Evidence Seventy-Two: No Unrighteousness in the Revelations of Joseph Smith©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God

Evidence Seventy-Two:

No Unrighteousness in the Revelations of Joseph Smith© 

On occasion I have previously called attention to a couple of important statements about the revelations of Joseph Smith and I do so again today. Early in November 1831, the prophet conducted a lengthy conference in Hiram, Ohio. The purpose was to publish the Doctrine and Covenants. During the ongoing meetings Joseph Smith received several revelations, all of which in one way or another addressed the new publication and some concerns of those in the conference. The second of those revelations is D&C 67. Apparently some looked down upon the revelations and perhaps the language of them. One man even suggested it was easy to produce such a document. The Lord directly addresses this issue and challenges any of them to produce one like the least of those given to Joseph. In verses 8 and 9 he says

8) But if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true. 9) For ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them, and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights. (Emphasis added.)

Two things stand out to me about this wonderful and remarkable passage. The first is, of course, the Lord’s testimony that there is no unrighteousness in the revelations Joseph Smith has written. But there is also an interesting implication in verse 9. “And that which is righteous come down from above...” This says to me the revelations are not neutral. There is no unrighteousness in them, and the clear implications is therefore, they are righteous, and if they are, that means they came from above, from the Father of lights. Earlier the Lord cautioned the Church, “These words are given unto you, and they are pure before me; wherefore, beware how you hold them, for they are to be answered upon your souls in the day of judgment.”(1) 

Today, in my work compiling a commentary on 3 Nephi, I reviewed some quotations I have collected about the word hearken and I came across a sweet and profound statement from Elder Delbert L. Stapley that prompted me to write this essay. Read it carefully because it lays a foundation for the principle of obedience to God and the Spirit that rings with righteousness. In addition, his last paragraph prepares us for the further teachings of President Russell Nelson. In the April 1968 General Conference Elder Stapley said:

Hearkening unto the voice of the Spirit is the key and the challenge which leads to God's eternal mansions. Hear this warning: "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning. . . .  And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men " (D&C 93:38-39.)

It is through disobedience and man's failure to hearken unto the voice of the Spirit and the counsels of God that Satan is able to come and take away from man the light and truth of the gospel. When the light within us begins to dim, Satan moves in. When the light within us goes out, we are in his power and under his control.

When Saul, who failed to follow the instructions of the Lord, tried to justify his disobedience for doing so, the ancient prophet Samuel said: ". . . Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1 Sam. 15:22.)

In latter-day scriptures the Lord uses action words in the first sentence to introduce many of his revelations. It is interesting to note that "hearken" was used 23 times. We are admonished by the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith to behold, to hearken, to listen, and to hear, in over 60 revelations.(2)

Hearkening to the Spirit is the key to eternal life, but disobedience leads to the loss of light and truth. So, Elder Stapley points out, the word hearken was used 23 times to introduce revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and together with behold and listen, the principle is repeated in over 60 revelations. Moreover the word hearken is found 80 times in the Book of Mormon, many of which stress the same doctrinal principle. For example, it appears 6 times in 3 Nephi, and only the first one in 3 Nephi 3:12 is not in this context; the rest are. 3 Nephi 21:22 declares “But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob...” And directly to the point, 3 Nephi 23:5 declares, “And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved.” Chapter 28:34 declares a “wo upon him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus.” Finally, the first verse of the last chapter (30) begins, “Hearken, O ye Gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ....”

From what has been said thus far that the word “hearken” means more than just listen or hear what the Lord says. It most definitely implies "heed," “do,” or “obey.” That conclusion is stressed in considerable commentary on the meaning of the word by President Russell Nelson. The word hearken and its meaning is important to him; he has addressed the subject several times through his ministry, as illustrated below. The first I am aware of is in a footnote to his April 1991 General Conference address. In that address he said: [numbered footnotes follow]

Scriptures recorded in all dispensations teach that we show our love of God as we hearken to His commandments and obey them.14 These actions are closely connected. In fact, the Hebrew language of the Old Testament in most instances uses the same term for both hearkening (to the Lord) and obedience (to His word).15

14  See Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; Deut. 7:9; Deut. 11:1; Deut. 30:16; Josh. 22:5; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4; John 14:15; John 15:10; 1 Jn. 5:2–3; 2 Jn. 1:6; Mosiah 13:14; D&C 42:2; D&C 46:9; D&C 124:87.

15 That term was שָ מַע (shâma’), which means “to hear intelligently.” The term was used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Old Testament, as Israel was counseled to hearken to the word of the Lord and obey it.

Different terms were used in some instances in the Hebrew text whenever reference was made to hearing or responding without implied obedience.

Examples:

• “They have ears, but they hear not.” (Ps. 135:17; see also Ps. 140:6; italics added.) אָזַן (’âzan) to give ear—to listen

• “I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth.” (Hosea 2:21; italics added.) עָנָה (’ânâh) to pay attention—to answer

• “Lift up thy voice, O daughter … : cause it to be heard.” (Isa. 10:30; italics added; see also Ps. 10:17.) קָשַ ב (qâshav) to give heed

Still different terms were employed in the Old Testament when referring to obedience not to Deity but to other people.  

