Kevin Christensen

It is important that that the word "language" in the Book of Mormon does not always refer to dialect, but also can refer to the topics and ideas. (I noticed that the index of one of my editions of the Book of Mormon only contains references to dialect passages Hebrew or Egyptian or Reformed Egyptian, not any of the topicality passages). The roots of the word literally refers to what is "on the tongue." Sorenson's proposal that Sherem was an outsider because he as described as "having a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4) was partly based on assuming the phrase meant that Sherem had to have been instructed in the language as dialect, rather than mastery of what people in the community were saying to each other, and how he could push their emotional buttons with flattery. Just when and by whom the records were assembled on the Brass plates is another issue. Were they a continuous accruing record on plates, or passed along scrolls transferred to plates as some point? Noel Reynolds recently produced "A Backstory for the Brass Plates" at Interpreter. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/a-backstory-for-the-brass-plates Personally, I think the Brass Plates were a project commissioned by a Pharaoh, just as the later Septuagint was commissioned by a Pharaoh, for the same reasons, prestige for a library and a tool for preparing diplomats and civil servants, during Jehoiakim's reign, when he was an Egyptian puppet. In my mind, that accounts for them being in a treasury, for it containing prophecies of Jeremiah up to their present, and for Lehi being aware of them. With the defeat of the Egyptians, and Zedekiah being installed by Babylonians, the plates were be without a home. Notice how frequently prophets and priests use metallurgical metaphors (comparing the wicked to dross, and trials as "refining fire" etc.), and the importance of metal items in the temple, such as the seven-branched lamp (the menorah), and the 600 BCE silver scrolls with a blessing from Numbers 6. John Tvedtnes wrote a persuasive essay that Lehi was a metal worker. And Reynolds has also written about Lehi and Nephi as trained scribes. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lehi-and-nephi-as-trained-manassite-scribes FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

I heard about this kind of thing in Lake Atitlan before, something notably relevant to the Book of Mormon. "According to the study published in the Journal of Maritime Archaeology, the settlement likely flooded quickly and stayed submerged for centuries, protecting its fragile wooden elements from decay." https://indiandefencereview.com/maya-settlement-lake-atitlan-guatemala/ FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

This sort of thing is exactly why I have found the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth so useful. I used it most extensively in my Interpreter Response to Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism over a decade ago. Everyone spends some time in Position 2 of 9. Interestingly, one response to discovering things are far more complicated (Position 5 is Relativism Discovered) us to regress back to Position 2. I made the case that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism And on the topic of Theodicy, I've long been fond of the correlation between LDS teaching and Process Theology. Riskas claimed that “the existence of evil is a real, vexing, and I think, irresolvable problem—philosophically, empirically, and experimentally.” Part of my response was to quote this, from Ian Barbour's Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, on Process Thought. An eternal perspective can make a huge difference. I recall a NDE account of a woman who had an experience on an operating table while she was pregnant. During her experience, she was told by a Godlike, loving being, that he would be coming to get her baby in a few days. In that situation, her joyous response was, "You mean, I GET to let my baby go with you!" And of course, LDS teaching is that she will also be able to raise the child after the resurrection. I can also recall listening to another NDE account by a Russian scientist, who finding himself on the other side, and meeting his parents, and hearing from them that they had not abandoned him as a child, but had been assassinated by the KGB. In that setting, he felt joy and relief in that new understanding. Since he was talking to them, they clearly were not permanently gone, but present and eager to show their love. Nibley's paper on The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy explores that kind of thing. Our whole story is not told in this life. And that makes a difference. Consider people slaughtered by Genghis Chan or Hitler, or the 1918 pandemic, or small pox, or the plague. Where are they now? Are they stuck eternally in the worst moment, defined by pointless pain, endlessly defining an accusation against God, or, have they moved on? And on what life would be like if an omnipresent and all powerful being was bent on making sure no harm came to any human, try Jack Williamson's Humanoid stories, starting with the SF Hall of Fame novelette, "With Folded Hands", and then the novel, "The Humanoids" followed by "The Humanoid Touch." The I Robot movie with Will Smith adopted the Humanoid's logic, rather than Asimov's three laws, but doesn't go deep enough into what life would be like if you were prevented from doing anything at all that might lead to any risk or possible emotional distress. I emerged from those stories with a deep sense of revulsion, and have been haunted by a nightmare sense of the horror of it. The stories were rooted in Williamson's childhood in Arizona, when his mother was so fearful that snakes or scorpions or coyotes might get him, he was for a very long time, kept in a baby pen, where there was literally nothing to do but sit with folded hands. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

On the Lucy Mack Smith passage about Joseph being a story teller sufficient to the task of explaining the production of the Book of Mormon, there are some crucial issues to address before anyone can responsibly claim that she provides evidence that Joseph could just imagine the Book of Mormon, based on story telling talent, rather than translating an actual record. First, remember this when considering whether the Book of Mormon screams a 19th century origin. Consider Bacon, the Father of the Scientific Method, and what strikes him as blindingly and unquestionably obvious: "Don't theorize" he says, and by so doing he unconsciously explains exactly where and why he goes wrong. "All data is theory-laden." Hence Jesus says, judgement, criticism, discernment begins by being self-aware, examining one's own eye for beams first. "Then shall ye see clearly." Galileo, unlike Bacon, makes the effort to imagine what the heavens would look like to an observer on a rotating, tilted earth, that obits a sun. And that in turn, provides a better explanation of planetary motion that did Ptolemaic astronomy. And now, issues with the source of the famous Lucy Mack Smith quote: So this is not a contemporary diary, a direct window into the past, but a later reminiscence that has been worked on by editors. Here is how Ann Taves uses it: She does not address the issue of the Book of Mormon and the reports of Joseph Smith's recorded discourses failing to back up the insinuations she makes. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events And there is also the related issue of the original draft of the Wentworth letter being an adaptation by Joseph Smith of an 1840 pamphlet by Orson Pratt. See https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol15/iss2/8/, page 98. Calm has mentioned Spackman's important essay on the Nephite Jewish Lunar Calendar. There is also Jerry Grover's recent approach. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/calendars-and-chronology-book-mormon Regarding the claim that the Book of Mormon prophesy after 1830 becomes much less detailed, I am presenting on the topic of the restoration of plain and precious things at the Interpreter Small Plates conference at the end of May. The paper came about when it occurred to me to collect all of the passages that describe particular teachings and ideas as "plain and/or precious" and not just stopping at the obvious passage in 1 Nephi 13:40: A key passage describing the restoration of the specific plain and precious things appears in the introduction to Margaret Barker's first book, The Older Testament: FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

I found the gptchat theory long on speculation, short on details, and the few details mentioned, but not cited or quoted, such as the Lucy Mack Smith passage, or the Bible quotations and claims about italics, misleading on exactly the most telling aspects. I wrote about key issues for the Lucy Mack Smith passage in my Interpreter response to Taves, who treated it as foundational. Tvedtnes points out several crucial aspects of the italics that undermine the insinuative claim. For a recent example of the importance of considering details, look at Matt Roper's Interpreter articles on claims of anachronism and the clear trend toward reconciliation. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

D&C 1 formally spells out "mine authority, and the authority of my servants," (verse 6), and bluntly states: That does not require us to assume that everything his servants say is equally inspired, nor that what we have constitutes a Big Book of What to Think. I think it is also important to consider the definition of the word sustain: Collectively it means, "put up with the crap." In an interview, Hugh Nibley was once asked if he would sustain Judas. His response was essentially. "Certainly. He was an apostle wasn't he? The Lord has his purposes in these things." In the New Testament, Romans has this: Who are thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or faileth. Yea,…God is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4 I have a testimony of the Christ and the Restoration. And at 71 years old, by now, I have seen much of various leaders that confirms a declaration in Acts: We also are men of like passions with you. Acts 14:15 But to me, at this late date, that is no big deal, not important, not something to agonize about. It is not a trial of my faith, but just life as I expect it to be. The work of the Restoration moves along very nicely. I can remember when most of the church still lived in Utah, when there were only a dozen temples, when the priesthood ban became very uncomfortable, but I still had a testimony and served a mission, when Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson spoke at the same conferences and the world did not end and I lived for many years before understood that they had different political views, and when the really good apologetics volumes could be gathered on a half a shelf or less. Much has changed, but my testimony has not only remained intact, but has gotten much stronger. That is because I have learned to pay attention to the things that matter most, rather than the things that might annoy me personally. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

A section of my forth coming presentation at the Interpreter Small Plates conference in May in may deals with "the blindness caused by the efforts of various iterations of the Great and Abominable church" includes “hardening of hearts” (1 Nephi 13:27). What does that mean? Recall the Deuteronomy passage I quoted: If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. (Deuteronomy 15:7) A survey of the complaints about the behavior of the Jerusalem elites characteristically demonstrates hardened hearts and the language and imagery regularly points to collectively abominable behavior by groups, not just scattered, exceptional individuals. Jer. 5:28 They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. Jer. 7:4-11 4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these. 5 For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; 6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: 7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever. 8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. 9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; 10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? 11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord. Isaiah 1 16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Ezekiel 22 begins by listing specific characteristics that defined Jerusalem’s “abominations.” 6 Behold, the princes of Israel, every one were in thee to their power to shed blood. 7 In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. 12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God. 13 Behold, therefore I have smitten mine hand at thy dishonest gain which thou hast made, and at thy blood which hath been in the midst of thee. The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. Jesus states in the New Testament that the one sure way to identify his followers, regardless of national or religious or racial affiliation is that “they love one another” (John 13:35). In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul gives a famous description of charity as the pure love of Christ. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. What is the opposite? The opposite of the love of Christ does not suffer long, and is unkind, envieth whoever has what it wants, vaunteth itself constantly, and is notably puffed up, Behaves unseemly, always seeking its own gain, is easily provoked, and thinks evil of anyone who opposes their ambitions and desires, or is just different Rejoices in getting away with whatever it wants to do, and bitterly opposes any attempts to call it to account, Will not put up with anything negative, believes only what it wants to hear, hopes only for personal gain and power and fame and pleasure, so that it will never have to endure anything difficult or unpleasant. Jesus directly addressed the tendency to create legality that circumvents charity when he was asked, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?” (Matthew 15:2) 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. A similar pattern of legality replacing charity appears in the question about easy divorce initiated by men in Matthew 19, when Jesus specifically notes “hardness of heart.” ... If we don’t want to settle for having hardened hearts, and the accompanying blindness and loss of understanding such hearts demonstrate, the thing to do is to offer up the sacrifice of a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, to be willing to offer up as potential sacrifices even our favorite sins and what may seem our most reasonable preconceptions and secure traditions. We ought to study things out, make inquiries, experiment upon the word, living them from the inside to see how that experience changes our understanding, praying sincerely, and giving things time and effort. In following that process, making such sacrifices, we can then find “pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile” (D&C 121:42). And the hope and promise for such a society committed to understanding and charity collectively behaves as Alma reports, in notable contrast to the complaints Jeremiah and Isaiah and others offered against the Jerusalem of their day: "they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need." (Alma 1:30) FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

And there is this observation by Methodist Biblical scholar, Margaret Barker in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: "there were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord." She also observes that "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between EI Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered." That particular observation is very helpful in dealing with references to Christ, who has a father, also being a father to those humans who covenant with him. Brant Gardner wrote in his Second Witness commentaries that this distinction between Fathers works for all of the Book of Mormon references. See https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book A summary of Barker's approach is here: https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf But her book, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God has far more detail. And in considering Latter-day Saint readings, I've read several supposedly objective and definitive commentaries on the evolution of understanding that do not mention some telling lines in some of the most popular hymns. "Jesus once of humble birth, now in glory comes to earth, Once a meek and lowly lamb, now the LORD the Great I AM." and "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus annointed that prophet and seer." Since these were composed by Parley P. Pratt at least 60 years before Jesus the Christ and the First Presidency Statement, it seems to me that some Latter-day Saint thinkers understood long before that. As to Psalm 110, it was a ritual Temple text, something to be performed, with layers of representation, of the LORD (who represents his Father, El Elyon, God Most High) speaking to the Melchizedek (where Melch Zedek means Righteous King) High Priest (often also the King), who represents the LORD in the Temple rituals). Also, Barker points out that in the New Testament, Jesus is always designated as the Son of El Elyon, and never the Son of Jehovah. He is recognized as LORD, not the son of the Lord. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

For the right questions and the best answer about the Bible, read this by Margaret Barker, "Text and Context", which tells the story of how we get the current canon. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf Then read 1 Nephi 13. And also consider John Gee's chapter, "The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity" in Early Christians in Disarray. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/early-christians-disarray-contemporary-lds-perspectives-christian-apostasy And for afters, see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Do you understand the difference between normal science operating within the assumptions of a paradigm, and concious paradigm testing? Have read and understood The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I find specificity in which examples a person uses to generalize from is an essential starting point. I have actually read all of Nibley's Book of Abraham apologetics. He does not pretend that he does not have a point of view. He is explicit that he has a perspective, and that no one is required to uncritically accept his arguments, nor does he presume to offer the last word. Indeed, Will Schryver and Tim Barker have offered important observations that Nibley did not make. Nibley read Kuhn and understands paradigm debate. All Nibley was trying to do was to make an argument that belief in the Book of Abraham is reasonable. Not on the basis of objective proof that coerces belief or unbelief, but on the basis of broad explorations that in his view invite belief, and that have not in fact been fully accounted for by skeptics. I recently pointed to Jeff Lindsay's observations that Vogel's survey of Book of Abraham apologetics failed to mention or address One Eternal Round, Will Schryver's FAIR presentation, or Tim Barker's Under the Head presentation. Indeed, I have noticed and called out in print several critics of LDS claims for premature ideological dismissal of Latter-day Saint scholarship. All scholars begin with a perspective. Some have the self consciousness and wit to be self aware and self critical, and are willing to openly state that they have one. Some are so pleased to be able to state that other people have an ideology that they don't stop to reflect on the implications of their own I can think of some Latter-day Saint writers who do not consciously in engage in paradigm testing, but who just present their puzzle solutions as though final and indisputable. Not just believers in Historicity. McMurrin famously told Blake Ostler that "I learned when I was younger than I remember that you don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." In terms of conscious paradigm testing of Joseph Smith's claims, McMurrin produced nothing. He died before he could have read Brant Gardner's work, or that of Brian Stubbs, or Jerry Grover, or anything in the Interpreter, or the LiDar surveys, or my work on Barker. So "better" does not enter into it. The point is that I know many top Latter-day Saint scholars who are consciously participating in paradigm testing. Alan Goff, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Jeff Lindsay, and literally dozens of others, if not hundreds. The generalization you offer does not account for my personal experience and observation. Again, I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Notice that this generalizes about apologetics at such a high level of abstraction that no specifics are involved. It tells a story, a paradigm, a myth, as though it applies to every situation. And it also ignores what Kuhn explains is the difference between puzzle solving within a paradigm (without actually bothering to solve any specific puzzles, such as Hebrew festival patterns in Mosiah, Lehi's qasida, the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, Jerry Grover on New World geology, etc.), and paradigm testing using criteria that are not completely paradigm dependent. It is indeed a very clear example of ideological dismissal. I recommend Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. As Kuhn says, it makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two competing paradigms is better. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Antifa equals brown shirts? Really? This does not remind me of the thuggish 30s Brownshirts I know about. The media I watched reported on the 2020 BLM protests as mostly peaceful, not totally peaceful. There is a difference. A person can discuss Mountain Meadows as exceptional behavior or typical behavior. But to claim typical, we need to show that sort of thing happening everywhere all the time. It clearly doesn't. Something terrible happened in 1857, but it was exceptional, not typical. Not matter how many cameras are focused on a burning police car, and no matter how many channels show it burning how often, one car is still one car. Exceptions ought to be discussed as exceptional, addressing what went wrong in a particular instance. But establishing paradigms and controlling narratives via exceptions distorts vision and impedes understanding. You want a reference to the recent Presidential claim about the January 6 2021 assault on the Capitol. Okay. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-appears-forget-jan-6-144119251.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/president-2020-trump-gop-want-200551587.html ICE is deporting people without due process. Masked men grabbing people, including US citizens, without due process. ICE is grabbing people's friends and neighbors, fathers and mothers, people who contribute economically and socially to communities. (Think about the economic and social and diplomatic impacts of the ICE raid on a Georgia Hyundai factory.) ICE acts on Stephen Miller's Replacement Theory paranoia, not the ideals of the Statue of Liberty, nor the demands of Christianity, nor the founding story of this country as a nation of immigrants. "He doth execute the judgment (mishpat) for the orphan and the widow, and he loves the stranger and wants him to be provided with food and clothing. Therefore, you must do the same: love the stranger — remember that you too were strangers [and were oppressed] in the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 10:18–19). That is not a favorite scripture among Christian Nationalists. Nor is this one: "Whatsoever ye have done unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I see no scriptural or Constitutional charge to deport the stranger on principle without delay or weighing whether anything bad might happen to them or whether they actually do have legal grounds for being here or whether any legal issues could be resolved without disrupting lives and communities. No riots after the Charlie Kirk murder. True. Think about why not. His murder was not typical, but exceptional. The BLM protests happened because yet another killing of a black man happened on camera, accompanied by an initial false report of what happened. Not because something totally unprecedented happened. But because something terrible happened yet again in a public, recorded way that millions of people witnessed and deeply felt. Are you aware that from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to the 1950s, there was at least one extra-judicial, usually very public, lynching of a black man every week somewhere in the U.S.? And guess how often the perps were brought to account? The BLM protests did not happen in response to a one-off, or even relatively unusual exception. They happened because of how much had happened before and kept on happening again and again and again. One-off exceptions or occasional incidents, don't by their nature, set off long standing frustrations and long building anger. Reasonable shock and dismay, yes. "Trump fully supports the separation of powers between the three branches of government?" Trump throws public tantrums when the other branches don't give him what he wants. He belittles, bullies, and where he can eventually fires and replaces people who resist on constitutional and legal grounds till he gets done what he wants done, even when that requires placing in a high position someone whose only notable qualification for a job is unquestioning fealty and public subservience to Trump. We all just saw his Truth Social post demanding that the Attorney General prosecute and jail Comey and others. That evidence does not demonstrate his support for and respect of separation of powers. He talks like he would happily replace the Department of Justice and all law with himself at the head of a lynch mob. But he has helped negotiate in Israel. That counts. Not the only thing to consider, not by a long stretch, but it counts. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

No discussion of the point of Antifa. A definition of Fascism and a discussion of why Antifa might seem relevant in America today. Scapegoating, and presumed guilt by association, along with an assumed, not demonstrated, narrative regarding the protests after yet another black man was killed by police on camera. By far, most of the black lives matter protests and protesters in 2020 were non-violent. Paradigms are established and political narratives are controlled by means of which examples are taken as representative. Exceptions are, by definition, not representative. Lies are by definition not representative of reality. (Consider the recent presidential claim that Biden, though not yet president, sent FBI agents to instigate the Jan. 6th 2021 assault on the Capitol, and therefore Biden is to blame). Lies do not represent reality. Establishing paradigms by use of non-representative examples, is, by definition, a distortion. Statistically and factually, right-wing violence occurs far more often in the US than left-wing violence. Sure, one can find instances, but which are most representative versus, which can be exploited by powers that be to control a narrative? Fascism defined. Key characteristics of fascism include: Dictatorial leadership: Power is concentrated in a single leader who is presented as infallible. (Only I can save you.) Militarism and nationalism: It glorifies the military and prioritizes extreme, often exclusionary, nationalism. Suppression of opposition: Any form of dissent is violently suppressed, and basic human rights are disregarded. Belief in hierarchy: Fascism promotes a rigid social structure and the rule of elites, in opposition to democracy and liberalism. Scapegoating and victimization: It identifies internal and external "enemies" to unify the populace and focuses on a