FairMormon

Read 2019 FairMormon Conference Transcripts!
Missed the conference? Streaming is still available.

Stephen Smoot

Book Review: “Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration”

by

Screen Shot 2015-08-20 at 2.29.37 PM
Click to enlarge

A number of writers from both naturalistic and faithful backgrounds (Fawn Brodie and Terryl Givens serve as two immediate examples that represent the competing paradigms) have asked what, if any, environmental factors (e.g. contemporary writers, movements, intellectual currents, etc.) influenced the Prophet’s theology. Methodism, Campbellism, Freemasonry, Republicanism, Swedenborgianism, Romanticism, American lore about Indian origins, folk magic, and other intellectual and theological systems have all been invoked as either directly or circumstantially influencing Joseph Smith’s theology. In Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration, a new book published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, author Gerald E. Smith tackles this question by investigating what has, somewhat surprisingly and counterintuitively, been generally overlooked by historians as an influence on Joseph’s theology: the Book of Mormon.

Smith begins his treatment with a (semi-rhetorical) question that he sets out to answer in the course of six chapters (some two hundred pages of text): “Could it be that the Book of Mormon had a formative influence on Joseph Smith and the founders of the Mormon restoration?” (11) The evidence Smith provides for his answer to this question (a resounding yes: “It is my thesis that the Book of Mormon had a profound formative influence on Joseph Smith’s doctrinal and institutional development during the nascent days of the nineteenth-century Mormon restoration” [3]) is convincing. “[The practices of the restoration] evolved over time, of course, but in the beginning, in the early restoration, we must see Smith quietly looking to one of the most important sources of religious thought and sacred protocol that he knew: the Book of Mormon” (11). This can be seen, as Smith explores, in the following ways: the formation of the Church and the early revelations received in 1828–1830 (13–44), the influence of the Book of Mormon on such doctrinal subjects as soteriology, Christology, and the Fall (45–86), Mormon sacraments such as baptism and the eucharist (87–128), Latter-day Saint temple theology (129–164), priesthood and ecclesiology (165–206), and the role of the Book of Mormon in shaping a unique early Mormon religious identity (207–218). In his discussion of these categories Smith ably demonstrates the important and central role the Book of Mormon played in fashioning the doctrines of the Restoration.

Smith is quick to anticipate critics of his thesis who insist that, being a product of Joseph Smith’s lucid imagination, of course the Book of Mormon would influence early Mormonism. “The very question of the Book of Mormon’s influence on the Prophet calls for an explanation since one might fittingly dismiss that influence simply because it was derived from Smith himself,” our author notes. “Yet such an assumption is a heuristic one and prematurely precludes further exploration of the Book of Mormon as an original source document” (2). Indeed, Smith’s thesis is strengthened and enriched when one operates within a paradigm of the Book of Mormon being an ancient text, as Smith himself explains. “Rituals, theologies, and doctrines of the early restoration seem to stem directly from Book of Mormon worship forms,” Smith writes, “which in turn seem to have clear correlations with ancient Old Testament rites, rituals, forms, and meanings. The problem of a nineteenth-century explanation of the Book of Mormon text in which Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as his own repository of religious ideas, innovations, and writings . . . is that it ignores the work’s historic origins. . . . Provenance is evidence of historic origin, authenticity, and timeless value in a work” (211–212). This is a keen insight that shouldn’t be missed by either readers of Smith’s treatment or the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon’s historicity does indeed significantly influence the “timeless value” of the text as a religious work, a point I myself have argued elsewhere. Those (even those who accept the book’s historicity) who insist on reading the Book of Mormon strictly as a modern American religious or literary work are at risk of missing the robust convergences the Nephite record has with ancient Israelite religion and culture. This may in turn blind such a reader to the continuity between ancient biblical practices and modern Mormonism; a continuity that was preserved and perpetuated by the Book of Mormon’s influence on Joseph Smith’s restoration project.

Another valuable insight comes from Smith’s analysis of the Book of Mormon’s influence on the Prophet’s temple theology. No sensible historian of Mormonism denies evolution over the course of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry. Doctrinal and ecclesiological development in early Mormonism is clearly discerned from even a cursory glance at Mormon history. That being said, Smith pushes back against historians who insist on a sort of radical departure from early Mormonism during the Nauvoo period of Joseph Smith’s life (1839–1844). The common assumption among historians, Smith explains, is “that Nauvoo doctrines and theologies were distinctly later-period revelations to the Prophet emerging spontaneously in the Nauvoo era.” Although “widely held among both Mormons and non-Mormons,” Smith insists this view is “incorrect” (72–73). Smith argues that the seeds of Joseph’s Nauvoo temple endowment (with its attending doctrines of theosis and ascending into the presence of God, or what Smith calls the “Eden ascension narrative” [78]) are found within the pages of the Book of Mormon (as well as the opening chapters of the Book of Moses, revealed to Joseph Smith in 1830). Smith not only argues for the Eden ascension narrative being located in the pages of the printed Book of Mormon, but also draws on the intriguing work of Don Bradley to suggest that the now lost Book of Lehi contained temple imagery and other overtures to Joseph’s later Nauvoo theology. Although Smith does not deny evolution in Joseph’s teachings, he critiques the common notion of a radical departure from Book of Mormon theology in Nauvoo. “Rather than persisting with the prevailing notion that the fall of Adam was the origin of evil and death,” Smith clarifies, “the Book of Mormon reframed Adam as a divine son of God, showing the faithful the ascension path to return to the presence of God through symbols, rituals, and narratives that appeared similar to the earliest Wisdom traditions enshrined anciently in the Israelite temple. In this the Book of Mormon completely bypassed traditional nineteenth-century theologies, pointing Joseph Smith toward a different path to doctrinal development that ultimately was enshrined in the theology of the Mormon temple” (86).

