So Just Who Do These Mormons Think They Are?

And why should anyone pay attention to them?

In the Book of Mormon, 1 and 2 Nephi, we read of the highly stressful relationship of the two oldest sons of Lehi with their brother Nephi. This young whippersnapper, though he is the the fourth son, keeps taking over the leadership. On the trek back to Jerusalem to obtain the brass plates from Laban, Nephi refuses to allow them to return to their father empty-handed. Even a good beating from them can't make him see the clear sense of the thing.

When his bow breaks he makes a new one, enabling him to continue to hunt and bring fresh meat to the cooking fires. Apparently he thinks they are all dependent on him. Then he gets the crazy idea that he can build a ship. Well, actually he does build or at least supervises the building of the ship. So he wants us to load our wives and children and our aged parents on board this thing and set out on the boundless ocean. What if we get caught in a storm far from land? Another beating ... he deserves it.

Laman and Lemuel seem to be constantly angry. The clear supremacy of their position as the older sons is being threatened, ignored. Why should they bow to the authority of their younger brother? Just who does he think he is?

Now go even further back in time to Joseph the son of Jacob. He had ten older brothers. Joseph is the son of Rachel, the greatly-loved wife, and their father keeps playing favorites. Then we are told of a series of dreams,(Gen. 37:2-11), in which Joseph is shown to take precedence over his older siblings.

They react about like Laman and Lemuel would many centuries later. Not daring to kill the smart-alecky little brother outright, they try to rid themselves of him by selling him to slave traders bound for Egypt. Eventually he is proven right of course, and saves them all from famine.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana

We  see the pattern set by Joseph and his older brothers (and indeed by Cain, the elder brother, and Abel, the favored son) and followed by Laman, Lemuel and Nephi repeating itself in the Christian world today.

In the early decades of the 19th Century, a young boy with the everyday name of Joseph Smith had the temerity to proclaim a new version of the Gospel of Christ.

What?? cried the priests of the old traditions. How dare he? How dare he claim that he knows something of God that we don't know? Haven't we been to seminaries? Don't all those letters after our names mean anything to him? We've studied all the commentaries while he can barely read English. His handwriting is so poor that he must have someone else write down what he dictates. And he talks about translating ancient documents!

Now he claims to have seen God, or rather Gods. God the Father and God the Son; separate beings, he says, when we have proclaimed for centuries that "they" are one, that they have no physical, visible bodies. Joseph Smith hasn't even been to church enough to have learned the Nicene Creed!

Then this lunatic had the nerve to try to tell us what to eat, and how to care for our bodies: eat fresh fruits and vegetables, he said, cut back on the meat. No coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco, either. (D&C: 89) How does he think men can get together and talk things out without a little nip? Know what I mean?

He raved about space-time: Doctrine and Covenants 130:4–5.

Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? I answer, yes.

He talked about the conservation of matter/energy:

The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but never destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (TPJS 350–52)

O the impertinence of it all!

This farm kid, who'd never been to university, thought he knew things that ...well, you see the problem.

Today there is a great deal of talk about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and their "strange"  "new" ideas. Of course these are not new ideas at all. They only seem new to those who have not familiarized themselves with the very old ideas.

One of our number seems headed in the direction of the White House, and our "older brothers" in Christianity are in panic mode, kicking and screaming as in days long gone by.

Just who do these Mormons think they are? And why should anyone pay attention to them?

Why Electors Instead of Popular Vote?

2012 is the year in which the United States chooses a President for the next four years. This is hardly news to many of you, but the Internet reaches everywhere in the world, and there are probably millions of people who do not know this (and possibly do not care).

Really, U.S. citizens may ask? Yes, really. Do you, for example know how our nearest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, choose their leaders? How about Afghanistan, Albania or Azerbaijan? And that's just three of those nations whose names begin with "A".

So understanding how chaotic our elections must appear to others, let's take a moment to sort of summarize this quadrennial raindance.

Like all good stories, it starts with "In the beginning."

In the beginning was the Declaration of Independence.

It is true that these were not new ideas; they reflect the views of John Locke, among others. Neither was rebellion agaist the English anything new. See any history of Ireland, Scotland or Wales. Jefferson brought them to life with his exalted and unforgettable words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There followed the American Revolution, and after much deliberation, and a few failed experiments, the Constitution of the United States.

