This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

“MI/FAIR/FARMS has a history of nasty ad hominem attacks (see the Simon Southerton adultery accusations)…”

We at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long time, for concrete examples of where we have engaged in ad hominem fallacies, as we don’t really want to do so. (I know; that may seem incredulous to some. But it really is true.) This statement, by the critic on the message board, was the first concrete example I’ve noticed.

To start with, I do know that Southerton was excommunicated from the Church for adultery in 2005. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) on July 21, 2005. (An archive copy of the article can be found online.) According to the article, it was Southerton who announced the allegation to the reporter. So the accusation is a matter of public record, placed into that record by Southerton himself.

Even so, the fact that he was charged with adultery could be used as an ad hominem fallacy if (and only if) it is presented as a reason to disregard the arguments of a person. Such a usage would be wrong, and definitely a logical fallacy. It plainly should not be done in scholarly discourse. Was this how FAIR and FARMS had used accusations of adultery—to get people to ignore things that Southeron said? Good question!

So I went searching.

First, I did a search on the FARMS/MI site for the phrase “Southerton adultery,” and it turns up exactly once—in a slide used by John Butler for Education Week in 2008. (It is a tag under the picture of Southerton and says, in part, “Excommunicated in 2005 for adultery.”)

Forgetting for a moment that John Butler doesn’t work for FARMS and that Education Week is not a FARMS venue, the phrase doesn’t come up anywhere else, and in any other publication. None.

I then did a search on FAIR’s websites for the same phrase, “Southerton adultery.” It appears exactly once, in one of our reviews of Rodney Meldrum’s material. It appears in both the short version (as just linked) and in the longer version, which is a PDF. It was used then to correct Meldrum, not to address anything that Southerton ever said.

I think that there are a few things to consider here. First, Southerton’s book contesting the historicity of the Book of Mormon was published in 2004, and the arguments that Southerton made have been discussed long and hard in many venues. Both of the “search hits” on the FAIR and FARMS websites were for singular statements made in 2008, four years later and, honestly, after the intensity of the discussion regarding Southerton’s arguments. One of the mentions wasn’t even directed at Southerton, at all.

Which still leaves me puzzled. Where do the “Simon Southerton adultery accusations” (as our critic states them) get hung around the necks of FAIR and FARMS? Perhaps someone with more in-depth searching skills can point out where there are any ad hominem statements (constituting an ad hominem fallacy) in this regard. I, for one, would welcome someone pointing them out.

In fact, going back to my statement earlier in this post, we at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long, LONG time, for concrete examples of all the meanness attributed to us, as an organization. Understanding that it is possible to not see the forest for the trees, please consider this an open, standing invitation. If anyone can point them out to us, I’d be glad to make sure someone takes a look at what is brought up.

But enough talk. Let’s take a look at the video itself:

Joseph Smith and the First Vision

Yikes! I do not envy Mark Ashurst-McGee. I can only image how much shame and scorn he is going to have to endure from Church members who will undoubtedly renounce him for saying such scandalous things such as there are “differences” in these accounts. I shudder at the disciplinary action this poor soul is going to weather for mentioning that the 1838 account of the First Vision “is not the only account of the First Vision that Joseph Smith ever gave.” And surely Ashurst-McGee’s mentioning of “this [the 1838 account] and three other accounts of the First Vision” won’t win him points with the ominous Brethren (cue scary music) who hold his fate in their all-powerful hands.

At several points in the video Ashurst-McGee even dares to talk about specific differences in the First Vision accounts. The 1832 account, he tells us, focuses more on Joseph’s search for a remission of sins and only mentions the appearance of Jesus Christ. The Prophet’s 1835 account, according to our sleuth, explains that the Father appeared first and then introduced the Son. To top it off, after a blistering cavalcade of shocking revelations on the gross contradictions in the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Ashurst-McGee explains that the 1842 account of the First Vision “provides details not found in the other accounts.”

At this point, if the reader can compose him or herself, one may ask why the Church would do such a foolish thing as expose this deep, dark secret of Mormon history? The answer, actually, is quite simple: the differences in the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision no more contradict each other than the differences in the accounts of the conversion of the Apostle Paul do. (Or the differences in the accounts in the life of Jesus in the Gospels, for that matter.) As such, the Church is quite safe to talk openly about this issue as it has done in the past.

Granted, critics of the Church won’t be really satisfied until the Church devises a missionary lesson in Preach my Gospel that extensively goes into this subject and other related controversies, such as polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith Papyri. Until that time, however, we should be content with what little things the Church will grant us in the way of Mormon historical sources. (Ya know, the simple things like the Joseph Smith Papers.)

Next time, however, the Church should be more discrete with these issues. Mormon Messages and the Ensign are a good start when it comes to covering-up these sorts of things by hiding them in super secret retreats, but other more obscure places of concealment will have to be used in the future. Maybe General Conference will do the trick?

• 54% wanted to spend their limited time and resources on other interests and activities.
• 40% indicated that they didn’t feel they belonged
• 25% reported feeling it didn’t matter to anyone whether they attended or not.
• About a third gave contextual reasons (movement to a new community where they didn’t get involved, work schedule conflicts, etc.).
• 23% reported problems with specific doctrines or teachings,
• 20% reported problems with other members of the congregation
• Some said the church demanded too much of their time and money
• Others said it no longer was a help in finding the meaning in life.
• Female respondents in particular were affected by marriage to a nonmember spouse.

As I opened it up for discussion, the idea was expressed, and I agreed, that a fundamental reason for loss of faith was a loss of the Spirit. So many of the factors listed above can be tolerated if an individual feels a strong connection with God that is associated with activity in this Church (prayer, scripture reading, Church and temple attendance, etc.)

I was a little surprised, however, by the extreme position taken by one member of the group who commented to me after the lesson that he has never known a person to leave the Church who is not engaged in some serious sin. He further argued that it is not rational argument over the internet, but one-on-one ministering that converts people. Thus, our efforts on the internet are not helpful. (He later admitted that effort made on the internet might be of some use.) He entirely disregarded the findings of the study cited above and further forcefully argued that if people had real testimonies by the Spirit to begin with, they would never leave.

I told him that his experience must simply be different than mine, and that I have known people who at one time had strong testimonies but later left, and that I have been unable to discern any “serious sin” in their lives. I do think that in each instance, if these individuals would have continued to cultivate a relationship with the Spirit, that they would not have left. But the reasons they did not continue in a close relationship with the Spirit may have been due to some combination of any of the various factors listed in the study above.

A testimony must be nourished with great care, and should not be neglected. Otherwise, when exposed to difficulties, our testimony can slowly diminish and finally leave us. (See Alma 32:37-38.) Those difficulties may take the form of a desire to play golf on Sunday, or lack of friendship in a ward, or some doctrine or historical aspect of the Church that seems troubling. Clearly, adultery can drive a person from the Church, and such a person may even look for doctrinal or historical problems to justify leaving the Church when the root cause is actually adultery. However, in teaching a lesson on how we can help prevent people from leaving, it struck me that in forcefully (even contentiously) advancing the argument that it is serious sin, and only serious sin, that causes people to leave, this man may be creating an atmosphere in his ward that may create difficulty for someone who is struggling with a doctrinal issue and, ironically, accelerate that person’s exit from the Church. And in taking a contentious approach to his view, he may be driving away the very Spirit that is essential to building faith.

A person should feel free to share concerns with other members of a ward regarding doctrinal or historical problems without fear that their neighbors will jump to conclusions about adultery or methamphetamine use. There are solid answers to nearly every doctrinal or historical issue I have confronted. (There are still some that make me scratch my head as I faithfully wait for further light and knowledge.) However, it is usually only on the internet, in a fairly impersonal and anonymous forum, that I am asked about these issues. I wonder how many people could be helped in a personal way by a neighbor who can follow-up and help strengthen a person who is struggling if they were not made to feel that in expressing concern, their personal worthiness would be questioned.

Doctrinal Differences

Certainly, there are those who object to the practice due to a disagreement over whether the practice genuinely belongs in a Christian faith. I’ll briefly respond to this since others have already given this plenty of good coverage, including articles on the FAIR wiki and main website. We’ve always pointed to a verse from the New Testament where the apostle Paul asks,

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?¹

Some object to this, saying that Paul wasn’t condoning the practice, but was referring to a group of heretics, not Christians. I would say that Paul isn’t discussing baptism here directly, but trying to give a convincing argument supporting the reality of the resurrection. Given that, it’s interesting that he uses baptism for the dead as something that apparently would be familiar to his audience and would provide a compelling reason to believe in the resurrection. That would be a strange thing to do if his point was to speak against—or even downplay—the practice of vicarious rites.² Others deny the necessity of literal water baptism as a works-based salvation heresy or even simply say that it’s pointless because people who died without a proper Christian baptism are irrevocably condemned to damnation.

