I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

members of the Lemba Tribe

The History Channel has a show called “Digging for the Truth.” In season 1, they did an episode called “The Lost Tribe of Israel”, which highlighted the Lemba Tribe in South Africa.  This group claims to be a Hebrew people who were displaced around 700 BC, about 100 years before Lehi left Jerusalem.  I couldn’t help but notice many similarities between their story, and the story of Lehi.  (This is a short version of my post.  The longer version can be found here.)

Let me give a brief background on Israel, and the Lost Tribes of Israel.  We all remember that the Kingdom of Israel was a united kingdom under David and Solomon.  After Solomon’s death, the kingdom split into a northern kingdom called the Kingdom of Israel, containing the 10 tribes, and a southern kingdom called the Kingdom of Judah, containing Jerusalem and the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and part of Joseph.  The tribe of Levi (also referred to as Kohanim) was the priestly tribe, and did not receive a land of inheritance, and was sprinkled throughout the northern and southern kingdoms to take care of religious matters.  Around 700 BC, the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom.  Isaiah prophesied that if the southern Kingdom turned to God, they would be protected.  100 years later, during the life of Lehi and Jeremiah, the Babylonians took over the Assyrian territory, and took control over the Southern Kingdom as well.

The video has some really interesting claims about the lost tribes, and the Lemba, a black African tribe claiming to be Jewish.  Scholars seem to be split as to whether the lost tribes will ever be found.  Here are two different schools of thought.  The first comes from a scholar who believes the lost tribes could still exist.  The DVD refers to the term “diaspora.”  When the tribes were scattered (or dispersed), they had to learn to live their religion without a temple, so this scattering is called the diaspora.  Note this traditional Jewish dress they wear.

I also want to mention that the show’s host is Josh Bernstein.  He has some Jewish ancestry, studied archaeology in New York, and has a home in the four corners region of Utah.  He is quite an outdoorsman, and loves to do crazy stunts in his own life, and in the show.  He is both the narrator, and interviewer.  I even got a kick out of it when he uncovered a scorpion, and said, “that’s much bigger than they are in Utah.”

The DVD discusses various lost tribe claims.  Quoting from the video,

People have claimed to have found lost tribes all over the world, from Siberia to Australia.  Some of the first Europeans who landed in the Americas, assumed the natives were lost tribes, and even tried to communicate with them in Hebrew.  Historian Hillel Halkin has written a book [Across the Sabbath River] about the lost tribes, and thinks that they could still exist today.

Bernstein, “Why are you so passionate about the lost tribes of Israel?”

Halkin, “The lost tribe myth really is through Jewish eyes among other things, a story of tough Jews.  Living still like the Jews biblical ancestors:  independent, warrior-like, fearless, all the things that Jews in the diaspora, over the ages generally were not.

Contrasted by this view is another scholar.

Israel Finkelstein [Archaeologist, Te l Aviv University] believes that when they Assyrians conquered this land, they wiped out all the leadership of the tribes of Israel.  The populations was either killed or assimilated into other parts of the Assyrian Empire.  He doesn’t believe they could be found today.

…

Finkelstein, “I don’t think that you can travel anywhere, and look for the lost tribes.  I mean I make a distinction between what we know from archeology, history, and so on, and all sorts of popular ideas of going this way or that way, and finding a lost tribe.  There’s no need whatsoever to go around the world, in my opinion, and look for lost tribes.”

So, let’s talk about the Lemba, who claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, just as Lehi and his descendants claim.  What I found so interesting was the fact that the first part of the journey follows the same route that Mormons believe Lehi followed, along the frankincense trail in Saudi Arabia.  The difference is that once they got to Yemen, Lehi and his group turned east, while the Lemba seem to have stayed in Yemen for a time, before heading south across the Red Sea through Africa.  Here is a map of the Lemba’s proposed route.

Proposed route of Lemba

The Lemba’s story goes like this:  Thousands of years ago, they were forced out of Israel, and settled in a place called Sena, which is believed to be the present day Yemen.  There they lived as traders and craftsmen, until war, or natural disaster pushed them across the Red Sea and into Africa.  Then began a slow migration south.  Along the way, according to the Lemba, they built great stone cities.  It’s a claim that has fascinated archaeologists.  Why?  Because the ruins of ancient stone cities still exist in southern Africa today.”…

To help me make sense of it, I’ve asked historian Dr. Magdel Le Roux [University of South Africa, Pretoria] to come with me to the site.  She’s been studying the Lemba for years and has just published a book on the similarities between their social customs, and those of the Old Testament Israelites.