narrative of national decline or humiliation. Control of media: The government seeks to control mass media and promote myths and lies to control the narrative. Intertwined religion and government: In fascist states, government and religion are often merged, and business interests are protected. Glorification of violence: Violence is often glorified as a means of achieving national goals. Why does Glen Beck not bother to define and discuss fascism before setting out to discredit and demonize Antifa? What would happen to his message if he dared to do so? (Remember when Beck temporarily experimented with being critical of Trumpism? Was it good for his business? How did he respond to market pressure? I grew up with a copy of the book Profiles in Courage in my house. Now days, it is much easier to find Profiles in Spinelessness and Accommodation.) Is it possible to discuss the definition of fascism and then to explain current US politics as though none of this has any relevance? Is is possible to define fascism and then declare, there is no need for Antifa because fascism poses no real threat to US democracy? Are the No Kings protests this Saturday a manifestation of terrorism or patriotism? FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Yes, but Hubner's story happened in far off Nazi Germany in the 1940s. What possible relevance could it have in an America that is, by the convenient doctrine of ideological exceptionalism, exceptional in all ways and therefore should never be criticized, and has Democratically elected leaders who are necessarily exceptional and moral and above reproach, never ever behave or speak or act like those terrible fascists in 30s and 40s Germany and Italy, except according to the dictionary and history, which, as George Orwell reminded us, does not matter in the least, because, "Who reads Orwell?" Clearly not the President! I am only glad my father died before I, as a loyal American would have to report him as being in a formal Antifa organization, in the 813th Tank Destroyer Battalion, attached to the 34th Infantry Division in North Africa, engaged in unquestioned Antifa activities, and then, attached to the 79th Infantry Division engaged in more Antifa activities through Normandy, the Breakout and drive towards Paris, up through Belgium, down to the 7th Army and the Voges campaign, and then the terrible Nordwind battles at Hatten and Ritterschoffen, and finally, attached to the 101st Airborne for more Antifa activities into Austria and Berchtesgaden. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Besides Steve Smoot, Jeff Lindsay also provided an important response to Vogel's take on Book of Abraham apologetics. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-abraham-polemics-dan-vogels-broad-critique-of-the-defense-of-the-book-of-abraham/ The abstract has this: For a specific example of neglect: Besides ignoring One Eternal Round, Vogel also does not mention Tim Barker's revolutionary FAIR Presentation “Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads.” Barker shows that Joseph Smith directed Reuben Hedlock to fill in gaps in Facsimile 2 with characters from the Hor Book of Breathings and in the published facsimiles declares that he has not translated those characters, a significant obstacle for the long standing claim that Joseph Smith mistakenly thought or fraudulently claimed that he had translated the Book of Abraham from the Hor Book of Breathings. Vogel also fails to mention or engage Will Schryver's FAIR Presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian papers as an attempt to create a cypher, rather than a dubious approach to translation. At the end of his long response, Lindsay reports that: FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Notice that the phrase "one true church" is not part of the formal definition of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1, especially not in the crucial verse. Proper interpretation does not mean, add what is missing and remove everything that does not re-enforce what you are conditioned to expect. Deleting 25 words, adding the crucial "one," and ignoring chapter context suggests to me that the reading may lack definitiveness. The common misreading is, I submit, due to human nature according to the Perry Scheme, rather than revelation. Here is position 2 of 9. I have made the case at length (In "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") that Joseph Smith tries to get us to Position 9, which is far more empathetic, tolerant and inclusive, and somehow not a bit cynical. The Book of Mormon itself is much more open to the notion of God working with everyone where they are: And as far as the validity of Personal Spiritual Experiences, I am personally fond of Blake Ostler's personal take here: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment I expected someone to post and comment before now. I have had some notable spiritual experiences along my life journey, but they have also been supplemented by many other kinds of exploration. Intellectual and practical. And of course, lots of Kuhn and Alma 32. Paradigm testing, rather than just puzzle solving within a paradigm, comparative Puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I always notice that the God other people tell me that they don't believe in is very different than the one I do believe in. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Here is John Tvedtnes on the topic., wherein he reports: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1890301/posts FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Besides Skousen's mentions, Joseph Fielding McConkie did a book on the topic of Messiah Ben Joseph, His Name Shall Be Joseph, https://www.amazon.com/His-Name-Shall-Joseph-Prophecies/dp/0890361525 and an essay in Isaiah and the Prophets from Religious Studies. "Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts" https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/joseph-smith-found-ancient-manuscripts I have also heard from the late John Tvedtnes, how when he was living in Jerusalem, was teaching a class on Mormonism to a group of Rabbis. He was giving an overview of the Joseph Smith's life and achievements, and was planning on introducing the concept of Messiah Ben Joseph, but found that before he could bring up the topic, he heard them murmuring to one another, "Messiah Ben Joseph." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

