The Interpreter Foundation Podcast

 

You can listen to or download the August 1 broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. It will also be included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast). The hosts were Neal and Jasmin Rappleye and the wise and newly located Hales Swift. In this episode, our hosts interviewed Dr. Taylor Halverson about his new Interpreter journal article as well as recapped the recent FAIR conference. The second portion of the show was a roundtable discussing the upcoming Come Follow Me lesson #37 (D&C 98-101). The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

 

Original air date: August 1, 2021. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

Abstract: For nearly 200 years, skeptics have promoted different naturalistic explanations to describe how Joseph Smith generated all the words of the Book of Mormon. The more popular theories include plagiarism (e.g. of the Solomon Spaulding manuscript), collaboration (with Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, etc.), mental illness (bipolar, dissociative, or narcissistic personality disorders) and automatic writing, also called “spirit writing, “trance writing,” or “channeling.” A fifth and currently the most popular theory posits that Joseph Smith possessed all the intellectual abilities needed to complete the task. A variation on this last explanation proposes that he used the methods of professional storytellers. For millennia, bards and minstrels have entertained their audiences with tales that extended over many hours and over several days. This article explores their techniques to assess whether Joseph Smith might have adopted such methodologies during the three-month dictation of the Book of Mormon. Through extensive fieldwork and research, the secrets of the Serbo-Croatian storytellers’ abilities to dictate polished stories in real time have been identified. Their technique, also found with modification among bards throughout the world, involves the memorization of formulaic language organized into formula systems in order to minimize the number of mental choices the tale-teller must make while wordsmithing each phrase. These formulas are evident in the meter, syntax, or lexical combinations employed in the storyteller’s sentences. Professional bards train for many years to learn the patterns and commit them to memory. When compared to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, the historical record fails to support that he had trained in the use of formula systems prior to 1829 or that his dictation employed a rhythmic delivery of the phrases. Neither are formula patterns detected in the printed 1830 Book of Mormon. Apparently, Smith did not adopt this traditional storyteller’s methodology to dictate the Book of Mormon.

.lettered {list-style-type: lower-alpha; margin: 0 1.625em 1em !important;} table {border: 1px solid #dddddd; width: 100%; margin: auto;} td, th {border: 1px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle;} th {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #373737 !important; font-size: 100% !important; text-transform: none !important; line-height: 1.5 !important} .centered td, td.centered, .centered th, th.centered {text-align: center !important;} td.left, th.left {text-align: left !important;} table.noborder, table.noborder td {border: 0px solid #ffffff; padding: 0 !important; vertical-align: top;} p.caption-text {text-align: center !important; margin-top: 1em !important; font-weight: 700;}

[Page 254]The tavern’s lights flicker across the faces of the male crowd who gather almost ceremoniously at the end of another Bosnian workday in July of 1935. As scattered greetings and gossiping rumble in subdued tones, a famous visiting bard, hoping to earn a dinar or two, takes his place on the makeshift stage in the corner of the room. After tuning his gusle, a one-stringed instrument he plays as he recites, Avdo Međedović begins a musical rendition of the renowned story The Wedding of Meho, Son of Smail. The lengthy tale of over 12,000 lines describes an imaginary Meho’s ambition, betrayal, and ultimate victory. Međedović’s melodic prose unfolds for hours until the crowd departs or sleeps.1 On the morrow, they know Avdo will return to continue the tale, repeating this process day after day, until Meho triumphs and marries his bride.

Some years ago, Hugh Nibley gave the students in his BYU honors class an unusual midterm assignment. He described that experience as follows:

“I asked them … to assume that they had been guaranteed a thousand uninterrupted years of life here on earth.”

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 34, “A Principle with Promise” on D&C 89-92. The panelists for this roundtable were Martin Tanner, John Gee and Kevin Christensen. This roundtable was extracted from the July 11, 2021 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-july-11-2021/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

The scriptures say that Eve was “beguiled” by Satan when she partook of the forbidden fruit. But Latter-day Saints believe she made the right choice. How can both statements be true? The purpose of this essay is to harmonize these seemingly contradictory statements and, along the way, to dispel some common misconceptions.

li {margin-left: 2em;} blockquote {margin-left: 2em;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;}

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; padding: 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff !important;; padding: 0 !important} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;}

Eve Was Not a Pandora

Whether earnestly promoted as Christian theology or merely mentioned in tasteless jest, Eve is too often painted in the colors of Pandora,[1] a mythological figure whose unbridled curiosity unleashed a long train of potent ills against mankind. This is not the view of the Latter-day Saints.