N.B.: The Constitution was adopted by the consent of the delegates, not by the consent of the people at large, who were given no opportunity to vote on it.

Q. When did the United States government go into operation under the Constitution?

A. The Constitution became binding upon nine States by the ratification of the ninth State, New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. Notice of this ratification was received by Congress on July 2, 1788. On September 13, 1788, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that electors should be appointed in the ratifying States on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that the electors vote for President on the first Wednesday in February, 1789 . . . On March 3, 1789, the old Confederation went out of existence and on March 4 the new government of the United States began legally to function . . . however, it had no practical existence until April 6, when first the presence of quorums in both Houses permitted organization of Congress. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States . . . [emphases added]   www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html 

April 6th holds a special significance for Latter-day Saints; it was on April 6th, 1830, just 41 years later, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. Mormons believe that without the nation, the Church could not have come into existence.

There is an order to all that God does, for He is not a God of confusion

We may ask ourselves, Would it not be more "fair" if the person with the majority of the popular vote won the election? Consider that the President is the President of the United States, and only by extension the President of the people. Note that the Constitution was adopted by the majority of the delegates. Thus today, the President is elected, as was George Washington, by the electors of each State.

The manner of choosing their electors is left to the States; most States choose by holding Primary Elections; some hold a caucus. Texas does both.

Nothing is said in the Constitution about political parties. In theory we could have not only three but twenty-three, if the people so desired, or in fact none at all. It would be hard to imagine an election if people could not group together somehow to make their wishes known.

The Church takes no position politically. That doesn't stop you or me from lectioneering all we want to. It is vitally important that we cast an informed vote. Our ballot is a precious heritage from centuries past, the product of sacrifice by men and women of good will. Don't waste it; don't be a spoilsport and stay home if your candidate doesn't win your party's nomination. Just make up your mind to work a little harder next time.

Jesus Was a Jew

A friend told me of a long-ago friendship with a Jew. Her only regret, she said, was that she wouldn't see him in Heaven.

Why not?, supposing for the moment that he had later committed some terrible crime.

She gave me that pitying look members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are accustomed to receiving, and pronounced "Jews don't go to Heaven, you know."

After taking amoment to absorb this information, I asked, "So you're looking forward to a Heaven where Jesus won't be admitted? Jesus was a Jew."

The conversation came to a standstill.

Another comment I've often heard (not from Mormons) is that one need only study the New Testament; the Old Testament has been fulfilled and done away with.

My personal feeling is that you can't begin to grasp the New Testament without a pretty thorough knowledge of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible or the Tanakh. ) The Book of Mormon, too, is ultimately grounded in Old Testament history and doctrine.

Comes now a new book by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Amazon's description reads:

Although major New Testament figures--Jesus and Paul, Peter and James, Jesus' mother Mary and Mary Magdalene--were Jews, living in a culture steeped in Jewish history, beliefs, and practices, there has never been an edition of the New Testament that addresses its Jewish background and the culture from which it grew--until now. 

An international team of scholars introduces and annotates the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Revelation from Jewish perspectives, in the New Revised Standard Version translation. They show how Jewish practices and writings, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, influenced the New Testament writers. ... In addition, thirty essays on historical and religious topics--Divine Beings, Jesus in Jewish thought, Parables and Midrash, Mysticism, Jewish Family Life, Messianic Movements, Dead Sea Scrolls, questions of the New Testament and anti-Judaism, and others--bring the Jewish context of the New Testament to the fore...

Note: "Click to Look Inside" must be accessed through Amazon.com. I sorry 'bout that; I'd remove it if I could!

About the Authors: Amy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies, E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies, and Professor of Jewish Studies at the Divinity School, College of Arts and Science, Graduate Department of Religion, and Program in Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN
Marc Z. Brettler is Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies at Brandeis University.

Other books by Levine and Brettler:

I was introduced to Amy-Jill Levine through the Teaching Company and their DVD: Old Testament, Taught by Amy-Jill Levine.

