As you read, it is crucial to keep in mind the Apostle Paul’s instruction to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Of course, in order to do so, it is imperative to know the truth, and as such be equipped to distinguish fact from fiction.
The quote is taken from Hank Hanegraaff’s booklet – The Mormon Mirage: Seeing through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism. However, this is one example of exegetical fallacy committed by the person who calls himself “The Bible Answer man”. When we read the context of Ephesians 4:15, we are able to fully comprehend what the Apostle Paul actually says. In fact, the very context of Ephesians 4:15 are that of the entire fourth chapter of Ephesians. This context is where Paul admonished the church in Ephesus to be united as one because there is only “One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism”. Paul also stated that Christ gave some “apostles, and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” for the sole purpose of bringing together the believing community of those who follow Christ so that they all “come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man”. It is because of this, that Paul further states that when people are congregated under one faith and doctrine that is truly of Christ, teaches of Christ, and requires a life that is Christ-like, that the congregation is no longer “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive – but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:”
Now, I do agree that in order to speak the truth in love, we have to have an understanding as to what that truth is. Furthermore, there is also the agreement that not only ought one to have a grasp of what that truth is, but that one also has to employ specific critical thinking skills to determine for themselves whether something is or is not based on fact in order to distinguish between something that is factually based, or that is fiction.
This then begs the question – does Hanegraaff speak the truth in love and has a grasp and understanding of what that truth is, being equipped to distinguish fact from fiction? We shall see by how he treats the first word that he has chosen to describe as Moroni in his acronym usage for Mormon.
In sharp contrast to the crosses that adorn the steeples of Christian Churches, the glittering image of an angel named Moroni is perched high atop the spires of Mormon temples throughout the world. While millions have viewed his iconic image, few are aware of the significance Moroni plays in Mormon folklore. As a mortal, Moroni allegedly served as the last military commander of the Nephite nation and was the sole survivor of the final war between the Nephites and Lamanites. Upon death, Moroni went to Paradise and was subsequently resurrected as an angel commissioned to reveal the Book of Mormon in partial fulfillment of Revelation 14.
The first thing that is noticeable here is the term “Folklore” Hanegraaff has chosen to use. In this context and usage of the word, the Bible Answer man has essentially stated that Moroni is a myth, fable, legend, and/or lore that stems from oral tradition within a specified culture or ethnicity population. The question ought to be asked, could the same thing be said of Christianity in their much patriarchal folklore of the Old and New Testament? And, on what basis would Hanegraaff have to declare what is considered folklore and not folklore? The problem here is that because Hanegraaff does not agree with the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his Counter-Cultic thought process is tainting his objectivity and approach to speak in “truth and love” as he had earlier admonished his readers to do. Much like he considers Moroni of a myth, legend, and lore, so also do many atheists argue that much of the Bible is not only based on myths and legends and lore’s, but that much of these myth’s, legends, and lore of the Bible are actually borrowed from other cultural folklore and traditions. One prime example of this is the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Flood story contained in Genesis. Would Hanegraaff be quick to accept the notion that Noah is a person of Christian Folklore borrowed from the Ancient Hebrews who borrowed this from the Babylonians? Most likely, he would not. Why then would he expect Latter-day Saints to accept his notion and false allegation that Moroni is a mere myth and legend? And, what academic resources does Hanegraaff possess to make such an authoritative determination? He has no basis of facts for this assertion – plain and simple. Again, the Bible Answer man asked that one has to have a grasp of truth in order to properly determine what is considered fact and what is considered fiction. Instead of dealing with facts, Hanegraaff violated his very own statement by providing fiction rather than fact.
The Bible Answer man continues to give a summation of the encounter Joseph Smith had with the Angel Moroni, how the Book of Mormon came forth and how this established a New Religious Belief system. There is nothing wrong with this summation. However, it is not until we come to the third paragraph where Hanegraaff makes a fallacious argument and begins to construct his Straw man Mirage:
How millions can take Moroni and the Book of Mormon seriously is difficult to comprehend. First, while Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as “the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion,” its flaws run the gamut from the serious to the silly. In the category of the serious, the Book of Mormon contains language that militates against the biblical doctrine of the Trinity – “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14). In the category of silly, a man struggles to catch his breath after having his head cut off (Ether 15:31).
Let us spin this around and see exactly how dangerous such an assertion can be. Using the same exact wording, but changing the references to reflect that which is familiar with mainstream Christian thinking and teaching:
How millions can take Hanegraaff and the Bible seriously is difficult to comprehend. First, while Hanegraaff refers to the Bible as the “Inerrant word of God” its flaws run the gamut from the serious to the silly. In the category of the serious, the Bible defies physics and science by saying the Sun stood still for a whole day (Joshua 10:12-13). In the category of silly, a Donkey speaks to a man (Numbers 22:28).
