"Everyday Church" in Hong Kong

While visiting Hong Kong recently, I learned about a remarkable example of flexibility in the LDS Church to better meet local needs. While attending church services in the beautiful multistory red-brick building on Hong Kong island where several wards meet, I learned that there are actually church services every day of the week to meet the needs of the large population of foreign housekeepers, mostly from the Philippines, who have only one day a week off, usually a day other than Sunday. Many of these hard-working Latter-day Saints would almost never be able to attend church were it not for this "every day church" approach in which one unusual ward arranges for sacrament meetings every day of the week to meet the various schedules of the members. I don't know if this is an unusual pilot program or if it has been done in other cities where the demographics justify it, but knowing a little about the strenuous demands on housekeepers in China ("a-yi" is the Mandarin term), I'm very grateful for this flexible approach.

Do any of you have more information about the program?

By the way, I was so happy to attend church in Hong Kong at the beginning of this month, even though I was late after crossing the border from China and missed sacrament meeting. When I introduced myself in priesthood meeting while sitting in the back of the room, someone toward the front jumped up and said, "That's my old high school friend!" It was one of my closest friends from high school who had just moved to Hong Kong, to my surprise. The audience chuckled in approval (I hope) as we ran toward each other, and my wife and I ended up spending much of the day with his wonderful family. How glad I am that we went the extra mile to attend church when we had to make a visit to the Hong Kong area.

Some of my best business travel and tourist travel experiences have been from attending church when possible, including making valuable new friendships, learning important things about an area, or having life-changing encounters with new heroes or unforgettable lessons and sermons. Plus I guess it's a good thing to worship the Lord, now that I think about it. I strongly recommending building that into your itinerary.

Today was an unfortunate exception. I traveled from South Korea to Indonesia. Making it a little more international in flavor were the Chinese and English Ensign magazines I brought along to study (though most of my reading time was dedicated to the English translation of the Chinese classic, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms), and while reading, I was listening to a stunningly beautiful performance of The Quran, sung in Arabic of course, that just fascinated me with the rhythms and inflections of the beautiful language (no, I don't know any of it--was just listening because it was available on the audio track of my Indonesian flight and I was curious). But wasn't able to make church services, and don't have an everyday LDS church to attend here in Indonesia where I am tonight (it's evening as I write).

Three Chiseled Stones and the Increasing Evidence from the Arabian Peninsula for the Plausibility of the Book of Mormon

When it comes to evidences for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon text, the most exciting finds come from the Old World, where we have the significant advantage of knowing the precise starting point of Nephi's account and where we have far more archaeological work to draw upon than we do in the New World. As Latter-day Saints in upcoming Sunday School lessons review the stories of Nephi's journey out of Jerusalem and across the Arabian Peninsula to Bountiful, I hope some of them will learn that trek as described in First Nephi 16 and 17 is remarkably "interesting" in terms of its plausibility as an ancient record. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how some of the fine details in Nephi's account could have been written by anybody who didn't actually make the journey and experience the places he mentions.

These places include the Valley of Lemuel and River of Laman, places that until recently were mocked as impossibilities for "everyone knows" that there is no river that flows into the Red Sea as Nephi described. This Book of Mormon weakness has become a strength, a granite-walled stronghold, in fact, with the field work that discovered actual candidates for the valley.

That was early in the long journey of Lehi's group, a journey that, though described in brevity, is given numerous specific details such as the specific directions traveled: south-south east, followed by a sharp turn to nearly due east after Ishmael is buried in a place called Nahom. Following that eastward direction, the group eventually hits the coast and finds Bountiful--one of the biggest barriers to plausibility that the Book of Mormon suffers from. Or rather, suffered from, until people did field work and gave the Latter-day Saints at least one and perhaps two excellent candidates for that lush, green, abundant place that Nephi and his family found in that part of the world that "everyone knows" is nothing but barren sand dunes. If only Joseph had lived in the day of movies and had seen Lawrence of Arabia, he would have known what a ridiculous blunder his description of Bountiful was. Today, we have the luxury of knowing that it might be plausible after all. Now, of course, the argument of the critics must switch to arguing how obvious it was to come up with directions, descriptions, and even place names. Joseph the Blunderer who couldn't even get the birthplace of Christ right (per the standard anti-Mormon attack on Alma 7:10, now handily refuted with the help of modern discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) has become Joseph the Erudite, apparently armed with his vast frontier library and an international network of scholars, carefully building detailed "evidences" of authenticity into the text that, uh, he and his fellow-conspirators didn't seem to know about. Chiasmus and other Semitic literary tools, ancient covenant formulas, the details of the Arabian Peninsula, civilization and its Mesoamerican discontents, and other evidences were carefully woven in so that future generations might be impressed. If only Joseph had bothered to trot out some of these evidences in his lifetime, it might have helped. Highly-publicized reports of ancient American civilization in Mesoamerica did come in the 1840s and created a positive stir among the Saints, over a decade after the Book of Mormon came out, but we would have to wait for over a century before the real fun would even begin.

Yes, I mentioned not just directions and descriptions, but placenames. Foremost on the list is Nahom. The argument here is missed by many critics, who seem to think that we are arguing that there is exciting new evidence that Nahom as an ancient Semitic name. No, of course we know it's a Semitic name since it is a book in the Bible. But as a place name, it is rare, exceedingly rare. More interestingly, it is a specific placename in the Book of Mormon associated with some very specific details: a) it is a specific place in the Arabian Peninsula where one can turn nearly due east after having traveled south-south east from Jerusalem; b) it is a place that was not named by Lehi but apparently was already called that name by others in the area; and c) it is a place where Ishmael was buried (he died somewhere, and then was buried at Nahom). Given those specific, how fascinating it is that we now know that these details are remarkably plausible. There is an ancient Arabic tribe in Yemen with the name Nihm, having the same Semitic root NHM as Nahom. We know that the location of that tribe fits extremely well with the one place where a survivable eastward turn to the sea can be made to depart from the ancient incense trails that were south-southeast from Jerusalem. And we now know, based on archaeological finds from Yemen, that the Nihm tribal name was in existence all the way back to the 7th century B.C. or so, making it possible that Lehi's group did in fact bury Ishmael in an ancient burial location called Nehhm, Nihm, or, as it may have sounded to Nephi, Nahom--a name that in Hebrew nicely fits the concept of mourning as described in the text.

The Nahom story is an important and exciting part of the growing body of evidence for plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. A key part of this story comes from the discovery of several ancient altars bearing the tribal name Nihm. Here are some links for those interested in learning more:

"Newly Found Altars from Nahom," Warren P. Aston, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, volume 10, no. 2, pp. 56-61, 2001. (PDF)

"In Search of Lehi's Trail—30 Years Later," Lynn M. Hilton.

"New Light: 'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," S. Kent Brown.

Book of Mormon evidences (my page)

Nephi the Hebrew

Discussions of the Book of Mormon here have frequently included complaints from critics about the poor writing style, especially the annoying use of the phrase "and it came to pass." Critics say that Joseph was just imitating Bible language in his clumsy fraud, but it doesn't take much reading to realize that when it comes to awkward KJV language, the Book of Mormon definitely exceeds the Bible. "And it came to pass" occurs much more frequently. Laziness on Joseph's part? Perhaps. Or there could be another reason. Donald W. Parry, Donald W. Parry, an instructor in biblical Hebrew at Brigham Young University, addresses the common question about this phrase in the LDS publication, The Ensign, Dec. 1992, p. 29:

Why is the phrase “and it came to pass” so prevalent in the Book of Mormon?

Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet. (Roughing It, Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co., 1901, p. 133.) There are, however, some very good reasons behind the usage of the phrase—reasons that further attest the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.

As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20–25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.

But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”

Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.

The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all—or at least not consistently—in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is—a translation from a language (reformed Egyptian) with ties to the Hebrew language. (See Morm. 9:32–33.)

Yes, the Book of Mormon is filled with narrative where this phrase should be found and used heavly. A short word with a long translation contributes to the sense of poor writing and dryness in the text, but that comes from standard writing in Hebrew or other Semitic languages. But where the Book of Mormon gets poetics, as in 2 Nephi 4 and in some of the chiastic passages, there's a different feel. In future posts, we'll address the persistent nature of Hebraisms in the text, one of the many interesting evidences for authenticity as an ancient Hebrew text.

