should not be troubling though as the science should inform our theology (D&C 88: 77-79). Peter Enns summarized:
As I argue (along with biblical scholars in general) in The Bible Tells Me So, the hyperbolic nature of Israel’s accounts combined with the extremely unfavorable archaeological evidence for a conquest of any sort suggests that “the conquest” didn’t happen. The biblical accounts reflect later storytelling of perhaps ancient battles and tribal tensions (which may or may not have involved early Israelites.)
The only point of disagreement for the author here is that the conquest “didn’t happen”. There is indeed evidence of destruction at this time in Israel’s history. Just not a lot. Latter-day Saint Biblical Scholars David Rolph Seely, Dana Pike, and Richard Holzapfel summarized the theories that have stemmed from the paucity of archaeological evidence and also offer some valid pushback on them.Their rejections of the theories are disregarded but their summary of some of the archaeological evidence in favor of the conquest is informative:
It has become common among biblical scholars to downplay, if not eliminate all together, the biblical account of a large number of Israelite “outsiders” conquering Canaan as the explanations for the origins of the Israelites. Those who accept that at least a small group of people managed to escape Egyptian bondage and flee to Canaan see this groups’ experience as becoming normative for a much larger and diverse population that eventually became known as “Israel.” More extreme views deny that any outsiders from Egypt played a role in the formation of Israel in Canaan. Such view denies the historical value of the Old Testament, a position that is not warranted.
Based on archaeological evidence, the most common alternative theories explaining Israelite origins in Canaan are the “infiltration” theory, that mitigating pastoralists peacefully and gradually coalesced in the highlands of Canaan, and the theory of “internal emergence,” that the Israelites were really displaced Canaanites who, for various reasons, broke off from the city-state system and established themselves in the highlands. But neither of these latter theories explains the unique national account of Egyptian bondage contained in the Bible. Nor do scholars with such views generally accept the biblical depiction of Israelites as a covenant people in some ways distinct from others in the region. Rather, they propose a development of Israelite identify and practices that eventually differentiated them from others in the region. While there may well be portions of the Israelite population that arose in ways other than what the Bible depicts, the general biblical account is given primacy in this volume… One major reason for these alternative proposals is the challenge of matching the biblical account of the conquest with the current results of archaeological excavations in Israel. For example, most archaeologists accept the existence of a walled city at Jericho in the Middle Bronze II period (ending about 1550 B.C.), but suggest there were no walls and little or no population at Jericho during the 1200s, the period in which we think the Bible places Joshua’s conquest (a few archaeologists do suggest the Middle Bronze Age walls were standing in the 1200s). If one accepts that situation, then how does one interpret the narrative about conquering Jericho?
Similarly, archaeologists think the city of Ai was uninhabited in the 1200s. A different situation exists for cities like Lachish, Shechem, and Hazor. For example, the book of Joshua claims the Israelites “burnt Hazor with fire” (Josh 11:11). Excavators did find evidence that Hazor was destroyed about 1230 B.C., including a thick layer of ash resulting from a massive fire. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from this evidence who was responsible for this destruction, whether Israelites, the Sea Peoples, or some other group. So even when archaeological evidence as is currently available and interpreted matches the basic account of Joshua—sometimes it does, sometimes it does not—the physical evidence alone is not conclusive as a testimony of the validity of biblical claims.One set of data that indicated change at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B.C.) is the evidence of a large increase in the number of small, unwalled settlements in the central hill country of Canaan that attest several new architectural features Some scholars see this as evidence of the emergence of Israel in the land. While this seems likely, such evidence still only tells us someone arrived, not who. This evidence does correlate well with the biblical depiction of where the Israelites settled and with the Merneptah inscription, which indicates a “people” named Israel lived in the land (see Inscription: The Merneptah Stela, page 150). Also, in a literary vein, the book of Joshua shares similar styles and claims (as well as some differences) with most ancient Near Eastern texts describing military victories.
It should be noted that this volume was published in 2003 and since then archaeological evidence has still not given the amount of support to a literal interpretation of the entire biblical account but the evidence they cite to push against some of the ideas still stand.
Jeffrey Bradshaw makes similar points about archaeology (following the majority of biblical scholars) here.
Other scholars have made some intriguing discoveries regarding archaeology:
Scholar Paul Copan has made similar points about the archaeology as those made by Holzapfel, Seely, and Pike and summarized why it is difficult to pin some things down:
With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation (Josh. 13:1–7; 16:10; 17:12), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed—namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn’t take place and that gradual assimilation did.35 Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we’ve seen) were burned—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. Deut. 6:10–11: “cities which you did not build”). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region—a lot less clean-up!
Furthermore, if we had lived back in Israel in the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC) and looked at an Israelite and a Canaanite standing next to each other, we wouldn’t have detected any noticeable differences between them; they would have been virtually indistinguishable in dress, homes, tableware, pottery, and even language (cf. 2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 19:18). This shouldn’t be all that surprising, as the Egyptian influence on both these peoples was quite strong.
What’s more, Israel itself wasn’t a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50); a “mixed multitude” came out of Egypt with them (Exod. 12:23; Num. 11:4); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections—for example, “Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite”(Judg. 3:15), “Izban of Bethlehem” (Judg. 12:8), “Elon the Zebulunite” (Judg. 12:11). On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archaeology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a “shrine” (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians’ notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., 2 Kings 23:10; cf. Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10). However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I’m assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC.)36 Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh (“the Lord”). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere—say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia’s culture didn’t change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Canaan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We’re reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.
We started with Culture/Language and Archaeology because they both now set the stage for the discussion of the morality of the conquest. This is the real point of divergency amongst scholars. Our summary of the issue so far includes several things:
- The language is not literally tied to all men, women, and children as can be seen by simply reading the entire narrative holistically.
- The language is aimed at getting Canaanite religion and driving the people out. Evidence of this is the command to not intermarry or make treaties with the Canaanites after the battles. This is reinforced by the “sending of the wasp before you to drive them out”. Indeed, by the time that the Israelites arrived, most people would have fled before the judgement of God.
- Large populations are left alive as is made clear by the end of the Book of Joshua and the beginning of the Book of Judges.
- The language is typical of other ancient near eastern cultures
- The word translated as “utterly destroy”, Herem, is directed only at cities with combatants like the military encampments of Jericho, Ai, and so forth..
- There is a general lack of archaeological evidence for the slash and burn type of conquest that is commonly depicted and instead one of gradual infiltration
- Archaeology confirms what we learn from the biblical record.
But now the question has to be asked, were the Canaanites really that wicked? Does God actually poor out wrath such as this on people? What did the Israelites intend to do? Was what they intended to do correct? These questions are now examined.
We should probably first start with what the scriptures say about God’s wrath. Indeed the scriptures affirm many times that God’s wrath can be pored out on people for their wickedness. But only if they are actually wicked. So, was Canaan actually wicked? Paul Copan summarizes the verses that touch on it within the Bible and the basic history:
Were the Canaanites That Wicked? According to the biblical text, Yahweh was willing to wait about 430 years because the “sin of the Amorite [a Canaanite people group] has not yet reached its limit” (Gen 15:16 NET). In other words, in Abraham’s day, the time wasn’t ripe for judgement on the Canaanites; the moment wasn’t right for them to be driven out and for the land to “vomit them out” (Lev. 18:25 NET). Sodom and Gormorrah, on the other hand, were ready; not even ten righteous people could be found there (Genesis 18-19). Even earlier, at the time of Noah, humans had similarly hit moral rock bottom (Gen 6:11-13). Despite 120 years of Noah’s preaching (Gen 6:3; cf. 5:32; 7:6; 2 Peter 2:5), no one outside his family listened; his contemporaries were also ripe for judgement. But it was only after Israel’s lengthy enslavement in Egypt that the time was finally ripe for the Israelites to enter Canaan—“because of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut 9:4-5). [. . .] What kind of wickedness are we talking about? We’re familiar with the line, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” In the case of the Canaanites, the Canaanites’ moral apples didn’t fall far from the tree of their pantheon of immoral gods and goddesses. So it the Canaanite deites engaged in incest, then it is not surprising that incest wasn’t treated as a serious moral wrong among the Canaanite people. As we’ve seen adultery (temple sex), bestiality, homosexual acts (also temple sex), and child sacrifice were also permitted (cf. Lev, 18:20-30). Humans are “imaging” beings, designed to reflect the likeness and glory of their Creator. If we worship[ the creaturely rather than the Creator, we’ll come to resemble or image the idols of our own devising and that in which we place our security.The sexual acts of the gods and goddesses were imitated by the Canaanites high places, the more this would stimulate the fertility god Baal to have sex with his consort, Anath, which meant more semen (rain) produced to water the earth. Let’s add to this the bloodlust and violence of the Canaanite deities. Anath, the patroness of both sex and war, reminds us of the bloodthirsty goddess Kali of Hinduism, who drank her victim’s blood and sat surrounded by corpses; she is commonly depicted with a garland of skulls around her neck. The late archaeologist William Albright describes the Canaanite deity Anath’s massacre in the following gory scene:“The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees—nay, up to her heck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at the butchery is described in even more sadistic language. “Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Anath (was full of) exultation(?)” Afterwards Anath “was satisfied and washed her hands in human gore before proceeding to other occupations
Nephi also affirms that the Canaanites were wicked and that they were driven out by the Israelites:
32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction. 33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. 34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it.
The next question is about the purpose of the conquest. What does it actually accomplish then? Why the command in the first place? We’ve already established their wickedness. But the conquest narrative goes a bit deeper. The narrative is about taking possession of the land so that God’s people obtain their promise from him and rule as his people. It is this war over who holds reign in the common cosmological vision. Thus the need, in the view of Matthew Flanagan, John Walton, Paul Copan, John Goldingay, and others to destroy Canaanite religion instead of Canaanite people. If the Israelites could begin and end a cosmic war, then Israel could prepare the way for the Gospel to come to that land. The conquest also had the benefit of preventing oppression of the Israelites by Canaan after they had spent several years under the autocratic slavery of the Egyptians.
Does God command us to destroy the religion of others?
It is a common question, does God, then, want us to destroy the religion of others? The answer is an emphatic no! As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the command came at a specific time in Israel’s history, with a specific purpose, that was unique to the entire history of Israel. Richard Mouw:
We must also insist that not all commandments which are found in the Bible are to be obeyed by contemporary Christians. For example, God commanded Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees, and commanded Jonah to preach in Nineveh; it would be silly to suppose that it is part of every Christian’s duty to obey these commandments
What if innocents were actually killed during the conquest?
If non-combatants and/or other innocents were killed during the conquest, then this would be condemnable as it is murder and such was against Israel’s law (Exodus 20:13). If innocents were killed, they were taken to the God that gave them life (Job 1:21) and the perpetrator would likely be punished (whether by God and/or Israel). In summary on morality
- God does pour out wrath on people if they are wicked and he has sufficient moral reason to do so
- God did not intend to kill the Canaanites but “drive them out”.
- God gave these commands at a very particular part of Israelite history and with a specific purpose. Thus, God limits this command to the Israelites and it is not extended to us.
- The conquest sought to begin and end the cosmic warfare that would have happened.
- The conquest sought also to prevent the oppression of Israel by Canaan after they had already been oppressed for a number of years under the Egyptians.
- If any innocents were killed, this would have been a violation of Israel’s law and thus condemnable.
Specific Considerations About Canaan
The Midianites (Numbers 25, 31)
Some have misinterpreted a few aspects of the Midianites. Specifically, they claim that Israel defeated the Midianites because of racism and that they raped their women. We have addressed these in other articles
Jericho, Ai, Other Canaanite Cities
With regard to these polities, it is important to know:
- There is no archaeological evidence of non-combatants living in this region during the time of the conquest.
- The original language is stock for attacks against military outposts. Thus, when it says “men and women, young and old…”(Josh 6:21; 8:25) they are not referring to innocents. This is further evidenced by the Rahab pericope. Even more evidence is the story of the Amalekites (who also receive attention in criticism of killing in the bible) who receive the same language yet are spared as is evidenced by the end of the book of 1 Samuel where the story is recounted and even beyond that point (1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1; 1 Chron 4:43).
The story of Rahab (Joshua 2) is telling of the intent of destroying Canaanite religion. Here is a Canaanite woman that is actually an aid to two of Israel’s spies before the conquest. She was not killed, thus reinforcing the narrative of driving out and incapacitation.
The Gibeonites should be mentioned. They turned unto Israel’s God and were made entirely free of an sort of harm or action.
Potential For Peace Treaties Before Attack
We already mentioned Sihon who attacked Israel after they had already offered peace. Following instructions in Deuteronomy 20, the Israelites may have done this for other Canaanite cities. This is a minority view among scholars. But there are examples of this like the Gibeonites and there are other insinuations to offers of peace among the Canaanites. Joshua 11:19 reads, for example, “There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.”
Biblical envisioning of the Canaanite Future
The Bible envisions that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through the Israelites (Genesis 12:3). Zechariah 9 offers the envisioning of redemption and salvation for the Jebusite, a Canaanite nation. A list of Israel’s enemies is given in Psalm 87: Egypt, Babylon, and Philistia. Their redemption is also envisioned. Isaiah prophesied that Egypt and Assyria would be incorporated into Israel (Isaiah 19:23-25). In the New Testament, Jesus reaches to a Canaanite woman in Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:22).
Another Viable Perspective
It should be mentioned that these are not the only perspectives that have been taken on the conquest narratives. There is another viable perspective for Latter-day Saints. Perspectives are limited since few accord with the biblical and archaeological data and these should inform our theology (D&C 88:77-79). Some scholars take the view of the conquest being the result of “accommodation”. As a very general summary, these men and women define that term as God accommodating and allowing the view point of the Canaanites instead of inspiring. To them, the conquest narrative came without inspiration of God but allowance from God for their preservation in the scriptural text. This, they argue, is something that God allows to teach us from negative examples of behavior today. Among the most popular of these individuals are people such as Peter Enns, Kenton Spaks, and Gregory Boyd. These scholars have laid out their viewpoints in great detail to tease the nuance in it.
- Peter Enns, “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It” (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne Publishing, 2015)
- For Dr. Sparks’ viewpoints see “Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2012); “God’s Words in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship”(Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008)
- Gregory Boyd, “The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2” (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017)
Additional Reading and Video Content
Below is a list of resources that were consulted for the creation of this article and other potentially helpful miscellany. Also included are links to other articles addressing other supposed instances of “genocide” in the Bible.
- Paul Copan, Matthew Flanagan, “Did God Command Genocide?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014)
- Paul Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011)
- Jeff Chadwick, “Did Joshua ‘Utterly Destroy’ the Canaanites?” <https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites/> Interpreter Foundation, May 10, 2018 (accessed 13 February 2019)
- Richard Holzapfel, Dana Pike, David Rolph Seely “Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament” (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2009)
- Kenton Sparks, “Sacred Word Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012)
- Kenton Sparks, “God’s Words in Human Words” (Ada, MI: Baker Books, 2008)
- Peter Enns, “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It” (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2015)
- Christopher J.H. Wright, “Old Testament Ethics for the People of God” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic Press, 2004)
- The Bible Project, <https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject>
- Net Bible, <https://netbible.org/bible/Matthew+1>
- Adelle Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd Ed.” (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014)
- Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A Newsom, Pheme Perkins (ed.) “The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th ed” (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010).
- Question: Why would a loving God would kill innocent children in the flood
- Question: Why would God send poisonous serpents to kill the Children of Israel?
- Question: Why would a loving God kill the firstborn of Egypt? (Exodus 12:12)
Question: Do the scriptures endorse murder?
The scriptures contain explicit references against murder
It is claimed that murder is endorsed by the scriptures. There is explicit mention against innocent killing in the scriptures. A small sampling includes:
- Exodus 20:13
- Deuteronomy 5:17
- Matthew 5:21
- Mark 10:19
- Mosiah 13:21
- D&C 59:6
The Challenging Texts
Serpents and the Children of Israel
Abraham and Jesus
Nephi and Laban
A Moral Philosophical Note for Consideration
Many people are very understandably troubled with the portrayal of many people losing their lives in the scriptures and other pericopes that appear to condone some form of murder. As one moral consideration, we might think about what God might be doing. When taken from their mortal sojourn, it may be that God is showing mercy to people by allowing them not to make any more bad choices. That may allow us to see the scriptures in a new light. God is the creator of the universe including our spirits and bodies (2 Nephi 2:13) and it is his right to act upon us according to his will since he is the author of our life.