 It has meant more to more people than any other book in history. The influence of ancient Israel's religious and national literature is evident in everything from medieval mystery plays to modern novels, art, music, theater, film, and dance. ...The Old Testament is endlessly fascinating,because it offers everything to explore:myth, saga and history;tragedy, comedy, and farce; economics and politics; literature and poetry of surpassing beauty; court intrigue and prophetic morality; heavenly miracles and sometimes heavenly silence; questions of theodicy; answers that satisfy and answers that may not; destruction and rebuilding; despair and hope."

Disclaimer: I'm not a rep of The Teaching Company, just an admirer and occasional customer as the budget allows.

Mormons believe in the Bible and study it regularly. By this I don't mean that we pick a subject like "love" or "humility" and cherry-pick verses here and there to support our conclusions. We read it thoroughly, both for doctrine and for its historical content. We believe that in the last days, out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:3 (KJV).

We understand that Jesus was a Jew.

Of Temples, Churches and Crosses

Columnists, bloggers and other writers frequently do not familiarize themselves with the terminology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And may I say, it's mutual. We Mormons don't know a nave from an apse; we don't kneel in our services and so don't know what a prie-deux is. Mention hermeneutics or exegesis to us and our eyes will glaze over. We can only respond, "How's that again?"

But we don't spend a lot of time writing about other churches in the major dailies. And we try to be polite and not bother to correct things others say about us, unless they really cross the line, usually something about doctrine.

So forgive me if I take a few minutes here to define some terms.

First of all, it's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Mormon Church. We recognize that that's a bit of a mouthful, so it's acceptable to call members or cite instances of history or doctrine "Mormon" or "L.D.S."

Outsiders tend to use three separate terms, which are perfectly clear to us, interchangeably. These are Church, church and Temple.

• The Church. The overall organization. As in "The Church places great emphasis on higher education."

• the church. The meetinghouse, where Sunday worship services are held. Also used for other kinds of meetings, parties, etc.

• The Temple. The place where special ceremonies, such as baptism for the dead, are performed. They are closed on Sundays so members may attend their regular meetings. On Mondays they are closed for cleaning.

One blogger wrote of a black family that was turned away from a Temple on a Sunday. All they wanted, the writer stated, was to attend a simple Sunday worship service. The writer interpreted this as racism. In fact, the Temples are closed on Sundays and nobody -- black, white or green -- gets in.

It's true that you will not see a cross on or in a church or a Temple. There may be many explanations for this. My personal explanation is simply that the cross predated Jesus' life on earth by untold millennia. It appears in ancient rock art, carved there by persons who never heard of Jesus Christ. It is familiar to us as the Egyptian Ankh. We see it in so many places, indicating so many different things, that I don't just automatically think of Jesus Christ when I see one -- on an ambulance or a national flag, for example.

Finally, nothing in the New Testament indicates that the cross was used, or was expected to be used as a symbol of the Atonement. The taking of bread and water or wine is what the Lord commanded should be done in remembrance of his sacrifice.

According to L.D. Hammons (sorry; I'm not familiar with him or his credentials, except that he is obviously Christian, but he certainly shares my viewpoint in this matter):

To say that an object-shape contributes to Christianity is to attribute religious power to the object. Believing that religious objects have spiritual power is false worship and false dependence on a physical object. . . .The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is basic to Biblical Christianity, and believers remember Jesus Christ's sacrificial death when they participate in the Lord's Supper. Religious symbols, such as the cross, have no spiritual power, and such symbols are neither needed nor appropriate as aids to the worship of God.

For a illustrations and further explanations, see the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross
or  The Cross: an emblem of Christianity

God-fearing Christians believe that Jesus accepted crucifixion on a cross for the benefit of us all. The message from this is at the heart of all true Gospel preaching and consequently the cross symbol is used by two billion Christians all over the world.

This has not always been the case however. Christians didn’t use the sign of the cross as their religious symbol for many generations after Christ was crucified. Rather than being a Christian symbol of hope and love, it only had the negative association as an execution apparatus for criminals.

So initially, Christians adopted the fish symbol or the trident symbol to identify their religion. Then, early in the 4th century, when Emperor Constantine publicly declared that Christianity should be tolerated¹, execution by crucifixion was abolished and the cross became the emblem for Christians.

