The Restoration Is On-Going, and We Can Be Restorers or Destroyers

According to Jacob 5, the tree will continue to be pruned right up until the end - and I see that as a pruning of incorrect traditions and misunderstandings, not as a pruning of people. It doesn't make sense to me, in the actual context of the allegory, to make it about people. Therefore, anyone who assists in proper pruning, undertaken at a pace and in a way that doesn't damage the root, is part of the Restoration, in my opinion.

Pruning to maximize production can be tricky, as anyone who has lived in orchard country knows (or even in application to business organizations), so it generally can't be done through radical surgery or, often, by removing every bit of infection all at once. "Here a little, there a little" works far better in many cases. There have been a few times in Church history when radical surgery was necessary (ending polygamy and the Priesthood ban, for example), but there was extensive collateral damage, as well. It was necessary, but risk management includes minimizing damage and maximizing recovery - not just eliminating infection.

That is a long-winded way of saying I believe many who agitate, to varying degrees, are part of the Restoration - while others (those who insist on too radical changes too quickly) are part of the Destruction. I can't always know exactly where that line lies, so I tend to err on the side of allowance and care - but if I believe someone is firmly over the line, I don't mind the pruning shears being taken away from them. Above all else, I believe in pruning my own tree to the best of my ability and not insisting on pruning others' trees for them or being in charge of the overall pruning of the orchard.

I'll express my views to the directors and managers of the orchard, but I won't try to grab their shears and start pruning for them.

Using the Book of Mormon: Personal Soapbox Alert

Last Monday, I wrote a post about how we often misunderstand the Book of Mormon.  This post is a follow-up of that one.  

I have no problem with the statement that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. I just accept that characterization for a different reason than most people.   

When it was used as the keystone ("Here is Moroni's promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you've done that, we'll start teaching doctrine."), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using it as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experiences, missionary work flourished the least.

I know people who were converted to Mormonism through the Bible, and nearly every unique aspect of Mormon theology is grounded more in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon (which far too few members realize), but I know so many people whose subsequent reading of the Bible was influenced by what they read in the Book of Mormon - who "gained a testimony" of the Book of Mormon then had totally new insights as they read the Bible. After all, the Book of Mormon says in at least two places that it's primary intent is to convince people to believe the Bible - and, in my opinion, that means believing what the Bible actually teaches, not what centuries of theologians and religionists have said it teaches.

I believe the Book of Mormon does what it was intended to do very well, when used as it says it should be used - not for every single person, since nothing works for everyone, but generally. I think we as a people might understand that better if we actually used it "correctly" as a "correcting tool" - again, not with regard to doctrine but rather with regard to "spiritual orientation" or the opening of "spiritual eyes" to possibilities that have been hidden by centuries of denial.

To say it in a slightly different way:

In more than once passage, the Book of Mormon itself says that, ultimately, the Bible is more important than the Book of Mormon. I believe that message is loud and clear in the Book of Mormon - but it doesn't contradict the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The Book of Mormon can be the keystone while allowing the Bible to be the most important theological treatise (the record "held up" by the Book of Mormon) - which is how I would classify the two if I was trying to be concise. In other words, the Book of Mormon says as much about the worth of the Bible as it does about the role of Joseph Smith - although it does address that role, obviously.

The core intent of the Book of Mormon is to teach and testify of Jesus, the Christ. I don't think there is any reasonable dispute about that. However, I believe that this goal is accomplished differently than too many members realize.

The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5) is laid out in such a way that people who read it will believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) - and that such a recognition will allow them then to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the "power of godliness" really entails). In other words, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with "new spiritual eyes" through which the "mists of darkness" caused by centuries of Christian apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.

To say it differently, much of the grand theology of the Bible has crashed and burned since the Bible was written and canonized (and even before then). The "keystone" allows that theology to be rebuilt firmly; it "holds it together" not because of the words themselves contained in it but because of the process generated by the concept it teaches of a Father God who actually will communicate with his children and, subsequently, when re-reading the Bible, teach them of their "divine worth".

A core failure of our current approach at the local membership level, in my opinion, is both a lack of understanding of the Book of Mormon's role in that process (and what the Book of Mormon actually says) and a lack of understanding of the Bible and what it actually teaches. When we short-circuited and altered how we study, view and use the Book of Mormon, I believe we started losing the former respect for and understanding of the Bible that LDS members used to have.

I Wish We Understood the Book of Mormon Better

A church member said the following a while ago, and my response is below what he said: 

The Book of Mormon claims to be the word of God - every sentence, every verse, every page.

No, it doesn't make that claim - and, in fact, it says exactly the opposite. 

It claims to be a tiny abridgment complied exclusively by four people (Ether, Nephi, Mormon and Moroni) from a massive collection of various records written by mortal, imperfect people - with mistakes and "deletions" admitted openly and directly throughout the text. ("What I've chosen to include is not even a hundredth of what I could have chosen," means lots of stuff was deleted from the other records, if you will, in the writing of the summary.) It's not the Mormon version of the inerrant Bible - even though that's how many members view it.