In addition to his convincingly argued thesis, Smith is to be commended for his use of original sources drawn from the Joseph Smith Papers Project, his engagement with important secondary literature on the Book of Mormon (including the work of Hugh Nibley and the Interpreter Foundation), and the readability of his prose. Illustrations and pictures of Mormon personalities and sites compliment the text, and although I would have personally preferred footnotes, endnotes are employed judiciously and do not overwhelm the reader.

For these and other reasons I highly recommend Smith’s Schooling the Prophet. It is an important contribution to Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon that deserves careful attention by laymen and academics alike who share a common interest in the history and doctrines of the early Restoration.

Book Notice: “From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon”

by

[This post originally appeared at Ploni Almoni.]
The Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University and Deseret Book have co-published a new book titled From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon. I have picked up a copy just today, and have been able to quickly skim through the contents of the book. Co-authored by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat of the Joseph Smith Papers (and both assistant professors of Church history and doctrine at BYU) and with original artwork by Anthony Sweat, the book looks closely at the history of the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon in the years 1827–1830. MacKay and Dirkmaat draw from the cutting-edge research of the Joseph Smith Papers Project in their reconstruction of the Book of Mormon’s translation and publication, including some heretofore unknown or underutilized historical sources. Topics touched on in the book include:

  • The retrieval of the plates.
  • Martin Harris’ visit with Charles Anthon and other savants.
  • Early reactions to and accounts of Joseph Smith’s finding of a “Gold Bible.”
  • The method and instruments of the translation.
  • Attempts to secure a copyright for the publication of the Book of Mormon, including the attempt to secure a copyright in Canada.
  • The 3 and 8 Witnesses.

But perhaps one of the most exciting aspects of the new book is the artwork of Anthony Sweat, an assistant professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU. The book includes a number of original pieces by Sweat depicting Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon by peering into a seer stone at the bottom of a hat. Below are three of the new pieces, taken from Sweat’s public Instagram page.

Sweat also includes an appendix (“By the Gift and Power of Art”) explaining his artwork and artistic representations of the past in general.

Students of early Mormon history and the Book of Mormon should absolutely pick up a copy of this book! I’ve only skimmed it so far, but what I’ve seen is fantastic, and just what the doctor ordered when it comes to good, solid, reliable, and faith-promoting scholarship on the early days of the Restoration and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I am excited to sink my teeth into this new volume, and hope you’ll do the same.

Admission and Omission: What Is the Church’s Position on the Book of Abraham?

by

“Printing Plates of Facsimiles of Papyrus Drawings, Nauvoo, IL, early 1842” (http://josephsmithpapers.org)

[This post originally appeared at Ploni Almoni.]

In his March 2015 letter to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appealing his excommunication, John Dehlin claims there has been a “recent admission” on the part of the Church “that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the Egyptian papyrus, as Joseph Smith claimed that it was.” Dehlin quotes the Church’s 2014 Gospel Topics essay “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” to wit:

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Dehlin raises this point again later in his letter. One of the many “disturbing facts” he “stumbled upon” in his studies is that “by the LDS Church’s own admission, the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the Egyptian papyrus.” This, among other things, Dehlin says, was “deeply disturbing and destabilizing for [him].”

Dehlin’s allies Nadine R. Hansen and Kate Kelly also raise this point in the same letter. “The Church’s own essays openly and truthfully acknowledge this difficulty,” they write, “by stating, ‘None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.'” Consequently, “While the Church may continue to maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired, canonical writing, but it must do so while acknowledging that Joseph Smith’s early statement that it is Abraham’s writings, ‘by his own hand upon the papyrus,’ is not factbased.” (On this last point, see my article here.)

These authors are not alone in claiming the Church has made this “recent admission” about the Book of Abraham. Jeremy Runnells, in his anti-Mormon screed known conventionally as the CES Letter, remarks, “The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham.”

With these statements from Dehlin and Runnells in mind, let’s take a closer look at what the Gospel Topics essay actually says about the Book of Abraham.

I. The nature of the surviving papyri fragments. On this matter, the Gospel Topics essay matter-of-factly states that the surviving papyri fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham. “Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.” However, this is by no means a “recent” admission or concession by the Church. In fact, what these authors fail to inform their readers is that the Church immediately identified the Joseph Smith Papyri fragments as copies of funerary texts when it received them from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1967. In the January 1968 issue of the Improvement Era, the Church identified the recovered fragments as “conventional . . . Egyptian funerary texts, which were commonly buried with Egyptian mummies.” The Church has reaffirmed this simple fact in subsequent publications.