Examples:

• “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother.” (Prov. 30:17; italics added.) יִקָהָה (yiqqâhâh) obedience, to obey

• “The children of Ammon shall obey them.” (Isa. 11:14; italics added.) מִשְ מַעַת (mishma’ath) audience—obedience

That link between listening and obedience is found not only in Hebrew, but in Latin and Greek. The word obey comes from two Latin roots: the prefix ob “to” or “toward,” and the root audio, audire “to hear” or “to listen.” This root occurs in words such as audio, audience, or auditorium. Literally, then, the word obey means “to hear or to listen toward,” that is, “to comply.”

The word for obey in Greek, ὑπακούω (hupakouo), literally means “listen under,” from hypo “under” as in hypo-dermic, also “in subjection or subordination” and the root akouo “hear, listen” as in acoustics. In New Testament times, its use was gradually broadened to less sacred realms, including expressions such as “children, obey parents” (see Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), “wives, [obey] husbands” (see 1 Pet. 3:1), “servants, obey … masters” (see Col. 3:22), and so on.

A parallel pattern is found in the Book of Mormon. Use of terms such as listen, hear, and hearken, written at the time of the Old Testament, generally carried the same implication of obedience to Deity. Those terms in Book of Mormon scriptures written after the earthly advent of Christ were also broadened to include the more familiar usage, as in the language of the New Testament.(3)

In June of 1998 he addressed the new mission president’s seminar as follows:

Obedience is the act of obeying. The verb to obey comes from the Latin audire meaning “to hear.”  Audio-, audition, auditorium are also words that come from audire.

Even deeper meaning unfolds from study of the Hebrew language. If you will bear with me, I’d like to pursue that a little, ever mindful of the teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. With respect to “the present translation of the Bible,” he said, “our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version.”

One of the most powerful and pivotal words in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is shama' {shaw-mah'}, עמש. It occurs more than 1,000 times in the Old Testament.  It appears in each of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It is a strong verb that means “to hearken,” “to listen attentively,” “to hear.” It connotes more than merely to perceive by ear.  It means that one hears a message with real intent to obey.

Throughout the entire Old Testament, “shama” is an oft-repeated cry of God’s prophets to His people. You remember the declaration recorded in First Samuel: “To obey (shama) is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 

In the King James translation of the Hebrew text, shama was translated into many terms—such as hearken, heed, obey, listen, or understand, in their many forms.

It is not surprising that the long-promised “restitution of all things,” would include restoration of the powerful concept of shama.  Its English equivalents are scrolled across the pages of scriptures of the restoration.

Let us turn to the very first verse in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen.”  That first verse features hearken twice and listen once. Hallelujah! Shama has been restored! Those first words of “Preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments” of this dispensation are not written as optional language. They are divine imperatives. You may be interested in knowing that 58 of the 138 (or 42 percent) of the  sections of the Doctrine and Covenants contain some form of the words hearken, heed, hear, listen, or obey. Moreover, in the Book of Mormon, those words appear more than 200 times. Thus, the concept of obedience is not only evident in restoration scripture, it is another confirming evidence of the restoration.”(4)

And most recently he again addressed the subject in his April 2020 General Conference talk:

The very first word in the Doctrine and Covenants is hearken. It means “to listen with the intent to obey.”13 To hearken means to “hear Him”—to hear what the Savior says and then to heed His counsel. In those two words—“Hear Him”—God gives us the pattern for success, happiness, and joy in this life. We are to hear the words of the Lord, hearken to them, and heed what He has told us!

As we seek to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our efforts to hear Him need to be ever more intentional. It takes conscious and consistent effort to fill our daily lives with His words, His teachings, His truths.

13 In the Old Testament, the word hearken is translated from the Hebrew shama, which is a strong verb that means to “listen with the intent to obey.” Hearken is a scriptural word that occurs in 40 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Now back to Joseph Smith and the righteousness in his revelations. The plea for God’s children to “hearken” to him, begins in and permeates in the Old Testament. A pattern of use similar to that already discussed can be discerned in the 8 or so times the word is found in the New Testament. For example Mark has Jesus introducing the famous parable of the sower in the following words: “Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow....” And it continues the drum beat of pleas to God’s children in the scriptures of the Restoration.

So, if Joseph Smith is indeed a servant of Satan as many opponents believe and proclaim him to be, I think they must explain why he writes scripture that continually repeats the plea--scores of times--to listen to and obey God? And, by the way, isn’t it nifty that his usage of the word hearken is of one piece with the linguistic definitions which come down to us from ancient times as President Nelson shows?  Do you suppose Joseph knew that? Where would he have encountered it in his first quarter century of life? Or, is it possible that he was just lucky to use the word with the same meaning in the same context the ancients gave it because he was just a good copycat? Or is the truth really that there is no unrighteousness in his revelations, and therefore as God says, they come from above? I choose to believe the latter. His doctrine tastes good. It is good. Nay, it is more than good, it is righteous and holy, something that is not highly revered in today’s secular society, and in many cases even among those professing to be his followers.

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1. D&C 41:12, emphasis added. On another occasion the Prophet Joseph said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967, 368.