This is a great example of what I've said for many years - that the biggest problem in the LDS Church right now with regard to the Book of Mormon is that many members (including many leaders at all levels) don't understand what the Book of Mormon itself actually says in a lot of cases. (I'm not saying I do totally, but I've spent lots of time and effort trying to parse and understand it - and it simply doesn't say or teach LOTS of things many members think it does.)

So, at the most fundamental level, I'm much more concerned about the church membership understanding what the Book of Mormon actually says than about exactly how individual members view it.  I believe it is the word of God; I just don't believe that means it is the inerrant (mistake-free) word of God, straight from his mouth to prophets to the page.  That isn't what it claims within its pages. 

Book of Mormon Criticism: Anachronisms Aren't an Issue for Me

As a former history teacher, and out of personal curiosity, I've read a lot criticisms of written claims that have been dismissed by later discoveries. The criticisms made sense in their time, but they faded into irrelevance in the light of future knowledge.  It really is incredible how common such misguided criticisms have been and still are.

That doesn't prove anything one way or another with regard to the Book of Mormon and people's criticisms of it over time, but it is fascinating how many claims of anachronisms in that book have dropped away in light of later discoveries. The best example probably is the elephant reference, since it occurs only in the Book of Ether, the most ancient record in the book (and we have no clue what time period that covers, really) - and since there are American Indian references to elephant-like creatures that would fit the general time frame.

Language (specific vocabulary words) is another non-starter for me, since "translations" always depend on the vocabulary of the translator and, almost always, include approximations for words that don't translate perfectly. (The existence of non-English, non-translated words in the Book of Mormon actually is a good argument for a "translation process" of some kind.) Although it often is a criticism, the use of "adieu" is a perfect example of vocabulary precision in the Book of Mormon, since the root meaning of that word fits perfectly (and I mean perfectly) the context of the passage - far better than any single English word would. I came to that conclusion on my own, because I wanted to see why in the world Joseph would have used that word - or, from a traditional perspective, why that word would have appeared to him. I looked it up in a dictionary, saw the original, complex meaning, saw where it was used and, just as importantly, where it was not used, and realized it was the perfect choice for the context.

There are legitimate concerns about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, including the way that King James Bible passages and phrases occur in it, but I've yet to see a historical anachronism that I believe is a serious threat.

Some Complaints about the Book of Mormon Are Stupid

The following is perhaps the best example of how far some people will go to criticize the Book of Mormon: 

"The Book of Mormon is made up because Joseph Smith wrote that Jesus was born in Jerusalem."  

The early books in the Book of Mormon talk of "the land of Jerusalem". Likewise, I lived in a suburb of Cincinnati for years, but we often told people we lived in Cincinnati. I was raised 20 miles south of Provo and 60 miles south of SLC, but I often told people in college that was born and raised "in the Salt Lake City area" - and I often tell people I lived in Boston while I attended college there, even though I lived in Medford, Somerville and Woburn (and actually attended college in Cambridge). If someone is speaking to a group of people who have never been to the region being described, it is totally natural for them to use a nearby, well-known city as an approximate substitute.

Joseph Smith knew that Jesus was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem, so there is no logical reason for him to have written Jerusalem if it meant within the actual city limits.

This is one case where I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the passage in question, and I actually believe it bolsters authenticity more than it decreases authenticity (or, at least, is completely neutral). In other words, I would expect a record like the Book of Mormon reference Jesus' birth being "the land of Jerusalem" in that way. 

The Book of Mormon As a Catalyst for an Acceptance of Personal Revelation

Someone asked me in a more private setting about what I've written regarding the way the Book of Mormon opens the door for people to accept and experience personal revelation - and why that is so important.  The following is the specific question he asked and my response to it: 

I do have a question about one specific line in one of your posts: "It [the Book of Mormon] also opens a conduit to seek personal revelation in personal areas." How have you found that works, exactly? Again, I would assume that revelation would not come directly from the words of the book itself, since oftentimes we're seeking personal revelation about topics that the Book of Mormon simply doesn't address. So what's the connection between the Book of Mormon and that conduit of personal revelation?

Most people are not taught to ask God for specific answers to specific questions, so teaching people to ponder God's mercy throughout history and then to pray for a specific answer to a specific question ("Are these things true?") opens the door for them to continue to ask God for answers to questions once they feel He has answered them the first time. It's not just a one-time thing. In our theology, it leads to the concept of on-going and personal revelation - and praying about the Book of Mormon often is the first step in that process for many people.

It's not exactly how it worked for me, since I grew up with an acceptance of the principles of on-going and personal revelation and didn't need that catalyst personally, but I have seen it work that way for lots of other people.

You might want to consider that aspect - that, if someone grows up with an acceptance of something, "gaining a witness of it" can be very different than having an extraordinary experience that teaches it for the first time. I think we teach many things as happening for everyone in the exact same way, and, in doing so, miss the complexity of humanity and the idea that God speaks to us in our own language, according to our own understanding. I'd rather teach a principle and let people experience things themselves.

How the Book of Mormon Works for and Speaks to Me

I find it fascinating to see how the Book of Mormon was used in the early days of the Church - and it is interesting that it was used exactly like a friend once said he saw it "work" on his mission. ("So when people read the Book of Mormon for the first time (those that didn't reject it outright because it was outside of the Bible), it did kind of open the door to additional scripture, personal revelation, and the rest of the gospel.")