Since I just mentioned the opening chapters of First Nephi in recent posts, I'll point to one minor but interesting example. When Lehi declares that he had a vision in a dream, be uses terrible English but very good Hebrew when he says "I dreamed a dream." Check out FAIR Mormon's page on Hebraisms. More to come....

DNA and the Book of Mormon: Rejecting an Absurd Oversimplication

Critics of the Book of Mormon want the world to think that it requires nothing but Jewish ancestry for all Native Americas. This is an "absurd simplification," per Nibley in a passage quoted below. In fact, the account of the Jaredites in the Book of Ether points to Asiatic origins for an ancient migration. Though Ether saw a great battle with few survivors as the Jaredite civilization collapsed, the Book of Mormon provides subtle hints that Jaredite influence remained in population groups that mixed with the Nephites and Lamanites.

As Hugh Nibley explained in 1952, in an article printed in the official publication of the Church at the time, the Book of Mormon identified Asia as a source for ancient Native Americans long before anthropologists did. The essay was "The World of the Jaredites," Improvement Era, Vol. 55, June 1952, from which I quote:

That account [the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon] tells us that at the very dawn of history, many thousands of years ago, a party of nomad hunters and stock raisers from west central Asia crossed the water--very probably the North Pacific--to the New World, where they preserved the ways of their ancestors, including certain savage and degenerate practices, and carried on a free and open type of steppe warfare with true Asiatic cruelty and ferocity; it tells us that these people moved about much in the wilderness, for all they built imposing cities, and that they produced a steady trickle of "outcasts" through the centuries. A careful study of the motions of the Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites should correct the absurd oversimplification by which the Book of Mormon as a history is always judged. It will show as plain as day that the Book of Mormon itself first suggests the Asiatic origin of some elements at least of the Indian race and culture long before the anthropologists got around to it. The scientists no longer hold that one migration and one route can explain everything about the Indians. The Book of Mormon never did propound a doctrine so naive. Though it comes to us as a digest and an abridgment, stripped and streamlined, it is still as intricate and complex a history as you can find; and in its involved and tragic pages nothing is more challenging than the sinister presence of those fierce and bloody-minded "Men out of Asia" known in their day as Jaredites....

I think by now it should be apparent that the Book of Mormon account is not as simple as it seems. Ether alone introduces a formidable list of possibilities, few of which have ever been seriously considered. Foremost among these is the probability, amounting almost to certainty, that numerous Jaredites survived in out-of-the-way places of the north to perpetuate a strong Asiatic element in the culture and blood of the American Indian.

[emphasis mine]

Thus, given that the apparently Asiatic Jaredites were on the continent long before the Nephites, and given that other migrations from Asia are permitted by the Book of Mormon, finding evidence of mostly Asiatic genes in the Americas does not necessarily pose a problem for the Book of Mormon. This understanding of the Book of Mormon (the Jaredites as an Asiatic migration, and the possibility of other migrations from Asia being allowed by the Book of Mormon) is not one just recently concocted to deal with recent DNA evidence--it was printed in the official Church periodical decades before critics used DNA evidence to attack a common misreading of the Book of Mormon. In fact, even if we were to erroneously conclude that the ONLY ancient migrations to the New World are those described in the Book of Mormon, the heavy presence of Asian genes in Native Americans could still be compatible with the apparently Asian origins of the ancient Jaredites, whose descendants may have spread across the continent and obviously were present in Book of Mormon lands in Mesoamerica even after Ether saw their central groups wiped out in a bloody civil war.

See my LDSFAQ page on the issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon for further details.

In Bob Bennet's surprisingly good and highly readable book about the Book of Mormon, Leap of Faith: Confronting the Origins of the Book of Mormon, he quotes the above passage from Nibley and further argues that the Book of Mormon should be given credit for pointing to an ancient Asian link in the gene pool of the Americas long before science established that connection. Interesting.

Bennet also makes the point that while the story of the Jaredites plays an important and pervasive background role in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Ether itself makes little sense from the perspective of a forger trying to craft something that will sell. All risk and difficulty with little to gain--would have been much better and more logical for a forger to just leave that out and stick with more familiar topics and themes. It's boring, dry, highly condensed, sketchy, and utterly different from the rest of the text in terms of culture and behaviors. For careful readers of the Book of Mormon, though, it plays a vital role and adds subtlety and dimensions of meaning that pervade the rest of the text. One example is the recently noticed relationship between ancient Jaredite names and later rebels within the Nephite people, suggesting that indigenous remnants of Jaredite culture brought in under Nephite rule were important sources for political and religious rebels like Corianton. Again, interesting. One of those subtleties that make sense if the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record that is, after all, "smarter" than Joseph Smith.

Oops, I diverged from the topic again. OK, back to DNA. If you've got some, be grateful. And if you or anyone else like, say, a Native American friend, has some Asian DNA, again, be grateful. It's great stuff and is no reason to let your faith be shaken up.

Two Paths in a Complex Book

In my last post, I discussed the issue of war in the Book of Mormon and the diverse experiences it covers. One reader commented that the Book of Mormon doesn't deal with diversity, but with a shallow dichotomy. I'd like to respond a little more fully, or rather, let Hugh Nibley do most of the responding for me.

The Book of Mormon emphasizes an ancient doctrine, the doctrine of the Two Ways, which Hugh Nibley discussed in several of his writings. Yes, the complexity of life still involves an ultimate choice between opposing forces: do we choose God and life, or something else? The ancient perspective on the Two Ways, though, is not necessarily superficial, nor is the extensive treatment of the Book of Mormon on war simple, predictable, or merely two-dimensional.

Let me first introduce Nibley's comments on the Two Ways. In his famous essay, "The Expanding Gospel," Nibley writes:

The main idea of "the plan which God laid down . . . in the presence of the First Angels for an eternal universal law," according to the Clementine Recognitions, is that "there shall be two kingdoms placed upon the earth to stay there until judgment day, . . . and when the world was prepared for man it was so devised that . . . he would be free to exercise his own will, to turn to good things if he wanted them, or if not to turn to bad things."¹⁰² In the Dead Sea Scrolls and the earliest Christian writings this is expressly designated as "the ancient Law of Liberty."¹⁰³

The Didache, one of the oldest (discovered in 1873) Christian writings known, begins with the words, "There are two roads, one of life and the other of death, and there is a great difference between the two," which difference it then proceeds to describe.¹⁰⁴ All the other so-called apostolic fathers are concerned with this doctrine, but one of the most striking expositions is in the newly found Gospel of Philip, a strongly anti-Gnostic work: "Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers to one another. It is not possible to separate them from one another," in this world, that is, though in the next world where only the good is eternal this will not be so.¹⁰⁵ This is the doctrine of "the Wintertime of the Just," i.e., that while we are in this world men cannot really distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous, since in the wintertime all trees are bare and look equally dead, "but when the Summertime of the Just shall come, then the righteous shall bear their leaves and fruit while the dead limbs of evil trees shall be cast into the fire."¹⁰⁶ It is another aspect of the plan. "We believe that God organized all things in the beginning out of unformed matter," says Justin Martyr, "for the sake of the human race, that they, if they prove themselves by their works to be worthy of his plan, having been judged worthy to return to his presence [so we believe], shall reign with him, having been made immortal and incorruptible. At the creation they themselves made the choice . . . and so were deemed worthy to live with him in immortality."¹⁰⁷

There are many other areas of doctrine and important rites and ordinances set forth in the newly found writings and in the longer known texts which must now be reread and reconsidered in the light of recent discoveries....

Lest you mistake the simplicity of the Two Ways with superficial, shallow thinking, read Lehi's treatise on the topic in 2 Nephi 2, where concepts of free agency and our mortal journey are thoughtfully intertwined with the concept of opposition, all rooted in the Two Ways. Nibley has shown at length that Lehi's teachings fit beautifully in the world of Lehi in the 6th century B.C. 2 Nephi 2 deserves carefull reading and contemplatin: it's cool, deep, and ancient. Sure, with your eyes tightly shut you won't see much, but there is a lot of beauty to ponder and depth to contemplate.