The statement is based on very little fact. This is so to give it that “fluffy” sense of mix a dash of truth within a mass amount of opinionated statements that have no basis in factual reasoning to produce a preconceived notion of logic is nothing more than a straw man argument. Again, the Bible Answer man asked, and stated, that the reader ought to have a grasp of not only understanding Truth, but to be able to speak this truth in love, and to determine fact from fiction. So far, we have not seen much of any facts being established in Hanegraaff’s treatment on Moroni. What we do see and understand is that Hanegraaff has built up his opinions to “resemble” what he hopes the reader will understand his presupposed “truths” are, when in reality, applying rules of logic and critical thinking, we find such inflated statements nothing more than that, inflated opinions with little to no resemblance of facts. Yet, it does not stop here, Hanegraaff continues:
Furthermore, while archaeology is a powerful testimony to the accuracy of the Bible, the same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. Not only is there no archaeology evidence for a language such as “reformed Egyptian,” there is no archaeological support for the lands such as the “land of Moron” (Ether 7:6). Nor is there any archeological (sic) evidence to buttress the notion that the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites migrated from Israel to the Americas. In fact, in recent years the widely held Mormon belief that Native Americans are descended from the Hebrew Lamanites has been undermined by DNA science. Ironically, Mormon biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists acknowledge this powerful DNA evidence that refutes the alleged historical accounts of the Book of Mormon. As such, both archaeology and anthropology demonstrate conclusively that the people and places chronicled in the Book of Mormon are little more than the product of Smith’s fertile imagination.
This is where fact checking and serious critical thinking comes into play. The Bible Answer man makes three very distinctive claims. 1) There is no Archaeological Evidence of the Book of Mormon because if there were, then it would verify the Book of Mormon much as it has the Bible. 2) There could possibly be no linguistic heritage between Ancient Hebraic language and that of the so-called “Reformed Egyptian”. 3) Finally, DNA evidence significantly proves that the Book of Mormon is not authentic because the people are not descended from Ancient Israelites. Evidence truly does demand a verdict here in these significant claims. Let us deal with the overall fallacy that Hanegraaff commits here by comparing the nature of Biblical Archaeology to that of Mesoamerican Archaeology.
First, Biblical Archaeology is far different than that of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Here is why. One has to do with Geographical Locations. The second has to do with the impact and intercultural relations as to the development of a variety of cultures that have existed on both, the Old and New World. This is very important to understand when one approaches the nature of archaeology within the Mesoamerican context and that of the Ancient Near Eastern and Old World civilizations. Within the Biblical Archaeology, we have a lot of information and evidence to show forth that there were great civilizations. Much of the information comes from the structures that have been left behind as a testimony to the civilizations existence. There is also documentary evidence as well. We also have oral tradition that has come down to us through the ages as to how every ancient civilization and culture rose and fell. There is the Egyptian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Roman Empire.
However, when we look at the nature of Archaeology within the Mesoamerican context, the only evidence that we have of those ancient civilizations are the structures themselves. There is no documentary evidence like that of the Biblical Archaeological findings, there is no intercultural relations that have developed over the years where we have cultural assimilations, and much of the Ancient Mesoamerican civilizations are slowly coming to light as to how they lived, what they believed, and what they wrote about. In this sense, there is a greater challenge to Mesoamerican Archaeology in piecing together the puzzle with very little information to go on. Furthermore, let us look at geographical location. Much of the Biblical Archaeology takes place in desert, lowlands, and mountainous regions. Compare this to the Mesoamerican Archaeology where the geography and typographical nature is that of Jungle, and lush Mountainous terrain that is different to that of the Ancient Near East.
Thus, for Hanegraaff, and any mainstream evangelical Christian to base their argument on comparative archaeological evidence between the Book of Mormon and that of the Bible is fallacious, because there are vastly different contexts one has to understand as to how and why there is significant differences between the Mesoamerican Archaeology of the New World and that compared to the Biblical archaeological evidence within the Old World and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations.
This brings us to our second point of refutation. The Bible Answer man states that there is no evidence for a possible “Reformed Egyptian language” because of there being no archaeological evidence for this. Again, remember, Hanegraaff stated that one has to have a grasp and understanding of what Truth is in order to speak this truth in Love and to determine what is facts and what is fiction. What then is the problem with the Bible Answer man’s assertion that there is no archaeological evidence for a language such as “reformed Egyptian?”