2.  Delbert L. Stapley, “Light and Truth Forsake Evil,” Improvement Era (June 1968): 52.

3.  Russell M. Nelson, “Learn to Listen,” Ensign (May 1991), 24 and 25 n. 15.

4.  Russell M. Nelson, “Obedience,” address to New Mission Presidents, 25 June 1998, 1-2.

5.  Russell M. Nelson, “Hear Him,” Ensign (May 2020): 89, 92, n. 13.

Evidence Seventy-One: An Obscure Evidence for Individual Authorship in the Book of Mormon.©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy-One:

“An Obscure Evidence for Individual Authorship in the Book of Mormon”©(1)

This is likely one of the shortest of the evidences which I write about, but I believe it is potent nonetheless. This morning while discussing with some friends a book written by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, we came across the following passage regarding the omnipotence of Jesus Christ:

This is most often seen as a characteristic and quality of godhood rather than a title.  Nevertheless, it is used as a name seven times in scripture, six of those by King Benjamin or those who heard his magnificent sermon as recorded in the Book of Mosiah.(2) This distinction is another testament to the individuality of authorship among those writing in the Book of Mormon.(3)

There are several things we could talk about in this passage, however, I emphasize the last sentence to briefly enlarge on it’s point. Since the writings of Hugh Nibley, if not before, LDS defenders of the Book of Mormon have made the point that when studied closely, one can detect various differences among the many authors of the books within the Book of Mormon. The point of that emphasis is usually to argue that if Joseph Smith were the author of the book, rather than a translator of an ancient text, all the alleged authors would sound the same. There would not likely be unique differences between Nephi, Jacob, or King Benjamin, because in reality they came from the same source–the mind and heart of Joseph Smith. The most scientific computer-facilitated approach to this issue initially came from Wayne Larsen and Alvin Rencher in their 1980 article “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints” and a subsequent study by John Hilton in 1990.(4)

To me, what is important about Elder Holland’s statement, is that of all the Book of Mormon authors, King Benjamin is the only one to refer to the "omniscience" of God in the entire text and this is a “testament to the individuality of authorship” among Book of Mormon authors. A little thing, some may say. Perhaps, but when added to the ongoing accumulation of evidence for the separate authorship of books, sermons, and narratives within the Book of Mormon, this is one more precious morsel which could easily be overlooked, but Elder Holland didn’t miss it or its implications.

Moreover, Elder Holland is making the point that this descriptive phrase is actually a name and title for the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not referring to the Father Elohim, though it would not be inappropriate to do so. In the third lecture of the Lectures on Faith, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, that there are three things we need to possess in order to exercise faith in God, “unto life and salvation.” The second of them is, “a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.”(5)

In that respect note the specificity and power in the following statements by King Benjamin in reference to Jesus Christ, “the Lord (God) Omnipotent”:

Mosiah 3:5: For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 3:17-18   17) And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. 18)  For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

Mosiah 5:15:Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. [Emphasis added.]

Each of these passages emphasizes in one way or another the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the first, he is a God of miracles; in the second, he has the power to save through his atoning blood; and in the third, he can seal us his to have “everlasting salvation and eternal life” through his wisdom, power, justice and mercy. These passages are unique expressions in the Book of Mormon, emphasizing Elder Holland’s point.  To me it is marvelous that this very profound and deep spiritual teaching comes by way of an obscure unlearned New York farm boy in 1830!

Thank God for the omnipotent Lord Jesus Christ and for Joseph Smith, the instrument in God’s omnipotent hand to bring us the Book of Mormon which teaches his correct character, perfections, and attributes in such simple yet potent ways! 

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  This is a companion piece to evidence number 50 “‘Zingers’ in the Book of Mormon, Part 7, ‘relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save,’” published 23 October 2016.

2.  See, Mosiah 3:5, 17, 18, 21; 5:2, and 15. The word “omniscience” appears only once in the KJV at Revelation 19:6, however the Greek word  pantokrator, occurs eight other times, once in Paul and the rest from John, but is always translated “almighty.”  See, 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:15; 21:22.

3.  Jeffrey R. Holland, Witness for His Names, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019, 114, emphasis added. 

4.  Wayne A. Larsen and Alvin C. Rencher, “Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?  An Analysis of Wordprints,” BYU Studies 20 (Spring 1980):225-51, reprinted in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, Religious Studies Monograph 7, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1982, 157-88.  One significant study before the computer was Glade L. Burgon, “An Analysis of Style Variations in the Book of Mormon,” MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 1950.

Because wordprinting studies were in their infancy when Larsen and Rencher first wrote, some critics challenged the validity of the method and its results.  Perhaps the most extensive work  of this type was Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1984, 225-60.  

Shortly after the publication of the Larsen and Rencher article, John Hilton III, joined with a small group of researchers in Berkeley, California who were working on wordprinting to check the results of Larsen and Rencher.  Seven years later they concluded the methodology had advanced far enough that scholars “could use such tests confidently and without personal bias...” See his article, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship,” BYU Studies 30, no. 3 (Summer 1990):89-108. Hilton also reviewed the Taves study referred to above and found it “fundamentally flawed.”  See John L. Hilton, “Review of Ernest Taves’ Book of Mormon Stylometry,” FARMS HIL-86, Provo, UT: FARMS, 1986.

These studies were followed in 1996 by Roger R. Keller’s, Book of Mormon Authors: Their Words and Messages, Religious Studies Center Specialized Monograph Series 9, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1996. And there are others. 

5.  Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985, 38.  See paragraphs 2-5, emphasis in original.

Evidence Seventy: Joseph Smith a “Skilled Writer” at Age 23?©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy:

Joseph Smith a “Skilled Writer” at Age 23?© 

Last week I re-read Elder Tad Callister’s October 2017 Conference address titled “God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon.” There are many things in it which could be the subject of a blog in this series, and I may deal with some of them individually, and some I have addressed in previous blogs. Today I want to concentrate on a statement he made following comments about one of the popular theories of the Book of Mormon critics, that Joseph was a “creative genius” and an eclectic one at that, so he took advantage of all of the alleged sources of his ideas that were supposedly readily available in the gigantic library of Palymra, New York in the late 1820s. To mine, winnow, and integrate all of these sources into something coherent and then dictate it without a note would require as Elder Callister says, a “photographic memory of prodigious proportions.”(1) Incidentally, none of his contemporary critics credited him with such a memory. Elder Callister went on to say, that the critics would also have to consider Joseph Smith a theological genius because of the many doctrinal ideas found in the Book of Mormon. Then he said...

But even if we suppose that Joseph were a creative and theological genius with a photographic memory—these talents alone do not make him a skilled writer. To explain the Book of Mormon’s existence, the critics must also make the claim that Joseph was a naturally gifted writer at age 23. Otherwise, how did he interweave scores of names, places, and events into a harmonious whole without inconsistencies? How did he pen detailed war strategies, compose eloquent sermons, and coin phrases that are highlighted, memorized, quoted, and placed on refrigerator doors by millions of people, phrases such as, “When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mosiah 2:17) or “Men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25). These are messages with a heartbeat—messages that live and breathe and inspire. To suggest that Joseph Smith at age 23 possessed the skills necessary to write this monumental work in a single draft in approximately 65 working days is simply counter to the realities of life.(2)

To me one of the things that makes the idea of Joseph Smith being a skilled writer important is the fact that his wife Emma, who early on helped him temporarily as a scribe while he dictated the manuscript of the Book of Mormon said in her final testimony, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon.”(3) Of course she was referring to his ability as her young husband at the time. Though she went on to say that being an “active participant” and “present during the translation” and having “cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to anyone else.”(4) She, a dutiful and faithful young companion finds the ability of her husband “marvelous.” Besides immediate family, who knew him any better at that time?  

Nor was he a good speller, and this is not insignificant in light of what Emma told Edmund C. Briggs:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.(5)

We will shortly see evidence of his poor spelling in 1832-33, three or four years after the Book of Mormon was translated. Though he improved through his life, he was never a good speller. That is not necessarily a mark of a poor education or low intellect.  The first American dictionary was published in 1828. Most Americans of Joseph Smith’s day and earlier, educated or not, wouldn’t pass muster in a 5th grade spelling bee these days.

There is other interesting evidence of his lack of literary prowess. In 1957, John A Widtsoe published a study of Joseph Smith.  Chapter twelve is titled: “The Vocabulary of Joseph Smith.”  He found that the Book of Mormon is composed of  2,800 “general words,” 245 person’s names and 166 place names. This is about 1,439 fewer “general words” than in the New Testament, and about 585 more than in the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph’s vocabulary fares poorly against the 7-8,000 words vocabulary of John Milton and perhaps 18,000 of Shakespeare.  Widtsoe notes a well educated man in the 1950s used about 8,000 words.(6) To me, for Joseph Smith to produce what he did in the Book of Mormon with such limited word resources, is truly phenomenal. He, like Nephi and Moroni, seems to have gloried in “plainness.”

It is interesting to do a little reading in his earliest holographic journals.  By 1832, he could write a coherent sentence, but there is evidence of lingering weakness in his grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling.  His journal entries illustrate visually in part, at least, what Emma said. Here are two examples from his earliest journal, a year apart in late 1832 and 1833:

1) 29 November 1832: “November 29th this day road from Kirtland to Chardon to see my Sister Sopronia and also came to see my Sister Catheri and found them all ... [well?]

    this Evening Brother Frederic Prophcyed tha next spring I should go to the city of PittsBurg to establish a Bishopwrick and within one year I should go to the city of New York the Lord spare me the life of thy servent Amen.(7)

2) 12 October 1833:   “...held a meeting at Brother Ruds a had a great congregation paid good attention Oh God Seal our tetimony to their hearts Amen.”(8)

Compare those rough-hewn, apparently hastily written entries with two dictated passages from the Book of Mormon:

1) Mosiah 3:19: For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

2) Moroni 7:48: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

He did this very polished writing in a single draft, no rewrites, and without ChatGTP!! Coherent, logical, challenging, profound,  inspirational, and to me literarily beautiful.  And they are typical of hundreds of passages found in the text of the Book of Mormon. I agree with Elder Callister, when Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon the result was from a “skilled writer.”  So, if Joseph Smith did not have this native ability as his wife maintains and as some evidence confirms, how do we explain the difference?  If it was “creative genius” in 1828-29, according to the critics as he dictated the Book of Mormon text, what happened to that genius in his 1832-33 journal; and how did he produce the Book of Mormon with a vocabulary of less than half of that of a well educated man in 1957? To me there is one answer, and it comes from the pen of Joseph Smith in a letter to James Arlington Bennett:

    The fact is, that by the power of God I translated the book of Mormon from hierogliphics [sic]; the knowledge of which was lost to the world.  In which wonderful event, I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries.(9)

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Tad R. Callister, “God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon,” Ensign (November 2017):  108.  Regarding the demands the 65-day timeline for the production of the Book of Mormon text would require of that memory, Daniel Peterson wrote: “Whether it is even remotely plausible to imagine Joseph Smith or anyone else memorizing or composing nearly 5000 words daily, day after day, week after week, in the production of a lengthy and complex book is a question that readers can ponder for themselves.”  Daniel C. Peterson, “A Response: ‘What the Manuscripts and the Eyewitnesses Tell us about the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, edited by M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts, Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002, 69.

2.  Callister, “God’s Compelling Witness,” 108, emphasis added.

3.  Emma Smith, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 290, emphasis added.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, January 1916, 454, reproduced in, Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005, 129.  It is also cited in Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” seminar for new mission presidents, 25 June 1992, 3, which is where I think I first encountered it.

6.  John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, 67-71.

7.  Dean C. Jessee, et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Volume 1:1832-1839, Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2008, 9.

8.  Ibid, 12.

9.  Joseph Smith to James Arlington Bennett, 13 November 1843, in Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford and Steven C. Harper, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations Volume 1: Manuscript Revelation Books, Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011, xx.

 

FOX PROPAGANDA©

More than two years ago I stopped watching Fox News.  First, because I can’t stand Tucker Carlson.  Second, by then I concluded Fox News is not in the “search for truth” news business, just “news” propaganda for the conservative side of the Republican Party and Donald Trump in particular.

Therefore, I am not up on the current controversy at Fox, although my wife shares some things with me.  But the latest release of Carlson’s email exchanges with Alex Pfeiffer and others, published from the court records by The Washington Post this afternoon show proof positive that Fox News is absolutely a propaganda organization.  Carlson and Pfeiffer were (and probably still are) conflicted by the President whom Carlson characterized as only being good at destroying things, and someone he “hated” and at the same time, the very evenings he was saying such things in private, he was, struggling though it may be, toeing the party line.

This all is very disgusting, and for me at least, confirms my view of Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump (some of his most ardent public supporters, privately despise him).  

I have done at least two right things in my life. I’ve never voted for Donald Trump.  I thank God that not a single flea’s freckle of responsibility rests upon me for his disastrous political career!  And I have not given a minute’s time to Fox News in over two years.  Yea for me!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Note:  If you would like to view the article referred to above, you can see it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/03/09/tucker-carlson-trump-texts-fox-news/

Stir Within Yourselves a Greater Sensitivity to the Beautiful©

 My memory of this is more than a bit vague, but at some point in my education at BYU more than 60 years ago I became interested in the subject of “beauty.” I think there was some discussion–whether in a formal classroom setting or an informal discussion with friends, I do not know– some discussion of the aphorism “Truth is beauty and beauty is truth,” or maybe the other way around. Nonetheless, from that time forward the subject of beauty interested me and I tried to cultivate my taste to appreciate beauty in many forms. I wanted to understand the nature and importance of beauty beyond my own pleasure and satisfaction.  I even bought a volume from the Oxford series of Short Introductions.  It is Roger Scruton’s, Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. As helpful as it was, it did not satisfy my desire to understand more deeply the importance of beauty.

Last night, after lo these many years, I encountered what I was looking for.  It came out of two brief sentences in a talk President Gordon B. Hinckley, then First Counselor to Ezra Taft Benson, said in a talk to the women of the Church in October 1989.  His theme was “Rise to the Stature of the Divine Within You,”(1) and he offered the women of the Church three suggestions to help them do so.  First, he told them to get all the education they could and he spoke glowingly about education for several paragraphs.  In the course of those remarks he said the first thing that caught my attention about beauty:

In the process of educating your minds, stir within yourselves a greater sensitivity to the beautiful, the artistic....  [Emphasis mine.]

As I sat back and contemplated that I realized that is behind a large part of my own effort of continuing self-education. A description of those efforts will require at least one, if not more, chapters in my autobiography if I ever get around to it. A brief example must suffice here.  

When we came to Logan, Utah in 1979 where I was to teach Institute for the Church at the Institute adjacent to USU, several threads wove together at about the same time. Beyond reading Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in middle school and the 1968 Zeffirelli movie “Romeo and Juliet,” I knew nothing about William Shakespeare or his plays, except I knew of his reputation as perhaps the greatest author in the English language. I was conscious of my ignorance of Shakespeare.  I had a huge “ignorance gap” and because of his reputation I felt an impelling need to fill that gap. One of my colleagues at the Institute was Canadian born and educated–Gary Bennett. I discovered in him a fellow book lover. He also loved and read Shakespeare. At the time PBS was running a series of the Bard’s plays and his example and enthusiasm set me to watching them. I also signed up for a Shakespeare class at USU which turned out to be one of the great intellectual experiences of my life. At the same time the Shakespeare Festival in Cedar City was beginning to blossom and we started to take advantage of that.  