  • “Mormon Media” (1975): “Brother Nibley marshals a considerable array of talents in fulfilling the second and major purpose of the book, which is to discuss the meaning of the Joseph Smith papyri. Identifying Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI with the Egyptian Book of Breathings becomes a point of departure for Brother Nibley, rather than, as with other scholars, a final pronouncement.”
  • “I Have a Question” (1976): “Q: Are the three facsimiles related to each other? A: Definitely, by all being attached to one and the same document, namely, the Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI, which contain a text of the Egyptian Book of Breathings. Facsimile No. 1 is followed immediately on its left-hand margin by Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which begins the Book of Breathings. Someone cut them apart, but the fibre edges of their two margins still match neatly. Facsimile No. 1 thus serves as a sort of frontispiece.”
  • “I Have a Question” (1988): “[Facsimile 1] can be connected with several of the other papyri fragments that relate to the text of an ancient Egyptian religious document known as the “Book of Sensen” or “Book of Breathings.”. . .  [F]rom paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60—much too late for Abraham to have written it. Of course, it could be a copy—or a copy of a copy—of the original written by Abraham. However, a second problem arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same.”
  • “Book of Abraham: Facsimiles From the Book of Abraham” (1992): “Only for Facsimile 1 is the original document known to be extant. Comparisons of the papyrus fragments as well as the hieroglyphic text accompanying this drawing demonstrate that it formed a part of an Egyptian religious text known as the Book of Breathings. Based on paleographic and historical evidence, this text can be reliably dated to about the first century A.D. Since reference is made to this illustration in the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), many have concluded that the Book of Breathings must be the text that the Prophet Joseph Smith used in his translation. Because the Book of Breathings is clearly not the book of Abraham, critics claim this is conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith was unable to translate the ancient documents.”
  • “News From Antiquity” (1994): “[Critics of the Church] point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud.”
  • Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual (2003): “In 1967 eleven fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri were rediscovered by Doctor Aziz S. Atiya, in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Studies of them have confirmed that they are mainly ancient Egyptian funerary texts of the sort commonly buried with royalty and nobility and designed to guide them through their eternal journeyings. This has renewed the question about the connection between the records and the book of Abraham.”

One might quibble here or there with the wording of these passages. For example, the Pearl of Great Price Student Manual mentions the late date of the papyri, but doesn’t explicitly mention that the papyri are fragments from the Book of Breathings and the Book of the Dead. Nevertheless, when these sources are combined, the basic point cannot be negated: the Church has straightforwardly taught that the surviving papyri fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham, but instead contain late copies of Egyptian funerary texts. Dehlin and Runnells are misleading their readers by claiming this “admission” is recent, or has just now been recognized by the Church in the 2014 Gospel Topics essay. In fact, the Church has acknowledged this fact since at least 1968.

II. On why the Book of Abraham is not contained in the surviving papyri. Dehlin and Runnells both conspicuously fail to alert their readers to the part of the Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham that explicitly addresses reasons why the Book of Abraham text was not recovered in the surviving papyri fragments. The essay clearly identifies at least two potential reasons. “It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession,” the essay notes. “Eyewitnesses spoke of ‘a long roll’ or multiple ‘rolls’ of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.” In other words, the essay clearly recognizes the so-called “missing papyrus theory” as a possible explanation for why the surviving fragments don’t match the Book of Abraham.

The essay also mentions the so-called “catalyst theory” for the Book of Abraham as another possible explanation.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

From this we see that Dehlin and Runnels have misled their readers by selectively presenting what the Gospel Topics essay claims about the relationship between the papyri and the Book of Abraham.

III. What about Elder Holland’s BBC Interview? Although not explicitly mentioned by Dehlin in his letter to the First Presidency (although it is mentioned and, not surprisingly, distorted by Runnells), it is worth quickly looking at Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s remarks on the Book of Abraham made in a 2012 interview with BBC reporter John Sweeney. When Sweeney pressed Elder Holland on the matter of the translation of the Book of Abraham, Elder Holland responded, “[W]hat got translated got translated into the word of God; the vehicle for that I do not understand.” What does this statement reveal? First, notice carefully that Elder Holland calls the Book of Abraham a “translation.” He also calls it the “word of God.” So Elder Holland, it appears, both accepts the Book of Abraham as an authentic “translation” and as inspired scripture. Second, notice that Elder Holland simply remarks that he doesn’t know the mechanism (“vehicle”) of the translation of the Book of Abraham. In other words, he doesn’t know precisely how the translation was performed. This is different from how Runnells and others have characterized Elder Holland’s remarks. Due to some obviously heavy editing of the original footage into what became the broadcasted program, it is impossible to know precisely what, if anything, Elder Holland said in addition by way of clarification. Notwithstanding, at the risk of speaking on behalf of Elder Holland, I believe it is safe to assume that he merely meant he didn’t know the precise nature of the translation (e.g. “missing papyrus,” “catalyst,” or something else), and wasn’t obfuscating in some way about the Church’s position.

IV. The Facsimiles. Dehlin and Runnells also omit the Gospel Topics essay’s comments on the interpretation of the facsimiles. The essay explains,

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.

