Thoughts on the Credit Crisis

I am not sure where I stand on the bail out. Some say that while they detest it, it is a necessity to stabilize the markets. Others say that it is too much government intervention and that taxpayers should not foot the bill in a free market economy. I am sure of some things though:

• President Hinckley warned us about this for years.
• When we do come out of this, and we eventually will, we will have gained nothing but losses.

During the railroad construction boom of the 1850's the speculative bubble that burst left us with huge losses and cheap railways across the country. Entrepreneurs were able to buy the railroads for cheap and develop a continental trading system. We came out on top.

After the internet bubble popped in the late 1990's, we were left with huge losses and fiber optic broadband cables connecting us to India and China. This infrastructure was bought for cheap and you began to see massive off-shoring to India and China around this time because US companies could get great connections with good workers abroad. Without broadband cables, this would be impossible. In other words, despite the losses of the dot.com busts, we had massive and high quality infrastructure that benefited (and still does benefit) us and them every day.

The bubble popping that we are essentially feeling now is from the housing market as we all know. After the dot.com bubble burst, the government and Alan Greenspan encouraged us to invest in housing as prices were rising so fast (not to mentioned Congressional members purposely lowering credit standards for mortgages). The bubble popped in September 2007 and we are still feeling the effects today. After we recover from the astronomical losses of this bubble in the months/years/decades from now, what will we be left with? Cheap railroads, fiber-optic cables that will improve the economy or a Condo in Aspen and Boca Raton that are useless?

The Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates

As many of you may already be aware, there is a security guard in Utah who claims to have received revelation that he was supposed to translate the sealed portion of the gold plates and also re-translate the Book of Lehi of lost 116 pages fame. You can view his work here. FAIR posted a review on its wiki about the validity of the work. You can decide for yourself.

To be honest, it is astonishingly long and detailed, and you can definitely tell the guy put a lot of time into it. It's something like 668 pages total but not all of it is scripture. Page 596 in the pdf. includes a letter sent by the translator to the First Presidency. However, he did preface the letter with the following:

By way of commandment I wrote the following letter to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and had it delivered in late March 2004 along with a copy of The Book of Lehi, certified and registered by way of United States Postal Service.

Does the Lord then command us to use USPS for our mail delivery or would you not FedEx something that important? All kidding aside, the point of the post is not to really to discuss the contents of the translation nor its merits, but to discuss how we as a church:

1) Encourage and require that all members receive personal revelation, whether by grandiose visions or simple inspiration; and,

2) Keep any personal revelation subject to the priesthood lines of authority and its right to obtain revelation for the church as a whole

By cutting off personal revelation, a church would become dead as its members would have to rely on texts that, while somewhat relevant, might not address the problems of that particular time and would not provide for revelation that has been lost (Zenos, Zenock). Priests and early Fathers would interpret the scriptures and theological debates would continue for centuries. Moreover, without priesthood organizational authority, we would encounter splinter groups claiming personal revelation more often, as this brother so easily demonstrated. Polygamous groups are an easy example as well but how many times have we heard about a seminary teacher who broke off and was treating a barn in Manti like a temple or some other strange story?

We as LDS and Christians are not limited to this conundrum. Islam is divided into two major groups (Sunni and Shi'a), with each group having multiple varieties internally. A Sunni can be a Wahhabi Sunni in Saudi Arabia, which is generally more conservative or a Dervish in Turkey could be a Sunni, but have a different understanding of Islam as a mystic. I will talk more about this in a future post.

How have we been successful in overcoming this apparent contradiction while others have not been as successful? (Bonus points for mentioning Hiram Page. Any one that can work a seer stone into an argument on a blog called The Seer Stone certainly deserves extra credit)

Prop 8 Note: I guess the Brother of Jared knew that the California Supreme Court would rule that same sex marriage discrimination was going to be a major issue for our day. According to our good friend the translator of the Sealed Portion, the Book of Mormon condones same sex marriage. Check out this press release. Apparently two of Jesus' apostles were openly gay. So the Pharisees relied on criticising Jesus on the shaky doctrinal ground of healing on the Sabbath instead but ignored the basics of Mosaic law?

