I really dropped the ball on linking back to the Tumblr here. I've been answering questions sporadically this year and have been waiting for enough posts to accumulate before making a roundup post, but I swear I didn't plan for the waiting to go on until the end of the year.
-Have the characters met any ichthyornithines?
-Thoughts on gorgonopsids.
-Are there any retrosaurs in the museum?
-Dinky is dared to catch an insect in front of Savape.
-Can Zahavi reduce his forelimbs into a vestigial form?
-Does the museum have a Yi yet?
-What does Remex think Godzilla would be if the kaiju was a real creature?
-What does Savape do when she's bored, aside from killing?
-What are the characters' favorite "pokemans"?
-Thoughts on TetZoo Time.
-What does it feel like to be turned into a fossil?
-Thoughts on lions, tigers, and jaguars.
-Does Savape think of herself as evil?
-Does Skull have a soul?
-Who would win in a fight between Ebeff and a clone of Ebeff?
-Has Savape ever taken on a megalodon?
-Thoughts on the new Spinosaurus restoration.
-Can Zahavi ride a giant Phidippus audax while herding mealworm beetles while talking with telepathy while Savape destroys army ants?
-Thoughts on gorillas.
-Any word on Velociraptor?
"A Single Draft of the Book of Mormon"©
101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet
Evidence Forty-four:
A Single Draft of the Book of Mormon.©
Revised 7, 12, 21 January, 6 February, 7 April 2016
Book of Mormon expert John (Jack) Welch has called attention to a very important piece of evidence which points to the involvement of divine inspiration in the translation of the Book of Mormon.(1) Most Latter-day Saints are familiar with the general mode of translation in which Joseph Smith dictated the text to his scribes, primarily Oliver Cowdery. Extensive study of the existing 28% of the original manuscript over that last three or four decades has produced many interesting insights. A major one is that the manuscript is relatively clean. Though it shows many corrections of spelling and grammar mistakes, scribal errors and lack of punctuation account for the bulk of corrections found on the document. There are very few alterations of the text, suggesting a remarkable thing–even a “marvelous work and wonder.” In a 1976 Ensign article about the translation, Elder Neal A. Maxwell spoke of several “marvels” of the translation process. His second one was that “rarely would Joseph go back, review, or revise what had already been done.” He continued,
You do not have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself. The original manuscript is now being prepared for publication as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project and you can see two pages of it online at the project’s website. Moreover, since 2001, we have had available a meticulous typographical transcript prepared by the world’s leading expert on the text of the Book of Mormon, BYU professor Royal Skousen.(7) It also has photos of five or six full pages of the manuscript and numerous fragments. To me, the most obvious characteristic of those pages is how clean they are. Commentary about the pages at the project website says:“The text transcribed here, as with other extant portions of the original manuscript, exhibits very few signs of editing. It contains spelling errors characteristic of each particular scribe.”(8)
Welch’s point is, try dictating a formal letter to a secretary and get it the way you want it the first time through without having to go back and edit, rewrite, rearrange, add, delete, or polish drafts. If it is difficult to get a single letter dictated correctly the first time through, what does one say about a book of over 530 pages dictated with some minor exceptions, with no crossing out and restarting, virtually no rewrites or revisions, no extensive alterations or modifications, no clipping and pasting portions of texts from one place to another as is common today with a modern computer, no adding, deleting or word substitution--no evidence whatsoever of polishing the text? Almost nothing– except fixing some spelling, capitalization, punctuation and grammar.What a miracle! I’m not kidding, nor am I over exaggerating. Joseph Smith dictated an entire book of over 500 pages in less than 90 days and got it correct the first and only time through. By itself this constitutes a miracle of monumental proportions if you know anything about translating, writing, and publishing.(9) I agree with Elder Maxwell, "astonishing" is the correct word!
To attribute this accomplishment to the mind and genius of Joseph Smith would place him among the most elite class of intellects and constitute one of the most astounding achievements in human history. People who attribute authorship of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith hardly understand what they are really saying. While I acknowledge he was one of the “master spirits” to come to this earth and one of its supreme spiritual intellects, it really takes a great deal more faith to believe that human genius is capable of producing the Book of Mormon under the conditions just described than it does to believe that God helped him. But there is more.
This is all the more miraculous and wondrous when we consider it in the context of several other matters. First, the convoluted sequence of translation. Evidence shows that after the loss of the 116 pages, rather than start anew with the “Small Plates of Nephi” which contain 1 and 2 Nephi, and which are the beginning of the present book, what Joseph and Oliver did was continue to translate the “Large Plates of Nephi.” This meant they did Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, through to the end of the book, and then they worked on the Small Plates last. Imagine under these circumstances, as an example, the challenge of not making a blunder in the complex timeline found in the Book of Mormon with several major groups of people migrating to the Americas from the Old World and with several significant and complex flashbacks, but dictate it correctly in the first and only draft, all without notes, without reworking it, without polishing it! Marylynne Linford, author of a recent book about the vocabulary in the Book of Mormon said “This is a stunning achievement because the history, logic, doctrine, and organization are in order and build incrementally, chapter by chapter, from page 1 to page 531.”(10)
Second, as we have already alluded to, consider the complexity of the book as a whole. In this respect Welch observes, “Considering the Book of Mormon’s theological depth, historical complexity, consistency, clarity, artistry, accuracy, and profundity, the Prophet Joseph’s translation is a phenomenal achievement–even a miraculous feat.”(11) It is even more so in light of the evidence suggesting it was accomplished in one dictation. Marylynne Linford said this about the book’ complexity: “...the Book of Mormon is not arranged chronologically. There are flashbacks in Mosiah and Words of Mormon; Ether is way out of order. And there is no uniformity in the length of the books. Alma is long, and others, such as Jarom and Words of Mormon, are only a couple of pages. The historical time period of some books is a few decades, while others like Omni and 4 Nephi cover centuries. Ether spans over a thousand years. To add to this maze are 202 people and 118 places that weave in and out through verses and time lines."(12) It was Hugh Nibley’s testimony that, “For all its simple and straight-forward narrative style, this history is packed as few others with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader.The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”(13) Making a similar point, Noel B. Reynolds observed, "Many of these relationships have taken scholars longer to sort out than it took Joseph Smith to translate the entire book."(14)
Third, consider another important insight from Jack Welch. “Even more remarkable are the extensive, intricate consistencies within the Book of Mormon. Passages tie together precisely and accurately though separated from each other by hundreds of pages of text and dictated weeks apart.” Jeffery R. Holland wrote, “In spite of the fact that it is written by a series of prophets who had different styles and different experiences, in spite of the fact that it has some unabridged materials mixed with others that have been greatly condensed, in spite of the fact that it has unique and irregular chronological sequences, it is a classic book—Aristotle’s kind of book: unified, whole, verses fitting with verses, chapters fitting with chapters, books fitting with books. It has these ideal qualities because it is the clear, compelling word of God, revealed through his chosen prophets.”(15) There are a number of remarkable examples in the story line, in prophecy and its subsequent fulfillment, or in references by one author relative to the writings, teachings, doctrines and activities of another which demonstrate this internal consistency.
Welch cites four striking examples. I have selected one to conclude this brief discussion of the amazing phenomenon of an entire book published from the manuscript of a onetime, unrevised dictation.
In one clean unrevised inspired draft!
Thank God for Joseph Smith!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Notes:
1. John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), pp. 21-23.
2. Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God,’” Ensign (January 1997): 39, 40. I read this article twice and didn’t recognize the importance of what Elder Maxwell was saying. It was not until I had written the first two drafts of this essay that I read his talk again. It was so much more impressive to me now that I was consciously attending to the idea that I decided to make a third revision and include his statements. In addition, the Printer's Manuscript which Oliver Cowdery produced by carefully copying the original, "shows no sign of any conscious editing on Oliver Cowdery's part." Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 11.
Moreover, in April 2016, I had occasion to read another of Elder Maxwell's talks about the Book of Mormon and was delighted to discover the following two paragraphs:
3. Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (October 1916): 454, reproduced in, Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), p. 129.
4. This interview was published twice: “Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52. My quote comes from a reproduction in Welch, Opening the Heavens, pp. 130-131.
5. Welch, Opening the Heavens, p. 130.
6. Joseph Smith III to James T. Cobb, 14 February 1879, Community of Christ Library-Archives, reproduced in Welch, Opening the Heavens, pp. 131-132.
7. Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001). I own a copy of this publication and the following statements come from an analysis of it sitting in front of me at the moment. Photo facsimiles are found on pp. 39-54. Note particularly the clarity and cleanness of the one on page 45. The typescript facsimile (line-for-line transcription and format), shows that the vast majority of corrections are spelling and grammar. The text itself shows almost no other signs of editing–few scratch outs, no rewrites, revisions, or polishing. Such deletions and overwriting as do occur in the text are discussed on pages 21-22, and 28 of the Introduction.
8. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-manuscript-excerpt-circa-June-1829-1-nephi-22b 318ap=1&highlight=Original%20manuscript%20of%20the%20book%20of%20mormon#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-manuscript-excerpt-circa-june-1829-1-nephi-22b-318a&p=1 Accessed 29 December 2015.
9. I just read an interview with David Mcullough the famous historian. He said it took him six years to research and write his book on John Adams, but the problem is that in that period of time he changed, his family changed, and he knew more about Adams at the end than he did at the first. The interviewer asked him what he did with the earlier chapters. McCullough replied, “The voice has to stay the same. So you go back and work on them, in a way, as a painter will work all over the whole canvas. I work on the front and the back and the middle all at once.” [See: http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-interview] This is somewhat typical of many writers, constantly rewriting, revising, polishing.