Josh Bernstein, “There are specific parallels between the religious practices of Lemba today and the religious practices of ancient Israel?”

Le Roux, “Definitely.  They’ve got remnants of an ancient type of Israelite religious practices, so in a way they concert this very special ancient type of…

Bernstein, “an old school religion”

Le Roux, “yes”

Bernstein, “But how do they maintain their religious identity?  How’d they keep it intact for so many years in this long journey from Israel down to South Africa?”

Le Roux, “That’s a good question.  I think it’s by means of oral tradition.  By keeping themselves seperate from other groups.  They lived with other peoples, moving with them, migrating down with them.  That’s one of the characteristics that they keep their culture.  They just live it.”

The Lemba claim to have built many stone cities along the way, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  The show quotes a few scholars who believe they have found some of these cities, and show archaeological links between Yemen, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.  While there is no archaeological evidence tying the Lemba directly to Israel, they exhibit some amazing social, musical, and religious practices that seem quite related to ancient Judaism.  The most interesting part of the show was the discussion of DNA tests which seem to indicate a Middle Eastern origin.

I guess what is interesting about the Lemba is that they have a similar story to the people of Lehi, but 100 years prior.  The DNA issue in the Americas has led many Mormon scholars to take the position that the Nephites were an insignificant population genetically, and that DNA cannot be traced because of their minority status.  However, the case of the Lemba shows that Semitic origins can be traced among a small minority population.  Even though they look strikingly similar to the Venda and Bantu tribes, they have a different DNA makeup than these other indigenous African tribes.

That’s why I’ve come to Johannesburg.  The scientists here at the National Health Laboratory Services have screened in the genetic profiles of the Lemba, and their neighboring tribes, the Venda, and the Bantu.  They’ve come up with some revealing conclusions.

…Bernstein, “So the genetic data doesn’t say that the Lemba are Jewish, as much as it says they have Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “Yes, that’s how we put it.  What we were saying was that there is a non-African contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba, which is not evident in the peoples amongst whom they live in that part of the world.”

…

Soodyall , “this is the very interesting thing-that the South African Lemba have a particular y-chromosome pattern or lineage that’s common in people who identify as the Kohanim, or the Jewish priests.”

In the Jewish tradition, the Kohanim are part of the priestly caste.  Amazingly, scientists have isolated a strand of DNA that is strongly associated with the Kohanim.  It’s called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, and it’s almost exclusive to Jews who claim the priestly heritage-almost exclusive.  The Cohen Modal Haplotype has been found among the priestly caste of the Lemba.

Soodyall , “The observation that the Cohen pattern was commonest in that one particular group is something that begs exploration.”

I remember that there is a theory claiming that the BoM took place in Africa.  Now I know that FARMS considered it laughable, but as I look at the map above, there do seem to be some significantly sized lakes and seas along the Lemba route.  The BoM also talks about the Lamanites were a “dark and loathsome people.”  Now, if the Lamanites had intermarried with an indigenous population like the Lemba did, then the “dark” part becomes a very interesting description for this people (though the “loathsome” part is obviously racially charged.)

Now I’m not claiming the Lemba are the Lamanites, but don’t you think that this opens up some possibilities for the Book of Mormon?  Perhaps we really need to consider some really radical settings for the BoM (in addition to the Malay Theory I reviewed previously).  What do you think?

If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. . . . [W]e have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. . . . We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” . . . We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive. -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Mar. 6, 2006. (Source.)

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers–if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.” -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Oct. 4, 2009. (Source.)

When Elder Holland delivered his stinging rebuke to Book of Mormon critics in his General Conference address last Sunday, reactions ranged from “woots” and “double woots” by literalist believers of the Book of Mormon, to disappointment by those who felt Elder Holland was backtracking on his prior statement that Church members who don’t believe the traditional story of its origins should not be considered “unacceptable . . . as a Latter-day Saint if [they] can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” However, after listening carefully to Elder Holland’s address again, I think both camps might be mistaken about what Elder Holland was intending to say, particularly with regard to the “Inspired Fiction” theory of the Book of Mormon.

The Inspired Fiction Theory and Its Scriptural Precedents

For those who may not be familiar with the Inspired Fiction theory, it goes something like this: Scripture is a vehicle that teaches us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories which are oftentimes fictional. Just a few of the more obvious examples would be the parables contained in the New Testament, or the fantastic stories in the Old Testament (Noah and the Ark, Moses’ divine cursing of Egypt, Jonah living three days in the belly of a whale, etc.). These seemingly obvious examples of divinely-inspired fiction are no less important or valuable as sources of divine guidance than had they been literally true. For example, the stories of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan do not have to be based on literal historic events to have spiritual value. Moreover, the fact that Jesus openly used fictional stories to teach timeless truths establishes an example and a pattern of God teaching his children spiritual truths through stories that are not grounded in literal, historic fact.