The cross is now carried by more people than any other religious talisman and is considered by a few to be sacred to the extent that it becomes icon of adoration in its own right. However, such idolatry is certainly not the norm in Christendom, particularly Protestant Christianity. 

2011 Primary Banner

Is "Mormonism" a Cult?

I hadn't planned to comment on this, nor on Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, but sometimes the daily news overtakes common sense and forces writers to join the debate.

By now everybody knows what happened at the Values meeting, so I won't go into that. I will, however, attempt an answer -- not "the" answer, but "an" answer to the cult business.

Not being certain what exactly is meant by the term "cult," and having decided that "us-against-them" may be accurate, but is not comprehensive, I went to the Merriam-Webster (an Encyclopedia Britannica Company) Dictionary for help. Here's their take on it:

cult

noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\

Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration  

Plea: Guilty as charged. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does practice religious veneration.

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents 

Plea: Guilty again. There is a system of religious beliefs and rituals, and there is a body of adherents.

3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents 

Whooooa!!

Question: By whom? By what authority does one religious body call another "unorthodox?" 

Again, I'm not sure what "unorthodox" means. Call me "stupid" if you like, but I want to get this right.

 

Back to M-W: unorthodox  means "not orthodox". Now there's a shocker. So how about "orthodox"?

or·tho·dox

adj \ˈȯr-thə-ˌdäks\

Definition of ORTHODOX

1 a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b: conventional

2  capitalized: of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a: eastern orthodox b: of or relating to Orthodox Judaism

— or·tho·dox·lyadverb

Examples of ORTHODOX

1. He took an orthodox approach to the problem.
2. She believes in the benefits of both orthodox medicine and alternative medicine.
3. He is a very orthodox Muslim.
4. I attend an Eastern Orthodox church.
5. My grandmother is Russian Orthodox.

I'm guessing that by "orthodox," much of what we shall call "mainstream" Christanity means accepting and conforming to the Medieval Creeds. In brief, Trinitarians.

Latter-day Saints are not Trinitarians. We believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. We believe they are one in intent and purpose, but that they are not therefore different names for the same being. When Christ in the Garden said "Not my will but thine be done;" or on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou  forsaken me?" it does not make sense to us to maintain that he was talking to himself.

Someone on one of the morning talk shows pointed out that the press and others are determined to bar religion from the public discourse. Sometimes people try to block Nativity scenes, or even have crosses removed from military cemeteries. But just let a Republican aspire to public office and -- Whammo! -- religious beliefs return with a vengeance. At this point we throw all our journalistic scruples out the window, along with any concept of fairness or truth.



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not alone in having been labeled a "cult." Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, California, recalls "a reporter once asking me: 'Evangelicalism, is that like Scientology and Hare Krishna?'"

A family I happen to know is about equally divided between Baptists and Lutherans. At Holiday gatherings, theological differences were served up with the turkey. On one memorable occasion, a Baptist pointed out that, "You know, there really was a John the Baptist, but there has never been a John the Lutheran." The Lutheran's priceless comeback: "John the Baptist lost his head, and the Baptists have been running around without one ever since!"

So, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian? (The name ought to give you a clue). Or is it a cult?  I'd say that's up to you. What do YOU  think a cult might be?

If no Comment box appears, please click on "comment" in the box below. We are anxious to hear from you.

GENERAL CONFERENCE

                                                 

Right now the big question on the blogosphere is: Why do Latter-daySaints go to General Conference?
As several have pointed out, there won't be anything "new." It's just hour after after hour of sermons, interspersed with sermons-set-to-music by the Tabernacle Choir.

Only a relative handful of Latter-day Saints (perhaps 100,000 or so) will actually be in attendance at Temple Square. So perhaps a better question is: why do millions -- members and non-members alike-- tune in on TV, radio and Internet to hear all that?

Again, chances are there won't be anything "new." No new discoveries, no new sales techniques, no new (you fill in the blank) such as we hear at business or science seminars. Only affirmation of things we already know. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself; and on these rest the Law and the Prophets. Such was Jesus' teaching, and even he was quoting the great Hillel. I doubt that was new with Hillel, either.