In light of the Latter-day Saint understanding that the Fall was a necessary prerequisite for humankind’s further progression and our rejection of the generally negative portrayals of Eve in historical Christianity, Latter-day Saint authors typically emphasize her perceptiveness and interpret her role as ultimately constructive. A few have, however, taken this view to what seems to be an untenable extreme, not only rightfully exonerating her from full accountability for her transgression and honoring her lifelong faithfulness, but in addition arguing that, for various reasons, she was not actually “beguiled” by Satan in her decision to take of the forbidden fruit.[2]

Such a view goes well beyond the settled Latter-day Saint doctrines that the Fall was an essential part of the divine plan from the beginning and that Adam and Eve did not commit a sinful or otherwise blameworthy act. Though it is easy to see how such views might arise from honest misunderstanding, a careful analysis will show that they should be no more a part of the beliefs of well-informed Latter-day Saints than the opposite notion that Eve was a prototype of Pandora.

Differences in perspective with the well-intentioned Latter-day Saint authors who make such arguments are, of course, far outweighed by common beliefs and sympathies. In presenting what might be seen as necessary correctives to certain aspects of these views, no personal offense is intended. In hopes of eliminating any misrepresentation, drafts of an earlier version of this essay were sent to two of the authors referenced, Alonzo Gaskill and James T. Summerhays, who confirmed the interpretation of their views presented here. The authors graciously responded with some welcome suggestions.

After a review of the “standard” view of the Fall, this essay will examine two of the questions raised by the writings of Gaskill and Summerhays: “Was Satan entirely truthful?” and “Was Eve actually beguiled (deceived) by him?

Review of Kylie Nielson Turley, Alma 1–29: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 162 pages. $9.95 (paperback).

Abstract: Kylie Nielson Turley delves deep into the conversion and ministry of Alma the Younger, reading new life into a well-known narrative. By analyzing Alma’s story with the full weight of his humanity in mind, she breathes emotion into Alma’s conversion and missionary efforts. Her efforts to read Alma without a veneer of superhumanity result in a highly relatable figure who has known wickedness, repentance, loss, depression, and righteousness.

Kylie Nielson Turley accomplishes exactly what the Maxwell Institute’s Brief Theological Introductions series seeks to do — namely, to “read a few Book of Mormon stories you have probably read before and see them in a new light.”1 She achieves this through careful analysis of the life of Alma the Younger (hereafter referred to as Alma) as reported by the Book of Alma’s structural narrative. In re-analyzing familiar stories, Turley questions common (and assumed) tropes about Alma such as his age at the time of his conversion, the depths of his prior depravity, and the ramifications of personal trauma experienced during his missionary efforts. By allowing these stories the emotion all too often discarded in the standard “Sunday School answers,” Turley restores power to Alma’s [Page 250]redemptive arch and asks the reader to acknowledge the Atonement’s ability to overcome all.

The book begins by questioning the specific structure surrounding the events of Alma’s life, noticing the specificity with which dates and ages of both Alma and his father are recorded. After careful analysis, Turley concludes that Alma is far older than a wayward teenager. This provokes a poignant reflection: “Is it easier to trust an adult leader who had some youthful indiscretions (and repented) — or one who spent decades trying to destroy the church as an adult (and repented)?”2

Reading Alma as a repentant adult alters his interactions with the apostate figures he continuously faces. Turley notes, “When readers view Alma as the very wicked and idolatrous unbeliever the narrator describes, they likely interpret the text differently.”3 She goes as far as to compare characterizations of Alma to those of Amalickiah, laying out a parallel structure in descriptions that substantiate the depths of Alma’s former sinful lifestyle. And yet, Alma’s death report specifically notes, “This we know, that he was a righteous man” (Alma 45:19), demonstrating the ability of Alma’s repentance and conversion to overcome all previous sin, regardless of its severity.

Switching focus, the book discusses the trauma response of the Nephites to the destruction caused by a Lamanite attack upon the newly established Anti-Nephi-Lehis. The Nephites mourn and lament (Alma 28:4) the familial relationships lost in a battle where tens of thousands perish. In such circumstances, Turley proposes that Alma 29 is not a missionary anthem but a psalm of mourning and lament wherein Alma and the people ask “Why?”

Viewing this psalm as a trauma response to the battle and to the martyrdom of the believing women and children at Ammonihah, Turley emphasizes Alma’s ability to plead for continued hope and understanding in Christ despite the recent chaos and trauma. She says, “Questioning God about why something happens demonstrates faith that he is there and hope that he has an answer. Moreover, underlying both questions is a plea for God to make ...