Latter-day Saint Apostles and scholars have embraced the notion that scripture may be divinely-inspired fiction. For example, Apostle Parley P. Pratt stated that the Creation story was the equivalent of a child’s fable because humankind has not been intellectually equipped throughout the ages to understand its true origins. (See Temples of the Most High.)

Moreover, faithful LDS scholars who have examined the surviving Egyptian papyri that were in Joseph Smith’s possession (which contain the facsimiles that appear in the Book of Abraham but which date from around 100 – 250 B.C. rather than from Abraham’s much earlier era) have theorized that perhaps the Book of Abraham was not translated from Egyptian papyri even though Joseph Smith said it was, but rather, that the Book of Abraham was a divine revelation that Joseph was able to receive only after his mind was opened and prepared to receive it by examining the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) In other words, faithful LDS scholars hypothesize that despite Joseph’s claim that the Book of Abraham was “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” the papyrus merely served as a “catalyst” to inspire a divine revelation that was, in fact, not contained on the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) These LDS scholars feel comfortable with this possibility because, as one LDS apologetics forum explains: “Joseph used the word ‘translation‘ to mean several things, including the process of receiving pure revelation. (Joseph Smith’s revelations call his revision of the Bible a “translation” (D&C 73:4; 76:15; 90:13; 94:10; 124), even though he didn’t use any Hebrew of Greek manuscripts. Also, D&C 7 is a revealed translation of a lost record written by the Apostle John.)” (Source.) Again, it is worth emphasizing that, according to faithful LDS apologists, Joseph Smith is known to have used the word “translation” to mean “the process of receiving pure revelation,” as opposed to literally translating words in an ancient record from one language to another. (Source.) Thus, faithful LDS scholars have no qualms with the possibility that Joseph may have thought he was producing a “translation” of an ancient record when in reality he was receiving and recording “pure revelation” that was unconnected to any ancient record, even when a physical object such as Egyptian papyri were present. The overall concept is that Joseph’s revelations were divinely inspired even if he didn’t completely understand the process through which those revelations were received.

Resistance to, and Acceptance of, the Inspired Fiction Theory

When it comes to applying this same sort of theory to the Book of Mormon, however, the resistance sometimes becomes fierce. It seems most LDS leaders and scholars are unwilling to extend this same theory to the Book of Mormon, and are deeply disturbed by any suggestion that the Book of Mormon represents anything less than an actual translation of Reformed Egyptian characters into English taken from an actual historical record written by real persons living anciently in the Middle East and on the American continent. It is worth noting that this resistance to the Inspired Fiction theory persists even though LDS scholars now believe Joseph Smith and his contemporary Latter-day Saints were mistaken when they made many statements indicating their belief that the Book of Mormon accounts had taken place over large swaths of the North American continent. (Source.)

In summary, most LDS scholars are comfortable stating that Joseph Smith did not actually “translate” the Book of Abraham and the Bible as that word is commonly understood, and that he was mistaken in thinking that the Book of Mormon accounts took place over large swaths of the North American continent (rather than a relatively small area in Guatemala and southern Mexico), but they are unwilling to allow for the possibility that Joseph Smith also mistakenly believed the Book of Mormon was a translation of an actual ancient record.

Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham? In a prior interview, Elder Holland explained why he has difficulty embracing the Inspired Fiction theory:

Now, in terms of more modern theories, there are those who say it’s more mythical literature and spiritual, and not literal. That doesn’t work for me. I don’t understand that, and I can’t go very far with that, because Joseph Smith said there were plates, and he said there was an angel. And if there weren’t plates and there wasn’t an angel, I have a bigger problem than whether the Book of Mormon is rich literature. . . . I have to go with what the prophet said about the book, about its origins, about the literalness of the plates, the literalness of the vision — and then the product speaks for itself.

I don’t think we’re through examining the depth, the richness, the profundity, the complexity, all of the literary and historical and religious issues that go into that book. I think we’re still young at doing that. But the origins for me are the origins that the prophet Joseph said: a set of plates, given by an angel, translated by the gift and power of God. . . . (Source.)

