Latter-day Saint FAIR-Cast

Evangelical Questions: Why is there so much of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon anyway? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Luke 4:15-17 “He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read… the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.” Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about something from the New Testament that is actually something from the Old Testament, and what it has to do with the Book of Mormon.  We’re talking about Isaiah, and why so much of it is in the Book of Mormon. The reason this topic comes up in this week’s readings is because we see Jesus going to the synagogue and reading from the scroll of Isaiah. Luke 4:15-17 “He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read… the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.” If you’ve had conversations with Evangelical friends and family before this topic has almost certainly come up: Why is there so much Isaiah in the Book of Mormon?  So we’re going to talk about that in a couple ways. First, we’re going to try and understand what Evangelicals mean when they ask that question – it’s a bit different than what we mean when we ask it.  Then we’ll look at some answers to their questions and finally look at the unique gift our faith brings to this part of the conversation.  What Are They Asking You have certainly heard church members ask (complain? bemoan?) about why is there so much Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, but they mean it more in a way that says, “We already get this during Old Testament year, why do we have to spend weeks on it again?” It’s a complaint about repetition, or sometimes a complaint about not understanding the meaning, but that is not what an Evangelical is doing when they ask this question.  I’ll tell you my experience….The first time I read the Book of Mormon I did not know what it was about.  I think I’ve mentioned before that I actually thought it was about the Utah period. So I  went in not knowing the plot, and certainly not knowing that Isaish would be quoted so much. I was surprised and curious about what it was doing there and how it was functioning inside the larger text. That’s a conversation for another day because what a lot of people reading the Book of Mormon initially think is that this is plagiarism. “Oh look, he just straight copied that out of the Bible!”  Now, that’s not what’s happening or how the Isaiah quotes are functioning inside the text, but it is what Evangelicals worry about. Why? Because what they’re really asking with this question is something like, “Aren’t you just stealing scripture from the Bible to legitimize the Book of Mormon?”  And that’s a fair question for them to be asking because it puts them in a dilemma that goes something like this…If I believe the book of Isaiah is scripture, and it’s here in the Book of Mormon then I have to concede that I believe at least parts of the Book of Mormon and I feel uncomfortable saying that because of my loyalty to the Bible.”  In order to understand a bit deeper we need to look at that word, “scripture.”  For Latter-day Saints the word “scripture” is a pretty broad word. We refer not only to our 4 standard works as scripture, but we refer to our Patriarchal Blessings as “personal scripture,” we treat some documents that are not officially part of our 4 standards works as if they are scripture such as the Proclamation on the Family, and even further we sometimes treat the words we receive from our leaders during General Conference as scripture. For us, the word, “scripture” has a lot of wiggle room in it. But it is not that way for Evangelicals.  In the Evangelical world only the Old and New Testaments are scripture. Some of them have a bit of fuzzy knowledge about the fact that there has been debate over certain books of the Bible which are sometimes included in the canon, and sometimes are not. But all of that is seen as just part of the historical process – today the lines of what is scripture and what isn’t are very clear for them. You can see why they get a little nervous when material from their very carefully defined canon is mixed into our open canon in service of a story that they don’t know, and don’t understand. We’ll leave out of the conversation the fact that the entire Old Testament (not just Isaiah) is included in their Christian Bible and sometimes the Jewish people (whose Bible it was first) have had some things to say about that. But that aside, you can see how this is a really a conversation about open vs. closed canon.  Why does an open canon bother them so much? Many latter-day Saints have a hard time understanding why an open canon is so troublesome to Evangelicals. “If God has more to say, wouldn’t you want to hear it?” But when you get into conversation with Evangelicals something confusing starts to happen. Evangelicals DO want to hear more from God, they do believe God speaks today, they do believe he has both personal messages for them as well as larger messages for all who call themselves Christians. We very much have that in common with them. During my first read-through of the Book of Mormon I really had to grapple with this. I believed that God can and does speak today, but I felt a bit queasy about it being written down in a book. But when I started to formulate that into a sentence that went something like, “God can speak today, you just can’t write it down in a book,” I knew that wasn’t a solid place to stand. It was surprising for me, but what this question illuminates is the struggle Evangelicals have around authority.  A bit of history is in order here. Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. Which means, as you will see, that they already have two strikes against the concept of authority. In 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95-Thesis to the church door and Protestant Reformation begins (that’s not a historically accurate version of how it began or why, but it is the popular version and good enough for our purposes here.) The Reformation results in churches that used to be under the authority of Rome, now becoming their own authority. And it was mostly based on country or region. The Dutch Reformation happened very differently than the English Reformation, for example and by the end the Dutch wanted to do things the way they wanted to do them, and the English wanted to do things the way they wanted to do them. Fast-forward about 500 more years and we have many churches doing as they see fit. Around the same time as the Baby Boom is happening there starts to be a feeling in American Christianity that the old ways should be moved on from, and that included religion. Starting in Southern California, and moving across the country churches began with the expressed purpose of not being fuddy-duddys about church but bringing in rock music, allowing for casual dress and a more relaxed service. This group, initially called Neo-Fundamentalists, become the Evangelicals. So, Evangelicals are not just Protestants (protest-tant) and the children of all that entails, they “protest” against their own tradition and advocate for a more relaxed and informal worship setting where no one is going to tell them how to dress or to cut their hair. In this sense they’re double-Protestants, and have a double-dose of suspicion of authority.  Their attitude of being suspicious of authority shows up in their theology too. You’ve certainly heard an Evangelical friend say something like, “We don’t need the priesthood, we have the priesthood of all believers” (this is an issue we will also get to in another video) and that is the ultimate anti-authority statement because they get to have it both ways by saying that authority is not needed, and even if it were we have it in ourselves.  But then a funny thing – a very human thing – happens and it’s a psychological principle that happens to everyone. Let’s take the topic of budgeting and responsible spending. Most people will look at those who spend their money more freely than they do and consider them foolish, maybe even reckless. But they will look at those who are stricter with their money than they themselves are and see them as too tight or too rigid. Somehow the human mind always sets itself as the exact, perfect midpoint. And this phenomenon happens here to Evangelicals – the very ones who we can call “double-Protestants” look at the open canon of Latter-day Saints and say, “No, that’s too far.  Our fuddy-duddy grandparents didn’t go far enough, but you go too far. We are the correct midpoint.”  I don’t tell you that so that you can go and argue this reality with them, I tell it to you so that you can understand what is going on with them and why they think the way they do. It’s actually a very human and understandable process. Instead of arguing against it and trying to convince them of why we actually do have the proper authority to introduce new scriptures, or that having an open canon is a good thing, maybe go back to the very thing that prompted this entire discussion. What is Isaiah doing in the Book of Mormon?  Or for that matter, consider the verse that inspired this conversation: Why is Jesus quoting from Isaiah?  Here is what Jesus read from Isaiah: The Spirit of the Lord is on me,     because he has anointed me     to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners     and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. When Jesus takes Isaiah out of its original context and applies it to his day, he does so in a very unique and unexpected way.  