The essay therefore provides an explanation for why images illustrating the Book of Abraham could’ve ended up attached to an Egyptian funerary text, and why there is otherwise disjunction between Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles and Egyptologists’ interpretations. In fact, the essay goes on to further explain, “Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.” Thus, in order to fully appreciate the Church’s explanation of the facsimiles, one needs to keep this commentary in mind. To omit it is to ultimately distort a critical aspect of the Church’s apologia for the Book of Abraham.

V. The 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Before concluding, it is worth highlighting the changes made to the 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. The pre-2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price identified the text as “[a] translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.” By comparison, the 2013 edition characterizes the Book of Abraham as “an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.” Some have argued that this is another admission by the Church that the Book of Abraham isn’t really a translation. This seems unlikely, however, since the 2013 edition still retains the (slightly modified) header that has accompanied the Book of Abraham since its 1842 publication: “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” If the Church really was ceding ground on the Book of Abraham as a translation, one has to wonder why they left in this rather explicate superscript to the text.

Another overlooked change in the 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price comes at the beginning of the introductory page. The pre-2013 edition explains that “[t]hese items [i.e. the contents of the Pearl of Great Price] were produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and were published in the Church periodicals of his day.” The 2013 edition, however, reads, “These items were translated and produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and most were published in the Church periodicals of his day.” Notice here the word “translated” was deliberately added in reference to the materials found in the Pearl of Great Price, which would presumably include the Book of Abraham. Thus, far from backing away from the Book of Abraham as being a translation of some sort, the Church, it could be argued, has in recent years actually reinforced an understanding of the Book of Abraham as a “translation.” The new edition of the Pearl of Great Price simply affirms that the Book of Abraham is an “inspired translation of the writings of Abraham,” while omitting details of the exact process, which remains up for debate.

In conclusion, one would do well to eschew the mishandled and misleading presentations of the Church’s position on the Book of Abraham offered by Dehlin and Runnells. The 2014 Gospel Topics essay hasn’t “conceded” or “admitted” anything about the Book of Abraham. The contents of the essay have, by and large, been circulating in both Church materials and other Mormon publications for decades. On the other hand, Dehlin and Runnells have omitted important material that helps us better understand this remarkable scriptural work.

Two New Articles: “When Doubts and Questions Arise” and “Answers to Common Questions”

by

youth-talking-students-821922-gallery[This post originally appeared as two separate blog posts at Ploni Almoni–Mr. So and So’s Mormon Blog. The two posts are redacted here for convenience.] 

“When Doubts and Questions Arise”

Hot off the press is the March 2015 Ensign.

Adam Kotter gets it right with his comments on how to healthily respond to a faith crisis:

“When Doubts and Questions Arise”

Incidentally, I just read these words from Elder John A. Widtsoe this evening.

Doubt of the right kind–––that is, honest questioning–––leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees–––these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn some things that are known, others are not. They cease to doubt. . . . On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his borrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor.

(John A. Widtsoe, “Is It Wrong to Doubt?” in Science and Your Faith in God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958], 241.)

While I’m at it, here are also some sage words from Joseph F. Merrill.

In these days there are so many false teachings, so much propaganda, so much shallowness and insincerity, so many appeals to self-interest by ambitious demagogues and others, that it behooves the truth-seeker to investigate all proposals and appeals that come to him in order that he may act wisely.

(Joseph F. Merrill, “The Dynamic God of Science,” in Science and Your Faith in God, 117.)

A key to successfully navigating a faith crisis is to never assume that you know enough about the topic you’re struggling with. If it’s plural marriage, the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon historicity, or other issues in Church history, you can never study too much, but you can always study too little. In my experience, many individuals who resign their Church membership over these and other issues often do so after giving up too easily on the apologetic responses to the criticism, or not even knowing the responses in the first place! In many instances they read the critical material but don’t go any further. Or, if they are aware of the apologetic response, they often get it secondhand from critics who are, in reality, presenting little more than a straw man version of the apologetic response that distorts the real argument. (Exhibit A: the apparent inability of the denizens of the Ex-Mormon Subreddit to understand, much less accurately summarize, John A. Sorenson’s suggestion that “horse” served as a Nephite loan-shift for the indigenous American tapir. This, incidentally, has led to a bizarre obsession on the part of these ex-Mormons with the tapir that exhibits an amusing ignorance on their part.)

In short, to paraphrase Werner Heisenberg, “The first gulp from the glass of Mormon history will turn you into an ex-Mormon, but at the bottom of the glass faith in Joseph Smith’s divine calling is waiting for you.”

–––––––––––––––––––

“Answers to Common Questions”

If I may be perfectly frank, I have been disappointed in the quality of many of the articles printed in the Church’s magazines as of late. While I read the Ensign and the New Era every month, mostly to stay current on what’s trending in Mormon discourse, I usually find myself skimming over most articles. Rarely do I find articles that are substantive or that grab my attention. To my delight, the March 2015 New Era, the Church’s magazine for youth, does have one intriguing article that I thought would be worth highlighting.