However, some LDS scholars, usually those whose conclusions fall outside the “mainstream” of what Church leaders and Church-funded scholars are comfortable accepting, view the Inspired Fiction theory as a favorable “middle ground” position where Latter-day Saints can continue to reverence the Book of Mormon as divinely-inspired scripture without having to believe it is an actual translation of an actual ancient record written by real people, and thereby avoiding the numerous challenges to the Book of Mormon’s historicity that currently keep a team of Church-funded scholars employed to research and respond to.  However, as LDS scholar Louis Midgley has explained, such a “middle ground” position is harmful to the Church’s tradition and interests:

Some may ask: why not find a way to reduce the controversy over the Book of Mormon? What harm can such an accommodation do? The reasons for rejecting such compromises seem obvious to me. For one thing, the Book of Mormon is, more than anything else, what keeps the Church of Jesus Christ from becoming just another Protestant sect or social welfare agency. Its existence makes of Joseph Smith something other than a mere quaint or colorful example in a line of Christian primitivists or restorationists. In addition, the Book of Mormon was what witnessed to those who first became members of the fledgling Church of Christ that Joseph Smith wore the mantle of a genuine prophet, as it does to those who are currently believing and practicing Latter-day Saints. And its existence has, more than any other single thing, right from the beginning, distinguished the Latter-day Saints from various brands of Protestant sectarian religiosity. (Source.)

Did Elder Holland Denounce or Carefully Avoid the Inspired Fiction Theory?

Though it is clear that Elder Holland’s recent Conference address denounced all theories that portray Joseph Smith as having knowingly fabricated a book that he knew was not divinely-inspired, it is less clear to me after carefully listening to Elder Holland’s talk whether he was likewise intending to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory that portrays Joseph as receiving and dictating a divinely-inspired but fictional history of Israelites emigrating to and settling in ancient America as a medium for conveying spiritual truths and doctrines that promote the happiness, peace, and spiritual well-being of humankind. As you read the portions of Elder Holland’s address quoted below, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between what Elder Holland personally believes about the Book of Mormon, and what he is comfortable allowing other faithful Latter-day Saints to believe about its origins (as we see reflected in the very first Holland quote above). Although it is clear that Elder Holland personally believes the Book of Mormon is an actual translation of an actual ancient historical record, and although it is likewise clear he finds it utterly unacceptable for any Latter-day Saint to believe that Joseph Smith knowingly, and therefore deceptively, fabricated the Book of Mormon, ask yourself as you read Elder Holland’s remarks whether he allows for faithful Latter-day Saints to believe that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph was simply mistaken in saying it was a translation of an actual physical historical record (as LDS scholars are willing to accept when it comes to the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith believed he was “translating”). For example, when Elder Holland states that Latter-day Saints are “deceived” unless they believe in the “divinity” of the Book of Mormon, does that mean he feels Latter-day Saints are deceived if they believe it is divinely-inspired fiction?

In my view, Elder Holland selected his words very carefully, I suspect for the purpose of allowing faithful Latter-day Saints to hold a position that he personally does not share: that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph did not recognize its stories as being fictional (again, similar to LDS apologists’ theory that Joseph mistakenly believed the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of an actual historical record, rather than knowingly lying about it, and similar to LDS apologists’ assertion that Joseph was mistaken in believing that the Book of Mormon actually took place over large swaths of North America, rather than knowingly lying about it). And now, without further ado, the relevant portions of Elder Holland’s talk (as transcribed by me from the audio recording):

There is one kind of latter-day destruction that has always sounded to me more personal than public, more individual than collective, a warning perhaps more applicable inside the Church than outside it. The Savior warned in the last days, even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth. . . . [Elder Holland then identifies the Book of Mormon as a source of divine guidance in the Latter-days, summarizes Lehi's dream, focusing on the rod of iron and the mists of darkness, and relates a story of Hyrum reading a Book of Mormon passage to bring comfort to the party on their way to Carthage jail.]

Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards that held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book, and by implication a church and a ministry, they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?! . . . [A]nd tell me, whether in this hour of death, these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge, quoting from, and finding solace in, a book which if not the very word of God would brand them as impostors and charlatans until the end of time. They would not do that! They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Elder Holland’s choice of words above is interesting. A Latter-day Saint who believes the Book of Mormon represents divinely-inspired fiction would whole-heartedly agree with his remarks about the Book of Mormon’s “divine authenticity,” “divinity,” “truthfulness,” “divine origin,” and “eternal truthfulness,” in the same way he or she would embrace the “divine authenticity” and “divine origin” and “eternal truthfulness” of Jesus’ parables or any number of the fantastic stories in the Old Testatment. Moreover, when Elder Holland uses the word “fictitiously” above, it’s seems he almost certainly means that Joseph would not have knowingly fictitiously created the Book of Mormon, as opposed to his receiving a divine revelation that he did not recognize as being a fictional spiritual history (again, in the same way LDS apologists hypothesize with regard to the Book of Abraham). This line of thought continues in the next paragraph, where he denounces the various theories that portray Joseph as knowingly plagiarizing from other works to create the Book of Mormon, or knowingly fabricating it out of whole cloth:

Failed theories about its origins have been born, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young, unlearned translator. . . . “No wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so.” I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers–if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.