In order to understand this, we have to look at the context of what possibly is referred to as “reformed Egyptian”. Here, we turn to the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon where Nephi records in verse 2, “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.” We also further understand that in Mosiah 1:4, we read that Lehi is said to have taught his children in the language of the Egyptians. The term itself “reformed Egyptian” actually comes from Mormon 9:32 where Mormon states that the records were written to their knowledge, in the characters “which are called reformed Egyptian”, in which such language was handed down through many generations, being altered according to their manner of speech.
Not only does Archaeology actually prove that there exists several amounts of “reformed Egyptian”, but linguistic studies have proven that languages have certain derivatives of dialects and similarities between one another. In fact, there is one language that has not yet been deciphered and is reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Furthermore, there are three types of Egyptian languages used. One is known as demotic and the more common is that of the hieroglyphs, the third is hieratic. According to William Hamblin’s article – Reformed Egyptian – he writes that the first evidence of what one may consider “reformed Egyptian” is that of the Byblos Syllabic Texts. In fact, Hamblin introduces some languages that actually have a sense of “reformed Egyptian” understanding in their development and usage. While I do agree that we do not know what this “reformed Egyptian” language may look like, we do understand that there is significant evidence for the existence of “reformed Egyptian” within the Ancient Near Eastern languages of Semitic languages. A brief research into the Linguistically history of Hebrew will also present the understanding that the Phoenician and Hebraic alphabet actually are one and the same with exactly the same amount of letters (See History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language by David Steinberg)
Again, which is fact and which is fiction? Since there is evidence to prove that linguistic studies have shown languages evolving over time, dialects being assimilated into another cultural language and the ability to effectively communicate one with another in different tongues – even dialects of the same language – shows that “reformed Egyptian” is not a farfetched fiction produced by a 19th century mindset. Its basis actually is more factual than what Hanegraaff admits here. His assertion – “Not only is there no archaeological evidence for a language such as “reformed Egyptian”…” is dismissed because linguistically studies have proven, and archaeological evidence does show forth there exists differing varieties of “reformed Egyptian” language and tongue.
The third and final assertion made in Hanegraaff’s supposed fact based reasoning is that of the DNA evidence. This is based on fact – to a certain extent. Meaning, there is DNA evidence that does state the today’s Native American’s are not directly descended from the Ancient Hebrew people of Lehi’s day and time, however, DNA evidence does also take into consideration certain factors and basis of reasoning. The problem, then, is that many critics of Mormonism accept this DNA evidence as a “Smoking Gun” end all to the Mormon Position. However, again, when we do some critical thinking and fact checking, there is more to DNA understanding and evidence than the critics are allowing themselves to understand and therefore making false conclusions that are not as factually based.
Here is why. The National Geographical Society decided to conduct a research project in New York City. This project involved DNA evidence from approximately 2000 people. The purpose for this project was to understand the Human Family Tree. According to Wells, we find the following very interesting in our discussion on DNA:
The Genographic Project focuses on the Y chromosome in males, which is handed down intact from father to son, and on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which a mother passes to her offspring. Over generations, small, harmless mutations accumulate on these two snippets of DNA; to Wells and other scientists these genetic markers constitute a history book. As ancient human populations migrated out of Africa, splitting off from each other and entering new lands, they accumulated different patterns of markers that reflect that history. Each individual today retains such a pattern.
In recent centuries those prehistoric paths have reconnected in New York and other immigrant havens. “From the beginning of the project,” Wells says, “I’ve wondered if it would be possible to sample all the major lineages on Earth on a single street.” On 30th Avenue he almost did—the 193 volunteers turned out to be carrying genetic markers for virtually all the major migrations that peopled the continents. The only missing lineage was the oldest one, which Genographic scientists found in Khoisan hunter-gatherers in southern Africa; their ancestors initially diverged from other modern humans more than 100,000 years ago.
The DNA of small, relatively unmixed groups like the Khoisan still preserves clear signals of their unique population histories. In places like Queens, where people from around the world have been swapping DNA for generations, those histories are being lost; a Y chromosome, say, doesn’t reflect the whole ancestry of its owner, let alone of a population. If the Genographic Project usually targets populations that have so far escaped the melting pots, it’s precisely because those pots are such a rich confusion of genes.
While one cannot argue against DNA Evidence, one has to understand the context of that evidence appropriately. To summarily state that because of the DNA evidence of today’s Native American Population as not being directly connected to that of the Ancient Hebrew people of Lehi’s day does not take into account some significant factors. Such factors that Wells state is due to DNA Swapping.
How is this so? First, we have to look at the historical context of 1 Nephi with that of what we know from the Biblical History and Archaeological Evidence. Nephi opens up his record stating that they resided in Jerusalem at the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah. History states that Nebuchadnezzar – Babylonian King, invaded the Israelite land (after the split between Southern provinces of Israel and the Northern Provinces of Israel), and that Zedekiah was nothing more than a puppet king over Jerusalem. Furthermore, we note that when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, that many people were taken into captivity. This is known as the First (or more aptly referred to Babylonian captivity) Exile of the Jewish people from their land, homes, and cultural identity. Yet, if we were to further step back into time, we notice that DNA swapping between cultures was common practice within the Ancient Near East. While the Law of Moses forbade intercultural marriages, Ancient Israelites practiced this to some extent. Joseph takes an Egyptian as his wife while he was in Egypt and became a powerful administer to Pharaoh. His family settled in the land of Goshen, and the Hebrew Population grew in that land. One can in no way say that the Hebrews remained in their own cultural identity without having some Hebrew children marrying outside of their culture with Egyptian women, or other Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Furthermore, one can also argue that because King David too many wives, these wives were not from Hebrew, but also from other nations surrounding the city and lands of Jerusalem. King Solomon took wives into marriages – his first being that of an Egyptian Princess. Thus, when we come to the time of the Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem, we find that intercultural marriages have had occurred over many generations by many people of differing identities and nationalities.
Because of this, and employing sound reasons of logic, we come to when Lehi’s family arrive in the New World, there were other cultures in existence prior to their arrival. Thus, the descendents of the Nephites and Lamanites very well could have had intercultural marriages – which is evidenced in the Book of Mormon between the Nephites and Lamanites themselves – and those of other cultures already in existence to their own people.
Thus, as Wells stated, the DNA identity of the actual Lehite family may no longer exist because of DNA swapping that had occurred. This does not prove that because Native Americans do not have the DNA evidence of Ancient Hebrews, that the Book of Mormon ought to be discredited on this basis alone, especially when DNA investigation also proves that the DNA of ancient cultural identity of people may have been lost due to cultural assimilation and intermarriages that have existed throughout the history of human existence. In fact, what Jew today possesses exact original authentic DNA evidence as being related to Ancient Hebrews of the Ancient Near East? The answer is that there is some evidence, as well as evidence that their DNA identity has changed over the course of Human interaction and intercultural relations.
The final argument that we will examine is Hanegraaff’s following assertion:
A final crack in the credibility of the Book of Mormon is that whole sections are derived directly from the King James Version of the Bible – this despite the fact that the writings of Mornoi and his father, Mormon, are said to predate the King James version by more than a thousand years. Little wonder, then, that Mormons accept the testimony of Moroni and Mormon based on a subjective feeling – a “burning in the bosom” – rather than on history and evidence.
Ask a Christian, how much does the New Testament plagiarize from the Old Testament? Furthermore, ask a Christian how much of the Old Testament are borrowed stories from other ancient civilizations? Earlier, there was the mention of the Noahic flood and that this parallels the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is also evidence that the concept of a Messiah who dies and then is resurrected is not a unique doctrine within Christianity and the New Testament text but is also based on the mythology of Ancient Egypt with that of Horis and Oris. Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew heavily relies on Old Testament Prophecies – one of which is being disputed contextually of that regarding the “Virgin”. In fact, textual criticism of both the Old and New Testament has evidence that majority of the New Testament is heavily borrowed from the Old. One can’t read the Epistles of the Apostle Paul without consistently encountering Old Testament references. Therefore, by Hanegraaff’s assertion here, we are to also discredit the New Testament because it borrows from the Old Testament.
The problem here is that Hanegraaff ends his discussion on the fact that Mormons do not base their testimony on history and evidence, but on the “burning in the bosom” sensation. On the one hand, the reality is that even if Christ were to appear to an Atheist does not logically prove that God exists or that that Atheist would suddenly bow down and worship and embrace his/her redeemer. While evidence is good to substantiate someone’s faith, the whole idea behind true faith is that it is exactly what Paul teaches – meaning, Faith is not based on evidence, but on divine revelation from Heavenly Father. We only look to Peter’s confession when Christ asked “Who do you say that I am?” and then Peter responds, “Thou art the Son of the Living God.” To this, Christ replied that Peter’s confession was not based on any knowledge gained through study of evidence, and reasoning, or human understanding and education, but that Peter’s confession was based on the principle of revelation in that Peter confessed who Christ is because of Divine Revelation from Heavenly Father (as which Christ himself states when he said “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father…”).
It is therefore, that when we actually examine the arguments set forth in Hanegraaff’s treatment of “Moroni” we find more fiction than we do fact. We find more opinion than we do objective reasoning. We find more biasness than sound understanding and comprehension. In fact, Hanegraaff, according to our examination here, has no grasp of the facts he is attempting to convey to his readers, but that he has established his own Straw man Mirage on what he perceives to be Mormon Teaching and doctrine. Yes, he is correct, his Mormon Straw man is that, a mere mirage established upon his own opinion rather than actual investigation into the facts. In short, we see that the Bible Answer man truly was not equipped to distinguish between fact and fiction.
November 8, 2009
“No One Owes you Anything”
Sometimes, when someone speaks words of truth, one naturally will take offense to them and what they have to say. Yet, if someone never steps up to the plate and speaks the honest truth, then where would that leave you? What type of person would you truly become if your life is spent going through the motions, believing things that ended up being false, ended up being more detrimental to you than if someone had stepped up to the plate and knocked you back some?
For me, it happened one evening while I had started working as a Janitor for the Bellevue Neighborhood Church. Now, keep in mind, this was a time in my life when there were seasonal upsets that consistently happened every year. This was one of them, and it was where I had lost my place to live, had a Mazda 323, and spent my days at the Bellevue Public Library doing research on the Bible, Doctrines, Christianity, Mormonism, and various other types of religious research.
During this, a gentleman had become acquainted with me. While the AG Church was in the process of building a new playground, and sense I was not doing much of anything, I offered to help out. Through this, he worked on getting me hired on at the church as a full time custodian. And, to be quite honest, it was one of the most fulfilling jobs I have ever held.
On this one specific night, we were outside, enjoying coffee, break from cleaning of the building, and I had started in on my usual rant. Why am I in this situation? Why can’t someone come out and say, “hey, here is some food,” or invite me over for dinner?
After a few moments, he looked me in the eye and flat out said to me:
“Tim, you need to stop thinking that everyone owes you something because no one owes you anything,”
This did not go down so well and when I attempted to rebut what he had to say, he did not allow me any time to and just merely asked me to think about this. When he left, and I finished up cleaning and locking up the building, I went out to where my car was parked, climbed in, and laid back in the seat. The only thing that I could possibly think about was what he had said to me.
First, anger. How dare he say something like that to me when I had done nothing wrong. Yet, the more it came to mind, the more the understanding developed. Most of my life had been spent seeking after those to help me yet, what have I done to help myself out? Nothing really. I had done nothing to resolve the issues in my life. What ended up being was a mere band aid on a wound that would not be allowed to heal. Blaming others for the failings in my own life when very easily I needed to take responsibility.
Truth of the matter is, to this day, I am thankful for that one single night in my life when someone had the gumption to say to my face “No one owes you anything”. It is the down right truth. And, when you take a moment to think about it, looking around in the world today and to what extent our society has become, one will see that it is based on the ideaology that someone owes something to someone.
We have built this false pretense of a society where it is all about individuality and not the common good. It is about what people can do for us and not what we can do for another person.
Our entire culture has long lost the meaning of true “community” when we can’t even put our political and religious differences aside and embrace one another as fellow human beings who are different in a myriad of ways and understandings. We all have something to contribute, we all have our own talents that we can bring to the table.
Furthermore, as the unemployment rate increases, what are your thoughts when you go before an employer? I know that I have recently held the temperament that because I possess all these different experiences, a new employer owes me what I am worth.
In marriage, how is this prevalent in your relationship with your spouse and family? “You owe me a night out,”
In short, when we say someone owes us something, it is when we have adopted a pious and selfish attitude. An attitude that is arrogant, self-righteous and ultimately leads to the oppression of others to get what we want because we have become so dissatisfied with how things are in our own lives.
The reality is that life happens to every one of us on various different levels. We all work together for the common good of our community and society. When our community suffers, we suffer. When our society collapses, it is because we have allowed our own individual arrogance in thinking that others owe us more than we owe them. We have long forgotten the true meaning of brotherhood. Long forgotten the true meaning of looking out for one another.
Yes, there are small pockets of human decency in our society where the community pulls together to mourn, to grieve, to uplift, to encourage, to support. However, it is becoming more and more distant than thirty or forty years ago.
It all comes down to the simple understanding that when we step back, take a look at our lives, and our attitude toward ourselves, those close to us, and those within our communities, it makes more sense that we owe more to ourselves individual than anyone else owes us.
Think about it, it is a hard pill to swallow, and sometimes, the truth has to be spoken, and it has to be accepted.
Leave a Comment
Filed under Blogging, Culture, Ethics, Family, Family Unity, Freedom of Speech, Op-Ed Commentary, Personal Reflections