Considerations for any case
No matter what text of the scriptures is claimed to support murder, it is important to remember three things:
- A good hermeneutic for reconciling the scriptures. See here for our suggested tools.
- Read scripture in context. Grab a thorough scholarly commentary on the book in question and dive into it to see what you can know about it.
- Read scripture holistically. If scripture talks about anything, we should read everything that scripture has to say about that person, place, or thing. It helps us gain a composite understanding of how the prophets understood God’s word in a particular context and how we can understand it today through the lense of revelation.
This is the pattern that we have followed for the other responses we have written for moral questions about the scriptures.
Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...rape...selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy...sexism... 8. Judges 19:22-29"
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...rape...selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy...sexism...8. Judges 19:22-29
The author misrepresents the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
- Question: Did God endorse rape in the Old Testament?
- Question: Are the scriptures misogynistic/sexist?
Question: Did God endorse rape in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament text must be read holistically and contextually to understand actual cultural realities. Once done, one can see how claims regarding rape truncate the Bible’s actual view of women
Many critics of the Bible frequently claim that God endorses rape in the Bible. This issue has been dealt with by several Christian scholars and apologists in the past. There is no such endorsement of rape in the Old Testament by God. There are instances in which women are raped such as that of Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), and the concubine in Judges 19 (these passages all portray rape negatively) and it does reflect some of the horrible issues they dealt with in that society, yet there is law against rape in the Bible and rape is always seen in a negative light in the passages that are typically cited in favor it.
16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Deuteronomy 22:23-29 reads:
23 ¶ If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 ¶ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
The misconception generally stems from misreading the phrase "lay hold on her". The NET notes the following about this:
tn The verb תָּפַשׂ (taphas) means “to sieze, grab.” In all other examples this action is done against another person’s will, as in being captured, arrested, attacked, or grabbed with insistence (e.g. 1Sam 23:26; 1Kgs 13:4; 18:40; 2Kgs 14:13; 25:6; Isa 3:6; Jer 26:8; 34:3; 37:13; 52:9; Ps 71:11; 2Chr 25:23.) So it may be that the man is forcing himself on her, which is what leads the NIV to translate the next verb as “rape,” although it is a neutral euphemism for sexual relations. However, this is the only case where the object of תָּפַשׂ is a woman and the verb also also refers to holding or handling objects such as musical instruments, weapons, or scrolls. So it possible that it has a specialized, but otherwise unattested nuance regarding sexual or romantic relations, as is true of other expressions. Several contextual clues point away from rape and toward a consensual relationship. (1) The verb which seems to express force is different from the verb of force in the rape case in v. 25. (2) The context distinguishes consequences based on whether the girl cried out, an expression of protest and a basis for distinguishing consent or force. But this case law does not mention her outcry which would have clarified a forcible act. While part of what is unique in this case is that the girl is not engaged, it is reasonable to expect the issue of consent to continue to apply. (3) The penalty is less than that of a man who slanders his new wife and certainly less than the sentence for rape. (4) The expression “and they are discovered” at the end of v. 28 uses the same wording as the expression in v. 22 which involves a consensual act. (5) Although from a separate context, the account of the rape of Dinah seems to express the Pentateuch’s negative attitude toward forcible rape, not in advocating for Simeon and Levi’s actions, but in the condemnation included in the line Gen 34:7 “because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” This is very like the indictment in Deut 28:21 against the consenting woman, “because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” (6) The penalty of not being allowed to divorce her sounds like v. 19, where the man is punished for disgracing his wife unfairly. His attempted divorce fails and he must provide for her thereafter (the probable point of not being allowed to divorce her.) Here too, if his holding her is not forced, but instead he has seduced her, he is not allowed to claim that his new wife is not pure (since he is the culprit) and so he must take responsibility for her, cannot divorce her, and must provide for her as a husband thereafter.
The meaning of "humbled" here seems difficult to ascertain. It is translated as "humiliated" in the NET and "violated" in the NRSV. Depending on how we look at the preceding text will determine how this is translated.
At first glance the passages do seem to be repugnant and treat women like property. A contextual reading yields a more redeeming view. Evangelical bible scholar and Christian apologist Paul Copan writes:
Upon closer inspection, the context emphasizes the protection of women, not the insignificance of women. We should first distinguish among three scenarios in the Deuteronomy 22 passage:
- adultery between two consenting adults—a man and an engaged woman 9v. 23), which is a violation of marriage (“he has violated his neighbor’s wife”)
- the forcible rape of an engaged woman (v. 25), whose innocence is assumed.
- the seduction of an unengaged woman (v. 28), an expansion on the seduction passage of Exodus 22:16-17
In each case, the man is guilty. However, the critics’ argument focuses on verses 28-29: the rape victim is being treated like she is her father’s property. She’s been violated, and he rapist gets off by paying a bridal fee. No concern is shown for the girl at all. In fact, she’s apparently forced to marry the man who raped her! Are these charges warranted? Regarding verses 28-29, various scholars see Exodus 22:16-17 as the backdrop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme Even if there is some pressure from the man, the young woman is complicit; though initially pressured (seduced), she doesn’t act against her will. The text says “they are discovered” (v.28), not “he is discovered.”  Both are culpable. Technically, this pressure/seduction could not be called forcible rape, falling under our contemporary category of statutory rape. Though the woman gave in, the man here would bear the brunt of the responsibility.
As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price—a kind of economic security for her future—would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn’t a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away. This passage is far from being demeaning to women.
Both passages suggest two courses of action:
- If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.
- The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment at would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. IN this arrangement, she is still treated as a virgin
In a similar vein, one article notes:
God’s punishment on the rapist of a virgin—a monetary fine and lifelong responsibility—was designed to deter rape by holding the rapist responsible for his actions. He ruined her life; it was his responsibility to support her for the rest of her life. This may not sound fair to modern ears, but we don’t live in the same culture they did. In 2 Samuel 13, Prince Amnon raped his half-sister, Tamar. The horror and shame of being violated yet unmarried made Tamar beg him to marry her (her half-brother!), even after he had rejected her. And her full-brother, Absalom, was so disgusted with the situation that he murdered Amnon. That’s how highly virginity in women was prized back then.
Regarding Numbers 31, the same article notes:
Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31 (and similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics say this is an example of the Bible’s condoning or even promoting rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16–18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.
We might also note Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 which provided protocols a situation such as the one depicted in Numbers 31The NRSV renders these verses:
10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive,
11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry,
12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails,
13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.14 But if you are not satisﬁed with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible notes about these verses:
. This procedure most likely originally applied to the Canaanite population (20.15–18n.). Female war captives routinely became concubines. This law accords such women dignity and protection against enslavement. 12–13: The rituals provide both captive and captor means to eﬀect a transition from one status to another. 13: Full month, full period of mourning, as for Aaron and Moses (Num 20.29; Deut 34.8). Mourning, it is unclear whether the parents actually died in the war or are lost to her because of her captivity. The time to grieve implies legal respect for the female captive as a person. Go in to her, approach her sexually; consummation provides the legal means to become husband, and . . . wife. 14: Cf. Ex 21.7–8. Money, see 2.6n. Dishonored, “violated” sexually (22.24,29; Gen 34.2; Judg 19.24; 2 Sam 13.12).
Readers may wonder what the New Testament has to say about rape:
Rape is not directly addressed in the New Testament, but within the Jewish culture of the day, rape would have been considered sexual immorality. The Matthean account of the Gospel records that Jesus and the apostles spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce (Matthew 5:32). Further, the New Testament is clear that Christians are to obey the laws of their governing authorities (Romans 13). Not only is rape morally wrong; it is also wrong according to the laws of the land. As such, anyone who would commit this crime should expect to pay the consequences, including arrest and imprisonment.
This is one criticism that should help us remember that scripture should be read contextually and holistically to understand all that it has to say on any particular topic.
Question: Are the scriptures misogynistic/sexist?
Some have wondered if the scriptures are misogynistic. Misogyny is defined as:
1. a hatred of women
The scriptures are in their majority positive, supportive, and enlightened about women. .
It may be helpful to do a small scriptural analysis to understand its view of women. At creation, God created man and woman in his own image (Gen 1: 27; Moses 2:27; 6:9; Abr. 4:27). Latter-day Saints understand this to be that mankind is literally created in the image of God and that God and man are the same species (The Family Proclamation, 2nd Paragraph). Latter-day Saints are unique in proclaiming the divinity and reality of a heavenly consort of God to make this passage very literal. Man and woman were pronounced “one flesh” at creation (Gen 2: 24- 25). This was the original ideal, that man and woman were one flesh, one status. “Woman” is sometimes used as a title of respect in scripture. There are a number of other scriptures that affirm this equality. A few of the more popular ones include
- 2 Nephi 26:33 “all are alike unto God”
- Exodus 20:12 “honor thy father and thy mother”
- 1 Corinthians 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
There are many other texts that speak positively of women. It is obvious that the Lord has a high view of women and their role in the Plan of Salvation
The Challenging Texts
There are a few texts that do challenge the casual reader. Upon closer examination, the more challenging texts can be viewed in a much better light. First, see our article on bible hermeneutic that may be helpful in reconciling certain passages here.
The Bride Price
Polygamy and Concubinage
Many have seen the bible’s allowing for polygamy to be disrespectful of women. Jacob’s admonition reflects the scripture’s view of polygamy best—that it is an abomination except when commanded (Jacob 2: 25-30).
General lack of female writers in the scriptures
Some have questioned why it is that only male writers were allowed to take control of canonization of holy writ for most of the scriptural texts.
The Patriarchal order allowed for only men to be ordained to priesthood office and thus were generally the only ones to keep and preserve sacred records. Nonetheless, this did not prevent them from chronicling the wonderful matriarchs of Israel and their contributions to society and to building the kingdom. Ruth the Moabitess was permitted to write her book that included views that weren’t even entirely in line with Israelite practice and Esther served as the etiological paragon for the Jewish holiday Purim. Writers have also highlighted the contributions of such women such as Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Emma Smith, Abish, Sariah, and others in the building up of Israel. There is a new class dedicated to studying women in the scriptures through LDS Institutes titled “Women in the Scriptures” that highlights all these examples and more.
Becoming a “help meet” for Adam
Some are dismayed by Eve being designated as a “help meet” for Adam and not being simply his equal and so forth. A wonderful article addressing this may be found here.
“and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16)
This is indeed a patriarchal scripture. It represents the tragic disintegration with the Fall of the equality and oneness that God assumes at the creation with Adam and Eve being equally yoked i.e. one flesh. This is why we get some fallen social structures in the Old Testament that God has brought to better places over time. God still maintains dignity and demands respect for the woman the Law of Moses presented a little later on—in ways that move beyond contemporary treatment of women.
”Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20: 17)
Some have pointed to the ten commandments as an example of misogyny. A woman is listed among a house, servants, an ox, an ass, and other things that belongs to another. Some have wondered (with the “bride price” in mind) if women were property in the ancient near east. Women could not be sold like animals or houses in the ancient Near East. Just a few verses earlier, Israelites are commanded to honor both their father and their mother. Leviticus 19:13 lists the woman first in repeating this command. This is not the scripture that some have assumed it to be.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.< 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
This passage establishes the rights of an indentured female who becomes a wife in the household where she serves This paragraph is troubling to modern readers, but given the way that marriages were contracted and the way people lived in the ancient world, it was a good provision for people who might want to find a better life for their daughter.. It is a case of casuistic law. Casuistic law is a law given for particular circumstances—characterized by “if…then” statements and generally not ideal situations Thus, we are dealing with something that was given for an unideal situation, not a necessarily common one. It was a time when the family was in economic stress  and the father wanted to provide the daughter a better life—as stated before. Here, the father is arranging for a man with means to marry her—not to sell her into “sex slavery”. The word אָמָה (ʾamah) refers to a female servant who would eventually become a concubine or wife; the sale price included the amount for the service as well as the bride price. The arrangement recognized her honor as an Israelite woman, one who could be a wife, even though she entered the household in service. The marriage was not automatic, as the conditions show, but her treatment was safeguarded come what may. The law was a way, then, for a poor man to provide a better life for a daughter and give him the safety net that . Verse 8 is either suggesting something in a contradictory way or two different things. It states that if the man is not pleased by the woman that he must let her be redeemed. But the second part of the verse suggests that the man is the one at fault since he has dealt with her deceitfully. This is universally understood to mean that the man promised to make the woman his wife but then balked. To be redeemed has a couple of alternative interpretations:
The verb is a Hiphil perfect with vav (ו) consecutive from פָּדָה (padah, “to redeem”). Here in the apodosis the form is equivalent to an imperfect: “let someone redeem her” – perhaps her father if he can, or another. U. Cassuto says it can also mean she can redeem herself and dissolve the relationship (Exodus, 268).
Verse 9 then states that if the man betroths the girl to his son, that he must provide all rights and privileges afforded to daughters in the family—to treat her as any normal daughter.
Verse 10 then states that if he takes another wife, that he is not to diminish the rights of the daughter to the food of the family, clothing, nor her marital rights (that her status as a woman cannot be diminished with the marriage of another besides her):
The translation of “food” does not quite do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The issue here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people ate, but the fine foods that this family ate.
Verse 11 then states that if neither verse 8 nor 9 happen, then she is to go free without having any redeeming fee (“without having to pay money” NET).
What about verse 7? She’s not allowed to go out like the menservants are? The author cannot ascertain this. The NRSV renders verse 2 “a male Hebrew servant”, though the NET keeps the reading from the KJV as just “Hebrew servant”. Net Bible notes that:
The interpretation of “Hebrew” in this verse is uncertain: (1) a gentilic ending, (2) a fellow Israelite, (3) or a class of mercenaries of the population (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:431). It seems likely that the term describes someone born a Hebrew, as opposed to a foreigner (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 210). The literature on this includes: M. P. Gray, “The Habiru-Hebrew Problem,” HUCA 29 (1958): 135-202.
In any case, Deuteronomy 15:12 makes it explicitly clear that both males and female Hebrew slaves received this treatment. So, it either:
A) Affirmed the law
B) Updated the law soon after being given. This shows a quick redemptive move.
Numbers 5: The Trial of Jealousy
A few critics have pointed to Numbers 5 as an example of promoting inferiority of women. The text concerns itself with a trial given to a woman for adultery. It is true that this legislation only concerned women. But as we have noted elsewhere, the law of Moses had a planned obsolescence. It was a lesser law that afforded certain improvements on the then-current moral code, taught strict obedience to God, and set the Israelites apart as a chosen people. With regards to this scripture in particular, there are several points to make about the legislation that show some of these purposes in action:
1. Adultery was universally condemned for all Israelites (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27-28). Both men and women could suffer capital punishment for adultery in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20: 10-21).
2. The trial afforded women the opportunity to be tested for adultery. Other ancient near eastern law codes such as the Laws of Hammurabi allowed for men to accuse their women with or without women. Their trial was to throw them into a river and see if they floated. Other cultures threw people into a tar pit and only if they were able to escape would be considered innocent.
3. The trial here required a miracle from God to prove a woman’s guilt and not a miracle to prove their innocence. This also stands in stark contrast to other contemporary law.
Thus, this law does rise above standard practice of the day. John 8 contains an update to this law and that of Leviticus by Jesus where he tells the adulterous woman simply to go and sin no more.
Impurity at Birth (Leviticus 12:1-8)
Leviticus 12 offers some legislation on the impurity of women after childbirth. The text stipulates that a woman will leave the Israelite camp and remain unclean. The period of uncleanness differs between the birth of a boy or girl. The woman is ceremonially impure for forty days after the birth of a boy but eighty days after the birth of a girl. Why is this? A few explanations have been proposed
- Leviticus 15 explains more clearly that women were separated for their issue of blood. The resulting blood that comes from a female child may have simply separated the two for longer. This was done for reasons relating to physical health of the child, mother, and the Israelite camp in general.
- Some scholars indicate that this was a kind of protection of females rather than a sign of inferiority.
- Some scholars suggest the motive may be to preserve Israel’s religious distinctiveness over against Canaanite religion, in which females engaged in religious sexual rites in their temples.
Either with a son or a daughter, the mother is to bring the identical offering; this is to be a purification offering (12:6)—not technically a sin offering—and its purpose is to take away the ritual (not moral) impurity
Women as war booty? (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)
13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
War was a way of life in the Ancient Near East. War provided people the opportunity to defend territory and gain territory as necessary. The question was always what to do with the people and property left over. Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 provided protocols that prevented the unfair treatment of women. The woman is to come to the house of the man, shave her head, cut her nails, take off any garb of captivity, and be given time to mourn.