10. Marilynne Todd Linford, The Book of Mormon is True: Evidences and Insights to Strengthen Your Testimony (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), p. 26.
11. John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), p. 4.
12. Marilynne Todd Linford, The Book of Mormon is True: Evidences and Insights to Strengthen Your Testimony (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), p. 27.
13. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1952), pp. 238-39.
14. Noel B. Reynolds, “By Objective Measures: Old Wine into Old Bottles,” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002, p. 148. This was part of a larger statement making similar points to those cited above. Reynolds wrote, "One of the strongest arguments for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is the amazing depth of complexity addressed in a consistent manner throughout the book. This argument, first developed and perfected by Hugh Nibley, points to Joseph Smith’s lack of education and his dictation of the Book of Mormon line by line without notes and without reviewing what was said minutes, hours, days, or even months earlier. Yet despite these circumstances, a large number of complex relationships are developed in the book and consistently maintained from beginning to end. Many of these relationships have taken scholars longer to sort out than it took Joseph Smith to translate the entire book."
15. Jeffery R. Holland, “Daddy, Donna, and Nephi,” Ensign 6 (September 1976): 7-8.
16. John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), p. 23, emphasis added.
17. On Thursday, 21 January 2016, I received in the mail a used book about the Book of Mormon I ordered over the Internet. I was delighted to discover in the final chapter, “A Tribute to Joseph Smith, the Translator,” the following assessment of his work in dictating the original manuscript compared to their writing of a commentary on 1 Nephi 1-18. It expresses an opinion similar to my own expressed above.
“If one were manufacturing a text, he would constantly need to cross-check himself, to edit, and to revise for consistency. Had the Prophet dictated and revised extensively, there would be more evidence of it. But there was no need to revise divinely supplied text. Whatever the details of the translation process, we are discussing a process that was truly astonishing!(2)What we know of the translation process affirms that it was one smooth dictation. Joseph’s wife Emma assisted him as a scribe between the time when Martin Harris was no longer permitted to work with Joseph because of the loss of the 116 pages, and the arrival of Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1829, and she knew the process well. She was interviewed about the translation of the Book of Mormon several times and from her we learn two important facts relating to this issue of producing an unedited draft. First, the translation moved forward smoothly.Though without much formal education Joseph helped his scribes with spelling. Emma reported:
... when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.(3)Even more important to the point of this essay, she told her son Joseph Smith III, “When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation....” Later in the same interview when ask about the book’s authenticity she returned to this point. For Emma, the one person who knew Joseph the most intimately of all, this was especially impressive. She said”
... your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or any interruption, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.(4)Second, he did not use outside resources while he dictated. In the same interview Joseph III asked his mother, “Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?” She replied, “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Joseph followed up, “Could he not have had, and you not know it?” “If he had anything of the kind,” she responded, “he could not have concealed it from me.”(5) Joseph III reaffirmed this point in an 1879 letter. He reported that the “larger part of this labor” of translating
was done in her presence, and where she could see and know what was being done; that during no part of it did Joseph Smith have any Mss. or Book of any kind from which to read, or dictate, except the metalic [sic] plates, which she knew he had.(6)All evidence suggest that the entire Book of Mormon was dictated to scribes in somewhere between a 60 and 90 day period. Many people find the speed of the translation the big miracle here. For me the biggest miracle of all is that he dictated one draft and he got it right and complete the first time through!
You do not have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself. The original manuscript is now being prepared for publication as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project and you can see two pages of it online at the project’s website. Moreover, since 2001, we have had available a meticulous typographical transcript prepared by the world’s leading expert on the text of the Book of Mormon, BYU professor Royal Skousen.(7) It also has photos of five or six full pages of the manuscript and numerous fragments. To me, the most obvious characteristic of those pages is how clean they are. Commentary about the pages at the project website says:“The text transcribed here, as with other extant portions of the original manuscript, exhibits very few signs of editing. It contains spelling errors characteristic of each particular scribe.”(8)
Welch’s point is, try dictating a formal letter to a secretary and get it the way you want it the first time through without having to go back and edit, rewrite, rearrange, add, delete, or polish drafts. If it is difficult to get a single letter dictated correctly the first time through, what does one say about a book of over 530 pages dictated with some minor exceptions, with no crossing out and restarting, virtually no rewrites or revisions, no extensive alterations or modifications, no clipping and pasting portions of texts from one place to another as is common today with a modern computer, no adding, deleting or word substitution--no evidence whatsoever of polishing the text? Almost nothing– except fixing some spelling, capitalization, punctuation and grammar.What a miracle! I’m not kidding, nor am I over exaggerating. Joseph Smith dictated an entire book of over 500 pages in less than 90 days and got it correct the first and only time through. By itself this constitutes a miracle of monumental proportions if you know anything about translating, writing, and publishing.(9) I agree with Elder Maxwell, "astonishing" is the correct word!
To attribute this accomplishment to the mind and genius of Joseph Smith would place him among the most elite class of intellects and constitute one of the most astounding achievements in human history. People who attribute authorship of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith hardly understand what they are really saying. While I acknowledge he was one of the “master spirits” to come to this earth and one of its supreme spiritual intellects, it really takes a great deal more faith to believe that human genius is capable of producing the Book of Mormon under the conditions just described than it does to believe that God helped him. But there is more.
This is all the more miraculous and wondrous when we consider it in the context of several other matters. First, the convoluted sequence of translation. Evidence shows that after the loss of the 116 pages, rather than start anew with the “Small Plates of Nephi” which contain 1 and 2 Nephi, and which are the beginning of the present book, what Joseph and Oliver did was continue to translate the “Large Plates of Nephi.” This meant they did Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, through to the end of the book, and then they worked on the Small Plates last. Imagine under these circumstances, as an example, the challenge of not making a blunder in the complex timeline found in the Book of Mormon with several major groups of people migrating to the Americas from the Old World and with several significant and complex flashbacks, but dictate it correctly in the first and only draft, all without notes, without reworking it, without polishing it! Marylynne Linford, author of a recent book about the vocabulary in the Book of Mormon said “This is a stunning achievement because the history, logic, doctrine, and organization are in order and build incrementally, chapter by chapter, from page 1 to page 531.”(10)
Second, as we have already alluded to, consider the complexity of the book as a whole. In this respect Welch observes, “Considering the Book of Mormon’s theological depth, historical complexity, consistency, clarity, artistry, accuracy, and profundity, the Prophet Joseph’s translation is a phenomenal achievement–even a miraculous feat.”(11) It is even more so in light of the evidence suggesting it was accomplished in one dictation. Marylynne Linford said this about the book’ complexity: “...the Book of Mormon is not arranged chronologically. There are flashbacks in Mosiah and Words of Mormon; Ether is way out of order. And there is no uniformity in the length of the books. Alma is long, and others, such as Jarom and Words of Mormon, are only a couple of pages. The historical time period of some books is a few decades, while others like Omni and 4 Nephi cover centuries. Ether spans over a thousand years. To add to this maze are 202 people and 118 places that weave in and out through verses and time lines."(12) It was Hugh Nibley’s testimony that, “For all its simple and straight-forward narrative style, this history is packed as few others with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader.The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”(13) Making a similar point, Noel B. Reynolds observed, "Many of these relationships have taken scholars longer to sort out than it took Joseph Smith to translate the entire book."(14)
Third, consider another important insight from Jack Welch. “Even more remarkable are the extensive, intricate consistencies within the Book of Mormon. Passages tie together precisely and accurately though separated from each other by hundreds of pages of text and dictated weeks apart.” Jeffery R. Holland wrote, “In spite of the fact that it is written by a series of prophets who had different styles and different experiences, in spite of the fact that it has some unabridged materials mixed with others that have been greatly condensed, in spite of the fact that it has unique and irregular chronological sequences, it is a classic book—Aristotle’s kind of book: unified, whole, verses fitting with verses, chapters fitting with chapters, books fitting with books. It has these ideal qualities because it is the clear, compelling word of God, revealed through his chosen prophets.”(15) There are a number of remarkable examples in the story line, in prophecy and its subsequent fulfillment, or in references by one author relative to the writings, teachings, doctrines and activities of another which demonstrate this internal consistency.
Welch cites four striking examples. I have selected one to conclude this brief discussion of the amazing phenomenon of an entire book published from the manuscript of a onetime, unrevised dictation.
Early in the Book of Mormon history, King Benjamin set forth a five-part legal series prohibiting (1) murder, (2) plunder, (3) theft, (4) adultery, and (5) any manner of wickedness. This five-part list, which first appears in Mosiah 2:13, uniformly reappears seven other times in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 29:36; Al 23:3; 30:10; Helaman 3:14; 6:23; 7:21; and Ether 8:16). Apparently the Nephites viewed Benjamin’s set of laws as setting a formulaic precedent.(15)How could Joseph keep all the various threads of history, religion and doctrine, politics and government, culture and society, economics, warfare, and family history, to name some of the more prominent themes in the book, in his mind? How could he possibly write a single draft without rewriting a sentence, substituting a word or phrase, revising a paragraph, rearranging the structure of a chapter? It is a mind boggling achievement when considered in its true light.(17) For me genius is not a credible explanation. For me the miracle can only be explained in one way; he translated an ancient religious record by the “gift and power of God.”
In one clean unrevised inspired draft!
Thank God for Joseph Smith!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Notes:
1. John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), pp. 21-23.
2. Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God,’” Ensign (January 1997): 39, 40. I read this article twice and didn’t recognize the importance of what Elder Maxwell was saying. It was not until I had written the first two drafts of this essay that I read his talk again. It was so much more impressive to me now that I was consciously attending to the idea that I decided to make a third revision and include his statements. In addition, the Printer's Manuscript which Oliver Cowdery produced by carefully copying the original, "shows no sign of any conscious editing on Oliver Cowdery's part." Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 11.