I love the Book of Mormon for a number of reasons, but I've never had a burning in the bosom feeling about it. I've prayer for that type of experience, back when I was younger and didn't realize that's now how God speaks to me, personally.  I just love what it teaches and the feeling of attachment I have to it. I also am intrigued by what some key passages say about its purpose - and those passages don't say what we emphasize so much right now in the Church.

1) It was written to help people believe the Bible. That is stated directly as the primary purpose in Mormon 7 - especially verses 8-9. In other words, it is a second witness - not a first witness - and it was used in the early church to help them understand and believe the Bible better and more fully, not as the primary witness of Jesus or the central scriptural canon of our theology that tends to be our focus now. (It's interesting to note that nearly all of our truly unique doctrines are from the Bible, not the Book of Mormon.)

2) It was written to help people accept that God will be merciful to them personally - by remembering His mercy throughout history to others. This is the central message of Moroni 10:3-5 - and we tend to cut the heart out of that passage when we breeze past verse 3 in order to get to verses 4-5. We literally change Moroni's admonition when we make it nothing more than, "Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask if it is true." That's not what the passage actually asks people to do - at least, not everything it asks them to do.

That's how I see the Book of Mormon, and it works for me - even though, again, I've never had a distinctly powerful manifestation of it being a factual, historical record (even as I accept it as such as my default view but am fine with it being inspired fiction, if you will).  My connection is intellectual (really studying slowly and carefully what is written in it), emotional (many of the stories and how I feel while reading it), observational (seeing the effect it has had on others), spiritual (the insights and theological framework it has given me), etc.

Moroni's Promise: "True" Doesn't Have to Mean" "Factually Accurate in Every Detail"

Based on the wording of Moroni 10:3-5, Moroni's invitation is about gaining a spiritual witness, not an intellectual one. That is an important distinction, and it is worth considering carefully.

Verse 3 focuses intensely on looking back in time and recognizing how merciful God has been to his children throughout time - then pondering that mercy.  It doesn't ask the reader to ponder what the Book of Mormon has said up to that point; rather, it asks the reader to ponder God's long-suffering mercy.

Focusing on God's mercy puts the reader's prayer directly into the realm of asking if the Book of Mormon is "true" in a spiritual sense - more like "true north" than "factually inerrant". Given how often the book includes comments about overlooking the mistakes in it and the weakness of its writers, I think that's not accidental. Thus, the prayer request becomes less, "Tell me if this book is historically accurate," and more, "Be merciful to me, as you have been to others throughout time, and answer my prayer." It's more of a connection to the divine than receipt of a factual answer - and I believe too many members and missionaries approach it as more of an intellectual question that asks if the details in the book are "accurate / right".

I think that simple difference is more than just significant.

Evaluating the Book of Mormon: The Power of 1 Nephi and Ether

I believe that the best evaluation of the Book of Mormon has to include a careful analysis of 1 Nephi and Ether - that those two books are the only parts that can be evaluated objectively to any degree.  I say that for the following reasons:

I think 1 Nephi shouldn't be dismissed reflexively, given how well it fits what it is supposed to be in lots of instances. It's also the only part of the book where there is a clear, unambiguous location associated with the account itself - and the descriptions of that location and the flight from it to the sea is more than merely plausible. The cultural references also are striking and remarkably accurate, if the account is viewed as nothing more than fiction. 

As for Ether, it is a radical departure from the rest of the record, in multiple ways - and it also fits well what I believe it purports to be. I might be wrong about the original location (the Northern Asia steppes), but it fits extremely well the general culture of where I think it occurred. Without preconceptions based on what others have said about it, it really is a remarkable part of the Book of Mormon.

To illustrate this further, one of the most common reasons people have dismissed the Book of Mormon as being completely the creation of Joseph Smith is the mention of elephants in Ether.  For a long time, the assumption was that horses and elephants (and other animals) became extinct in the American continents sometime around 12,000-8,000 BC.

Two things:

1) The assumed chronology of Ether is based on the assumed chronology of the Old Testament, putting the time of the Jaredite migration around 2,500 BC or so. That chronology, however, assumes a literal acceptance of the ages and experiences described in the Old Testament, which I personally don't accept. Without that foundation, there is absolutely no way to say when the Jaredite migration is supposed to have happened - especially given the fact that the word "descendant" (not "son") is used multiple times in the genealogical chronology in Ether. That listing literally skips any number of generations, so there is no way to determine, with any authority, when the record would have started and how many years it covers.

2) There is lots of evidence now that elephants and similar animals existed on the continents well after oral traditions started that were active into the 1900's. There also is at least one archaeological discovery that shows an animal that would fit the "horse" classification around 100 BC - and that designation wasn't given by a Mormon. Coupled with the Native American Indian practice of calling the horses the Spaniards brought with them "deer", "elk" or even "dogs" and ""elk-dogs" (meaning that any of those terms could have been translated adequately as "horse" later, especially if brevity was paramount), a whole level of translation possibilities gets opened. 