The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible notes about these verses:
This procedure most likely originally applied to the Canaanite population (20.15–18n.). Female war captives routinely became concubines. This law accords such women dignity and protection against enslavement. 12–13: The rituals provide both captive and captor means to eﬀect a transition from one status to another. 13: Full month, full period of mourning, as for Aaron and Moses (Num 20.29; Deut 34.8). Mourning, it is unclear whether the parents actually died in the war or are lost to her because of her captivity. The time to grieve implies legal respect for the female captive as a person. Go in to her, approach her sexually; consummation provides the legal means to become husband, and . . . wife. 14: Cf. Ex 21.7–8. Money, see 2.6n. Dishonored, “violated” sexually (22.24,29; Gen 34.2; Judg 19.24; 2 Sam 13.12).
To emphasize what is happening in verse 14, if the man is not pleased by the woman, he is not to sell her into slavery for money, not make “merchandise of her” because he has taken chastity from her.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - Female Mutilation?
11 ¶ When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
A few notes on translation:
- The phrase "Strive together" is better translated as "fighting"
- "Secrets" is better translated as "private parts".
- The word commonly used for hand in Hebrew, "yad" (as is used in verse 11) is not used in verse 12 and instead the word for palm, "kaph" is used. "Kaph" usually refers to the palm but can also refer to the sole of a foot, the hip socket, the concave area of the female genitalia, or other bent or bendy objects
- The word translated to "cut off" is used in the Qal form, which is a softer use than the Piel or Pual forms which are emphatic. The Qal form of the verb can refer to clipping or shaving hair as is seen in Jer 9:26; 25:23; and 49:32.
The interpretation of the passage that has the most explanatory power is the literal one: that the woman was punished by having her hand cut off. It is the view of the majority. Scholars who have taken this view usually see the differing words for hand as just being specific since the palm of the hand of the woman (Kaph captures the instrumentality of the hand) is that which seized the genitals of the man and there is a parallel Assyrian law that required that a finger of the woman were to be severed for such a situation. The passage is referring to altercations and focuses on the importance of the person's ability to reproduce in the future. An equal law applicable to men is presented in Exodus 21: 22-25 and focuses on reproduction. In that passage, if a woman is given a miscarriage because of a fight, the woman's husband is able to ask for whatever fine he demands and a judge approves. If further damage is done to her (such as her ability to reproduce), then lex talionis is invoked.. This is the only time that explicit mention of mutilation is laid out in the Bible. Compare this to other contemporary law codes such as that of the laws of Hammurabi that allowed for "cutting off of the tongue, breast, hand, or ear--or the accused being dragged around a field by cattle."There is more disagreement on if injury to the man grabbed is assumed here since there is no explicit mention of it. This differs from the parallel Assyrian law which is fairly explicit that injury is assumed--though the context is different since it is explaining punishments for women when there is a fight primarily between her and her husband. This situation is different in that it is primarily between man and man and the woman intervenes. It does seem to have more explanatory power to assume that injury or perhaps milder harm did occur, however. How is a woman to disarm the man without injuring him or causing some sort of pain to him? Why simply grab him?
There are at least two alternate interpretations of this passage:
- Since "kaph" can (and does refer to either the hip socket [Gen 32:26, 32] or the curve of a woman's groin area [Song of Sol 5:5]) it may be argued that the passage can be read as a literal talion retribution of genitalia. This assumes that harm to the man was done.
- Assuming the interpretation of "kaph" used previously and given that the Qal form of "cut" is used, and the act of shaving for humiliation is practiced in Babylon and Sumer (also described in 2 Sam 10:4-5; Isa. 7:20), at least three scholars (that the author seems to determine at this time) have argued that the passage is better interpreted as the woman being required to shave her pubic region--exchanging humiliation for humiliation. This assumes that no harm to the man was done It should be mentioned that this isn't the majority view. Virtually all translations render these verses the same. Though this is an ad populum fallacy and this interpretation remains just as valid as the others. It should be considered by reading everything these scholars have placed into the argument.
The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children; they were their meat in the destruction of the of the daughter of my people (Lamentations 4:10)
This text describes a siege that Israel underwent when Jerusalem was invaded. The NRSV changes “pitiful” to “compassionate” in its translation. The rest of the verse is a common trope to simply describe cannibalism that came with the siege in an ironic way—reversing the natural order i.e. mothers feeding children instead of the other way around. Cannibalism was often the result of famine during a siege (2 Kings 6:28) and a punishment for violating the covenant (Deut 28: 53-57).
Head of a woman is the man (1 Cor 11:3)
Some have had difficulty with this verse from the New Testament. Paul begins an argument from 1-10 affirming a kind of hierarchy that has woman the bottom, then man, then Christ, then God. But the argument breaks at verse 10 when he states “Nevertheless” From verse 13-16 Paul emphasizes that in the Lord there is mutuality and reciprocity
Scholar Craig Keener explains these verses in context:
Because most Christians gathered in the wealthier homes, Christians of different social strata and backgrounds met together; “naked” hair held different social connotations for different women. To wealthier women, it signified at most ostentation; to most women from the east, it symbolized immodesty and, at worse, seduction. As in the case of some other issues (e.g., 11:21), Paul must here address a clash of social values: just as to many idol food connoted idolatry hence should be avoided for others’ sake, so uncovered hair to many connoted seduction and immodesty, hence should be avoided for others’ sake. A modern Western equivalent might be someone walking into a religious service in a bathing suit; although this might not disturb some California beach churches during the Jesus movement, newcomers with such informal attire might disrupt traditional churches in, say, New England.
[. . .]Paul alludes to angels he mentioned earlier: Just as the Corinthians’ future judgment of angels should encourage them to judge rightly now (6:3), so the women’s future authority over angels should motivate them to use properly their authority over their heads now. (The future authority may reflect a restoration of authority in Gen 1:27–28, fitting the context in 11:7.) She has a “right” to do with her head as she wills, but like Paul, she must give up her “rights” (the sense of exousia in 9:4–6, 12, 18; cf. 8:9) for the common good."
Paul is then, affirming the authority of women and not their inferiority.
Latter-day Saint scholar Lynne Wilson has given a Latter-day Saint look at these verses:
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Unveiling Women’s Veils of Authority"Lynne Hilton Wilson, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (February, 23, 2018)
The Apostle Paul’s theological explanation for female veil wearing (1 Corinthians 11:2–13) highlights the woman’s head covering as an expression of female empowerment or “authority/exousia.” It appears that the Corinthian saints struggled with this tradition, as Paul preceded the discussion with, “but I would have you know/thelõ de” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Rather than merely restating the dress code for certain prayers, Paul laid out the doctrinal background underlying the imagery. He began with the order of creation from the Garden of Eden. God was the “kephale,” meaning source or origin of Christ, who was the source of man, who was the source of woman. Paul taught that God’s glory (referring to man) should pray unveiled, and by the same token, humanity’s glory (referring to woman) should address God with her head covered (1 Corinthians 11:7). The early church interpreted the relationship between Adam and Eve typologically. The Edenic couple typified Christ and his Church — the Bridegroom and Bride. In this typological scenario, Eve (or the Church) worked through the mediator Adam (or Christ). In either a symbolic or literal interpretation, Paul described this empowering veil as a sign of unique female authority to pray and prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5). By covering her head, female saints received “power on her head” and could interact with angels (1 Corinthians 11:10). Paul concluded by emphasizing that men and women are completely interdependent — woman was created from man, while man is born of woman (1 Corinthians 11:11–12). In this regard we see an equal status between men and women in their relationship with the Lord. Their relationship focuses on their union with each other and God.
”Let your women keep silence in the churches” (1 Cor 14:34-35 ; 1 Timothy 2:11-15)
Paul’s writings in the New Testament have bothered some. 1 Cor 14: 34-35 states:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church
These are indeed very sexist remarks. The JST sought to harmonize these verses by changing “speak” in verse 34 and 35 to “rule”—suggesting that Joseph meant to bring this in harmony with the doctrines of priesthood organization and not suggest that women could not preach, expound upon the scriptures, pray, and so forth (D&C 25:7).
Approached differently, scholars have provided solid reasoning that this passage was a later addition to the text. Reasons given for this are as follows:
- It disrupts the flow of the argument from v 33 to v 37
- It contradicts the assumption of Paul in 1 Cor 11:5 that women would prophesy in the Church.
- It reflects non-Pauline sentiments e.g. in verse 34 “as also saith the law”. Paul repudiates “the law” several times in his letters as it had been fulfilled.
- The verses sometimes appear after v 40 in a few manuscripts, suggesting that it was uncertain how to place the argument in the canon.
The same argument goes for the near identical passage in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
Accepting this shouldn’t be difficult if we believe the words of Joseph Smith:
I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers.
There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me. 
”To deliver thee from the strange woman’’ (Proverbs 2:16; 6:24)
These two passages in Proverbs advise to stay away from strange women and an evil woman. Both of these are obviously connected to themes of chastity.
Better to dwell in the wilderness than with an angry and contentious woman (Proverbs 21:19)
This passage is male perspective trying to contrast between a prudent woman with a contentious woman (Cf. 19:13-14; 21:4). On the main this passage is true. Contention is not of the Lord (3 Nephi 11:29).
More bitter than the woman…whose heart is in snares (Ecclesiastes 7:26)
Ecclesiastes 7:26 reads
And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseath God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her
The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible notes about this verse:
The woman who is a trap, this verse is not a polemic against women in general but echoes in allegorical fashion the warnings of other wisdom writings against Folly, personified as a seductive woman (Prov 2, 16-19; 5.20; 6. 24-35;7.5-27; 23. 27-28). Wisdom is elusive, but Folly is on a hunt to catch people unawares.
This is another issue where it is good to keep in mind how to best read the scriptures. Once read thusly, they can reveal the greater designs that God has for his covenant people.
Response to claim:"To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...slavery"
"To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...slavery"
The author misrepresents the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
Question: What is the best way to understand servitude in the Old and New Testaments?
There is no scripture commanding servitude. There are a number that regulate its practice.
First, readers should see our suggested hermeneutic for reconciling difficult passages here. Many have questioned the presence of passages that indicate the practice of slavery or servitude in the Old and New Testament. Many wonder what the best way to understand these passages is in light of the Restored Gospel. Does God endorse slavery? Is he okay with people being put into horribly unfair circumstances like this? How do I understand it and reconcile it? Slavery in the bible is best understood both contextually and holistically while also keeping the nature of prophetic revelation in mind. The Bible offers no record of God commanding the practice of slavery. Much of the bible deals with liberating the Israelites from bondage. So, what exactly is the difference between regular slavery and Israelite slavery? Why can God allow the Israelites to escape from bondage while also allowing them to practice it? We address these questions below. Latter-day Saint Old Testament scholars Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, and David Rolph Seely address servitude in their book “Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament”:
Slavery was ubiquitous in antiquity, and the institution and practice of slavery lies beneath the surface of almost every book in the Bible. Slaves were considered property and therefore had few legal rights. Laws governing slaves and slavery are found in many law collections, including the Laws of Hammurabi. Few questioned the institution, simple accepting that people could be bought and sold just as animals and personal possessions were. Unlike American slavery, ancient slavery was not based on ethnicity. People became slaves by capture in war (Num 31:25-37), by default on debt (Exod 22:2), and sale by family members (2 King 4:1). Some people voluntarily sold themselves as slaves either to get out of debt or to find security (Lev 25:39; Deut 15:16-17). [. . .] Several Hebrew words meaning “slave” are translated in the KJV as “servant” or “maid”. This means that Joseph was slave in Egypt and the Gibeonites became slaves to the Israelites (Josh 9:23). Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and all of the children of Israel are metaphorically called “slaves of Jehovah” when they are referred to as his “servants”. Likewise, the English word “handmaid” translates a Hebrew word that means slave—indicating that Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah were slaves to Sarah, Rachel, and Leah. [. . .]A slave’s life was often hard, but certain types of slavery were more difficult than others. For example, slaves who worked in mines and in fields had short lives full of strenuous daily work. In some societies, court slaves were often educated, held responsible positions, and wielded certain authority over others. Many slaves who were part of a household performed domestic and agricultural duties. The law of Moses required even non-Hebrew slaves in Israelite households to observe the Sabbath (Exod 12:24; Deut 12:12,18). Women and children were most vulnerable to abuse in this system, including physical and sexual abuse; therefore, most of the laws in the Bible regulating slavery attempt to humanely define the relationship between slaves and masters (Lev 25:43-55; Deut 15:12-18). People could be freed from slavery and there is evidence that this practice of manumission was common. Built into the law of Moses was a system that freed Israelite slaves every seven years (Exod 21:2; Deut 15:12, 18) although it is doubtful this ideal was regularly practiced by all Israelites. Some Israelite prophets questioned debt slavery and attempted to end its practice (Jer 34:8-22; cf. Exod 21; Lev 25; Deut 15).
William Hamblin elaborates on further protections that servants enjoyed:
The law provides the death penalty for those who kidnap people to sell them into slavery (Deuteronomy 24:7). Slaves could not be forced to work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10), a concept unique to the Bible, indicating that Hebrew slaves were better treated than those anywhere else in the Near East at the time. People sold into debt-slavery were to be freed after six years of servitude (21:2–4). All Israelite slaves were to be freed in the Jubilee year, thereby abolishing the possibility of perpetual servitude for the descendants of slaves (Leviticus 25:39–46). Although slaves could be beaten, a master killing a slave was considered guilty of murder and could be executed for his crime (Exodus 21:20), while a slave maimed by his master was to be freed (vv. 26–27). Runaway slaves were to be given protection and not returned to their masters (Deuteronomy 23:15–16). While we have no desire to be apologists for slavery in any form, it should be noted that the status of slaves in Hebrew law was in many ways superior to that of surrounding societies. Indeed, “we find in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake,”
The Old Testament has been seen as an improvement on the then-common form of slavery. The New Testament as an improvement on the Old Testament. As Evangelical apologist and bible scholar Paul Copan notes:
The original ancient near eastern context of slavery showed that masters were typically brutal to their slaves; runaway slaves had to be returned to masters of pain of death. The Old Testament improves on this in a redemptive move toward an ultimate ethic: there were limited punishments in contrast to other ancient Near Eastern cultures; there was a more humanized attitude toward servants/slaves; and runaway foreign slaves were given refuge in Israel. The New Testament improves on the Old Testament. Slaves in the Roman Empire were incorporated into the body of Christ without distinction from masters (Gal 3:28); masters were to show concern for their slaves; slaves were encouraged to gain freedom (1 Cor: 7:20-22). Note, though, that the Roman Empire had institutionalized slavery—in contrast to the Old Testament’s humanized indentured servitude. So, the New Testament writers had to deal with a new setting, one that was a big moral step backward.
So, what is this all indicating? Ultimately it means that the Old Testament covenant was never meant to be a universal ideal. These regulations, provided under the law of Moses, were provisional and temporary. In the Latter days, the practice has been disavowed (D&C 101:79).
How should we explain this moving forward? Latter-day Saint Bible scholar Ben Spackman notes:
It’s easy to rule out a few responses due to their reductionist simplicity. Slavery wasn’t merely a one-time blip, but a fundamental part of the Old and New Testaments. This prevents us from saying “oh, that prophet was just acting as a man,” as if it were a one-off kind of thing. Nor can we say, “oh, *that* part isn’t inspired,” because it’s the “whole” thing. I also don’t think we want to be apologists for Biblical slavery, just because it’s in the Bible. We think, “they were prophets, they should have known.” And yet, they didn’t. Rather, we need to recalibrate our expectations about the nature of scripture. For example, scripture is not an encyclopedic repository of the platonically ideal unchanging ethics and doctrines. It is, rather, a human-but-inspired record (of sorts) of God’s line-upon-line, accommodationist dealings with fallen humans...Both the ideas of line-upon-line and accommodation imply progression, that God slowly brings us around. The New Testament “redeems” the Old in several distinct ways, evident both from things like the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is a new Moses and much more subtle things.
We should understand the nature of prophetic revelation and how to read scripture. These are addressed in these articles.
The scriptures build on themselves, God has to accommodate revelation to the needs of a particular culture at a particular time while also trying to bring his children within to ultimate ideals and teach them the laws they need to follow for salvation. Scripture must be read both contextually and holistically to understand its message. It is, on the whole, divinely inspired, true, good, and beautiful. However, there are instances in which this type of accommodation has happened and where God builds upon it line upon line to approach the ultimate ideal--demonstrating the redemptive move of the scriptures towards better conditions.