In "The Prophetic Book of Mormon," Nibley again mentions the Two Ways but also raises the issue of war, which ties well into my previous post:

When the early church began to grow in power and influence and worldliness, the ancient doctrine of the Two Ways was quickly replaced by that of the Two Parties. The former specified that there lies before every mortal, at every moment of his life, a choice between the Way of Light and the Way of Darkness; but the latter doctrine taught that righteousness consisted in belonging to one party (ours), and wickedness in belonging to the other (theirs).

The doctrine of probation is the inescapable choice between Two Ways, everyone having a perfect knowledge of the way he should go. None may commit his decision to the judgement of a faction, a party, a leader, or a nation; none can delegate his free agency to another. "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Exodus 23:2). We cannot protest innocence on the grounds of having been given bad advice, doing what we did for the best interests of a country, doing only what others were doing, or being forced to do it by the need to check and frustrate a nefarious enemy. Those who make those pleas, which have become popular in our day, dismiss any thought of repentance for themselves. Has even one of the many convicted of great crimes in high places of recent years ever admitted moral wrongdoing? Has any ever even hinted at a need for repentance?

It is easy to imagine absolutes, and to think and argue in terms of absolutes, as the theologians have always done: Good and evil, light and darkness, hot and cold, black and white—we know exactly what they are; but in the real world we have rarely experienced the pure thing—our own experience lies between. Yet standing in the middle ground, we are faced with absolute decisions. It is not where we stand, says Ezekiel, that makes us good or evil in God's eyes—no one has reached the top or bottom in this short life—but the direction in which we are facing. There we have only two choices. The road up and the road down are the same, says Heracleitus.⁵⁰ It all depends on the way you are facing. You are taking either the up-road or the down-road; there is no third way, for if you try to compromise and go off at an angle, you will never reach either goal. You are either repenting or not repenting, and that is, according to the scriptures, the whole difference between being righteous or being wicked.

So it is indeed the Way of Light or the Way of Darkness, but when two ways were identified by the churchmen with the two parties by the churchmen—ours and yours—the doctrine was exploited with inexorable logic: Since there are only two sides, one totally evil and the other absolutely good, and I am not totally evil, I must be on God's side, and that puts you on the other side. This doctrine has been worked for many years in Utah as a political ploy. With withering contempt, Isaiah denounces the comfortable logic: It is not for you to say who is on the Lord's side, says the Lord; that is for me to say, and those who most loudly offer their support and cry "Lord! Lord!" are those of whom I must disapprove (Matthew 7:21). "See the foe in countless numbers, marshalled in the ranks of sin," we sing, as if we have already chosen sides and know who the bad people are, because we are on the Lord's side. "Fight for Zion, down with error, flash the sword above the foe, every stroke disarms a foeman," and so on. No error on our side? The point of all such hymns is that it is sin and error that we are fighting, not people guilty of sin and error—for we are all such people, and each one can only confront and overcome sin and error in himself. You cannot tell the righteous from the wicked, the Lord told Joseph Smith, you cannot tell your friends from your enemies. Be still and let me decide the issue! (D&C 10:37).

In his last letter to his son, Mormon considers the battle already lost (Moroni 9:20); sometime before, he had decided that his people had passed the point of no return: "I saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually" (Mormon 2:15). Yet he insists that he must go right on struggling as long as he is alive: "For if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God" (Moroni 9:6). Only after this life are we safe in home. And what was the "labor" he had to perform? Who was this "enemy of all righteousness"? Not the Lamanites! "Notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people" (Moroni 9:9). No, the call was to "labor diligently" with his own people, "notwithstanding their hardness" (Moroni 9:6), even though '[he] fear[s] lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them. For . . . they have lost their love, one towards another; and they thirst after blood and revenge continually" (Moroni 9:4—5). Earlier, though, the leader of the army, Mormon, had laid down his arms and "utterly refused" to march against the Lamanitesbecause his own people were going to battle seeking revenge for the blood of their brethren. And what was wrong with the "Green Beret" scenario? The Lord had strictly forbidden it. And now, in the letter, he tells Moroni that he is actually praying for the "utter destruction" of the Nephites "except the repent" (Moroni 9:22). And they had not repented, and he had given up hope. And yet Mormon died fighting the Lamanites, who were not as wicked as his own people!

Is there no solution to the cruel dilemma? There is, and the Book of Mormon gives it to us in a number of powerful examples. Perhaps the foremost is Ammon, the mightiest man in battle of all the Nephites. He became wholly convinced that there was a better way of handling even the most vicious and determined enemy than by killing them. The Nephites laughed at him, but he went right ahead: he would go on a mission and preach to the Lamanites. You are crazy, they said, there is only one sermon those wretches understand: "Now ye do remember, my brethren, that we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn? For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth, . . . as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language" (Alma 26:23—24). And what could be more sensible? There is only one possible solution. "And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us" (Alma 26:25). But not for Ammon: "We came . . . not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls" (Alma 26:26). Nothing guaranteed, you understand, but anything was better than the other solution. So Ammon recalls how he and his friends went "forth amongst [the people], . . . patient in our sufferings," going "from house to house . . . . We have entered into their houses and taught them . . . in their streets, . . . and we have been cast out, and mocked, and spit upon, and smote upon our cheeks, . . . stoned, . . . bound, . . . and cast into prison" (Alma 26:28—29). What could have been worth paying such a price in inconvenience and humiliation? "We have suffered . . . all this, that perhaps we might be the means of saving some soul" (Alma 26:30). This alone could break the vicious circle of provocation and revenge that was destroying both people.

And Ammon brought thousands to his way of thinking. A whole nation of great warriors laid down their arms and refused to take them up again even at the cost of their lives. When they were moved by great compassion to come to the aid of Helaman and Alma, who had given them protection and who were being desperately sore-pressed by their enemies, those two heroes intervened with powerful preaching that persuaded them not to change their wise decision. The Ammonites became the most righteous, the most saintly people in the Book of Mormon, after a period of agonizing repentance, in which they refer to their former deeds of valor on the battlefield as pure murder, and wonder whether God will ever forgive them. They utterly rejected taking up arms under any circumstances and turned the tide of affairs of both Nephites and Lamanites.

Alma learned the same lesson. After holding the highest and most influential positions in the land, which enabled him to bring pressure to bear on all decisive issues—commander of the armies, chief judge, head of the church—he laid aside all his high offices and did "go forth among his people, . . . that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way," after all his experience, "that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony" (Alma 4:19). With all his vast experience Alma was convinced that he could do more good and actually have more influence as a simple missionary than as head of the state, head of the army, or head of the church! And so he takes his leave, disappearing all alone over the horizon into the midst of hostile and unbelieving people, never to be heard of again. Once the people saw that the great man had lost his official clout, they treated him almost as badly as they did Ammon.

The treatment of war challenges lazy stereotypes and simple assumptions. Good guys? There aren't many. Really, it's just the Lord, and that's Whom we must choose and not fight against any more, because we, like the people of Ammon, have probably been fighting against Him much more than we knew. Our enemies may be more righteous than us. What we call patriotism may be treason. There are few easy answers and simple characterizations except that we must seek the Lord and the One Way that leads to Him, and with His help, bring many of our brethren and apparent enemies to love and serve Him as well.

The Book of Mormon is a deep, sophisticated, and beautiful book, not a shallow fraud. Read it, ponder it, and break past the limiting assumptions you may have made. It's worth study, contemplation, and prayer. It's why I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Horrors of War and the Lack of Divine Intervention: Can You Be So Sure?

The Book of Mormon, from my Latter-day Saint perspective, was written for our day. Ancient prophets who anticipated the challenges of our day edited its contents, selected from the large archives at their disposal, to be of use to us. This may be why so much of the Book of Mormon deals with times of war and conflict, and gives very little attention to the 200 golden years of peace that followed the ministry of the Resurrected Lord in the ancient Americas. Why don't need to know how to cope with peace. Not yet, anyway.

The Book of Mormon also teaches the diversity of human response to the perils and hardships of war. Alma 62:41 tells us of the differing impact of prolonged wars on the Nephite people:

But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.

For some, it draws them closer to God. Others lose their faith and their hope.