Pythagoras, Tetraktys, and the Manti Temple

Pythagoras (died 490 BC) is perhaps most famous to us because of what we all dreaded in school: math and the Pythagorean Theorem. For those who can't remember or who willfully forget this (me), the Pythagorean Theorem is described as such:

In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle)

This is also represented as a² + b² = c².

Pythagoras was also considered to be the first Greek philosopher and discoverer that musical harmony is based on constants between intonation. One of his lesser known discoveries, at least to lay people, is the Tetraktys. The Tetraktys is a triangle, with a dot representing each row and its value. Thus, the first row is one, the second two, the third three, and the fourth four. If one were to add all of these up, the answer is ten (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10, a perfect number in the decimal system). There are many mathematicl formulas and fascinating connections to the Tetraktys, among which the Kabbalists are obsessed with its relation to the Tetragrammaton (I would love to hear what David Littlefield has to say about this).

I bring this up in an LDS-related blog because a few years ago I went to the Manti Temple and was impressed with its symbolism and unique character. I asked some of the temple workers what the symbols on the door hinges and door knobs were but they did not know and referred me to a book about the Manti Temple that I could buy in a local grocery store. Those living in Manti know there's probably only one store. So I found the book, "The Manti Temple", and bought it. It was written specifically for the 100 year celebration of the temple and includes some great information about the temple and its history. One of the sections in the book includes an observation made by Hugh Nibley about the temple's unique metallic features. In case one is not familiar with his work, Nibley viewed the temple as a compass for the cosmos, a place where we can get our bearings in relation to the universe. By gaining further truth and knowledge there, we can answer the terrible questions of life (great chapter in Temples and Cosmos) and find our way back to God's presence.

According to Nibley, his Great Grandfather, John Patrick Reed, who was a Branch President and leader of his local Masonic order in Belfast, Ireland, designed many of the metal elements in the Manti Temple. Brother Reed, influenced by his Masonic associations, incorporated many of the symbols into the temple as purely cosmetic elements. One of the more well-known elements seen by patrons is the distinctive look on the door knobs. Look closely at the picture below.


If you were unable to see it, look at the top half of the door knob in the middle region. What do you see? Four lines that represent a triangle, the Tetraktys! You may ask why this is so significant when it is simply a masonic element from Greek philosophic schools used in an LDS temple? Consider this statement, attributed to Iamblichus:

The Tetraktys [also known as the decad] is an equilateral triangle formed from the sequence of the first ten numbers aligned in four rows. It is both a mathematical idea and a metaphysical symbol that embraces within itself — in seedlike form — the principles of the natural world, the harmony of the cosmos, the ascent to the divine, and the mysteries of the divine realm. So revered was this ancient symbol that it inspired ancient philosophers to swear by the name of the one who brought this gift to humanity — Pythagoras.”

Why do we go to the temple? Is it simply to do work for the dead? Or do we go to learn "the principles of the natural world, the harmony of the cosmos, the ascent to the divine, and the mysteries of the divine realm"? Does not the temple teach us about the nature of the universe, the creation, or how we can ascend back to God? Is it just coincidence that this symbol, which represents learning the mysteries of the universe, was added as a decoration by one completely unfamiliar with its meaning, and yet still have deep and profound meaning for the temple?

For a similar situation, check out templestudy.com here, here, here, and especially here for Bryce's posts about the symbol of the Seal of Melchizedek at the San Diego temple which occurred under similar circumstances by the architect, and also included Hugh Nibley. Also checkout David Larsen's site on the Heavenly Ascent in apocalyptic literature.

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Part Five (Progression Between Kingdoms of Glory)

This post is part five in our series on The Seven Deadly Heresies, as given by Elder McConkie (see here).

The fifth heresy, according to Elder McConkie, is the idea that there is progression within the kingdoms of glory after the resurrection.

Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were.

This belief lulls men into a state of carnal security. It causes them to say, "God is so merciful; surely he will save us all eventually; if we do not gain the celestial kingdom now, eventually we will; so why worry?" It lets people live a life of sin here and now with the hope that they will be saved eventually.

The true doctrine is that all men will be resurrected, but they will come forth in the resurrection with different kinds of bodies--some celestial, others terrestrial, others telestial, and some with bodies incapable of standing any degree of glory. The body we receive in the resurrection determines the glory we receive in the kingdoms that are prepared.

Of those in the telestial world it is written: "And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end" (D&C 76:112).

Of those who had the opportunity to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in this life and who did not do it, the revelation says:

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven; which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. [D&C 132:16-17]

They neither progress from one kingdom to another, nor does a lower kingdom ever get where a higher kingdom once was. Whatever eternal progression there is, it is within a sphere.

So the question is whether the kingdoms are locked from progression after entrance, or whether there is some progression after entry so that we could progress to eventual Celestial status.

Elder McConkie relies on D&C 76's description about the inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom that they cannot visit the Savior and the Father or be where the are. He also relies on D&C 132's description of those who reject the new and everlasting covenant.

Those who believe in some type of progression rely on D&C 19, specifically verse 6, which says:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment."

I suppose to proponents this means that punishment is not eternal but that after our punishment we can increase in glory as we perfect ourselves.

Additionally, a supporter of this theory would say that the Telestial Kingdom scripture mentioned above does not specifically say that it will be eternally so. One could be in the situation until he is ready to progress. Moreover, Heber C. Kimball taught an eternal progression model (perhaps BHodges can give us an idea where to look in the JD). Proponents are not comfortable with the absolutism of eternal placement where our theology is generally not so absolutist. I don't see how this can displace Section 132 above, but I don't see any scriptural support beyond Section 19 and it's tenuous at best.


Kimball's model seemed to further Joseph Smith's teachings that we only receive blessings from ordinances as soon as we are ready to receive them. Therefore, if one receive assurance of salvation, while guaranteed, it would not occur until that person is ready. Brigham espoused the idea that we resurrect in Celestial glory and make the jump directly to Celestial substance, whereas one could argue based on JS's statement that we attain a kingdom and then progress to receive our blessing as soon as we are prepared.

My final thoughts:

1) Like previous posts, this is certainly not case-closed as Elder McConkie suggests (astonishing!).

2) My gut tends to feel better with the progression idea because as Alma and Amulek taught, we are raised in the state that we die in. If we are in great need of improvement and are still bound to be Celestial, that leaves a huge gap between death and resurrection.

3) Despite my gut feeling against absolutism, there are similar circumstances of absolutism (War in Heaven) where we understand a group to have made their choice and no further progression is possible. While this may feel like a contradiction of Moses 1:39, I just don't see a lot of scriptural support for the progression model, and not much more direct support for the model advocated by Elder McConkie. I think that, like many of these deeper points of doctrine, it is better to stay open minded because it really hasn't been revealed relative to what we are asking. Any GA statements are, most likely, speculation and will contradict each other (I'll see your Talmage and raise you a Wilford Woodruff).

“True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior."

(Guest Post by: Nathan Rees, of Dallas, TX)

After a recent conversation with Hans and Jeremy I have been contemplating the above quote by Elder Packer. (Elder Boyd K. Packer, “Do Not Fear,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 79) When examining this statement, the patent lawyer in me cannot ignore the extra limitation in that quote that I believe makes all the difference in the world, the word understood. To prepare for writing this entry I began to review various doctrines of the church that I have studied over the past few years. I found that there are many doctrines of which I have a thorough knowledge, but there are less that I can honestly say that I understand in a true sense. This has happened for many reasons, usually attributable to my own attitude at the outset of my studies.