Challenging Texts Regarding Slavery
Leaving Family Behind (Exodus 21:2-6)
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Commentary on this verse:
Nuzi was located near Kirkuk, Iraq, close to the Tigris River.6 Thousands of tablets—the Akkadian Nuzi texts—from the second millennium BC were found there. They mention legislation similar to this: if a slave entered a master’s home single, he left single. If he entered with a spouse, then he left on his marry way! Now, if a wife had been given to him by his master, then she (and any children from this union) belonged to the master.
According to this Exodus passage, if a man was given a wife by his master/employer and they had children, then he had a choice: he could either leave by himself when the seventh year of debt release came, or he could continue as a permanent servant to be with his wife and children. It’s a less-than-ideal setting to be sure, but let’s probe the text more deeply. At first glance, this text seems to treat females (and children) unfairly. The (apparently) favored male can come into a service arrangement and then go out of it. Yet the wife he married while serving his employer and any children who came while he served were (so it seems) “stuck” in the master’s home and couldn’t leave. That’s not only male favoring; it strikes us as criminal! Wasn’t this an earlier version of slave families during the antebellum South (like Frederick Douglass’s) who were broken up and scattered by insensitive slaveowners?
Our first point in response is this: we’re not told specifically that this scenario could also apply to a woman, but we have good reason to think this situation wasn’t gender specific. (We’ll see shortly that Deuteronomy 15 makes explicit that this scenario applied to a woman as well.) This is another example of case law: “if such and such a scenario arises, then this is how to proceed.” Case law typically wasn’t gender specific. Furthermore, Israelite judges were quite capable of applying the law to male and female alike. An impoverished woman, who wasn’t given by her father as a prospective wife to a (widowed or divorced) man or his son (Exod. 21:7–11), could perform standard household tasks. And she could go free by this same law, just as a male servant could.7 Various scholars suggest that the Scripture text could be applied to females quite readily: “If you buy a Hebrew servant, she is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, she will go out free. . . . If her master gives her a husband, and they have sons or daughters, the husband and the children will belong to her master, and she will go out by herself.” The law makes perfect sense in light of this shift; its spirit isn’t violated by doing so.
Some critics, though, would rather fight than shift. Rather than applying these case-law scenarios to both men and women, they’d rather put up resistance in order to make this law look its very worst. But we have no compelling reason to do so. Again, Israel’s judges would have looked to this general passage for guidance regarding female servants. Simply because many verses in the law happen to use a masculine gender pronoun rather than alternating between “he” and “she” hardly means that women are thereby being excluded. As an aside, the term Hebrew (at this stage in Israel’s history) was broader than the term Israelite; the two terms would later be equated. The habiru were people not formally attached to established states like Egypt or Babylon; they were considered foreigners and noncitizens from the speaker’s perspective. So this passage may well refer to a non-Israelite. That means this servant—possibly a foreigner—was to be released after six years unless he preferred the security of his employer’s household. In this case, he could make the arrangement permanent. For now, we’ll assume that this passage refers to an Israelite servant, but we’ll revisit this issue when discussing Leviticus 25.
For our second point, let’s (for the moment) stick with a male servant/employee scenario. Let’s say his employer arranges for a marriage between him and a female employee. (In this case of debt-servitude, the employer’s family would now engage in marriage negotiations.) By taking the male servant into his home to work off a debt, the boss has made an investment. He would stand to suffer loss if someone walked out on the contract. Think in terms of military service. When someone signs up to serve for three or four years, he still owes the military, even if he gets married during this time. Likewise in Israel, for debts to be paid off, the male servant couldn’t just leave with his wife once he was married. He was still under contract, and he needed to honor this. And even when his contract was completed, he wasn’t allowed simply to walk away with his wife and kids. After all, they were still economic assets to his boss. What could the released man do? He had three options.
Before coming up with all sorts of modern Western solutions to solve these ancient Near Eastern problems, we should make greater efforts to better grasp the nature of Israelite servitude and the social and economic circumstances surrounding it. We’re talking about unfortunate circumstances during bleak economic times. Israel’s laws provided safety nets for protection, not oppression. It’s obvious that this arrangement was far different from the South’s chattel slavery, in which a slave wasn’t a temporarily indentured servant who voluntarily sold himself to live in another’s household to pay off his debts.
- He could wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. His wife and kids weren’t stuck in the employer’s home the rest of their lives. They could be released when the wife worked off her debt. Yet if the now-free man worked elsewhere, this would mean (a) he would be separated from his family, and (b) his boss would no longer supply him with food, clothing, and shelter. On the other hand, if he lived with his family after release, he’d still have to pay for room and board. So this scenario created its own set of financial challenges.
- He could get a decent job elsewhere and save his shekels to pay his boss to release his wife and kids from contractual obligations. What a great option! Why not take this route? Because it would have been very difficult for the man to support himself and earn enough money for his family’s debt release.
- He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer—a life contract (Exod. 21:5–6). He could stay with his family and remain in fairly stable economic circumstances. He would formalize this arrangement in a legal ceremony before the judges (God) by having his ear pierced with an awl.
Beating Slaves to Death? (Exodus 21:20-21)
20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
The passage in question regards what happens when a master beats his slave. When the master has killed his slave with staff or rod, he was to be “punished”. How is not specified. Perhaps it depended given a situation. The original Hebrew verb “naqam” differentiates itself from the verb used which means “to put to death” used in verses before this. But the such a vague refererence to “punishment” without specification likely means that capital punishment was possible. Murder was a capital offense (Exodus 20:13). Naqam has the connotation of being avenged. If the master beat his servant, but the servant died a couple of days later, the master was given the benefit of the doubt. Laws given just a few verses later suggest that if a man injured the eye or teeth of his slaves, those slaves were to go free (Exodus 21:26-27). The phrase “for he is his money” is better translated as “for he hath suffered the loss.” The KJV translators erred on the side of literality in these verses. Maybe for good reason. There are a couple of different exegeses for this verse, all depending upon how we translate the Hebrew.
- If we keep the phrase “for he is his money”, this could mean that the slave is a unit of exchange or barter with others, reinforcing the slave as the owner’s property
- If we change the phrase to “for it is his money”, then this would require us to understand what it is. It could refer to the servant. But it may also mean money paid to the servant. This stems from the context of the preceding verses in which men who fight, one injuring the other and causing the other to take up his bed for a while, had to pay the injured man for his time in bed and cause a full recovery. The verse may be stipulating that the master had to help his servant. This reading may be strengthened by the eye and teeth laws of verses 26 and 27. This is the argument made by Paul Copan and Hittologist Harry Hoffner Jr.
- If we render the translation “for he hath suffered the loss”. This could simply mean that the master has lost property in his investment.
- If we render the translation “for he is his property” then the reading is self-evident.
A Betrothed Servant Girl (Leviticus 19:20-21)
20 ¶ And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
The passage is actually quite redeeming for the personhood of slaves. The Jewish Study Bible notes: If one's female slave is designated for marriage to another man, sexual relations with her are illicit. Only by legal technicality (since the woman is not yet free, she is not strictly "betrothed" in the legally binding sense) are the two exempt from the death penalty mandated for adultery (see 20.10 n.) but the offense against God must be expiated. The '"asham" sacrifice is prescribed (see 5.14-26) even though no desecration of the sacred has taken place, because the "l).ata't" sacrifice (see 4.1-35) does not atone for deliberate acts. 20: There shall be an indemnity. This translation is uncertain. A simpler one is: "a distinction shall be made." Thus the servant girl’s personhood is actually maintained with dignity with this law—protecting the weaker from the stronger.
Israel Possessing the Nations as Menservants and Maidservants in the Lord’s Land? (Isaiah 14:1-2)
1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
This passage has restoration themes involved. Restoration themes often have verses describing God subduing his people’s enemies but aren’t necessarily to be taken as literal. According to the Jewish Study Bible, these verses introducing Isaiah’s poem were added during the Babylonian exile. God’s ultimate goal was to bless the nations of the earth (Genesis 12:3). As we will see in the following sections, slavery was something important to address and do away with somehow in the New Testament.
Jesus and Paul Silent on Slavery?
Some critics claim that Jesus and Paul were silent on the issue of slavery in the New Testament. There is some pushback to be offered to these claims. We start with the Savior. In Luke 4:18, the Savior proclaims the mission that he had been given.
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.
The NRSV renders these verses thusly:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, ¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
The bulk of 4:18-19 comes from Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 58:6. In those verses, The language of “release” echoes the jubilary language of Leviticus 25. The year of jubilee was prescribed as the year that slaves were released. This time came every 7 years. “It is widely recognized that Isaiah 58 and 61 develop jubilary themes…”. Therefore, it may have been part of the Savior’s mission to abolish harmful servitude structures in the Roman Empire. But much more likely was that the Savior only preached against oppressive structures and sought only to reform them if they were oppressive. “Jesus didn’t necessarily create an economic reform plan for Israel, but he addressed heart attitudes of greed, envy, contentment, and generosity to undermine oppressive economic social structures.” In the case of Paul, he attempted to make the distinction between master and servant irrelevant and condemn those that would abuse slaves. This is documented in several passages. (Galations 3:28; Collosians 4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 [translated “menstealers” in KJV but translated as “slavetraders” in most translations . He treated slaves as morally responsible people (Col 3:22-25). It has even been argued that he encouraged slaves to gain their freedom wherever possible (1 Cor 7:20-22). Scholarship is divided fairly evenly, however, on the correct interpretation of those verses. Regardless, it is inaccurate to say that this issue was something that Paul and the Savior did not care about. But then why didn’t the Savior and Paul (or Peter [1 Peter 1:18-20]) try to immediately abolish slavery? Paul Copan lays out the argument:
Critics wonder why Paul (or Peter in 1 Peter 2:18–20) didn’t condemn slavery outright and tell masters to release their slaves. Yet we should first separate this question from other considerations, even if the New Atheists aren’t necessarily interested in nuance. Paul’s position on the status of slavery was clear on various points: (1) he repudiated slave trading; (2) he affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; and (3) he encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:20–22). Paul’s revolutionary Christian affirmations helped to tear apart the fabric of the institution of slavery in Europe.This was also the type of incremental strategy taken by President Abraham Lincoln. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately. Being an exceptional student of human nature, he recognized that political realities and predictable reactions required an incremental approach. The radical abolitionist route of John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison would (and did!) simply create a social backlash against hard-core abolitionists and make emancipation all the more difficult.
Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow slaves of the same impartial Master; so they weren’t to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant “justice and fairness” to their slaves (Col. 4:1). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Col. 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers “and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant “justice and fairness” to their slaves (Col. 4:1). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Col. 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers and part of Christ’s body (1 Tim. 6:2). Christian slave and master alike belonged to Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Spiritual status was more fundamental than social status.
Paul (and Peter) didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right; even if they were mistreated, their conscience would be clear (1 Peter 2:18–20). Obligations fell to these slaves, yes, without their prior agreement. So the path for early Christians to take was tricky, very much unlike the situation in Old Testament Israel. On the one hand, a slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice and prove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g., “Masters, release your slaves!” or “Slaves, throw off your chains!”). Rome would meet any flagrant opposition with speedy, forceful, lethal opposition. So Peter’s admonition to unjustly treated slaves implies a suffering endured without retaliation. No, suffering in itself is not good (which would be a sadistic attitude to adopt and certainly not the view of Scripture); rather, the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.
On the other hand, the early Christians undermined slavery indirectly and certainly rejected many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it, such as Aristotle’s (slaves were inherently inferior to masters, as were females to males). Just as Jesus bore unjust suffering for the redemption of others and entrusted himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2: 20-24) so Christian slaves could bear hardship to show others—including their masters—the way of Christ and redemption through him, all the while entrusting themselves to God. Thus, like yeast, such Christlike living could have a gradual leavening effect on society so that oppressive institutions like slavery could finally fall away. This is, in fact, what took place throughout Europe, as we’ll see in the final chapter.
The Onesimus Question (Philemon)
Paul’s words in the lone chapter of Philemon have caused some concern over Paul’s degree of enthusiasm for dissolving slavery. They usually argue this on the basis of Paul not repudiating slavery explicitly. The exact correct way to interpret this passage remains debated today. The difficulty of deciding proper exegesis is that we are getting so little information from Paul as to why Onesimus was there in prison with him and what Paul wanted Philemon to do once Onesimus returned to him. One plausible interpretation of the passage is that Paul is exhorting Philemon to accept Onesimus back as more than a slave but a fellow-brother in Christ—essentially making the master/servant distinction nil and reforming the social attitudes of the day towards slaves (Phil 1:16). This is strengthened by Paul’s acceptance of servants as leaders in the Church and his encouragement to find freedom wherever possible.
Not Preaching the Gospel to “Bond-Servants” (D&C 134:12)
12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
This scripture must be taken in context. Joseph Smith had two years prior disavowed the morality of slavery in Kirtland, the same place where this document was penned (Doctrine and Covenants 101:79). Those members of the Church that were living in Missouri when the statement was written were accused of trying to overturn the institution of slavery. Missouri at the time was a slave state and the inclusion of slaves and the attempt at overthrowing the institution doubtless would have inflamed prejudice against the nascent Church. This was written in response to those that threatened violence. The Church teaches that slavery is unequivocally wrong and threatens the fundamental rights of an individual.
Additional Video Content
Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...racism"
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...racism
The author misrepresents the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
Question: Do the scriptures promote racism?
No, the scriptures contain explicit condemnation of disparaging those who are foreign.
Some have questioned if the scriptures sanction racism whether implicitly or explicitly. The scriptures contain specific language affirming the equality of all people before God. Just a small sampling:
- Genesis 1:26-27 – Man is made in the image of God.
- Exodus 22:21 – foreigners are to be given respect in Israel
- Leviticus 19:33-34 – Foreigners are not to be vexed while sojourning in Israel.
- Leviticus 25:39-42 – If foreigners are poor, they are to be hired with contracted, paid labor. Not slave labor.
- Deuteronomy 24:7 – If someone kidnaps another to sell them into slavery, the thief was given capital punishment.
- The Book of Ruth – Ruth, a Moabitess (Moabites receiving a restriction from entering the congregation of the Israelites) was permitted to enter the congregation and was even given the opportunity to canonize her writings that had the object of opposing the restriction of intermarrying with the Moabites.
- 2 Chronicles 19:6-7 – The Lord is not a respector of persons.
- Mark 12:31 – Love thy neighbor as thyself
- Philippians 2:3-4 – let everyone esteem each other better than themselves.
- 2 Corinthians 8:14 – A look towards Equality
- 1 John 4: 19-21 – If a man says he loves God but hates his brother, he is a liar.
- Romans 1:16 – Both Jew and Gentile receive Gospel.
- Romans 10:12-13 – No difference between Jew and Gentile
- Mark 16:15 – The gospel should be preached to every creature.
- Acts 17:26 – God hath made one blood of all nations.
- 1 John 3:15-16 – Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.
- John 7:24 – Judge not according to appearance.
- Colossians 3:25 – there is no respect of persons.
- Acts 10: 34-36 – God is no respector of persons.
- 2 Nephi 26:29 – all are alike unto God.
The Challenging Texts
The majority of the texts of the Bible for which racism is claimed have to do with interracial marriage. All passages that do have to do with marriage are not distinguishing based on race but rather the worship of other Gods. All idolatry and worshipping of other Gods in the Old Testament was strictly forbidden to all Israelites on the penalty of death (Exodus 20:5 22:20). This is the focus of every passage dealing with intermarriage.
- Deuteronomy 7 (The Canaanites)
The text of Deuteronomy 7 consists of the Lord’s preliminary commands to Israel for the conquest of Canaan. Verse 3 states that
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
As stated before, this had to do with idolatry and the worshipping of other Gods. The very next verse states:
4 For they will turn away they son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
- Numbers 25 (Intermarriage with the Moabites)
Numbers 25 is another example of the discouragement of intermarriage based upon the fear of worship of other Gods. The chapter begins by indicating that Israel began to commit whoredoms with the daughters of Moab and that the Moabites seduced Israelite men into orgiastic adultery and worship of Baal (this becomes crucial to the Lord’s decision in Numbers 31 to kill them). God then commands that the heads of the Israelites to be arrested and executed (likely my impalement), and hung up to show the severe punishment brought for this idolatry. Moses issues another command: to kill any idolaters. Because the wrath of God is not turned away by following God’s command to execute a few, a plague follows (see 25:8-9; cf. 25:18; 31:8-16). The second story follows the beginning of this plague. Zimri, an Israelite man, marries Cozbi, a “Midianitish woman” (“Midianitish is translated simply as “Midianite” in the NIV, NET, and NRSV). Phinehas, an Israelite man, slays Zimri and Cozbi with a spear (translated as “javelin” in the KJV). The plague is turned away but it is recorded that roughly 24,000 had died. The Lord declares he (Phinehas) “hath turned my wrath away from the Children of Israel…” He then rewards him with a “covenant of peace” interpreted as a covenant of “everlasting priesthood”. By turning away the idolatry and harlotry away from Israel, God was pleased. Nehemiah 13: 1-3, 23-30 Nehemiah contains prohibitions against Moabites and Ammonites from entering the congregation of the Lord. Both Deuteronomy and Nehemiah state that this prohibition is “forever”. Deuteronomy is the first to mention the prohibition against Moabites and Ammonites. Genesis 12:3 implies judgement on those who do wrong against Israel. Deuteronomy gives the actual rationale for the prohibition in 23:4
4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, and because they hired against thee Mesopotamia, to curse thee.5 Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD they God loved thee.