My growing testimony of God as a child was partially rooted in the personal experiences of my father in the midst of the horrors of war. He went into the Korean War as a rebellious non-believer, rejecting and ignoring the faith of his LDS farmer parents. Time after time his life was spared when he knew that he should have been killed. Once while eating lunch he had a prompting that he needed to move. He got up and left, and moments later a shell fell where he had been sitting. Terribly, several good men that had been with him were killed. Why was he spared? He did not know, but that prompting was real. He came out of the endless trauma on the front lines with post traumatic stress disorder, and with faith in the God he had previously ignored. He would change his life and go on a mission, and later share his testimony of God and miracles, even in the midst of horror, with me.

I know of good and intelligent people who cannot accept God because of the horrors of war and the alleged lack of divine intervention. If there was a God, why did He not intervene as millions of Jews were being killed in World War II? But are you sure that there was no intervention? Not from God? What about from those seeking to follow God? Did NOBODY intervene? What about the faithful Dutch sisters who risked their lives to hide Jews from the Nazi? Were they not intervening, and seeking to follow God in so doing? What of the faithful Swedes and others who risked their lives to help Jews escape from the Nazis? Were they not intervening and rescuing many?

Mortality, again, is a messy and terrible place where nature and sin takes its toll. God's work and glory is not in sparing us from sufferings here, but in helping us return to Him. But His tender mercies can be found in many cases, even in the midst of horror, of war, of terminal illness, and the depths of grief. He is there and does not leave us alone, though we may spend months in the darkest abyss. Our response must be to turn closer to Him and listen to His promptings more intently, that we may be able to rescue more and spare them from some of the pains of this difficult life. God's intervention depends, in part, on our willingness to follow.

Update, Jan. 4, 2012: The experiences of Latter-day Saints in war provide an interesting counterpoint to the ancient lessons in the Book of Mormon, where good guys don't always win and the hand of God, however evident, doesn't simply prevent suffering as we would wish. Consider, for example, the gripping personal account of Joseph Banks in one of my favorite books, A Distant Prayer by Joseph Banks and Jerry Borrowman (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2001). Below is a brief passage describing his miraculous survival after his plane was accidentally blown up by a fellow B-17 that dropped its bombs on his plane. He was knocked unconscious for a while after the first bomb struck. Then when he came to,

[I]t took me a few moments to figure out what was going on. . . . I found myself in a tubular section of the fuselage that was open on both ends, spinning in the air as we fell towards the ground four miles below. . . .

I was relieved to feel that my parachute was in place, but I couldn't use it because I was stuck against the wall of the fuselage, held there by the centrifugal force. . . . I couldn't get out. I'd try to get up only to be forced back against the wall. In desperation I looked down and saw one of my crewmates lying next to me. I reached out and touched him, but he didn't move. Apparently the explosion had killed him. I knew that I had to muster every ounce of energy I had or I would go down to my death in that section of the aircraft. I tried several times, but to no avail. I was just too weak to pull free, and so the only thing I could do was pray. I asked the Lord to please help me get out somehow. I said it out loud, the words choking in my throat, but He heard me anyway.

Suddenly, as clear and as clam as if she was standing right next to me in the living room of our home, I heard the voice of my wife Afton say, "Joe, look down at your legs and you'll see that there's cable holding them. Pull the cable!" That's all she said. I looked around, but couldn't see anyone. Even though I was stunned, I looked down and sure enough there was a cable lying across my legs. I reached down and pulled it with all my might. At first nothing happened, but then I was suddenly sucked out of the fuselage and started freefalling. I later learned that the cable was attached to two pins that held an escape hatch door. When I pulled them loose, the door separated from the fuselage. Talk about incredible. It probably took a second or two for me to get over the shock of being hit by the wind, but then I realized that I was falling backwards through space.

His survival was miraculous. The tender mercies of God reached out and helped him, just enough, but enough, and he survived. As a result of this miracle, he would be spared from instant death and instead face, uh, months of hell as prisoner in Nazi Germany. Wouldn't a merciful God have just let him die, or spared him from the final fateful mission in the first place, or kept him and the rest of the world out of war? Sure, we can doubt everything and question all the rules of mortality, but he and many others have found the tender mercies of God even in the deepest suffering.

Even in the midst of Satan's ragings on the field of war, one can, if one will, find the occasional but real hand of God, whether it is in the courage of a Dutch woman hiding Jews, or in the miraculous whisper the helped Brother Banks pull the cable that saved his life (the first of many rescuings), or in the voice that told a friend of mine to "Run!" at just the right moment after months of seemingly hopeless prayer when suffering as a prisoner of war, or in the miraculous jamming of a helicopter gun as an LDS serviceman tried to shoot down a fleeing enemy soldier that turned out to be a North Vietnamese woman running with her baby. Is there truly no divine intervention in war?

In yet other scenes of despair, the tender mercies of the Lord can still be found when we are willing to listen to Him and be His instruments, as evidenced by the ministry of Mother Teresa. The more we listen, the more we love, the more we seek to follow Him, the more frequently we will encounter or participate in His tender mercies, though it be in captivity, in the midst of a terminal illness, or surrounded by sorrow unrelieved. We have a work to do now with many souls whose lives and happiness may yet depend on our service and preparation. For what is ahead, we need more faith than ever in that God who gives us life and just enough light to find Him, even in the midst of pain, if we will exercise a particle of faith and offer a touch of gratitude for the blessings we have already received. Ah, yes, gratitude - that is one of the secrets to seeing the hand of God. A topic for another post.

My Latest Teaching Nightmare

I just experienced one of the worst examples of teaching ever, a total teaching nightmare from an experienced and educated teacher who somehow considers himself intelligent and capable. But the teaching was so bad that many class members just walked out and a huge opportunity to feed the Lord’s sheep was completely wasted. In this teaching nightmare, we learn that experience and knowledge is less important than preparation, humility, and sound teaching practices such as using the instructor’s manual. What made this teaching nightmare especially painful and poignant for me was the identity of the teacher: yep, it was me. Jeff Lindsay.

This was a literal nightmare, one that awoke me with pain and introspection just 10 minutes ago. It was exquisitely detailed and realistic, and filled with mistakes that I have made or am entirely capable of making. It wasn’t like some weird alter ego taking over. It was me.

In this nightmare, I was teaching a large group in Gospel Doctrine class. It was in the chapel, and the chapel was packed. Cool--a nice time to enjoy the limelight and shower a group with impressive facts and details. I had just been asked to take over from the regular teacher, so I had little opportunity to prepare (not no, but little). I had not even tried, though. I hadn’t looked at the manual and just assumed that since it was day 1 of the new year, that the lesson would be on First Nephi 1 rather than the real topic in the manual, which I think was an Introduction to the Book of Mormon. No sweat, I could spout off plenty of stuff on the cool literary techniques used in that chapter, including the majestic foreshadowing of the Restoration and the rise of the Book of Mormon that is contained in Lehi’s visions. I could talk about the Egyptian language connection that Nephi makes in verse 2. I could share my wit and wisdom ad nauseum and was happy to do it with such a delightfully large group of eager listeners, ready to be fed from the loquacious Jeff Lindsay.

The class began with some ongoing chaos as the back of the chapel was wide open and people all the way back in the cultural hall behind the chapel could be seen and heard. (Need to pay attention to setting next time.) One of them chimed in, but I couldn’t hear, so I walked to the back of the class and begin shouting down to the gym, recognizing a friend and saying hi, etc., all the while leaving the class behind. The friend made an off-topic comment and I responded with comments as I slowly walked back to the front of the class, my back toward the class while talking. Then I stalled for time as I wondered what to teach, asking some trite questions to get conversation started without having much purpose or plan. The conversation got pretty vigorous as I gathered my thoughts and realized it was time to dig into the text.

At this point, I cut off conversation rather abruptly and explained that now I was going to elucidate on the text, that we had a lot to cover, and so I would be going at high speed. Prepare, dear listeners, for data download from your local sage on the stage. Ah, the scriptures. I didn’t have them with me, but I did have my iPad in my pile of junk at the back of the room, so walked back there to get it,, again causing disruption. As I returned to the front of the class, I noticed that my shirt was still untucked from the activity right before class where I was helping with some service. There was a good excuse for not being neatly dressed, of course. Expecting the class to patiently bear with the great teacher before them, I said, “Well, I need to look more like a teacher so I’ll just work on that a second while you talk. Will someone please explain the 116 pages story and why First Nephi might not have been the first book written in the Book of Mormon?” Then I turned my back to the class while I tucked in my shift and put on my belt, not paying much attention to what else was happening.