I found Shakespeare difficult. Not only was much of his language archaic and almost incomprehensible, but it was also poetry, and as a genre it too proved to be very difficult for me. At USU we started with Hamlet and I actually read it eight times before I felt like I had a handle on what was going on, facilitated by a phenomenal teacher and class discussions. I created my own glossary because so many words were not in my vocabulary. To my dismay sometime later I discovered there was a glossary in the back of my textbook!  Ah, such is the life of the ignorant.  

I learned some very valuable things reading Hamlet eight times. I discovered that Shakespeare could be understood, if not conquered (he was a genius you know), with persistent effort and some good old “hard study time.”   My confidence grew; nay, it soared to the point I decided to read and study all thirty-eight of Sir William’s plays. Moreover, the effort was worth it! Not only was Shakespeare enriching my mind and my life, he was also useful to me. He frequently dealt with subjects and issues that were very pertinent to me as a teacher of religion. I found myself telling a story, quoting some lines, or using an example from one of the plays in my classes. It was enriching and fresh–and often very powerful.  

Second, and this is to the point of this essay: I found many parts of the poetry in Hamlet astonishingly beautiful and powerful language. Shakespeare’s skill amazed me. I fell in love with him. If I was conscious of beautiful language before that, it was only a faint consciousness, but this experience awakened a love for beautiful words that never died.  I have a file called “Picturesque Speech” which had its origins in Professor Wilson’s Shakespeare class at USU.  Understand.  It is not just the beauty of the linkage of certain words that impresses. Rather, the images, associations, meanings, and feelings those words powerfully invoked in the brain and heart at times nearly overwhelmed me. The beauty of the words themselves combined with their power was truly impressive, frequently astonishing. This is a phenomenon that does not end with the initial flood of ideas, sensations, and meaning. The richness and deepness of Shakespeare’s language and thought continues giving–provoking new thought, questions, insight, pleasure.

So, unintentionally I’ve been following President Hinckley’s advice, wonderful advice for all, to “stir within yourselves a greater sensitivity to the beautiful.”  

The second thing President Hinckley said in this talk came near the end.  It gave me the reason for “stirring” within myself that “greater sensitivity to the beautiful”. He said:

In the pioneering days of this church when men grubbed the sagebrush and broke the sod so that crops might be planted to sustain life, many a wife and mother planted a few flowers and a few fruit trees to add beauty and taste to the drabness of pioneer life. There are so many things that you can do. Beauty is a thing divine. The cultivation of it becomes an expression of the divine nature within you. [All forms of emphasis mine.](2)

Ah!  I love the positive prophetic perspective. It is simple, almost self-evident, and surely common sense to a Latter-day Saint. The trouble is, my mind is not the kind that readily sees the self-evident or the common sense, until someone with that skill points it out to me. Then I see it! And last night I saw and felt it with unusual impact. Of course, beauty is a divine thing. Surely God loves beauty and in his omniscience understands its nature, power, and purpose to the nth degree. Adam declared that the newly created world “is glorious and beautiful.” Artists, philosophers and others are fond of saying that the human form is the most beautiful of God’s creations. It seems now that President Hinckley said it, that it is common sense that God creates things of beauty, because it is his nature. It follows, therefore, when we stir up a greater sensitivity of the beautiful within and when we actually cultivate or create beauty, we are giving expression to the same divine nature within ourselves. How simple! How obvious! How true! How beautiful!

Lets think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Gordon B. Hinckley, “Rise to the Stature of the Divine within You,” Ensign (November 1989):94-98.  The indented quotations which follow are found on pages 97 and 98 respectively.  

2.  As a note of contrast, I’m presently reading a small book of poetry.  In two of them Ralph Waldo Emerson says two seemingly contradictory things.  In the first, titled “Each and All,”  he discusses the fading beauty of a wife: “The gay enchantment was undone— / A gentile wife, but fairy none.  Then I said, ‘I covet truth; / Beauty is unripe childhood’s cheat; I leave it behind with the games of youth.’” He seems to be saying in this case beauty is fleeting, a cheat, but “truth” is enduring.  However, in the short poem “The Rhodora” he extolls the beauty of the flower and exults: “Rhodora! If the sages ask thee why / This charm is wasted on the earth and sky, / Tell them, dear, that if eyes were made for seeing / Then Beauty is its own excuse for being.”  See, Roy J. Cook, comp., One Hundred and One Best Loved Poems, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958, 5-6.

Evidence Sixty-Nine: Joseph Smith’s Snowflake in a Blizzard–D&C 35:14

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God

Evidence Sixty-Nine:

Joseph Smith’s Snowflake in a Blizzard–D&C 35:14.© 

Updated: 27 January 2023

Some readers may not find today’s “evidence” overly compelling, but for me it fits into a larger pattern in the life and work of Joseph Smith that taken collectively is huge. This is like a snowflake in a blizzard–and the blizzard is the important issue. It is one we should attend to.  It is one that will continue to grow.  The blizzard is ongoing.

This has to do with an almost obscure passage–Doctrine and Covenants 35:14–and a specific phrase in the verse. For context and to make the point more clearly I quote a bit more of the passage beginning with verse 12 running through verse 14. I have italicized the phrase in the verse which is the subject of the discussion to follow.