Again, I do not see anything here that should cause Latter-day Saints who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon’s origins to feel as if they’ve been pronounced “deceived” by Elder Holland. While he obviously sees “Semitic complexity” in the Book of Mormon, which he plainly relies upon to support his personal view that it represents literal history, he does so in the context of denouncing those those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Of course, those who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction are in full agreement with Elder Holland about the divinity of the Book of Mormon, and could further believe that any genuine “Semitic complexity” within its pages was divinely-inspired as well.

Elder Holland then cited as support for his position that witnesses to the Gold Plates, some of whom were later sometimes hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the Gold Plates by the power of God and not the power of man. Thus, Elder Holland plainly believes in the literal existence of Gold Plates, and views them as being the source material for the Book of Mormon, along with “gift and power of God” to translate them. However, there is no plain denunciation of those who believe the Gold Plates could have been an angelically-provided object that served as a catalyst to open and prepare Joseph’s mind to receive the Book of Mormon through revelation, in the same way that LDS apologists posit Joseph received the “pure revelation” of the Book of Abraham after examining the catalyst to that revelation, namely, the Egyptian papyri in his possession. Moreover, this would explain the accounts where Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon while he gazed into a seer stone placed in his hat, rather than by reading from the characters on the Gold Plates. (Source.)

Elder Holland continues:

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared . . . . I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically-delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek . . . . I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, I give my name unto the world to witness unto the world of that which I have seen, and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I suppose one could read the quote above cynically to mean that Elder Holland said he didn’t do any of these things because they never actually happened, but I don’t believe for a second that was his intended meaning. It seems this passage again demonstrates Elder Holland’s belief that these were actual historic events. But is that the equivalent of saying that those Latter-day Saints who do not share that belief are “deceived”? I personally don’t think so, because when he referred to Latter-day Saints being “deceived” about the Book of Mormon earlier in his remarks, he did so in the context of identifying those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Moreover, if at any point in his talk Elder Holland intended to say that faithful Latter-day Saints must believe the Book of Mormon is a literal historical account of real people, he could easily have just said so. For example, he could have easily testified to the Book of Mormon’s “historical truthfulness” or “historical authenticity” but instead, he chose to testify of its “divinity” and “eternal truthfulness.”

Elder Holland concluded with his personal testimony of the Book of Mormon:

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I can summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days. My witness echoes that of Nephi, who wrote part of the book in his last days, “hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, . . . and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day.

Remember this declaration by Jesus himself: “Whoso treasureth up my word shall not be decieved.” And in the last days, neither your heart nor faith will fail you. Of this I earnestly testify, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Once again, a Latter-day Saint who ascribes to the Inspired Fiction theory would have no problem echoing Elder Holland’s testimony that the Book of Mormon is “true” any more than the average LDS apologist would bristle at the suggestion that that the parables of Jesus, or the Book of Abraham or the Joseph Smith”translation” of the Bible, are “true”–even though those are all recognized by LDS apologists as potentially being divinely-inspired fiction and not literal translations of actual historical records in Joseph’s possession.

Finally, I can’t help noting what I feel must have been carefully chosen wording by Elder Holland in saying that the Book of Mormon “came forth the way Joseph said it came forth.” This language struck me because it reminded me of a passage in an official Church text book used in CES Institute and BYU Religion classes, Church History in the Fullness of Times:

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

The Prophet was reluctant to give the details about the translation. In a Church conference held 25-26 October 1831 in Orange, Ohio, Hyrum requested that a firsthand account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon be given. But the Prophet said, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.” Joseph explained in an open letter to a newspaper editor in 1833 the heart of the matter, but he gave few particulars, stating that the Book of Mormon was “found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God.” (Church History in the Fullness of Times, p. 58, Church Education System, 1993.)