 

You can listen to or download the July 18 broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. It will also be included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast). The hosts were Terry Hutchinson, Kris Frederickson and Mike Parker. In this episode, our hosts discussed pioneers and Pioneer Day. The second portion of the show was a roundtable discussing the upcoming Come Follow Me lesson #35 (D&C 93). The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

 

Original air date: July 18, 2021. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 33, “Establish … a House of God” on D&C 88. The panelist for this roundtable was Martin Tanner. This roundtable was extracted from the July 4, 2021 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-july-4-2021/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

Moses 4:22 records God’s words to Eve:

li {margin-left: 2em;} blockquote {margin-left: 2em;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;}

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; padding: 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff !important;; padding: 0 !important} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;}

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The Suffering of Adam and Eve

In the poignant sculpture by Delaplanche pictured here, the vacant, tearless eyes and agonized posture of the solitary slumped figure bespeak the depth of Eve’s utter hopelessness immediately after her transgression. While scripture describes the results of transgression differently for Adam than for Eve, the ultimate effect of these consequences is essentially the same: a mortal life replete with the opposing experiences of good and evil, pleasure and pain.[1]

Adam and Eve’s common lot is reflected in the carefully chosen Hebrew words used to represent their suffering. As Umberto Cassuto observes:

Apparently, we have here a play upon words with reference to es [= tree]: it was with respect to es that the man and woman sinned, and it was with esebb [= pain] and issabbon [= toil, suffering] that they were punished. … The very fact that Scripture does not employ here the usual phrases found in connection with the suffering of childbirth … proves that it was some specific intention. … that these words were selected.”[2]

The same Hebrew term used to describe Adam and Eve’s sorrow recurs when Noah is “pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.”[3]

The Blessings of Adam and Eve

Without the Fall, Adam and Eve would have not borne children.[4] Now Eve is told that as part of the repeated blessings of motherhood she must also undergo the recurrent pain incident to each childbirth. However, using the words of the apostle Paul, John Sailhamer reminds us that these birth pangs:

… are not merely a reminder of the … Fall; they are as well a sign of impending joy: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.”[5]

By this we understand that not only the crushing of the serpent’s head, but also the blessings of spiritual rebirth for all mankind will come through the “seed of the woman,” namely Jesus Christ.

Should “Rule Over” Be Translated as “Rule With”?

Abstract: In this paper, I show that declarations of lineage in patriarchal blessings have, since the earliest days of the Restoration, evolved in terms of frequency of inclusion, which tribal lineages predominate, and understanding of the meaning of the declaration. I argue for a non- literal understanding consistent with scripture and science, but posit that these declarations have deep and important significance in connection with the gathering of Israel.

Two and a half years into my service as a Church1 patriarch, I found myself puzzled by the subject of the declaration of lineage. I embarked on a study of the matter, which in turn led to this paper. I concluded and will show that the practice of declaring lineage evolved over time. I will discuss the extent to which these declarations have contemplated a literal Abrahamic bloodline. I argue that there is a way to give respect to the concepts of literal bloodlines without connecting them to patriarchal declarations of lineage. Finally, I propose that there can be a literal gathering of Israel without concern for bloodlines.

When Did the Church Start Declaring Lineage as Part of Patriarchal Blessings, and When Did It Evolve from Common Practice to Required Element?

The practice of including a declaration of lineage in a person’s patriarchal blessing was not routine in the beginning of the Restoration. Michael H. Marquardt has collected as many as he could find of the [Page 210]blessings given between December 1833 and September of 1845.2 The charts shown in figures 1 and 2 reveal the trend.3

[Page 211]For each year from 1835 through 1846, and for 11 of the 17 years from 1847 through 1862, Marquardt’s book Later Patriarchal Blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains some blessings for which no lineage was declared. But from 1863 through 1995, only 23 of the 471 blessings in the book fail to declare lineage.

When did a declaration of lineage become a more or less required element of a patriarchal blessing? Lacking access to the various editions of the Church’s manuals for and written instructions issued to patriarchs over the years, I have not been able to determine when (or whether) the patriarchs of this dispensation were first instructed to declare lineage, how those instructions may have changed over time, and whether they were accompanied by suggestions on how to go about it. The sixth Church Patriarch, Hyrum G. Smith, who served from 1912 to 1932, issued instructions from time to time to all stake patriarchs. In one (undated) document, he included the following as one of the duties of the patriarch: “According to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, declare the lineage of those you bless.”4 The document gives the impression this was more a reminder than a new directive.

At a 2005 training meeting for stake patriarchs and stake presidents, then Elder Dallin H. Oaks declared that “an essential part of every patriarchal blessing is the declaration of lineage.”