A Happy Way to Live: For Muriel Christensen on her Centennial By Kevin Christensen In announcing plans for a celebration of Mom’s approaching centennial, my sister sent an email saying that “Mom made it clear that she would rather be known for something other than being OLD,” and has asked for memories. I will gather a few memories here. In gathering them, I want to put them together in light of comments Mom has occasionally made about the gospel as “A happy way to live.” I’ve recently read a few articles on a Harvard Study of about eight hundred people over sixty to eighty years that focused on the decisions and actions people took that most contributed to their happiness. So I will compare my memories of Mom with the six issues that the Harvard Study found as most important in contributing to happiness. First: Avoid Smoking and Alcohol Well, no surprise here. That has been one of the perks of LDS culture, though, it should not be forgotten that it is not as though such choices were not always available. Dad’s side of the family offered some cautionary tales on that. And Grandpa Harry, we know, died of lung cancer, not because he smoked but, as I recall, due to second hand smoke on busses. But the article also goes on to say “Maintaining a healthy weight increased lifespan and regular exercise boosted both longevity and happiness. Plain and simple: those things you know you're supposed to do to stay healthy? Do them.” When we were little, I remember Mom putting on the Jack LaLane work out show on TV, and joining him in his exercise routines. And one of the reasons we had a push mower for the lawn rather than a power mower was so that we would get some exercise. Mom got us outdoors to play stink base, or pomp, or Any I Over, or No Bears Are Out Tonight, and she got us out in the winter, dragging our sleds up the hill, and in summer, camping and hiking in the mountains and canyons, and on Memorial Days, hiking back from the Cleveland Cemetary. In Kansas City Mom and Dad used to go to Malls to walk. When they worked at the Church Office Building, they were known as the Roadrunners for taking the stairs, and walking round the neighborhoods. We’d come to visit in the winter and find Mom in her 90s shoveling snow because it is good exercise. And we should not forget the garden and our fruit trees as a fixture running through all of our memories as a constant presence and reminder of the cycles of life: weeding, and tilling, raking, planting, more weeding, and eventually the harvest, and canning. And that effort contributed to well-planned meals, that included fruits and vegetables, and always balanced and sensible nutrition. Mom embraced the notion of living healthy, and continues to lead by example. And I can remember from a very young age being impressed by the obvious differences in the life of neighbors where such things had not been embraced. Second: Education The years of education improved the health of everyone in the study, regardless of where they began, or where they went to school. So Mom graduated from BYU, and got a teaching certificate. And she encouraged us to do so as well. So we all got degrees of one kind or another, however quickly or slowly we did. Emphasis on education started early, with Dad reading books to us, and with Mom and Dad seeing to it that we had books in the house. Thanks to them. we had encyclopedias, our own hardbound Wiki, our own little pre-internet in the family room where we could browse a wide range of topics, and read at random, letting individual curiosity guide us. I remember the arrival of a box of records, containing not just music but programmatic commentary, giving us an in-house history of music and culture. That was our YouTube. Mom took us to libraries from an early age where she let us load up with books, and she took us on trips to zoos and Pioneer Village, and to Dinosaur Monument, and the Cleveland Lloyd Quarry. And she saw to it that we did not watch too much TV by setting limits, especially during the school year, and more importantly, setting an example. Mom and Dad both read, conspicuously, avidly, and joyfully. And she told stories. I have very early memories of Brian and I in our bed, and Mom coming in to try to settle us down with Three Little Pigs, and my favorite, Three Billy Goats Gruff. I remember laughing uncontrollably as Mom acted out the Big Billy goat butting the Troll off the bridge, clutching her hair in my fingers, basking in the feeling of being loved, as she left the room, and turned out the lights on another day. Third: A Happy Childhood Mom grew up in Cleveland Utah, a tiny little town in Emery County, with a little bit of side walk by the two little stores, and the church, and the post office, and the school. And then the lines of poplar trees, and the open irrigation ditches, and the wood and wire fences, and gardens, and stacks of coal in the yards, and the milk weed and wild asparagus. Harry and Myrtle Mortensen had four girls, Arvalu, Muriel, Ona, Lael, and the boy, Boyd. Mom has such fond memories of growing up that I have heard her say wistfully that she wishes they could have all stayed at home and lived together forever. She talks about going out for a church activity that amounted to gathering around a campfire and having a baked potato. She grew in a little desert town during the Roaring Twenties, missing the roar, and spent her teenage years during the depression, saying, “We didn’t know we were poor.” One of my favorite Mom stories comes later, when grandson Rob and Mauvia’s daughter, Jamaica was in about third or fourth grade, and they had been asked to come and do a report for her class on what it was like to grow up during the depression. So Mom and Dad prepared, and when they got there, found that all the walls dividing the different classes had been moved aside, and their presentation was for all the kids, not just one class. Undaunted, Mom tells us that she brought out a shoe box and asked the kids if they knew what that was. “A shoe box?” “No,” says Mom, “This was my doll house.” And she showed how she cut out pictures from catalogues to make her dolls. And she showed them how she did it, demonstrating with people she had cut out for that occasion. And Dad showed how he used a spool and nail and an elastic band to make a racing toy. And they were off telling about the ways they made their own fun. She says that the teachers probably expected to hear all sorts of deprivation stories of hard times and suffering. But by the end, Mom finished by saying, “So, do you think we had fun during the Depression?” And all the kids shouted in enthusiastic unison, “YES!” The Aging Well Study directly says that “for both the Inner City men and the Harvard men the best predictor of a high income was not their parents' social class but whether their mother had made them feel loved.” The Study also says that: So if your childhood was less than perfect and your adolescence felt like a bad reality show, does this mean you're doomed? No. What went right in childhood was much more predictive than what went wrong. And finally, for those who had a lot go wrong: And there's even more reason for hope. Sometimes love and support come late — but that can be enough to heal old wounds. When people found a loving spouse or trusted friends in adulthood, the damage of a tough childhood could be undone. Mom has also offered love and support to many that has helped undo the damage in a rough childhood. All of us have had our difficulties, either imposed on us, or as a consequence of poor decisions we have made on our own at times. But Mom has always been a steady source of love and support. I am told