Moreover, in April 2016, I had occasion to read another of Elder Maxwell's talks about the Book of Mormon and was delighted to discover the following two paragraphs:
We will now show you an example, or a picture of Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting. This happens to be a photo of the original manuscript, the end of 1 Nephi 4 and the beginning of 1 Nephi 5. You will notice one interesting thing, there is no punctuation; there are no paragraphs; no editing or revising. No wonder when they took it to the Grandin press that Mr. Gilbert decided he’d better put some punctuation in the Book of Mormon, which he did—and this is why we had to revise later some of that punctuation
Even so, the most impressive thing is not the rapid rate of Joseph’s translation, it is the marvelous flow. When I write, uninspired as my writings may be, I move things all over. I do drafts, canceling this out, moving that from here to there, etc. Such revising is not in the original manuscript. It simply flows under the gift and power of God.Neal A. Maxwell, untitled address to the Seminar for New Mission Presidents, 21 June 1996, p. 3, copy in my possession, emphasis added.
3. Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (October 1916): 454, reproduced in, Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), p. 129.
4. This interview was published twice: “Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52. My quote comes from a reproduction in Welch, Opening the Heavens, pp. 130-131.
5. Welch, Opening the Heavens, p. 130.
6. Joseph Smith III to James T. Cobb, 14 February 1879, Community of Christ Library-Archives, reproduced in Welch, Opening the Heavens, pp. 131-132.
7. Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001). I own a copy of this publication and the following statements come from an analysis of it sitting in front of me at the moment. Photo facsimiles are found on pp. 39-54. Note particularly the clarity and cleanness of the one on page 45. The typescript facsimile (line-for-line transcription and format), shows that the vast majority of corrections are spelling and grammar. The text itself shows almost no other signs of editing–few scratch outs, no rewrites, revisions, or polishing. Such deletions and overwriting as do occur in the text are discussed on pages 21-22, and 28 of the Introduction.
8. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-manuscript-excerpt-circa-June-1829-1-nephi-22b 318ap=1&highlight=Original%20manuscript%20of%20the%20book%20of%20mormon#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-manuscript-excerpt-circa-june-1829-1-nephi-22b-318a&p=1 Accessed 29 December 2015.
9. I just read an interview with David Mcullough the famous historian. He said it took him six years to research and write his book on John Adams, but the problem is that in that period of time he changed, his family changed, and he knew more about Adams at the end than he did at the first. The interviewer asked him what he did with the earlier chapters. McCullough replied, “The voice has to stay the same. So you go back and work on them, in a way, as a painter will work all over the whole canvas. I work on the front and the back and the middle all at once.” [See: http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-interview] This is somewhat typical of many writers, constantly rewriting, revising, polishing.
10. Marilynne Todd Linford, The Book of Mormon is True: Evidences and Insights to Strengthen Your Testimony (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), p. 26.
11. John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), p. 4.
12. Marilynne Todd Linford, The Book of Mormon is True: Evidences and Insights to Strengthen Your Testimony (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2015), p. 27.
13. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1952), pp. 238-39.
14. Noel B. Reynolds, “By Objective Measures: Old Wine into Old Bottles,” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002, p. 148. This was part of a larger statement making similar points to those cited above. Reynolds wrote, "One of the strongest arguments for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is the amazing depth of complexity addressed in a consistent manner throughout the book. This argument, first developed and perfected by Hugh Nibley, points to Joseph Smith’s lack of education and his dictation of the Book of Mormon line by line without notes and without reviewing what was said minutes, hours, days, or even months earlier. Yet despite these circumstances, a large number of complex relationships are developed in the book and consistently maintained from beginning to end. Many of these relationships have taken scholars longer to sort out than it took Joseph Smith to translate the entire book."
15. Jeffery R. Holland, “Daddy, Donna, and Nephi,” Ensign 6 (September 1976): 7-8.
16. John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), p. 23, emphasis added.
17. On Thursday, 21 January 2016, I received in the mail a used book about the Book of Mormon I ordered over the Internet. I was delighted to discover in the final chapter, “A Tribute to Joseph Smith, the Translator,” the following assessment of his work in dictating the original manuscript compared to their writing of a commentary on 1 Nephi 1-18. It expresses an opinion similar to my own expressed above.
Joseph Smith translated the entire Book of Mormon in about sixty-three days, or just under eight and a half pages per day. In other words, all of the Book of First Nephi would have been translated in about a week.
By contrast we have been researching this material for six years and writing for four. We have made numerous field trips each year to examine the terrain and the lands over which Joseph proposed the family traveled. Between us we have covered some fifty thousand miles of desert. Each chapter has been written and rewritten, researched for accuracy, proofread and submitted for criticism, then rewritten again. We have had access to hundreds of works, many of which we cite in this book. Yet our work is only a commentary on Joseph’s original, which he wrote, with not time or outside research, in his “spare time” in little over a week.
Each original draft of a chapter of this book had hundreds of errors, even with the help of modern word processing programs, and we spent much of our time proofreading each others’s work for errors. We have invariably returned chapters with numerous crossed out or eliminated passages on every page. There has not been a time when we have proofread a chapter, when we have not found errors, no matter how meticulous we were in its preparation. By contrast, Joseph Smith made amazingly few changes in the Book of Mormon. About a quarter of the original manuscript is held by the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day [sic] Saints and the pages hold few crossed out passages. The vast majority of the changes that were made when the book went to publication were spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar. [George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences that the Book of Mormon is a True History (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2003), p. 170.]After reading of their diligence and hard work in writing this book, I cannot resist calling attention to an error in the name of the Church in the last paragraph. The compound word Latter-day is incorrectly written latter-day! How fitting a contribution to this particular essay on evidence for the divine aid given to Joseph Smith!
2015 in Review
We have not done any proper navel-gazing posts here in a while, and with a new year on the calendar about to flip over, it's a good excuse to do it. So here we go! A look at what we did here in 2015, a look forward, and just for fun, a run down of our ten most popular posts of all time.
Interviews
I love doing interviews, and this year I conducted three that are well-worth reading if you missed them. First, I talked to illustrator Angela Connor, who created the "Paleo Portraits" series. Then I talked to ichnologist Lisa Buckley about the crowdfunding effort to protect an important trackway in British Columbia. Finally, I spoke to Brian Engh about his process, his biggest paleoart pet peeve, and tickling Western Fence Lizards.
Vintage Dinosaur Art
The Vintage Dinosaur Art series, largely written by Marc, has continued to spotlight fun and occasionally perplexing dinosaur illustrations from days of yore. When looked at in macro view, these posts ably depict the growing pains palaeontology has experienced in the public imagination, as the old visions of prehistoric life that coalesced in the middle of the twentieth century slowly, begrudgingly give way to what scientists have been learning for the past few decades.
If you look at the first entry in the series, you'll see humble beginnings. I knew it would be a fun idea for a series. My initial idea was to give recognition to lesser known illustrators outside of the pantheon of palaeoartists, as well as to show how images of dinosaurs changed over time. Rather than any higher strategy, my book choices were dictated by what I found on visits to secondhand stores and yard sales. When Marc wrote his first guest post, it was clear that he was well-suited to the series. Then he came on as a regular contributor, and has really made it his own, far exceeding what I could have done. It's become clear that this series has become the core of the blog, generating the most likes on Facebook and inspiring the most lively comment threads. It is testament to the good work Marc has done over the last four years, so I wanted to take a moment to give him some props here. Props to Marc!
Popular Posts
With understandable peaks and valleys due to frequency of posting, Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs has had a consistent rise in traffic since 2009. Our first "leveling up" came with my Mark Witton interview in early 2010.This year, Jurassic World happened, and it accounts for three of our top ten most-read posts of all time. What's heartening to me is that half of the top ten come from 2015.
- My team-up comic with Rosemary Mosco of Bird and Moon fame tops the chart.
- Marc's second guest post is number two.
- I wrote a series of posts about dinosaur origami over the years, and this one was really popular.
- The second Jurassic World entry was our "Jurassic World Challenge" from June, which hoped to inspire folks seeing the movie to also send some of that discretionary income to paleontological research and independent paleoartists.
- Excitement over last year's reveal of Deinocheirus material at SVP helped push Asher's post about it into the top ten.
- When Asher took a moment to celebrate Sophie Campbell's thoroughly modern dinosaurs in Turtles in Time, readers stormed the blog like a horde of Foot Soldiers.
- A Vintage Dinosaur Art post from August of this year comes in next, the first half of Marc's look at Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual.
- More Jurassic World: this time, in the form of Marc's thoroughly even-handed review.
- August 2015 was just a big month for Vintage Dinosaur Art, with a second entry in the series from that month in our top ten, Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals.
- Rounding out this top ten: Asher's look at the scintillating world of dinosaur erotica.
What's next? More of the same, plus... I think I'm finally serious about doing a Wordpress migration. Blogger is just so inferior in so many ways, and I've been meaning to do it for years. I'll probably be throwing a tip jar up to help fund the move. Thanks for all the support you've given us over the years and stay tuned for more!
The Unknown Beauty Blog Top Ten Beauty Products of 2015
*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog. If you read this post elsewhere, it has been stolen.*
*PR Samples are stated.
I chose my Top Ten from brands which really work for the customers ranging from the maturely beautiful wise-owl women to the youthful down-feathered spring chickens. The following ten products are in no particular order.