The poor get good news, the prisoners get free, the blind get sight. To be totally fair, this is what the Evangelical movement was about when it began, or at least what it tried to be about – making room for all kinds of people in the church. The sections of Isaiah that are in the Book of Mormon are there to teach us about covenant keeping and that God keeps his side of the deal, and that even when we keep messing up there is always a path back to God. When your Evangelical friend asks you why there is so much of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon at least part of what they’re asking is: Do you really have the authority to add Isaiah to your book? But it’s the same pattern and purpose that they are longing for in their churches too – that there is room for everyone, that it doesn’t matter what has happened in your life, there is always a path back to God. They put a huge emphasis on the Gospel being for everyone, no matter what. And by including the sections of Isaiah that we do into the Book of Mormon, we are also saying that God has a path for us back to him, and that when we make covenants with God he will always help us keep them. In that sense, we want the same things….and if anything our unique contribution here is that the path back to God is not some ethereal path you have to figure out for yourself. It’s defined well and there is an entire church to support you on that path.  I hope you enjoyed this episode, join us again next week when we look at more questions about the New Testament. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 4; Luke 4–5 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Wait. You Don’t Believe in the Trinity? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Mark 1:10-11 “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. I’m Jennifer Roach and today we’re looking at a popular question you might get from your Evangelical friends or family members: Why don’t you believe in the Trinity?  As you know we’re following the Come Follow Me readings in the New Testament this year and this week’s reading brings up the question in Mark 1:11 because we have Jesus being baptized, the voice of God calling down from Heaven, and the Spirit appearing in the form of a dove.  So it’s understandable that our friends get confused on this issue. Here we are reading Mark 1, but denying the Trinity. What gives? Understanding the Question As always we are first going to try to understand where an Evangelical is coming from with this question.  It comes up a lot, and it certainly is a big deal to them and I want to help you understand why so you can see where we have commonality, and where we can offer a unique gift to the rest of Christianity with our perspective.  So, why is the Trinity such a big deal? But the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, nor are the Greek or Hebrew equivalents. Most Latter-day Saints have some knowledge that this idea came from the church councils that formed the creeds, and that’s a good start. But instead of looking at this history of how the Trinity developed, I want to look at the modern understanding of it by today’s Evangelicals. (We will talk about Creeds in a later episode, but that needs a full episode all to itself.) At the heart of it, their concerns are about getting the nature of God correct. That’s a commendable thing. On that note, we want the same thing that they do. It’s a really important question and Evangelicals will often think of this in terms of the nature of God being a foundational piece that will throw everything else off if it is gotten wrong. I attended an Evangelical Divinity School for my Masters in Divinity and one our professors was found of saying, “Every conversation is about the nature of God – it just looks like it’s about finance or fashion or pizza from the outside.” And if you’re not a person who lives in your head, maybe that’s taking it too far, but there is some truth to it. So we give them respect for caring about who God is and what He’s like. And if you have Evangelical friends who are willing to talk with you about the nature of God, well you are very lucky – what better conversation is there to have? Today’s Evangelical Belief in the Trinity Ironically, Evangelicals often don’t understand this issue any better than Latter-day Saints do. In 2018 two Christian ministries – Ligonier Ministries which focuses on doctrinal competence and LifeWay Publishers which is the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention – did a survey of Evangelicals to assess their understanding of the Trinity.  What they did was ask participants to affirm certain statements about the Trinity, but the trick was that each statement was an official heresy, not a true belief about the Trinity. On average they affirmed 3 out of 8 heretical statements, earning them a failing 62.5%.  Although to be completely fair, in the past many Evangelicals would have used a handful of popular analogies to describe the nature of the Trinity such as, “It’s like water, steam, ice – all three are made of the same stuff.”  Or, “It’s like an actor who wears three different masks.”  Evangelicals themselves have mostly debunked these and gotten away from their usage, which is a good thing. Each of those analogies really better represents a rejected heresy about the Trinity than the actual concept itself. You’ll certainly still hear these analogies, but far less than in decades past. However the thinking behind them persists, as evidenced by the previously mentioned survey. And in more thoughtful corners of the Evangelical world they’ve made a move to talking about the mystery of the Trinity, and shying away from the specifics of it. Instead of hearing, “The Trinity is like a three-leaf clover,” you are far more likely to hear, “The Trinity is a great mystery where the members of the Trinity are in perfect communion with each other because they are made from the same substance as each other, and yet they have full independence to act as themselves without that ever disrupting the unity of the group.” And I’ll be honest, when I was an Evangelical the appeal to mystery worked for me because it appeals to the Trinity as a community of whose love overflows outward to humanity. And here’s where it gets really interesting for Latter-day Saints. Jürgen Moltmann You may have never heard of Jürgen Moltmann, and your Evangelical friends or family members probably have never heard of him either – but their pastors absolutely have, the academics who write thoughtful books for them have, and the professors who teach in Divinity Schools absolutely have. Why is Moltmann important? Moltmann was born in 1926 in Hamburg, Germany. As of this writing he is still alive at 96 years old. You can guess by his birth year and home country that he has saw the horrors of World War 2 and the rise of authoritarianism.  And it led him to think about the problems that happen in Christianity when we have a “hyper sovereign” view of God in the Trinity. That sentence alone has way too much to unpack for a video like this so let’s just leave it at saying he started to see the holes in the 3-in1-1-in-3 model of the Trinity. Moltmann develops an idea about the Trinity that he calls, “The Social Trinity,” which basically means he sees the Trinity as a cooperation or society of Divine persons, each separate from each other, but united to their core in purpose and will. Starting to sound familiar?  Before you get too excited, don’t go out and sit by your mailbox waiting for an invitation for Moltmann’s baptism into our church. Ultimately what Moltmann does with that idea of the Trinity is to demonstrate the dangers of forcing unity without free will under a supreme dictator. He was born in Germany in 1926 afterall. However, what Moltmann has done is introduce the idea of a Social Trinity that sounds very similar to our concept of the Godhead. They are not identical, and if we had more time I could show you the layers of difference, but for now it is interesting to note that the conversation around the Trinity is changing. No longer will you only hear, “The Trinity is like an egg made of a yoke, the white and the shell.” The influence of Moltmann has filtered into many corners of the Evangelical world and they are having better conversations about the Trinity because of him. And it’s not just him, the theologians who come after him (and are teaching today’s pastors) like Miroslav Volf, a Croatian theologian who writes about the intersection of theology and public policy. Volf is extremely influential on pastors who have been trained in the last 20 years. Will the average pew-sitting person know his name? Probably not. But their pastor does and has likely been influenced by his ideas about the Social Trinity. So What? I tell you all of this about Moltmann and Volf to say that things are changing in the Evangelical conversation about the Trinity. And while they themselves are still trying to reign in heresies about the Trinity, the conversation is also opening up. Your Evangelical friend or family member is very likely to at least be introduced to the idea of the Trinity as a community of Divine beings of love whose goodness flows outward to humanity. And that’s a conversation that would be very interesting to have. Matter Matters The most unique contribution that our faith makes to the conversation about the nature of God is that God the Father has a body. You may have heard that statement so many times in your life that it has no meaning to you and it’s hard for you to understand the implications of God being only a Spirit. Let me draw out some meaning for you. In the traditional conception of God the Father he is seen as a spirit who has no body. Jesus gets a human body for a time while he lives on Earth, but that is God’s only experience of what it’s like to inhabit matter. And when God is only Spirit it is easy to only relate to him in our hearts and minds, not our bodies. This is the heresy of Gnosticism where it becomes really important to think the right things with your mind, but not very important to do the right things with your body. As long as you have correct beliefs, well you can do whatever you want with your body. The Spiritual matters, the physical doesn’t. Latter-day Saint beliefs turn that on its head in a profound way when we say that God the Father has a physical body. Other corners of Christianity hint at this in various ways by saying that God inhabits the Eucharist (either symbolically as Protestants say, or literally as Catholics say) or other symbols of faith. But Latter-day Saints are not saying God symbolically inhabits matter, we are saying that He is made of matter. So if God the Father is made of matter, then simply giving intellectual assent to concepts about faith can never be enough. Our beliefs matter, but our physical acts matter too. We’ll revisit this idea in a future video when we talk about the tension between works (things you do in the physical world) and grace (which exists in the spiritual or intellectual world alone). In Conclusion My sense is that historically conversations between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals has been rough when it comes to talking about the nature of God. But never before has such a good foundation been laid in Evangelicalism itself to talk about the concept of the Godhead and how we see that working. You might be very surprised to find yourself on a similar page as an Evangelical friend on this topic, and even more surprised that our unique contribution of God the Father inhabiting physical matter is intriguing and helpful. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Why did Joseph Smith change the meaning to some verses in the Bible? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC This week we come to a very important verse in scripture.  John 1:1 traditionally translated, “In the beginning was the word.”  You’ll find it that way in almost every translation. It’s often the first verse beginning Greek students learn, “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” and straight away they are introduced to the complexities of translating. The text literally says, “In the beginning was the logos.” We look at that verse now, with the benefit of centuries of translation on our side and know “logos” means Jesus in some sense. Translators, theologians and scholars have been settled on this for a very long time. So it’s a fair question to ask, “Why did Joseph Smith step out of the established translation on this verse?”  Now, your Evangelical friends or family members may not be able to point to this specific verse and see the differences, but if you’re in conversation with them about the New Testament the issue of Joseph’s variations in translation are going to come up eventually. Let’s look at how Joseph translated the same verse: John 1:1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.  (JST) There’s a lot going on here and we’re going to break it down into pieces.  First we’ll talk about what your Evangelical friends think when they hear that different translation and why they hear it that way. And then we’ll talk about what Joseph is doing in this translation and how it opens up meaning even your Evangelical friends might appreciate.  First, what do Evangelicals hear when they hear that kind of translation? There are many verses in the Bible that have translation variations and most Evangelicals are completely comfortable with this. They understand that the many different translations of the Bible are trying to do different things. For example, they understand that a translation like The Message (which isn’t actually a translation, it’s a paraphrase) is trying to do something radically different than a translation like the English Standard Version (ESV). The Message is attempting to put the Bible’s message into fresh contemporary language so that the modern reader can hear it and understand it in their own context. The language is meant to sound good on your ears.  Meanwhile the ESV is trying to give as close to a word-for-word translation as possible even if it has to mean sacrificing the lyrical sound of a passage. So when they hear a different translation they’re not reacting to the fact that differences have been brought in. They’re used to that.  The thing that is bothersome for them is that they doubt Joseph’s abilities as a translator and they use his “wrong” translation of John 1:1 as proof that if he couldn’t even translate the Bible correctly, what chance did he have of translating the Golden Plates correctly?  The Golden Plates and the Bible One of the things your Evangelical friend might be wondering about is how you can trust the Book of Mormon to be true when we have no access to the Golden Plates to check Joseph’s translation work? The interesting assumption behind that question is that we have originals of the Bible to check against.  Many people (Evangelicals and others) have either seen pictures of old manuscripts, or perhaps they’ve seen one in person such as the Codex Sinaiticus which is on public display at the British Library in London. Because these manuscripts are very old many people assume they are the actual documents that the original writers literally wrote. Sinaiticus is considered the oldest complete manuscript – but even it is only dated back to the 4th-century. It’s not like we can do a direct comparison to the Biblical text either. The originals simply do not exist. Now, there is a science called “textual criticism” which identifies and tracks the variations in the text. This process is very good at identifying exactly where changes happened, which manuscripts got copied with which changes and more. But, it’s not 100% accurate, and has been wrong in the past. So we’re still in a situation where the translation of the Bible and the translation of the Book of Mormon are in pretty similar boats.  Still, Evangelicals feel nervous about a novel translation of John 1:1 (or any of Josephs’s other novel translations) because no other translations are in agreement with what he’s doing. They hear it as a subtle way to smuggle “incorrect meaning” into the scriptures.  But is that what’s happening here? What Does Joseph See in John 1:1? So, if you remember, here is what Joseph is doing in the very first part of the verse, instead of, “In the beginning was the word,” or ““Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,” we get, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son.”  Joseph is swapping out, “the word” for, “the gospel preached through the Son.” And the question becomes, what is he doing here and why?  What is “Logos”? Most Latter-day Saints are not particularly interested in philosophy, and for understandable reasons. But in order to get at some important content here I want to glance in the direction of philosophy for just a moment because it is the best way to understand what this “logos” actually means.  Logos is a huge concept in Greek philosophy. It doesn’t have an exact translation in English. You have probably been taught, “it means Jesus” and that’s true insofar as the concept points to Jesus, but the word itself doesn’t mean, “Jesus.” The word means something close to, “the metaphysics that are universal law.” One Greek philosopher, Heraclitus said, “the world is animated and kept in order by fire, and this fire is the Logos.”  In his example it is the thing that makes everything else work. Plato and Aristotle understood logos as something like, “the very principles of logic.” The Stoic philosophers said logos was the vitalizing force guiding the universe.  Jumping forward many centuries we see the philosopher Hegel saying that logos is the “absolute concept” of the universe.  So we have the literal Greek text saying, “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God.”  Our English translations almost universally translate “logos” as “word” and what they’re trying to do there is say something like, “In the beginning the ‘logic that makes all logic make sense” was with God…” Or, “In the beginning the, ‘story that ties together all the stories’ was with God.”  Or even, “In the beginning the “thing that makes everything work” was with God.”  But what we humans do is simplify things. We no longer hear, “in the beginning was the word” and understand it to mean all of these things, we just hear, “the word” and plug in, “Jesus.” Which isn’t untrue necessarily, but it certainly misses a lot of meaning.  So when Joseph translates, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son,” he is not mistranslating, he is bringing in a layer of meaning that is largely lost to the modern reader.  I read this as Joseph saying, “In the beginning God’s plan to animate this whole world was the Gospel, and it was Jesus who was going to carry that Gospel out.” Instead of Greek philosophy’s, “The universe is animated through fire.”  We get, “The world is animated through the Gospel plan.” And now all of a sudden it has a whole new depth of meaning and the question of, “Why did Joseph change the Bible when no one else translates it that way?” has a far easier answer.  Insofar as it is Translated Correctly You might be tempted to say that John 1:1 clearly is a spot of the Bible that has not been translated correctly, that Joseph got it right and everyone else got it wrong. This is tricky ground and I want to explain why. Technically, “in the beginning was the word” is a correct translation in that it is a literal translation of the Greek sentence that is on the page. The translation is fine. What we see happening in Joseph’s translation is that he is opening up a new layer of meaning in an artistic way that is not identical to the literal translation. Your Evangelical friends might object to this by saying that it is taking too many liberties and that translation should be as close to a word-for-word translation as possible. However, at the same time, Evangelicals love The Message version of the Bible which renders John 1:1 like this, “The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God.” Now, that is not what is on the page in Greek. It is a translation which is bringing out some nuance that is not there in the traditional translation. An interesting thing for Evangelicals to grapple with is, “Why is it okay for The Message to bring out a layer of meaning, but it’s not okay for Joseph Smith to do so?” Translations This also brings up the issue of various Bible translations. Our leaders have said that we are to use the King James version in public worship, and for some very good reasons. But your Evangelical friends might think you crazy for going along with it because the language is sometimes hard to understand. On the other side, sometimes Latter-day Saints are skeptical of the variety of translations. Although today we’ve seen that John 1:1 gets translated the same way almost across the board, that isn’t true for many verses and there can be wildly different translations.  Latter-day Saints can have the same worry about non-KJV translations that Evangelicals have about the Joseph Smith translation – that they’re bringing in corrupted meaning or have been mistranslated. Let me give you a brief run-down on other translations that might be helpful to you to add alongside your KJV translations.  As we’ve already alluded to in today there are a few different philosophies behind Bible translations, as well as a few different categories of source material. We’ll talk about source material first. Remember, we don’t have any originals of the Bible. We have manuscripts and fragments. Between the time of Christ and the invention of the printing press we have almost 6,000 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Most of them are fragments, some fragments are as small as a business card, others are almost complete books, and no two are identical. So Bible translators have to make some choices about which manuscripts and fragments they are going to use as source material to translate from. You can read in the preface of each Bible about which manuscripts are their source material; different versions use different source material for different reasons. That’s an interesting thing to know, but unless you are an academic it’s not going to be super helpful to you. What is helpful is that translator’s philosophy, something they will also tell you about in the preface. There are 3 basic philosophies. 1)Word-for-word 2) Thought-for-thought 3) Paraphrase into modern language.  First, you should know that the word-for-word translations are not actually translating word-for-word. No such thing is possible. The Hebrew of the Old Testament lacks a grammatical structure that English speakers rely on. In English (and any other modern language) we can break down a sentence into its parts of speech and understand how each one functions. Hebrew doesn’t let you do that, the structure is just not there so the translators have to introduce it into the English version – if they didn’t the whole thing would be unintelligible to you. It’s true to a lesser degree for Greek as well. So what the word-for-word translators are doing is trying to get as close to that as possible – even when they have to sacrifice readability to do so. Translations that fall into this category include the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version. In contrast the thought-for-thought translators are trying to take a thought from the source material and stay true to that thought as they bring it into English. They’re less concerned about staying as close to the words as possible and more concerned with actually getting the meaning across. These translations sound better to our ears and are generally more understandable, but they sacrifice staying close to the source material. Translations that fall in this category are the New International Version or the New American Bible, among others.  The final category of translation are Bibles that are not actually considered real translations because the source material was not the Greek and Hebrew from an ancient manuscript. Their source material is a Bible previously translated into English. They take the English sentence and make it sound modern or fresh. These are called paraphrases and while they’re not a great choice for serious study, they can be a good choice for devotional reading. The Message and The Living Bible, as well as others, fall in this category.  Conclusion When the issue of translations comes up with your Evangelical friends or family it can feel overwhelming and you might feel hesitant to talk about it for fear of lack of knowledge. But as you can see in John 1:1, Joseph Smith was brining out meaning in the text the same way other Bible translators do today. And your friends outside of our church might even enjoy hearing about what Joseph was doing in that text. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 1 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Why are temples still needed? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Luke 2:22, 27 And when the days of her (Mary’s) purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him (baby Jesus) to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord…And he (Simeon) came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law. Again we will be looking at a section of scripture in the Come Follow Me readings that corresponds to a common question Evangelicals have about our faith. Last time we talked about how an Evangelical’s value of showing loyalty to Christ makes them suspicious of some of our claims. This week we’re going to talk about the temple – why Evangelicals are skeptical of the need of a temple, why they think that way, and some of the ways you can have better conversations with them that lead to a natural but confident sharing of your testimony. What Do Evangelicals Understand About Temples? Many Evangelicals actually have a keen interest in learning about the temple as it is portrayed in the Old Testament. They understand much of the symbolism and value what God was trying to teach through those symbols. They also have a knowledge of how the temple functioned in the New Testament and what role it plays in the story of Jesus. You might find your Evangelical friends or family an interesting source of conversation about the temple as it is talked about in the Bible. Another area of commonality with them is that they believe the temple will be restored in Jerusalem at some future point which is related to the End Times. All of these are great jumping off places for a conversation about temples. Where Temples Get Uncomfortable for Evangelicals Despite our commonalities in talking about temples in the Bible, Evangelicals would start to get nervous when we talk about modern-day temples. Here is an example: when I was a girl I lived in California not far from the Oakland Temple.  If you’ve ever seen the Oakland Temple you know it sits high up on a hill overlooking the entire Bay Area of San Francisco. It’s illuminated at night and very hard to miss. We were taught by our leaders that we should avert our eyes away from the temple and not even look at it – despite it being the brightest thing on the hill – because, “strange and evil things happen inside of those temples.” Clearly this was a misguided statement, but it represents the kind of fear Evangelicals have when it comes to our temples. But when you sit down to have a conversation with them about the temple it often boils down to one real question: Didn’t Jesus do away with the temple? Did Jesus do away with temples? I’m going to try to explain what most Evangelicals would say about why temples are no longer needed – and why they say it.  If you remember back to our first video in this series, one of the dynamics at play here is that they are trying very hard to show proper loyalty and respect to Jesus Christ. Assuming they have some other motive is going to make a conversation like this harder, not easier. So, assuming their good motives we look at why talk about temples makes them so nervous. First, you have to understand that Evangelicals prioritize the work and words of Jesus. Despite the numerous times in the Old Testament that the temple is talked about in ways that they can learn from, the ultimate temple story is when the temple veil rips in half during the crucifixion. Matthew 27:51, “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split.” The temple veil referred to here is of course the veil that separates the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple. In Old Testament days the Holy of Holies was only entered 1 time per year and only by a very special priest and there were very strict rules around this. Normal people certainly didn’t have access to the Holy of Holies at any point during their lives. Evangelicals interpret this verse as if it’s saying that the entire temple is unneeded. They would say something like, “If the veil is ripped, then there is no need to protect the Holy of Holies, anyone can have the special direct access to God that was allowed in that place.” While we would disagree with that interpretation there is something to admire in it. Evangelicals are trying to make it so that every person has as much access to God as they want, and all it takes is a turn of the heart to be in full communion with God. They would say that because of Jesus’ sacrifice we humans no longer need anyone to help us connect with God. And in theory, we wouldn’t disagree with that, right?  We too believe that every human can choose to pray inside the quietness of their own mind and that God will listen. The differences come when Evangelicals start to make practical applications of this theology. Because the temple veil was ripped in two, there is now no barrier between us and God. and therefore it is not necessary to go to a temple to feel God’s presence, we can access it anytime from anywhere through the Spirit. In their view temples are unneeded simply because no physical space can cause a person to have, or not have, the Spirit. Again, in theory we wouldn’t disagree, but they use this to say that therefore temples are not needed. They see us as putting up a barrier to people who want to be closer to God – when Jesus’ work on the cross took that barrier down. Their hearts are certainly in the right place. Temple Worship in the New Testament Even though there is a certain logic to this claim, and a good motive behind it, it doesn’t really pan out .  If the New Testament ended immediately after Jesus’ resurrection, they might have a more convincing claim. However, we have a lot of information about what a life of faith looked like in the post-resurrection world. And that information includes temple worship. Let me show you what I mean. In Acts 22 we get a fascinating story from the Apostle Paul. First he retells the details of his conversion (we converts love to do this!) and after he’s done he goes on to tell a less well-known story. He tells of visiting the temple in Jerusalem and says that while he was praying in the temple he was, as the King James version says, in a trance. What exactly does that mean? We don’t totally know but Paul tells us that God told him to leave Jerusalem because the people there were not going to receive what he had to say, and that he should go preach to the Gentiles. For most Latter-day Saints there is nothing at all odd about a story where someone goes to the temple and God communicates to them. If you don’t have a story like that of your own, you certainly know someone who does. Saying, “It’s easier to hear God speak in the temple sometimes,” would not be a controversial statement for a Latter-day Saint to make. But that statement is hard for Evangelicals because they hear us talk about temples and think we’re trying to make it harder to hear God, not easier. At this point in the conversation your Evangelical friend or family member might ask, “Well, then why are there so many rules about who can go in the temple and who can’t?  Don’t you want everyone to hear from God?”  Yes, we do want everyone to hear from God, and we believe that living the kind of life that makes you temple worthy gives you the very best chance at hearing from him. And that having a physical place to go where it’s quiet and everyone is focused on God also gives you a better chance.  It’s not that we want to keep people out per se, it’s that we want to help people construct lives where they regularly hear from God. The requirements for temple entry are an aid toward being able to hear from God, not a deterrent from it. Can God speak to a person anywhere? Of course.  He spoke to Saul, before he became Paul, out on the side of the road. But that same Paul also recognized the value of going to the temple where he could pray and hear from God. It’s taken us to this point to make the connection, but the reality here is Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints all desperately want the same thing – a connection with the Divine. We have some disagreements on how to best facilitate such a connection, but the desire is the same. They’re worried that we’re trying to keep people away from God, but it’s an unfounded fear. Selective Reading One of the things you might be starting to notice, even here in Video #2, is that many of the questions that come up for Evangelicals about our faith are born out of focusing on a different set of  Bible verses than we would focus on. Set aside the fact that we have additional scriptures that they don’t have, even if we’re just looking at the Biblical text you can see that we Latter-day Saints focus on different texts, and different details in the text. And for many of the issues we’ll cover in this series one doesn’t even have to look beyond the Biblical text to have a good conversation about our difference. How can this be?  If Evangelicals are sincere seekers of God, how is it that we see things so differently, even when we’re just looking at the Bible? Yes, modern revelation is part of it. We have information they don’t have. But perhaps there is something else going on too. The Bible is a really big book, with a lot of details that are odd to our ears. And most people condense the stories down into memorable parts, they attach a spiritual lesson to it, and sort of put it in the “done” column. They stop thinking about what a passage could possibly mean because they think they have it figured out.  It’s not just Evangelicals that do this – all humans do this when trying to understand large amounts of information, we have to develop a system of shorthand in order to manage it all. We all do some degree of selective reading.  And it really can take an act of humility to take a text and look at it again with fresh eyes. When I was an Evangelical I never would have picked up the detail about Paul having a vision/trance in the temple. It’s not that I disbelieved it, I just wouldn’t have noticed it because it didn’t fit into the other bits of knowledge I was already trying to build on. I had no real place to put that information because my preconceived idea was already that temples weren’t important. As members of the church sometimes I think we shy away from a very careful reading of the Bible, not out of laziness or disinterest, but because we already have a feast of scripture that is far more explicit about these things in our modern-day scriptures. Understandable enough. But after listening to all of this you can see how having a conversation with a friend who is not of our faith about the Bible actually can lead you to some parts of scripture that perhaps they overlooked – not in a fighting or contentious kind of way, but in a way that reads closely and might see how the pieces are put together differently. I hope that as you are going through the New Testament this year you are doing a close and careful reading of the text – not just assuming that you already know what it says, but with a mind open to the Spirit to see the important details. You might be surprised at how much they bolster your faith and your confidence in talking about your testimony. Join us next week as we look at another question that comes up in the readings. If you have a specific question that you are hoping will get addressed please contact FAIR directly or email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 2; Luke 2 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Is Jesus God? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Matthew 1:21 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Introduction So, right off the bat we have an interesting point of conversation that could come up with your Evangelical friends: Who do you believe Jesus is? This is a really important question in the Evangelical world and a lot hinges on this for them. They’re generally taught, “Get this answer wrong, and you get everything wrong.” And there is a lot to respect in their thinking here. If Jesus were just another good teacher, or just trying to help people understand the mortality of being kind to each other, then we miss a lot of what’s happening in this part of God’s plan. And one of the things you’re going to see come up in this series over and over is that sometimes we use the same words to describe different things. Evangelicals are aware of this too and they’re nervous that they’re going to almost get tricked into believing something about Jesus that turns out not to be true. One of their greatest desires and values is to show loyalty and respect to Jesus Christ. So they might approach a conversation with you about Jesus nervously. And to be honest, that’s an admirable character trait – this is one of the ways they show their faithfulness to Christ.  So in a conversation with an Evangelical friend about Christ they’re going to feel really protective of him. Also admirable. Is Jesus a Child of God? The thing that makes talking about Jesus with an Evangelical difficult is that they think they know what members of the church REALLY think about Jesus, and their defense mechanisms naturally kick in – they feel a lot of loyalty to Christ. Here’s some examples of things I was taught as  an Evangelical, and things I used to actually think… That Jesus is a literal Spirit Child of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. If you’re a member of the church, that probably doesn’t sound very odd in your ears. “Of course Jesus is a Spirit Child of God – we all are!” Let me tell you how Evangelicals hear that: “To say Jesus is a literal spirit child of God is to say that he is less than God, he was created at a point in time and therefore is not eternal. He can never be really considered God.” Now, as members of the church that probably sounds odd to you and you might be asking, “Don’t Evangelicals say that Jesus is the Son of God?” Yes, they do. But they mean something different by it and when we say that he is a spirit child born of Heavenly Father they get uncomfortable because somehow that diminishes him.  Remember, they’re not necessarily trying to fight against Truth, when they say that, they’re trying to be loyal to Jesus and they feel protective of his place. Its the “literal” child of God that makes them nervous. This is probably very confusing to you because in our church we belive EVERYONE is a literal spirit child of God, including Jesus. Let’s explore that… Evangelicals do believe in being a child of God, but let me tell you what they mean by it…. To the evangelical God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist as a special species of beings called God (singular) and no one else will ever join that species. Angels and demons (to the degree that they believe in them) are a separate species. They have no information on how that species began or if any more beings can be added to it. They just know it is a different species from God, and from humans. Humans are a third species. New humans are created at the moment of their conception and at that moment God creates a new spirit to put into them. Even though humans must collaborate with God in the creation of babies, all humans are a species all unto themselves with a substance entirely different from what either God or angels are made from. A human has about as much chance to become an angel as a dog does to become a cat. And in their thinking, the idea that a human could transcend their species to become like God is impossible. What Species is Jesus? What Species are you? So when an Evangelical says, “I am a child of God” – and they do say that – what do they mean?  HOW are they children of God if they are an entirely different species? Isn’t that like saying a kitten is a puppy? Here is what they mean: I’ll quote the NIV for clarity… Gal 4:4-5 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Now, what they’re saying that verse says – that we are some other species and God adopts us into his family as there would be no other way for us to be considered his family – is not true. If you read the entire context of that paragraph of scripture you see it is talking about an underage heir who must live under some restrictions – and then when the time comes that heir becomes the master and functions as such. This is not a paragraph about cross-species adoption. But they hear that word “adoption” and combine it with their preconceived idea that God is a different species than us, so that when they say, “I am a child of God” they mean, “I was not God’s child, but He has graciously adopted me into His family, even though I don’t deserve the title.” So, back to our original question, “I thought you didn’t believe Jesus is God?”  you can now see what they mean by that.  They mean: Because you say Jesus was born as a spirit child of God He can’t be equal to God but is somehow adopted in like we humans are.” The question has been overwhelmingly answered right on the Church’s website. We believe in the Jesus of the Bible, just like our EV friends and neighbors do. We believe Jesus is the only begotten son of God, born in the flesh and lived among us, He suffered, died, was burried, and rose again. This article from the Church details it much more specifically. What Latter-day Saints Believe About Jesus Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org) Differences However, let’s not collapse all our differences. There are things we believe about Jesus that are different from Evangelicals. Because their view of Jesus is shaped through the Creeds, and ours is not, we see some things differently. You can confidently say, “Yes, we believe these same things about Jesus, but here are the areas where we slightly differ…” And from my perspective, as a former Evangelical, this is one of the best spots for inspired conversation. So what are the actual differences? God Revealed In our church we believe that God continues to reveal himself, even now in our day. This can make Evangeliclas a little nervous because they are used to being taught that matters about God have been settled, and they can find those settled answers in the Bible and in the Creeds. They believe they’ve captured the right answers and now have them corralled into a fenced yard and if they keep those answers in, and all other answers out, they will be safe. It’s an understandable desire. This is where I was when I was first learning about the church. The idea that God could reveal more information about himself felt like a trick and my loyalty reflex kicked in. But as I came to understand that the new information God had revealed about himself was good and helpful, I began to trust it more. When Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ visit Joseph Smith for the First Vision we see Joseph learning some things. It takes him a bit to put the pieces together, but once he does he comes to understand that Heavenly Father is material and all that implies – and what it implies is very good, more on that in another video. The Evangelicals aren’t rejecting new information because they have particularly hard hearts or are not open to God.  They reject this because they’re skeptical – they’ve been taught to be skeptical – out of loyalty. But when you can show a Evangelical friend that God revealed really means something good, they might get curious. Jesus in the Book of Mormon Before I read the Book of Mormon for the first time I really didn’t know what it was about. I knew the cultural references to it, and understood the basics of the story of Joseph and the gold plates. But I actually thought, as embarrassing as this is to admit, that it was about the early Utah period. So it will come as no surprise to you that I didn’t have any idea how much of Jesus was in the Book of Mormon. One of my earliest reactions was being surprised by how much knowledge they have. Part of me was skeptical that this was a heavily constructed history but I decided to judge the content of the book on its truths, leaving aside the questions about where it came from at first. When Jesus is mentioned in the Book of Mormon I decided that I would ask myself if what was being taught was true or not. And it didn’t take me very long to feel comfortable with the truths I found. I say all of that to say this: When you’re talking with an Evangelical friend about our beliefs about Jesus don’t be too alarmed when they’re skeptical of how the Book of Mormon came to be. They don’t have to have a firm testimony of that before they can gain truth from it. And my experience with Evangelicals is that they welcome truth when they find it – as long as they can get over their skepticism. If you’re talking with your EV friend and they’re skeptical of how the Book of Mormon came to be, that’s okay. Talking about Jesus as revealed in the Book of Mormon might be a more faith-producing place to start anyway. Conclusion So, if the question is, “I thought you didn’t believe Jesus is God,”  you can confidently assure your friend that yes, we believe Jesus is God and affirm what the New Testament teaches us about Him.  You and your friend are on the same page there.  And, as the Spirit leads, you might be able to tell them something good about the additional revelation we have received. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.   The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 1; Luke 1 appeared first on FAIR.

Jennifer Roach introduces this new video series that will follow our Come, Follow Me study of the New Testament in 2023. Each week we’ll talk a look at the CFM readings in the New Testament with a specific eye looking for places where there is either a resonance or a dissonance with what the average Evangelical Christian in the US believes. And each week we’ll look at a specific question an Evangelical might ask if they were in conversation with you about this text. The idea isn’t to give you ammunition to shoot down your Evangelical friends in debate, but to try to better understand their questions and provide an informed and faithful answer. We have so much in common with our EV friends and neighbors, but sometimes members of the church get a little shy of talking about scripture because the whole thing can end up in a muddle. This series will give some framework for understanding how they hear the same passage and how to answer questions that might come up. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Introduction appeared first on FAIR.

A Gourd, a Worm, and an East Wind: Discovering God’s Extensions of Love in the Book of Jonah by Matt Crawford Jonah called Gath-hepher home—a town which was west of the present-day Sea of Galilee (see 2 Kings 14:25). When the Lord called Jonah on a mission from his comfortable home to the Assyrian city of Nineveh,[1] he did not hesitate to act. Jonah immediately “rose up to flee unto Tarshish” (Jonah 1:3).[2] Jonah may have run away from the mission call to Nineveh because one of Israel’s enemies, the Assyrians, lived there. The Assyrians were known to regularly torture and kill their captives, and then gruesomely desecrate their bodies.[3] While we do not know if Jonah was afraid of physical pain, we do know that he hated Assyrians and was afraid that they would repent and receive God’s mercy if he fulfilled his mission (see Jonah 4:2). Rejecting God’s call, Jonah “paid the fare” (Jonah 1:3) for passage on a ship to Tarshish. One commentator notes that Jonah probably paid a considerable sum of money because the journey to Tarshish could take up to one year—“evidently because of the need to restock provisions frequently at ports along the way, wait for favorable winds, and trade the cargo.”[4] At one point Jonah slept soundly below deck while the ship’s crew thrashed through a storm (see Jonah 1:5). The storm was so brutal that the sailors expected the ship to sink, unless they prayed to their gods and tossed trade goods overboard to lighten the load (see Jonah 1:5). When the shipmaster found Jonah asleep, the captain woke him up and asked him to pray to God (see Jonah 1:6). When prayer did not lessen the intensity of the storm, the crew cast lots. Proverbs 16:33 declares that “the lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [the outcome] is of the Lord” (see also Proverbs 18:18). Casting lots was a trusted source of divine intervention during Old Testament times because it allowed the Lord to guide who was chosen—He could order the pieces so that a certain person was picked. Pieces of rock or wood were placed in a container, and, either by rolling all the pieces out of the container or inviting each participant to take a piece out of the container, led to the Lord’s decision (see Joshua 21:4–8; Nehemiah 10:34; 1 Nephi 3:11). In more recent times we might liken lot casting to drawing straws—whoever draws the shortest is the chosen one.[5] When the sailors aboard the ship cast lots, “the lot fell upon Jonah” (Jonah 1:7). Despite his efforts to run from God’s call, the Lord is not giving up on the reluctant prophet. God continues to reach out toward Jonah through a storm and the lot. Jolted, Jonah confessed to the sailors that the storm was because he ran from God. Surprised, the crew questioned: “Why hast thou done this?” (Jonah 1:9). The sailors asked what could be done to still the storm. Fully realizing that his poor decision to run from the Lord was now affecting others, Jonah came to the following conclusion: “Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you” (Jonah 1:12). The sailors initially refused to comply with his wish. Instead, they “rowed hard to bring [the ship] to the land,” but in the end, “they could not” (Jonah 1:13). Thus, the men “took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging” (Jonah 1:15). When Jonah hit the water, he recalled, “billows and . . . waves passed over me. The weeds were wrapped about mine head [and] I went down to the bottoms” of the sea (Jonah 2:5–6). Fearing that this was the end, Jonah’s “soul fainted” but then he “remembered the Lord” through prayer (Jonah 2:7). It appears that the prayer brought the great fish—potentially some type of whale—and it swallowed the prophet. The scriptures reveal that this was no ordinary experience: “The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah” (Jonah 1:17; emphasis added). To prepare this great fish for Jonah, the Lord knew when the great fish needed to be born, He knew the great fish’s habits, He knew that the great fish had to be in the vicinity when the men threw Jonah overboard, and He needed a creature big enough to complete the job. Such preparation for one frightened missionary begs the question, If the Lord will prepare a great fish, a game of lots, a storm, or a mission call for a rebellious disciple, what will He do for each of us? After Jonah is swallowed by the great fish he continued to pray: “Out of the belly of hell cried I” (Jonah 2:2). Like Jonah, we may at times be headed in the wrong direction, but change is possible. The book of Jonah is an extremely detailed case of the Lord’s multiple maneuverings to save a single soul. Jonah acknowledged his own “lying vanities,” his selfishness, and “vowed” to be more faithful to the Lord’s will (Jonah 2:8–9). After three days and nights “the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land” (Jonah 2:10).[6] Once free from the fish “the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh. . . . So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh” (Jonah 3:1–3). The prophet promptly enters the city and prophecies that in forty days “Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). The inhabitants of the city, including the king, listened to Jonah’s teachings and began to repent. The people fasted, wore sackcloth as a demonstration to God that they were humbly pleading for forgiveness, and the king issued a decree which encouraged the entire populace to repent (see Jonah 3:5–9). The measures proved successful because “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way and repented; and God turned away the evil that he had said he would bring upon them” (JST Jonah 3:10).[7] We expect Jonah to be doing back flips of joy, but the final chapter begins: “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry” (Jonah 4:1). What displeased him? How can he be angry? Jonah prayed while upset and explained his reason: “When I was yet in my country . . . I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness” (Jonah 4:2).  In other words: “Lord, when I was at home I knew of Thy goodness and patience toward even the most despicable of people. That is why I headed toward Tarshish and not Nineveh. I did not want Thee to forgive and bless the inhabitants of Nineveh.” Jonah vehemently hated the Ninevites—they were not part of covenant Israel and what is more they were Israel’s sworn enemies. Jonah did not want them to change and be blessed, he wanted them to sin and suffer. Jonah then concluded his prayer by asking the Lord to “take   . . . my life from me; . . . for it is better for me to die than to live” (Jonah 4:3). After Jonah’s audacious reply, the Lord, once again, shows Jonah mercy and patience—mercy and patience the Lord just demonstrated toward those of Nineveh, but which Jonah spurned. The Lord utters the simple question, “Doest thou well to be angry?” (Jonah 4:4). There is no harsh rebuke, no flash of lightning which sizzles Jonah’s flesh, no thunder from heaven to scare Jonah into a feeling of gratitude, but a simple question which may, if the prophet allows, work on his heart. After the Lord asks Jonah if his anger is justifiable, the prophet refuses to respond. Was Jonah stung by the question or pierced by the Lord’s keen insight? The question seemed to infuriate Jonah so much that he gives the Lord the silent treatment. Like a teenager mad at his parents, or a husband after a tiff with his wife, Jonah turns and walks away from the situation, refusing to respond. Jonah exited the city proper and headed east (see Jonah 4:5). Then he probably scaled part of the hills located in that direction and waited and watched Nineveh.[8]  Jonah seems unconvinced that the repentant state of the people of Nineveh is permanent. He is waiting, hoping, for the city to “be overthrown” after “forty days” as he originally prophesied (Jonah 3:4). While he waited, he built himself a booth or hut to provide shade—perhaps fashioned of overlaid sticks and branches, as was done for a feast required by the Law of Moses (see Leviticus 23:42; Nehemiah 8:14–15). The booth or hut evidently provided some shade, but it was probably hastily constructed from errant sticks from the vicinity. If so, Jonah’s comfort level and shade was minimal—sunshine would have streamed through the sticks. Whatever its construction, the booth was probably intended to be a physical, non-verbal sign that the Lord was wrong, and Jonah was right. Jonah’s thoughts may have ventured into this line of reasoning: If I wait here long enough the Lord will see Nineveh destroyed. Despite the almost worthless hut and Jonah’s constant moodiness the Lord provided a miracle. While the booth provided a minimal amount of shade from the blazing sun, the “Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd” (Jonah 4:6). We do not know the specific type of plant[9] which grew overnight to such a mass that it shaded Jonah (see Jonah 4:10). Yet, as was the case with the call, the storm, the game of lots, and the great fish, this “gourd” was “prepared” for Jonah (Jonah 4:6). The Lord knew that Jonah would go up on the hill and pout, and so the seed of this plant was in the right place at the right time to provide physical comfort for the prophet. God really does know our moods and routines. Despite Jonah’s gladness for the shade—the only positive emotion Jonah shows in this book—the shadow would not last. As was the case with the storm, the lot, the great fish, and the gourd, the Lord had “prepared” other things for Jonah (Jonah 4:7). A worm “smote the gourd that it withered” a day after its astonishing growth, and a “vehement east wind” probably knocked over the booth[10] and the “the sun [once again] beat upon [Jonah’s] head” (Jonah 4:7–8). While the “vehement east wind” seems to indicate the Lord’s displeasure with Jonah’s behavior,[11] God still does not give up on this angry, uncomfortable child.  Ultimately, the quick growing leafy plant served as tangible evidence of the Lord’s mercy—His constant readiness to forgive Nineveh and Jonah—while the equally fast demise of the gourd and the blasts of hot air presented proofs that without God’s goodness ruin follows. To underscore these eternal truths, the Lord pointed out the folly of Jonah’s anger toward the inhabitants of Nineveh by asking, “Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?” The prophet retorted, “I do well to be angry” (Jonah 4:9). Patiently, the Lord connected the dots for Jonah: “Thou has had pity on the gourd…should not I spare Nineveh, that great city…?” (Jonah 4:10–11). In other words, “Your appreciation and love for the gourd is but a shadow of the care and love I have for you and the Assyrians of Nineveh.” In short, every person is valuable to God. He simply will not give up or stop trying to save His children. From a city of Assyrians to a frustrated, bitter servant sitting next to a withered gourd, God cares for, watches over, and strives to bring everyone back home to heaven. More Come, Follow Me resources here. [1] Nineveh was probably located in modern-day Iraq Pictoral Bible Dictionary, ed., Merrill C. Tenney (Nashville, Tennessee: The Soutwestern Company, 1976), s.v. “Nineveh.” [2] It is likely that Tarshish was located in modern Spain and known for its successful trade industry (see Ezekiel 27:12); Pictoral Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Tarshish.” [3] Erika Belibtreu, “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 17 no. 1 (1991): 51–61, 75. [4] Uriel Simon, The JPS Bible Commentary: Jonah (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999), 6. [5] For more information regarding casting lots see Joh. Lindblom Lund “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” Vestus Testamentum 12, facs. 2 (April 1962): 164–178. [6] Where the great fish “vomited out” Jonah is a matter of debate. One tradition holds that the great fish deposited Jonah to a spot south of Jaffa—the port city where Jonah boarded the ship days earlier (see Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Atlas of the Crusades [New York: Facts on File, 1990], 43; see also John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commenatry [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 1011). Others suggest that the fish put Jonah in ancient Alexandretta—now İskenderun in modern-day Turkey (see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 5 vols. [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1962–1976] s.v. “Jonah, Book of,” 2:965). The ancient historian Josephus reported that Jonah was disgorged on the shore of the Euxine or Black Sea (see Josephus: Complete Works [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960], 208). [7] One commentator notes that the Hebrew text implies that the Assyrians only ritually repented. That is, they repented the only way that they knew how: through sackcloth and fasting. “Ritual response and ethical tidying up are precisely what one would expect from pagan Assyrians—and from every indication, they are still just that, despite the fact that they have taken a step in the right direction.” John H. Walton, “The Object Lesson of Jonah 4:5–7 and the Purpose of the Book of Jonah,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 53–54. [8] See The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed., Ididore Singer, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1901–1906), s.v. “Nineveh,” 12:311. [9] The most likely was a type of giant castor bean or oil plant. Jules Janick and Harry S. Paris, “Jonah and the ‘Gourd,’ at Nineveh: Consequences of a Classic Mistranslation,” 349–357; paper presented at North Carolina State University’s Cucurbitaceae Conference September 17–21, 2006. See also Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., 22 vols. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), s.v. “Castor-Oil Plant,” 4:516. [10] See Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 304. [11] Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism: An Essential Guide for Recognizing and Interpreting Symbols of the Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 153–154.   Matt Crawford is a husband, father, teacher, and writer. He resides with his family in Layton, Utah. The post Come, Follow Me Week 48 – Jonah; Micah appeared first on FAIR.

Audio and Video Copyright © 2022 The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. Any reproduction or transcription of this material without prior express written permission is prohibited. This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2022 conference. You can still register to watch the entire conference free of charge. Craig Foster, What Under the Banner of Heaven Gets Wrong We have more resources responding to Under the Banner of Heaven here, including interviews Craig Foster did with some of the law enforcement officers that were involved. Craig L. Foster earned a MA and MLIS at Brigham Young University. He is also an accredited genealogist and worked as a research consultant at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City for over thirty years before retiring in December 2021. He has published multiple books and articles about different aspects of Mormon history, including co-editing the Persistence of Polygamy series with Newell G. Bringhurst and co-authored American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith with Marianne T. Watson. Craig is also on the editorial board of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal. The post FAIR Conference Podcast #81 – Craig Foster, “What Under the Banner of Heaven Gets Wrong” appeared first on FAIR.

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 14, cross-posted with permission. Robert Boylan interviews Brian Hales and Craig Foster about Mormon Fundamentalism and the Netflix show “Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey,” and specifically comparing FLDS to LDS, and Warren Jeffs to Joseph Smith. Also join us at the 2022 FAIR Conference where Craig Foster will speak on “Under the Banner of Heaven,” and Brian Hales will participate in a lunch-time panel (for in-person attendees only) on common criticisms from Reddit. More information at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2022-fair-conference The post Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey – Mormon Fundamentalism with Brian Hales and Craig Foster appeared first on FAIR.

Randy Johnson was the chief of police responsible for the murder investigation of Brenda and Erica Lafferty in 1984, in American Fork, Utah. “I cannot recognize any actual person that I knew or came to know, accurately depicted in the series. The series does not reflect the actual investigation that I oversaw. Nor does it reflect the attitudes, behaviors and conduct of me or any of my officers. It is clearly a work of fiction as indicated by the disclaimer. I affirm that to my knowledge neither I nor any of my officers ever lost our personal faith.” He is interviewed here by Craig Foster. A rough transcript is available here. More information about the disinformation in Under the Banner of Heaven can be found here. Audio and Video Copyright © 2022 The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. Any reproduction or transcription of this material without prior express written permission is prohibited. The post Under the Banner of Heaven: American Fork Police Chief Randy Johnson interviewed by Craig Foster appeared first on FAIR.