Here are some “common questions” that an unnamed author the New Era thought important to provide brief responses to. Keep in mind that, per the New Era‘s primary readership, these are the sorts of questions more likely to be encountered by the Church’s youth (perhaps, for example, while walking down the hall in an American high school).

1. Why do you have other scriptures? Isn’t the Bible enough?

2. Mormon men have lots of wives, right?

3. Why are Mormons against gay people?

4. Are you really Christians or more like a cult?

5. Why does it matter what church you belong to? Doesn’t God love everyone?

6. Doesn’t scientific evidence prove that the Book of Mormon couldn’t possibly be true?

7. What happens in your temples, and why are you so secretive about it?

8. Why does your church send out young men and women to be missionaries?

9. Why don’t you believe in having sexual relationships until you’re married?

10. Do you all just blindly obey whatever you’re told?

11. How can you be sure what you believe is true?

I will encourage my readers to go see for themselves the answers provided to these questions. I do, however, wish to highlight a few remarks.

Concerning whether scientific evidence disproves the Book of Mormon, the article states:

The scientific evidence we have cannot prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Archaeological or genetic research in the Americas, for instance, is ongoing and often raises more questions than it answers. So to draw absolute conclusions from it about the Book of Mormon (either for it or against it) is usually a bit of a stretch—and quite risky, since new evidence often comes along that refutes old conclusions.

This is, actually, a very astute and reasonable reply. Having taken at least three different archaeology classes in my undergraduate program, I have learned that making positive claims about the past based on negative evidence is a rather problematic. I have encountered, on a number of occasions, the useful adage “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in my reading of mainstream archaeology textbooks and papers. I have also encountered many wise and seasoned archaeologists warn against attempting to make a case for something on negative evidence. It’s a methodological pitfall that, unfortunately, many unwittingly seem to fall into.

Similarly, given what the archaeologist Mark Alan Wright has indicated about the excavation of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, we can appreciate that this sentiment is doubly true for the Book of Mormon.

Because of the extraordinarily diverse cultural landscape and the challenges of interpreting the archaeological record, scholars debate the precise chronologies, spheres of influence, and cultural boundaries of Mesoamerica. Literally thousands of archaeological sites dot the Mesoamerican landscape, the vast majority of which we know virtually nothing about, other than their locations. In the Maya area alone are approximately six thousand known sites, of which fewer than fifty have undergone systematic archaeological excavation.

. . .

Thanks to advances in satellite imaging, we have been able to identify over 6,000 sites in the Maya area alone, each composed of dozens, if not hundreds, of buildings. Of these thousands of known sites, each is unique in one way or another. From those polities whose artistic programs and hieroglyphic inscriptions have survived the ravages of time, we have discovered that each city worshipped its own unique pantheon of gods, typically a blending of pancultural deities with locally significant patron gods.

(Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/2 [2013]: 4, 21; online here.)

Moving on, the article then comments:

But more important, attacks against the Book of Mormon on scientific grounds are usually based on faulty assumptions about what the book claims to be. For instance, it does not claim to be a record of the ancestors of all of the native peoples across the entire Western Hemisphere, nor does it claim that the people described in it were the first or only people inhabiting the area described in it. And yet, many scientific criticisms seem to assume that the book claims exactly these things.

Again, this is an excellent point. As Hugh Nibley wryly observed in 1967, “The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon ‘scientifically’ has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven.” (Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. [Provo: FARMS, 1981], 214.)

Furthermore, this comment from the New Era is keeping in line with the Church’s recent Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Mormon and DNA studies:

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups.

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups. At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”

So, to give credit where credit is due, I appreciate that the New Era published this brief article. I appreciate it whenever the Church attempts to introduce a little bit of critical thinking into its curriculum besides merely faith-promoting material. I hope that more articles such as this one are published in future issues of the Church’s magazines. It can only help better prepare Church members to give their apologia for the hope that is within them (1 Peter 3:15).

Joseph Smith Papers, Documents Vol. 3: Review

by

JSP Docs V3_CoverThe Joseph Smith Papers Project has recently released volume 3 of the Documents series, as announced on its newly designed and updated website. This new volume covers the years 1833–34 of Joseph Smith’s life and ministry, and is a rich collection of important primary source materials related to the Church in Kirtland, Ohio and Jackson County, Missouri during this time.

The new volume is edited by Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Brent M. Rogers, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley. Alison Palmer is the leader editor on the editorial staff for this volume.

As the manager of the FairMormon blog, I was invited along with other bloggers to an event highlighting the release of the new volume and was graciously granted a review copy for this blog post.

According to Dirkmaat, there is “a great diversity of the types of documents in this volume.” Types of documents included in the new volume include letters, minutes, deeds, revelations, notes, and, for the first time in any volume of the Joseph Smith Papers, a transcription of architectural drawings for such things as the plat of the city of Zion and the Kirtland House of the Lord designs. Color images of the documents included in the new volume will be available on the Joseph Smith Papers website in the future.