I'm not saying those verses don't constitute possible anachronisms or that the most recent information proves the Book of Mormon to be historically accurate, but they certainly aren't the smoking gun that critics have claimed they are ever since the book was published.

It's hard enough to pull off a record of one ancient culture, but to embed another record of a radically different culture is even harder. That is what happens with 1 Nephi and Ether.  As a history teacher by inclination and original training, those two books are really hard to dismiss out-of-hand - and the more closely I studied the actual narratives in them, the more I became convinced that the Book of Mormon was recorded by the gift and power of God - however that phrase is interpreted.

The Importance of Trying to Understand People in the Scriptures as Real People

Too often, I have heard people in our scriptures described almost as caricatures, with little or no thought given to analyzing and understanding the "little details" in the stories about them.  I believe strongly that his tendency is not good - that it covers wonderful lessons that are available through a more thorough examination of the records and even through a willingness to speculate a bit and make educated guesses.

Take Lehi and his family as an example:

I have said in multiple places that I feel for Laman and Lemuel and how they are portrayed by Nephi. I read a lot between the lines in Nephi's account, and I think the situation was way more complicated than most members assume.

First, I think Lehi's sudden conversion has to be factored when dealing with the family dynamic. 

There is no indication he was a religious man (in the classic sense of that term for Jews of his time) before his vision - and there is evidence that he was an absentee father, to some degree, during Laman and Lemuel's early years. I read Nephi's family narrative as describing a situation similar to that involving Jacob and Joseph - the favored younger son and the anger of the older brothers, right down to "birthright / ruler" issues. 

To take the vision situation further, as a prophet-type Lehi was an "outsider" to the people in Jerusalem - much like Samuel, the Lamanite, preaching repentance to the Nephites. Lehi wasn't a Jew, so preaching repentance to the Jews would be a lot like someone from a Mormon offshoot group preaching repentance to the LDS in SLC - or LDS missionaries preaching in the Deep South. It's no wonder he was rejected, from a psycho-social standpoint. They had a hard enough time accepting Jewish prophets calling them to repentance, much less someone who lived in the general area and probably was considered a rich foreigner, to a degree. The condemnation of "the Jews" by Nephi is natural, given his own outsider status and his relative youth and probable lack of age and social maturity. 

As another example, based on the general tone of his writings, and especially 2 Nephi 4, I believe Nephi might have been bi-polar or subject to depression of some kind - and I think, if that is true, that it's an important aspect that influences my reading of his narrative greatly.

I see a very complicated, very dysfunctional situation, and I believe the power of the stories gets lost when the family dynamics are ignored - when "the prophets" are viewed as next to perfect and their narratives are viewed as objective.

For what it's worth, I also think Alma, Jr. was influenced greatly by Alma, Sr. - and the fact that Old Alma had been a bit of a Sith Lord in his earlier days probably had a lot to do with how he worked with Young Alma during his dark force time before his vision and conversion.  I also believe those rebellious years and his guilt for them haunted Little Alma until his death and played a huge role in how he spoke to Corianton when he screwed up on his mission. 

My Approach to Analyzing the Book of Mormon

I have been asked multiple times over the years about how I analyze the Book of Mormon, particularly given how many different views there are of it.  

If I had to be as concise as possible, I would say that I read the actual record (trying not to let previous assumptions influence my reading) and look at how it is said to have been compiled. I think it works really well when it's judged only by what it says and what it claims to be.

Looking at Mormon and trying to understand him as an individual also answers pretty much all of the contextual complaints I've heard, again if the only standard is what it actually says about who wrote it and why it was written. Trying to understand Mormon, the man, certainly answers the war-obsession slant - and the extreme focus on secret combinations and their activities is interesting when you look, again, at the stated purpose of the book and the rise of modern-day terrorism.

I did an analysis once of the narrative voices in the Book of Mormon - not necessarily a thematic analysis, but looking closely at where Mormon interjects commentary into the record, what is pure abridgment and what is attributed directly to other authors in quoted material. I didn't write anything formal about that exercise, but it was fascinating and instructive - and it illustrated how complex and internally consistent the entire book is.

I'm open to other interpretations, but the historical one resonates best with me - with a nod toward midrash in the translation / transmission process. 

Vocabulary Choices in Translations: The Book of Mormon

I was involved in a discussion once about possible challenges to faith in the Book of Mormon, and one of the people mentioned how it was ridiculous that the name Jesus was in it - since that wasn't the actual Hebrew name of the person we know as Jesus, of Nazareth.  This person said using that name was proof that Joseph didn't really translate the Book of Mormon - that he made it up.

Someone else mentioned other translators of other books and said, simply: 

It is more likely the translators used the names that would be familiar with their readers.

That's exactly how I view quite a few things in the Book of Mormon, including the names Jesus and Mary, "Christ" and "Jews" - as well as "synagogue".

It even applies to more commonly discussed things that have been considered anachronisms for a long time.  "Steel" could have been steel as we know it now - but the original word might have meant nothing more than "the hardest iron we were capable of making, which is extremely hard to make and break" - and when you are pressed for space, according to the wording in the actual book, one word makes more sense than sixteen words and the meaning still is clear to the readers. Steel easily could have been the best choice in the 19th Century to convey the intended meaning. 