12) And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation. 13) Wherefore, I call upon the weak things of the world, those who are unlearned and despised, to thrash the nations by the power of my Spirit; 14) And their arm shall be my arm, and I will be their shield and their buckler; and I will gird up their loins, and they shall fight manfully for me; and their enemies shall be under their feet; and I will let fall the sword in their behalf, and by the fire of mine indignation will I preserve them.

According to this passage (and others in the Doctrine and Covenants) the spiritual condition of the world at the time of this revelation (December 1830) is poor.  So, in the Restoration the Lord calls upon the weak, unlearned, and despised, to “thrash the nations by the power of my Spirit.” These agents of the Lord, though not recognized as anything special have a special power by which they do their work–”the power of my Spirit.” Chief among these weak, unlearned, and despised, is Joseph Smith, God’s prophet.

Joseph Smith and others will have the arm of the Lord to be their arm. This is a metaphor teaching us that the strength of these servants will be the strength of the Lord. In addition, “I will be their shield and buckler.” The word buckler appears twelve times in the standard works; eleven of them are in the Old Testament and one is in D&C 35:14. That of itself is interesting and leads to the question why is it in the D&C.

There are three Hebrew words in the Old Testament from which we get the word buckler as a translation. A “buckler” is a small round shield. Among the dozen usages in the scriptures, half of them refer to the Lord as a buckler: 2 Sam. 22:31; Ps. 18:2, 30; 91:4; Prov. 2:7 and D&C 35:14.  The remainder, except one, refer to human beings wielding a buckler.  (1 Chr. 5:18; 12:8; Prov. 2:7; Jer. 46:3; Ezek. 23:24; and 26:8.) The exception is Ps. 35:2 which is a prayer for the Lord to take up shield and buckler.  

One other fact should be noted. Nearly half (5) of these references refer to both shield and buckler. One may wonder if this is not redundant. Probably not. It is likely this phrase is speaking of two different kinds of shields–large and small, and sometimes the buckler may refer, because of its association with the concept round, to something that surrounds one as a protection, such as a wall. In any case some from of this phrase is used four times in the Old Testament: Ps. 35:2; 91:4; Jer. 46:3; and Ezek. 23:24. And it is also in D&C 35:14.  

With this background lets explore D&C 35:14 by asking some questions about it.  My first thought was, “Did Joseph Smith know what a buckler was?” And my first answer was probably no, but upon further reflection I suspect it was likely a much more common term in his day than it is in ours. So it may not be unlikely that he would use such a term. 

A more serious issue is how is the phrase used conceptually when compared to the Old Testament.  In D&C 35:14 the metaphor regards strength and protection given to the Lord’s servants as they inaugurate the Restoration of the Gospel.  “And their arm shall be my arm and I will be their shield and their buckler....” This is totally consistent with its usage in the Old Testament.  Ps. 18:30 says, “As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.”  And Ps. 91:4: “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.”

Here I confess a personal weakness–serious ignorance–compared to the Prophet Joseph.  I did not know what a buckler was until this week when I studied the issue with some friends. Or, if I once knew it, I long since forgot it. Yet Joseph Smith was only twenty-five years old when he penned D&C 35. Now it may be as I said earlier, that this terminology was more prevalent in his day than ours, and perhaps more familiar to him. But, I find it fascinating that this meaningful metaphor that is relatively obscure in the Old Testament, surfaces in the Doctrine Covenants in the correct context and with a meaning consistent with those few times it appears in relationship to God in the Old Testament. I suppose that one could say that either the concept was so prevalent that it was natural for him to use it, or he was expert in plagiarizing the Bible. Many critics are satisfied with either option. But it seems to me there is a third option and that is that the revelation was written under the influence of the power of the Spirit as the Lord promised in D&C 35.

Like I said earlier, this argument may be about a snowflake in a blizzard, but there is literally a blizzard of such examples. As one example, within the last decade a scholar at BYU has discovered that, not counting the “Sermon on the Mount” in 3 Nephi 12-14, there are as many as 600 other quotations of New Testament usage, large and small, interwoven in the text of the Book of Mormon.(1) That may trouble some, but there are good and sufficient reasons why this may be the case. Defending that issue, however, is not my purpose here. Taking a more positive approach, I maintain that this large number constitutes metaphorically a blizzard of examples of the exact thing we see in D&C 35:14, and in my mind can only be explained in one of two ways. Either Joseph Smith was a genius with the capacity and skills to remember such Biblical phrases and weave them into the narratives he produced, or he was translating by inspiration and receiving revelations in the same way.  I further confess that I find the genius hypothesis inadequate given Joseph Smith's age, the brief length of time it took to produce the Book of Mormon, and in a single draft.  I am making one more argument to add to many others of like kind, to the amazing complexity of the Book of Mormon. 