President Benson stated that “the Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. . . . The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment.” See also, Mosiah 5:2. These words, like the first quote, seem very intuitive. Because it is so intuitive, I believe that we fail to give this phenomenon its proper heed. In other words, I believe we often have a tendency to underestimate the power of a true understanding of doctrine. Most likely we can all look at ourselves and agree that random things simply will not change our attitudes or behaviors. I imagine that this is human nature. If we recognize this fact, we will be able to better appreciate the type of impact for good that our own personal studies can potentially have, and hopefully we will be able to better focus ourselves when we take time to study a gospel concept (or even when we are taking the time to listen to a talk or lesson prepared for us).

These thoughts bring home to me a renewed importance of attempting to learn principles, not just with our minds, but with our spirits. It also raises questions in my mind regarding the more general population of the Church. I have recently started going to Sunday school again after a year of teaching gospel essentials as a ward missionary. I have found a startling contrast in the attitudes and thirst of new converts to gain a true understanding of gospel teachings, as opposed to the more general population of the church who seem to treat church talks and lessons as nothing more than an extremely boring social encounter.

Why (assuming I am correct in my perceptions) do many people fail to apply themselves sufficiently in order to truly understand the truths that are taught at our meetings. Especially in light of the fact that they are already putting out the effort to show up and sit through the meetings. Are we not supposed to be continuing to search for further light and knowledge? For that matter, why does it seem that the general population of the church are merely content with the light they currently have. Personally, complacency in any aspect of life, especially in the gospel, has never gotten me very far. This also raises the question of what can we do (if anything) as teachers, spouses, parents, etc., to get the people that we are attempting to teach in a mindset that helps them to understand doctrine to an extent that they are motivated to change their attitude and behavior in order to apply the teachings of the gospel. For me, I am sure that recognizing the problem will be a good first step…what now?

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Part Four (Second Chance Salvation)

Continuing with our series of the Seven Deadly Heresies according to Elder McConkie's talk, we now move on to the fourth heresy.

Heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

I knew a man, now deceased, not a member of the Church, who was a degenerate old reprobate who found pleasure, as he supposed, in living after the manner of the world. A cigarette dangled from his lips, alcohol stenched his breath, and profane and bawdy stories defiled his lips. His moral status left much to be desired.

His wife was a member of the Church, as faithful as she could be under the circumstances. One day she said to him, "You know the Church is true; why won't you be baptized?" He replied, "Of course I know the Church is true, but I have no intention of changing my habits in order to join it. I prefer to live the way I do. But that doesn't worry me in the slightest. I know that as soon as I die, you will have someone go to the temple and do the work for me and everything will come out all right in the end anyway."

He died and she had the work done in the temple. We do not sit in judgment and deny vicarious ordinances to people. But what will it profit him?

There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

For those who do not have an opportunity to believe and obey the holy word in this life, the first chance to gain salvation will come in the spirit world. If those who hear the word for the first time in the realms ahead are the kind of people who would have accepted the gospel here, had the opportunity been afforded them, they will accept it there. Salvation for the dead is for those whose first chance to gain salvation is in the spirit world.

In the revelation recently added to our canon of holy writ, these words are found:

Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. [D&C 137:9]

There is no other promise of salvation than the one recited in that revelation. Those who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.

At what point does one who rejects the Gospel final reach that threshold where he or she is considered to have had an opportunity and rejected it? BRM above thinks that one who has a knowledge of the truthfulness of the Gospel but still refuses to obey the principles and ordinances has already passed that moment. I tend to disagree to the extent that we do not know all circumstances in a person's life that cause him or her to accept or reject truth and knowledge. We do not know of abuse, education, mental illness, disability, or hardships. Therefore I would leave it to God to decide.

A further reading of Alma 34:33 confirms that there does come a night of darkness for those who have not repented. If a person enjoys the privileges of the understanding of the gospel and subsequently rejects that truth, it becomes difficult to change that lifestyle.