This passage raises some interesting questions: Why did Joseph and Oliver say so little about the method of translation of the Book of Mormon? Why was Joseph Smith “reluctant to give the details about the translation”? When Joseph Smith’s own brother Hyrum, who obviously believed in the Book of Mormon, asked Joseph to give a firsthand account of its coming forth to a Church conference, why did Joseph answer that “[i]t was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon”? Why did Joseph stick to generalities about the Book of Mormon being translated “by the gift and power of God”?

Elder Holland’s fervent testimony that the Book of Mormon “came forth in the way Joseph said it came forth” takes on an interesting meaning when examined in the context of these statements. It seems he too was testifying, in general terms, that the Book of Mormon came forth “by the gift and power of God,” which is a statement that adherents to the Inspired Fiction theory can fully agree with.

So what do you think? Did Elder Holland intend to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory along with all other non-traditional theories about its orgins, or did he, consistent with his words in the first quote above, intentionally and carefully avoid it to provide room within the Church for those for whom the Inspired Fiction theory serves as a lifeline that keeps them tethered to the Church?

In 1991, John Sorenson of BYU, the “dean” of Book of Mormon geography, created a book called “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book“.  (It is hard to find because it has no ISBN #, but can be purchased at the BYU Bookstore as well as some bookstores specializing on obscure Mormon books.)  I reviewed the book, and grouped the theories into basic categories.

(1)   Internal Theories. Any scholar should create a map before trying to locate it in the real world.

(2)   Hemispheric Models. Mormons originally thought that the Book of Mormon peoples covered the entire North and South America.

(3)   Central America Models. The bulk of “Mormon approved” scholars support this general group of theories.

(4)   South America Models. Joseph Smith is reported to have said that Lehi landed 30 degrees South of the equator, in what would be modern day Chile.

(5)   The Great Lakes Theories. Since the golden plates were found in NY, the BOM lands must be nearby.  The Narrow Neck is near the Great Lakes.

The book is now close to 20 years old.  Since it was published, a flood of new theories have been created.  The following 2 theories are some of the most radical.

(6) The African Theory by Embaye Melekin.  Michael Ash wrote a review of this theory in 2001.  Melekin claims that his book titled, “Manifestations mysteries revealed,” has proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon is an African book and about Africans. . . . My book will change the church and the belief of the Mormons drastically.”

(7) The Malay Theory. This theory says it would have been much easier for Nephi to travel a 4000 mile journey to the Malay Peninsula than a 16000 mile journey in open seas to the Americas, and the Malay Peninsula is a better description of the Narrow Neck of Land.

So, what if the Book of Mormon is true, but we’re digging in the wrong place?  I decided to look at one of the radically different geography theories-the Malay theory.  I discovered it in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.  The theory even has its own section here, as well as a Wikipedia article.  If you look in the footnotes, you’ll see a link to a Sunstone article written by Ralph Olsen.  (You must open the attachment with the free Adobe Reader.)

In the Sunstone article, he lists his mailing address, so I wrote him a letter.  Ralph Olsen is a retired chemistry professor at Montana State University, with research interests in plants, soils, and microbes.  I asked him why he picked Malay as a possible Book of Mormon location, and he cited several reasons:

(1)    The peninsula is north-south, unlike Sorenson’s east-west orientation

(2)    The problems with animals go away.  Elephants, sheep, horses, etc. all date to the proper time period

(3)    The civilization dates to the proper time period, and had chariots, iron, silk, etc

(4)    There were dark-skinned people pre-existing on the peninsula.  If they intermarried with the Lamanites, (while the Nephites did not intermarry) that might explain the “dark and loathsome” peoples in the Book of Mormon

(5)    The shorter 4000 mile oceanic travel makes more sense than a 16000 mile journey.  Even the FAIR produced DVD called Journey of Faith, (which shows many Old World evidences of the Book of Mormon), indicates Nephi would have hugged the coastline, and the path goes right by the Malay Peninsula.

(6) Alma 63: 5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an ^aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land ^bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the ^cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.

a.       Traditional Mormon scholars seem to support the idea that Hagoth traveled eastward and populated the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc),

b.      Scholarly consensus indicates that Native Americans came from Asia, and came along one of two routes.  (1) the Bering Strait, or (2) they hopped across the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc), before arriving in the Americas.  Olsen’s migratory theory seems to be backed up by more scientists.

(7)    DNA evidence seems to be better.  While not endorsing the Malay Theory, Simon Southerton even commented on my blog that “I’m not aware of any DNA evidence from South East Asia linking populations there with the Middle East. South East Asia has been heavily populated for tens of thousands of years, with large civilizations. It is possible that Jewish sailors colonized parts of Asia though.”

