Defending the Faith: A nickname, a 'slam dunk' and a chiasm

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DHRogers Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 26, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    Dan Peterson always hits the ball out of the park!

  • Gerald Rampton Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Great article Dr. Peterson, as always!

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:27 a.m.


    You might want to be a little more careful before you make accusations. From FAIR:

    "There is a common misunderstanding among some critics of the Book of Mormon that the word adieu is not an English word. This is not true. The problem stems from the fact that adieu is both an English word and a French word, and most English speakers are more familiar with its use in a French context.

    Adieu is a perfectly good English word that has appeared in English dictionaries, English literature, and in common English usage from long before Joseph Smith to the present. Adieu entered the English language in the 14th century. It entered from Middle French, not modern French, and it has been part of English for approximately 800 years. Adieu has been part of the English language longer than the word banquet, which is also a word in modern French, but banquet entered the English language only in the 15th century. Adieu is no less English than commence, nation, psychology, Bible, vision, or any other word that can be traced back to Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, or any other language."

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 17, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    The BOM uses the French word adieu before its time. A slam dunk the BOM is modern day literature. Goes to show both sides can be equally ridicules.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    To Sharrona:

    Since this article is about the Book of Abraham, you might want to check out Abraham Chapter 4, which starts out in verse 1, "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Note that the Gods formed the heavens and the earth, not God.

  • Michael Shea, MD Yuma, AZ
    Feb. 14, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    This article is much appreciated. However, it should be noted that all the academic arguments and the sophistry of both believers and unbelievers can neither prove nor disprove the Christian Gospel, the reality of modern revelation, the influence of the Holy Ghost, the teachings of Buddha, or any other religious tradition. These things are experiential, like "blue" or "hot" or being "in love." If one wants to know, the best thing is to try the experience as promised in The Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5, and in many other places in the scriptural canon. Buddha also made promises for those who would follow his teachings. In my experience, people who have to have the promised experiences are either lacking "real intent" or failing to live according to the precepts. Those who fall into these categories would do us all a favor by keeping quiet.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Feb. 14, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    More and more you really have to wonder --- why are there some who continue to insist that the Book of Mormon was just the fabrication of a scam artist? How could a simple farm boy with a 3rd grade education have been so dead on with so much: names that actually have biblical origins, descriptions which turn out to be inspired, descriptions of culture that are only now beginning to be realized by the archaeological community.

    I don't know if it can be verified, but I had an institute teacher years ago who suggested that "America" has its actual origins in the phrase - A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. I would love more insight on that possibility.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    RE: “Joseph Smith began to study Hebrew only later in the 1830s... he scarcely knew grammatical English, let alone biblical Hebrew.” True,

    He had problems with Hebrew in 1844: (HofC, V. 6 p. 475) “Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God is singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods.” Wrong,

    In Hebrew the form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, which normally indicates a masculine plural, however with Elohim the construction is usually grammatically SINGULAR, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

    i.e... Gen 1:1,In the beginning God (Hebrew 430). And(Gen 1:1 LXX) In the beginning God=(ho theos),not gods.

  • J.D. Aurora, CO
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:40 p.m.

    Thanks for the article. I'm afraid though that my shelf has become to heavy to hold up under the weight of what I now know.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 13, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    Fascinating article! Thank you again, Dr. Peterson.