That happens all the time in translations. Just look at translations of the Bible, especially those that take a translation in English already and change it for modern or younger readers. There are so many examples that I don't worry at all about the words in any translation being "exact". They are approximations in many cases whenever a change from one language to another occurs - or there is a change in audience. The exact words aren't treated as sacred; the important part is the message / meaning the translator reads from the text and then tries to convey. The key objective is putting that meaning and message into words that make sense to the reader.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Book of Mormon, and the one that I believe is one of the best evidences of some kind of inspired translation / transmission process, is the inclusion of untranslated words. The monetary references aren't part of that, since everyone understands that monetary systems have radically different names from people to people, but there are cases where words are left untranslated - where an obviously foreign word is left in the record. In the Book of Mormon, "adieu" is a wonderful example of that, and I have written in detail about why I love that word choice in a different post.  "Elephant" might have meant "elephant" as we know it, but it might have meant "a huge animal with tusks" (like the mammoths that appear in many Native American Indian oral traditions) - but "cureloms and cumoms" might not have had an appropriate counterpart in Joseph's vocabulary (or might have referred to animals that had become extinct by the time of the translation), which would explain why they were left untranslated.

Lest anyone dismiss that idea, we do it all the time when we adopt a word from another language without translating it. English has many examples of this, but they have become such a regular part of our language that many people don't even realize they are untranslated, foreign words. Japanese even uses a distinct alphabet for untranslated foreign words, so the reader immediately understands that the words are not native Japanese words. There are quite a few English words that are now part of Japanese vocabulary, modified in many cases to match the sounds in their language when the English word simply can't be pronounced properly and sometimes shortened for ease of pronunciation. (For example, Japanese has no "v" or "l" sound, so "television" is pronounced "terebi" - and Japanese people are surprised when an American understands everything they say except the only "English" word in the sentence.)

Anyway, vocabulary in the Book of Mormon simply isn't a big deal to me, since it's all so subjective anyway. 

Lehi & Nephi: The Power of Scriptural Stories Gets Lost if We View Prophets as Objective Historians

I believe the power of the stories in our scriptures gets lost when family dynamics and other practical, real-life factors are ignored - when "the prophets" are viewed as next to perfect and their narratives are viewed as objective history. I understand that considering these things often moves the reader into a realm of speculation, to varying degrees, but I believe it is important to accept the need to speculate a bit when reading such stories. 

For example, I believe any effort to understand Nephi's narrative in the Book of Mormon as fully as possible must include consideration of Lehi's vision and his sudden conversion at the beginning of the Book of Mormon - and I believe understanding that vision and conversion more fully must include an attempt to consider multiple possibilities for Lehi's life prior to that vision and conversion, since his prior life had to have influenced the family dynamic and Nephi's subsequent narrative.

There is NO indication Lehi was a religious man before his vision - and there is evidence that he was an absentee father, to some degree, during Laman and Lemuel's early years. I read Nephi's family narrative as similar to the one involving Israel and his son, Joseph - the favored younger son and the anger of the older brothers, right down to "birthright / ruler" issues.

In other words, I see a very complicated, very dysfunctional situation.


In this post, I am going to focus on only one aspect of that dysfunctionality - the possibility that Lehi was an absentee father, to some degree, and the impact that simple fact might have had on the narrative we have.  

1) Lehi had the ability to pack his entire family and leave at a moment's notice - for an extended journey.  That would not have been common if he had been a "city dweller" (thus, "at" Jerusalem and not "in" Jerusalem).  Such readiness implies a background of ready mobility, which, in that time, likely means an occupation that required regular travel. 

2) Lehi followed a route through a forbidding, dangerous, nearly barren area that, despite hardship along the way, ended at a habitable area.  It might have been accidental or revealed divinely, but it also might have been due at least partly to previous travel through some of that area and/or areas like it. 

3) Lehi obviously was a wealthy man, based on Nephi's description of their attempts to get the plates.  I like Nibley's suggestion that the most likely occupation was merchant trader, and that he probably traveled to Egypt as part of that trade.  It would explain a lot of other things in the narrative, especially his understanding of written Egyptian.  It also would make him, of necessity, an absentee father, to some degree, especially in the earliest years of Laman's and Lemuel's childhood. 

4) Lehi appears to have favored Nephi more than Laman and Lemuel.  That could have been for any number of reasons, but the most likely are:

a) He had more than one wife in this lifetime (two, for sake of ease in discussion), and Nephi (and possibly Sam) were from his second wife.

There is nothing whatsoever in the record to tell us Sariah's genetic heritage.  That isn't a surprise, necessarily, given the male-centric nature of most record keeping back then - but the lack leaves interesting doors open. Lehi wasn't Jewish, and, based on his lack of knowledge of his own ancestry (finding out only by reading the plates), he wasn't a religious man in the traditional, orthodox sense of the time.  Being a man who was open to visions doesn't mean he was a religiously devoted or "actively religious" man.  There is no way to know with certainty about his background prior to his vision, which opens all kinds of possibilities outside the social, insider norm.  His married life easily could have been a bit complicated and/or unorthodox, as well. 

b) He was entering a retirement or management stage in his life a few years prior to his vision (which would make sense, psychologically, since extra time for contemplation could lead to such an experience).  If Nephi had been born as or after Lehi was entering that retirement or management stage in his life, Lehi would have doted on Nephi more than the older children who were establishing their own lives as emerging adults.  That would be doubly true if Nephi was the only son of the new wife of a wealthy, older man.

c) It also appears that Nephi's personality was much closer to Lehi's personality at the time of the vision than was true of Laman and Lemuel - and, being even more speculative, I think Laman and Lemuel might have been closer to how Lehi used to be prior to his vision.  They appear to have been more focused on wealth and the lure of the city, probably having begun to establish their own ties and their own future careers - perhaps in their father's business and perhaps as sons of luxury.  If they had been helping run the family business while their father was traveling . . . and if they were concerned about losing position and possible inherited wealth as their younger brother got more and more attention from their father . . . and if their father suddenly announced he was abandoning his (their future) business and wealth . . . and if their father asked them to abandon what they had been building for themselves to join him in the wilderness. . . and if their younger brother positioned himself as their father's confidant against them . . . and if their younger brother gave away their wealth for a history book (meaning they couldn't go back at any point and reclaim it when their father's foolish impulse ran its course) and then killed a prominent man to get that same history book (meaning they couldn't return even without their former wealth) . . .

All of that leads me to believe Lehi might have been an absentee father to some degree in his life. 

I don't know if what I just described is accurate, but I think it would explain a LOT about the narrative and how it unfolds - and I think it is a good foundation for charity in the way Laman and Lemuel are viewed.

Why I Believe DNA and the Book of Mormon Is a Non-Issue

I think the Book of Mormon DNA issue is very easy to reconcile intellectually, IF the only conclusions are drawn from the actual book itself and not from what members (including leaders) assumed for a long time that it says. I'll try to be concise, but here is the way I read the book itself, relative to DNA:

Three groups are detailed, to some degree, in the book. In order of longevity and size:

1) The Jaredites - This group is described as being large at the beginning of their migration - mulitple familes, perhaps an entire "tribe". If we assume the standard Old Testament chronology, which I don't assume to be accurate but can use for this purpose, they left their home probably no later than 3,000 BC - which means they were in the "promised land" for roughly 3,000 years when the other two groups arrived. The Book of Ether is quite clear that it covers ONLY the people who remained at or near the government center - and basic population demographics pretty much guarantee that they would have spread widely across whatever land they inhabited. Thus the total annihilation described at the end of the Book of Ether logically could have been only the people who lived close enough to be gathered, leaving many people still spread out elsewhere - and the area they inhabited easily could have been massive.

In looking at the society described, as a former History Teacher, I would place their origin in the Northeast Asian steppe region, meaning their DNA would be consistent with the current research. Thus, it is very plausible that they would be the "principal (largest and/or original) ancestors" of the Native American Indians - that the primary DNA still extent 2,000 years after the destruction of their government would be Asian.

2) The people of Mulek - This group was relatively small and occupied a very limited area (one city and perhaps its surrounding area) when discovered by 3) the Nephites. As small as they were, they were "more numerous" than the Nephites - the smallest group. Interestingly, both groups combined were FAR smaller than the Lamanites, which only makes sense if the Lamanites had combined with a more numerous, indigenous people - and if that indigenous people were of Asian descent (some of the non-killed Jaredites), it would explain perfectly the "apostate" designation and dark skin stigma attached by the Nephites to the Lamanites.

The population and distance clues in the book itself are convincing to me of a limited geography model - and I reached that conclusion on my own long before I read any modern arguments for them (and long before I read any DNA research showing Asian origins for the Native American peoples). Thus, I see a very limited geography and a relatively small population of Nephites (just over a couple of million, tops, and perhaps significantly less) destroyed, while a much larger population dominated genetically by "Asians" continued to spread widely (perhaps even inter-continentally) for a total of at least 5,000 years.

That's what I see when I read the book itself and focus only on what I think it actually says. That means two very simple things to me:

1) The latest DNA research doesn't invalidate the claims of the actual book about origins.

2) The latest research shows that the assumptions about the overall demographics in the book (particularly what "principal ancestors" meant) held by the people who believed in the book (the early Mormons, including Joseph Smith and other leaders) were wrong.  

I'm OK with the second conclusion.

Hilarious GIF Summary of the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon, as told by K (Just Say Amen Already)

Seriously, I laughed so hard it might have been a sin.  My teenage daughters walked over to see what was so funny, and they couldn't stop laughing, either. 

Racism in the Book of Mormon

Frankly, racism in the Book of Mormon isn't an issue for me when it comes to the question of whether or not it is an ancient record. 

1) It doesn't occur once after the record of Jesus' appearance (after everyone in the record had intermingled and then broken apart again).

2) There is the very clear statement in 1 Nephi (the very first section of the Book of Mormon) that all are alike to God, including black and white, explicitly.

3) Most importantly, as a former history teacher, nearly all historical records that deal with multiple races that are written by people at the time include racist statements - especially in relation to inter-racial marriage with darker-skinned native groups, which I believe is the demographic foundation of the Nephite-Lamanite situation described in the book itself.  We have blatantly racist statements in our own American writings, even from US Presidents, into the 20th Century. 