Now, the prohibition was not because Israel was racist. Rather, it was that Israel had to have the Moabites and/or Ammonites accept Yahweh and be genuine worshippers of him For instance, Ruth the Moabitess was allowed into the congregation and allowed to canonize.
The Jews as a “Chosen People”
Some have seen the Jews as being a “chosen people” as a type of ethnocentrism and racism. This is an interesting accusation considering they were trying to preserve the covenant that eventually blessed “all the families of the earth.” (Genesis 12:3; 28:14). This also disregards passage that provide explicit injunctions for the inclusion of foreigners among the Israelites.
The Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman
Some have criticized the Savior for being a “racist” for the encounters with the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman of Matthew 15 and Mark 7. This has been addressed thoroughly by author Ian Paul
Some have criticized certain passages of scripture that are claimed to promote anti semitsim. Passages include Matthew 23:31-35; 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16; Acts 2:22-36; 3:15; 10:39; John 8:44; Titus 1:10-11; Titus 15-16; and 2 Nephi 10:3. The key to understanding these passages is that they all relate specifically to the crucifiction of Jesus Christ. Readers have and should always normally sepertate the larger group of people from the specific instance and the specific people. Claims such as these are absurd.
”Dark mark” on Lamanites and the racist perception of the Nephites?
Some have claimed that the “Dark mark” on the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:21) is the result of a type of racism that the Nephites practiced. However, this almost certainly did not involve a literal skin change as has been convincingly argued by Brant Gardner. See this article for that argument]. In the same article, Gardner explains what “Nephite racism” really is:
Racism in the Book of Mormon: The Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist, although not at all in the usual sense of the term. It represents a particular culture with a distinctive worldview. Even though it was written for a future audience, it was written in a time and manner that reflected the social constructions of the authors, not those of modern readers. This referential gulf between intent and interpretation explains our tendency to read “skin of blackness” with modern racial overtones. The ancient world was actually quite prejudiced but did not necessarily base such prejudices upon skin color. Their prejudices ran deeper and broader, as Malina and Neyrey explain: “In their assessment of their fellow human beings, elite ancients utilized a set of fixed categories, each with a limited range of descriptive, distinct features. . . . It is important to note that these categories were regularly presented. Invariably, the usual way of thinking was in terms of A/not-A, either/or, for/against, true/false, in/out, heaven/earth—with no middle term. This so-called principle of excluded middle was the prevailing logic.” Each ancient culture usually saw itself as the center of the universe—the norm, the standard, the “good.” Using the logic of the excluded middle, “others” must be bad. This is the origin of the term “barbarian,” which the Greeks frequently used as a generic term for anyone who was not Greek and who was, therefore, inferior. Israelites also shared this widespread prejudice against “others,” as Malina and Neyrey point out: “First-century members of the house of Israel felt concerning all other peoples the way the Greeks felt about barbarians.” This cultural background contrasts the ancient collectivist personality with the modern individualist personality. Modern society prefers to see differences as individualized and therefore prejudicial when applied to a group. In contrast, ancient society saw reality as communally related. The group was the meaning, and individuals who did not conform were considered deviant. According to this model, the Book of Mormon would predictably follow a model of a collective, excluded-middle, conception of others as “bad,” opposed to themselves as “good.” If it did not, it would not accurately represent the culture that produced it. The Book of Mormon is indeed prejudiced against the Lamanites. However, that prejudice always arises along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary. Descriptions of Lamanites repeat the same stock phrases over time:
1. (ca. 587 BC, written ca. 540–550 BC) 1 Nephi 12:23: And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.
2. (ca. 575 BC, written ca. 540–550 BC) 2 Nephi 5:24: “And because of their cursing . . . they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.”
3. (ca. 350–360 BC) Enos 1:20: “The Lamanites . . . were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.
4. (ca. 120 BC) Mosiah 10:12: They were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, believing in the tradition of their fathers. . . .
5. (ca. 82 BC) Alma 17:13–14: And it came to pass when they had arrived in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, that they separated themselves and departed one from another, trusting in the Lord that they should meet again at the close of their harvest; for they supposed that great was the work which they had undertaken. And assuredly it was great, for they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; and their hearts were set upon riches, or upon gold and silver, and precious stones; yet they sought to obtain these things by murdering and plundering, that they might not labor for them with their own hands.
6. (ca. 49 BC) Helaman 3:16: And they have been handed down from one generation to another by the Nephites, even until they have fallen into transgression and have been murdered, plundered, and hunted, and driven forth, and slain, and scattered upon the face of the earth, and mixed with the Lamanites until they are no more called the Nephites, becoming wicked, and wild, and ferocious, yea, even becoming Lamanites.
7. (ca. AD 372) Mormon 5:15: And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
Each quotation describes “how the Lamanites are.” While there is at least a possibility that the description was true when Nephi began this traditional stereotyping of the Lamanites, it was untrue by the time of Enos if not earlier. It is conclusively untrue in Alma where the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies discusses the many cities of the Lamanites (Alma 23:9–15). Furthermore, these descriptions of the Lamanites as the opposite of the Nephites vanish as soon as the Lamanites cross the outsider/insider boundary. Once they are Nephites, they are fully and wholly Nephites, incorporating all of the “good” qualities of Nephites. Separation occurs with the label “Lamanite,” not because of skin color.Note how Jacob uses the “filthy” label that accompanies “dark” in 1 Nephi 12:23 Mormon 5:15: “But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction” (Jacob 3:3). In normal reference, the Lamanites are “dark” and “filthy.” However, that “filthiness” is obviously a moral quality. At the point Jacob addresses his people, he applies this outsider label to them directly to highlight their adoption of outsider practices. (See commentary accompanying Jacob 3:3.)
Darkness on the Canaanites (Moses 7)
Moses 7 is part of a vision of the prophet Enoch. Verses 8 and 22 have caused some concern for some. The texts state:
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much hear, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever, and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
The biggest problem with this is that the “blackness” did not mean to ancient people what it means to us today. Brant Gardner:
The tree’s whiteness symbolizes righteousness or heavenliness. It is not intended to be a physical description. Similarly, I conclude that the association between skin and white/black is metaphoric, not intended to indicate pigmentation. Douglas Campbell, a professor of computer science at Brigham Young University, examined the textual uses of “white” in the Book of Mormon and concludes that the term is used metaphorically for purity and/or cleanliness.20 The metaphorical use of color terms echoes that of the Bible. Lamentations 4:7–8 (Revised English Version), ascribes metaphorical color to capture the before/after conditions of the Babylonian captivity:
Her crowned princes were once purer than snow, whiter than milk; they were ruddier than branching coral; their limbs were lapis lazuli.
But their faces turned blacker than soot, and no one knew them in the streets; the skin was shriveled tight over their bones, dry as touchwood.
Obviously no pigmentation change occurred as the “white” faces of the princes became “blacker than soot.” Here are two other examples:
Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness. (Joel 2:6)She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness. (Nahum 2:10)
This reading—of the Canaanites being wicked-- holds true for other mentions of the Canaanites as they are mentioned in the context of wickedness in Deuteronomy 7 and 1 Nephi 17:33.
That race that was cursed according to the Priesthood (Abraham 1:24-27)
Some have held that the Book of Abraham preserves doctrines of the African race being cursed by God relevant to the priesthood. Hugh Nibley has pointed out a number of problems with this exegesis:
The Mark of Cain
When Cain was cursed because of his sin he went to the land of Nod (Genesis 4:16)—meaning nomadism or wandering; he and his descendants became wanderers on the face of the earth. The parallel with the Lamanites at once springs to mind. Lamanite darkness was ethnic in the broadest sense, being both hereditary and cultural, shifting between “white and delightsome” and “dark and loathsome,” along with manners and customs as well as intermarriage (Alma 3:4—10). But inseparable from the cultural heritage of ancient tribes were the markings that members of the society put on themselves, without which they would be considered outcasts. People who marked their foreheads with red after the Lamanite custom “knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads,” thus showing that the Lamanite curse had fallen on them (Alma 3:18). It was the same with the descendants of Cain. Since time immemorial they have been identified throughout the East with those wandering tribes of metalworkers whose father was Tubal Cain. “Thubal bore the sins of Cain,” says a midrash, “and followed Cain’s trade. For he prepared weapons for murderers,”a tradition clearly echoed in the Book of Mormon (Ether 8:15). Tubal is the Sumerian tibera, coppersmith or metalworker. As the sign of their mystery and their tribe, the wandering smiths or tinkers have always blackened their faces with soot, a practice still found among journeying sweeps and some others who work at the grimy forge. The name by which they were known was Qenites (cf. Aramaic qēnā = smith). The ancient people of Tubal were also connected with Nukhashshe, a name that designated those parts of Asia Minor and Syria where mining and metallurgy are believed to have originated;the same word is the common Semitic root for copper and its alloys, and it is the Egyptian name for the Ethiopians, usually translated as “the Blacks,” nḥsy. According to their own report and universal folklore, these traveling menders of pots and pans must keep traveling because they are under a curse. “They are the Gypsies,” says a very old Judaeo-Christian writing, “who carry loads, and they march on the roads with their backs and necks breaking under their loads, and they wander round to the doors of the children of their brethren.”They beguile their outcast condition with wild music and dancing, and they are the Cainites of old who enticed the righteous Sethians, called “the Children of God,” to join in their revels and so fall from grace in the days of Jared. Their special mark is not the blackened face and hands, however, but a tattoo on the hand or arm, a Tau-sign or a circle and cross. In Genesis it is the brand of Cain, ancestor of the Kenites, and in Ezekiel it is the divine mark set on the brows of all just men. According to a midrash, God placed a letter of the alphabet on Cain’s hand as a mark, so that no one would slay him, and some of the Jewish doctors maintained that “the ‘Sign of Cain’ was the mark on David’s brow.” Certain it is that “the mark of Cain” goes along with a cursing, a wandering way of life, and a distinctive mark on the body.
Black persons occasionally turn up in reception scenes such as our Facsimile 3, for example, in the tombs of the Courtiers, of the Engravers, or Setnakht, of Tauser, of Ramses IX, etc., where they represent persons of honor from servants to the gods themselves, for Isis, Osiris, and Horus are all shown at times with black faces. When we see the black man Bak-en-Mut in his own funeral papyrus standing before a black Osiris seated upon the throne, the blackness is no mere whim of the artist, but is meant to be taken seriously, since the black Osiris is wearing not the usual Atef crown, as in countless other such scenes, but only the white crown of the South.In other papyri showing the same scene, the black Osiris is always wearing that white crown alone, making the black connection a positive one. In the drawings and texts, which are numerous, the proportion of black to white seems to follow no pattern but that of a society in which the races mingle freely and equally. If Senusret III has contempt for his black enemies, the great pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty speak with no less contempt of their Asiatic foes. Even among the Egyptian slave population the blacks are far outnumbered by the Asiatics, and no distinction is made between them in the record. The stock representations by the Egyptians of “the four races” (Egyptian, Asiatic, Black, European-Berber) have, according to Brugsch, “completely lost . . . any special significance” by the New Kingdom. “The old names still appear on the monuments, but rarely and without the slightest indication of race distinction.” We are fortunate in possessing an impressive gallery of royal portraits, to say nothing of an even more impressive line of royal mummies, male and female, dating from the earliest dynasties right down to the end. Among them are a few black African types, showing that if black did not prevent one from becoming pharaoh, neither was it a requirement. There was simply no prejudice in the matter. There is a tradition that the most precious gift of Pharaoh to Abraham was a black servant from the king’s household, who became inseparably attached to Abraham, and even resembled him like a twin. This recalls Abraham’s marriage to Hagar, traditionally a servant or even a daughter of Pharaoh, whose son Ishmael shared equal honors with Isaac, even to receiving the great promise of becoming the father of many nations. When Judah’s son refused to accept a Canaanite woman for his wife because of her race, according to the book of Jubilees, God smote him. When Judah himself tried to take advantage of the same woman as an inferior, God smote him too.
In the ancient records the blood of Ham is a mixture, always containing more white than black. The mingling of Egyptian and Canaanite is attested in a number of ancient sources, as in Abraham 1:21. Josephus tells us that the countries occupied by Ham stretched “from Syria and Mounts Amanus and Lebanon to the ocean.” And while Ham is the ancestor of Pharaoh in Genesis 10:6—20, the line also includes the Philistines, from whom Palestine gets its name.Recent studies of the genealogy of Cain by Johannes Gabrieland Robert North emphasize the claims of such desert tribes as the Kenites and the families of Kenaz and Caleb to belong to the family. Though the Hamites are as conspicuously Asiatic as African, the oldest African stocks as well—Libyans, Tehennu, Berber—were not only white, but often referred to as pale-skinned and red-headed. Joseph Karst detected an extension of “the chain of Hamite people: Kushites, Egyptoids and Libyo-Hamites,” in enclaves all over the Mediterranean and the islands clear to Spain. Linguistic evidence intertwines Hamites and Semites the further back in time one goes, their vigorous rivalry being evidenced in the earliest Egyptian hieroglyphics, as shown by Hans Stock. Werner Vycichl finds Semitic traits in the beginning in North Africa, “perhaps due to a wave of Hamitic tribes coming from Asia via the Strait of al-Qantara as the Arabs came later.” “The Hamitic invasion,” he concludes, “certainly came from the East,” though “originally . . . the Hamitic languages were not a single block as were the Semitic.”These few observations, kept to a minimum, should be enough to make it clear that there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between the Egyptians and the blacks, or between any of the above and any particular curse. What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right to the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession.
As can be seen, claims of the scriptures being racist generally lack context and depth.
Response to claim:"To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...human sacrifice"
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...human sacrifice
The author misrepresents the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
Question: Does the Bible endorse human sacrifice?
The Bible condemns, multiple times, any practice of human sacrifice or similar practices
Some have claimed that the Bible promotes human and infant sacrifice. This is contradicted by several passages in the Bible (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Additionally, this is seen in a negative light in the Book of Mormon (Mormon 4:14).
The Challenging Texts
Passages that claim to be endorsing human sacrifice come from 2 Kings 3:27; Judges 11:30-40, and Exodus 22. They have been heartily addressed by Evangelical scholar and Christian apologist Paul Copan:
Paul Copan: “Infant sacrifice in Israel?”
Infant Sacrifice in Israel?
Not a few critics will point out that the Old Testament assumes hat infant sacrifice was acceptable in Israelite society and demanded as an act of worship by the God of Israel. Some will showcase Abraham and Isaac (though hardly an infant) as one such example. Such criticisms are off the mark, however. For one thing, the Mosaic law clearly condemns child sacrifice as morally abhorrent (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; 18:10). As Susan Niditch points out in War in the Hebrew Bible, the “dominant voice” in the Old Testament “condemns child sacrifice” since it opposes God’s purposes and undermines Israelite society. Here, Mesha, king of Moab, sacrifices his firstborn son on the wall of Kir Hareseth (in Moab). After this, the Israelite army withdrew because of “wrath.” Some think this is God’s wrath and that God is showing his approval of Mesha’s sacrifice of his son by responding in wrath against Israel. This view, however, has its problems:
- This notion is at odds with clear condemnation of child sacrifice earlier in the Pentateuch (Deut 12: 31; 18:10) as well as repudiation of it within Kings itself (2 Kings 16:3; 17:7; 21:6).
- The word fury or wrath (qetseph) isn’t divine wrath Elsewhere in 2 Kings, a cognate word (coming from the same root as qetseph) clearly refers to human fury (5:11; 13:19).