The blizzard is even more intense inside the Doctrine and Covenants itself, than in the Book of Mormon. Ongoing studies show that allusions to the KJV Bible in the Doctrine and Covenants are very high. In 1951 Ellis Rasmussen studied the subject relative to the revelations in the original Book of Commandments, just over 60. He found a median of 1.3 KJV parallels per verse in the Book of Commandments.(2)  In 1971 a follow-up study of sections 65 to 133 produced similar results with a median of 1.33 parallels and allusions per verse!(3) Erick Hunstman, commenting on these findings said, 

"In other words, for every two verses of the revelations, there are almost three phrases that closely parallel King James phrases. These parallels and echoes would not be apparent if they were not rendered in King James idiom, supporting one major argument for continuing to use the King James Bible in the Church today.  ... Indeed, ... a somewhat uniform idiom woven throughout the standard works helps realize the Savior's injunction that we should expound, and hence see, all the scriptures in one (3 Nephi 23:14)."(4) 

Moreover, Rasmussen found that these allusions and echoes were predominantly from the New Testament, but the Old Testament was not neglected. There are frequent allusions to Psalms, Genesis, Numbers, Exodus, and Jeremiah. "Disproportionate to their length are the number of references to Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, Zechariah, and Malachi."(5) In addition to the extent of the quotations, allusions, and echoes, we add the fact that Rasmussen notes that only three passages were repeated with any frequency in the Book of Commandments!(6)

My prediction is that given time, ongoing study of the three books of scripture Joseph Smith produced, we will continue to uncover similar things and find them to be equally complex productions, thus the blizzard willl grow.

My personal opinion is that Joseph Smith was a religious and spiritual genius, but that does not account for the power that accompanies the scriptures he produced. The power which is “sharper than a two edged sword.” The power expressed in the metaphor, “the arm of the Lord.” The power of truth. The power of conversion and motivation to right living. That cannot be manufactured on call. It cannot be summoned up out of man’s brain alone. It comes, as D&C 35:14 says, through the Spirit.

Thank God for the Prophet Joseph and the power of a snowflake.

Lets think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Nicholas J. Frederick, “The Book of Mormon and Its Redaction of the King James New Testament: A Further Evaluation of the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 27 (2018): 44–87. See also a video of an earlier presentation on the same issue,  Nick Frederick, “‘Full of grace, mercy, and truth’: Exploring the Complexities of the Presence of the New Testament within the Book of Mormon,” The Interpreter Foundation/BYU Studies, 2015, at:https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/%E2%80%9Cfull-grace-mercy-and-truth%E2%80%9D-exploring-complexities-presence-new-testament-within-book

2.  Ellis T. Rasmussen, "Textual Parallels to the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Commandments as Found in the Bible," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1951, 5.

3.  Lois Jean Smutz, "Textual Parallels to the Doctrine and Covenants (Sections 65-133) as Found in the Bible," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971, 194.

4.  Erick D. Huntsman, "The King James Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, edited by Kent. P. Jackson, 187.  Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011.  See also these important studies on the same subject: D. Kelly Ogden, “Biblical Language and Imagery in the Doctrine and Covenants,” in Doctrine and Covenants: A Book of Answers, edited by Leon R. Hartshorn, Dennis A. Wright, and Craig J. Ostler, 169-87.  The 25th Sidney B. Sperry Symposium.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996; and Lisa Olsen Tait, “Gathering the Lord’s Words into One: Biblical Intertextuality in the Doctrine and Covenants,” in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, edited by Scott C. Esplin, Richard D. Cowan, and Rachel Cope, 92-107. The 41st Sidney B. Sperry Symposium. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012.

5.  Huntsman, "The King James Bible...," 187-88.

6.  Huntsman, "The King James Bible...," 188.

This Is the Man that Allegedly Leads the Republicans--The Main Reason I Left the Party

The following discussion, or parts of it, in one form or another has been floating around in my head for more than six years. It expresses so many reasons why I became an Independent.

Guest Charlie Sykes, on “Morning Joe,” hosted by Joe Scarborough, discussing Donald Trump’s “homily” at the funeral of a long-time supporter, Lynette "Diamond" Hardaway.  Trump did his typical rant and turned it into a political speech.  The panel considered it rude and narcissistic [Of course! He is constitutionally incapable of anything else.] 

***

"Just beyond bizarre, beyond rude, beyond anything that anyone would see in normal, polite, let me say decent society, and this is a guy that a lot of people want to be the next president of the United States again, and so on brand for him, too," said guest Charlie Sykes. "Look, this is what happens when you have a narcissistic sociopath give a homily at a funeral. It won't go well. Donald Trump has one subject, he has only one thing that he wants to talk about, and the crass indifference is just so burned in that he's not even aware of the fact that he, you know, is talking about other people that he had never met Silk. Of course, it's rude -- this is Donald Trump, and he's not going to change. But to your point, I continue to be amazed as you are."

"That's the interesting thing," Sykes added. "I always try to imagine the people who are watching this and going, 'Yes, I want that man to be a role model for my children, I want that man to be a symbol for America, I want that man to have his finger on the nuclear button again.' This has baffled me for six years. What is interesting as we get closer to 2024, Trump's behavior is, if anything, more erratic. Remember that there were people, you know, who talked themselves into believing, if he becomes becomes president, he'll become more normal, he'll grow into the job. It's exactly the opposite, and it appears to be accelerating, but again, as shocking as it is, no one should be surprised that Donald Trump goes to somebody's funeral, says he doesn't know the closest friend and talks about himself the whole time, well, because he's Donald Trump."(1)

Lets think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Emphasis added.  You can watch the segment here: 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-diamond-funeral/