that when I was very young, I had asthma, and there were nights when Mom stayed up with me all night to make sure I would make it through. That is tough on a parent, but they endured, and better days came. On one occasion when Merilee needed to get a shot, Mom and Dad decided to smooth the way by saying they were going to get ice cream. Well, Merilee is still mad about that and so parents have to learn from their mistakes. The Aging Well Study says: It is not the bad things that happen to us that doom us; it is the good people who happen to us at any age that facilitate enjoyable old age. For example, once when Mom played the flute in the band in her little high school, about to settle into her chair, a thoughtless boy pulled the chair out from under her, so she sat down hard on her tailbone. It hurt a lot. Well, she later married the culprit. It’s important that she told him that he had hurt her and that he never did it again. That too is part of living in a happy way. Being able to forgive, and accept forgiveness. Their love story has remarkable aspects. Dad had gone into the army in 1941, and was due to get out in 1942, which turned out not to be a good year to get out, thanks to the U.S. entry in to the war. There were Depression Era rules that if a single woman got married, she could not have a job. And a soldier had to get permission to get married. And there was the looming prospect of war itself. But as Mom told us, Grandma approached her and said that she had a strong impression that she should marry Wally. So, Mom considered the situation, and then proposed, arrangements were made, and they met in Ogden for long enough to marry before Dad went back to his duties, and Mom went back home alone. Once married, Dad, who at that time was company clerk, decided that he ought to become an officer to better support his family. And that led to a series of serendipitous events that led to Dad going to Europe in a Tank Destroyer Battalion, rather than to the Philippines in an Infantry division that became part in the Bataan Death March. He survived his time in North Africa, and the war in Europe, and returned to his wife to begin a family. She’d write to Dad, and say, I hope you aren’t in this action, and he’d write back, “That’s just where I was.” But he survived. In late life, Mom has reconsidered the importance of following that inspiration. A passage in the D&C says, “Let no man count them as small things; for there is much in futurity… which depends on these things.” There is a vast difference in results between acting on impulse, not considering the consequences beyond the moment, and acting on inspiration. Fourth: Relationships are Everything The Aging Well Study directly states: Successful aging requires continuing to learn new things and continuing to take people in ... a widening social radius at age 50 was just as important to successful psychosocial aging as emotional maturity. One of Mom’s most visible and extraordinary talents is that she knows what is going on in everyone’s life. She knows about the lives and circumstances of all of her children, their spouses, their children, and their children’s children. One of the effects of that ongoing love and interest on her part, is that so many take a reciprocal interest in Mom. My daughter Karina named her second daughter Muriel, because, as she says, “Grandma is amazing!” The Aging Well Study says: What's one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to relationships? Not working hard enough to create new ones when the old ones fade away. Mom has known losses. I remember after Grandma Mortensen’s funeral driving past the home that was setting for her childhood, and Mom commenting that with Grandma’s absence it looked “like a house with a broken heart.” And she has lived past many more losses since then, outliving her brother, several sisters and just a few years ago, her husband. But she characteristically learns new things, and embraces changes as she guards her traditions, and nurtures new relationships. After Grandma Mortenson died, Mom reports being in the Temple. At this time, daughter Merilee had grown and was pregnant again, after having six boys. Mom reports that she very clearly heard Grandma say, “It’s a girl!” as though the secret was too good to keep to herself. Our losses aren’t the end of our joys. One of my favorite memories with Mom is when Karina brought her little namesake to see her. When we’d say, “Muriel, do a somersault,” and the little darling did so, Mom laughed and laughed as though she didn’t have an almost uncountable hoard of other grandchildren, and great grandchildren, seen over decades of life, celebrating that moment for itself and the joy and newness of it. Fifth: Coping Skills The Aging Well Study contrasts good and bad coping skills: Blaming others, being passive-aggressive, living in denial, acting out and retreating into fantasy were all maladaptive coping mechanisms associated with poor outcomes. These behaviors soothed bad feelings in the short term and wreaked havoc in the long term by ruining relationships and producing lousy life decisions. However presidential that behavior sounds, it does not describe Mom. How about the good coping skills? The Aging Well Study says the good skills can be described as Virtues. These four mature coping strategies are not only associated with maturity, but they can be reframed as Altruism: doing as one would be done by; Sublimation: artistic creation to resolve conflict and spinning straw into gold; Suppression: a stiff upper lip, patience, seeing the bright side; Humor: and the ability not to take oneself too seriously. Mom has always demonstrated the Golden Rule. I can think of one incident when I was trying her patience with a series of poor grades in seventh grade English, when she finally lost her temper with me. I later became an English Major, and have been a professional writer since 1984, and have published dozens of essays. So I eventually got that sorted out. But Mom, within an hour or so of losing her temper, came and apologized to me, and never did it again, which, considering me, is quite remarkable. She has shown characteristic patience in dealing with the sorts of challenges that life offers, and taken joy in life’s simple pleasures. She talks about how much she enjoyed her first washing machine, “looking at the suds.” It was Mom who taught us to bake our first cakes and batches of rollout cookies. Even before that, I remember being home with Mom and her coming up with notions of using flour and water and salt and food coloring for us to make little sculptures of our idea of some animal. That is her preventing conflicts and getting us involved in creation. As for seeing the bright side, a few years ago, while visiting Mom and Dad, and hearing Dad talk about how as a child he has suffered burns and scarring on his neck and part of his face from a celluloid collar being ignited by a tossed match, and talking about how that scarring was a source of shame to him for a long time. (The complete healing took