The answer lies in the difference between matters of practice and matters of doctrine. Matters of Practice have to do with procedure. Sunday School may be at 10:00 a.m. or at 2:00 p.m. or whenever the local leaders want it to be. In fact, it may be that Sunday School is optional. In its early days, the Church got along without any Sunday School at all. Fast Sunday, now the first Sunday of the month, was once Thursday. Years ago, Alexander Schreiner used to write a four-bar interlude to be played on the organ or piano before and after the Sacrament service (Communion or Eucharist to our fellow Christians); we don't do that any more. We used to stand for the "rest hymn" (now called Interlude) between talks and for the closing song. We don't do that any more either.

Some people seem to think that the Temple service should never change. But it does. It changes to conform to changing technology, changes in societal customs and sensitivities.

In fact we seem to have borrowed an axiom from the geologists: nothing is constant except change.

What doesn't change falls under Matters of Doctrine, chief among these being the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

So tune in. Be comforted. Be admonished. But don't look to be surprised.

If no Comment Box appears, please click on "comments in the block below. 

We are anxious to hear from you.

Huntsman

In answer to a request by thousands of my fans -- okay, one of my relatives -- here's some of the info I've gathered on Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Everybody with access to a keyboard has told the world who the writer thinks Huntsman is and what he thinks.

The New York Times has compiled his C.V., as of September 7, 2011.

Jon Huntsman at a Glance

Full Name: Jon Meade Huntsman Jr.

Political Office: Governor of Utah, 2005-2009

Business/Professional Experience: U.S. ambassador to China, 2009-present; chairman, CEO, Huntsman Family Holdings Co., 2003-2004; Deputy U.S. trade representative, 2001-2003; Vice chairman of the Board and Executive Committee member, Huntsman Corp., 1993-2001; U.S. ambassador to Singapore, 1992-1993; deputy assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, 1990-1991; deputy assistant secretary, International Trade Administration, 1989-1990; senior vice president and general manager, Huntsman International, 1988-1992; vice president, firector, Huntsman Pacific Chemical Corp., 1987-1988; product manager, Huntsman Chemical Corp., 1986-1989; state director, Utah Reagan-Bush campaign, 1984; staff assistant, the White House, 1983; secretary of the Huntsman Corp., 1982-1989; special assistant to the chairman, Republican National Committee, 1982.

Date of Birth: March 26, 1960

Place of Birth: Palo Alto, Calif.

Education: B.A., University of Pennsylvania, 1987

Spouse: Married Mary Katherine Cooper, Nov.18, 1983

Children: Mary Anne, Abigail, Elizabeth, Jon III, William, Gracie Mei, Asha Bharati

Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)

******************************
As he sees himself:


A version of this [following] article appeared in print on September 1, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Huntsman Urges Stripping Deductions From Tax Code.

On Science: Twitter:To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy. Thu Aug 18.

On Lybia: Monday [Aug 22]: “The impending fall of Colonel Qaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Qaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful — as the whole world should be — that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it.”

On jobs and taxes: “Over the last few decades, our tax code has devolved into a maze of special-interest carve-outs, loopholes and temporary provisions that cost taxpayers more than $400 billion a year to comply with,” Mr. Huntsman said in a speech at a metal plant in Hudson, N.H. “Get rid of all tax expenditures, all loopholes, all deductions, all subsidies, all corporate welfare.”

Mr. Huntsman’s plan, which borrows from both Representative Paul D. Ryan’s proposal and the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations to reduce the deficit, also calls for sharply lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, as well as ending taxes on capital gains and dividends, positions more in line with Republican orthodoxy.

It calls for simplified income tax rates of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent, but would eliminate popular tax breaks like the deduction for interest on home mortgages.
******************

On China: NYT 9-7-11."updated 6-21-11" No date for lecture given:    Using a high-profile annual lecture on Chinese-American relations to make his final public address as ambassador, Mr. Huntsman said bluntly that prominent Chinese activists had been unfairly detained or jailed, naming Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, who is serving an 11- year prison sentence for “subversion,” and Ai Weiwei, the Beijing artist who was taken into custody in April 2011.

The most poignant moment of his remarks came in the question-and-answer session when someone asked what he thought of China’s one-child policy. (The policy was recently in the news when, during his visit to China, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to condone it.)

“I hate the one-child policy, as do a lot of people there,” Mr. Huntsman said, explaining that “it is robbing the Chinese people of life and opportunity.”