I think that a person who puts off repentance limits his or her progression because of the difficulty of repenting in the next life. Elder Melvin J. Ballard clarifies:

It is much easier to overcome and serve the Lord when both the flesh and spirit are combined as one...Every man and woman who is putting off until the next life the task of correcting and overcoming the weakness of flesh are sentencing themselves to years of bondage, for no man or woman will come forth in the resurrection until the have completed their work, until they have overcome, until the have done as much as they can do. ("The Three Degrees of Glory", 22 September 1922)

I like to think that BRM's use of Section 137 implies that one who would have accepted the Gospel in this life with the opportunity will accept it in the next life, keeping in mind certain life circumstances that affect what kind of people we are.

But the next logical question is whether Amulek's statement that we come to the night of darkness if we don't improve this life means that this person will not have an opportunity for repentance and full salvation while in the Spirit World? BRM thinks that one is disqualified from the Celestial Kingdom, I tend to agree but am not quite sure on this. This is exactly why we can't judge others because we don't know the desires of their hearts based on their life circumstances.

Any thoughts?

Will We Always Have Faith?

Joseph Smith taught that "faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principal of action in all intelligent beings. . . . But faith is not only the principle of action, but of power also, in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven or on earth." (Lectures on Faith, 1:9, 13) In other words, faith encompasses two very disparate concepts; one dealing with our physical reactions to belief in things not seen, and another dealing with our ability to physically harness the power of this belief. I do not claim to know every facet with regard to our exercise of faith, but here are a few of my thoughts:

1) Alma teaches us that "if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it." (Alma 32:18) He further teaches that when a man's "knowledge is perfect" in some thing, his "faith is dormant." (Alma 32:34) In this life, we live by faith; faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice; faith in God's plan and the assurance of exaltation. Whether in this life or the afterlife, when a man obtains a perfect knowledge of these things, does he continue to exercise faith in them as a principle of action?

2) The brother of Jared possessed great faith that the Lord was able to simply touch 16 small stones to make them provide light for his 8 vessels. "Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men." (Ether 3:5) Accordingly, the brother of Jared acted on his faith. But notice what happens next.

The veil was taken from his eyes and the brother of Jared sees the finger of the Lord, and subsequently sees the Lord Himself. The Lord explained that "never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast." (Ether 3:9) In other words, the brother of Jared's faith was so refined that it allowed him to pass through the veil and obtain a perfect knowledge of our Savior. "Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence." (Ether 3:13)

The Lord then proceeds to explain this concept. "And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast." (Ether 3:15) Of course Christ had shown himself to others before. But he had never before revealed himself like this. Because of the brother of Jared's great faith, he could not be kept within the veil (see vs. 19-20). Thus, Christ was compelled to reveal himself unto man at this time, where as before, it was Christ's will whether to reveal himself or not.

Note the language in Ether 3:19, "he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting." In my opinion, this is truly the culmination of our faith; that we may one day see with our natural eye those things which we have seen for so many years with our eye of faith.

3) I believe that receiving the Second Comforter, as spoken of in John 14, and having our calling and election made sure in this lifetime are a direct result of continued faith as a principle of action. This reception may furthermore also be tied to the oft misunderstood ordinance of the second anointing. As LDS, we understand that the Second Comforter is "no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself." (TPJS, 149-151) A person who receives the Second Comforter "will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him . . . the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God." (Id.)

Does this person, now having a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ and the "mysteries of the Kingdom of God," subsequently require faith in these things? What of the Celestial Kingdom inhabitants who live with God and Jesus Christ, do they require faith in them anymore? Is this what John meant when he defined eternal life (God's life) as gaining a perfect knowledge of God and His Son? That we increase in knowledge og God through faith as a principle of action?

Faith as a principle of power, I believe, must be eternal since it is "the principle by which Jehovah works, and through which he exercises power over all temporal as well as eternal things." (Lectures on Faith, 1:16) I believe that we, as joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, will use this principle of power throughout eternity.

But, does our faith as a principle of action cease to exist when we gain an intimate and personal knowledge of eternal truths? For that matter, does God exercise faith as a principle of action? And if so, in what does He have faith?