OK, now I was set. Class was half over, but I was dressed, had my text, and was finally ready to roll. At this point, half the class got up and left. Probably because they had a plane to catch, I reasoned. I began my data download for the remainder, and noticed that they just weren’t interested, and they soon began walking out. Then it was quickly down to just me and my wife.

At this point the guilt started kicking in. I hadn’t even tried to prepare. I hadn’t prayed for guidance on what to teach and how to teach it to help bless anybody in the class. I was focused on showing off, sadly, rather than serving. I had failed to manage the class, the setting, the discussion, and utterly failed to invite the spirit. There was also no opening prayer. At this point, adding to the excruciating plausibility of the nightmare, I began the process of self-justification. I had very good excuses for each of the mistakes that were made. I was just doing the best I could under difficult circumstances. It wasn’t my fault. Not at all. It never is. And then I woke up. Ouch.

I hope my teaching nightmare might help some of you teachers to avoid your own nightmare–especially the real kind where you don’t find merciful relief by just waking up.

First Nephi 1 and the Language of the Egyptians

The Book of Mormon, according to some critics, is little more than a dull regurgitation of Bible verses. Plagiarism from the Bible and other sources in Joseph's environment is offered as the source for the text. It's interesting though, how little of the text can be "explained" from such a process, and how many of the attacks against the Book of Mormon are based on claiming that the Book of Mormon departs from Bible facts and theology. The opening verses of the Book of Mormon provide an example of this. Nephi's reference to having been schooled in the "language of the Egyptians" shocks some of our critics, who claim that no self-respecting Jew would have anything to do with Egyptian language. The argument continues when we read the Book of Mormon plates were actually written in "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32-34), which again violates the deep-seated antipathy for all things Egyptian that the ancient Jews are alleged to have had, and also violates common sense and scholarship since there is not and never was any such thing as "reformed Egyptian."

These arguments are typified in the anti-Mormon book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by "Dr." John Ankerberg and "Dr. Dr." John Weldon (neither one of which appears to have a legitimate Ph.D.):

"Mormonism has never explained how godly Jews [sic] of A.D. 400 allegedly knew Egyptian, nor why they would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies" (p. 284). "How likely is it that the allegedly Jewish [sic] Nephites would have used the Egyptian language to write their sacred scriptures? Their strong antipathy to the Egyptians and their culture makes this difficult to accept. When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" (pp. 294-95). "[N]o such language [as reformed Egyptian] exists and Egyptologists declare this unequivocally" (p. 294).

Today we know that there was a lot of healthy exchange between ancient Jews and Egypt. Jewish communities existed in Egypt, even a Jewish temple was built, and Jewish people in Egypt in Thebes about 2000 years ago may have even been part of the unfolding Book of Abraham story.

As for the common charges against "reformed Egyptian" in the passage cited above, Ankerberg and Weldon are wrong on several counts--grossly wrong, as shown by Daniel C. Peterson in a noteworthy book review in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 43-45 (available online). Several modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts are well known, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic. "Reformed Egyptian" is clearly an appropriate generic term for those writing systems. However, the "Reformed Egyptian" used by the Nephites is described as a language system unique to them (Mormon 9:32-34), having evolved with their culture over a 1,000-year period. It was apparently used for sacred writings, and should have been almost wholly lost with the destruction of Nephite civilization. How can we expect Egyptologists, with typically no training in Central American matters, to know whether such a language ever existed there? Daniel Paterson gives further analysis (Peterson, pp. 44-45):

[W]ho says that the Nephites wrote in Egyptian? That is certainly one possibility, but several scholars (e.g., Sidney Sperry, John Sorenson, and John Tvedtnes) suggest, rather, that the language of the Nephites was Hebrew, written in Egyptian characters. The practice of representing one language in a script commonly associated with another language is very common. Yiddish, for instance, which is basically a form of German, is routinely written in Hebrew characters. Swahili can be written in either Roman or Arabic scripts. Judeo-Arabic, as written for instance by Moses Maimonides, was medieval Hebrew written with Arabic letters. In fact, almost any textbook of colloquial Arabic or Chinese or Japanese aimed at Western learners will use the Latin alphabet to represent those languages. Language and script are essentially independent. Turkish, which used to be written in a modified Arabic script, has been written in Latin letters in the Republic of Turkey since the 1920s. However, in the areas of the old Soviet Union, it is now usually written in Cyrillic (Russian) characters. Likewise, perhaps the major difference between Hindi and Urdu may be the mere fact that the former uses a Devanagari writing system, while the latter uses a modified Arabo-Persian script. So this phenomenon of changing the script with which one writes a language is by no means unusual.

But we need not speak only in theoretical terms. We have, in fact, an ancient illustration that comes remarkably close to the Book of Mormon itself. Papyrus Amherst 63, a text from the second century B.C., seems to offer something very much like "reformed Egyptian." It is a papyrus scroll that contains Aramaic texts written in a demotic Egyptian script. (Aramaic is a language closely related to Hebrew. of the Old Testament book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, and it was the spoken language of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, however, a Christian form of the language, Syriac, came to use an alphabet related to Arabic--again illustrating the independence of script and tongue.) Interestingly, one of the items found on Papyrus Amherst 63 is a version of Psalm 20:2-6. Ankerberg and Weldon wonder why "godly Jews [sic] . . . would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies." Perhaps they should ask them some day, for godly Jews most certainly did (see "Language and Script in the Book of Mormon," Insights: An Ancient Window, March 1992, p. 2).

By the way, Peterson gives a footnote on Ankerberg's claim about Jews exclusively using Hebrew:

The statement "When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" is quite an astonishing display of ignorance. Since the Egyptian language has been dead for centuries, it is hardly remarkable that modern Jews do not read the Bible in Egyptian. On the other hand, "the first and most important rendering [of the Old Testament] from Hebrew [into Arabic] was made by Sa'adya the Ga'on, a learned Jew who was head of the rabbinic school at Sura in Babylon (died 942)" (George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [hereafter IDB], 4 vols. and supplement [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962-1976], 4:758b). Thus, Jews have indeed translated the Bible into "Arabic, the language of their historic enemies." They also have translated it into the language of their "historic enemies" the Greeks (IDB 4:750b on the Septuagint) and Aramaeans (IDB 1:185-93; 4:749-50, on the Aramaic Targums).

More information and relevant examples are given in the article, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters" by John A. Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1996, and also the excellent FARMS article "Reformed Egyptian" by William Hamblin. And for fun, be sure to see the site, Ancient Scripts--a marvelous collection of information on scripts of the ancient world.

Of Crocodiles and Kings

In Lewis Carroll's delightful poem, "The Walrus and The Carpenter" from Through the Looking-Glass, the loquacious Walrus and Carpenter talk a group of foolish young oysters out of safe waters into their grasp. Though professing kindness toward the oysters, they end up all being eaten. Some have suggested that the poem was meant as a critique of Christianity, with the Carpenter representing Christ, the (apparent) son of a carpenter, but good evidence suggests this was not intended by Carroll (see Wikipedia on this poem). As for reading unintended meaning into the poem, I think a slightly better case can be made (bear with me now) for the Walrus being a loving anti-Mormon minister leading young and inexperienced Mormons away from safety as they speak of impressive sounding topics aimed at capturing prey.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

But instead of cabbages and kings, today let us consider anti-Mormon objections to crocodiles and kings. More specifically, let us consider the charge made against Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Abraham and his interpretation of the crocodile figure in Facsimile 1 which Joseph identifies as the "idolatrous god of Pharaoh." One has merely to read Wikipedia's article on Sobek, the ancient Egyptian crocodile god, to realize that the crocodile could symbolize many things other than what Joseph said. So Joseph was wrong and we should leave the Church, right?

First, I hope that your relationship with God, Christ, and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is deep enough that you won't fall apart in instances where you think or are sure that Joseph Smith or any other mortal made mistakes. I hope an apparent error, contradiction, or even major blunder will not obviate the majesty of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration, nor wipe out the reality of the Priesthood, the power and beauty of the LDS Temple experience, and the monumental blessings we have in the restored knowledge about the plan of salvation, the nature of God, our relationship to God, the purpose of life, etc. But that said, it is fair to wonder if Joseph got things right in the Book of Abraham. The answer is that we can see that he produced some astonishing bulls eyes beyond what anyone could have produced in his day, while also giving us some real puzzles and question marks where we don't have a good answer. Yes, there are apparent problems, as I note in my LDSFAQ materials on the facsimiles (e.g., Part 2 of my LDSFAQ pages on the Book of Abraham). But regarding crocodiles and kings, we do have some information that may help you in understanding that the critics aren't completely right in their attacks regarding Facsimile 1. In fact, Facsimile 1 offers some valuable evidence in favor of Joseph's inspired insights into the ancient documents he used in producing the Book of Abraham.

For information on crocodiles and kings, Kerry Shirts has written a terrific article, "Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as 'Idolatrous god of Pharaoh'" over at The Backyard Professor. Enjoy. But if you prefer non-LDS sources, here is one (easy online reading, not a scholarly work): J. Hill, "Sobek," 2010, at AncientEgyptOnline.com. An excerpt follows:

Sobek first appeared in the Old Kingdom as the son of Neith with the epithet "The Rager". According to some myths his father was Set, the god of thunder and chaos, but he also had a close association with Horus. He was paired with a number of goddesses in different locations, most notably Hathor, Renenutet, Heqet and Taweret, and was sometimes referred to as the father of Khonsu, Horus or Khnum.

In some areas, a tame crocodile was worshiped as the earthly embodiment of Sobek himself, while in other places crocodiles were reviled, hunted and killed. It seems likely that Sobek began as a dark god who had to be appeased, but that his protective qualities and his strength were valued when they were used in defence of the Pharaoh and the people. He could protect the justified dead in the netherworld, restoring their sight and reviving their senses. Because of his ferocity, he was considered to be the patron of the army.

Sobek was sometimes considered to be an aspect of Horus because Horus took the form of a crocodile to retrieve the parts of Osiris' body which were lost in the Nile. Yet Sobek was also thought to have assisted Isis when she gave birth to Horus. He also rescued the four mummiform sons of Horus (Imsety the human headed protector of the liver, Hapy the baboon headed protector of the lungs, Duamutef the jackal headed protector of the stomach and Qebehsenuef the falcon headed protector of the intestines) by gathering them in a net when they rose from the waters in a lotus bloom. However, he was also associated with Set, the enemy of Osiris. He was also worshiped as the manifestation of Amun-Re and was often depicted wearing either the headdress of Amun or the sun disk of Ra.

The strength and speed of the crocodile was thought to be symbolic of the power of the Pharaoh, and the word "sovereign" was written with the hieroglyph of a crocodile. It was thought that Sobek could protect the Pharaoh from dark magic. During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties, the cult of Sobek was given particular prominence and a number of rulers incorporated him in their coronation names.

If Sobek was actually a god in the religion of Pharaoh and associated with the protection of Pharaoh, could there be some merit in Joseph Smith's characterization of the crocodile as the idolatrous god of Pharaoh? Just musing here--I think it's always better to muse than to fall apart and leave the church, just my advice.

You might also be interested in the following news item (now old, from 1996) from the Maxwell Institute regarding archaeological evidence for the plausibility of Egyptian influence, indeed, for the worship of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek, in ancient Mesopotamia in Abraham's time. Interesting, eh? More to muse upon.

The Crocodile God of Pharaoh in Mesopotamia
In the famous anti-Mormon crusade against the book of Abraham in 1912, one of the individuals involved asserted that the book of Abraham could not be true because "Chaldeans and Egyptians are hopelessly mixed together, although as dissimilar and remote in language, religion and locality as are American and Chinese."[1] This exaggerated opinion was seconded by the Reverend Samuel A. B. Mercer: "I challenge any intelligent person who knows Chaldean and Egyptian history to read the first chapter of said book [of Abraham] without experiencing the same feeling. Chaldea and Egypt are hopelessly mixed. . . . No one can believe that Abraham made such a blunder in his geography."[2]

Though in Mercer's day scholars studied both Mesopotamian and Egyptian disciplines, they knew nothing of the interactions between the two cultures. In 1971, however, the Egyptologist Georges Posener completed a lengthy and detailed survey of the available evidence and concluded that cultural interactions and interference of Egypt in the area of Syria and Palestine were extensive, even though the precise nature of the "domination by the pharaohs" during the Middle Kingdom "still eludes us; fifty years ago it was barely suspected."[3] Yet some critics who clearly should know better are still using the same arguments as Mercer and Peters.[4]

Confirmation of the connections that Posener discovered can be seen in recent archaeological evidence found at Ebla. The cult of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek flourished during the Middle Kingdom (2040-1640 B.C.), as is attested by royal and personal names during the twelfth (1991-1783 B.C.) and thirteenth dynasties (1783-1600? B.C.),[5] temple building,[6] and commemorative scarabs.[7]

In the archaeological site of Ebla in Syria, also known as Tell Mardikh, were found several images of Egyptian gods stylistically datable to the Middle Kingdom, and dated by the archaeologists to MB II (1750-1650 B.C.),[8] the time period to which most scholars who believe Abraham existed date him. Among these gods were Osiris, Hathor, Horus, and Sobek. This provides concrete archaeological evidence that Egyptian cults existed in Mesopotamia, Abraham's homeland. Thus the book of Abraham accurately describes an aspect of the ancient world about which Joseph Smith could have known little or nothing.

Notes

1. John Peters, letter to Franklin S. Spalding, in F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator (1912), 28.

2. Samuel A. B. Mercer, "Joseph Smith As an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian," Utah Survey 1/1 (1913): 33.

3. Georges Posener, "Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780 B.C.," Cambridge Ancient History, 1.2:550, 549.

4. Stephen E. Thompson, "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham," Dialogue 28/1 (Spring 1995): 156-60.

5. Jürgen von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (1984), 67-73, 159-61, 200-11, 220-2; William Kelly Simpson, Papyrus Reisner I (1963), 89-90; cf. Simpson, Papyrus Reisner II (1965), 59, and Papyrus Reisner IV (1986), 41-2; and William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum (1955), 23-4.

6. Dieter Arnold, Die Tempel Ägyptens (1992), 97-8, 186.

7. Bulletin de l'Insitut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 56 (1957): 81-95; and 63 (1965): 197-200.

8. Paolo Matthiae, Frances Pinnock, and Gabriella Scandone Matthiae, Ebla (1995), 458-60, 476-7.

So what does it all mean? Joseph's interpretation of the crocodile, long held to be ridiculous by critics, has a rather strong air of plausibility to it. That plausibility persists not only for the general idea that the crocodile was an ancient Egyptian god soometime, somewhere, but that it was a god associated with royal power and the protection of Pharaoh, and that this god was known and worshiped not only during Abraham's time, but also in the land where Abraham lived and where the Book of Abraham takes place. So, all told, I'd say this aspect of Facsimile 1 and the Book of Abraham is not a solid reason to reject Joseph Smith. It might have looked that way until a few years ago, though. Patience and faith---we're never going to lose the need for both of these attributes when it comes to religion.

Now as to whether pigs have wings or not, I'll save that discussion for some other day. Just be patient. But no, the Book of Mormon does not say pigs have wings, nor do BYU scholars insist that the horse of the Book of Mormon was a flying pig. Just to make that clear.

The Unintended Consequences of Giving Money

Money is one of the most welcome gifts and one of the most useful things to give people, especially those who need it. But giving money sometimes fails to help and can make things worse, a problem that requires givers ultimately to seek inspiration in knowing how to really help. I learned this lesson (once again) when my wife and I came up with what I thought was a brilliant plan to help a Chinese woman that we respect and like. She works here in Shanghai while her teenage son is in her home province, a common and sad situation for Chinese people trying to provide for their families. (There are rules here that often make it hard for a migrant worker to bring one's family to where the jobs are.) We learned her son was coming to town for a weekend, and we wanted to help her spend some memorable, quality time with him. Our idea was to buy tickets to the Shanghai circus for both of them so they could have a positive mother-son experience enjoying something they probably could not normally afford. My wife, worried about how things might go wrong, was smart enough to ask if her son was bringing any friends, and when she learned that he was probably coming with a friend, she bought 3 tickets so all three could go together. She added a little extra for transportation and snacks.