- Typically, commentators suggest several plausible interpretations: (1) This was Moab’s fury against Israel because their king, Mesha, forced by desperation, sacrificed his son; Mesha’s goal was to prompt Moab’s renewed determination to fight. (2) The Israelites were filled with horror or superstitious dread when they saw this human sacrifice, causing them to abandon the entire venture. (3) Even though Mesha, had failed in his attempt to break through the siege (perhaps to head north for reinforcements), he was still able to capture the king of Edom’s firstborn son, whom he sacrificed on the wall, which demoralized Edom’s army. The wrath of Edom’s army ended the war because they withdrew from the military coalition of Israel, Judah, and Edom.
Jephthah’s Daughter: Judges 11:30-40
Israel’s judge Jephthah made a rash vow: “Whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon [who were oppressing Israel], it shall be the Lord’s and I will offer it up a burnt offering” (Judg. 11:31). Perhaps he was thinking it might be one of his servants, who would most likely come out to attend him. Yet he was horrified to see that “his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing” (v. 34). Some Old Testament scholars argue that Jephthah didn’t literally sacrifice his daughter. Most, however, are convinced that the text asserts this. So let’s take for granted the worst-case scenario. Then come the inevitable questions: Wouldn’t Jephthah have clearly known that child sacrifice was immoral and that God judged the Canaanites for such practices? Why then did he go ahead with this sacrifice? Was it because God really did approve of child sacrifice after all? We’ve already affirmed that is doesn’t mean ought in the Old Testament; just because something is described doesn’t mean it’s prescribed as a standard to follow. Certain behaviors are just bad examples that we shouldn’t follow (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). So let’s make the necessary changes and apply our questioner’s reasoning to another judge—Samson. As a judge of Israel, wouldn’t he have clearly known that touching unclean corpses was forbidden (Judg. 14: 8-9), especially given his (permanent) Nazarite vow (Num 6)? Wasn’t he fully aware that consorting with prostitutes was prohibited (Judg. 16:1)? You get the idea. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the era of Israel’s judges. To borrow from Charles Dickens, this was in large part the worst of times, an age of foolishness, the season of darkness, and the winter of despair. So critics should be careful about assuming Jephthah (or Samson) was in peak moral condition. Some might wonder, “Didn’t the Spirit of the Lord’ come on Jephthah?” (Judg. 11:29). Yes, but we shouldn’t take this as a wholesale divine endorsement of all Jephthah did—no more so than the Spirit’s coming on Gideon (Judg. 11:29) was a seal of approval on his dabbling with idolatry (Judg. 8:24-27), or of Ehud’s, for that matter (Judg 3:26). Yes, these judges of Israel would surely have known idolatry was wrong. Likewise, “the Spirit of the Lord” came upon Samson to help Israel keep the Philistines at bay (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14). Yet his plans to marry a Philistine woman, cavorting with a prostitute, and getting mixed up with Delilah all reveal a judge with exceedingly poor judgement! We can surely find a lesson in here somewhere about how God works despite human sin and failure. The theology of Judges emphasizes a remarkable low point of Israelite morality and religion, with two vivid narratives at the book’s end to illustrate this (chaps. 17-21). Israel continually allowed itself to be “Canaanized.” And in light of Judges’ repeated theme, “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6; 21:25; cf. 2:10-23), we shouldn’t be surprised that Israel’s leaders were also morally compromised. We don’t have to look hard for negative role models in Judges, when Israel was in the moral basement. The Jephthah story needs no explicit statement of God’s obvious disapproval. Some might press the point: doesn’t the Old Testament refer to offering the firstborn to God (Exod. 22:29-30)? Following Ezekiel 20:25-26, they claim that God literally gave harmful (“not good”) statutes by which Israel could not “live”—commands involving sacrificing the firstborn child in the fire. They assert that Yahweh just didn’t like it when Israel sacrificed children to other gods! However, no such distinction is made; infant sacrifice—whether to Yahweh or to Baal or Molech—is still detestable. Yes, this was a common practice in Israel and Judah (e.g. 2 Kings 17:17; 23:10), and kings Ahaz, Manasseh, and others made their sons and daughters “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron 33:6). But commonality here doesn’t imply acceptability. Exodus does refer to the “redemption”—not sacrifice—of the womb-opening first-born child; God himself redeemed his firstborn Israel by bringing them up from Egypt (Exod 13:13; cf. 4:23). What then is Ezekiel talking about? The text clearly indicates that God gave the Sinai generation “statutes” (chuqqot) (e.g. Sabbath commands) by which an Israelite might “live” (20:12-13). Israel rejected these laws given at Sinai; they refused to follow them (v. 21). So God “withdrew [His] hand.” God responded to the second (or wilderness) generation as he does in Romans 1: he “gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by” (Ezek. 20:25 NIV). Ezekiel not only distinguishes this word statutes (the masculine plural chuqqim) from statutes elsewhere in the context (the feminine noun chuqqot). The text also involves quite a bit of irony. God sarcastically tells Israel to “go, serve everyone his idols” (Ezek 20:39); to put it another way, “go, sacrifice your children.” This ironic “statute” to stubborn Israel to continue in idolatry and infant sacrifice is comparable to God’s sarcasm in Amos 4:4: “Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more” (NIV). The same is true of the prophet Micaiah, who tells the disobedient, Yahweh-ignoring king of Israel, “Go up and succeed, and the Lord will give it unto the hand of the king” (1 Kings 22:15). These are the sorts of sarcastic “commands” that aren’t “good” and by which Israel can’t “live”.
The Value of Unborn Life
One of the big differences between Old Testament laws and their ancient Near Eastern counterparts is the value of human life. Despite this, it’s not unusual to hear that in ancient Israel unborn life wasn’t as valuable as life outside the womb. Indeed, certain proabortion advocates have sought theological justification for permitting abortion in the following passage:If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [some advocate an alternate reading: “she has a miscarriage”] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (Exod 21:22-25 NIV).
The key issue is this: should the Hebrew word yalad be translated “give birth prematurely” or “have a miscarriage”? If the mother miscarries, then the offender only has to pay a fine; the implication in this case is that the unborn child isn’t as valuable and therefore isn’t deserving of care normally given to a person outside the womb. Apparently, this Old Testament passage shows a low(er) regard for unborn life. Let’s skip to another passage, Psalm 139, which strongly supports the value of the unborn:For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My fame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (vv. 13-16 NIV)
Keep this text in mind as we go back to the Exodus 21 passage. Contrary to the above claims, Exodus 21 actually supports the value of unborn human life. The word yalad means “go forth” or “give birth,” describing a normal birt (Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer 1:5; 20:18). It’s always used of giving birth, not of a miscarriage. If the biblical text intended to refer to a miscarriage, the typical word for “miscarry/miscarriage” (shakal/shekol) was available (e.g., Gen 31;38; Exod 23:26; Job 21:10; Hosea 9:14). Miscarry isn’t used here. Furthermore, yalad (“give birth”) is always used of a child that has recognizable human form or is capable of surviving outside the womb. The Hebrew word nepel is the typical word used of an unborn child, and the word golem, which means “fetus,” is used only once in the Old Testament in Psalm 139:16, which we just noted: God knew the psalmist’s “unformed body” or “unformed substance.” This brings us to another question: Who is injured? The baby or the mother? The text is silent. It could be either, since the feminine pronoun is missing. The gist of the passage seems to be this:If two men fight and hit a pregnant woman and the baby is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury [to the child or the mother], then the offender must be fined whatever the husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury [to the baby or the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye.
These verses then actually imply the intrinsic value of the unborn child—that the life of the offender may be taken if the mother’s or the child’s life is lost. He unborn child is given the same rights as an adult (Gen 9:6).New Atheists and other critics often resort to caricatures or misrepresentations of the Old Testament laws. While Mosaic laws do not always reflect the ultimate or the ideal (which the Old Testament itself acknowledges), these laws and the mind-set they exhibit reveal a dramatic moral improvement and greater moral sensitivity than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts. 
Response to claim:"To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...child abuse"
To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...child abuse
The author misrepresents the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
Question: Do the scriptures endorse child abuse?
It is claimed that God’s command of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is an example of divinely endorsed child abuse. It is also claimed that God’s sending of Christ to be crucified instead of himself is such an example
Some claim that God’s command of Abraham to slay Isaac is an example of divinely endorsed child abuse. Anyone who knows the story is aware that the story is not about abusing Isaac nor does it even insinuate such. Rather, it is about God’s desire for Abraham to be willing to follow him despite hard trials to follow in his life. It also foreshadows the offering of God’s only begotten son in the flesh—Jesus Christ—saving us in Gethsemane and on the cross. It’s unfortunate because Christ on the cross has also been given some criticism.
In the case of Christ, some secular critics decry that God is an abuser by sending his son to die on the cross. The short answer is that Christ was foreordained to come to earth to redeem all mankind. He voluntarily gave himself in the pre-mortal council to become our Savior (Moses 4:1-2; Rev 13:8; 1 Peter 19:21). Upon coming here to earth, his agency was not taken away from him. He had the ability to put down his life and to take it back up (John 10:18). It was God’s plan from the beginning, but the supernal gift and voluntary sacrifice of a loving Savior.
- Old Testament Seminary Manual on Abraham and Isaac
- Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 42-53 off-site
Response to claim: "that Laban would send his servants after Nephi and his brothers is ridiculous considering that the same God who had no problem lighting stones and taming swarms of bees"
The Lord commands Nephi to murder (decapitate) Laban for the brass plates. Never mind that Laban was drunk and defenseless. The argument that Laban would send his servants after Nephi and his brothers is ridiculous considering that the same God who had no problem lighting stones and taming swarms of bees (Ether 2-3) for the Brother of Jared can also preserve Nephi.
The author trivializes the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
- Jeffery R. Holland: "It is wrong to assume that Nephi in any way wished to take Laban’s life"
- Question: Did Nephi commit "cold blooded murder" when he killed Laban?
- Question: Why didn't God simply preserve Nephi's life using divine power instead of requiring him to kill Laban?
Jeffery R. Holland: "It is wrong to assume that Nephi in any way wished to take Laban’s life"
Jeffery R. Holland:
It is wrong to assume that Nephi in any way wished to take Laban’s life. He was a young man, and despite a 600 B.C. world full of tensions and retaliations, he had never “shed the blood of man.” (1 Ne. 4:10.) Nothing in his life seems to have conditioned him for this task. In fact the commandments he had been taught from childhood declared, “Thou shalt not kill”; and he recoiled, initially refusing to obey the prompting of the Spirit. . . .
Laban, lying before Nephi in a drunken stupor, has not been guiltless in his dealings with Lehi’s family. In what little we know of the man, Laban has at least: (1) been unfaithful in keeping the commandments of God; (2) falsely accused Laman of robbery; (3) coveted Lehi’s property as a greedy, “lustful” man; (4) stolen that property outright; and (5) sought twice to kill Nephi and/or his brothers. He was, by the Holy Spirit’s own declaration, a “wicked” man delivered unto Nephi by the very hand of the Lord. 
Question: Did Nephi commit "cold blooded murder" when he killed Laban?
Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day
Nephi's action against Laban (found in 1 Nephi 4:5–18) certainly seems like a gruesome and extreme scenario. However, this is an example of the problem of cultural differences — modern readers raised in Western culture often fail to connect with Nephi's time and place.
Hugh Nibley recalled:
When in 1946 this writer composed a little treatise called Lehi in the Desert from limited materials then available in Utah, he had never knowingly set eyes on a real Arab. Within the last five years Aneze tribesmen and citizens of Mecca, including even guides to the Holy Places, have been his students, in Provo, of all places, while Utah has suddenly been enriched with a magnificent Arabic library, thanks to the inspired efforts of Professor Aziz Atiya of the University of Utah. As if it were not enough for the mountain to come to Mohammed, those sons of the desert who came to Provo found themselves taking a required class in the Book of Mormon from [me]. Naturally [I] was more than curious to see how these young men would react to the Book of Mormon treatment of desert themes, and invited and even required them to report frankly on their impressions. To date, with only one exception, no fault has been found with Nephi on technical grounds. The one exception deserves the attention of all would-be critics of the Book of Mormon.
It was in the first class ever held in "Book of Mormon for Near Eastern Students," and the semester had barely begun when of course we ran smack into the story of how Nephi found Laban dead drunk in a dark alley and cut off his head — a grisly tale that upsets Nephi himself in telling it. As we rehearsed the somber episode, I could detect visible signs of annoyance among the Arab students — whispered remarks, head-shakings, and frowns of dissent. Finally, toward the end of the hour, a smart young man from Jordan could hold out no longer. "Mr. Nibley," he said, plainly speaking for the others, "there is one thing wrong here. It doesn't sound right. Why did this Nephi wait so long to cut off Laban's head?" Since I had been expecting the routine protests of shock and disgust with which Western critics react to the Laban story, I was stunned by this surprise attack — stunned with a new insight into the Book of Mormon as a message from another age and another culture. 
John Welch has also argued that Nephi's action should be understood as protected manslaughter rather than criminal homicide.  The biblical law of murder, under which Nephi and Laban operated, demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses' killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 support his conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day.
Question: Why didn't God simply preserve Nephi's life using divine power instead of requiring him to kill Laban?
The Lord actually did preserve Nephi and his brothers two times from being killed by Laban
The Lord actually did preserve Nephi and his brothers from being killed by Laban....twice.
God is not a magician who waves his wand and removes all obstacles. He expects us to do as much as we can. For example, God could have caused Laban to have had a heart attack, or cirrhosis of the liver, and died before Nephi got there, but that is simply not how God works.
If Joseph were making the story up, then why not just have Nephi just find Laban already dead in the street? Nephi's account actually seems to have been written to deliberately provide all the proper legal justification for the act, according to ancient Israelite law. This may not appease the ethical concerns, but, the point is, how did Joseph Smith know ancient Israel law so well? This is evidence that it was written by someone familiar with the legal code of that time and place.
Response to claim: "God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors?"
4. Exodus 12:12 God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?
Jump to Detail:
- Question: Why would a loving God would kill innocent children in the flood of Noah's day?
- Question: Why would a loving God kill the firstborn of Egypt?
- Joseph Fielding Smith: "This was also in the similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ"
Question: Why would a loving God would kill innocent children in the flood of Noah's day?
LDS scripture shows God exercising incredible restraint and only issuing the flood when there was no other option
Hugh Nibley wrote:
In giving us a much fuller account than the Bible of how the Flood came about, the [Enoch material in the Book of Moses] settles the moral issue with several telling parts: 1. God’s reluctance to send the Flood and his great sorrow at the event. 2. The peculiar brand of wickedness that made the Flood mandatory. 3. The frank challenge of the wicked to have God do his worst. 4. The happy and beneficial side of the event—it did have a happy outcome. 
The Joseph Smith Translation portrays God, and even nature itself, as mourning and weeping at the great sinfulness of mankind (Moses 7:28,37,40,45).
The depiction of the scene is so grim that Enoch himself begins to weep, but the Lord tells him, “Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look,” after which Enoch sees a vision of the earth repopulated from his righteous descendant, Noah and salvation coming through Christ (including little children) (Moses 7:44–45, see also Moroni 8:19 on salvation of children).
Enoch pleaded with the Lord, and the Lord delayed the Flood to give humanity another chance (Moses 7:50–52).
In the JST, God didn’t unleash nature; he held it back as long as he could.
Thus, rather than seeing God as capricious or a type of genocidal maniac, LDS scripture shows him exercising incredible restraint and only issuing the flood when there was no other option. Further, God makes ample provision for the salvation of all his children, and in LDS theology would not condemn children to hell, but instead exalts them (Mosiah 3:18-21, Mosiah 15:25, DC 29:46-47, DC 74:7).
There is also concern about the actuality of the flood
It should be noted that scholars still debate the purpose and the actuality of the flood narrative in the Bible. Thus, God really might not have committed any such "genocide" at all. See here for more information regarding that.
Question: Why would a loving God kill the firstborn of Egypt?
This was God's last option, not His first. He took no delight in it.
This had nothing to do with God deriving some sort of pleasure from killing "innocent children for the actions of others." God didn't want to kill anyone. Over and over and over again Moses came to Pharaoh, asking him to let the children of Israel go. The Pharaoh refused the request every time. There were nine plagues the preceded the Passover; Pharaoh could have gotten the message, but he didn't. This was God's last option, not His first. He took no delight in it. The killing of the Passover lamb and the placement of its blood above the doorway was a symbolic representation of how Christ would save us through his sacrifice.