I beg you, click to read more »
*PR Samples are stated.
I chose my Top Ten from brands which really work for the customers ranging from the maturely beautiful wise-owl women to the youthful down-feathered spring chickens. The following ten products are in no particular order.
I beg you, click to read more »
Why I Believe: Evidence Forty-three: “Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 1.
101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet
Evidence Forty-three:
“Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 1©
To this point, I have not said a great deal about the Book of Mormon and the flood of evidences great and small which it provides to show that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated an authentic ancient document “by the gift and power of God.” But, since it is the subject of study in Gospel Doctrine class in Sunday School in 2016, I figured it would be a good opportunity to share some of the things found in the Book of Mormon which are “evidence” to me of Joseph’s divine calling and that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired scripture.
Many of the items I will share under this theme are seemingly small, even insignificant things that are often overlooked in reading the book. However with the benefit of modern scholarship, many of what I have come to call “zingers” jump off of the page and show themselves to be both interesting and which add to the evidentiary case I am building and which help explain why I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. And while many of these things have been brought to light, I am convinced that close reading, creative thinking, and dedicated research will bring yet more to light. Cumulatively, and they are certainly in the hundreds and maybe even in the thousands by now, they constitute a powerful collection of witnesses. I begin with a simple detail tucked into a description of the building activities of an apostate king sometime around 150 B.C.
A 1990 study by Alan R. Millard “documents archaeological evidence for the early use of iron to decorate beds (see Deuteronomy 3:11) and thrones, as well as bracelets and jewelry, weapons and royal swords” in ancient Israel.(1) “Although a person today would not normally think of using iron as a precious decoration, we can now see that this was actually done in antiquity.” Iron is grouped with other precious things because during this period it was hard to obtain, being manufactured by a difficult technique. The same was very likely true in the New World at the time of the Book of Mormon. John Welch tells us that “all New World references to iron in the book [of Mormon] mention it together with gold and silver and other precious things (see 2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Ether 10:23).” Welch also speculates, “Perhaps this metal was especially prized among the Nephites due to the great symbolic and spiritual value of the “rod of iron” in Lehi’s vision in 1 Nephi 8.”(2)
Therefore, it is with significant interest that we note a detail in the 11th chapter of Mosiah that might otherwise be overlooked, or which may become the object of criticism by Book of Mormon critics. Verse 8 describes how King Noah “built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper....” Zing!
As I sit in my swivel-chair at my desk, I lean back and ask myself, “If Joseph Smith were making up the Book of Mormon to deceive the religious world, why in that world would he ever think of describing 150 B.C. buildings as being decorated with iron?” I don’t have a good answer for that question. Before the Millard article, however, critics may have answered it by saying, “Well, it is in the same category as the horse in the New World, he just missed it that’s all.” Hugh Nibley referred to such things as “Howlers” for the critics. Today, we know that in both cases Joseph Smith did not miss it! For the believers they simply bring a rye smile to the lips and a twinkle to the eye.
Thank God for Joseph Smith!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Notes:
* The idea of calling these evidences "zingers" is not original with me. I got it from my friend John Fowles, who I think, may have taken it from Reed Durham.
1. Alan R. Millard, “King Og’s Iron Bed–Fact or Fancy?” Bible Review 6 (April 1990): 16-20.
2. John W. Welch, “Decorative Iron in Early Israel,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), pp. 133-34.
Truthful Thoughts about Adorn 3D Foundation Printer Pen
*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog.*
*NOT compensated with ANY product or money! Links aren't provided for your convenience.*
Beauty has its hyped up moments and sometimes to really see a potential of a product, you really have to sit back and ignore all the great words which describe the product. Take for example this beauty innovation, the Adorn 3D Foundation Pen.
I beg you, click to read more »
*NOT compensated with ANY product or money! Links aren't provided for your convenience.*
Beauty has its hyped up moments and sometimes to really see a potential of a product, you really have to sit back and ignore all the great words which describe the product. Take for example this beauty innovation, the Adorn 3D Foundation Pen.
I beg you, click to read more »
Vintage Dinosaur Art: Life Through The Ages
It's difficult to imagine now, but there was a time when the cover star of a book on prehistoric animals wouldn't inevitably have been a (Mesozoic) dinosaur. In our post-post-Dino Renaissance world, we're used to fast-moving, feathered theropods, ankylosaurs with legs and necks worth a damn, sauropods not just wandering around on terra firma but brontosmashing each other in the process, and Bob Bakker's face replacing that of Santa Claus so slowly, no one even noticed. Back in the day, however, dinosaurs were seen as mere failures of evolution, twiddling their stupid fat reptilian thumbs until they were all wiped out and the superior mammals could saunter in and take over. Picture yourself now in 1961, thumbing your own way through Life Through The Ages.
It might not feature a (Mesozoic) dinosaur, but the cover is certainly arresting. Front-and-centre is a freakishly large bird with a giant beak, lashing out at a big cat-like animal in an exciting battle scene. Yeah, there's some weird stuff going on (cat thumbs?), but it's an effective composition, nicely stylised, and it makes you interested in reading the book to find out what on Earth's going on here. The cover art is credited to Howard Price (and authorship goes to Bertha Morris Parker, which is a great name) but, sadly, the illustrator behind the artwork inside the book remains a mystery. Boo.
The book is a fairly straightforward 'journey through time' affair, although for some reason the very first plate features a jolly-looking plesiosaur. Hello there, plesiosaur! Curiously, the caption for this image reads "A Plesiosaur (1/40) - Model Courtesy of Milwaukee Public Museum", in spite of the fact that this appears to be a painting rather than a photograph of a model. Of course, this could well be down to the poor reproduction quality of the images, or else it may well be a painting based on a model. In any case, the animal's rubber toy face is immensely cute.
Otherwise, the first tetrapod to appear is Eryops, looking rather pleased with itself by the side of a swamp (the lack of vegetation is probably just down to needing to fit the text in). It's not a bad illustration - the tail may be unduly short, but the bumpy skin is there, as is a hint of the many spiky teeth that lined its jaws.
It's not long before everyone's favourite diapsid reptile clade shows up, but - perhaps reflecting the general consensus of the time that they weren't terribly important or interesting - they're humiliatingly relegated to a series of small illustrations, a reel of the Usual Suspects. Allosaurus, Brontosaurus, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, "Trachodon"; I believe we're done here. The reconstructions are very much of their time, featuring rather dull, static, and very brown animals (with the exception of "Trachodon", decked out in stunning swampy green).
In spite of the illustrations' small size, it's possible to see where some of them were copied from. In particular, the Stegosaurus is quite Burianesque, while the Tyrannosaurus is a dead ringer for Charles Knight's. Of more interest is the text, which makes much of the dinosaurs' tiny brains. To wit:
Given their tragic lack of brains, dinosaurs can't be allowed to hog the Mesozoic limelight, and so here's Pteranodon, looking peculiarly googly-eyed and seemingly lacking pteroid bones. But somehow they just look so cute! I'm sensing a pattern developing. Hey, at least they aren't terrifyingly skinny, or hanging like bats from cliff faces. For 1961, they're not too shabby.
The final Mesozoic animal to appear in Life Through The Ages is a dinosaur, although it wouldn't have been widely acknowledged as one at the time (and so isn't here). Why, if it isn't everyone's favourite loon-like toothed diving bird Hesperornis, here given a quite delightful treatment with unusually duck-like plumage and a clutch of young 'uns. This is probably the best illustration in the book for my money - depicting an animal that would be tempting to monsterise as a "BIRD WITH TEETH!" in an entirely naturalistic and understated fashion. It's really quite beautiful. Pretty, even. Also, how often do we get to see Hesperornis babies? I wanna see more!
At the end of the Mesozoic, the dinosaurs are dispatched to the Great Swamp in the Sky and, as the book puts it, The Mammals Come into Their Own. "They are the lords of the earth now...Of course, you are a mammal yourself," we are told. Ah, hubris. Of course, the mammals started out small; as the above illustration depicts, Early Mammals resembled mangy, lanky fossas. But they soon diversified.
'Sabre-toothed tigers' put in an appearance, of course, depicted resplendent atop a rocky outcrop, as they tend to be (when not simply illustrated plunging their absurd canines into some unfortunate ground sloth or other). The animals as painted would appear to be Smilodon. Although Parker is quite approving of their impressive weapons, she also dismisses them as being "one of nature's mistakes, for the sabre-tooth disappeared from the earth thousands of years ago," only to be replaced by felids more suited to internet memes.
Speaking of ground sloths...here's one now. Again, no specific sloth is mentioned in the text, but the image caption reveals the creature to be Megatherium. There's no break here from the stereotypical image of Megatherium utilising its enormous size to reach up into the treetops while standing bipedally - an image probably cemented by certain early skeletal mounts. Indeed, a quick Google image search reveals a plethora of bipedal Megatherium reaching into trees, with a few notable exceptions and some, er, oddities. At its feet stands Doedicurus, incorrectly identified as Glyptodon in the image caption. This is a shame, as Doedicurus was obviously much cooler than Glyptodon on account of the spiky tail club. It's also a noted survivor of the Great Blackgang Chine Fibreglass Beastie Apocalypse of 2014. Overall, it's another pleasingly painterly scene of prehistoric goings on.
And finally...it's the back cover, which doesn't quite form a continuous scene with the front. My attention here is mainly drawn to the strange rhinoceros-like beast in the centre, whose name I'm sure I used to know, but escapes me now (commenters to the rescue! Please [EDIT: Tristan Rapp to the rescue! They're Uintatherium). There's also a wolf thing and what appear to be tarsiers. Meanwhile, we're teased with various other titles of books from the same informative series. I'm particularly interested in The Insect Parade, as long as there are fleas. Clown fleas, high-wire fleas, fleas on parade...