After buying three good tickets for her, we looked forward to hearing her report of the circus visit when we had them over to visit the following day. Unfortunately, we learned that her son went to the circus with his two friends while mom selflessly stayed home that night. The money we contributed resulted in separating mother and son during a major part of the brief time he was in town--exactly the opposite of what we intended. That's what often happens when we rely on money as a simple solution to the complex problems people have.

Sometimes a little money can work wonders. But don't expect it to help without care, planning, and inspiration--and even then it may disappoint. Unintended consequences are far too common.

Of course, there is more to this story and more that we still don't understand. Maybe things worked out optimally after all. Perhaps the mom, who was somewhat ill that weekend, really needed the break and was happy to just be the heroine who helped her son and friends enjoy the circus while she got some rest. Maybe the circus tickets resulted in more important ends than our unrealized intended consequences. Or maybe it was just a foolish waste of money and time. Maybe I'll have more insight after I take my wife to Shanghai's Circus World later this week as I plan to (if things work out). But the boys really enjoyed it.

Things never turn out just the way we imagine them, and sometimes the unintended consequences aren't so bad. But money per se is usually not the answer. The fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to most of the challenges and pains of life. But its scope includes helping one another here and now with temporal matters, and sometimes that takes money. Thank God for the inspired and inspiring LDS welfare program and the humanitarian programs the Church runs, and thanks to all of you who have learned to carefully and prayerfully consider the best way to use your resources to help those around you. Keep it up, even if the results are disappointing sometimes.

May we all seek to make our efforts bring about more lasting good with the Lord's help.

Don't Begrudge Other Folks Their Miracles

"Do Big Tragedies Negate Small Miracles?" was a post from 2009 that I'd like to mention again today. It deals with the discrepancy between some people testifying of small miracles when, for example, trying to find lost car keys or a stray cat, while tragedy and death sweeps the earth. For someone whose car was just stolen or wrecked while engaged in Church service, hearing someone else bear testimony of God's mercy in finding lost car keys can easily raise all sorts of questions. For the parent whose child has died, hearing others testify of miraculous healing of a child can cause the heart to cry out, "Why not my child?"

Sadly, we live in a mortal world filled with pain and death. Occasionally, though, there is relief, even miraculous relief. The miracles are the exceptions. Normally, when believers are thrown into the fire, they burn and die (as Alma and Amulek witnessed to their horror in the Book of Mormon, and as the history of Christianity also testifies). But sometimes, so rarely, we have cases like Shadrach and company in the Book of Daniel who miraculously survive the furnace. Be glad for them and their posterity, not angry at the apparent unfairness of God's miracles. Small or large, miracles are not normal and are not meant to be distributed uniformly, on demand, according to our sense of fairness. When they occur, let us not feel grief that we were not the rare recipients. Let us not belittle those who received the miracle nor condemn ourselves for not receiving it.

While it's easy to grow weary of people testifying of God's power in finding little things, there can be divine purposes achieved in those little events. My own testimony of God's reality began with a 6-year-old child's prayer seeking God's help to find the precious plastic magnifying glass that Dad had loaned to me. I had looked everywhere without success and needed it. My Dad needed that 5-cent toy for his work, I thought, and I had lost it. After praying as my mother had taught me, I got up off my knees and made a beeline for a middle drawer in my dresser. I moved something and there it was. That child felt that God has answered a prayer miraculously, and was the beginning of many personal experiences in prayer. It was also the beginning of many personal experiences with lost objects where things far more precious and more worthy of prayer were not recovered, including a tragic loss last week with severe and profound implications that I can't get into here. But it would be easy for me, suffering from the loss of something desperately needed, to wonder how God could not help me find something much more important when a worthless magnifying glass is "miraculously" restored for a kid.

I'm going to have to trust God on this one, and remember the basic rules of mortality here: this is a tough place where we are all going to face pain, loss, and death. Some sooner, some later. And among these basic rules is the corollary that when something cannot be found, it's lost and probably isn't coming back. If someone does get an exception to that, be glad for them. But don't get bitter or upset that it wasn't you.

Don't begrudge folks their miracles. Even if it involves lost car keys or cats.

"No Justice, No Faith"? The Danger of Misunderstanding God's Justice

Today I was at Orlando's most wonderful and magical attraction, the Orlando Temple. In many ways much better than that other Magic Kingdom place out here where the lines are just far too long. While at the Temple, I was contemplating the issue of justice as I considered the concerns of a very intelligent new former-Mormon friend that I met recently. He raised some fair points in describing the logical concerns he had developed about the existence of God and the man-made nature of religion and scripture. Among the many points he made in our conversation, he raised the issue that God is supposed to be just and "no respecter of persons," yet there is such an obvious lack of justice in the world and such disparity in how God appears to answer prayers, if at all. He cited the commonly raised objection about LDS testimonies thanking God for help in finding their car keys, an apparently trivial application of divine power, while good people suffer abuse and death at the hands of evildoers or suffer painful disease and trauma in spite of seemingly unanswered prayers they and others offer. It all seems so unfair and random. Yes, I have to agree: this mortal world is filled with injustice, unfairness, and randomness. But there is a God who not only exists but who loves us. However, nowhere is it written that we will find fairness and equality in this life.

The scriptures speak of God's justice in terms of how he judges us in the end. Romans 2 tells us He is "no respecter of persons" in how he judges us according to our works and brings His children back into His presence--that's the final act, not the current scene here in this world of death and sin where we are all going to suffer and die as part of His great plan. His fairness is manifest not in being born into equal circumstances here, but in how He, in the end, ensures that all who will hear the Gospel message will have that chance, regardless of when and where they were born in mortality. His goodness is not immediately evident when we suffer, but in His victory over death and pain, leading to that moment when Christ will wipe away all our tears.

Here in mortality, our immediate temporal concerns are HUGE. They are all we know. How can God accept our suffering and loss while still claiming to be just and to love us? Losing our sight, for example, is a traumatic personal loss that will limit us for the rest of our lives. How could God let this happen to us, or to an innocent young child born to prayerful parents pleading for the child's health? From our vantage point, it is so unkind. Is there a purpose in it? Sometimes, at least, yes.

As I pondered justice in the Orlando Temple this morning, I opened the Bible to John 9 and read of a beautiful case of injustice. Jesus and His disciples walked past a man who was born blind. His disciples, understanding that there was a premortal existence before this life, wondered if the man had sinned there and was thus born blind, or, instead, if his parents had sinned to deserve that impairment in their son. Neither guess was correct. Christ explained that the man was born blind that the works of God might be made manifest. Christ then made some mud and placed it on the mans' eyes and instructed him to go to a pool of water to wash it off, whereupon his eyes were healed. (People sometimes wonder why Christ used such a strange method to perform the miracle instead of simply causing the eyes to be instantly healed. I see the application and removal of mud as symbolic of how Christ wipes away the mortal mire that limits our vision.)

Consider the man's lot before Christ worked the miracle. After he was healed, we read in John 9:8: "The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?" The blindness that this man suffered, apparently as a direct result of God's will for him, reduced him to a life of poverty. He "sat and begged." Though he was apparently a good man raised in a family of believers, he suffered from an affliction since birth that reduced him to begging for a living, a state that persisted year after year. Others could see and earn money. He could not. Ir wasn't his fault, but there was nothing he could do about it. It seemed to be a senseless, unnecessary burden that destroyed his potential in mortality.

His difficult situation changed suddenly, and he quickly had a chance to show us what kind of man he was. This poor beggar turns out to have been a man of courage and integrity with a quick wit. I love his use of sarcasm when the bitter and powerful leaders of his religious community are repeatedly inquiring about their enemy, Jesus, who had performed this miracle. "He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?" He turns the knife. Hilarious. And he boldly stands before those bitter, nasty souls who soon cast him out from their community because he dares stand as a witness for Christ.