Dirkmaat also discussed exciting documents in the new volume like the March 18, 1833 minutes of “an assembly of the high Priests” in Kirtland that collectively saw a “heavenly vision of the saviour and concourses of angels and many othe[r] thing[s].” The new volume also contains important documents relating to the violence inflicted against the Saints in Jackson County, Missouri, during the summer of 1833. This includes the July 29, 1833, letter of John Whitmer to Church leaders in Kirtland describing the violence in Jackson County and Joseph Smith’s reply written on August 18, 1833, entirely in his own hand. Brent Rogers described the significance of these texts. “The documents series is great because you see a chronological unfolding of Joseph Smith’s life,” Rogers explained. “You also learn about his contemporaries, including some lesser-known members and individuals.”

In addition to the new volume, the Joseph Smith Papers today launched a newly designed web site (linked above). With web traffic having tripled since the earlier website’s launch and a social media presence that includes over 50,000 followers on Facebook, the Joseph Smith Papers is gaining a significant presence online. The new website, besides having a refined search engine, features new photographs, both historic and modern, videos, chronologies, and other features. The new website has also been formatted for optimal tablet and phone usage.

Forthcoming volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers include the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon (forthcoming Summer 2015) and the 3rd and final volume in the Journals series (forthcoming Fall 2015). The highly anticipated Council of Fifty minutes are planned to be released in Fall of 2016.

New Gospel Topics Essay: “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham”

by

Papyrus Joseph Smith I, containing the original illustration of facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham.
Papyrus Joseph Smith I, containing the original illustration of facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham.

A new essay has been posted on the Church’s Gospel Topics website, this time addressing the subject of the translation of the Book of Abraham. The article begins by affirming, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.” What follows is an overview of what’s known about the translation and publication of the Book of Abraham, in addition to a look at the history of the Joseph Smith Papyri and evidences for the antiquity of the Book of Abraham. The essay is divided into a number of sections, including “The Book of Abraham as Scripture,” “Origin of the Book of Abraham,” “Translation and the Book of Abraham,” “The Papyri,” and “The Book of Abraham and the Ancient World.” Each section is devoted to addressing the different aspects of the controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham, which is complex and multi-faceted.

“The Book of Abraham as Scripture”

After an introduction to the subject as a whole, the essay points out the importance of the Book of Abraham as modern scripture. “Thousands of years ago, the prophet Nephi learned that one purpose of the Book of Mormon was to ‘establish the truth’ of the Bible. In a similar way, the book of Abraham supports, expands, and clarifies the biblical account of Abraham’s life.” Accordingly, we read in the Book of Abraham important details about the life of the great patriarch that augment and compliment the biblical account. This includes details about the life of Abraham, the Abrahamic covenant, the pre-mortal existence, and the creation. “Nowhere in the Bible is the purpose and potential of earth life stated so clearly as in the book of Abraham,” which makes the Book of Abraham such a valuable book of scripture.

“Origin of the Book of Abraham”

In this brief section the article explains the history of the coming forth of the Egyptian papyri that was eventually purchased by Joseph Smith and the Church in 1835.

“Translation and the Book of Abraham”

Besides noting simply the history of the translation of the Book of Abraham, the essay also explores possible methods of translation. “Joseph Smith worked on the translation of the book of Abraham during the summer and fall of 1835, by which time he completed at least the first chapter and part of the second chapter,” the essay observes. “His journal next speaks of translating the papyri in the spring of 1842, after the Saints had relocated to Nauvoo, Illinois. All five chapters of the book of Abraham, along with three illustrations (now known as facsimiles 1, 2, and 3), were published in the Times and Seasons, the Church’s newspaper in Nauvoo, between March and May 1842.” However, the essay takes care to note that “Joseph’s translations [of scriptural texts] took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.” This is important to remember as one approaches the translation of the Book of Abraham, as it is not entirely clear precisely how Joseph translated or revealed the English text of the book. This is explored more fully in the next section.

“The Papyri”

The debate around the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham text has proven extremely controversial. At one point it was thought that Joseph Smith’s entire collection of papyri perished in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, “Ten papyrus fragments once in Joseph Smith’s possession ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. In 1967, the museum transferred these fragments to the Church, which subsequently published them in the Church’s magazine, the Improvement Era.” The significance of this discovery is noted by the essay.

The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1. None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

What does this mean for the Book of Abraham, or at least for understanding how Joseph Smith revealed or translated the text? The essay lists two possibilities.

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri. Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

These two theories or explanations are conventionally called the “missing papyrus theory” and the “catalyst theory,” respectively, and have been the two major theories put forth by scholars investigating the Book of Abraham. Each theory has its own evidence, but neither theory can account for all of the evidence, which is why it’s wise that the essay addressed both and why it’s important to keep an open mind when approaching this topic.

“The Book of Abraham and the Ancient World”

Here the essay enumerates evidences linking the Book of Abraham with the ancient world. “A careful study of the book of Abraham provides a better measure of the book’s merits than any hypothesis that treats the text as a conventional translation,” the essay explains. “Evidence suggests that elements of the book of Abraham fit comfortably in the ancient world and supports the claim that the book of Abraham is an authentic record.” This evidence includes the following:

1. The archaeological verification of the practice of human sacrifice in Egypt and Canaan during the time of Abraham and later.