We’re used to that sort of dialog. We get that. What has been a newer experience³ is the claim that even attempting this work is a horrific, cruel, thoughtless act, for which we should be ashamed of ourselves. Yet more proof, in some people’s way of thinking, of the depravity of Mormons is that we would dare to plunder the afterlife to add souls to our religion through forced posthumous conversion to Mormonism, offending their surviving relatives.

This is honestly baffling because the characterization of the practice I just wrote, while I think fairly
representative of what many in the world have been voicing on this topic, is so utterly at odds with the way the LDS approach the practice, our initial reaction is to be shocked that it’s taken that way. We see it as an offering of inclusion for any to freely accept or reject, but we’re at least offering to share all we have in the afterlife with them rather than turning our backs on them for being outside our faith.

Outrageous Ordinances?

That’s not how some see it, and it’s taken me some time and effort to (I believe) come to understand why that might be. To explain why, consider first what this means to the Latter-day Saints. Like most Christian sects, the LDS believe that acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior and atoning mediator is a necessary condition for salvation and full reconciliation with God, and the participation in the physical acts of baptism and confirmation are essential components of how that acceptance is formally entered as a covenant relationship with God. We have a rather unique answer to the dilemma of what happens to the souls of those who never had the opportunity to make that choice for themselves during their mortal lives.

In LDS doctrine, God is universally just and requires the same entrance criteria to heaven of every human being who ever lived, but is likewise universally merciful and offers the same possibility of achieving it to every human being, and “he inviteth all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”⁴ And, I would add, “whether born in a time, place, and circumstance where they could possibly, or would reasonably, accept this covenant, or not.”

Therefore, He provided a way for those still living to repeat the sacramental rites, (or “ordinances” to use the more familiar LDS term for them), on behalf of the deceased, standing in for them by proxy. What is important to note here is that at no point does the LDS church consider those deceased people to have received baptism or to be members of the LDS church or even Christianity by virtue of that act alone. All it means is that the required physical covenant-making ceremonies have been performed for them, so that in the event that departed soul makes the choice on their own volition to embrace it, then and only then does it have any effect.⁵

This is a crucial distinction to understand where the LDS are coming from for our part in this. The increasingly popular characterization is that we’re “stealing souls” by “converting them to Mormonism” or even “preying on the defenseless souls and robbing them of their heritage when they are powerless to resist.” As lurid as that spin makes this sound, putting it like that makes it hard for LDS to understand the point of view of those complaining, since it’s so very different from what we believe is even taking place. On one hand that complaint seems to indicate an acceptance that the proxy baptism actually has a real effect on anyone, which makes us do a bit of a double-take (“Wait, are you saying you believe our religion actually is right or has any real power in the afterlife?” If so, maybe it’s worth paying attention to… but if you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe anyone’s being affected at all by the practice anyway). On the other hand, not even the LDS believe they’re converting anyone, just opening a door for them should they (the deceased) choose to take it from there.

“What right do you have to do such an awful thing to my ancestors, or members of my faith or community?” they ask, and the LDS are genuinely puzzled with why it’s awful in the first place, as well as why anyone can really take it upon themselves to stand as the spokesperson for a previous generation and assert that they have the right to determine the choices they would have made if still living, when all the LDS are doing is offering a choice, not presuming to force them.

Working Toward Mutual Understanding and Cooperation

I’ve read a lot of what they’ve had to say about why they’re outraged. Setting aside ranting comments by people more interested in stirring up a controversy for its own sake, there remain a number of people who seem to me to have a reasonable point to make as to why the practice makes them uncomfortable. They have gone along the general theme that it is, they feel, disrespectful to the memory of these people, that (and I’ll focus here on the Jewish people here since that’s the current controversy) it is seen as robbing them of their Jewish heritage by “turning them into Mormons or even Christians.” The one point that hit home most to me was one writer who said he was offended because this practice was essentially saying that the Jewish religion was insufficient to get their people to heaven, and so the LDS must feel they have to step in and meddle in some condescending way, and showed the anti-semitic prejudice of the LDS.

And you know, I think I get that.

I can respect that point of view and understand how one would hold it and feel that way about all of this.

But if I may respond with a gentle rebuttal giving a better view of what’s going on from the LDS point of view, perhaps I can help foster a little more mutual understanding.

Anti-Semitism and Mormonism

In reality, you’d be hard pressed to find a Christian denomination more pro-Israel, one would even say philo-semitic, than the LDS. Beyond the usual association common to Christians that our religion is a continuation from the foundations of Judaism, that we hold the Hebrew scriptures among our other holy books as scripture, that we also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and see Israel as God’s ancient covenant people, the LDS go further by taking literally the concept that the righteous people of the Gentile nations will be “grafted in” to Israel and adopted into the covenant. We speak of the church as Zion, we even go to the lengths of receiving a blessing at the hands of our patriarch, whereupon we are given the name of the actual tribe of Israel we’re adopted into.

In the part of the Book of Mormon we were studying in my Sunday School class recently, there’s a passage which does as good a job as I can think of to illustrate the LDS view of the Jews. The passage isn’t directly even about the Jews. It’s about how people will reject the idea of more scripture (such as the Book of Mormon itself), but in addressing that, the writer pauses to throw in this sentiment about the Jewish people:

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

…

And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.⁶

A religious sect who sent one of their leaders across the globe in 1841 to climb the Mount of Olives and offer a prayer of dedication, asking God to bless the Holy Land for the return of the Jews, is hardly anti-semitic.

At least in the eyes of one Jewish co-worker I chatted with on the subject many years ago, LDS devotion to Israel was, she felt, somewhere between “flattering” and “a bit annoying”—much as an older child feels when their younger sibling follows them around everywhere trying to emulate everything they do. I accept that the attention isn’t always what the older sibling wants (I was the eldest in my family—I speak from experience here), but you have to admit it’s driven from love, not hatred or even disdain.

In trying to get we LDS to understand how offensive our practice of “trying to save” our ancestors is, some have asked rhetorically, “How would you feel if we gave your ancestors, or you yourself a posthumous bar mitzvah, or circumcision, or if a coven of Wiccans performed a Rite of Dedication for you, or was handfasted in your name, or what if a Buddhist, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Catholic, or Baptist, performed any manner of their religious rituals on your behalf after you’re dead, how would that make YOU feel, huh?

Honestly? I’d be honored. I’d be grateful that you thought enough of me to offer.

Let other groups shut them out of the afterlife they see for themselves, or consign them to a fiery doom. We aren’t even trying to push them into our vision of the afterlife. We’re just setting a place at our table with their name on it, and leaving the door open for them. The rest is literally up to them.

And we do the same for everyone. For this, we’re told we’re insensitive monsters.

Maybe I still don’t quite get it.

As a Jew, I am less interested in what other religions teach about the fate of Jews in the next world than in how they affect the fate of Jews in this world. Rafael Medoff, a scholar of America’s response to the Holocaust, notes that Mormon leaders were outspoken supporters of efforts to rescue Jews from Nazi Europe at a time when many mainstream Christians were silent. For example, Utah Senator William King . . . strongly backed legislation that could have saved Anne Frank and her family.

Outraged by proxy baptisms? Count me out. As my stunted family tree attests, the Jewish people have very real, very dangerous enemies. Mormons undergoing peaceful rituals in their own temples aren’t on the list.

—Jeff Jacoby, in his article “Outraged by Mormon Proxy Baptism? Not This Jew”

¹1 Corinthians 15:29

²It’s also interesting to note how differently we approach the concept of the scriptural reference. Members of Protestant sola scriptura traditions assume we’re just proof-texting an entire practice gleaned from a single verse fragment (“Hey, Paul mentions something called ‘baptism for the dead,’ we better get busy doing that!”) and are a little baffled by that. From the point of view of a church based on the idea of continuing revelation, we think it is cool and all that Paul mentioned it in his day, but that’s more of a supportive role. The basis for the modern practice is a modern revelation (e.g., D&C 124), by modern prophets (e.g., D&C 127).

³Of course, on this point and throughout this entire entry I’m speaking only for myself, my opinions, beliefs, and experiences. I’m no sort of spokesperson for FAIR, let alone all Latter-day Saints or anything.

⁴2 Nephi 26:33. Also, Acts 10:34 (God is no respecter of persons).

⁵In fact, nowhere in any of the rituals is the deceased person directly told anything like “I baptize you…” (as is the case for a living convert). Rather, the living person is addressed directly, and told that they are being baptized… on behalf of someone else. That’s not just semantics, it’s extremely significant.
⁶2 Nephi 29:3–5, 14.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Rather early in the panel discussion, I asked a question of John Dehlin, as a follow-up to his presentation earlier in the day. You can hear my question beginning at about 13:05 into the video:

People often study the same facts or issues and come to vastly different conclusions—some have their faith strengthened, while others have their faith destroyed. To what do you attribute this difference in outcome, and why do you feel that the stories of those who have suffered a negative outcome should be privileged over those with a positive outcome?