From a historical analysis perspective, it would be more troubling if there was no racism in the book, given what it purports to be. 

For a fuller explanation of how I see the dark and loathsome references, read the following post I wrote back in 2007:

"Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family" (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflections-from-mixed-race-family.html) 

I Like Joseph Smith, the Man, Much More than Joseph Smith, the Caricature

I have been asked multiple times in my life if Joseph Smith might have been (fill in the blank) by skeptics and opponents of the LDS Church.  Speaking strictly from an intellectual viewpoint, and employing standard psychological perspectives, there are multiple possibilities - and that applies even to something like the translation of the Book of Mormon.  I personally accept Joseph as a visionary prophet who brought forth modern scripture, but, again, from a strictly logical perspective, it is important to me to be able to understand intellectually and emotionally how others see him - to consider the possibilities.  The following list is not comprehensive, but it illustrates what I mean: 

According to his own words, Joseph was a treasure seeker by nature and inclination. Therefore, in regard to the Book of Mormon, the possibilities are not limited to just actual historical record on ancient plates or intentional fraud.

1) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being of ancient origin and buried by Moroni. (i.e., translated/transmitted non-fiction)

2) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being generic plates of unknown origin revealed by Moroni and "translated" by the gift and power of God. (i.e., inspired non-fiction)

3) Exactly as he recorded it, including an actual visit to an actual hill with actual buried plates, with the plates being the prop for divine transmission of the word of God but not literally a translation/transmission of an ancient record. (i.e., truly inspired fiction)

4) Completely visionary experiences, with something physical used as tangible "proof" of what was seen in vision. (could be any of the genres above - and could be visions of "actual beings" or hallucinations, both of which would be "real" and lead to sincere belief in what was envisioned)

5) Made up stories by an intentional fraud.

There are more possibilities, but the above are enough to make my point about trying to understand the perspectives of others. The above (and all the other options I've considered over the years) is much more analytical than an attempt to reach a specific conclusion that includes spiritual witnesses and constitutes a testimony. Having said that, the "simplest" options above are #1, #4 and #5. I can't prove any of the options above, but I've studied everything as a history teacher by nature and inclination, and the intentional fraud option just doesn't work for me. I've known a few "visionary" people in my life, and what I've read of Joseph fits them (and other historical figures) quite well. Therefore, I personally choose to see him as a visionary man - with all of the good and bad associated with that orientation.

Just in conclusion, I also think it's instructive for those who accept the stories literally that the actual quote is that his "name would be had for good and evil" - not that people would say good and bad things about him. When you parse that statement, analytically and not apologetically, it opens up all kinds of possibilities that make a lot of sense - at least to me. It certainly can make him much more complex and "real" than the caricatures that have been created of him over the years - by both passionate defenders and passionate opponents.

Personally, I like and admire the complex man much, much more than any caricature.

"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is Not a Different "Gospel"

A classic evangelical criticism of Mormonism is that the apostle Paul said not to believe anyone, even an angel of light, who teaches another gospel.  They use that statement as a way to reject Joseph Smith - and the Book of Mormon, especially since the cover says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".  The actual passage in Galatians says:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The charge is ironic, because Paul's own converting vision and subsequent epistles fit exactly the complaint of the evangelical community that questions Joseph's account - especially since Paul's ministry, visions and epistles helped change early Christianity in MAJOR ways.

I probably should repeat that for emphasis:

Paul's visions (especially the one that stopped the requirement for circumcision among the Gentiles) and his epistles fundamentally altered Christianity in ways that people then could have termed to be "another gospel" - IF they interpreted "gospel" to be "further revelation" or "additional writings" or even "changed/additional doctrine". Thus, Paul could be rejected for the exact same reason evangelicals use that passage to reject Joseph.

Joseph's foundational account essentially is Paul's foundational account - a vision of God appearing to him that led to him becoming a prophet. Angelic visitations / visions were recorded all the time in Paul's time, even by Paul himself - but they were secondary to the appearance of God himself. In the exact same way, the claim about Moroni is secondary to the First Vision. It doesn't happen without the First Vision. It can't be attacked independent of the First Vision.

So, condemning Joseph's account of Moroni's vision and rejecting the writing that followed (The Book of Mormon) by quoting that passage of Paul's is inconsistent with Paul's own understanding of angels and visions and scripture. He had no problem with those things - it was the presentation of another "gospel" that concerned him.

There is a huge difference between another "testament" and another "gospel" - and it's a very important difference. The Book of Mormon says explicitly, multiple times, especially in 3 Nephi, that the "gospel" it teaches is faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost - and there is no way, in my opinion, to see that as "another gospel" that differs from the "gospel" of the Bible. Arguments about doctrine are valid to make (as long as people admit that even the writers of the New Testament appear to disagree about some doctrine - and certainly the early Catholic theologians and modern Protestant scholars did and do, as well). However, in evangelical terms, the word "testament" means nothing more than "witness" - and "witnessing" about Jesus actually is a key aspect of evangelism. So, rejecting another "testament" or "witness" that presents the same "gospel" is ironic - to put it as charitably as I can.

That is not "proof" of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph being a prophet - but, as bluntly as I can put it, if rejection of the Book of Mormon is based on that classic evangelical attack, it's important to understand how shallow, out-of-context and twisted that particular attack is.

Mis-Using the Book of Mormon

Note: This is a long post.   I want to make a point as comprehensively as I possibly can, so please pardon the length.

I don't draw the straight-line connection between a testimony of the Book of Mormon and an automatic acceptance of all other truth claims of the LDS Church that some members of the Church do, especially onward in time all the way to our day.  There are way too many other factors that theoretically could come into play and break such a chain of logic.  I think there is a direct link to the Book of Mormon being an inspired recording of the word of God, exactly as we view the Bible in that regard (where inerrancy of the text is not required) and Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, exactly as we view Biblical prophets - but everything else doesn't have that direct correlation, imo.  After all, there are prophets who recorded the word of God but didn't establish new churches.  In fact, those that did were the very small minority, especially within Judeo-Christian history.  Most prophets are more like our modern prophets - caretakers more than radically innovative establishers.

However, I think we miss the real power of the Book of Mormon (the reason it is the keystone of our religion) when we have people read selected verses and passages to prove doctrine and fail to ask them to approach it as it asks to be approached - even if we insert the First Vision as the new keystone of our religion.  I don't see anywhere in the Book of Mormon that says, internally, in the words of the authors and abridgers, to use it as a doctrinal proof-text - especially by isolating and emphasizing specific verses and doctrines.  What it asks internally - what the words themselves ask - is that the book be read in its entirety in order to open the reader's mind to the reality that God has worked with people throughout history and, therefore, will speak directly to her and manifest truth to her.

When I attended Seminary, one of our Scripture Mastery passages was Moroni 10:3-5.  Now, as my children go through Seminary, the passage is only Moroni 10:4-5.  I think that is a shame, since it is 10:3 that sets the stage for 10:4-5.  Teaching Moroni 10:4-5 without 10:3 is an example of the proof-texting I'm addressing.

Moroni 10:4-5 reads:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  

That is Moroni's invitation (not a "challenge", which is another personal soapbox) - the "doctrine" of prayer and personal revelation, if you will.  It's fine to use that text to teach that doctrine.  However, leaving out Moroni 10:3 eliminates entirely a key part of the actual method Moroni is trying to encourage readers to use to go beyond proving doctrine and encounter really deep, meaningful understanding of and communication with God.

Moroni 10:3 reads:

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts." 

The proof-text approach "challenges" someone to pray about the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about some specific passages from the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about everything else the missionaries are teaching.  It becomes a very generic:

"Pray about what we are teaching you, including the parts of this book we're quoting as we teach these things".  

**That's not what Moroni's actual words exhort people to do.**

Moroni says, "when you shall read these things" - which can be while reading or upon finishing reading the multiple records he and his father abridged into one volume, not a few proof-text passages.  Furthermore, 10:3 includes the following prior to 10:4 even asking people to pray:

1) Remember the Lord's mercy throughout time (described for those of Israelite descent explicitly throughout the Book of Mormon and the Bible but, interestingly, also applicable to a Buddhist in Japan or a Muslim in Iraq with regard to their own understanding of God's mercy to their own ancestors);
2) Ponder that mercy.

Moroni 10:3 does NOT say to ponder "these things" (doctrines) in "your mind" (by thinking about them).  It says to ponder "it" (God's mercy) in "your heart" (by feeling that mercy settle inside you).

A reader of the Book of Mormon can't have the experience Moroni is urging if the Book of Mormon isn't used as he's urging it to be used.  That reader might gain a converting testimony, but it won't be what Moroni is exhorting her to experience in her heart.  That is important to me.

A testimony of the First Vision can't provide the experience Moroni is exhorting people to have, either.  It is wonderful and a necessary part of the Restoration, but it is fundamentally different than the Book of Mormon.

The First Vision Is NOT the Keystone of Our Religion: Using the Book of Mormon as It Was Intended to Be Used

I feel strongly that we miss much when we fail to realize how the First Vision and the Book of Mormon were used in the early days of the Church within missionary work. 

When the Book of Mormon was used as the launching pad, as the catalyst in and of itself for an initial spiritual experience ("Here's Moroni's promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you've done that, we'll start teaching doctrine."), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using the Book of Mormon as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experience, missionary work flourished the least.

The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5 - all three verses, not just the last two, which now are used as the Seminary scripture mastery passage) is laid out in such a way to inspire people who read it to believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) - and to have such a recognition subsequently allow them to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the "power of godliness" really entails). Iow, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with "new spiritual eyes" through which the "mists of darkness" caused by centuries of bad Christian doctrine and apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.

I love the way Preach My Gospel is structured, and I love the flexibility it is supposed to provide for the teaching of doctrine, but I think we miss the mark when we don't use the Book of Mormon in the way that I believe it was intended to be used - when we make the First Vision the keystone of our religion. (I don't want to dismiss the First Vision in any way, but it's important to understand that everyone and their dog were having spiritual experiences during that time period in that geographic area; the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is unique.)