him into adulthood.) Shauna asked Mom how she felt about Dad’s facial scars. “I fell in love with the other side,” she said, without a pause. After 80 years together, Mom and Dad teased and laughed together. Sixth: Generativity- that is, Community Building The Aging Well Study says: Generativity can mean serving as a consultant, guide, mentor, or coach to young adults in the larger society. Research reveals that between age 30 and 45 our need for achievement declines and our need for community and affiliation increases. Aside from building her own family and maintaining connections to her siblings, and dad’s siblings, Mom famously served as a guide patrol teacher in the primary for eight years. Dealing with ongoing squads of squabbling squirrely baby boomer boys for that long is remarkable. After Blake started going to school, Mom went back to teaching, first in Utah, and then in Kansas. And after Dad retired, they served a mission working with an Asian Branch in the Washington DC area, hearing stories of boat people, who had escaped the wars and violence in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. She used her skills as a teacher to help them, even bucking the authority of a local leader to do so. After their mission, and into their retirement, she and Dad performed a series of service mission in the Church Office building, doing genealogy work. And they traveled to Iceland and Norway, and Egypt and New Zealand, as well as Goblin Valley and the Grand Canyon. They attended the Hale Theater for years, watching a wide range of plays. She does her visiting teaching and ministering, and reads the newspaper, and books, and scriptures. She cooks and cleans, and visits, and writes emails to family, and uses computers to track all of the birthday cards she wants to send to all her descendants, involved in family, making it both a work, and a glory. Ultimately, what matters most is not how long or short we live, or what happens to us, but what we become. And Mom has become a wonderful example of a happy way to live. I wrote this five years ago for my Mom's Centennial. She died last year at 105. Til the end embodying a happy way to live. FWIW Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

I've not read only only lauditory accounts. You did notice the line "When I read accounts by historians purporting to tell me of Brigham the Tyrant and Brigham the Brute...." I was addressing the disconnect between the picture they offer and the picture I see. Not turning aside from the important process of "By proving contrarieties, truth is made manifest." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, Utah

Concerning Webbles quote of the Bigler line that the Aiken murders "To the contrary, the episode and other crimes during this time, cited above, reflect Young's leadership style," does not word "style" suggest a pattern of behavior? If that was the case, then how do we get from the picture of a ruthless and brutal Brigham Young to things like this, Nibley's "Brigham Young and the Enemy" which offers a very different pattern. https://archive.interpreterfoundation.org/nibley/pdf/Brigham-Young-and-the-Enemy-TheYoungDemocrat-B.pdf Or this: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/02/07/brigham-young-was-a-man-of-peace/ Or the several Nibley essays here including a detailed look at his leadership style. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/18/ Or the Brigham Young Priesthood Manual. "Let us from this time forth live so as to create confidence in all men with whom we deal and come in contact; and treasure up each particle of confidence we obtain as one of the most precious possessions mortals can possibly possess. When by my good actions I have created confidence in my neighbor towards me, I pray that I may never do anything that will destroy it (DBY, 276). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young?lang=eng When I read accounts by historians purporting to tell me of Brigham the Tyrant and Brute, I have a difficult time reconciling their pictures with the words I have read, and the effects of I seen of the life he led and the kinds of people he chose to lead at his side, and the kinds of children he raised and the nature of the community he shepherded. And regardless of the number of footnotes or surmises about particular incidents offered by his critics, I always notice selectivity in sources, speculation about the significance of this or that source, reading between the lines, filling gaps in credibility, or the generality to be projected from some incident or source. Ideology always has a part to play in interpretation and selection. An eagerness to be seen as publicly facing and providing the worst does not translate to unquestionable reliability. And I never see in them the Brigham I see in Brigham's own words. Nibley's essay on "Is There a Danite in the House?" in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass is profoundly instructive. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/93/ If the Aiken murders demonstrate a characteristic leadership style, where across the many decades of Brigham Young's very public service, do we find clear and abundant evidence across the decades showing that what happened there was just more typical Brigham? "All the army," said Brigham Young in 1860, "with all its teamsters and hangers-on,and followers, with the judges, and nearly all the rest of the civil officers, amounting to some seventeen thousand men, have been searching diligently for three years to bring one act to light that would criminate me; but they have not been able to trace out one thread or particle of evidence that would criminate me." Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, 695. I have previously cited Nibley's report of the meetings between Judge Harding, eager to find anything he could use against Brigham, and the notorious Bill Hickman. And Harding got nothing he could use from Hickman. Six years later, along comes Beadle and works on Hickman's Confessions, and Nibley talks about that. The court of public opinion, I notice, does not have the same rules of evidence as does the court of law. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT

Nibley pointed out in "The Book of Mormon: Forty Years After" published in The Prophetic Book of Mormon" that more was going on with Corianton than fornication. He left his mission to join with Isabel and had to travel to see her where she had many followers. He points out the Isabel was the name of the Patroness of Harlots in the religion of the Phoenicians. Mike Ash went into more detail in a Sunstone essay called "The Sin Next to Murder" which starts with the insight that if sexual transgression was the main issue one should expect that to be the focus of the discourse. Careful reading involves more than raising questions or uncritically accepting traditions based on surface reading. Both Nibley and Ash provide much food for thought, expansion of the mind, enlargement of the soul. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT