Response to CES Letter, part 1i: The Late War

Here I am sharing the sixth response I made to the CES letter. Here I address the issue of the book titled “The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain” and any possible relation it has to the Book of Mormon.

Response to CES Letter, part 1h: View of the Hebrews

Here I am sharing the sixth response I made to the CES letter. Here I address the issue of the book titled “View of the Hebrews” and any possible relation it has to the Book of Mormon.

Response to CES Letter, part 1g: Geography

Here I am sharing the seventh response I made to the CES letter. Here I address the issue of Book of Mormon Geography that are raised in the letter. This turned out to be a longer response and so I separated it into three different videos.

This first video discusses the geographic places names in the Book of Mormon as compared to modern names in the Great Lake region.

This second video discusses the names of Moroni and Cumorah and the location of that hill.

This third video discusses some writings and statements of contemporaries of Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon and other topics.

Response to CES Letter, part 1F: Archeology

Here I am sharing the sixth response I made to the CES letter. Here I address the issue of archeology as it relates to the Book of Mormon and how it is a trap used to shut down a conversation.

Here is a supplemental video I made on the subject of Archeology and the Book of Mormon.

Response to CES Letter, part 1E: Anachronisms

I am here sharing the fifth response I made to the CES letter. Here I address the issue of supposed anachronisms in the text of the Book of Mormon and why they don’t matter.

Response to CES Letter, part 1D: DNA and the Book of Mormon

I am here sharing the fourth response I made to the CES letter. In this video I discuss DNA, how it relates to the Book of Mormon, and why it cannot be used to prove anything regarding the authenticity of that work of scripture.

Response to CES Letter, part 1C: BofM vs. JST

I am here sharing the third response I made to the CES letter. This video addresses some of the differences between the Book of Mormon, the KJV of the Bible, and the Joseph Smith Translation, and discusses why they are not always identical.

 

 

Response to CES Letter, part 1B: KJ Italics

I am here sharing the second response I made to the CES letter. This response ended up being very long, so I have separated it into two videos.

These videos deal with the use of the Italicized words of the King James Bible in the Book of Mormon.

This first video deals exclusively with the issue of the italicized words.

 

The second part deals briefly with the italicized words, but speaks more specifically regarding the addition of the word “Red Sea” in Isaiah 9: 1. It also deals more specifically with the question of the Book of Mormon being taken from an ancient source.

Let me know what you think.

Response to CES Letter, part 1A: KJV Errors

It has been a while since I wrote any new content here, so I thought I would post this. This is not a written blog, but I am leaving a link to two videos that recently made and uploaded to youtube. I recently made a new channel on that platform, titled “Reflections: A Disciple Discusses Gospel Doctrine.” I will be uploading videos regarding the LDS church, its doctrine and its history.

This first video is to introduce the channel and explain what I am doing. It also introduces the first series of videos that I will be posting.

 

As it says in this introduction, I will be doing a series of videos responding to the issues and questions raised in the CES Letter. Many of these issues and questions have been addressed in some of my previous articles, but I will still be addressing them again in this series.

This second video is my response to the first question raised, regarding errors in the King James bible.

 

Please watch the videos before you make any comments on them or what I am doing.

Who Gives This Woman Away

This is something that has been on my mind for a while and I really wanted to share it. But first, let me say a few words to introduce the subject.

I am not one that claims direct revelation very often. Most of what I have learned has been through studying the words of the prophets. My understanding has been greatly increased through the spirit, but rarely have I experienced the bursts of light and knowledge that I would describe as direct revelation. Usually inspiration comes gradually through reasoned pondering and constant study.

However, there have been a few times in my life when my understanding had been almost instantly opened and knowledge was given to me without this ponderous thinking that I usually require. It happened once when I was studying the nature of God and the Godhead, which I wrote about at the time. It happened again a few months ago when I was studying section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

As most people know this section details the doctrine of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. It speaks to the potential of man to become gods, and lays out the requirements to fulfill the covenant of marriage. It also includes a brief explanation of Plural Marriage, or the practice of a man having more than one wife.

A few months ago my sister was reading this section, and we got into a discussion about the meaning of a certain passage. This is verses 43-44.

And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery. And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

My sister voiced complaint about the wording of this passage. She has been divorced, and the idea that God is just going to give her away gave her the impression that she was somehow inferior to men, and was being treated more as property than as a person. Now, I had heard similar complaints from other women about this section, but never from my family.

To be clear, section 132 has always been one of my favorite sections. No, I am not anxious for plural marriage to be re-instated. But the passages of this section are among the most beautiful and powerful in any of the scriptures, and they lay out the fullness of the Plan of Salvation so perfectly, plainly, and simply that I am sometimes amazed that those outside the church cannot see the truth of it.

So when my sister voiced her complaints about a section that I so dearly loved it bothered me. Not that I was angry with my sister, but that anyone could get anything so negative from such beautiful literature. But when I went back and read the passage I could easily see why she had this complaint. My mind instantly rejected the idea, as I knew that our Father could not think so little of His daughters. But at the time I could make no real reply, as I could not see how any other interpretation was possible.

Now, the complaints were made over facebook, and while I and others in the family tried to make some comments to comfort her, everything seemed to be flat and uninspired to me. So I left the conversation and I went and reread the entire section. In my mind I was begging for an answer to this problem.

I don’t recall how long I waited, but it was no more than a day. Rather suddenly the answer came to my mind. It did not all come at once, but rather a thought was clearly impressed on me, and once that thought was in my mind I was able to immediately reason out the true meaning of the passage. This is what I have come to know, and what I wanted to share in this post (sorry for the rambling introduction).

In Christian marriage there is the tradition of the father giving away his daughter. He leads her down the aisle to her waiting groom, and the minister asks “Who gives this woman away?” To this the father declares “I do.”

To some this is antiquated and is the perfect representation of the concept of women being property. After all, it is at least implying that the daughter is owned by the father, and that ownership is being given to her new husband.

What people fail to consider is the ancient traditions that this comes from. As established by God, the father is the head of the family. It is the father’s responsibility to ensure the welfare of his children. As part of this responsibility the father was to find a husband for each daughter who would faithfully fulfill these same duties as a father and husband. For once married the husband is now responsible for the welfare of his wife, and not the father. Arranged marriages were done for this very reason; to allow the father his natural right to ensure the welfare of his daughters. While this right and tradition have been abused in many cultures throughout history, this does not negate their divine origin.

So, when a father gives his daughter away, this is not to say that she is his property to do with as he pleases (or it shouldn’t be). Rather it is a father saying, in a very real sense, “I trust this man enough to relinquish my rights and responsibilities to care for my daughter and give them to him. I am willing to turn the care of my daughter, whom I dearly love, to this man, because I trust that he loves her and will care for her as I have done.”

So, what does this have to do with the passage from section 132. Let us look at a short piece of the verses in question.

have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful

Is God indicating that women are merely property to be handed around as rewards for men? No. Rather, as a loving Father he is telling us that no man who is unworthy and unwilling to fulfill the covenants of marriage and care for his beloved daughters, will be allowed to cause them further harm. They are not simply property, but cherished daughters, and God will ensure that they are placed in the care of a man who is worthy of them and will fulfill all that is required of a husband and father regarding them.

This is a statement of the most perfect love of a Father who has the power to ensure the happiness and joy of His beloved daughters.

I hope I have stated this in a way that people can understand.