2. The potential identification of “the plain of Olishem” (Abraham 1:10) with a cite in northwestern Syria.

3. Elements of Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles that find accord with ancient understandings.

4. Narrative details about the life of Abraham found in the Book of Abraham that are also found in other extra-biblical books from antiquity. This includes details of Abraham almost being sacrificed and Abraham teaching the Egyptians astronomy.

Additional evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Abraham not mentioned in the essay includes the astronomy and cosmology of the Book of Abraham fitting nicely in an ancient Near Eastern context (see here and here), in addition to other elements of Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles finding confirmation in the ancient world (see here and here).

The essay concludes with this reminder.

The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.

There are several things in this essay that are useful from an apologetic perspective.

1. There is useful clarification of what Joseph Smith may have meant by the term “translation.” According to the essay,

The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.” Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.

This is reiterated later in the essay.

Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.

2. The essay explains why one should be careful in assuming that the hieratic text surrounding the vignette in P. Joseph Smith I (the original illustration of facsimile 1) must be connected with the vignette. “Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.”

3. The essay provides an explanation for why the phrase “written by his own hand, upon papyrus” that appears along with the Book of Abraham isn’t necessarily problematic for its historicity, despite the papyri dating much later than Abraham. “Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.” (For more on this topic, see my article on the Interpreter Foundation website here.)

(As an aside, I also find it significant that this essay cited material from both “classic FARMS” publications, such as Hugh Nibley’s The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, as well as Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. This would seem to indicate, I believe, that the claim, made by some, that the Church is trying to distance itself from these materials should be accepted with a bit of skepticism.)

In addition to the essay from Gospel Topics, the following video (“A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham”) produced by FairMormon may be helpful to those with additional questions about this subject.

Putting Together an Awful Story

by

picard-facepalm2An anonymous author* writing at the MorningStar Post blog “had an awful time putting [a] story together” on “the number of Latter Day Saints [sic] that are actually considered active,” and that Mormons are, per the title of the post, allegedly “leaving their religion in record numbers around the world.” (Link) What is the cause of this dire situation for the Church, and why was it so awful for the author to write on it? According to the article, which quotes an unnamed “high-ranking leader in Salt Lake City,” it is because “of unprecedented scrutiny of our doctrines and beliefs and stemming from the white washing of our own history, and the rise of social media sites where members and potential converts can learn of our hidden problems.”

This claim has been made before on many websites critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a common trope for critics to say that the Church is nearing extinction because of the supposedly damning real history of Mormonism it has been hiding from its unsuspecting members. Instead of revisiting these claims in general, I want to focus specifically on the content of the blog post published by the MorningStar Post. To put it bluntly, and very charitably, the article is highly problematic. The author’s use of anonymous sources is extremely questionable, and both factual errors and blatant plagiarism also plague the article. In short, the article makes totally dubious and unsubstantiated claims about both LDS Church hierarchy and Mormon history. [Read more…] about Putting Together an Awful Story

New Gospel Topics Essay: “Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints”

by

A 19th century depiction of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, printed in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).
A 19th century depiction of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, printed in T. B. H. Stenhouse’s book The Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).

A new essay on the Gospel Topics website went up this morning. It is titled “Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints” and covers, among other things, 19th century vigilantism and violence among Latter-day Saints.

The article begins by emphasizing that the Church strives to emulate Jesus’ call to peace.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The virtues of peace, love, and forgiveness are at the center of Church doctrine and practice. Latter-day Saints believe the Savior’s declaration, found in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, that “blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” In Latter-day Saint scripture, the Lord has commanded His followers to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” Latter-day Saints strive to follow the counsel of the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin, who taught that those who are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ “will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably.”

But, given the religious persecution perpetuated against the Saints in the 1830s and 40s, and given the historical context of vigilantism in 19th century America, the article goes on to discuss lamentable moments of violence and retaliation that the Saints committed. During the 1838 Missouri War, for example, “some [Mormon] leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians.” While the Danites may initially have had noble intentions, as the war escalated their actions quickly turned violent and aggressive.

Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods.

But violence among 19th century Mormons did not end in Missouri. As the Saints settled the Rocky Mountains, vigilantism and violence cropped up in some instances of conflict with Native Americans. As relationships between some Mormons and Native Americans strained, “A series of battles in February 1850 resulted in the deaths of dozens of Utes and one Mormon. In these instances and others, some Latter-day Saints committed excessive violence against native peoples.”

During this time was also the so-called “Mormon Reformation” of the mid-1850s.

In the mid-1850s, a “reformation” within the Church and tensions between the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the U.S. federal government contributed to a siege mentality and a renewed sense of persecution that led to several episodes of violence committed by Church members. Concerned about spiritual complacency, Brigham Young and other Church leaders delivered a series of sermons in which they called the Saints to repent and renew their spiritual commitments. Many testified that they became better people because of this reformation.

One aspect of this “reformation” was the proliferation of violent rhetoric or imagery in the sermons of some Church leaders, such as Brigham Young and Jedediah M. Grant.

Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform. At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness. Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

Commonly termed “blood atonement,” this rhetoric, while mostly just that, also appears to have led to violence in some instances.