But, he added, his 12-year-old daughter, whom he and his wife adopted from China, was a direct result of the policy.

“I’ve got to say it has given me one of the loves of my life in my own daughter,” he said.

  *****
Deseret News 5-20-11
On Israel:KING: Would you tell the prime minister of Israel, go into talks with the Palestinians and start with the premise that you start with the 1967 borders?

HUNTSMAN: I would say you know best how to conduct this negotiation. ... We can't force these issues. We have to make sure that security, economic development, settlements, regional security, the changing nature of the Middle East that we couldn't even have conceived of six months ago, that all of that is taken into proper consideration at the negotiating table. And that's best left up to both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government.

KING: So the U.S. should pull back, not get as involved? . . .

HUNTSMAN: There's a role for us to play, but I think when we start defining, you know, pre-'67 War borders, we're probably preempting discussions that may get them there eventually and probably will eventually. But they have to take it at their pace and they have to make sure that it's cued up with all of the other issues that matter, as well.

***************************************
And as others see him:
Sylvia Kronstadt on the ivillage declares that he "should just play a president on tv"  and The fact that he announced yesterday he is soon "going to announce" his candidacy for president -- and that he hadn't even told his wife, who was sitting in the audience, looking shocked -- tells us something about his character as well as his marriage. ...  He is never caught off guard. He is never embarrassed or uncertain. Smugness is his armor. He is like a beautifully designed robot who comes complete with pre-programmed gestures and commentary: "moving forward," "at the end of the day," "sooner rather than later." ...Huntsman is in love with himself. His movie-star poses are all over the Internet, with that perfect hair, the lavender scarf tossed around his neck, his matinee idol smile. He has cut back a bit on his use of self-tanning products following a considerable amount of national media ridicule, but he can’t resist it entirely, and it does fortify his image of glowing vigor. ...Exactly what is it that has made us great, Jon? I very much doubt that it was someone like you. ?"

Sorry Sylvia, but I'm afraid this stuff comes across sounding like a woman scorned.

As Governor of Utah, he did reform the tax code, including, according to the Huffington Post, "a new flat state income tax of about 5 percent, a reduction of the sales tax on unprocessed food from 4.75 percent to 1.75 percent, and nearly $30 million in tax credits for industries such as renewable energy development and mining. ...pushed for money to preserve open space and farmlands, fought efforts to store nuclear waste in Utah, and vetoed a bill requiring environmental groups to post a bond if they file a lawsuit to stop a project ... recognized that the state's reputation as a difficult place to find a drink was hurting tourism and business development. He successfully pushed the GOP-controlled Legislature to change the law."

At the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Library on Wednesday Sept. 7, Huntsman quickly sidestepped a question about the turmoil in his campaign by suggesting the moderator call John Weaver. Weaver was deeply involved in the bitter rivalries and resignations that followed Huntsman's botched announcement. Such things as a camera shot that missed the Statue of Liberty; spelling his name "John" on the credentials; the lack of a policy director to furnish the white papers; and hauling  the  press to a Saudi plane instead of the campaign plane give the impression of a campaign thrown together without much forethought. And finally, the candidate refuses to put more of his own money into the effort. 
Huntsman indicated that evening that he was losing sleep over the operational side of the organization.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60641_Page4.html#ixzz1XKX3X0rL

Before the debate on Wednesday the press had decided the race for the nomination would be between Romney and Perry. Afterward, nothing had changed. It might be well to remember that at this point in 2008 the frontrunners were Guiliani and Thompson.

Huntsman has the time and the resources to rise to the top tier of candidates. But unless he can get control of his operation in short order, he would do well to wait for 2016.

If no Comment Box appears, please click on "comment" in the box below. 

We are anxious to hear from you.

Building Your Business On a Budget

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Can't we lay this question aside once and for all? Reading here and there that "Mormonism has been proven wrong by the DNA of American Indians"  has itself been shown to be not only wrong but just plain silly for so long that I'm tempted to throw a shoe at the computer every time I see it.