This was John’s answer:

That’s a really hard question for me to answer. I’m one of the ones who have lost faith, and so my perspective is going to be really biased. What I can say is that to some degree disbelief appears to be a luxury.

We even saw this a little bit in our data—the more income you have, the more freedom you feel to question and to be honest with parents and siblings and children, etc. You can just imagine that if you are financially independent and you don’t have to worry about losing your job and you don’t have to worry about being written out of an inheritance, you might feel the freedom to inquire without reservation a little bit more than somebody who’s got a job that may be associated with the church, and who needs that inheritance, and who can’t afford to sever social ties that the church might benefit them from.

So, I also think that if we were to do sort of a multi-factorial analysis—what is the person’s spouse like, are they open-minded or are they kind of rigid and harsh and dogmatic? That might be a factor in whether someone’s really willing to look honestly at the data. What happens when they look honestly is a totally separate question, but I think there are factors in one’s environment that are going to make it more or less likely that they can actually look objectively at the data.

Other factors might include… Just imagine if you are making $30,000 a year, struggling to raise your kids, maybe you’re a single mom, and your ward is just this critical social support for you—and you enjoy it—your interests in actually looking at the data objectively are going to be very different. So, I think those are sort of the barriers to just being able to look at things objectively.

At first I thought that John was being evasive; he didn’t really answer my question which was how people can study the same data and come to differing conclusions. (There was actually a very good discussion relative to my question a few years ago on the FAIR blog.) What John did, however, was seem to answer a different question: What do you think are roadblocks to people actually “seeing the truth” about Mormonism?

Of course, that is not a question that I would have asked, as it presumes in its very asking that Mormonism is not what it claims to be and that if we can but remove the roadblocks to understanding, people will inevitably come to their own conclusions about the falsity of those claims. After all, John prefaced his response by recognizing his own bias as one who has lost faith.

It seems to me that a common ailment of those who lose their faith after study is that they look at those who maintain their faith after the same study as somehow dishonest and lacking objectivity. They see in others a lack of what they imagine in themselves—after all, they have only gone where the facts have led them, and to reach any other conclusion is prima facia evidence of a problem or defect in the other.

So I thought I would pose the question here that John raises in the middle of his answer; the one that he seems to obliquely answer by his own faith journey: What happens when a person looks honestly at the facts or issues of Mormonism? Does honesty demand that such questions inevitably lead to a loss of faith, or can one be honest and remain a member of the church?

Richard Packham has pointed out that several Biblical Hebrew names, including Aaron, Ephraim, and Levi are listed as Jaredites in the Book of Ether. He argues that these are anachronisms, since the Jaredites are supposed to have originated from the time of the Tower of Babel, and did not speak Hebrew.

Perennial ex-Mormon gadfly Richard Packham apparently fails to understand that the Book of Mormon is a translation, and translations render ancient words — including names — into modern forms that didn’t exist at the time.

For example, in the New Testament, there are several individuals named “James”, including an apostle and a bishop of Jerusalem. However, there was no name “James” in Greek during the first century A.D.; that word is a late-twelfth century Middle English form of the late Latin Jacomus, which itself derives from old Latin Jacobus. All of these are translations of the Koine Greek ιακωβον (Iakobos), which is a Greek version of the Hebrew יעקב (Ya’aqob), which itself is typically rendered in English as “Jacob.”

So Packham could also argue — erroneously — that the presence of “James” in the New Testament is an anachronism, since its Greek-speaking authors did not know Middle English.

When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he naturally would have rendered ancient names into equivalent English forms that modern readers would understand.

Once again, for the record: The Book of Mormon is a translation. The presence of English (or even French) words in it does not mean that its writers knew English; only that Joseph Smith, the translator did.

ADDITIONAL:

A possible response to the above could be, “What about Book of Mormon names like Nephi, Abinadi, and Korihor? Those aren’t in the Bible and appear to be Nephite words — or at least examples of Joseph Smith not borrowing from the Bible.”

To that I would answer that translation of a proper name is often left to the discretion of the translator. I have heard Spanish speakers refer to me, in Spanish, as either Mike or Miguel, depending on their preference.

More to the point, there are numerous examples from the Bible where the translators chose to use transliterated versions of the original Greek or Hebrew name, or picked an English equivalent.

For example, the New Testament names Nicodemus (νικοδημος / Nikodemos), Didymus (διδυμος / Didumos), and Andronicus (ανδρονικον / Andronikos) are all pretty close approximations of the Greek original, while names like John (ιωαννην / Ioannes) and even Jesus (ιησους / Iesous) are heavily anglicized.

The King James translators were even inconsistent on rending the same person’s name the same way: The English name Paul in Greek is παυλος (Paulos). In the KJV this is almost always rendered “Paul,” except in Acts 13:7 where it is transliterated “Paulus.”

Likewise the name ιουδας, which is usually transliterated as “Judas” in the New Testament, and is Greek version of the Hebrew Judah. As it so happens, Judas came to be infamously associated with Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the Lord. Because of this, all other references to ιουδας in the New Testament are rendered in some other fashion, even though they’re the same Greek word: Either “Juda” (8×), “Judah” (1×), or “Jude” (1×). The latter is, of course, the title of the penultimate book in the New Testament; the author’s name is the same as Judas Iscariot’s, but, to avoid confusion, the English rendition in the KJV and virtually all subsequent English translations has been “Jude.”

So, as a translator, Joseph Smith would have been free (or perhaps inspired) to use a transliteration of a name like Amalickiah, or an anglicized equivalent of an ancient name, even one with Greek roots like Timothy.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Thoughtful insights from 32 top scholars continue the journey into the Book of Mormon’s thousand-year span, aiding understanding of this sacred text. Mormon’s description of the land, religious history, culture, and traditions create a fascinating mosaic. Stunningly beautiful images filmed on location in Guatemala and Mexico combined with the art of Joseph Brickey illuminate the right culture of the Book of Mormon.

The video includes audio tracks in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Special features address specific topics such as the law of Moses and the Book of Mormon, DNA and the Book of Mormon, language and the Book of Mormon, metal in Book of Mormon lands, and more.  The full video runs approximately 90 minutes and can be purchased at the FAIR Bookstore.

These clips were posted by permission of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

FAIR member Kerry Shirts shares the insights he has gained into the study of the Book of Mormon as world literature as it has been made more possible through the Book of Mormon Critical Text project conducted by Royal Skousen.

This is part of a YouTube series Brother Shirts has posted as The Backyard Professor. Brother Shirts loves to study and was first called the “Backyard Professor” by his wife because he takes his books everywhere with him. The video of this audio recording can be viewed here.

[Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain]

—     Friedrich Schiller, The Maid of Orléans

The vicarious temple ordinances performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Mormons”) are back in the news.  This time, it is because someone has reportedly sealed Sally Hemings to Thomas Jefferson. (Hemings was a slave owned by Jefferson.  She bore children that have Jefferson DNA.  [1])

As usually happens with such things, the media and the blogosphere are a-bubble.  Some are well-intentioned expressions of concern, others are ill-informed, and some seem to just want to pile on and make the Church look bad, or use this as an opportunity to push their own reforming agenda on the Church.

The unspoken assumption seems to be that the Church can be “shamed” or at least “public-pressured” into “doing the right thing.”  In this case, the right thing would presumably be not performing vicarious sealing of slaves to former masters.  (The more hostile want temple work vastly curtailed or stopped altogether, but we’ll leave them to one side—it isn’t going to happen.)

This is not, however, simply one more case of “Mormon institutional insensitivity” to go with performing temple rites for Holocaust victims (despite what some have suggested).  LDS policy forbids performing Holocaust victims’ temple rites.  The people who did so had to circumvent fairly significant warnings and technological obstacles to do so.  (Those obstacles have since been increased even further.)

Likewise, it has never been LDS policy to seek out female slaves and seal them to their former masters and/or rapists.

Now, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of not sealing slaves to masters.  The idea is obscene.  I don’t know any sensible person that would endorse it.  And that, unfortunately, is precisely the problem—I said sensible person.

Let me explain.

No sensible person

I’ve been in the Church for nearly forty years, in two languages, on both sides of North America, in Europe, and a few other places.  I have never heard, been taught, or read that we ought to be sealing slaves to former masters.  Never.  At all.  There is no “slave and master record extraction program.”

I also don’t know anyone else who has heard such things taught, likely for the simple reason that it never has been.  I do know of one case, however, in which a member announced that her family wanted to seal Jefferson to Hemings.  Despite the ward family history representative pointing out (with some heat) that this was contrary to Church policy, the member persisted in thinking this was a good idea.  I don’t know if she succeeded, but apparently someone of a similar bent did.

Now, be honest: we’ve all met this person in any reasonably large group or organization, especially if the group is a voluntary association. He or she is part of the human condition—the one who does or says something that makes everyone else cringe and wonder, “What was he thinking?”  And, some people do this more spectacularly—or more frequently—than others.

If you haven’t met him, please write and tell me—I might just move to your area.

Or, you might be him.

Feeling Sheepish

I was once complaining to my father (with less charity than I ought to have had) about one particular specimen.  He told me a story.

You see, my great-grandfather owned a farm in the foothills of Alberta.  Every summer, Dad would go there to work.  One of his jobs was herding sheep.  This summer activity gave him a slightly different twist on Jesus’ label of us as his sheep.

The sheep my Dad tended seemed determined to conspire in their own deaths.  They were always getting lost, stuck, and according to him would have followed each other off a cliff if given half the chance.

So, he told me, whenever he now hears Jesus’ command to “Feed my sheep,” he thinks back to the herd he had on the farm, and hears an admonition to, among other things, “Look after the dummies.”

I don’t know if that’s what Jesus intended, but it’s a sort of “liken it unto ourselves” perspective that I’ve found useful.

In saying this, I don’t mean to imply that these people are stupid, or intellectually challenged—they can be bright or dim, just like anyone else can.

But, sometimes we just seem to have blinders on our common sense.  We have difficulty understanding how others will see things, and we tend to charge on blithely regardless.  We should simply count ourselves lucky if our own areas of dumbness aren’t presently on public display, causing unintended harm to the Church we love, and offense where none was intended.

And so, this is the big problem with the expectation of some in the media and blogosphere: they seem to think that if the Church would just teach and train members better, things like sealing Sally Hemings to Thomas Jefferson would be stopped.  (Others quickly decide that nothing can be done, and the whole temple project should be shut down—which, I repeat, is never going to happen.)

But, the problem is not that Church leaders and members don’t care about such things—almost all care very much, since doing such things contravenes policy and doctrine.

The problem is that these things are done by a very small percentage of Mormons.  And, they are the percentage who are least likely to listen when told they aren’t supposed to do something—as the case I mention above illustrates.  Tell them not to do it, and some people just dig in their heels.  Maybe you or I have even done something similar when we were convinced we were right about something.

When in this mindset, you and I are also the least likely to, say, read angry blogs about the matter, and decide we need to change our behavior.  Sometimes, people just don’t get it.[2]

The Body of Christ

One could speculate about the psychology or psychiatry involved, but that’s not the issue.

What is important is that as members of the Church, we’re not to reject or cast people out when they do something like this and make everyone else look bad.    People are not clueless or insensitive just in matters of temple work—sadly, someone among us will struggle in just about any area of their lives.  We all do.  If you haven’t had the experience of putting your foot in your mouth, or doing something you thought was a good idea, only to have it blow up in your face—well, you just aren’t paying attention.

But, if people with these types of troubles cannot be loved, accepted despite their faults, and welcomed in the Church of Jesus Christ, where can they be? Where can we be?  Where can I?

Members of the Church who seem to “have it all together,” are much more congenial to us.  But, as Paul emphasized, in the Church we really ought to treasure the “uncomely” or “shameful” parts of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:22–27).  And, that will be all of us at some point or another.  If we’re lucky, it won’t be front-page news.

None of us is perfect, and we’re all going to rub someone wrong at some point.  We’re all “sheep,” we all do stupid things, and we’re all dummies who need looking after sometimes.  Perhaps the greatest danger is to those who are more highly functional, because they can be tempted into a feeling of superiority, or frustration with the rest of us who don’t measure up to the standards they think people should meet.

We have, then, no grounds for feeling or being unkind or acting superior here.  I’m trying to explain how this sort of thing happens, and will likely keep happening occasionally despite all the teaching, training, and policies that get put in place.

The people who will need the message have a problem that just isn’t easily amenable to teaching, training, and policy.  If you have to be told that sealing slaves to masters is a bad idea, despite LDS policy and doctrine, you’re not likely to “get it” when you are told.  Or, you won’t remember.  Or you’ll think your case is an exception.

Sadly, as LDS temple work has become more publicized, the ability of a few to alienate many has just increased.

Besides, the dead are immune to offense or disturbance regardless–or at least I hope so.  If the Mormons are right, then the targets of misguided temple work have nothing to worry about—they aren’t bound to Thomas Jefferson or anyone else that they don’t accept with joy.  If the Mormons are wrong, then temple work is of no consequence anyway.

Ironically, those who accuse Mormon temple work of trying to “take over” or “speak for” the dead are themselves doing just that.  The Mormons are offering an ordinance which the dead must accept for it to be of any validity at all.  And, we’d like to do it privately—we don’t do it for worldly attention, praise, or to act triumphalistic.

Are the Mormons so potent or intrusive a force in the hereafter that our faux pas victimize and traumatize those who have gone before?  I suspect not—especially in the critics’ view, where LDS ordinances are of no value whatever.  It would be a strange kind of hell if the dear departed were forever at risk of being tormented or victimized by whatever random dumb thing some mortal somewhere said or did.

Some of those doing the complaining are, by contrast, getting outraged in behalf of the dead.  They’re putting words in the mouths of the dead, and insisting that these people need to be protected.  But, protected from what?

As for this world, and any offense caused the living, virtually all the Mormons themselves don’t want this sort of thing going on either.  So, why take offense when some few individuals do something forbidden by both policy and doctrine?  Those who expect perfection from humans are doomed to disappointment.  Let the appropriate Church department know if there’s a problem, but don’t assume bad faith and insensitivity on everyone’s part.

Apologies

I regret what some few of our disobedient or clueless members did.  But, apologies from people about things they didn’t do (and tried to prevent) always strike me as cheap theatre, and altogether too easy.  If I offend, I want to apologize.  But, I won’t presume to do so on others’ behalf.

So, speaking only for myself, if you’re offended or upset, I can only say:

We get it.  We’re not happy about such things either.  But, we’re not going to just boot the people responsible.  Even if we could identify them, that would be the easy, and comfortable way out. We’re going to keep working with them, because they’re our brothers and sisters too, and need help and love more than almost anyone else. And, I might need it next time around.

I suspect technological barriers will prove the only effective way to decrease these sorts of incidents. The Church seems committed to on-going efforts to improve these strategies.  (We must remember the computer programmer’s adage, though—as soon as you make software foolproof, someone goes and invents a smarter fool.) 

So, some few will probably still slip through. (The Hemings/Jefferson sealing may be an old entry, though—the problem or loophole might not even exist now. People may be upset over something that happened years ago.) 

If you choose to be outraged each time it happens, you are going to spend a lot of time being upset over something you can’t control, caused by a miniscule fraction of LDS members.

If you have a way to keep dummies from occasionally doing silly things, you should let us know—and then market the method, because it would make a killing in industry, government, and PTA meetings.

Conclusion

We’re doing our best to feed the sheep.  We know there are people doing dumb things.  Can’t be helped. We’re all labeled as “sheep,” which maybe ought to tell us something about our tendencies. But, we trust the Shepherd to get us all—member and non-member, living and dead, dummies all—safely home if we are willing.

Endnotes

[1] [10 April 2012 edit] – The original article disputed Jefferson’s paternity, based upon  Robert F. Turner, The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy:  Report of the Scholars Commission (Carolina Academic Press, 2011 [2001].  This was unwise, and since my footnoted addendum didn’t make this clear enough, I’ve removed the sentence from the main article–I normally try to avoid this after-the-fact revision, but don’t want readers distracted by what is a peripheral (to my argument, not to Jefferson-Hemings scholarship) point.  I apologize, but have left the comments below intact.

[2] We also cannot ignore, I think, the possibility that at least some unauthorized entries in temple databases are the work of those who have malicious intent—they want the Church to look bad.  Here again, stopping them entirely is difficult if one wants to maintain a computer system that allows people all over the world to contribute to family history work and research.  Such things don’t work well in a climate of suspicion or paranoia.

This is an audio version of the video presentation produced by FAIR that addresses some of the concerns raised by the film. FAIR’s video presentation can be viewed on YouTube.

Salt Lake City has faced many of the challenges common to cities: upper-income flight to the suburbs, aging infrastructure, an influx of low-income residents with heavier claims on public services, decreased economic vitality, and increased crime. Like many cities, Salt Lake City has sought to attract businesses in order to provide jobs for residents and prevent the degradation of the city environment.

The Church has shared the city’s concern for economic vitality, both out of concern for the residents’ livelihoods and because of the Church’s downtown Temple Square which attracts thousands of visitors annually. Were Salt Lake City to suffer urban decay, these visitors would be affected.

In recent years the area around Temple Square in Salt Lake City looked likely to suffer exactly that fate. Many businesses had moved to other areas of the city and the area was becoming run down, decreasing the quality of life for residents.

The Church has responded in two ways. First, through its Inner City Project, the Church has assigned service missionaries to provide job training, transportation, and other help to inner-city Salt Lake City residents. The hope is that the city environment will benefit from residents who are less plagued by joblessness, health troubles, and feeling hopeless to rise economically. Second, the Church has invested in the City Creek Mall as an economic development project, in hopes that the construction and other jobs will provide opportunity for residents and that the new infrastructure will stave off urban decay.

Some criticize the church for its investment, judging that the funds could have been better spent elsewhere. (The total estimated cost of the project is $1.5 billion; it is not known how this was shared between the church and its development partner, The Taubman Company.) These criticisms ignore the merits of the Church’s strategy–the City Creek Center addresses the roots of urban decay, and the Inner City Project addresses its symptoms. There are many places in the world with greater need–and the Church’s humanitarian programs commit significant resources to them–but the Church shouldn’t be condemned for helping its own neighbors in the city to which it has special historical ties.

Whatever funds the Church spend on City Creek did not come from member tithes; the funds came from returns on church properties and investments. The Church owns these assets from the happy historical accident of acquiring them many decades ago and prudent management since then.

And now for the question:

I just want to start out by saying that I have the highest respect for all church apologists. I am 19 years old and just saving up some money before I send my papers in to serve a mission. I download the podcasts from FAIR and I listen to them all the time. I just want to say, thank you so much for everything you do. After having some questions of my own answered, my testimony has been strengthened beyond words. I have also been able to help others because of what I have learned from the podcasts and books I have read. I just want to ask a question from the point of view of someone who deals with non-members and apostate members on a daily basis: What is the best advice you can give me as a prospective missionary in regards to teaching people about The Book of Mormon? I know it’s a very general question, but if you could leave one ounce of your knowledge with me it would be a blessing to me!

And now for the answer:

Thank you for your kind words. We here at FAIR are not compensated monetarily. Our only “payment” is kind words of gratitude that we get from individuals such as you.

Congratulations on your decision to serve a mission! Although it will be challenging at times, it will be completely worth it.

Can you think of anything the world needs right now more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Unfortunately, the world is extremely divided as to what is meant by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible alone, as magnificent as it is, has not united the believing world under one Lord, one faith or one baptism. In fact, it seems that the Bible itself has never come under more criticism or skepticism at any time since its inception than it is today. Many around the world are concluding that the Bible is irrelevant in their lives. They say that Jesus may have been just a legend or a mere myth which, over time, transformed him into a God in the minds of a group of people who came to call themselves Christians. The very value of scripture seems to be assailed constantly.

What if there was a record that shared a common genesis with the Biblical record, yet was maintained and revealed to us from a separate nation apart from Judea? What if another people, or several groups of people had preserved their own witness of the divinity of Christ? What would be its value to the world today? What if there was a volume of scripture, apart from the Bible, that bore witness of the foundational truths contained in the Bible? What if that volume came to us as a result of God calling a Prophet today to once again bear witness that Jesus is the very Eternal God manifesting Himself to all nations – a book that reminds us of the important promises and Covenants made long centuries ago, to a people long dead, which are being fulfilled in our day? Wouldn’t that go a long way toward showing that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that he remembers his covenants to the children of men, and that no matter how long it seems to take to the human mind, He has not forgotten or forsaken his ancient promises?

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 before Joseph Smith was even 25 years old. In a few short years you will be that same age. Even with all the educational advantages you will have between now and the time you are that age, can you imagine producing a volume like the Book of Mormon? Could you sit day after day in front of a scribe and recite endless passages of Isaiah, or even Jacob chapter 5? Could you speak for days in one long paragraph, without any double checking, without any punctuation, without any proof reading, and then submit the final product of hundreds of pages to a publisher?

Several months before the Book of Mormon was published, Section 4 of the Doctrine and Covenants was written. It is inspiring to note that this section was given by the young Prophet to his father, who had encouraged Joseph to listen to the Angel Moroni when Joseph had confided in him about the angel’s visit almost five years previously. Looking back over the nearly two hundred years since this revelation was given, its prophetic import is astounding:

“Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men. Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day. For behold the field is white already to harvest: and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul…. Ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you, Amen.”

This revelation was given in February of 1829. The Church would not be officially established for over another year. Yet the young Prophet had the temerity to predict that this effort, the Restoration of the Gospel was going to result in a Marvelous Work. You live in a day and time where over a hundred Temples dot the earth, with dozens under construction. You are going on your mission at a time when there are nearly fourteen million people around the globe who are now members of the Church established by a twenty five year old Prophet and five other men on April 6th, 1830. Before you are much older, this Church will celebrate its Bicentennial. Who would have gambled on the chances of this movement in its infancy in February of 1829? Yet that is what young Joseph did. Why? Because he told the truth. He knew that God was behind the work he had begun and nothing was ultimately going to defeat it.

Section 5 of the Doctrine and Covenants was also written before the Book of Mormon was published. It tells us that there will be three other witnesses who will see the plates and bear witness to the world that they are real. They will affix their testimony to the volume and millions upon millions will read their words and know that they, not just Joseph, have actually seen the plates with their eyes and will bear solemn and consistent testimony that it is the work of God, and not man, as long as that work is published to the world.

What kind of audacity would it take for a complete fraud and a forger to make such a statement before the witnesses had seen the plates he supposedly didn’t have?  Imagine after making such a prediction in the absence of real plates, that you were to actually find three people to lie for you, stand by their testimonies despite the fact that they would all become estranged from you at some point, and who would never deny their testimonies regardless of suffering, persecution, loss of reputation and cruel mockery even decades after your untimely death at the hands of a mob? Where in the world can you find an instance where a confederacy of liars ever withstood such a test? What could possibly hold these witnesses to their word under the most trying circumstances even after the ring leader of the conspiracy was long dead and could no longer hold any influence over them?

When weighed in the balance, as incredible as it seems at first glance, the only consistent explanation for the success of this Church, and for the lives of the witnesses and most especially for the unshakeable testimony of Joseph Smith despite all the forces arrayed against him is, that the Book of Mormon is true. Every other explanation seems to wither with the test of time or persecution. No other explanation can account for the rise of this Church out of total obscurity to what it is today.

The Book of Mormon is tangible evidence for the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. As Hugh Nibley once said, books don’t write themselves. Somebody had to have written the Book of Mormon. The question is whether it is ancient or modern. Critics who wish to dismiss Joseph Smith as a fraud must confront this book.

As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland recently said:

“I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: ‘a stone of stumbling, … a rock of offence,’  a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. ‘They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,’ they declared. ‘Wherefore, we know of a surety that the work is true.’”

With regard to how to teach from and about the Book of Mormon, follow the suggestions that are found in the missionary manual Preach My Gospel. If your investigators have unusual or difficult questions, you can always refer them to our FAIRwiki where many of these kinds of questions are addressed. But remember that it is the Spirit that will convert people to the gospel. And the Spirit will confirm the testimony of Christ that is found in the Book of Mormon. Remember that the Book of Mormon has the potential, if it is read, to re-convert an unbelieving generation to Jesus Christ.

Finally, always keep in mind that our witness is primarily the testimony of Christ and his apostles, that he died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven, and that he will come again in glory. Everything else is merely an appendage to that witness. Keep that foremost in your mind as you engage both the honest in heart as well as the rest of the world, and it should be a great help to you.

If there is an issue that you have been wondering about, you can often find the latest answers at the FAIR wiki, found at fairmormon.org. If you can’t find your answer there, feel free to pose your question to the FAIR apologists by visiting the FAIR contact page. Occasionally, such a question will be featured on FAIR Questions. Before questions are used for this podcast, permission is obtained from the questioner.

FAIR Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org, or join the conversation at fairblog.org.

Tell your friends about us and help increase the popularity of this podcast by subscribing in iTunes and by writing a review.

Music for this episode was provided courtesy of Lawrence Green.

The opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FAIR.

Loved the movie (although apparently no one else does, and my teenage kids refused to come with me, saying all their friends hated it…).

But (believe it or not) I actually mentioned this movie in my home teaching message earlier this month about prophets, and the role of prophets.

Why?

Well John Carter is really over-the-top fantasy. Mars does not look like this, as we all know. But we need to remember that the first John Carter story was written 100 years ago. This was only 20 years or so after an Italian astronomer looked through a telescope at Mars and thought he saw canali (it means channels, but it got translated into English as canals). Everyone thought that he had seen signs of civilization on Mars. This included Percival Lowell, the top astronomer in the United States at that time. So when Edgar Rice Burroughs took to his typewriter a few years later to write fantasy tales about this Mars, he was building off of the best scientific evidence of the day. It was not utter fantasy, in other words.

And this is decades AFTER Brigham Young had speculated about men on the moon or men on the sun. So while BY may look foolish today, and generates reams of hilarity penned by the antis, he would not have looked foolish in his own day (and in fact in all the anti-Mormon hysteria generated in those days, nobody ever remarked on Brigham Young’s silly non-scientific ideas), and not for a generation or two afterward either.

I brought all this up to my home teaching families. Prophets are not supposed to be super-scientists. But I said the antis will object anyway, saying that prophets cannot make scientific mistakes like that, even if the world does not know better, because God would tell them how the universe really works.

But would He really, I asked. Did God tell Isaiah that you cannot stop the sun and make it go backward 15 degrees? Did God tell Moses and Abraham about quantum theory? Or disabuse them of the notion that the Heavens are a dome over the world? Well, if not, what DOES he tell prophets? The short answer is that He tells prophets how to guide the people through the perils of the day. Specifically, I mentioned the Church Presidency message on lds.org that changes several times a week, with messages on such topics as civility in politics, or generosity and moderation in dealing with immigration.

Surely this is more important than knowing whether there really are canals on Mars, and populated by beautiful Martian princesses waiting to be saved by dashing Confederate cavalry officers…

David Farnsworth
Tigard OR 97224

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Listeners should note that the first part of this recording was cut off. This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints….The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form…We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Max Mueller, a Ph.D. candidate in religious history at Harvard University, wrote a response for Slate which stated:

For many Mormons, reading Bott’s words was like unearthing a theological dinosaur long thought extinct but suddenly rediscovered in the corner of an obscure BYU office. His positions seem radically out of place in a modern church with an international membership that includes probably some 500,000 Mormons of African descent. The church’s expensive and ubiquitous “I’m a Mormon” public relations campaign has been carefully and deliberately multiethnic; Mormon leaders want the world to view the religion as the diverse global community it has become. Unfortunately, Bott’s beliefs, though arcane, represent a strain of Mormonism that has persisted well past the 1978 revelation.

Mueller, also the associate editor of a forthcoming online journal called “Religion & Politics,” joins host Blair Hodges for the latest episode of FAIR Conversations.

The views expressed by Mr. Mueller here or elsewhere do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here. 

Runtime: 89:51

To download, right click the “Download” link below and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the Mormon FAIR-Cast in iTunes here.

______________________________

Apologies for the occasional sound pops in this episode, production was a bit rushed. See also the FAIR Blog posts by Mike Parker and Scott Gordon which also include links to other discussions on this subject.

In this episode, Bowman talks about the genesis and production of his new book. Find out why he describes Bruce R. McConkie as a “Progressive-minded” leader, and why he sees the LDS Correlation department as being a sort of “catechism” constructor. We also discuss Bowman’s view of how the media has treated Mormonism during this, the latest of many Mormon moments.

Bowman earned his Ph.D. in American religious history at Georgetown University. He currently teaches that exact subject at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. He’s also the associate editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and the author of a variety of award-winning articles on Mormonism.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here. 

Runtime: 69:48

To download, right click the “Download” link below and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the Mormon FAIR-Cast in iTunes here.

The articles referenced by Dr. Peterson include: 1) “Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity,” by Roger D. Cook, David L. Paulsen and Kendel J. Christensen; 2) “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity,” by David L. Paulsen and Brock M. Mason; 3) “Redeeming the Dead: Tender Mercies, Turning of Hearts, and Restoration of Authority,” by David L. Paulsen, Kendel J. Christensen and Martin Pulido; and 4) “Redemption of the Dead: Continuing Revelation after Joseph Smith,” by David L. Paulsen, Judson Burton, Kendel J. Christensen and Martin Pulido. The first three are accessible online at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/; the most recent article is available in print, but hasn’t yet been put online.

Dr. Peterson also referenced the video entitled “Why Mormons Build Temples.”

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Daniel C. Peterson is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at BYU, where he also serves as editor in chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and as director of advancement for the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He is the founder of MormonScholarsTestify.org. Daniel Peterson is the author of many books and articles, including Offenders for a Word, which is available, along with other talks by Brother Peterson, at the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

The most recent turn comes from The Washington Post, where reporter Jason Horowitz interviews Darius Gray and other black Latter-day Saints about their experience with and feelings about the ban. Searching for a theological explanation for the ban, Horowitz contacted BYU associate professor Randy Bott. Horowitz paraphrases Bott:

According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who slew his brother Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text, the Book of Abraham, as suggesting that all of the descendents of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

Professor Bott’s explanation is an example of how doctrinal folklore continues to be taught by well-meaning members of the Church. Ironically, the dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was created to explain a Church policy that was reversed nearly thirty-four years ago.

This theory was adopted by early Latter-day Saints from similar beliefs in early American Protestantism that were used to justify slavery. The Saints used it to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent, a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever given.

The idea went something like this: In the premortal existence, certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan, and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow less valiant than their premortal brethren during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood was to be withheld from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.

Cain (Genesis 4:11–15; Moses 5:23–25, 36–40). Following Cain’s covenant with Satan and murder of Abel, the Lord cursed him that the earth would not yield its strength for him, and that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond. Nothing was said of priesthood. The Lord placed a mark upon him, not as part of the curse, but to protect him from others who would kill him. The mark itself was not described, and there was no indication that it would be passed to his descendents.[1]

Six generations after Cain, Enoch saw a vision of an unspecified future time (Moses 7:4) in which “the seed of Cain were black” (7:22). There is no explanation for this blackness or where it came from; it is not even clear if we are to take it literally or figuratively.[2]

Canaan (Genesis 9:20–27). Ham’s son Canaan, for some unexplained reason, was cursed for his father’s offense against Noah. No change in skin color was mentioned,[3] nor was there any statement on priesthood. According to the Bible, Canaan was the founder of the Canaanite nation (Genesis 10:15–19). The Canaanites were Caucasian, not black, and had no connection with sub-Saharan (black) Africans.[4]

The Hebrew words “Cain” (qayin) and “Canaan” (ke(na’an) are not related; it is a coincidence that they sound alike in English.

Egyptus (Abraham 1:21–27). The Book of Abraham is the only place that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the Pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any—especially in the modern world—would be covered by that proscription.[5] According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, another son of Ham, and Canaan’s brother (which may be why Abraham 1:21 connects Egypt with the Canaanites). Egyptians, both ancient and modern, were not black Africans, but Northern Africans, culturally related to peoples of the Middle East.

Conclusion. The speculation that modern blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham is unsupported from the scriptures. In reality we do not know why God allowed the denial of the priesthood to blacks for a time in this dispensation. All we do know is that policy has been reversed by a living prophet.

The “curse of Cain” folk doctrine may have been understandable for our LDS ancestors, but it is neither understandable nor necessary today. The Church is for all God’s children, for “he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).

The United States has a long history of difficult race relations. My home teacher served in the Air Force in the South, and was shocked when he found it unlawful to share a cab off base with his black friend. They couldn’t go into the same restaurants or get their hair cut at the same barbershops. This was in the days of segregated restrooms and water fountains. Most of us, as members, have never had state laws dictating where we are allowed to go and with whom we are allowed to congregate. People can’t tell by looking at you if you are Mormon.

Many of us live in areas that are not racially integrated, so we have never had to examine our long-held beliefs and traditions. Just to give a hint of my thoughts on this–having one or two non-white members of your ward doesn’t really allow you to claim you have a lot of experience in race relations. The reality is that most Mormons live in the Western United States, which has a much lower concentration of blacks. In those those states where LDS are 5% or more of the population, the percentage of blacks does not reach the national average. (Source: US Census data)

USA          12.6%
Idaho        0.6%
Wyoming   0.8%
Utah          1.1%
Arizona      4.1%
Nevada      8.1%

Even in California, which has a large population of Church members, the percentage of blacks is only 6.2%, still below the national average. If one factors in how many blacks actually attend Church with you, it highlights the reality that you probably don’t frequently interact with black Americans. This translates into never needing to examine your traditions and beliefs. Even if you don’t have a racist bone in your body and you love all people as children of God, you may still not realize that some things you say are hurtful or simply untrue.

Here is a list of three myths that are often repeated, and simply must stop.

Myth #1: Blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because they had the curse or mark of Cain

This belief was commonly held by many Protestant denominations in early American history. It was often used as a justification for slavery and reached its peak about the time of the Civil War. Many people who joined the LDS Church brought this teaching into the Church with them. Most Protestants later changed their talking points on this to say the children of Cain were wiped out during Noah’s flood, so the cursing came though the flood through Ham. Therefore, the more modern phrasing of this belief is the so-called “curse of Ham.” But the curse of Cain continued to be taught in the then geographically isolated LDS Church.

While the scriptures do talk about a mark being put on Cain, there is no scriptural explanation of what that mark may be or how it relates to the priesthood. One member of my high priest quorum suggested the mark is likely to be male pattern baldness.

There is a scripture in the Book of Moses talking about the children of Canaan being black (Moses 7:8), but there is no given connection between Cain and Canaan. Just because a name sounds similar, doesn’t make it the same.

Even in the Book of Abraham, the priesthood restrictions were not put on “blacks”, but on the lineage of the Egyptian Pharaoh. This was at the time of Abraham, long before Jesus Christ. If you were alive at that time, it is likely you would have been restricted from that priesthood as well.

Myth #2: Blacks were neutral or less valiant in the pre-existence

This terrible teaching was repudiated by none other than Brigham Young himself. Unfortunately, it continued to be perpetuated by many members throughout our history, and even ended up in books authored by Joseph Fielding Smith.

In an interview, apostle Jeffery R. Holland said the following: “One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong.” (Source: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html#1)

For those who are troubled by the fact that explanations given historically are now being repudiated, we have to look at the words of Bruce R. McConkie, who was originally a proponent of those theories. He said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.” (Source: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017)

Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he did with blacks.

While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequate support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.

So why couldn’t blacks have the priesthood? Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm)

Men are slow to change in their beliefs. Even in the New Testament, Peter had to be lifted beyond his prejudice to sit and eat with the Gentiles. I hope we all take the time to familiarize ourselves with this topic and not perpetuate the hurtful and harmful myths that have been repeated for so long.

It is worth an hour or two of our time to read several articles on Mormonism and race, so we can help those around us. It will help us relating to African-Americans who join the Church. It will help us in teaching our children in such a way that they won’t make hurtful assumptions. It will help us in keeping our children from falling away as they learn about this past practice. Finally, it will help us in explaining our beliefs to those outside of our faith. It is not only simply worth our time to learn about black history, it is essential.

Important articles on this topic:

Black LDS History Timeline. This has been updated recently. If there is more that should be added, please let us know.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

A study in Misplaced Apologetics

http://www.blacklds.org/mauss

LAMANITES, THE SEED OF CAIN, AND POLYGAMY, part of a larger book review and well worth the read.

http://www.blacklds.org/Reynolds

Blacks and the Priesthood

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood

Origin of the priesthood ban

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

Understanding pre-1978 statements

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements

Racism

http://mormonvoices.org/19/racism

Note: This article is republished from the FAIR Journal

But, upon deeper reflection, I have come to a better understanding of what they may be feeling. There is a long history of forced conversions of Jews. Especially during the time of Nazi Germany, many Jews turned to their Christian neighbors to help save their families. Their children were often baptized to hide their background. Try to imagine turning our children over to the Southern Baptists for baptism, knowing that they would be forced to turn away from our faith. It would be a very difficult event for us.

Given that background, we can understand how the word “baptism” is laden with emotion and bad feelings for Jews. There are terrible German children’s books from the late 1930s that talk about the “poisonous mushroom” in referring to Jews. In one story two girls are observing a Jewish couple coming out of a synagogue. While the story is offensive, we are repeating it here to give you an understanding of the depth of hatred at the time. Remember, this is a children’s book.

The story goes like this (Warning–offensive material to follow):

One girl, Anne, starts by saying, “Do you know our girls’ leader once told us: ‘Just as little as a Negro can be made into a German by baptism, can a Jew be made into a non-Jew.’”

Grete stamps her feet angrily on the ground: “I do not understand these priests who go on baptizing Jews even today. By doing so they admit a criminal mob into the churches.”

Anne concludes: “I believe a time will come when the Christians will curse the clergy who once allowed Jews to enter the Christian Church. For the Jews only want to destroy the Christian Church. And they will destroy it if our clergy go on allowing Jews to enter. There is a saying:

‘If a Jew comes along   Wanting a priest to baptize him,   Be on your guard and beware;   Jew remains always Jew!   Baptismal water helps not a jot.   That does not make the Jew any better!   He is a Devil in Time   And remains so through Eternity!’”

(source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/story6.htm)

We as Latter-day Saints should be hypersensitive to anti-Semitism. I am grateful that I have never had to endure the level of antagonism that the Jewish people have had to endure over the centuries.

I was thinking of my relationship with several anti-Mormons and the oft-repeated phrase, “I’ll pray for you.” Of course, my initial thoughts are fine, go ahead, I need all of the prayers I can get. But, then I think about the times this phrase was used as a pejorative expression instead of being an act of love. It is sometimes used as a public rebuke or condemnation. I consider that usage to be offensive depending on the sincerity of the speaker.

Baptism for the dead is not meant to be a public condemnation as it is performed in the sacred space of our temples. But, certain individuals and the media have brought this very private respectful ceremony, this act of love, into the public eye and turned into a condemnation. It is no wonder that people are upset.

I am reminded of a loose film dramatization of the book Ivanhoe. In that movie, the Templar Knights were trying to condemn a Jewish man. He pointed out that they drew their authority from the Church and as he was not a member, they had no power over him. In frustration, they held the man down and “baptized” him. The Jewish man was then asked if he accepted Jesus Christ. He of course said “no.” They then claimed they had the authority to punish him because he was baptized a Christian and was now a heretic for rejecting Christ.

Nobody would truly believe that the Jewish man was Christian, against his will, from a forced baptism, any more than someone should believe that a posthumous baptism would make someone Mormon. That’s because there are two parts to baptism. One is the simple ordinance, or act, of the baptism. The other is the commitment and covenants made with that baptism. Baptizing someone for the dead within our temples may fulfill the ordinance part, but the commitment and covenants have to come from the choice of the individuals involved.

In any case, we have to be sensitive to the beliefs of others and recognize that the nature of family history work is eternal. I’m sure that so long as we are diligent, God will make a path for all of his children to receive the ordinances that they need. Meanwhile, it is very important that we follow Church policy.

Here are two Official Church statements on this issue:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/jewish-names-entered-genealogical-database?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+%28RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom%29

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/violations-of-proxy-baptism-policy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+%28RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom%29

Here is an article written by Michael Otterson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/what-baptism-for-the-dead-means-to-mormons/2012/02/23/gIQA2sIaVR_blog.html

——————————————-

This article comes from the monthly FAIR Journal.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

Each week, FAIR volunteers will look at the Sunday School lesson and identify relevant apologetic issues and other related insights, and then compile them into a single, easy to use quick-reference guide with links to additional information. Organization will follow the same structure found in Gospel Doctrine manual, with main headings that correspond with the main sections on the lesson. This should make it easy to identify how any particular item relates to the lesson material. Additional information related to the chapters in the Book of Mormon being covered by the lesson, but which do not fit neatly into the lesson’s structure, will be placed at the bottom of the page. Main sections will be broken down into three sub-sections:

• Helpful Insights: These include various tidbits of information that might be helpful or interesting to discuss as a part of your lesson. They will come from scholarly studies and other sources.
• Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information: These include potential criticisms that may arise during the lesson, or that are relevant to the topics and themes being discussed, along with information on how to respond with faith supporting information. These are made available so that teachers and students can gain some familiarity with these issues and be prepared should these or similar concerns arise in class.
• Faith Affirmations: Here we will make note of various items of evidence for the Book of Mormon along with other information that supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and promotes faith in its teachings.

While Dr. Hudson was a professor of political science at Brigham Young University, she was listed as one of the “100 Top Global Thinkers of 2009″ by Foreign Policy Magazine. In January 2012, she became a Professor and George H.W. Bush Chair in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, teaching in the masters of international affairs program. More of her views on polygamy, women and the priesthood, and other women’s issues are discussed in the book Women in Eternity, Women in Zion that she co-authored with Alma Don Sorenson.

For further information on polygamy, see the FAIR Wiki article posted here.

Each week, FAIR volunteers will look at the Sunday School lesson and identify relevant apologetic issues and other related insights, and then compile them into a single, easy to use quick-reference guide with links to additional information. Organization will follow the same structure found in Gospel Doctrine manual, with main headings that correspond with the main sections on the lesson. This should make it easy to identify how any particular item relates to the lesson material. Additional information related to the chapters in the Book of Mormon being covered by the lesson, but which do not fit neatly into the lesson’s structure, will be placed at the bottom of the page. Main sections will be broken down into three sub-sections:

• Helpful Insights: These include various tidbits of information that might be helpful or interesting to discuss as a part of your lesson. They will come from scholarly studies and other sources.
• Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information: These include potential criticisms that may arise during the lesson, or that are relevant to the topics and themes being discussed, along with information on how to respond with faith supporting information. These are made available so that teachers and students can gain some familiarity with these issues and be prepared should these or similar concerns arise in class.
• Faith Affirmations: Here we will make note of various items of evidence for the Book of Mormon along with other information that supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and promotes faith in its teachings.

This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

Each week, FAIR volunteers will look at the Sunday School lesson and identify relevant apologetic issues and other related insights, and then compile them into a single, easy to use quick-reference guide with links to additional information. Organization will follow the same structure found in Gospel Doctrine manual, with main headings that correspond with the main sections on the lesson. This should make it easy to identify how any particular item relates to the lesson material. Additional information related to the chapters in the Book of Mormon being covered by the lesson, but which do not fit neatly into the lesson’s structure, will be placed at the bottom of the page. Main sections will be broken down into three sub-sections:

• Helpful Insights: These include various tidbits of information that might be helpful or interesting to discuss as a part of your lesson. They will come from scholarly studies and other sources.
• Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information: These include potential criticisms that may arise during the lesson, or that are relevant to the topics and themes being discussed, along with information on how to respond with faith supporting information. These are made available so that teachers and students can gain some familiarity with these issues and be prepared should these or similar concerns arise in class.
• Faith Affirmations: Here we will make note of various items of evidence for the Book of Mormon along with other information that supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and promotes faith in its teachings.