While many of the exaggerated claims that appeared in the popular press and anti-Mormon literature [about blood atonement] are easily disproven, it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric. Nevertheless, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that the blood atonement sermons were, in the words of historian Paul Peterson, “hyperbole or incendiary talk” that were “likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. To Saints with good intentions, they were calculated to cause alarm, introspection, and ultimately repentance. For those who refused to comply with Mormon standards, it was hoped such ominous threats would hasten their departure from the Territory.”

Violence committed by 19th century Mormons reached its bloody apogee in 1857 with the terrible massacre of a group of emigrants from Arkansas at the site of Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The history of this event, besides being summarized by the new essay, has been discussed in an article published in the Ensign and in the 2008 volume Massacre at Mountain Meadows. As explained by the essay, “while intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility, President Young did not order the massacre. Rather, verbal confrontations between individuals in the wagon train and southern Utah settlers created great alarm, particularly within the context of the Utah War and other adversarial events.” So then who was ultimately responsible for this crime? “A series of tragic decisions by local Church leaders—who also held key civic and militia leadership roles in southern Utah—led to the massacre.”

The essay concludes by acknowledging violence committed by 19th century Mormons but also emphasizing a need for caution in outright condemning the early Saints as a violent people.

Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people. Yet the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, in the 19th century as today, lived in peace with their neighbors and families, and sought peace in their communities. Travelers in the 19th century often noted the peace and order that prevailed in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the actions of relatively few Latter-day Saints caused death and injury, frayed community relationships, and damaged the perception of Mormons as a peaceful people.

The violent actions committed by early Mormons should not be excused or justified, but should be understood in proper historical context. Thankfully, the tumultuous early years of the Church, which saw violence being committed both against and by Mormons, are behind us. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes of the past while also tempering rash judgement with sound historical understanding.

For more on the topics discussed in the new essay, be sure to check FairMormon’s articles on the Mormon Reformation, crime and violence in early Utah, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and blood atonement. Also, as you’re browsing the new Gospel Topics essay, be sure to click on the links on the right of the page, such as on the link to the new Doctrine and Covenants and Church History seminary manual, for further reading.

*Cross-posted from Ploni Almoni: Mr. So-and-So’s Mormon Blog.

“Keeping the Faith” and “True or False?”

by

Two recent articles published in BYU Magazine and the New Era (the Church’s official magazine for youth) are noteworthy in their discussion of how to help others going through a faith crisis.

The first is “Keeping the Faith,” written by M. Sue Bergin. This article gives some wise advice on how to help a child handle doctrinal doubts or a faith crisis. Although the article is specifically aimed at equipping parents to help children, the principles can be applied to helping a friend or loved one (like a spouse or a sibling). In addition to describing ways to helpfully address the doubts raised by those with questions (such as destigmatizing doubt, embracing the questioner, and educating oneself on the issues being raised), the article also provides a “Dos” and “Don’ts” list that includes:

• Do create an atmosphere of warmth and openness in your home that invites conversations on difficult topics of all kinds.

• Do react matter-of-factly and kindly to questions, no matter how distressing they might be to you personally.

• Do acknowledge what you don’t know. Ask if you can join your child in his or her search for answers.

• Do encourage your children to trust their spiritual instincts, their ability to get answers, and their ability to make a meaningful connection with God and with scripture.

• Do encourage mutual respect. Just as you expect yourself to listen respectfully to your loved one’s thoughts and feelings, it’s reasonable to expect him or her to speak respectfully about what is sacred to you.

• Don’t shut down a child who has a difficult question. Even remarks that might seem innocuous, such as “Where did you hear that?” can be interpreted as disapproval of the question itself.

• Don’t communicate that it’s wrong or unfaithful to have questions or doubts.

• Don’t express disappointment in your loved one or convey fear about his or her spiritual standing.

The second article, “True or False?” by David A. Edwards, begins by observing, “[I]n the big questions of faith, belief, and everyday living, while it is extremely important to be able to tell the difference between what’s true and what isn’t, it’s not always easy.” To help his young readers who sometimes grapple with faith-shaking issues, the author of the article recommends the recent Gospel Topics essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon in his refutation of the claim that “the accounts of how [the Book of Mormon] was translated are inconsistent.” This recommendation is significant for two reasons:

1. It indicates a positive effort by the Church to ensure that Church members are aware of the Gospel Topics essays addressing sensitive issues like the translation method of the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon and DNA studies, polygamy, the Mormon doctrine of deification, and the former priesthood ban on African American members of the Church.

2. It undermines what I’ve come to call the “Anti-Mormonism of the Gaps” theory frequently espoused by critics of the Church. As I’ve explained elsewhere, “[C]ritics immediately assume that any perceived neglect to mention the Gospel Topics essays or the subjects addressed therein to as wide an audience as possible must be proof of Church leaders’ dishonesty or duplicity, and not merely, say, the result of the sort of bureaucratic inertia one would reasonably expect in an entity as large as the Church. Problem is, as the subjects addressed by the Gospel Topics essays gain more prominence in Church publications, the critics are quickly running out of space in their gaps to assume sinister motives by Church leaders.”

For those who wish to help friends or family members who may be experiencing a faith crisis, these two essays may prove helpful.