But it persists. So once again:

• The Book of Mormon does not say that the American Indians are Jews in disguise. It does say that two men, Lehi and Ishmael took their families and left the Holy Land in 600 B.C. Both these men, though they resided in Judah, were of the House of Joseph, not Judah.
• Mormons do not believe the American Indians are one of the Ten Lost Tribes. As someone has astutely pointed out, if we knew where they were they wouldn't be "lost". As in the case of invaders everywhere, the victorious parties take over the most desirable lands, ports of entry, and other such things. Soldiers, craftsmen or shipbuilders may be taken away, but the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker is left where he is to continue producing food and durable goods for the conquerors. The Soviet Union collapsed in living memory. Ask yourself: Where did all those people go? 
• DNA has nothing incontrovertible to say about the origins of the American Indian. For one thing, DNA deteriorates over time, especially when introduced into a new group. Lehites intermarried with the existing population. It would be nothing short of amazing to find their DNA here after 2600 years (even if we knew what their DNA looked like, which we don't.)

It's popular, even among some scientists, to say that DNA proves that the American Indian came from Asia. However, as late as 2010, National Geographic reported that:

Nearly all of today's Native Americans in North, Central, and South America can trace part of their ancestry to six women whose descendants immigrated around 20,000 years ago, a DNA study suggests.

Those women left a particular DNA legacy that persists to today in about about 95 percent of Native Americans, researchers said.

The finding does not mean that only these six women gave rise to the migrants who crossed into North America from Asia in the initial populating of the continent, said study co-author Ugo Perego.

The women lived between 18,000 and 21,000 years ago, though not necessarily at exactly the same time, he said. . . . The six "founding mothers" apparently did not live in Asia because the DNA signatures they left behind aren't found there, Perego said. They probably lived in Beringia, the now-submerged land bridge that stretched to North America, he said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/20897672.html

Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor. 

 http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_Si/nmnh/origin.htm

Once again -- DNA, archaeology or any other scientific endeavor is so far unable to prove the Book of Mormon either right or wrong. But if you're going to condemn it, have the grace to read it first.

If no Comment Box appears, please click on "comment" in the box below. 

We are anxious to hear from you.

     I think everyone dreams of owning their own business.

FIRST WORDS

This is my first blog, so it seems that a word of introduction would be in order.


I'm a longtime member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), a convert from a family of non-church-goers. So from childhood on I heard a lot about Mormons: they have horns and use carrots for money. But since we now have two Mormons in the Presidential race,  I'm hearing things I've never heard before.


While I am in no way authorized to speak for the Church in any official way, I think a lifetime of study has given me some insight, and I'd like a chance to answer some of your questions.


BTW I do have an M.A. degree, so I'm reasonably intelligent -- at least able to read and write. My field of study, besides religion, is cultural history, which is a blend of history and anthropology. I sincerely doubt that I'm easily misled.


So lets get started. Here are a few things you may like to comment on:


Yes, we Mormons are Christians and No, we are not Trinitarians, though we do believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.


We don't practice polygamy (incidentally, plural wives is  polygyny) and haven't since 1890.


There's no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology, but like many others I could point out a few things that are at least suggestive.


We don't believe the Book of Mormon replaces or conflicts with the Bible. The Bible deals with people in Egypt and the Southern Levant, for the most part. The Book of Mormon tells of people who left that area and came to the New World. You probably don't think a history of Finland would replace a history of Japan. See what I mean?


Then there's those pesky golden plates. In the last few years there have been numerous finds of records on metal plates of different kinds, dating back to Lehi's time and before. Does this "prove" the Book of Mormon is true? No, it's just one of those little things that keep cropping up here and there that make the Book of Mormon story that much easier to accept.




Well, that ought to be enough to get started. Now it's your turn.

If no Comment Box appears, please click on "comment" in the box below. 

We are anxious to hear from you.

A Horse Of Course

One of the many criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the mention of horses and other animals thought to be anachronistic. I don’t claim to have any stunning new insights, or any definitive “proof” of these things.