One of his patients, who is happily married and active in the Church, though wishes to remain anonymous, has made this statement about his experience with aversion therapy at BYU:

“I have absolutely no negative feelings or memories of the experience. It truly didn’t ‘cure’ anything (SSA or lust addiction), but it certainly did not leave any physical or mental ‘scars’ and was carefully and lovingly conducted.”

For further information on aversion therapy, see the FAIR Wiki article posted here.

In this episode of FAIR Conversations, Mould describes some ways revelatory narratives highlight distinctive Mormon beliefs such as stewardship and agency. He highlights the role revelation plays in Mormon decision making, in relieving anxiety, and in dealing with the ambiguities of everyday life. The stories Mormons tell about the revelation we seek and receive suggest important clues about our values. Mould’s work is thought-provoking, challenging, and inspiring, religiously and academically. He brings the perspective of a thoughtful outsider but speaks with an insider’s knowledge.

Mould is associate professor of anthropology and folklore at Elon University in North Carolina. Check out the author bio on Utah State University Press’s website here, and my full review of Still, the Small Voice here.

Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here. 

Runtime: 80:59

To download, right click the “Download” link below and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the Mormon FAIR-Cast in iTunes here.

Brant Gardner’s academic background includes work towards a Ph.D. in Mesoamerican Ethnohistory at the State University of New York, Albany. His published works on Mesoamerica include an analysis of classical Nahuatl kinship terminology, an ethnohistoric investigation into the identification of the use of Coxoh to designate a people and language in Southern Mexico, and an examination of the Aztec Legend of the Suns. He has written articles that have appeared in the FARMS Review, and his widely acclaimed six-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, is published by Kofford Books and available for purchase at the FAIR Bookstore.

These interviews are posted here by permission of KTKK Radio and KSL Radio. The views expressed in these interviews do not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.

He is an active member of the Church and shares how the gospel of Jesus Christ has influenced his desire to serve men with same-sex attraction.  He talks about some modern approaches and how these approaches fit within the stances of major medical institutions and the relationship with the Church.  He shares stories of success as well as some potential for harm associated with therapy.  He clarifies some common misconceptions around therapy and the need to make this therapy available for those seeking it.  He talks about how family, friends and leaders can help people with same-sex attraction and how that fits in with their duty to bear one another’s burdens.

You may register using your real name or a pseudonym (as long as your pseudonym is appropriate for an all-ages blog), but you must provide a verifiable email address as part of the registration process.

At this time we will continue to moderate all comments to help prevent endless debates, “drive-by” attacks, threadjacking, and so forth. Our intent is to hopefully loosen that up a bit in the near future so that only new commenters are moderated.

The usual rule against sockpuppets applies here — one user account per person, please.

Similar efforts have been made in the past, and the fruits of those labors have also been collected on that page for easy access. This information is a resource for class members and also a preparatory resource for gospel doctrine teachers to help them formulate answers to questions that might arise during their class. It is, of course, not in any way a substitute for the Gospel Doctrine manual, nor should instructors make these topics the focus of class instruction. This information is provided with the understanding that it is an additional resource only.

Each week, FAIR volunteers will look at the Sunday School lesson and identify relevant apologetic issues and other related insights, and then compile them into a single, easy to use quick-reference guide with links to additional information. Organization will follow the same structure found in Gospel Doctrine manual, with main headings that correspond with the main sections on the lesson. This should make it easy to identify how any particular item relates to the lesson material. Additional information related to the chapters in the Book of Mormon being covered by the lesson, but which do not fit neatly into the lesson’s structure, will be placed at the bottom of the page. Main sections will be broken down into three sub-sections:

• Helpful Insights: These include various tidbits of information that might be helpful or interesting to discuss as a part of your lesson. They will come from scholarly studies and other sources.
• Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information: These include potential criticisms that may arise during the lesson, or that are relevant to the topics and themes being discussed, along with information on how to respond with faith supporting information. These are made available so that teachers and students can gain some familiarity with these issues and be prepared should these or similar concerns arise in class.
• Faith Affirmations: Here we will make note of various items of evidence for the Book of Mormon along with other information that supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and promotes faith in its teachings.  

The first lesson is already available, and serves as an example. It can be found here: http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIR_study_aids/Book_of_Mormon/lesson_one

Dan Peterson has, in the past, discussed the need for both positive and negative apologetics, and we hope that by providing information in each of these categories we will successfully balance between the necessary task of responding to criticism (“negative apologetics”) with the more enjoyable and uplifting endeavor of building faith (“positive apologetics”).

How does a man with same-sex attraction find the only woman in the world to whom he is attracted? In this interview, Joshua Johanson talks about his history with same-sex attraction, his experience as a BYU student and as a member of a singles ward, and introduces us to his wife, Alyssa Johanson. Alyssa shares her insights into being married to a man with same sex-attraction. Joshua and Alyssa also discuss the things that have helped make their marriage successful. As they do so, it becomes clear that their relationship is not all that different from anyone else’s.

They also discuss Proposition 8, Elder Packer’s October 2010 General Conference address, as well as the following questions:

• Does the Church recommend marriage as a therapeutic measure for someone experiencing same-sex attraction?
• What is wrong with homosexual activity (kissing, etc.) that stops short of intercourse?
• If gays can marry, why would sex in that relationship be a violation of the law of chastity?
• Did Jesus speak out against homosexuality?
• How can the Church uphold its standards while still extending love to those who experience same-sex attraction?

The great German literary demigod Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once remarked: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” My reading of Bethany Blankley’s recent Huffington Post article has confirmed Goethe’s fear as being my own. In the doleful cacophony that sounds forth from the ranks of fundamentalist Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ms. Blankley is more than suitable at playing first-chair violin. She is an adept Konzertmeisterin who plays with a zealous gusto that is by no means forced into a decrescendo by facts or evidence.

The accusation that Latter-day Saints are not Christians is not new, and it is not it likely to go away anytime soon. So long as fundamentalist Evangelicals dominate the religious landscape of modern America, the benighted Mormons can anticipate this Hydra to rear its ugly heads incessantly. All of the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to quell this tired assertion will almost certainly be in vain, as misinformation, misrepresentation and outright calumny continue to capture the imagination of an ignorant public with scandalous tales of the moral and theological debauchery and baseness of the Mormons.

Ms. Blankley, thankfully, withholds from her readers lurid and fanciful tales of polygamy and blood atonement and instead refuses to call members of the Church of Jesus Christ “Christians” on theological grounds, viz.:

1. The Ministry of Jesus: “According to the first four gospels of the Bible, Jesus Christ lived and ministered in the region of modern-day Israel. He never appeared in the Americas.”
2. The Virgin Birth: “The Mormon Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus through sexual relations with God the father.”
3. The Spirit World: “Mormons believe that God, angels and humans are the same.”
4. Jesus and Satan: “The Mormon church explicitly teaches…that Jesus Christ and Satan are both sons of God and are not only spirit brothers to each other but are spirit brothers to humans and angels as well.”

When we think of people with same sex attraction, we usually don’t imagine a temple-married, active LDS, mother of two. Yet that is what we find in this interview with “Samantha.” Interestingly, a person such as she may not be as uncommon as we often believe. LDS Family Social Services estimates that 4-5 members in the average LDS ward experience same gender attraction. Most of those are married with children. In this interview, “Samantha” tells about her experiences with Church leaders at BYU and in her home ward over the years. She also helps to provide insight into how fellow family members and ward members can help lift the burden of someone who experiences same gender attraction.

This is his story about how he joined the Church, and eventually became an ordinance worker at the Oakland Temple. He is now happy and no longer experiences temptations with same gender attraction. He was baptized by the same returned missionary that first introduced him to the Church and with whom he has lived for the past 20 years. During the past 13 years of active Church membership, the two men have maintained a close bond of love, friendship and brotherhood within the gospel. He attributes his success in overcoming same gender attraction and his addictions to the Church’s 12 Step Addiction Recovery Program and to the atonement of Jesus Christ. He shares his thoughts on gay marriage, President Packer’s October, 2010 Conference talk, and his strong testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is the first part of a two part interview.

This broadcast is posted here by permission of KSL Radio.

We stand in awe at how this relatively uneducated young man could produce a work that not only teaches eternal doctrinal principles but also weaves many tales of war, politics, migrations, and geography. Not only are the records of these events consistent, but they often match what we now know about ancient societies in the Near East and early Americas.

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.