Whether you grasped that reference or not, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a very Merry Christmas, or if you'd rather not, have a very jolly time doing whatever you're doing during December. (I'm an atheist myself, but also a sucker for sparkling wine, flashing lights and camp.) Thanks for sticking with your pals at Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs, and here's hoping 2016 is as joyful as a nest full of Hesperornis chicks.
It might not feature a (Mesozoic) dinosaur, but the cover is certainly arresting. Front-and-centre is a freakishly large bird with a giant beak, lashing out at a big cat-like animal in an exciting battle scene. Yeah, there's some weird stuff going on (cat thumbs?), but it's an effective composition, nicely stylised, and it makes you interested in reading the book to find out what on Earth's going on here. The cover art is credited to Howard Price (and authorship goes to Bertha Morris Parker, which is a great name) but, sadly, the illustrator behind the artwork inside the book remains a mystery. Boo.
The book is a fairly straightforward 'journey through time' affair, although for some reason the very first plate features a jolly-looking plesiosaur. Hello there, plesiosaur! Curiously, the caption for this image reads "A Plesiosaur (1/40) - Model Courtesy of Milwaukee Public Museum", in spite of the fact that this appears to be a painting rather than a photograph of a model. Of course, this could well be down to the poor reproduction quality of the images, or else it may well be a painting based on a model. In any case, the animal's rubber toy face is immensely cute.
Otherwise, the first tetrapod to appear is Eryops, looking rather pleased with itself by the side of a swamp (the lack of vegetation is probably just down to needing to fit the text in). It's not a bad illustration - the tail may be unduly short, but the bumpy skin is there, as is a hint of the many spiky teeth that lined its jaws.
It's not long before everyone's favourite diapsid reptile clade shows up, but - perhaps reflecting the general consensus of the time that they weren't terribly important or interesting - they're humiliatingly relegated to a series of small illustrations, a reel of the Usual Suspects. Allosaurus, Brontosaurus, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, "Trachodon"; I believe we're done here. The reconstructions are very much of their time, featuring rather dull, static, and very brown animals (with the exception of "Trachodon", decked out in stunning swampy green).
In spite of the illustrations' small size, it's possible to see where some of them were copied from. In particular, the Stegosaurus is quite Burianesque, while the Tyrannosaurus is a dead ringer for Charles Knight's. Of more interest is the text, which makes much of the dinosaurs' tiny brains. To wit:
"There was not much room in [Brontosaurus'] head for brains. It had less than a pound of brains in 35 tons of body! Brontosaurus must have been a very clumsy, stupid animal."
"Stegosaurus, like Brontosaurus, had a huge body and a small brain. Its brain was not much larger than your fist."
"Inside all this [head] armour Triceratops had a brain the size of a kitten's and not nearly so good."Take that, dinosaurs! No wonder you all died out and the world was inherited by mammals and generally compact, feathered archosaurs of uncertain affinities.
Given their tragic lack of brains, dinosaurs can't be allowed to hog the Mesozoic limelight, and so here's Pteranodon, looking peculiarly googly-eyed and seemingly lacking pteroid bones. But somehow they just look so cute! I'm sensing a pattern developing. Hey, at least they aren't terrifyingly skinny, or hanging like bats from cliff faces. For 1961, they're not too shabby.
The final Mesozoic animal to appear in Life Through The Ages is a dinosaur, although it wouldn't have been widely acknowledged as one at the time (and so isn't here). Why, if it isn't everyone's favourite loon-like toothed diving bird Hesperornis, here given a quite delightful treatment with unusually duck-like plumage and a clutch of young 'uns. This is probably the best illustration in the book for my money - depicting an animal that would be tempting to monsterise as a "BIRD WITH TEETH!" in an entirely naturalistic and understated fashion. It's really quite beautiful. Pretty, even. Also, how often do we get to see Hesperornis babies? I wanna see more!
At the end of the Mesozoic, the dinosaurs are dispatched to the Great Swamp in the Sky and, as the book puts it, The Mammals Come into Their Own. "They are the lords of the earth now...Of course, you are a mammal yourself," we are told. Ah, hubris. Of course, the mammals started out small; as the above illustration depicts, Early Mammals resembled mangy, lanky fossas. But they soon diversified.
'Sabre-toothed tigers' put in an appearance, of course, depicted resplendent atop a rocky outcrop, as they tend to be (when not simply illustrated plunging their absurd canines into some unfortunate ground sloth or other). The animals as painted would appear to be Smilodon. Although Parker is quite approving of their impressive weapons, she also dismisses them as being "one of nature's mistakes, for the sabre-tooth disappeared from the earth thousands of years ago," only to be replaced by felids more suited to internet memes.
Speaking of ground sloths...here's one now. Again, no specific sloth is mentioned in the text, but the image caption reveals the creature to be Megatherium. There's no break here from the stereotypical image of Megatherium utilising its enormous size to reach up into the treetops while standing bipedally - an image probably cemented by certain early skeletal mounts. Indeed, a quick Google image search reveals a plethora of bipedal Megatherium reaching into trees, with a few notable exceptions and some, er, oddities. At its feet stands Doedicurus, incorrectly identified as Glyptodon in the image caption. This is a shame, as Doedicurus was obviously much cooler than Glyptodon on account of the spiky tail club. It's also a noted survivor of the Great Blackgang Chine Fibreglass Beastie Apocalypse of 2014. Overall, it's another pleasingly painterly scene of prehistoric goings on.
And finally...it's the back cover, which doesn't quite form a continuous scene with the front. My attention here is mainly drawn to the strange rhinoceros-like beast in the centre, whose name I'm sure I used to know, but escapes me now (commenters to the rescue! Please [EDIT: Tristan Rapp to the rescue! They're Uintatherium). There's also a wolf thing and what appear to be tarsiers. Meanwhile, we're teased with various other titles of books from the same informative series. I'm particularly interested in The Insect Parade, as long as there are fleas. Clown fleas, high-wire fleas, fleas on parade...
Whether you grasped that reference or not, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a very Merry Christmas, or if you'd rather not, have a very jolly time doing whatever you're doing during December. (I'm an atheist myself, but also a sucker for sparkling wine, flashing lights and camp.) Thanks for sticking with your pals at Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs, and here's hoping 2016 is as joyful as a nest full of Hesperornis chicks.
If I Could Do My Beauty Blog Over
*Post originally written by Olivia J on The Unknown Beauty Blog.*
I went through this blog with a fine tooth comb. Okay, not as fine as it should have been since I didn't make all the changes I wanted to. I did check EVERY SINGLE POST and they brought back many memories!
I beg you, click to read more »
I went through this blog with a fine tooth comb. Okay, not as fine as it should have been since I didn't make all the changes I wanted to. I did check EVERY SINGLE POST and they brought back many memories!
I beg you, click to read more »
Paleoartist Interview: Brian Engh
Just about a year ago, the world was introduced to Aquilops, a darling little primitive ceratopsian from the early Cretaceous Cloverly Formation of North America. Farke et al's PLOS ONE description of the animal also brought the world one of the most breathtaking pieces of paleoart in recent memory, a dynamic scene by Brian Engh. Marc wrote up an in-depth analysis of the piece here, a must-read if you missed it. Since then, the hits have kept coming, with a series of hilarious (and possibly disturbing, YMMV) illustrations for the #BuildABetterFakeTheropod hashtag he originated, a pair of clashing apatosaur illustrations, two musical releases (the Jungle Cat Technique mixtape and his newest album, Gather Bones), and a gorgeous scene commissioned for the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trackway, depicting the origin of the site. That piece can be seen at the head of this post, and you can buy prints from Brian at his website.
In 2011, invited by Glendon Mellow to take part in the ScienceOnline Sciart panel, Engh's wild Sauroposeidon illustration was a cornerstone of my portion of the chat, as I spoke about the developing paleoart paradigm that has since become known as the "All Yesterdays Movement," based on the seminal book published by Darren Naish, Memo Kosemen, and John Conway in 2012. His artwork continues to hold a prominent place in my imagination.
In addition to his paleoart, Engh is a filmmaker, puppeteer, rapper, creature designer, and he makes art of the non-paleo variety. This disparate body of work is all imbued with a definite Enghitude. To me, it's clearly the work of a restless, adventurous spirit. He questions what is possible, never settles, and sees no obstacle that can't be turned into an opportunity. I recently interviewed Brian about his work, and I'm thrilled to share it with you.
Your first piece of published paleoart was of Spinosaurus, for the 2010 Tor Bertin paper. How did that opportunity come about?
That opportunity just came out of the blue. Tor saw my work on my website and asked me and I was super stoked to have an opportunity to get some work published, and especially a huge weird aquatic theropod. Even though he was just an undergrad and could only pay me $100, I put about a month of work into researching, sketching, gathering reference - including making a model and photographing it - and finally illustrating it.
That would have been 2009 or so, right? What was in your portfolio at that time?
Man... Honestly I don't even know... I think I've taken most of that early era stuff off my website because it's embarassingly feeble & innaccurate. I think the only piece still on my website from that era is this Acrocanthosaurus reconstruction, which was one of my first forays into combining traditional pencil drawing with painting in Photoshop. Also, most of the drawings in the "MONSTERS!" section of my portfolio are from around that time (I really need to update my website).
You've given talks about paleontology and paleoart. As a fellow paleo-freak who always looks for ways to talk about this stuff with normal people, I'm wondering what you've learned in that regard - what do you think is worth focusing on, what do people respond to?