Unrelated to this theory, a Jewish documentary filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici has made the claim that the tribe of Manasseh may be located in the Malay Peninsula in his film “Quest for the Lost Tribes” , which I blogged about previously.  Jacobovici maintains that when Babylon invaded Israel and scattered them in 600 BC, that some of the tribes were taken across land to Malay.  This could seemingly explain how the Mulekites got there, and why the Nephites (who traveled by boat) couldn’t understand them.

There is also a legend in Malay stating that some shipwrecked Jewish people landed there, possibly indicating the Nephites landing there. As we know from the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Lehi were from the tribe of Manasseh.  Jacobovici states in his film that some of the local citizens in Malay claim to be from the Tribe of Manasseh.

Olsen has written a short book called “A More Promising Land of Promise”, which is available for purchase on his own website.  He encourages people to critique his work, so if you have problems with his theories, be kind, but please express them.  I told him I was going to post on his theory, and he may or may not stop by.  (He is not technologically savvy.)

My biggest problems with the theory are:

(1)    How did the plates get to New York?  Olsen admits that he doesn’t know.  But he also points out that Sorenson doesn’t adequately explain how the 200 lb plates moved from Guatemala 3,000 miles north to NY without a wheeled vehicle.

(2) Joseph Smith History 1:34 “[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

a.       Olsen’s argument emphasizes this scripture differently, instead emphasizing “and the source from whence they sprang.” He says the source is the Malay Peninsula, and that is how to overcome this apparent discrepancy. I can see his point, but I know that is not a traditional understanding of that scripture, and I’m not sure I buy it.

For those of you who want more information, the longer version of this post can be found here.  And if you really want to see this theory, Ralph Olsen has given me permission to make his unpublished manuscript available.  It can be found here. Patience is a virtue…It’s 300 pages and 20 MB is size!

So, what do you think?  Do you have any other major problems with the theory?  Is there anything you like about the theory?

UPDATE 4/27/2009.  Sorenson’s proposed Oceanic Journey.

For the purpose of this post, I will set aside war-time or mass killings (sorry, but the arm cutting off incident is out) and only consider the individual killings in which God was specifically implicated in the text as an accomplice.

Back to Laban.  This Book of Mormon story is often cited as an example of Nephi’s obedience.  It is also pretty disgusting.  After Nephi hacks off his head with his own sword, he takes the clothes off the headless body and puts them on so he can pretend to be Laban.  Yech.  Nephi hesitates.  He doesn’t ask if Laban deserves to die in his sins, like when Hamlet vacillates about killing his uncle.  He hesitates because he doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.  He doesn’t want to commit a sin.

10 And it came to pass that I was ^aconstrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

  11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the ^aLord hath ^bdelivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had ^ctaken away our property.

  12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

  13 Behold the Lord ^aslayeth the ^bwicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is ^cbetter that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in ^dunbelief.

Does Laban deserve to die?  Not to blame the victim, but any decent defense attorney would point out that Laban was not a nice guy.  He wouldn’t give them the brass plates even for a very generous price; up to that point, he was merely being difficult.  After that, he lusted after their property and stole from them, and then he ordered his servants to kill them.  And he was a lush, lying drunken in the streets, so not even a polite, gentlemanly sort of person.  The Spirit’s rationale is basically “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” in this case, Laban.

Was the murder justifiable homicide?  Would Nephi have been convicted for this murder?  I’m no legal expert, but I have watched a lot of Law & Order, so I’m close.  Nephi could plead self-defense because Laban had ordered his servants to kill him and his brothers.  He could probably plead severe emotional disturbance after the beating he took from his brothers who didn’t want to go back and the difficulty of leaving their home to live in the desert.  He might even get that defense upgraded to PTSD (post-tramatic stress disorder).  Nephi would also have a solid case to plead insanity (he saw an angel in the cavity of the rock and heard a voice tell him to kill Laban).  And he was really just doing what God (or the Spirit) told him to do, so he could have rolled on God (or the Spirit) in a plea bargaining agreement.  And no jury is going to convict God (they might convict the Spirit, but just try putting Him in a holding cell), even on Law & Order.

So, Laban was on God’s hit list because he was wicked, and he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and got in the way of God’s plan.  So he had to go.  But, didn’t a nation dwindle and perish in unbelief anyway?  The Lamanites weren’t exactly church-going, law abiding citizens for the next few hundred years.  So shouldn’t Laman and Lemuel have been on God’s hit list to prevent their future generations from dwindling and perishing in unbelief due to their poor examples?