Joseph Fielding Smith: "This was also in the similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ"
Joseph Fielding Smith:
When the Israelites left Egypt, the Lord gave them the passover. They were to take a lamb without blemish; they were not to break any of its bones. They were to kill it, cook it, and eat it with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. This feast they were to remember annually thereafter until Christ should come. This was also in the similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If you stop to consider it, it was at the time of the passover that our Lord was taken and crucified in fulfillment of the promises that had been made that he would come to be our Redeemer.
Response to claim: "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed...stoning disobedient children...killing people who worked on the Sabbath, death penalty for those that mixed cotton with polyester...Got a rebellious kid who doesn’t listen? Take him to the elders and to the end of the gates and stone him to death!"
Got a rebellious kid who doesn’t listen? Take him to the elders and to the end of the gates and stone him to death!
God commands death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath trying to support their families.
We should understand the bible in context and as a whole to grasp a fuller and more enlightening picture.
Jump to Detail:
- Question: Why are Old Testament penalties for disobedience so harsh?
- JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy: "Filial insubordination is a grave offense because respect and obedience toward parents is regarded as the cornerstone of all order and authority"
Question: Why are Old Testament penalties for disobedience so harsh?
The Law of Moses was a very strict law that was designed to teach the Children of Israel obedience
The Law of Moses was a very strict law that was designed to teach the Children of Israel obedience. It was indeed quite harsh when compared to our modern standards, however for its time (in several aspects at least) it was step forward from the even harsher surrounding Near Eastern cultures. (See our article about viewing troubling texts from the OT here).
When Jesus Christ came to earth, He fulfilled the Law of Moses. God reminds us that his ways are not our ways in Isaiah 55:8-9:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Capital punishment was required generally for five reasons in Israel:
- Sexual purity. Sexual acts were given perhaps the strictest boundaries. This applies for adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, incest, and rape
- The worship of other Gods. God's people had to maintain a theological purity. Worshipping other gods in the scriptures is most often compared to adultery and/or whoredoms. Anything that usurped the authority of Jehovah was strictly prohibited. This applies to divination, and sacrificing to false Gods.
- Common moral injustices - this applies to theft, murder, kidnapping, and human sacrifice.
- Maintaining sociological order. This applies to cursing and striking parents.
- Maintaining ritual purity. God wanted Israel to be a people that was set apart from the rest. They had to show it through moral advances, strict obedience, and setting the world aside. This applies to Sabbath breakers and some of the strict legislation set for the Israelite camp.
The following were defined as crimes worthy of capital punishment under the Mosaic Law:
- Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:13-21) - Sexual fidelity was paramount for keeping the family unit intact.
- Approaching the Ark of the Covenant (Numbers 4:15, 20; 1 Samuel 6:19-20; 2 Samuel 6: 6-7) - See "Approaching the Tabernacle".
- Approaching the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51) - This applied to non-Israelites who encroached on the tabernacle. This doesn't mean that outsiders weren't welcome (Exodus 22:21), just that intruders that disrupted the communal interest in an obviously malicious way were to be punished.
- Bestiality (Exodus 22:19) - Prohibitions against sexual promiscuity and adventurism enforced the familial ideal
- Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16,23) - God required the fidelity and faithfulness of the Israelites.
- Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17) - This also enforced the familial ideals of Israel
- Disobeying the judge or priest that mediates a specific case (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) - As noted in the New Oxford Annotated Bible,
In the pre-Deuteronomic period, legal cases in which there was an absence of physical evidence or of witnesses were remanded to the local sanctuary, where the parties to the dispute would swear a judicial oath at the altar (19.17; Ex 22.7-11; 1 Kings 8.31-32; note also Ex 21.6). These two laws (17.2-7,8-13) thus fill the judicial void created by Deuteronomy's prohibition of the local sanctuaries (ch 12). Now, any case that requires recourse to the altar is remanded to the central sanctuary; all other cases, even capital ones, may be tried locally (vv 2-7). 8. These cases must be referred to the central sanctuary because, in the absence of witnesses o evidence, local officials cannot make a ruling. Between one kind of bloodshed and another, the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter (Ex 21. 12-14; Num 35. 16-23). In each pair, he distinction is between premeditated or unintentional offenses. 9: The tribunal at the sanctuary includes both priestly and lay members. The account of Jehosophat's setting up tribunals throughout Judah composed of lay and clerical judges reflects this law (2 Chr 19. 5-11)."
- Divination (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27) - Witchcraft was equivalent to usurping the power of Yahweh since it convinced people into worshipping other Gods. The worship of other Gods is frequently juxtaposed with themes of whoredom and adultery.
- False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-11; Zechariah 13:3) - There had to be a way to know who was a true prophet of Jehovah.
- Fornication (Leviticus 21:9) - Sexual fidelity was the primordial factor that enforced Israel's familial ideals.
- Homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) - The joining of man and woman ensured the continuation of species and the rising up of a righteous generation of followers to Jehovah.
- Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2) - The practice was deplorable as it wasted God's creation and was a frequent practice of neighboring civilizations.
- Incest (Leviticus 18:6-17) - Another law creating strict boundaries around sex. The bounds that God placed on sexual practice were for the specific purpose of fulfilling the ideals of the Plan of Salvation--to bring righteous souls to the earth so that the could participate in the gift of mortality and becoming like God.
- Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16) - Self-evident. This law applied to everyone whether Israelite, non-Israelite, slave, freeman, etc.
- Murder (Exodus 21:12-14) - Self-evident. The taking of innocent life was a very serious threat to creational ideals.
- Rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) - Self-evident.
- Rebelliousness (Deuteronomy 17:12) - Another law regarding familial unity and congruency. Rebelliousness upset the family order. Though the laws governing capital punishment here were casuistic.
- Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:19, 20; Numbers 25:1-9; Deuteronomy 13: 7-19; 17:2-5; 2 Chronicles 15:12-13; 1 Kings 14:9-16; 1 Kings 18:37-40) - Consecrating oneself to God was of the utmost importance. This applied only to Israelites who had covenanted to follow Yahweh and then sacrificed to someone else. Sacrificing to other gods is often juxtaposed with themes of whoredom and adultery.
- Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15) - Another law regarding familial ideals.
- Violating the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15; 35:2) - Strict laws ensured that Israel learned obedience and consecrated themselves to God.
Some have claimed that there was a death penalty for mixing certain kinds of fabrics together. It is true that there was a prohibition for this type of mixing given in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. Yet neither scripture points to a penalty of death for their violation. Why these mixing laws were given has been difficult to explain for biblical scholars though there are a number of different theories.
From the The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy:
Verses 18–21 describe the procedure to be followed if a son is repeatedly insubordinate and his parents conclude that there is no hope of reforming him: they are to bring him before the town elders who will hear the case and, if they agree, order his execution. The law seeks to deter filial insubordination, but, by requiring that the case be judged by the elders, it also places limits on parental authority, as does the preceding law. Earlier, in the patriarchal period, it appears that the father’s authority over his children was absolute, like the patria potestas of early Roman law, even to the point of his being able to have them executed for wrongdoing; this is implied by Judah’s ability to order the execution of his daughter-in-law for adultery, with no trial (Gen. 38:24). The present law respects the parents’ right to discipline their son, but it prevents them from having him executed on their own authority. This may only be done by the community at large on the authority of the elders.
Ancient Near Eastern laws and documents also mention legal action by parents against misbehaving children. The grounds include such offenses against parents as disobedience, flight, repudiation, lawsuits against them, failure to respect and provide for them in their old age, and striking them. The punishments range from disinheritance to enslavement and mutilation.
Filial insubordination is a grave offense because respect and obedience toward parents is regarded as the cornerstone of all order and authority, especially in a tribal, patriarchal society like ancient Israel. If the death penalty specified by the present law is meant literally, it implies that biblical law regards insubordination and the danger it poses to the stability of society more severely than do other known ancient Near Eastern laws. The fact that Exodus 21:15 requires the death penalty for striking one’s parents, whereas the Laws of Hammurabi require only that the son’s hand be cut off, supports this inference. Nevertheless, some scholars, modern and ancient, believe that the death penalty stipulated in the present law is meant only rhetorically, in terrorem, to strengthen parental authority and deter the young from disobedience. As in the case of the apostate city (13:13–19), halakhic exegesis subjected the law to an exceedingly narrow reading, according to which it could hardly ever be carried out. Several rabbis held that it was never actually applied, but was stated in the Torah only for educational purposes. 
Response to claim: "1. D&C 132"
D&C 132: I’m supposed to believe in a god who issued an FLDS style revelation that states stuff like: the only form of polygamy permitted is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed.” Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed
Although it has been addressed elsewhere, it may be good to place responses to this claim here. The author distorts the scriptural intent. Claims of being "destroyed" are overdone. There is a possibility that the wife didn't have to be a virgin as the author claims v. 63 stipulates earlier on in the CES Letter under Concerns & Questions about Polygamy.
Jump to Detail:
- Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?
- Question: Was the only purpose of polygamy to "multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men"?
Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?
There is no "annihilation" in LDS doctrine: An earlier verse makes it clear that death will "destroy" all that is not sanctioned and endorsed by God
It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"
There is no "annihilation" in LDS doctrine. An earlier verse makes it clear that death will "destroy" all that is not sanctioned and endorsed by God, including marriage contracts (D&C 132:12-14). The section then draws a distinction between being "destroyed" and "destroyed in the flesh." (DC 132:26)—thus some sinners may suffer physical "buffeting" by Satan while their marital relationship may remain sanctioned.
The scripture says,
And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" (D&C 132:54.
The commandment given to Emma which she must "abide" is to "abide and cleave unto" Joseph. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. G.D. Smith's portrayal of this language applying to polygamy is false.
Other references to "destroyed"
Elsewhere, others said to be destroyed are those who have pretended to moral purity despite sexual sins (see DC 132:52,63).
A final verse says that "if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law." Note that God will destroy those who disobey—this is not a threat from Joseph about physical harm to Emma, and Emma certainly did not refrain from opposing plural marriage thereafter. She does not seem to have been frightened or intimidated.
This verse should be weighed with other revelation
There is no annihilation in LDS Doctrine. There is promises of a capping of our increase (which is to be damned) and there is punishment (but not eternal as we don't believe in a hell for those that tried to be righteous).
Question: Was the only purpose of polygamy to "multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men"?
Doctrine and Covenants states that polygamy is for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth
Doctrine and Covenants 132:63 states,
But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
The institution of the practice of polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things"
Polygamy was not permitted only for the purpose of procreation. Joseph established the practice of plural marriage as part of the "restoration of all things," (D&C 132: 40, 45) and introduced it to a number of others within the Church. This alone may have been the purpose of Joseph's initiation of the practice. The establishment of the practice ultimately did have the effect of "raising up seed"...just not through Joseph Smith.
As Brian Hales writes:
Joseph Smith dictated what is now Doctrine and Covenant section 132 on July 12, 1843. This revelation, along with his other statements, provide several reasons why he believed plural marriage could be introduced among the Latter-day Saints.
The earliest justification mentioned by the Prophet was as a part of the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:19–21. Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy, so it could be a part of the restoration of “all things” (see D&C 132:40, 45).
Several members who knew Joseph Smith left accounts of him referring to a connection between the two during the Kirtland period.
Benjamin F. Johnson recalled in 1903: “In 1835 at Kirtland I learned from my Sisters Husband, Lyman R. Shirman, who was close to the Prophet, and Received it from him. That the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.”A few years later in 1841, Joseph Smith attempted to broach the topic publicly. Helen Mar Kimball remembered: “He [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.” Joseph Smith was a prophet-restorer, which helps to explain why the command to practice plural marriage has been labeled a “restoration,” even though it is not a salvific ordinance.
The institution of the practice of polygamy made available the blessings of eternal marriage to everyone
Brian Hales addresses one aspect of D&C 132 that may be overlooked in casual readings:
The fourth reason Joseph Smith gave for the practice of plural marriage dwarfs the other three explanations in significance because it deals with eternity. The message of D&C 132:16–17 states that men and women who are not sealed in eternal marriages during this life (or vicariously later) “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity.”
In other words, “exaltation,” the highest salvation, requires eternal marriage. No unmarried person can be exalted according to Joseph Smith’s teachings. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 seems to anticipate more worthy women than men as it approves a plurality of wives and disallows a plurality of husbands. Verse 63 states that a plurality of wives is “for their [the wives] exaltation in the eternal worlds.” Section 132 supports that eternity was the primary focus of the Joseph’s marriage theology rather than plurality or sexuality. Eternal, rather than plural, marriage was his zenith doctrine. It appears that the crucial objective of polygamy on earth was to allow all worthy women to be eternally sealed to a husband and thus obtain all the ordinances needed for exaltation. According to these teachings, a plurality of wives in some form may be practiced in eternity, but not by all worthy men and women. We know that polygamy on earth is unequal and difficult, but we know nothing about how eternal marriage or eternal plural marriage might feel in eternity. Brigham Young acknowledged that eternal marriage (not plural marriage) is “the thread which runs from the beginning to the end” in God’s plan for His children:The whole subject of the marriage [not plural marriage] relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity.
Can this be included in the interpretation of D&C 132: 63?
Another author commenting on this verse made a compelling case for this theology being put into D&C 132: 63:
Here is the text in its entirety, from verse 62: “for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.” [Emphasis added.] You want to get legalistic? Let’s get legalistic. Just for fun, let’s parse the living snot out of this. This clause begins with multiplying and replenishing as a primary justification. Then we get the word “and” thrown in there. You’re reading this as if it says “they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, in order to fulfil the promise…” But that’s not what it says.
“And” suggests we’re about to get a second reason, not a clarification of the first. In fact, a tight, strict-constructionist reading of this verse reveals three different and distinct reasons for plural marriage, not “only” the replenishment of the earth, [. . .] So let’s review the three reasons:
1. Multiply and replenish the earth.
[. . .] D&C 132 is unequivocal on this point, just as it is unequivocal on the two points that follow.
2. Fulfil [sic] “the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world.”
What promise? This seems to have reference to the “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:21) Joseph cited the need to restore ancient practices to prepare for the Second Coming as a justification for polygamy, and this verse provides a credible scriptural context for him to do so. So just relying on this phrase – plural marriage is acceptable because it fulfills God’s promises – would be justification enough for the practice, at least according to D&C 132.
3. For “their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.”
Oh, this one’s my favorite. Notice the emphasis I added on the “that.” The word appears there to create a conditional clause. You claim the bearing of souls is the same thing as multiplying and replenishing the earth, but the actual text insists that the bearing of the souls of men will only be made possible by “exaltation in the eternal worlds.” This is a promise of eternal increase, of bearing souls after the earth is no longer around to be replenished. Big, big difference.And right here, with Reason #3, we have a clear rationale and justification for Joseph being sealed to women with whom he made no attempts to multiply and replenish the earth – i.e. no sex.
Response to claim: "I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well"
God doesn’t like to hear whining and ingratitude so he sends out a bunch of snakes to kill the people. When the people had enough of the snakes, they ask Moses to tell God to quit it. God decides Moses is persuasive and tells Moses to put a snake a pole and tell the people to look at the pole and they won’t die. So, the pole is built, the people look at it and they don’t die. The moral of the story? Don’t whine or God will send in the snakes. (Numbers 21:5-9: )
I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.
The author trivializes the scriptures in order to score propaganda points.
Jump to Detail:
- Elder Jeffery R. Holland: "it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much"
- Question: Why would God send poisonous serpents to kill the Children of Israel?
- Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "part-time racist" and "psychopathic schizophrenic" god?
Elder Jeffery R. Holland: "it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much"
Elder Jeffery R. Holland,
Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds. 
Question: Why would God send poisonous serpents to kill the Children of Israel?
The moral of the story is that one who looks upon Christ will be saved from spiritual death, not "don't complain or God will kill you."
In Numbers 21:5-9, God teaches the Children of Israel an important lesson not only about obedience, but about the future atonement of Jesus Christ.
5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
6 And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Jesus Christ actually used this story to foreshadow his own crucifixion John 3:14-15:
14 ¶And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The moral of the story is that one who looks upon Christ will be saved from spiritual death, not "don't complain or God will kill you." The snake on the pole is a representation of Christ and the atonement. Those that simply looked at it were saved from physical death. Those that look upon and accept Christ are saved from spiritual death. What is amazing is that there were people who simply wouldn't look at it, despite how easy it would have been to do so. They simply refused to believe.
Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "part-time racist" and "psychopathic schizophrenic" god?
Latter-day Saints believe in a God who cares for His children
One critic of Mormonism mockingly describes the "God" that he claims that Latter-day Saints believe in:
God doesn’t like to hear whining and ingratitude so he sends out a bunch of snakes to kill the people. When the people had enough of the snakes, they ask Moses to tell God to quit it. God decides Moses is persuasive and tells Moses to put a snake a pole and tell the people to look at the pole and they won’t die. So, the pole is built, the people look at it and they don’t die. The moral of the story? Don’t whine or God will send in the snakes.