However, better scholars than I have written about several of the things about the Book of Mormon that have proven worrisome to some.  According to Wikipedia, ”In early 2009 a major Clovis cache, now called the Mahaffey Cache, was found in Boulder, Colorado,  with 83 Clovis stone tools. The tools were found to have traces of horse and cameloid protein. They were dated to 13,000 to 13,500 YBP, a  date confirmed by sediment layers in which the tools were found and the types of protein residues found on the   artifacts.[4]    “13,000-Year-Old Stone Tool Cache in Colorado Shows Evidence of Camel, Horse Butchering”. University of Colorado at Boulder. February 25, 2009. Retrieved 22 September 2010

In 2011, the Northern Great Basin Prehistory Project reported that Obsidian projectile points, bifaces, flakes and scrapers were recovered  with horse bones in basal sands dated between 13,000 and 14,600 cal. BP……However, a second horse phalanx was recovered from an adjacent 1×1 meter  excavation unit at a depth of 210-215 cm. It produced an AMS date of 13,140 cal. BP.
                                       

Dennis l. Jenkins

Human coprolites from this deposit have produced AMS                           radiocarbon dates as old as the camel astragalus. Radiocarbon dating                of  twigs, urine, bone, coprolite, cordate and charcoal have produced                more than 40 dates ranging from 1240 to 16,190 cal. BP. Artifacts and             coprolites found in well-stratified and soundly-dated contexts have          produced C-14 dates between 14,170 and 14,340 cal. BP…… At this point, we have proven that people occupied the caves during the time that camels and horses were present in the region. We are now working to  demonstrate that people had a part in the deposition of  their bones in the Paisley Caves. ….by Dennis L. Jenkins  Director, Northern Great Basin Field School.

Now this does not tell us there were horses in the time of the Jaredites or the Nephites. The only chronological reference to the Jaredites is that they left the Middle East at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. And indeed Josephus tells us that “After this (the Tower of Babel) they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies every where; and each colony took possession of that land which they light upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and the maritime countries. There were some also who passed over the sea in ships, and inhabited the islands.”

Then we have the problem of words which cannot be translated in any reasonable way. Can we know what animal is actually meant by the term “horse” in the Book of Mormon? What is the English equivalent of “enchilada,” for example? Michael Ash discusses onomastica in the following:

 First, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text–it’s a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. When we, as modern readers, read texts from ancient or foreign cultures, we often misunderstand what the ancient or foreign author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem “plain” to us are not so “plain” upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text…….When translators run into the problem of untranslateable words, they resolve the issue by way of several options–such as adaptation, paraphrasing, borrowing, and more.10 The same thing happens when people find it necessary to label new and unfamiliar items–what is known as cross-cultural onomastica  (onomastica refers to the names we assign to people, animals, or things). Anthropologists and linguists tell us that when a society encounters foreign floral and fauna, they often “loan-shift” words–they expand familiar terms to include unfamiliar items.11 Loan-shifting can also happen during the translation of one language to another.12 Two languages need not resemble each other phonetically in order for loan-shifting to occur.1

Instead of creating entirely new words for unfamiliar things, sometimes people tend to “translate” new things into their own language by expanding their current words to include the new item. …This problem is not limited to ancient societies. The American “buffalo,” for example, is actually a bison and is only distantly related to the water buffalo and African buffalo (the two true buffalos).14 What most Americans call a “moose” is actually an elk, “elk” are actually red deer, and “antelope” are not real antelopes.15…..When the Maya saw the European goat they called it a “short-horned deer”18 and when the Miami Indians, who were familiar with cows, first encountered the unfamiliar buffalo they simply called them “wild cows.” Likewise the explorer DeSoto called the buffalo “vaca” which is Spanish for “cow.” The Delaware Indians named the cow “deer,” and a group of Miami Indians labeled the unfamiliar sheep “looks-like-a-cow.”19The reintroduced Spanish horse was unfamiliar to the Native Americans and so it became associated with either the deer or the tapir. When Cortes and his horses arrived, the Aztecs simply called the unfamiliar horses “deer.” 20 One Aztec messenger reported to Montezuma: “Their deer carry them on their backs wherever they wish to go. These deer, our lord, are as tall as the roof of a house.”21

See the complete article at http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

Horses and other animals are by no means the central message of the Book of Mormon. It is, as its Title Page proclaims, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

The Mormon Church distributes free copies of the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. For your free copy of the Bible, go to Free Holy Bible and for a free Book of Mormon, go to Free Book of Mormon.

If no Comment Box appears, please click on "comment" in  the box below. 

We are anxious to hear from you.