I see a few problems with killing off Laman & Lemuel:

• While many of their kids were bad, many were good.  In fact, they kind of came out on top at the end.  Although not all benefited from the plates of brass, some did.
• The spirit progeny of prematurely dead Laman & Lemuel would presumably still have to be born somewhere, some other time.
• Can you really totally blame the parents?  Don’t we believe that men will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression?
• God didn’t order the hit; therefore, it’s not okay to kill.  The rule is don’t kill.  Except when God says.  Then, go for it.

Contrast this with another group of people in the Book of Mormon who were on God’s hit list:  the faithful who were being martyred in the auto-da-fe after being converted to Christianity by Alma and Amulek.  Amulek wanted to stretch forth his hand to stop the killing

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in ^aglory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the ^bjudgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the ^cblood of the ^dinnocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Admittedly, there are some differences to these two incidents:

• Nephi takes action, whereas Alma is constrained to non-interference.  He does not actively kill anyone.

• Laban was guilty of attempted murder and died in his sins.  The victims in Alma’s story were completely innocent and would theoretically have salvation.

• Laban was standing in the way of other people’s salvation (or so we are told).  The victims in Alma’s story were killed to provide damnation to their killers.  Weren’t they pretty much damned already?  Alma wanted to stop the killing, not prevent it from starting. 

So, who is safe from God’s hit list in the Book of Mormon?  Not the wicked, and not the innocent and righteous.  So, perhaps the real lessons here are:

1. When and how we die isn’t that important to God, just how we live our lives.  No one is totally safe from being killed in nasty ways.  Think of that as you are drifting off to sleep tonight.

2. God merely cares that His plan goes forward unchecked, so interfering with His plan could lead to an unfortunate incident involving one’s death.  I’m just sayin’.

 So, will God cut Laban some slack on judgment day for being killed at his peak of wickedness since the order came down from on high?  And would the world have been a better place without Laman and Lemuel making it to the promised land?

And how does this compare with God’s hit list in the OT?  (No one is on God’s hit list in NT or D&C–and in the D&C, a few are pretty darn lucky they are not!)  The weirdest individual killing in the OT, IMO, is Uzzah being killed for steadying the ark.  It would be hard to argue that Uzzah was in the way of God’s plan.  So, does that mean that individual killings in the OT (implicating God) are to make an example out of someone or to teach an object lesson (e.g. “don’t steady the ark”)?  Or is that just the best we can do with such weird material when confronted with teaching a Gospel Doctrine lesson?  Or, perhaps the ark had some sort of technological security system that made it fatal to steady vs. God actually having to intervene in real-time to strike Uzzah down (a la the Smoke Monster on LOST).

Mustering the tools of choice for the preschool set — crayons, construction paper, markers, scissors and paste — and marshalling my sister Carol’s and my artistic skills, we boldly tackled the project. As the oldest, it looks like I claimed the right to draw all the Nephites and Nephite cities, leaving the Lamanites and their cities to Carol.

The narrative begins with the ship — a double-masted cog, resembling nothing so much as Columbus’s Nina or Pinta — which landed on the southwest coast of the Land Southward. Details in this area include Lehi’s tombstone, a delightfully cross Lamanite (with striped pants) and an Elephant (Cumom) eating peanuts with his trunk.

A dotted line follows Nephi’s trek inland…

The Land of Nephi is represented by a beautiful walled, Arabesque city, with tall towers and onion domes — not a hint of Chichen Itza to be had. In front of the city is Nephi’s tombstone along with Abinadi, who is being burned at the stake by King Noah. The first path from Nephi leads northwest past a frolicking herd of horses — make no mistake, there were horses in the Land of Promise! — and past a Lamanite Queen with her two children. Paths for Zeniff, Limhi’s scouts and Ammon come back to the city and a second path away is blazed by Alma to the Waters of Mormon.

In the northeast corner of the Land Southward (near the narrow neck) is Zarahemla — complete with a “Z” emblazoned on the wall. In front of the city, the Nephites in tents listen to King Benjamin preach from a tall tower. (Nearby the city of Ammonihah is labelled “destroyed.”)

The main feature of the Land Northward is the Land of Desolation, where Limhi’s scouts in yellow robes discover 24 plates.

Taking the map as a whole, the Land Northward’s obvious United-States-like shape leaves little doubt that we understood the text to encompass the entire Western Hemisphere. It’s clear that as a Mormon family in 1976, we had a very traditional picture of Book of Mormon geography — one which today has been recaste as just one of several “theories.”

Is this change a big deal, or much ado about nothing?

Today we hear from Ronan James Head, John Hamer and John Dehlin on this topic.