إسناد‎ - Transmitting the truth

As LDS we believe in the Bible as it is came from the pen of the original writers and recognize that scribal errors, whether deliberate or not, exist in the New and Old Testaments, along with thousands of different texts and variations. Most scholars now agree that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew drew upon an earlier text (not currently in existence) that scholars have designated the name "Q" from the German word quelle, which means "source". Along with the Paulian Epistles, among which many are not considered to have been written by him, texts with authoritative language and accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus began to make their way into Christian congregations in the mid-2nd Century. The authenticity and accuracy of such texts was disputed by the transmitter or the narrator (see Tertullian, writing in contradiction of Marcion's corruption of Luke's account of the nativity, as recorded in On Prescription Against Heretics).

The authenticity of texts was based on the way that it was transmitted. For example, Paul wrote a hypothetical espitel and delivered it to Luke, who delivered it to our Bishop who passed it on to his successor, etc. Is this an authentic document? The earliest remnants of the New Testament still do not cover the early Christian period, but we can assume that some texts, with errors, were considered authentic because of their descent. This was a sign of the then-occurring apostasy. Those with the authority to interpret the meaning of scripture were soon gone.

We even have our own problem with this based on the saying of Joseph Smith. For the last four years of his life, almost all the information we have from him is based on second hand accounts of what he said. Oftentimes we will accept one person's interpretation because we agree with that person (Wilford Woodruff) or marginalize it because of bias (William McLellin).

Ancient Arabs in the Hijaz, like their ancient Jewish cousins, preserved their records through oral tradition and did not focus on record keeping (which makes Laban's plates all the more valuable). The sayings of Muhammad, as recorded in the Qur'an, the Sunnah (the sayings of the Prophet, kind of like the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) and the Hadith (similar to the parables of Jesus) were all transmitted orally. It was not until Muhammad was long gone that the Qur'an was recorded, but one can still see today the focus that Muslims place on memorizing the Qur'an. Muslims are now in agreeance that the Qur'an as we have it today was exactly as Muhammad said it, but we really have no way to prove that. Moreover, there are hundreds of Hadiths that are attributed to Muhammad. They were not organized for centuries after the Prophet and come to us through trusted lines of narrators called إسناد‎(isnad). Usually an isnad has over ten levels of a transmitter with its own amount of trust. Because of this, some Hadiths are given more credence than others. It would be like to us "Joseph Smith told Wilford Woodruff such and such and he told Orson Pratt who told Joseph F. Smith who told George A. Smith who told Spencer Kimball who told Thomas Monson who said that...". We would obviously listen to that because we trust these sources.

Islam is a great example of early Christianity because it shows the same pace at which both degenerated. As soon as the apostles were gone, chaos ensued and authenticity of Gospel truths, as taught by Jesus, is called into question, hence the need for the JST. After Muhammad died, the Islamic community was split and without a religious leader. One need only look to the Haditha for an example of an isnad gone a stray. Many of us are familiar with the term that Muhammad was the "seal" of the prophets. The Sunnah and Haditha (according to accepted isnads)interpret this to mean that he was the greatest prophet and that he would be the last. No new revelation was necessary (sound familiar?). However, there were views in early Islam, long since forgotten, that advocated that this meant that Muhammad's teachings acted as a seal on the previous prophet and ratified their meaning, rather than being the last prophet. The Islam that is taught today, whether Sunni or Shi'a, does not recognize this belief becuase the isnad is a foregone conclusion, much like the prefection of the Bible to some of our Christian brothers. We can see a second example of what happens when he who (supposedly) authority is gone and none with that power are there to interpret the word.

The first photo is from a 16th Century copy of the Qur'an and the other three pictures are examples of isnads, all deriving from Muhammad, usually labled as "The Prophet".

Elder Oaks' Counsel About Church History Reported by the Media

Recently Elder Oaks spoke at the Amasa Lyman Exposition in Salt Lake City and delivered a talk following the text of a talk he gave in 1985 regarding the Mark Hofmann letters, as reported by Mormon Times.