First, and most importantly, natural sciences make sense to pretty much everyone when you explain them in simple terms, using as little jargon as possible. Paleontology is really just animals and plants doing animal and plant stuff, then dying and getting buried and all that stuff stacking up for unfathomable expanses of time. When explained in those terms I've seen people get it. On the flipside, I've been disappointed to find that people just don't care about plants. When I get to the section of my talk about plants I've literally watched people get up and leave. Which is a huge bummer, because plants are foundational to damn near every ecosystem and it's fundamentally impossible to understand any animal without them. Also they're beautiful and weird and dynamic and are texturally delicious. Whenever I go to a botanical garden I'm always touching everything up, and I really need to figure out how to translate that fascination so that people feel themselves walking in the living landscape of the deep past.
You once wrote that you'd never seen a reconstruction of T. rex that felt "right." Has that changed?
No. I still feel like T. rex is too deeply mired in our cultural consciousness for anyone to really see it. The more people study large tyrannosaurs the more it becomes clear that they were doing something pretty unique. They were huge, insanely high metabolism predators whose bodies changed dramatically as they matured and whose jaws and dentition were specialized for bone crushing. Oh, and they probably had bird-like skin & possibly feathers. So goddamn weird. Sometimes when I stare into the eye sockets of really complete skulls and I see the gnarled rugosities surrounding them I start to get a weird feeling of this bizarre giganto bird monster with deep facial scars and mouth infections and a bulldog neck for yanking triceratops apart. But the whole time I have the sneaking suspicion that the soft tissue was doing things that we just can't imagine. Try to imagine a big male lion without ever seeing even complete soft tissue impressions of a housecat. You'd never guess he had a mane and ruled over the land with that intangible formidability that those beasts emanate... But I am currently working on an illustration of an Allosaurus that's almost starting to come close as far as character goes... almost.
I've written a bit at LITC about my perpetual dissatisfaction with dinosaur movies and documentaries, and have sort of given up hope, concluding that our best hope to recapture the adrenaline jolt of the first Jurassic Park will be games like Saurian. How hopeful are you that we'll see a major, mainstream piece of dinosaur entertainment that knocks us on our butts again?
I dunno. It could maybe happen. I've worked in the entertainment industry a bit and all my closest artist friends work full time as animators or in other aspects of the industry and there are a lot of people working really hard to make the best stuff they can. That said, the corporate side of things is definitely messing with the creative process and that makes it hard for a strong grounding in science or really any new or innovative concepts to work their way into movies. New or foreign ideas (like dinosaurs with feathers that don't roar every time prior to charging their prey) are seen by corporate executive producer types as risky, especially when the production is big and there's an ungodly mountain of money being invested into it as is pretty much always necessary to make elaborate dinosaur films.
That said, I think part of the blame for shitty representations of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in media should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the paleontological community. There are a lot of mediocre to downright terrible reconstructions that come out of the science side and those all influence how people on the tv/movie production side visualize prehistoric animals. Also, there's a lot of disagreement in the paleontological community, and for people on the outside who don't have a strong biology background it can be really difficult to get a sense of who actually knows wtf they're talking about. And a fair number of paleontologists, (some well known ones in particular) simply don't have a strong enough background in the biology and anatomy of extant animals. But that's changing... And so is paleoart. And so is the entertainment industry. Everything is in flux right now, and it's awesome.
So short answer: if we support good paleoart, the entertainment industry will have more good examples to draw from, but in particular support my work because I also make videos with practical creature effects and I have an idea for a low-budget dinosaur horror film that I desparately want to make because I believe in my ape viscera that a 20 foot long bipedal bird-like creature with razor sharp teeth and clawed forelimbs would make a really goddamn scary movie monster (but I need, like, 300 grand to produce the project).
How much contact, if any, have you had with prominent paleoartists? Any pieces of advice or insights they've shared that have stuck with you?
I went to SVP this year and met a handful of paleoartists, but I suppose the most prominent one I met was Julius Csotonyi. We only talked briefly, as he was working in the lobby on his laptop on his recently announced shark book. In the brief conversation I asked Julius how long a big book project like that takes and he said something like "oh, a few months" to which I had to reply "whoa! so you're putting out a new [gorgeous] illustration every 2-3 days or so??" That was a real kick in the pants. I'm meticulous and obsessive and good at thinking up a million concepts, but all of that eats up time. Julius is able to concieve and execute near-photoreal illustrations at a pace I can currently only dream of. Suddenly his success in an under-funded super-niche creative field finally made sense. He's able to blast out work at a rate that enables him to sustain a living income. But it should be impressed upon non artists that his accomplishment in that regard is herculean.
You seem like the kind of artist who is just constantly collecting inspiration, no matter where you are. How does that influence your paleoart process? When researching a new commission, how to you organize all the disparate tendrils of inspiration? What do those earliest stages look like as you settle on a composition?
I have big trees of folders of pictures, papers and sketched out ideas on my computer and I try to make a discipline of clearly naming new files and dropping them into the folders they seem like they belong in. I also record tons of ideas on my phone when I'm away from my desk. But a lot of the inspiration for a big paleoart piece comes from the paleontologists I'm working with and the resources they provide me with. The best collaborations happen when I'm provided with tons of reference material, especially visual stuff like high res images of fossils, fossil sites and modern environmental analogues. At some point I'm going to put up an blog post outlining the best practices for paleontologists working with paleo artists, and at the top of that list of good practices is providing tons and tons of reference material.
When it comes to working out the final composition I make a lot of rough sketches based on discussions about behavior and ecology and send them to my collaborators to see what people like. Ultimately though, my final composition is often strongly influenced by going outside and trying to find environments with similar characteristics to the prehistoric ones being reconstructed. As discussed in my talk and blog post on Aquilops that meant going to redwood and Sequoia forests and thinking "where would I hide in this forest if I were a rabbit sized Deinonychus snack and Sauroposeidons were moving through grazing on the giant trees?"
In the case of my Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trackway art that process got even more specific, in that I went to the actual trackway and stood where the illustration would be placed overlooking it, and I shot a photo panorama with ReBecca Hunt-Foster and John Foster (and even their 5 year old daughter Ruby as the dromeosaur) pacing out the various trackways so I could map them out precisely from that vantage point. I then used that exact point of view to come up with a couple dozen possible layouts which I then sent to ReBecca to see what she liked. I also camped out near the site and visited it all different times of day to find the best lighting for seeing the tracks (which turns out to be just after sunrise, as depicted in the final illustration), and I also walked all around trying map out and trace the shoreline of the ancient lake so that I could reconstruct that as accurately as possible in my image. When you take the time to really look at the environment you see some interesting things. Like, the bank of the lakeshore with the most croc slides is the one best angled to catch the first rays of morning sun. I got goosebumps when I saw the sun creeping accross that ancient shoreline. I cannot emphasize enough how important going outside and looking at rocks and climbing trees and catching frogs and snorkeling is to my process. I couldn't come up with this stuff by myself. Our prehistoric planet is alive all around us.
Besides the gross anatomical stuff that tends to be whipped like a dead horse (bunny hands and the like), what are a few habits or trends in paleoart that frustrate you? Your pet peeves, as it were.
Monkey puzzle trees and the same pruned cycads and naked horsetails being the only plant life in the Mesozoic. And just generally sparse undergrowth and clean ground. It's a symptom artistic laziness and the academic view of nature that we've all been raised with. We read "Araucaria-like trees" in the literature and we look up "Araucaria" and we pick the one that looks the most unusual & "prehistoric", ignoring the fact that the umbrella topped Araucaria only grow in really specific environments and that even today there is a wide diversity of growth forms among the Araucaria (and only 2 modern species form the umbrella topped things depicted in ever paleo painting ever). Also there was without a doubt a HUGE diversity of similarly leafed trees that lived at various points over the last 200+ million years, most of which we only have fragmentary fossils of, so their actual phylogenetic affinities are really really shady, especially considering the phenotypic plasticity of many plants, conifers being no exception.
So the repetition of the same shaped trees and forest architecture in paleo art is purely memetic mimicry and not a reflection of any real knowledge about the paleoenvironment being illustrated, which therefor calls into question ideas about the behavior of all the animals depicted in that environment. What's worse is that then paleontologists sometimes start thinking that's what the landscape actually looked like and then start interpereting everything based on an imagined landscape bizarrely warped by lenses of preservation (or lack thereof), interperetation, depiction in art, mimicry of that art, and then reinterperetation of the fossil record based on that now concrete mental image. At times it gets so wonky that I start doubting that paleoart is actually even helping the science. In a perfect world, with unlimited time and money, new paleontological discoveries should be announced with a number of different artistic interperetations showing a variety of possible behaviors, environments or environmental phases. I'd love to have the time to depict Aquilops' Sequoia forest right after a seasonal brush fire (which the fossil record indicates happened there), or even a series of images depicting seasonal change in that one environment...
I'm insanely jealous of young kids today, getting to grow up in a world with an internet. Assuming you're somewhat younger than me, what role did it play for you as a budding paleontology nut?
I'm 30, so good dinosaur information wasn't freely circulating on the internet until I was in college. In those days there was wikipedia, and the dinosaur mailing list threads. A few years later, wordpress and blogspot blogs by paleontologists started popping up. It was about that time that I realized I should start trying to make a discipline of improving my dinosaur art, as drawing dinosaurs at a young age was foundational to the development of every other subsequent creative skillset. Also, most of the paleoart I was seeing online was garbage and I thought maybe I could help change that. In the process of researching and putting out work online I discovered SV-POW (Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, for the uninitiated). I loved that it was written by working paleontologists, was super technical and specialized, and yet was really easy to read. So I contacted Matt Wedel just to say thanks for making all that science available. That conversation basically lead to where I'm at today, conversing with the online paleo community and working with several paleontologists to make the best reconstructions of ancient lifeforms I possibly can.