What characteristic tenderness Christ shows after the miracle as he comes to visit the man:

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Since birth, that good man suffered from blindness--an unfair affliction. He had to beg for a living. Blindness and many other physical and mental afflictions burden millions of souls around the today. There may be many noble souls, perhaps far greater and closer to God than any of us, whose magnificent character is hidden by the guise of a beggar. In the beggar, the homeless person, the outcast, the prisoner, or the victim, can we see the son or daughter of God waiting for the touch of Christ's power to help reveal who they really are? The power that heals and reveals may not dramatically touch them in this life, but we are assured that Christ will wipe away all the tears of those who follow Him. Most wonderfully most expressive of God's true justice and fairness, He will wipe away all the tears even of those who never heard of Christ in this life but, when finally given the chance to hear the Gospel message it, accept it and Jesus as their Savior. God's justice comes in the end, when all will recognize that they have been treated and judged fairly, though out individual circumstances in mortality vary wildly. It's a rough world, sometimes savage and brutal due to the workings of human agency, Satan's assaults, the workings of chance, and the very nature of mortality where pain and death are essential parts of our journey. Not to mention the custom-engineered trials and afflictions that God may plan for us to achieve higher ends, eventually, as He did with the blind man in John 9.

Nobody could see any justice or fairness in the sorry lot of that blind man, but what a sacred purpose was behind it all. For all of us, if we will not abandon God, we will find that the new vision He gives us with one gentle touch after we have endured will wash away all doubt of His goodness and love for us and help us see and discover things we had never imagined, including new insights into who we actually are and who we can become. What greatness He revealed in the blind man's soul, and how kindly He lead that good man back to Him.

There may often be little or no justice here in mortality, but this does not weaken the need for faith. God is real and He does answer prayers. Not often the way we want it, but He does answer and still works miracles today as in days of old.

Greetings From China: Photo Essay, Part 18

Here are some mostly recent photos from China, mostly Shanghai and mostly walking distance from my home. This collection is part 18 of 18. I'm starting at the end. Part 17 will come later. Then Part 16, and so forth. Sort of a first shall be last and last shall be first scriptural kind of thing.

Did I ever tell you that I really love China? That it's an incredible privilege to be here, to work here, to make friends here, and to relish the culture, the people, the food, the beauty and the increasing freedom that is found here? China also includes Hong Kong, sort of, where there is wide-open religious freedom and a Temple of the Lord. Wonderful! But it's surprising how much religious freedom there is in mainland China also, though with restraints that we respect. It's Christmas season here and guess what? They play real Christmas music, religious Christmas music honoring Jesus, in stores and elevators I have been in recently. Try doing that in the United States without being sued to death! Greetings from the surprisingly free and beautiful nation of China. (Click to enlarge.)

I love the markets of China and the people who make them possible. Here is the famous little antiques market of Dong Tai street in Shanghai, just barely a block from where I live. What wonderful friends we've made there.

This is a painting we just bought for our home from an artist friend on the Dong Tai antiques market street. He does custom work if you'd like to have yourself or a loved on painted. Very gifted artist, surprisingly affordable. And such a sweet family. We have four of his paintings in our home.

The Role of Obedience and Endurance: Peter's Perspective

It's almost an article of faith in anti-Mormon literature that the LDS Articles of Faith rule us out as Christians. After all, they call for that most unchristian, unbiblical attribute, a dirty word in some religious lexicons: obedience. I'm always puzzled over the instant rejection, though, since I think that virtually every time "obedience" (or forms thereof) is used in the Bible, it's a clean word, almost always in the context of urging us to obey God and keep His commandments.

Obedience is part of how we follow Jesus and most fully access, not earn, the grace Christ offers us through the conditions of the covenant of mercy His Atonement provides. But today, lingo like "keep the commandments" (search here) and "obey" (search here) is the stuff of non-Christian cults in the new-fangled post-biblical framework that self-styled cult-bashers call "historic Christianity." Yes, of course you've heard me discuss this before, citing things like the oft-neglected words of Christ on the topic (as in "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" in Matt. 19:17). But today I want to offer a further perspective from Peter regarding the purpose of obedience and the role that it plays in God's work with us.

Why obedience? And why endure in obedience unto the end? This makes the most sense when we realize that God is interested not just in declaring us to be saved, but in shaping us and nurturing us to more fully become His sons and daughters, beings who, as Peter describes in 2 Peter 1:4-10, eventually put on the "divine nature" as they pursue step after step in the progression of faith that eventually leads to having one's "calling and election made sure."

In the opening lines of his first book (1 Peter), Peter provides information about obedience and endurance that help set the tone for much of his writings. 1 Peter 1 is what I'd like to emphasize today. Read it with the issue of grace, obedience, and enduring to the end in mind. Excerpts follow with my emphasis added:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls....

13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear....

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Peter calls for us to be faithful and obedient, enduring to the end, even through difficult trials of our faith, in our hope for salvation. Why? Not just because will be judged by our works (of course, the works don't save us and it's Christ who gives us strength to follow Him and obey), but more importantly, I think, because of who God wants us to become. He want us not just to say and believe, but to become. Become what? Holy. Holy like God. That is the ultimate journey, and it requires the steady growth and transformations that come, through God's power, when we endure trials of faith, when we choose to repent and obey Him, when we keep the commandments with faithful obedience. This is the journey that brings us to the destination God has in store. This why why Peter writes, "ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." Obedience refines and purifies and helps us become more like our Father in Heaven. It's not a dirty word after all. It's a holy word. Wish more folks would recognize that basic biblical truth and not fall for all those new-fangled philosophies.

Lessons from Fleas

In sacrament meeting recently, we heard a talk on gratitude that quoted from the inspiring story of Corrie Ten Boom in her book, The Hiding Place. The story involves Christian women learning to find gratitude in their hearts in the midst of great trials. Corrie and her sister Betsie were suffering in a Nazi prison camp for the crime of saving the lives of Jews by hiding them in their home in Holland. For help in shortening the story, I'll quote a handy summary from KHouse.org:

Corrie writes:

"Barracks 8 was in the quarantine compound. Next to us--perhaps as a deliberate warning to newcomers--were located the punishment barracks. From there, all day long and often into the night, came the sounds of hell itself. They were not the sounds of anger, or of any human emotion, but of a cruelty altogether detached: blows landing in regular rhythm, screams keeping pace. We would stand in our ten-deep ranks with our hands trembling at our sides, longing to jam them against our ears, to make the sounds stop.

"It grew harder and harder. Even within these four walls there was too much misery, too much seemingly pointless suffering. Every day something else failed to make sense, something else grew too heavy."

Yet, in the midst of the suffering, the women prisoners around Corrie and Betsie found comfort in the little Bible studies they held in the barracks. Corrie writes they gathered around the Bible "like waifs clustered around a blazing fire…The blacker the night around us grew, the brighter and truer and more beautiful burned the Word of God."

When they were moved to Barracks 28, Corrie was horrified by the fact that their reeking, straw-bed platforms swarmed with fleas. How could they live in such a place?

It was Betsie who discovered God's answer:

"'"Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus." That's it, Corrie! That's His answer. "Give thanks in all circumstances!" That's what we can do. We can start right now to thank God for every single thing about this new barracks!'

"I stared at her; then around me at the dark, foul-aired room…"

They thanked God for the fact they were together. They thanked God they had a Bible. They even thanked God for the horrible crowds of prisoners, that more people would be able to hear God's Word. And then, Betsie thanked God for the fleas.

"The fleas! This was too much. 'Betsie, there's no way even God can make me grateful for a flea.'

"'"Give thanks in all circumstances,"' she quoted. 'It doesn't say, "in pleasant circumstances." Fleas are part of this place where God has put us.'

"And so we stood between tiers of bunks and gave thanks for fleas. But this time I was sure Betsie was wrong."

It turned out that Betsie was not wrong; the fleas were a nuisance, but a blessing after all. The women were able to have Bible studies in the barracks with a great deal of freedom, never bothered by supervisors coming in and harassing them. They finally discovered that it was the fleas that kept those supervisors out.

Through those fleas, God protected the women from abuse and harassment. Dozens of desperate women were free to hear the comforting, hope-giving Word of God. Through those fleas, God protected the women from much worse things and made sure they had their deepest, truest needs met.

This life is a journey in which God wishes to refine us and transform us through that which we experience, even that which we must suffer. If we recognize that God's love can be found even in the darkest trials and that there is a purpose in enduring whatever trials we have, we can find hope and even gratitude in the darkest moments. That is easy for me to say, but thank God for those Christian women who showed us with their lives what it means to love God and follow Him in faith to the end, no matter what, in gratitude and strength.