He concludes by stating, "I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well." 
Latter-day Saints do not believe in a "part-time racist," "psychopathic schizophrenic" god. Some Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that God has more than one wife, and some do not. There is no official Church position on this subject. Latter-day Saints are not "asked to believe" in a racist, polygamous or "psychopathic schizophrenic" god. Such hyperbole obscures and mocks the true nature of the God that we believe in. The sarcastic version of the story offered by the critic robs it of any coherent meaning.
The critic uses a variety of passages from the scriptures to portray God as capricious and uncaring. If the Children of Israel "whine," God will "send in the snakes." God is "psychopathic" and "schizophrenic." He completely misses the point of and the significance of the scriptural events described.
- Sparks, Kenton “Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture” (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI 2012) Ebook loc 524 of 2260
- N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 181
- Alden Thompson, Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 33.
- Ibid., 32
- Hittite Laws 167. See Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997)
- See Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006)
- Bruce C. Birch, Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 43.
- William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001)
- This section is slightly adapted from chapter 3 in John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 245.
- Paul Copan Is God a Moral Monster? (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI 2011) Ebook 91-108
- My phrase "immune from criticism" is taken from Francis Watson Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 173-87, 231. For similar sentiments, see Ellen F. Davis, "Critical Traditioning: Seeking an Innter Biblical Heremeneutic," in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 163-80; Werner Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance (London: SCM Press, 1994), 114-15; I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Eric A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God (Minneapolis Fortress, 2009); Miroslav Volf, Captive to the Word of God: Engaging Scriptures for Contemporary Theological Reflection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 35. Perhaps, too, Walther Moberly, "What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?" JTI 3 (2009): 161-78
- On Christian Doctrine, 3.10, 12 (NPNF1 2.560-62
- By saying Scripture is "broken," I do not mean to suggest that it "does not work" or "cannot serve its purpose." Rather, I mean that Scripture, like everything created by God but touched by the Fall, is at the same time both beautiful and in need of repair. Nothing claimed here is in tension with "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). John's words are not a denial of sin's effect on Scripture. Rather, they merely restate the Jewish assumption that Scripture "always remains in force." See Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 374.
- Sparks, “Sacred Word, Broken Word” Ch. 6
- Spackman, T. Ben "Using Context to Unlock the Old Testament Library" Sperry Symposium 2017 
- Robinson, Stephen R. "Biblical Scholarship." Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York City: Macmillan Publishing Company, 2007. Online.
- Kenton Sparks, “Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2012) Kindle Loc 558
- Matthew Flanagan, Paul Copan Interview with Jonathan Merrit “Did God command genocide in the Bible?”< https://religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible/> (accessed 5 January 2019). See also Pete Enns, “The Canaanites weren’t the “worst sinners ever”: engaging Copan and Flannagan on Canaanite extermination” <https://peteenns.com/the-canaanites-werent-the-worst-sinners-ever-engaging-copan-and-flannagan-on-canaanite-> (accessed 5 January 2019) extermination/
- Copan lists many of those that used this type of rhetoric on page 328 of “Is God a Moral Monster?” This list includes Egypt’s Tuthmosis III, Hittite king Mursilly II, the “Bulletin” of Ramses II, the Merneptah Stele, Mesha of Moab, and Sennacherib the Assyrian Ruler.
- Christopher J. H. Wright, “Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 474-75; and Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 149.
- Gordon J. Wenham, “Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 137.
- R. Gary Miller, “Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy” (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.
- Copan, Paul “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011) Ebook
- Pete Enns “Canaanite genocide: it’s OK because it wasn’t THAT bad (was it?)” <https://peteenns.com/canaanite-genocide-its-ok-because-it-wasnt-that-bad-was-it/> (accessed 3 December 2018)
- Marc Brettler “The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible”.
- Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, David Rolph Seely “Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament” (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, UT 2003) 160
- Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 351-52
- See G.K. Beale, “We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008)
- William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), 77. See also Richard M. Davidson, “Footsteps of Joshua” (Hagerstown, PA: Review and Herald, 1995), 95.
- Richard Mouw, “Biblical Revelation and Medical Decisions,” in On Moral Medicine, ed. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 56. As cited in Paul Copan, Matthew Flanagan Did God Really Command Genocide? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014) 53
- Genesis 34, , Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 19:22-26, and 2 Samuel 13:1-14 also have been said by scholars to be depicting rape. We advise the reader to examine those passages with a study bible. None contain something close to endorsements for rape. However, they may be used by critics to argue for an endorsement from the Bible on rape.
- Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28, footnote 51 <https://netbible.org/bible/Deuteronomy+22> (accessed 30 December 2018)
- The Greek Old Testament translation gets this wrong. It mistranslates this passage, “he is discovered,” as though the man alone is guilty. The Hebrew indicates that both are culpable.
- Davidson, “Flame of Yahweh”, 359, 519
- See Copan, Paul "Is God a Moral Monster?" (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan 2011) Ebook; 222-24
- The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible provides reference to this in connection to Deuteronomy: "12–18: In contrast to ch 21, the women and children (and animals) are not killed but taken captive and (with other booty) brought before Moses, Eleazar, and the congregation. This may reﬂect the practice of holy war outlined in Deut 20.13–18, where a distinction is made between Canaanites and others more distant (e.g., Midianites)."
- See “What does the Bible say about rape?” at gotquestions.org 
- Webster’s Dictionary “Misogyny” <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny> (accessed 25 December 2018)
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Guide to the Scriptures “Woman, Women” <https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/woman-women?lang=eng> (accessed 25 December 2018)
- Ibid. (accessed 25 December 2018)
- For more examples, see Oxford Univesities index of women in the bible at <http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/resource/IndexOfWomen.xhtml> (accessed 2 January 2019)
- This article was redacted 26 December 2018
- Carol Meyers Commentary on Exodus in “The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible” (ed.) Michael Coogan, Mark Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2010) 112
- Net Bible, Commentary on Exodus 21:7 < https://netbible.org/bible/Exodus+21> See footnote 15
- Paul Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI 2011) 114
- Biblical Nuggets, “Casuistic Law” < https://cafn.us/2013/01/11/biblical-nuggets-casuistic-law/> (accessed 6 January 2019)
- Copan “Is God a Moral Monster?” 114
- Net Bible “Exodus 21:7-11” footnote 16
- Net Bible, footnote 19
- Net Bible, footnote 24
- Net Bible, footnote 4
- Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?” Ebook, 191 of 492. Copan cites Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 327
- See NetBible Hebrew Note for Deuteronomy 25:12 <https://netbible.org/bible/Deuteronomy+25> (accessed 21January 2019)
- See Hebrew note for Deuteronomy 25:12 <https://netbible.org/bible/Deuteronomy+25> (accessed 21 January 2019). Paul Copan makes the argument for shaving and clipping and the translation of "kaph" in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?" (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI 2011) 224 Ebook
- Bernard M. Levinson commentary on Deuteronomy in "“The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible” 4th edition (ed.) Michael Coogan, Mark Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2010) 291
- Lex talionis as invoked there i.e. "eye for eye" and other places is a law more of fair treatment of each other rather than a literal blow for blow situation. See for example Carol Meyers' commentary on Exodus in "“The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible” 4th edition (ed.) Michael Coogan, Mark Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2010) 113. The possibility for this blow for blow retribution remains open, however.
- Levinson, Commentary on Deuteronomy
- Copan, "Is God a Moral Monster?" 223
- Ibid. 225-5. Copan cites Jerome T. Walsh, "You Shall Cut Off Her . . . Palm? A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Journal of Semitic Studies 49 (2004): 47-48. Walsh iterated similar arguments in "The Law on Violent Intervention: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Revisited," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30:3 (2006): 431-37; Also, Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 476-80.
- The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible states that “11-12 Nevertheless indicates that Paul breaks off the preceding argument and moves on to emphasize what is important: in the Lord there is mutuality and reciprocity between woman and man.
- Ibid., pg 2015
- Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pg. 92-94.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Holy Bible King James Version “1 Corinthians 14:34-35” <https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/14.34,35?lang=eng> (accessed 31 December 2018)
- See Laurence L. Welborn’s commentary on 1 Corinthians in “The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible” (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2010) 2018-19
- Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, chapter 17. See also D&C 88:77-79; Articles of Faith 1:8
- Joseph Smith, History of The Church, 5:422-427; Sunday, June 11th, 1843. See also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 310
- Holy Bible King James Version “Ecclesiastes 7:26” <https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/eccl/7.26?lang=eng> (accessed 2 January 2019)
- Choon-Leong Seow Commentary on Ecclesiastes (or the Preacher) in “The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible” (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2010) 944
- David Rolph Seely, Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana Pike Jevovah and the World of the Old Testament (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2009)
- ABD, 6:65a.
- Hamblin, William J. "The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible" (FARMS: Provo, UT, 2008) off-site
- Copan, Paul "Is God a Moral Monster?" Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan (2011) Ebook; pg. 101
- Benjamin Spackman, "Gospel Doctrine Lesson 40: Colossians and Philippians, but mostly Philemon" <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/10/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/> (accessed 10 November 2018)
- Paul Copan, Is God A Moral Monster (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 253-58
- Paul Copan Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 290.
- Bible Hub, 1 Timothy 1:10 <https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm> (accessed 2 26 2019)
- Gordon D. Fee The First Epistle to the Corintians – The Guiding Principle –Remain as One was When Called in “The New International Commentary on the New Testament” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2014) 350.
- O’Brian, Ephesians, 455.
- I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 89-90; and Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 180-87
- See Ronald C. White’s A Lincoln: A Biography (New York: Random House, 2009), which explores these themes in detail.
- Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 287-89
- Margaret M. Mitchell, Commentary on Philemon; “The New Oxford Annotated Bible” (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010) 2100
- Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?” Ebook 313-492. Copan cites Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary 2 (Nashville: B & H Publishing Company, 2008) 478n; John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life, vol. 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 618
- Ian Paul, “Did the Syrophoenician woman teach Jesus to be Jesus?” <https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-the-syrophoenician-woman-teach-jesus-to-be-jesus/> (accessed 4 January 2019)
- John A. Tvedtnes, “The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 183–197, argues against the common allegation of racism in the modern pejorative sense rather than the more ancient sense for which I argue here.
- Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 102
- Ibid., 106
- Ibid. Malina and Neyrey described Israelite culture about six hundred years after Nephi. Nevertheless, Malina, writing with another coauthor, feels that this cultural phenomenon has endured for the intervening two thousand years and would, hence, probably agree that it was in place at Nephi’s time as well: “In the circum-Mediterranean region, five millennia of common participation in conquest, colonialism, connubium, and trade, along with a mixed, small-scale farming and herding village economy embedded in a series of larger agrarian empires, created a set of common cultural institutions that have likewise persisted over time. The resulting ‘Mediterranean culture-continent’ exists yet today.” Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 4.
- Brant Gardner, “What does the Book of Mormon mean by “skin of blackness”? <https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness#en13> (accessed 4 January 2019)
- Micha J. bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, 5 vols. (Frankfurt: Rütten & Loening, 1913—27), 1:160.
- Zacharie Mayani, Les Hyksos et le monde de la Bible (Paris: Payot, 1956), 180.
- Robert Eisler, Iēsous Basileus ou Basileusas, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Winters, 1929), 2:180.
- Ibid., 2:180, 217.
- Mayani, Hyksos et le monde de la Bible, 179.
- Budge, Book of the Cave of Treasures, 120-21
- Ibid., 87—93; Le combat d’Adam et Eve, in J.-P. Migne, Dictionnaire des Apocryphes I, vol. 23 of Encyclopedie théologique, ser. 3 (Paris: Chez l’editeur, 1856), 349—52.
- Graves and Patai, Hebrew Myths, 96—97.
- Bin Gorion, Sagen der Juden, 1:136, 239—40.
- Robert North, “The Cain Music,” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 389.
- Alexandre Piankoff, Mythological Papyri II, vol. 3 of Bollingen Series 40, Egyptian Tests and Representations (New York: Pantheon, 1957), plate 12.
- Ibid., plates 20, 24.
- Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 37.
- Abd Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt (Cairo: BIFAO, 1952), 72, 97—99. (Cahier no. 18, in Supplement to ASAE.)
- Heinrich K. Brugsch, Die Geographie der Ägypter nach den Denkmälern, Geographie Inschriften altägyptischer Denkmäler, vol. 6 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1860), 51.
- Pierre Montet, Eternal Egypt (New York: New American Library, 1964), plates 26—64.
- Geza Vermes, “Sepher ha-Yashar,” cited in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 73; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:203, 292—94.
- Jubilees 41:23—25.
- René Dussaud, “Cham et Canaan,” RHR 59 (1909): 221—30.
- Josephus, Antiquities I, 6, 2; cf. Epstein, “Chamites de la table ethnographique,” 83—85.
- Richter, “Urgeschichte und Hoftheologie,” 100.
- Johannes Gabriel, “Die Kainitengenealogie, Gen. 4:17—24,” Biblica 40 (1959): 409—27.
- North, “Cain Music,” 373—89.
- Joseph Karst, “Aïa-Kolchis et les Chamites septentrionaux,” Orientalia 3 (1934): 31—41.
- Ibid., 33
- Hans Stock, “Das Ostdelta Ägyptens in seiner entscheidenden Rolle für die politische und religiöse Entwicklung des alten Reiches,” Die Welt des Orients (1948): 144—45.
- Werner Vycichl, “Notes sur la préhistoire de la langue égyptienne,” Orientalia 23 (1954): 217.
- Ibid., 218-19
- Nibley, Hugh “Abraham in Egypt” (Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship: Provo, UT 2000) Ch. 11 The Trouble with Ham off-site
- Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, New International Bible Commentary 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, Carlisle, UL: Paternoster, 1995), 186.
- See Baruc Maralit, “Why King Mesha Sacrificed his Oldest Son” Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (November/December 1986): 62-63; John J. Bimson, “1 and 2 Kings,” in The New Bible Commentary, 4th ed., ed. Gordon Wenham et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 365; and Anson Rainey, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, ed. Anson Rainey and R. Steven Notley (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006) 205.
- John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life, vol. 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 796. For a good discussion of the Ezekiel text, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 636-41.
- Copan, Paul “Is God a Moral Monster?” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI 2011) 96-100
- Jeffery R. Holland, "I Have a Question," Ensign (September 1976).
- Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, (Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), xii.
- John W. Welch, "Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (1992): 119–141. wiki
- Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, pp. 4–5.
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:22.
- Bernard M. Levison, Commentary on Deuteronomy in "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010) 278.
- Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" 2013
- See Paul Copan, "Is God a Moral Monster?" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 114-49. See also Bob Deffinbaugh "8. The Clean and Unclean-Part I (Leviticus 11)" <https://bible.org/seriespage/8-clean-and-unclean-part-i-leviticus-11> (accessed 20 March 2019)
- JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy
- George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 29. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))
- Sherman was a close friend and devout follower of Joseph Smith. He was called as an apostle but died before learning of the appointment. See Lyndon W. Cook, “Lyman Sherman—Man of God, Would-Be Apostle,” 121–24.
- Dean R. Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets: An Analysis of the Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1976), 37–38.
- Helen Mar Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph: A Reply to Joseph Smith [III], Editor of the Lamoni Iowa “Herald,” (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882), 11; see also Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, Utah: Bookcraft, 1992), 142–43. See also Joseph A. Kelting, “Affidavit,” March 1, 1894, images 11–16a; see also Kelting, “Statement,” Juvenile Instructor 29 (May 1, 1894): 289–90.
- Brian Hales, "Plural Marriage Teachings" <http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/theology/joseph-smiths-teachings/#back_ajs-fn-id_4-56> (accessed 18 December 2018)
- See vv. 34, 37–39, 52, 55, 61–65.
- See vv. 41–42, 61–63.
- Brigham Young, October 6, 1854 Journal of Discourses, 2:90. Important in Brigham Young’s comments is his observation that the “marriage relation,” referring to eternal marriage, not exclusively plural marriage, comprises the “foundation for worlds … and for Gods.”
- Brian Hales, "Plural Marriage Teachings" <http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/theology/joseph-smiths-teachings/#link_ajs-fn-id_16-56> (accessed 17 December 2018)
- Jim Bennett "A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter from a former CES Employee" <https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf> (accessed 30 December 2018)
- Jeffery R. Holland, "The Cost—and Blessings—of Discipleship," April 2014 General Conference.
- Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (2013)