With the emergence of biographies of early church history and documents purporting to be the product of early church leaders, Elder Oaks reaffirmed his suggestions from 1985 when researching LDS history as reported by the media.

1) Scientific Uncertainties - "Most of the news media go to their readers or viewers on a daily or hourly basis, often under great pressure to scoop their competition. As a result, they frequently cannot obtain irrefutable scientific verification of the facts they will report."

While not directly related to science, one need only look at the recent media coverage of the LDS Missionary Calendar and the creator who was disciplined (see here).

2) Lack of Context - "An individual historical fact has meaning only in relation to other events. Outside that context, a single fact is almost certain to convey an erroneous impression. As a result, when the media report historical facts, they may provide information, but they rarely provide illumination."

Mountain Meadows comes to mind when thinking of this. Whenever this is reported on, few media outlets and even "scholarly" writings take into the context of the relationship between Utah and the Federal Government in the 1850's. Brigham Young certainly inflamed the situation with his rhetoric, but by that time I believe that LDS had a reason to be paranoid after being driven from two states and subject to Johnson's army.

3) Bias - This seems pretty obvious. Whether they intend to be or not, media is biased and has a difficult time staying objective. Even if there is no political bias, usually a media outlet will have be willing to sensationalize an item for the purpose of making money and that seems to be to make a bias towards focusing on the weird.

4) Balance - Use your head here. At least try and tell both sides. Bushman is a great example of a faithful historian who tried to look at the perspective of our enemies to see what upset them. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.

5)Truths and Half-truths - "A lie is most effective when it can travel incognito in good company, or when it can be so intermarried with the truth that we cannot determine its lineage." I think that context comes into play here as well.

For a great example of something true, taken out of context and used to prove another point, see here.

6) Evaluate - I think that the lawyer in Elder Oaks would like to say "analyze". Essentially he says that we have intellectual and spiritual analyses that we need to go through. Of course we refer to thinking the issues through and then praying about it to receive a witness from the Holy Ghost. Caveat: Evangelists beware, we do rely on the Spirit to confirm truth. As Jeremy learned last week, we should not rely on the Holy Ghost but the Bible (how one comes to the conclusion that the Bible is then true is still not clear to me).

Elder Oaks then makes an interesting comment about those who come to the intellectual conclusion that the church is incorrect:

"Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

Interesting to see that during this talk I suppose. However, when recently reading through Bryce's Templestudy.com blog and his post of priesthood keys in the Book of Mormon, I came across this comment by spektator. All I have to say is "Holy Ark Steadying Batman!"

Prof. Stephen Peck's comments on evolution and Lamanite DNA issues

In light of the recent post and discussion about evolution (see the post below on the Seven Deadly Heresies, Part Two), I want to get the word out on this post by Stephen Peck, a Professor of Biology at BYU, who just posted a response to Simon Southerton's claims about Lamanite DNA issues.

Some issues raised by Southerton about the Book of Mormon and DNA stem from comments from Joseph Smith (which is considered hearsay) and by Brigham Young about things such as sun men and moon men. Peck responds:

Joseph Smith’s opinion was like that of one of many of his contemporaries. It wasn’t well-grounded scientific thinking, even given the science of the times, (Oh don’t go stamping your foot and saying John Herschel the famous astronomer believed in moon people, true enough, but he was going against majority opinion, it’s kind of like quoting Patrick J. Michaels to support the fallacy that most scientists don’t believe in global warming (and not believing in human caused climate change today is analogous to believing in moon men in the nineteenth century)), but it’s not surprising. The folks at many of the world’s observatories at the time could have given a much better take on the moon. But so what if the prophet of the restoration was not all that scientifically informed when it comes to the moon, (This despite Widtsoe’s Joseph Smith as a Scientist), or population genetics, or evolution? That was not his calling. He was called to bring about the Restoration, not investigate the natural world. Leave that to Darwin.

Accoring to Peck, comments by General Authorities extend to scientific truths such as evolution. Check out his entire post here.