New Blog Address

My new blog is here: http://strongreasons.wordpress.com/


I'll be moving some of my favorite posts from here to there and my blogging will be done there from here on. Please visit me there! Anyone who has linked to this blog, please update the address.


Goodbye, google!

Google Opposes Prop. 8

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html


Google officially opposes Proposition 8. As a consequence, I will no longer be using their services. This blog, unfortunately, is owned by google. I will, therefore, be closing down and moving my blog to a different owner who does not publicly push the gay agenda.

If any of you who support Prop. 8 have a blog with blogger.com, I would suggest you do the same. Google is making money through our blog usage. The money they make is then used to support a cause we don't believe in.

Best Wishes,

Andrew Miller


PS I will shortly announce where my new blog will be located.

Human Sacrifice

For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. (Alma 34:10)

First, does this scripture seem to imply that the Zoramits were familiar with human sacrifice?

Second, Does this fit into a Mesoamerican, Ancient Near East, or 19th century rural USA world view best?

Redefining Marriage

Well, Connecticut has joined the club. When will judges stop legislating from the bench? Is the constitution hanging by a thread?

Bible Translations

It isn't uncommon for critics to suggest that all Bible translations are essentially the same. While I certainly think that all major translations have some validity (I am not a KJV-only supporter), I do not believe that there aren't major differences here and there. Occasionally, some translations show real bias. While I, overall, applaud the New International Version (NIV), it certainly has some problems. Consider the following:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (NIV 1 Peter 4:6)

Did Jesus preach the gospel to people after they died, or before? The NIV adds the word "now" which does not exist in any Greek manuscript of this verse. Notwithstanding the volumes of information from early Christianity about posthumous preaching and salvation (see HERE), the NIV study Bible note asserts that this edition to the text was made because “it is necessary to make it clear that the preaching was done not after these people had died, but while they were still alive.” The note then dogmatically asserts, “There will be no opportunity for people to be saved after death.”

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (NIV Philippians 2:6)

Compared to:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (KJV Philippians 2:6)

Did Jesus think it was reasonable to be equal with God ("thought it not robbery") or not? Was Jesus "in very nature God" (a loose translation at best!) or "in the form of God"? The NIV is clearly translating the creeds into the text.

Keep these verses in mind the next time someone criticizes the statement that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

Ante-Nicene Mysteries and Their New Testament Sources

Here is a rough draft of the paper I'll be presenting this November at the Sane Symposium.

It is a rough rough draft. So, it has a way to go still, but I thought I'd show you what I've been working on.

Pillar of Fire and the First Vision

I recently bought all 6 volumes of Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon by Brant A. Gardner. I've only read about 100 pages of the first volume so far, but I am highly impressed. I do not agree with every take Brother Gardner has on different issues, but I have found it very insightful with very useful information and references. It's like someone has pulled together into one place all of the scholarly information on the Book of Mormon. I highly recommend it.

Gardner cites John Welch in his commentary on Lehi's vision in 1 Nephi 1 in specific reference to the pillar of fire that came down "and dwelt upon a rock before him" (1 Nephi 1:6-7):

As Lehi prayed, he beheld a pillar of fire dwelling upon a rock in front of him. From this pillar Lehi saw and heard many powerful things, but Nephi does not elaborate on who or what Lehi saw in this pillar of fire. Joseph Smith described how God, angels, and spirits appear in fiery manifestations; he taught, for instance, "spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire and glory." From ancient sources, too, one learns that the appearance of fire, especially a pillar of fire, was a frequent mode of heavenly manifestation, sometimes of God and other times of his messengers or of the holy beings who surrounded him. (Cited in Gardner, Second Witness, Vol. 1, page 68).

After reading this, something came to my remembrance--Joseph Smith's first recorded recollection of the First Vision.

[T]he Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in < the > attitude of calling upon the Lord < in the 16th [15th?] year of my age > a pillar of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the < Lord > opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord... (Joseph Smith, "A History of the Life of Joseph Smith," in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1).

The Prophet struggled to describe what he saw. He first wrote that he saw a "pillar of fire" but then crossed out "fire" and replaced it with "light."

On another occasion he related his experience to the "prophet Matthias" who claimed he was "Joshua the Jewish Minister:"

A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with un-speakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication... (see http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml)

In an account written by Orson Pratt, he state that Joseph thought the trees would burn up:

He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hope of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. (see http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml)

This isn't earth shattering or anything, just thought it was interesting that Joseph Smith's accounts of the vision, like Lehi's account in the Book of Mormon, accurately portray the pillar of fire concept.

Eloquent Witness

I recently bought Hugh Nibley's latest book entitled "Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple" (See HERE). It's a good thing that something so little as death hasn't slowed Brother Nibley's publishing down! Let me give you a little preview of the Book here.


It is well known that Hugh Nibley was the LDS apologist of all time. It's a little less well known that he had some really critical things to say, at times, about the church as an institution. Notwithstanding his criticism, he always sustained his leaders. An interview reported in the book contains, in part, the following:

MIDGLEY: Are you concerned with the leadership of the Church?
NIBLEY: Nope, not a bit. I certainly am not. The leadership of the Church is Jesus Christ, and he know what he is doing. Don't worry.
MIDGLEY: I am tempted to ask you if you would sustain Judas?
NIBLEY: Of course I would sustain Judas. He was on of the apostles.
MIDGLEY: But he was a devil.
NIBLEY: Remember what the Lord said. "I [have] chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). But he chose him. The Lord has his purposes in these things. If we sustained only perfect people, we wouldn't sustain anybody. The Lord has his purposes in these things.(p. 40)

I really like this philosophy. I've had church leaders before who really didn't see things the same way I do. Some of the "brethren" at times have seen things differently than I do. I'm not saying that any of them are "Judas" (so to speak), but should I not sustain them? Isn't it Jesus' Church? If Christ calls someone who isn't perfect, or even someone who is wicked, to a position over me, who am I to oppose it?

What think ye?

Kefa--a seer stone?

When Jesus met Simon son of Jona, he gave him a new name--Cephas. "Cephas" (Aramaic--kefa) is the equivalent of "Peter." The name means "stone." According to Hugh Nibley, kefa is an Aramaic word that refers to a green crystal used for divination. In other words, kefa doesn't just mean "stone" but more precisely it means "seer stone."

The Joseph Smith Translation of John 1:42 is more interesting now, isn't it?

"And [Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus, and When Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone..."

So, two questions:

Is Hugh Nibley right about kefa?
If so, how do you explain Joseph Smith's uncanny ability to get these things right?

Study it Out in Your Mind Part 2

Not only do LDS believe that we must study LDS teachings out in our mind before we can receive confirming revelation from God, but the scriptures teach that revelation comes to our mind.

"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." (D&C 8:2)

I have found that one of the ways I can distinguish personal revelation from my own thoughts or emotions is by noticing if the revelation comes to my mind and my heart. I ask myself, Does it makes sense? Does it seem right? Does it enlighten my understanding? Does it taste good?

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me." (Alma 32:28)

To say that the mind or understanding has no place in the "Mormon testimony" is another false caricature of anti-Mormons. Mormonism teaches that "studying it out in your mind" is a prerequisite to gaining revelation that comes to "the heart AND the mind" and that "enlightens our understanding." It's not "just feelings."