That said, I'm definitely not jealous of young kids today because a lot of parents nowadays (when they themselves aren't obsessively reliant on their device) hand kids a device to keep them busy, rather than saying, "go outside" or "go make something." And the web is weird, and not well suited to our natural means of communicating with facial expressions, non verbal cues, jokes etc. And for a lot of kids communicating and understanding the world through the internet has become the primary, formative experience. For me it was playing in the back yard and looking for bugs under bricks and catching lizards and making things out of clay and pencil on paper. I'm somewhat concerned that in some cases people cultivate a purely academic understanding of nature, an that the internet is contributing to that. But, no matter how good the wikipedia page on western fence lizards is it definitely doesn't give you a real sense of who they are and how they behave and react to the world around them and to people. And yet the internet leads us to believe we have real knowledge about them.
And to be clear, I'm guilty of this too. I don't know how many times I've been looking at a living thing and trying to figure out what it is, and then somebody tells me the name and I go "ok, that's a Townsends Warbler" and then i stop looking at it because i now have a label by which to look it up later if it should interest me to do so. But to me, animals and plants aren't just objects to memorize names of and trivia about, or data points to be categorized according to a phylogeny, they are us. They're our family members, our fellow outgrowths of this bizarre teeming planet. That wikipedia page on fence lizards might let you know a few broad, concrete things about the group of animals we call by that name, and that's fine for building a concept of big picture patterns and relationships, but it definitely doesn't tell you that if you approach certain confident individuals, particularly dominant males with bright coloration, from a low angle, moving very very slowly, and not looking directly into their eyes, you can sometimes tickle them on their chin. I have done this. It is good.
I'm grateful to Brian for taking the time to answer my questions. For more insights, be sure to read his interviews with Dinologue, Cultured Vultures, and William Norman. Also check out Asher's post from 2014 on the "Earth Beasts Awaken" videos.
And for crying out loud, visit his website, pledge at his Patreon page, follow him at Twitter, check out his tunes at Bandcamp, and spend copious amounts of your hard-earned money at his new Redbubble shop.
Why I Believe: Evidence Forty-two: Joseph Smith, 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead
101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet
Evidence Forty-two:
Joseph Smith, 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead©
(With a bibliography on baptism for the dead.)
This article is not intended to be a review of all the evidence ancient and modern to establish the Church’s position on the doctrine of baptism for the dead found in 1 Corinthians 15:29. There are numerous studies which have already done that.(1) My primary purpose is to call attention to one more example of how the revelations given to Joseph Smith answer knotty religious questions. I have argued, and will continue to maintain that one great distinctive feature of his mission as founding Prophet of the Restoration was to be the Lord’s conduit in answering important religious questions.
Lack of Consensus in Christian Interpretations
Almost since Paul wrote First Corinthians there has been dispute about chapter 15, verse 29, which reads:
29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?
When I say that almost from the time Paul wrote that sentence it has been disputed, consider that back in 1887, Marvin Vincent, author of the multi-volume work Word Studies in the New Testament noted that “some thirty different explanations are given,” and concluded “it is best to admit frankly that we lack the facts for a decisive interpretation.”(2) A century later things had not changed except now we know there were even more interpretations than Vincent knew of. Gordon Fee, author of a commentary on First Corinthians, mentions forty different interpretations,(3) and in 1975 Hans Conzelmann, knew of two hundred.(4) Gene Brooks who did a study of the passage in 2005, noted that in recent years “scholars frustrated by a lack of consensus, have come to an exegetical impasse on the verse. Fresh approaches, therefore, have slowed to a trickle, and an uncomfortable agnosticism has settled over the verse in question.”(5) He further cites Fee and Richard DeMaris to the effect that there is “no satisfactory explanation of the practice,” and “No one knows in fact what was going on.” According to Brooks, Fee concludes, “The best one can do in terms of particulars is point out what appear to be the more viable options, but finally admit to ignorance.”(6)
There may be, however, one consensus among many scholars. That is, that though they do not know what 1 Cor. 15:29 means, many are certain the Mormons have it wrong. Again from Brooks: “Marcionites and Mormons have had no trouble approaching the verse for heretical purposes, but evangelical scholars have remained stumped over this verse dubbed one of the most difficult in the New Testament.”(7) That was from his introduction, but he returns to the subject later. He cites the eminent and distinguished Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Frederich who says in reference to this verse, “None of the attempts to escape the theory of vicarious baptism in primitive Christianity seems to be wholly successful.” Brooks then observes, “That concession should make the Mormons happy.”(8) This is followed by a page of somewhat convoluted history of LDS baptism for the dead, with this conclusion:
Soon afterward Smith was baptized for his father who had just died. (Alvin had already entered paradise through a legal loophole). Since that time the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead has baptized millions into the celestial kingdom.
Back to reality, ....(9)
Brooks can hardly contain his contempt for the heretical Mormon practice. In his conclusions he comments, “This one verse has caused massive heretical misapplication on the basis of misinterpretation and / or mistranslation.”(10) In the introduction he lumps Mormons in with the Marcionites as heretics, but interestingly the paper never explains why the position of either or both is heretical. Nevertheless, given his evangelical background, it is not difficult to discern. Brooks’ biggest concern with the idea of vicarious baptism is the baptism itself. In explaining one interpretation of verse 29 he writes, “The difficulty with this rendering is a hint at endorsement of baptismal regeneration. The strength of this suggestion is that it takes into context chapter fifteen’s foregoing discussion on resurrection and and removes a reading encouraging heretical, esoteric vicarious baptism.”(10) And later in the paper, speaking of other interpretations he says, “Paul taught that faith alone is the condition for salvation, not any work, including baptism.”(11)
Though Brooks is aware that there are perhaps more than 200 differing interpretations of 1 Cor. 15:29, he is not reticent to add three more into the mix. The first proposed a new translation based on a study of Paul’s Greek usage; the second suggests that since there was no punctuation in the original Greek, that the verse may be punctuated differently giving it an entirely different meaning.(12) The third one proposes there may be a problem with the transmission and therefore of the translation of the verse. He notes that there is some parallel phrasing in the verse which “could be a set up for a scribal error,” most likely that of homoeoteleuton, “the omission of an intervening passage because the copyist’s eye had skipped from one ending to a second similar ending.”(13)
This review of the Brooks paper demonstrates once again the difficulty scholars have had in understanding 1 Cor. 15:29. It is a fairly typical example showing that interpretation is often based on one's theological bias to begin with. Brooks cannot consider the Mormon solution because he has accepted the Reformation doctrine of “grace alone” to the extent that even baptism is considered a “work” which is a priori heretical.
Joseph Smith and Salvation for the Dead
This brings me back briefly to Joseph Smith. Unlike Mr. Brooks who feels pretty certain he knows that the Mormon interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29 grew out of Joseph’s concern for the premature death of his brother Alvin, the fact is, we do not know the role that either Alvin’s death or 1 Cor. 15:29 played in the origin of the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. Joseph Smith did not tell us, so these are connections which historians make to provide some possibilities, especially if they do not believe in revelation, or in the case of some Latter-day Saint observers, to provide some possible background to the revelation. As helpful as this may be, we cannot be dogmatic about the origin of the practice. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog, Orson Pratt observed that the doctrines and practices of Mormonism did not come from the Bible, they came by revelation to Joseph Smith.(14) It is true that something like 1 Cor. 15:29 may have stimulated Joseph’s interest and ultimately been a catalyst for a revelation,(15) but I believe it is an error to attribute the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead to Joseph’s creative understanding and use of that verse based on his own genius.
The doctrine of salvation for the dead is distinctive in Christianity. For me it is, as it was with Joseph Smith, one of the most glorious doctrines we have.(16) It rounds out the theology of the Atonement and indeed, it completes the plan of salvation. It answers the thorny question, “What about those who die without knowing of Christ?” (which parenthetically, is a companion conundrum for Christians). It shows that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all of God’s children even those who died before he was on the earth or who have since passed into the spirit world without hearing or knowing of his redemptive work. It shows in the most powerful way the love, mercy, compassion, benevolence, and justice of our Heavenly Father. The LDS doctrine of salvation of the dead fits intricately, yet seamlessly, into the plan of salvation and gives the Saints intellectual and spiritual satisfaction.(17) One of my favorite LDS authors, B. H. Roberts, added another interesting insight. He wrote that the doctrine of salvation of the dead
...vindicates the wisdom of Deity; for it must be a very imperfect wisdom that would construct a plan for the redemption of mankind so imperfect in its operations, so limited in its application as to miss the great majority of mankind, and leave them without redemption throughout the countless ages of eternity. But when one is given to understand [this doctrine] ... the wisdom, mercy, justice and love of God all stand out in bold relief; and man's heart is warmed with increased admiration and devotion to him; for it teaches him that he worships not a tyrant who delights in the miseries and damnation of his children, but One whose great pleasure and design it is to bring to pass the eternal happiness of man."(18)I praise God for this wonderful evidence of the divine prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
Thank God for him!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Endnotes:
1. See particularly the studies of Hugh Nibley, John Tvedtnes, and David Paulsen and Brock Mason, in the bibliography below.
2. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Volume III: The Epistles of Paul, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977) 3:276, at 1 Cor. 15:29.
3. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 762.
4. Hans Conzelman, I Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 276 n., 120. I hasten to add that on this and the previous footnote I have relied on a recent publication and have not yet been able to check the Fee and Conzelman references myself. See, Gene Brooks, “‘Baptized for the Dead’: A Study of 1 Cor. 15:29,” p. 2. Paper submitted for a class at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 30 November 2005. Accessed through the Academia website at:
https://www.academia.edu/4022133/Baptized_for_the_Dead_An_exegetical_study_of_1_Cor._15_29-30 4 December 2015. Another online versions is here: http://www.oocities.org/genebrooks/ baptized-for-the-dead.html
5. Brooks, p. 2.
6. Brooks, pp. 2-3, citing Fee, op. cit., 763, and “Richard E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 114, no. 4 (Winter 1995): 661.
7. Brooks, p. 2, emphasis added.
8. Ibid., 16.
9. Ibid. The “reality” is that Brooks himself has only a superficial knowledge and understanding of the LDS concept of baptism for the dead, indeed, of LDS theology itself. Each of the three sentences in the first paragraph contain serious historical and doctrinal errors, none of which come from the Turley article. Indeed, Turley provides the necessary data to correct the mistakes in the first two, and if Brooks would have read the article carefully, he would not have made the final statement as well. It is sloppy work on his part.
First, Joseph Smith was not baptized for his father. Joseph Smith, Sr., was a member of the Church and did not need baptism for the dead. The Turley article makes no mention of such a thing, but does say that a month after Joseph first preached the doctrine of baptism for the dead he was called to the bedside of his aging father. Joseph told his father of the privilege the Saints were given to be baptized on behalf of the dead and his father requested that Joseph be baptized for Alvin. (p. 36) This answers the parenthetical sentence which somehow misconstrued the doctrine, calling it a loophole. Brooks is probably referring to a vision Joseph received 21 January 1836 where he saw Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom. But Brooks apparently missed this statement by Turley later in the paper: “Other events would have to transpire before Alvin would make it to the celestial kingdom. After all, the requirement of baptism for those who had reached the age of accountability had not been abrogated, and Alvin had not been baptized. How could he be? he answer would come later.” (p. 34, emphasis mine.) Moreover in footnote 81 Turley wrote, “Nauvoo baptismal records show that Alvin was baptized at the instance of his brother Hyrum. Nauvoo Temple, Baptisms for the Dead 1840-45, Book A, 145, 149, Church Archives.” Finally, there is no teaching in the Church which says that people who are baptized for the dead are “baptized ... into the celestial kingdom.” They have the opportunity to be there, but they first have to accept the vicarious work done for them, then progress from there–all of this in the spirit world. Brooks obviously did not read the Turley article carefully, or let his contempt for Mormonism cloud his vision. In either case, so much for his “reality.”
10. Ibid., 20.
11. Ibid, p. 18, emphasis added.
12. Ibid, p. 14. However, this is not a new idea proposed by Brooks; it is only one which he thinks may have potential. See p. 20.
13. Ibid. The discussion is on pages 13-14, the comment about homoeoteleuton is on page 13.
14. Orson Pratt, Conference Report, April 1880, p. 26, where he gives several examples to make his point.
15. I believe this is precisely why the Lord assigned Joseph Smith to go through the Bible and revise it. Not so much perhaps, to produce a new and corrected text, but to stimulate Joseph’s thinking and questioning and take those questions to the Lord for clarification, understanding, and knowledge. He is explicitly told in D&C 42:56 to ask questions as he pursues the project and every evidence is that he did just that. The result was more than the JST. It included numerous revelations in the D&C. Thus, the JST project not only educated a prophet, but through the things he received from the Lord during the study, to educate the whole Church theologically. It along with the Book of Mormon and the records of Abraham bring to the Church the “fulness” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
16. “Glorious” was Joseph’s word. “This doctrine appears glorious,” and “This glorious truth....” See Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), p. 192, 3 October 1841.
17. Ibid., where he says, “This glorious truth is well calculated to enlarge the understanding, and to sustain the soul under troubles, difficulties and distresses.”
18. B. H. Roberts, The Gospel, an Exposition of its First Principles and Man's Relationship to Deity, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1965), pp. 236-37.
18. B. H. Roberts, The Gospel, an Exposition of its First Principles and Man's Relationship to Deity, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1965), pp. 236-37.
Bibliography on Baptism for the Dead
Adams, George J. Lecture on the Doctrine of Baptism for the Dead; and Preaching to Spirits in Prison. New York: C. A Calhoun, 1844.
Anderson, Richard L. “Appendix C: Baptism for the Dead.” In Understanding Paul, 403-15. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983.
Baugh, Alexander L. “‘For Their Salvation is Necessary and Essential to Our Salvation:’ Joseph Smith and the Practice of Baptism and Confirmation for the Dead.” In An Eye of Faith: Essays in Honor of Richard O. Cowan, edited by Kenneth L. Alford and Richard E. Bennett, 113-37. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2015.
Baugh, Alexander L. “‘For this Ordinance Belongeth to My House’: The Practice of Baptism for the Dead Outside the Nauvoo Temple.” Mormon Historical Studies 3 (Spring 2002):47-58.
Baugh, Alexander L. “The Practice of Baptism for the Dead Outside of Temples.” Religious Studies Center Newsletter 13 (September 1998): 3–6.
Bishop, M. Guy. “‘What Has Become of Our Fathers?’ Baptism for the Dead at Nauvoo.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23 (Summer 1990): 85-97.
Christensen, Kendel J., Roger D. Cook, and David L. Paulsen. “The Harrowing of Hell: Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 1 (2010): 56-77.
Crowley, Ariel L. “The Epistle of Kallikrates and Baptism for the Dead.” Improvement Era 48 (July 1945): 386, 430.
DeMaris, Richard E. “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (Winter 1995): 661-82.
Engelder, Th. “An Exegetical Curiosity.” Concordia Theological Monthly, 3, no. 8 (August 1932): 622-624.
Foschini, Bernard M. “‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor. 15:29. An Exegetical and Historical Dissertation.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951): 46-78, 172-98, 276-83.
Foschini, Bernard M. “Those Who are Baptized for the Dead” 1 Cor. 15.29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation. Worcester, MA: Heffernan Press, 1951.
Hield, Charles R., and Russell F. Ralston. Baptism for the Dead. Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1960.
Howard, J. K. “Baptism for the Dead: A Study of 1 Corinthians 15:29.” The Evangelical Quarterly 37 (July-September,1965): 137-41.
Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
“Introduction of Baptism for the Dead.” Improvement Era 42 (April 1939): 251.
Jensen, Nephi. “Baptism for the Dead.” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 15 (July 1924): 120-23.
Launius, Roger D. “An Ambivalent Rejection: Baptism for the Dead and the Reorganized Church Experience.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23 (Summer 1990): 61-84.
Mason, Brock M., and David L. Paulsen. “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity.” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 2 (2010): 22-49.
Millet, Robert L. “I Have a Question.” [Was baptism for the dead a non-Christian practice in New Testament times (see 1 Cor 15:29), or was it a practice of the Church of Jesus Christ, as it is today?] Ensign 17 (August 1978): 19-21.
Moseley, A. G. “Baptized for the Dead.” Review and Expositor 49 (January 1952): 57-61.
Nibley, Hugh W. “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times.” Parts 1-5 Improvement Era 51 (December 1948:) 786-88, 836-38; 52 (January 1949): 24-26, 60; (February 1949): 90-91, 109-110, 112; (March 1949): 146-48, 180-83; (April 1949): 212-14. Also in Mormonism and Early Christianity, 100-67. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 4. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987.
Orme, Lafayette. “Baptism for the Dead.” Millennial Star 70 (April 9, 1908): 225-29.
Paulsen, David L., and Brock M. Mason. “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity.” Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scriptures 19, no. 2 (2010): 22-49.
Penrose, Charles W. “Baptism for the Dead.” Millennial Star 100 (February 3, 1938): 74-76.
Petersen, Mark E. “Early Christian Historians Tell of Baptism for the Dead.” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 24 (April 1933): 63-64.
Reaume, John D. “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ‘Baptized for the Dead.’” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October-December 1995): 457-75.
Skinner, Andrew C. “Baptism for he Dead.” In Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, edited by Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard O. Cowan, 76-77. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000.
Smith, Joseph. “Baptism for the Dead.” Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, Illinois 3 (April 1842): 759-61.
Thompson, K. C. “1 Corinthians 15, 29 and Baptism for the Dead.” In Studia Evangelica: Vol. II: Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961, edited by Frank M. Cross, 647-59. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964.
Tobler, Ryan G. “‘Saviors on Mount Zion’” Mormon Sacramentalism, Mortality, and the Baptism for the Dead.” Journal of Mormon History 39, no. 4 (Fall 2013): 182-238.
Turley, Richard E., Jr. “Latter-day Saint Doctrine of Baptism for the Dead.” The BYU Family Historian 1, no. 1 (2002): 23-39. Available online at:
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=byufamilyhistorian
Tvedtnes, John A. “Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale,” paper presented 5 June 1981 in Jerusalem, sponsored by the L.A. Mayer Memorial Museum of Islamic Art and the Israel Ministry of education and culture, later published in Special Papers of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, No. 2 (September 1989).
Tvedtnes, John A. “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity.” In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, 55-78. Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999.
Tvedtnes, John A. ‘The Dead Shall Hear the Voice.’” FARMS Review of Books 10, no. 2 (1998):184-199.
Underwood, Grant. “Baptism for the Dead: Comparing RLDS and LDS Perspectives.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 23 (Summer,1990): 99-105.
White, Joel R. “‘Baptized on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (Autumn 1997): 487-99.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)